by I_Like_Plants » Mon 19 Feb 2007, 03:08:34
Red/Blue left/right have no real meaning any more in the US. That's on purpose too.
The Randists have come up with a more useful scale, Individualist vs. Statist. But even that makes little sense in the eyes of Nature. Hunter-gatherer societies are notoriously non-coercive, except there are all kinds of things one MUST or MUST NOT do, for instance an Aboriginal boy MUST go on his walkabout, and MUST NOT look at girls until he's done that. Is it Statist that these rules must be followed? Is it Individualist that Aborigines traditionally work few hours, dance 'n' sing when they darned well feel like, and have little in the way of hierarchy?
I feel pretty Liberal these days, but isn't part of being Liberal being in favor of things like social security programs, food purity laws, vehicle pollution and safety standards, etc?
You could argue that at least Liberals will be for Statist things that make sense, food purity and environmental laws make sense for health. While "Red" laws like ones against puffing a little pot, or marrying your gay partner, seem to have religious backing but not any real proven impact on the betterment of health or society.
But a Red person could say that their laws are indeed for the betterment of health and society, since God's coming and gayness will get us all punished like in the Bible, and environmental laws are nonsense since we were given Dominion over the earth.....
So is red/blue in the US really another name for religious/nonreligious?
Take drug use. Europe, a more Liberal place, tends to treat it as a health problem to be managed. The US treats it as a sin to be punished - a good contrast of blue vs. red thought.
Liberal/Conservative as it's practiced in the US makes no sense, the Randist Statist/Individualist axis makes no sense, anyone know of any that might work in describing reality?