I was discussing some policies with another member lately, and he'd commented that he'd considered those polices to be more right wing, though I would consider them equally left wing. His main argument seemed to have to do with the fact that, in his mind, ideas that involve less government are right-wing by definition. Though he had a point, I still considered the ideas equally left-leaning owing to other factors which I'll deal with later in this post.
As for the ideas and why they could be classified as right-leaning:
Universal Auxiliary Language to be taught compulsorily in schols throughout the world.
If we should equate right-leaning with fiscal conservatism, then undoubtedly right-leaning. It would save Canada alone billions of dollars a year in second-language education., translation, interpretation and other costs. And it would likely save the world economy trillions of dollars in the same.
A world military force. Based on the same argument as above, clearly right-wing. It would involve massive cuts to military spending as national military forces are gradually replaced a world military.
World currency. Again, it would save us much money in money-conversion costs, pushed up by money-brokers. So again, by the definition above, very right-wing.
Common world citizenship. Again, it would save tremendous amounts of money in immigration departments and visa and embassy bureaucracy.
Now why I would see them as equally left-leaning:
Elitism vs. egalitarianism.
Right now, to go abroad , you essentially need either:
money for translators and interpretors
a good education in languages
or be a native speaker of an imperial language.
A universal auxiliary language, being designed to be easy to learn, and being compulsory in all schools, would thus put those who don't have the same chance of learning a second language on a more equal footing with those who do. They wouldn't need money for intrepretors, nor years to study difficult languages. This would clearly push us towards more egalitarianism, which we generally associatre with the left, with the proletariat fighting the bourgeoisie.
A world military would be funded mainly by wealthy countries, but those from poor counttries are more likely to accept its salaries. This would thus mean a net transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor. Again, hredistribution of wealth from rich to poor is something we'd normally associate with the left and socialism.
Demilitarization is likewise something we'd normally associate with the left, not the right.
Eliminating moneyu-lenders through a world currency is likewise something more akin to the left wanting to get rid of the rich elites.
Internationalism vs. nationalism
Again, nationalism is something we'd usually associate with the right (my country right or wrong, Germany for the Germans, etc.), while the left would normally be associated with internationalism (workers of the world unite, socialist internaitonao, Comintern, etc.).
Seeing that such policies, common language, common currency, free trade, would help to break down barriers between nations, and also help to redistribute wealth between rich and poor countries, that likewise would be more of a left thinkg I'd think.
What are your views on these policies? More left or more right?
As for the ideas and why they could be classified as right-leaning:
Universal Auxiliary Language to be taught compulsorily in schols throughout the world.
If we should equate right-leaning with fiscal conservatism, then undoubtedly right-leaning. It would save Canada alone billions of dollars a year in second-language education., translation, interpretation and other costs. And it would likely save the world economy trillions of dollars in the same.
A world military force. Based on the same argument as above, clearly right-wing. It would involve massive cuts to military spending as national military forces are gradually replaced a world military.
World currency. Again, it would save us much money in money-conversion costs, pushed up by money-brokers. So again, by the definition above, very right-wing.
Common world citizenship. Again, it would save tremendous amounts of money in immigration departments and visa and embassy bureaucracy.
Now why I would see them as equally left-leaning:
Elitism vs. egalitarianism.
Right now, to go abroad , you essentially need either:
money for translators and interpretors
a good education in languages
or be a native speaker of an imperial language.
A universal auxiliary language, being designed to be easy to learn, and being compulsory in all schools, would thus put those who don't have the same chance of learning a second language on a more equal footing with those who do. They wouldn't need money for intrepretors, nor years to study difficult languages. This would clearly push us towards more egalitarianism, which we generally associatre with the left, with the proletariat fighting the bourgeoisie.
A world military would be funded mainly by wealthy countries, but those from poor counttries are more likely to accept its salaries. This would thus mean a net transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor. Again, hredistribution of wealth from rich to poor is something we'd normally associate with the left and socialism.
Demilitarization is likewise something we'd normally associate with the left, not the right.
Eliminating moneyu-lenders through a world currency is likewise something more akin to the left wanting to get rid of the rich elites.
Internationalism vs. nationalism
Again, nationalism is something we'd usually associate with the right (my country right or wrong, Germany for the Germans, etc.), while the left would normally be associated with internationalism (workers of the world unite, socialist internaitonao, Comintern, etc.).
Seeing that such policies, common language, common currency, free trade, would help to break down barriers between nations, and also help to redistribute wealth between rich and poor countries, that likewise would be more of a left thinkg I'd think.
What are your views on these policies? More left or more right?
