Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 12:50 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
The earliest societies that we might call states were small sedentary groups with permanent hierarchies of authority--or permanent insofar as these ephemeral societies could keep themselves together. The majority of their populations were unfree, largely made up of slaves, captives, and the descendants of those people.

It might just be that there's something inherent to the very existence of a state that naturally engenders this kind of situation, in which a hierarchy supposedly put into place for the good of the community only has practical benefits for a very small number of people. If so, then there must be mechanisms put into place to mitigate that tendency--to limit the powers of the hierarchy and enfranchise the citizens. Otherwise, the state has relatively little utility for most of us... aside from the dubious utility of avoiding the state's powers of coercion.

The idea beneath left-libertarianism as I understand it is that some sort of economic mediation is necessary in order to maximize the level of individual agency for as many people as possible. The absence of such mediation permits this aggregation of power by the few over the many, even in a democratic society in which the people have the power to elect their own officials. Political power pales against economic power.

As I understand it, right-libertarianism (or free market libertarianism) tends to be less socially liberal, but it's still utopia compared to the Tea Party politics that ended up bowling over the whole libertarian movement here in the United States.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:50 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6382
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
NotHughGrant wrote:
Both sides are guilty of cherry-picking libertarian ldeas. The left wants all the social freedoms, but with an economic cushion provided by the state; and the right wants the economic freedoms, but with crackdowns (either moral or legal) on social life.

A true libertarian wants the ultimate freedom in both social and economic spheres. Few of these people actually exist.


That is completely accurate. This also why I get extremely annoyed when Republicans accuse the Democrats of wanting "Big Government". Each side wants half big government half small government, they just disagree on the halves.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:25 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2599
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Very true. I suppose there is the odd exception, Ron Paul springs to mind, but even he is keen on strict immigration limits, I believe.

A true libertarian would want complete-open door immigration, but with no recourse to any kind of social welfare at all. You can all come, but you're all on your own when you get here. As chaotic as this might sound, it's probably more moral than the current Republican position that blends the free-market when it suits them, with its own very strict rules on work permits, immigration control etc; and the Democrat position on relaxing immigration restrictions, but expanding welfare with it.

Whether you agree with the Libertarian position or not, at least (unlike both parties in the US) it's internally consistent.

Quote:
The idea beneath left-libertarianism as I understand it is that some sort of economic mediation is necessary in order to maximize the level of individual agency for as many people as possible. The absence of such mediation permits this aggregation of power by the few over the many, even in a democratic society in which the people have the power to elect their own officials. Political power pales against economic power.


But mediation means taxation, and implimenting a tax on wealth or even transactions could be deemed to be unlibertarian. Once you open that can of worms then there is literally endless debates as to how much? From whom? When? And soon you end up where we are now.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:26 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
NotHughGrant wrote:
Very true. I suppose there is the odd exception, Ron Paul springs to mind, but even he is keen on strict immigration limits, I believe.

A true libertarian would want complete-open door immigration, but with no recourse to any kind of social welfare at all. You can all come, but you're all on your own when you get here. As chaotic as this might sound, it's probably more moral than the current Republican position that blends the free-market when it suits them, with its own very strict rules on work permits, immigration control etc; and the Democrat position on relaxing immigration restrictions, but expanding welfare with it.

Whether you agree with the Libertarian position or not, at least (unlike both parties in the US) it's internally consistent.

Quote:
The idea beneath left-libertarianism as I understand it is that some sort of economic mediation is necessary in order to maximize the level of individual agency for as many people as possible. The absence of such mediation permits this aggregation of power by the few over the many, even in a democratic society in which the people have the power to elect their own officials. Political power pales against economic power.


But mediation means taxation, and implimenting a tax on wealth or even transactions could be deemed to be unlibertarian. Once you open that can of worms then there is literally endless debates as to how much? From whom? When? And soon you end up where we are now.

I have a tremendous deal of respect for Ron Paul, although I certainly disagree with him on immigration laws.

