Left - Right : Epiphany

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As most of you know, I am somewhat politically confused with a mix of views from different points along the left-right continuum and have expressed (or maybe not?) somewhat dissonant views on various topics. Most of this I've attributed to differences in reasoned understandings and preferences.

Well yeah in the established 2D view it's horrible. I think it's meant to confuse us, no I'm sure it is. Well you know how I rank in the general 3D view from those posted quizzes, closer to the center than most/all here, on a little right and a little libertarian. Not my ideal placement but what I've come to consider works in this environment.

But what I consider functioning is not our present reality in practice. It's all about name tags now, with the old names crossed out and something new scribbled in. Like Hillary is NOT "right", but left-authoritarian. Everything that falls out of her mouth is based on deception to get as many votes as possible by those not paying attention to what she's done over the decades. People like McCain are just the same, votes right along with it. Capitalism isn't capitalism, but primarily corporatism now, just as much as the middle-class has been suffering which imo best prospers under true free-market capitalism.

My 2D view is probably much different than left-right, but globalist-nationalist, more that counts to me, and I hates globalism. I mean great, people have their own ideas of it, but it still is what it is by practice regardless of the deceptive wording. Some people are willing to go with just what works, others their ideas of some utopian existence they were sold as just out of reach. And it seems the more they reach for utopia, the more they are handed dystopia. And confident in that if they reach for even more they eventually will get it, but it's just more about following the pied-piper and a total leftist-totalitarian existence.

Heck, I can hardly even call myself a conservative any longer because there is hardly anything left to conserve. I've become more the revolutionary I suppose, like from the 230 years ago perspective. You all live under the graces of the king and deal with his tyranny each and every day. And the king is mad in his new clothes, and the people are mad thinking he actually has clothing on.

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You all live under the graces of the king and deal with his tyranny each and every day.

cheers

[Daywolf]

hah well... rereading it now, only part I'd edit is the last line, I wrote it all quick on my way out the door. We do see the kings new clothes, it's just that the king is invisible. Like with 0bama for instance, he's just a manikin, a puppet. Someone like him is just displaying one of the kings royal suits for us all to see.

Seriously, limited federal govt, very limited. It only works now when it's broken, when it's shut-down and doing nothing. Power to the individual states, then if you don't like your state you can move etc. Ok, it's not utopia either, but imo it works.

[maskedmelon]

So we have had some good discussion, but nobody (aside from Nibs' suggestion that government should be large enough to move things left) has really spoken to the two basic premises that I poorly established in my OP:

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.

We can discard the HRC thing for now, that was an observation that I don't care to spend any more time thinking about or substantiating ^^ More interested in thoughts on the above.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seriously, limited federal govt, very limited. It only works now when it's broken, when it's shut-down and doing nothing. Power to the individual states, then if you don't like your state you can move etc. Ok, it's not utopia either, but imo it works.

I agree with this. It allows government to be more representative of its people. State governments could then develop as strongly or weakly as they like. The only problem with this is the inconvenience of travel and interstate relations. We'd have more options though.

It doesn't speak to the question of differing needs on the right and the left though.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we have had some good discussion, but nobody (aside from Nibs' suggestion that government should be large enough to move things left) has really spoken to the two basic premises that I poorly established in my OP:

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.

We can discard the HRC thing for now, that was an observation that I don't care to spend any more time thinking about or substantiating ^^ More interested in thoughts on the above.

This line of thinking is Chinese finger cuffs. Some say it should have many axis. Its really just meant to make some people look like extremist and others moderates depending on which group or idea is being demonized.

Comes from the French parliament with loyalist to the king on the right and the commoners and revolutionaries on the left. You can draw from that what you want but that's the origin of the left vs right visual that created the spectrum. It was essentially commoners vs nobles which could represent any number of political economic or social ideas today.

So the answer is no to both of your questions.

ETA: This thread is more like dementia than an epiphany.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This line of thinking is Chinese finger cuffs. Some say it should have many axis. Its really just meant to make some people look like extremist and others moderates depending on which group or idea is being demonized.

Comes from the French parliament with loyalist to the king on the right and the commoners and revolutionaries on the left. You can draw from that what you want but that's the origin of the left vs right visual that created the spectrum. It was essentially commoners vs nobles which could represent any number of political economic or social ideas today.

So the answer is no to both of your questions.

ETA: This thread is more like dementia than an epiphany.

You said you were with my OP up to the point of the HRC thing. Why the disagreement with these more concise premises?

It is of course a spectrum, so I would expect things to shift as we approach center, but I am not sure what that transition looks like. I would t expect a sudden flip flop from extreme libertarian on the right to extreme authoritarian. On the left as one crosses the left/right axis. I'm not sure we can reliably pinpoint that axis either.

That aside, why do you disagree?

If you've a government that controls property, but not the people, how can it survive inefficiency?

Conversely, if you've a government that controls the people, but not the money, what really controls the government and by extension the people?

[sOurDieSel]

Doesn't matter if it is LEFT or RIGHT. A multi-cultural society will never last long before falling into decay.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by sOurDieSel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Doesn't matter if it is LEFT or RIGHT. A multi-cultural society will never last long before falling into decay.

^ This. Blood and soil.

and Masked I changed my opinion about the thread because this is becoming an alartiesque conversation that is subject to ferengi manipulation of words and ideas.

[entruil]

Left and Right are two sides of the same coin.

Good starting point for me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.

But that's a bit much...

Left and Right by necessity divide up/split certain parts of natural yearnings to get us arguing between ourselves so they can do whatever they want.

In the current state-of-things, I would say both Left and Right, by necessity, need a big government to succeed and in turn they become the criminals.