Left - Right : Epiphany

[maskedmelon]

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

^ 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.

Well what about my three questions in the last post? What do you see wrong with them? I am actually looking for more thought on this, because while I am confident in this idea since it allowed me to better understand incongruent if-then sorts of views that I have, but remain skeptical of it because it is new (to me) and has not been vetted.

I'm a little over enthused with it too as evident in my exchange with Nib, when I didn't fully digest the entirety of his initial post that I disagreed with and then failed to make clear distinction between what I was suggesting and what he was. If you don't care to answer my questions, how about you ask me questions to poke holes in it?

[fash]

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

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.

Read about r/K selection theory and how it models behavior in politics. That'll keep ya busy with the left/right topic for a while.

Try looking at it in terms of resource scarcity and competition. When resources are plentiful, a population (and not just humans) will grow and expand as far as possible by exploiting those resources to proliferate reproduction. As the left gains control of government (e.g. via democracy), they tend toward redistributing abundant resources to the unproductive and uncompetitive since that is the most successful strategy to expand that unproductive population. You can see this boon increase reproduction rates of several types of welfare recipients. A large government is necessary in order to extract the resources from the productive part of the population that owns the resources.

On the other hand, when resources are limited, there is naturally competition, and success in that competitive environment requires productivity, which drives survival and selection towards structures like family units.

Resources are finite, and only when made unavailable or exhausted, do you you see drastic shifts to the right e.g. government/economy collapse in severe cases. When resources are abundant, you see shifts to the left, and in that case the larger government facilitates redistribution.

[fash]

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

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

Be sure to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature before reading about Natural Law and Natural Rights in order to keep it in context.

[maskedmelon]

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

Read about how r/K selection theory and how it models behavior in politics. That'll keep ya busy with the left/right topic for a while.

Try looking at it in terms of resource scarcity and competition. When resources are plentiful, a population (and not just humans) will grow and expand as far as possible by exploiting those resources to proliferate reproduction. As the left gains control of government (e.g. via democracy), they tend toward redistributing abundant resources to the unproductive and uncompetitive since that is the most successful strategy to expand that unproductive population. You can see this boon increase reproduction rates of several types of welfare recipients. A large government is necessary in order to extract the resources from the productive part of the population that owns the resources.

On the other hand, when resources are limited, there is naturally competition, and success in that competitive environment requires productivity, which drives survival and selection towards structures like family units.

Resources are finite, and only when made unavailable or exhausted, do you you see drastic shifts to the right e.g. government/economy collapse in severe cases. When resources are abundant, you see shifts to the left, and in that case the larger government facilitates redistribution.

This is precisely the reason for my argument. In an far left environment, you NEED and strong central government to combat r-selection otherwise you'll bankrupt the state. You need to optimize by mandating things like which people do what work, who should reproduce, who is entitled to medical care, etc.

On a far right environment, competition ensures r-selection is of minimal concern, but in the presence of a strong government an entirely different problem arises: dominance. Ordinarily it wouldn't be a concern, because less efficient entities would fall to more efficient ones. However in the presence of a strong government, a successful entity may protect itself from future failure do to inefficiency by redefining the rules to its benefit. You effectually end up with a corporate Alex predator as indefinite overlord. The government no matter how powerful in a wholly free market setting becomes nothing more than a weapon of the wealthiest player.

[maskedmelon]

I should add Fash, that you are operating under a premise of democratic control or r-selected control, which would not be authoritarian because r-selection is inherently libertarian. An authoritarian government would be tasked with the work that nature was prevented from doing.

[Nibblewitz]

Paint me left if you want, but I am against globalism and imperialism which are foundations in both camps. I wonder why.

[fash]

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

I should add Fash, that you are operating under a premise of democratic control or r-selected control, which would not be authoritarian because r-selection is inherently libertarian. An authoritarian government would be tasked with the work that nature was prevented from doing.

I have generally been assuming we're discussing democratic governments in this thread, yes. Believe I said so earlier in the thread. A democratic government can absolutely be authoritarian though (think tyranny of the majority). Also, authoritarian governments aren't somehow unnatural, nor would I say r-selection is inherently libertarian. I think you're trying to collapse way too munch into authoritarian/libertarian & left/right axes (I'm certainly guilty of this too).

[maskedmelon]

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

I have generally been assuming we're discussing democratic governments in this thread, yes. Believe I said so earlier in the thread. A democratic government can absolutely be authoritarian though (think tyranny of the majority).

Good point. Democracy can exist in a range along the authoritarian-libertarian scale, but I would say it's range is necessarily more libertarian than a republic, which is more libertarian than a monarchy for example because the peoples' liberties are less within their control at each step. Does that make sense or am I not saying that right?

Also, authoritarian governments aren't somehow unnatural.

Hmm yeah, not what I meant to suggest. When I said the government is tasked with doing the work nature was prevented from doing, I was referring to outcomes resulting as the specific intent of man, rather than something else (nature). Yes we could consider man's behavior as part of nature and therefore everything is natural, but then that only requires us to find different words to discuss the same distinction ^^

I think you're trying to collapse way too munch into authoritarian/libertarian & left/right axes (I'm certainly guilty of this too).

Yeah, it's not as bad as trying to stack everything along the left-right scale, but still not ideal.

[Ahldagor]

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.

History suggests that monocultures fail over time due to stagnation. The beginnings of multiculturalism is through trade because culture A wants to trade with culture B, so in order to facilitate efficient procedures it helps to learn the opposite culture (diffusion of ideas). A way to get around that is to conquer the other and instill your culture, but then you possibly have to deal with the local's insurrection and, as happened with Rome, spreading too thin to actively enforce the culture. Both are an inhenrently complex and difficult idea to maintain.

[maskedmelon]

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

You need some Hans-Hermann Hoppe in your life. In short its libertarian minarchism with a strong emphasis on physically removing leftist subverters from society. I personally dont see that coming about though without an authoritarian period to enforce the "purge" . I was with you up until "I actually agree with Alarti". Alarti is the type that if he had any power he would be HRC.

Just read up on HHH and it is just the kind of thing that I would expect to see come out of a libertarian state. I like the emphasis on freedom of association and exclusion and think people should be free to group as they like and I'd expect a wide variety of local flavors to spring up ^^ So long as they held to libertarian principles I don't see the issue.

Libertarian minarchism fits the bill pretty darn well of what I think is ideal for a capitalistic societies. Localities could govern themselves as the saw fit and people could find peace with their own.

You run into the same challenge that I mentioned earlier with differences (potentially drastic) in law from place to place complicating interstate/municipality travel/relations of course, but for the most part people are free to do as they like be it build a family, amass a fortune or die in a ditch.