Regardless of political or economic affiliation, I think that most of us can agree that the U.S. is no longer operating under a true system of free-market capitalism. It's crony capitalism, with taxpayer dollars being used to bail out the big corporations.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:59 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
NotHughGrant wrote:
But mediation means taxation, and implimenting a tax on wealth or even transactions could be deemed to be unlibertarian. Once you open that can of worms then there is literally endless debates as to how much? From whom? When? And soon you end up where we are now.
The can of worms was open when we as a species got to it. There is not and never has been a situation where the line between "just right" and "too much" has been clear to us... except for the anarchists, who draw the line between leaders and no leaders. And even they have different schools of thought on that.

Sooner or later, we all have to accept that there is no category that has all the answers, so it's ridiculous to pick one position and cling to it as though it were an absolute good. There has to be some mixing and matching of approaches, some conversation of ideas that leads us to something better than what we had.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:23 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
We've gone from talking about Funny Games to discussing complex sociopolitical and economic themes.

That is the first time this sentence has ever appeared in the English language. :D


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:26 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Ron Paul is a little too "out there" for me to really get behind him, one libertarian I do have a great deal of respect for is Penn Jilette, I agree with him on quite a few issues(only ones I can think of right now that I disagree with him on are the death penalty and digital piracy)


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:30 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Vexer wrote:
Ron Paul is a little too "out there" for me to really get behind him, one libertarian I do have a great deal of respect for is Penn Jilette, I agree with him on quite a few issues(only ones I can think of right now that I disagree with him on are the death penalty and digital piracy)

"Out there"? How so? Even liberals who can't agree with him on economics can at least see that he is 100% right on foreign policy.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:32 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3837
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Sean wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Ron Paul is a little too "out there" for me to really get behind him, one libertarian I do have a great deal of respect for is Penn Jilette, I agree with him on quite a few issues(only ones I can think of right now that I disagree with him on are the death penalty and digital piracy)

"Out there"? How so? Even liberals who can't agree with him on economics can at least see that he is 100% right on foreign policy.

For one thing there's his view on sexual harrasment in the workplace
Quote:
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable

Yeah okaaayyyyy then, blame the victim and tell them to find another job just for getting harassed? Yeah that's makes perfect sense :roll:

Then there was his completely asinine "Sanctity Of Life" bill which claims that "life begins at conception" and basically tries to control women and tell them what to do with their own bodies, neither he nor any man besides the father(unless he's a deadbeat) has ANY right to tell women that they can't have an abortion, women should be able to have an abortion without worrying about going to jail.

He also wants to block federal funding for any family planning activity including contraception, yet ironically he supports access to emergency contraception, which makes him sound very contradictory to say the least.

He also wants to completely abolish all public schools, exactly what is that going to accomplish? Not everyone can afford private schools. On top of that he dosen't think the government should give financial aid to students, claiming that "education is not a right, medical care is not a right, these things you have to earn" to which I say bullshit! :evil: Medicla care and education IS a right, those are NOT things that people should have to "earn". He even opposes the federal law that requires physicians to treat all patients in emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, he's basically saying that if you can't pay for treatment then you're fucked, which I find extremely reprehensible.

He opposes the Civil Rights act of 1964, calling it "unconstitutional" , yeah just try telling that to the NAACP.

That's all for now.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:58 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Vexer wrote:
Sean wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Ron Paul is a little too "out there" for me to really get behind him, one libertarian I do have a great deal of respect for is Penn Jilette, I agree with him on quite a few issues(only ones I can think of right now that I disagree with him on are the death penalty and digital piracy)

"Out there"? How so? Even liberals who can't agree with him on economics can at least see that he is 100% right on foreign policy.

For one thing there's his view on sexual harrasment in the workplace
Quote:
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable

Yeah okaaayyyyy then, blame the victim and tell them to find another job just for getting harassed? Yeah that's makes perfect sense :roll:

Then there was his completely asinine "Sanctity Of Life" bill which claims that "life begins at conception" and basically tries to control women and tell them what to do with their own bodies, neither he nor any man besides the father(unless he's a deadbeat) has ANY right to tell women that they can't have an abortion, women should be able to have an abortion without worrying about going to jail.

He also wants to block federal funding for any family planning activity including contraception, yet ironically he supports access to emergency contraception, which makes him sound very contradictory to say the least.

