2010-09-18 22:31:33 UTC
Right Wing - (nature argument) People believe that it is unnecessary to consider the root cause of problems. All problems are the result of personal choices and all problems need to be resolved by dealing with that problem after the fact. Example: Criminal molests children - action - kill criminal - problem resolved.
Left Wing - (nurture argument) People believe that mostly problems begin at some point due to negative re-enforcement and that laws governing personal behaviour need to be enforced to deal with crime as crime is the result of poor upbringing. Example: Criminal molests children - action - reform criminal - problem solved.
The issue is that either way, crime will always happen. Both left and right wing advocates have the same goal which is minimizing crime. Both have had success as well. But ying and yang are two sides of a whole. Neither the left or the right can resolve all issues on their own. Example: A serial killer cannot be reformed, therefore, the right wing approach to this would better suit the situation (executive the serial killer). That being said, the left wing approach (social programs like children's aid for example) help reduce the frequency of serial killing. Used in tandem, the amount of murders committed by such criminals would be significantly reduced. Instead, we see both sides trying to argue one method over another "just shoot em' all" or "ban capital punishment".
Is this not destructive to society? Shouldn't the strengths of seeing things from both angles be encouraged rather than partisan rhetoric?