It is obvious that the intelectual community of the world, is radically left compared to the local population, why? Because left means smart...

Nice start?

Come on Raider!

I'm not participating in this one until you precisely define the following terms:

Left
Right
Conservative
Liberal
Intellectual Community
Radically left
Local population
Smart

Left- Government plays a positive role
Right- Government doesn't play a role
Conservative- Government dictates the morality of people
Liberal- Change in society is positive
Intellectual Community- Scientist, Artists and Writers
Radically left- Believe in same goals as regular left, but are willing to achieve them faster, with a greater cost
Local population- A sample of the population in a given area, place, country, etc...
Smart-Above avarage inteligence

Let me get this straight...

To be conservative, one must be a leftie. The right is liberal because they are advocating change atm. The right can not be conservative, as they don't want government interference but conservatives want government dictated morality. Etc...

Why pray tell are we changing up the definitions of everything?

Anyway, to the original post, I disagree. I find that intellectuals often prefer less drastic measures but more drastic changes, making them 'liberal,' but tend to hold contempt for authority and a love of freedom. Neither of those traits lend towards one having a 'left' mindset.

QUOTE

To be conservative, one must be a leftie

No, one must believe in a strong state to be conservative...

QUOTE

The right is liberal because they are advocating change atm

No, the best way to describe the political specturm would be with increasing freedom from the left and no freedom & equality at the right... ie, Communism believes in equality of condition to social democrats that believe in equality of oppertunity, while liberals believe in partial equality of condition and equality of right... to conservative that believe in maybe equality of right... to fascist that believe "Moussalini is always right"...

QUOTE

I find that intellectuals often prefer less drastic measures but more drastic changes

Eh?

~~~~~

Intelectualls seem to be overvelmingly pro social reforms... Furthermore the majority of the great authors of the authors of the 20th century were socialists...

What social reforms?

When were scientist overwhelmingly backing socialism?

(FYI:I don't consider writers/artist 'intellectuals,' at the very least a large chunk of them don't fit your definition of 'smart')

Social Reforms: Labour laws, legalization of aboirtion, separation of church and state...

Einstein and Oppenhiemer are two that come to mind right away... Saharov is another one...

Artists and especially writters do fit the definition of smart, their works convey deep thoughts which influence millions world wide... They are (or were) the beakons of civilization....

QUOTE

Left- Government plays a positive role Right- Government doesn't play a role

QUOTE

Labour laws, legalization of aboirtion, separation of church and state...

Seems two of these positively fall under your definition of 'right,' with the first of the three being disputable. No doubt Einstein supported the two that are definately characteristic of the 'right.' As to labor laws, i'm not sure nor is it a stance exclusive to the 'left' or 'right,' in fact commonly shared by both. (As such, the paticular issue is moot)

Prehaps the only real issue is whether or not you took the time to read your own definitions.

Sorry I thought you actually understood, the definitions, should say

Left- Government plays a positive role in equalizing society, government doesn't go into the bedrooms of the people.
Right- Government doesn't play a role in equalizing sociery. Government believes it has the right to impose moral values.

All three qualities are associated with the social libreterian ideals... I'll post more in depth definitions tommorow... I don't have time to explain to you the political specturm right now...

And as for Einstien, he supported a number of socialist/communist organizations in the 1930's (IIRC)... Oppenheimer was a buddhist, so by definition he was a socialist...

Well I consider myself a leftie under your revised defitinion. However, I refer to myself as a right-wing Libertarian. Anyway, i'd say we agree in ideas, and are only confused over terminology.

Lets narrow down the argument, we agree that intelectuals are liberaterians (as opposed to athoriterian), right?

If so we disagree whether, intelectuals are economically left or right, we'll continue this tommorow...

I think that economic orientation is more dependent upon environment than intelligence.

People who start with little and end up with little will tend to want everyone to have roughly the same amount.

People who start with a lot or start with a little and end up with a lot will obviously want to keep the system that enabled them to attain/keep this wealth.

If there is an aspect to this significantly influenced by intelligence, it would seem that an intellectual would lean more to the right (Capitilism) due to the vast amounts of money/wealth/influence that can be attainted by artist, musicians, or any other 'intellectual' willing to apply themselves in such a system.

In socialism, their material benefit from their (primary) positive traits ('intelligence') would be minimal, if not nonexistance. Whilst it seems to be very common amongst 'intellectuals' to wish everyone a good, comfortable and fair life, I hesitate to think this extends to people unwilling to lift a finger. Atleast in so far as being 'comfortable' by attainting unnessecary material possession like TVs, cars, etc. Socialism not only promotes, but forces stagnation. Another extremely influential reason for 'intellectuals' to shy away from it.