He also wants to completely abolish all public schools, exactly what is that going to accomplish? Not everyone can afford private schools. On top of that he dosen't think the government should give financial aid to students, claiming that "education is not a right, medical care is not a right, these things you have to earn" to which I say bullshit! :evil: Medicla care and education IS a right, those are NOT things that people should have to "earn". He even opposes the federal law that requires physicians to treat all patients in emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay, he's basically saying that if you can't pay for treatment then you're fucked, which I find extremely reprehensible.

He opposes the Civil Rights act of 1964, calling it "unconstitutional" , yeah just try telling that to the NAACP.

That's all for now.

All I hear are a bunch of typical liberal talking points. Let's take them on one at a time, shall we?

1. Ron Paul believes that the federal government should not regulate education, which is perfectly sound. This includes no government handouts or bailouts. The Constitution does not say anything about welfare at the federal level, and Ron Paul advocates an orthodox reading of the Constitution. Especially Article X.

2. I said that I don't agree with all of Paul's views, and that includes what he said about harassment. That being said, what difference does it make? It's not based on any federal legislation; state and local laws deal with such issues, and Ron Paul has no interest in expanding the federal government to draft such legislation. Many libertarians also opposed the Violence Against Women Act because it is not a federal issue, not because they hate women. Violence against women is already a crime. Violence against anyone is already a crime. The entire basis of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, something which Ron Paul has consistently advocated at both the foreign and domestic levels.

3. Paul does not want to abolish public schools. He wants to cut off regulation of education at the federal level, which is more than reasonable. Can you honestly say that No Child Left Behind has brought about any good? Do you believe that a teachers' wages should be tied to standardized test scores? Paul supports homeschooling and localized micromanagement of schooling. Nothing wrong with that.

4. You act as if your views on abortion are fact. This is still a controversial issue, and Paul is more than justified in being pro-life. At the same time, Paul believes that the federal government should not regulate abortion, since the Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate it. The same goes for contraception. The government is not authorized to provide it. As a result, it falls under private insurance and charity.

5. Education is not a right. Medical care is not a right. Rights are things that you are born with. Everyone is born with only the rights listed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If you want to expand the federal government to provide you with such things, then you sacrifice countless personal liberties. It is for this reason that government surveillance is so morally reprehensible. Why give up your basic liberties if what you'll end up with is a police state?

6. Paul has explained his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill time and time again. He believes that the federal government should not force private business owners to cater to everyone. He argues that integration should be permitted in all areas of the public sector, but that governments should not coerce private industries to hire people of different races or genders. Paul is not a racist. In fact, as a physician during the Jim Crow era, he often provided medical service to homeless African-American patients.

As I said before, many of your arguments against Paul are based on liberal misinterpretation of Paul's views and emotional testimony. I also have yet to hear you raise any complaints against the Obama administration, especially in regard to its utilization of the PRISM program and its not-so-covert drone wars.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 4:23 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6382
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Sean wrote:
Education is not a right. Medical care is not a right. Rights are things that you are born with. Everyone is born with only the rights listed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence


You contradict yourself here. If rights are merely things you are born with, then the Constitution is irrelevant. If rights are constructs, invented by man, then education could well be a right. Particularly since the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless; it's a founding document and a statement of grievances, not something laws (or rights) are built upon.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:27 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:
Education is not a right. Medical care is not a right. Rights are things that you are born with. Everyone is born with only the rights listed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence


You contradict yourself here. If rights are merely things you are born with, then the Constitution is irrelevant. If rights are constructs, invented by man, then education could well be a right. Particularly since the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless; it's a founding document and a statement of grievances, not something laws (or rights) are built upon.

I understand that the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless, but I just wanted to include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in my equation.

People are born with their rights, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution merely reaffirm such guarantees.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:35 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6382
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Sean wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:
Education is not a right. Medical care is not a right. Rights are things that you are born with. Everyone is born with only the rights listed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence


You contradict yourself here. If rights are merely things you are born with, then the Constitution is irrelevant. If rights are constructs, invented by man, then education could well be a right. Particularly since the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless; it's a founding document and a statement of grievances, not something laws (or rights) are built upon.

I understand that the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless, but I just wanted to include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in my equation.

People are born with their rights, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution merely reaffirm such guarantees.


