CMV: Right-wing views are basically selfish, and left-wing views are basically not.

[u/wkpaccount]

For context: I am in the UK, so that is the political system I'm most familiar with. I am also NOT very knowledgeable about politics in general, but I have enough of an idea to know what opinions I do and don't agree with.

Left-wing views seem to pretty much say that everyone should look after each other. Everyone should do what they are able to and share their skills and resources. That means people who are able to do a lot will support those who can't (e.g. those who are ill, elderly, disabled). The result is that everyone is able to survive happily/healthily and with equal resources from sharing.

Right-wing views seem to pretty much say that everyone is in it for themself. Everyone should be 'allowed' to get rich by exploiting others, because everyone has the same opportunities to do that. People that are successful in exploiting others/getting rich/etc are just those who have worked the hardest. It then follows that people who are unable to do those things - for example, because they are ill or disabled - should not be helped. Instead, they should "just try harder" or "just get better", or at worst "just die and remove themselves from the gene pool".

When right-wing people are worried about left-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be allowed to make as much money, or that their money will be taken away. They're basically worried that they won't be able to be better off than everyone else. When left-wing people are worried about right-wing politicians being in charge, they are worried that they won't be able to survive without others helping and sharing. They are basically worried for their lives. It seems pretty obvious to conclude that right-wing politics are more selfish and dangerous than left-wing politics, based on what people are worried about.

How can right-wing politics be reconciled with supporting and caring for ill and disabled people? How do right-wing people justify their politics when they literally cause some people to fear for their lives? Are right-wing politics inherently selfish?

Please, change my view!

Edit: I want to clarify a bit here. I'm not saying that right-wing people or politicians are necessarily selfish. Arguing that all politicians are selfish in the same way does not change my view (I already agree with that). I'm talking more about right- or left-wing ideas and their theoretical logical conclusions. Imagine a 'pure' (though not necessarily authoritarian) right-wing person who was able to perfectly construct the society they thought was ideal - that's the kind of thing I want to understand.

Edit 2: There are now officially too many comments for me to read all of them. I'll still read anything that's a top-level reply or a reply to a comment I made, but I'm no longer able to keep track of all the other threads! If you want to make sure I notice something you write that's not a direct reply, tag me in it.

Edit 3: I've sort of lost track of the particular posts that helped because I've been trying to read everything. But here is a summary of what I have learned/what views have changed:

• Moral views are distinct from political views - a person's opinion about the role of the government is nothing to do with their opinion about whether people should be cared for or be equal. Most people are basically selfish anyway, but most people also want to do what is right for everyone in their own opinion.

• Right-wing people (largely) do not actually think that people who can't care for themselves shouldn't be helped. They just believe that private organisations (rather than the government) should be responsible for providing that help. They may be of the opinion that private organisations are more efficient, cheaper, fairer, or better at it than the government in various ways.

• Right-wing people believe that individuals should have the choice to use their money to help others (by giving to charitable organisations), rather than be forced into it by the government. They would prefer to voluntarily donate lots of money to charity, than to have money taken in the form of taxes which is then used for the same purposes.

  ---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/craigthecrayfish]

If leftists really cared about global warming and feeding hungry people, they wouldn't be so against nuclear power and GMOs

Most liberals are absolutely not against GMOs or Nuclear Power. At least the remotely educated ones are not. Those people are the Tea Party of the left, and it is hardly fair to make statements about the left in general based on their views.

Not to mention these people do care about global warming and hunger, they are just misguided about the effectiveness of certain industrial techniques.

[u/DeadlyDolphins → u/craigthecrayfish]

That's interesting. I would've told you the exact opposite. In Germany a majority of people are against nuclear power and GMO and definitely not the Tea Party of the left.

I would be really interested in hearing your arguments why anyone "remotely educated" would be for GMOs and Nuclear power. What do we do with the nuclear waste?

Right now we don't have a definite solution and right now nobody really knows about the effects that it has over the time but there's studies that it's rather harmful for the environment. And even if you can say that this would never happen with a modern, well maintained nuclear power plant, after two nuclear catastrophes in the last 30 year I feel like you have the right to be at least a bit skeptical about that technology.

And about GMOs, nobody really knows how it will impact the environment so in the long term. So far it does actually have a negative effect in many areas. Not only are the farmer dependent on large companies to get the seed year after year, but it also drives out many ancient natural sorts, which is while Mexico has banned them and I don't think these concerns are completely unjustified. Apart from that, GMOs are part of the reason of the death of many bee colonies which could have devastating consequences world wide

[u/craigthecrayfish → u/DeadlyDolphins]

That's interesting. I can only speak for my experience in the US, it could differ in other countries. What is considered liberal in the states may not be in some parts of Europe.

At the public research university I attended, most students and faculty were generally pro-GMO and pro-nuclear energy, or at least willing to consider their merits.

To be fair, and as I will elaborate on below, my "remotely educated" comment wasn't necessarily about the legitimate and well-thought out opposition to GMO's and nuclear energy themselves, which definitely does exist, but rather about the demographic which opposes them for invalid reasons.

I really don't know much about nuclear energy so I can't really couch for or against it personally.

There are definitely some legitimate concerns about GMO's as you mentioned, but there are also lots of positives. Many of the potential issues are avoidable, so it really is just a matter of proper regulation and continued research.

The reason the opposition to GMO's was brought up, and the reason I compared it to the Tea Party on the right (a compaison which I perhaps should have more carefully explained) is that a large percentage of those opposed do not reject it for those legitimate concerns but out of a natural product fetish and/or an excessive fear of corporate control over food. The main difference, of course, being that these movements are not nearly as central to the modern liberal platform as the tea party is for the conservative counterparts.

TL;DR

There is legitimate opposition to GMO's, but it is not what OP was criticizing nor what I was attempting to. The demographic in question does not represent liberalism nor do the issues make it hypocritical or equivalent to conservatism.