Again, if rights are constructs, then there are many not listed in the Constitution . The Constitution does not guarantee all your rights. It even mentions in its writing that you have additional rights that it hasn't mentioned. Like, currently, the right to an abortion. Or an education.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:29 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 259
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
JamesKunz wrote:
Sean wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:

You contradict yourself here. If rights are merely things you are born with, then the Constitution is irrelevant. If rights are constructs, invented by man, then education could well be a right. Particularly since the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless; it's a founding document and a statement of grievances, not something laws (or rights) are built upon.

I understand that the Declaration of Independence is legally meaningless, but I just wanted to include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in my equation.

People are born with their rights, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution merely reaffirm such guarantees.


Again, if rights are constructs, then there are many not listed in the Constitution . The Constitution does not guarantee all your rights. It even mentions in its writing that you have additional rights that it hasn't mentioned. Like, currently, the right to an abortion. Or an education.


Historically speaking, the concept of rights is born out of the idea that rights are things the government has an obligation to protect. Which leaves us in a sticky situation. See the word "should" there? That means they are socially constructed. Which leaves us in a pickle. What rights should the government protect?

The fact that we are having this debate would kind of mean that "rights" are not something set strictly in stone, something we are born with, or are "naturally apparent" to us but rather something we construct for ourselves. QED.

Personally, I think the benefits of ensuring everyone has access to a good education offset any costs that society bears ensuring that. That's my opinion, but I just don't see the point of saying "people have a right to an education" when it simply is overall better for a society to have a better educated population than a less educated population. Ditto easy access to affordable healthcare.

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:19 am
Profile WWW
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 655
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Traditionally a right, from the U.S. perspective, is provided by God or nature as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Although the founding fathers did not apply this definition from the beginning (slavery, women, etc.), they set the foundation to establish those rights. Traditional interpretation does not mean that opportunity will be equal for all, but that opportunity would not be denied by birth circumstances. Variation in economic circumstances were considered to be luck of the draw or part of God's plan in some way. In that way, education, healthcare, housing, food, water, etc. are not considered rights. That doesn't mean that the government can't or shouldn't provide those things if the people so desire, but the founder's intent was to provide people with equal liberty, not equal opportunity.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:52 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
It all comes down to whether or not government expansion is worth attaining new liberties. I disagree.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:16 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 655
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
Sean wrote:
It all comes down to whether or not government expansion is worth attaining new liberties.


Government expansion and new liberties are seldom coincident. I am for much smaller government personally - but I expect to be in the minority with that opinion for the remainder of my life.

Back on topic, I believe most of the folks in the movie industry (and artists in general) fall into the leftist libertarian bent. That is, they want liberty from government or conservative organizations. At the same time portraying corporations (capitalism) as systemic producers of evil and implying that responsible handling of wealth is better left to the collective.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:15 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
CasualDad wrote:
Traditionally a right, from the U.S. perspective, is provided by God or nature as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Well stated. I would add a paraphrase of something said by Scott McCloud: We already have rights. All we have to do is not sign them away. He spoke specifically of rights held by creators and inventors, but I find that his sentiment also applies generally.

CasualDad wrote:
Government expansion and new liberties are seldom coincident. I am for much smaller government personally - but I expect to be in the minority with that opinion for the remainder of my life

A bloated and unwieldy government tends to arise out of situations when citizens and legislators call for fast action on the basis of emotional distress, rather than measured action based on the best available data. Unfortunately, I think our current conception of government (not "our" meaning "you and me", but the general "our") is that of the crowdpleaser. A good government is the one that takes fast, decisive action, even if that action is taken with zero thought to the long-term consequences.

I would bet that most people are in favor of a smaller government, but the disagreement is over which parts of it have grown too big. Each person has a handful of personal concerns they feel very strongly about--things that the government can, and perhaps should, provide or address.

Of course, if you devise a government that can respond to every personal concern of every person all together, you'd probably still wind up with a smaller government than what we have...

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:54 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1767
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
I'm a bit more pessimistic on the "Rights" issue. I take George Carlin's view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:32 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 6382
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: The Left-Right Paradigm in Hollywood
CasualDad wrote:
Traditionally a right, from the U.S. perspective, is provided by God or nature as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.


That's not actually true though. The founding fathers enumerated many specific rights (e.g. habeas corpus) that are clearly not provided by God. And once again, the Declaration of Independence has very little to do with our rights as citizens. It's an explanation of why America was rebelling and a list of grievances.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:28 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr