Left - Right : Epiphany

[maskedmelon]

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, yesterday I was struck most gently with revelation. It occurred to me that my preference for limited government is strongly correlated with combatting some of the nastier aspects rightist individualism while my understanding of the necessity for a strongly authoritarian state to advance man is strongly correlated with tempering less palatable aspects of leftist collectivism.

This epiphany helped me better understand why I generally identify as a moderate centrist while holding seemingly incongruent extreme views. It also led me to clearly identify the libertarian left and authoritarian right and the most deplorable realms of political ideology because the outcomes of both are necessarily stagnation or worse.

Why?

Well, limited government is necessary to minimize government corruption on the right because if the state does not control the money, the money controls the state... a condition we see increasingly today in the US.

On the left, if the state commands the resources then it is responsible for caring for its collective citizenry and determining the best use of said resources, which always should be advancing the state. Individual liberty in that setting becomes a threat to the livelihood of the state.

Currently, the US is becoming increasingly authoritarian and I actually agree with Alarti's suggestion that HRC exists in the realm of the authoritarian right, but would add while pandering to the libertarian left. The US is too caught up in social issues and abuse of government to pummel dissent. We either need less government or a massive shift to the left and if we are going to go there, it needs to be absolute.

I don't really see any practical solution and it is why I prefer things to just stay where they are, so that I can go about my life and be left alone. If we are keen on change, we either need a Vulcan overlord or the freedom to destroy one another.

I need to give more thought to what this means as we move to the center though, which is where I sit. Is the plot of 'ideal government' from left to right just linear and downward sloping, or is it varied in slope?

Thoughts?

[Nibblewitz]

Illusions of political choice. You need money to influence policy.

Good governments should be large enough to safeguard its citizenship from the greed of capitalism.

[Nibblewitz]

You should look into Economic Determinism. We must understand how politics is influenced by economics, if we ever wish to improve upon it.

[Nihilist_santa]

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, yesterday I was struck most gently with revelation. It occurred to me that my preference for limited government is strongly correlated with combatting some of the nastier aspects rightist individualism while my understanding of the necessity for a strongly authoritarian state to advance man is strongly correlated with tempering less palatable aspects of leftist collectivism.

This epiphany helped me better understand why I generally identify as a moderate centrist while holding seemingly incongruent extreme views. It also led me to clearly identify the libertarian left and authoritarian right and the most deplorable realms of political ideology because the outcomes of both are necessarily stagnation or worse.

Why?

Well, limited government is necessary to minimize government corruption on the right because if the state does not control the money, the money controls the state... a condition we see increasingly today in the US.

On the left, if the state commands the resources then it is responsible for caring for its collective citizenry and determining the best use of said resources, which always should be advancing the state. Individual liberty in that setting becomes a threat to the livelihood of the state.

Currently, the US is becoming increasingly authoritarian and I actually agree with Alarti's suggestion that HRC exists in the realm of the authoritarian right, but would add while pandering to the libertarian left. The US is too caught up in social issues and abuse of government to pummel dissent. We either need less government or a massive shift to the left and if we are going to go there, it needs to be absolute.

I don't really see any practical solution and it is why I prefer things to just stay where they are, so that I can go about my life and be left alone. If we are keen on change, we either need a Vulcan overlord or the freedom to destroy one another.

I need to give more thought to what this means as we move to the center though, which is where I sit. Is the plot of 'ideal government' from left to right just linear and downward sloping, or is it varied in slope?

Thoughts?

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.

[maskedmelon]

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

Good governments should be large enough to safeguard its citizenship from the greed of capitalism.

See this is precisely where I disagree. Capitalistic societies must necessarily have small lean governments to limit the power that can be purchased. A powerful government in a capitalistic society is a Shinkansen to oppression and stagnation.

[Nihilist_santa]

Ive thought it would be interesting to have as your government a class of people who are not allowed to own property or amass wealth but have all of their needs taken care of by the state. It could be a possible hedge against the ability to buy influence. This is similar to Platos idea of the silver class of auxiliaries but not quite or some could even say party members in 1984 unlike the proles who were allowed to be degenerates.

[fash]

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

We either need less government or a massive shift to the left and if we are going to go there, it needs to be absolute.

I don't really see any practical solution and it is why I prefer things to just stay where they are

A massive shift to the left won't help. That's the opposite of what you'd want.

As long as there is a large government that the left can control (e.g. via democracy) you can expect there to always be a shift further and further toward the left & larger government e.g. US for the last century or Soviet Russia.

The idea of left libertarianism is a contradiction in terms.

[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.

My point on HRC is that she is a corporatist (good or bad, that is a position on the right) and does not substantially differ from any of the republican candidates (except Trump) in that regard. It wasn't an endorsement just an acknowledgement that on an economic scale she's not very left. She is however more authoritarian than the others, because she's corrupt a hell. She has no desire to reign in banks/Wall Street (leftist policy) because she's for sale. The astonishing thing is that most on the left either don't notice or don't care.

[Nihilist_santa]

HRC and Lune actually line up pretty well as progressive neo-corporatist. It explains his results in the political alignment thread. This also places them firmly on the left. Corporatism has taken on a different kind of connotation in the present than it had in the past.

[maskedmelon]

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

A massive shift to the left won't help. That's the opposite of what you'd want.

No, I'd prefer things to just stay as they are actually, but in an environment of increasing authoritarianism, no, I would not want a shift further to the right because then that just results in a super corporation controlling all wealth and using the formidable arm of government to destroy opposition.

As long as there is a large government that the left can control (e.g. via democracy) you can expect there to always be a shift further and further toward the left & larger government e.g. US for the last century or Soviet Russia.

Large government is necessary on the left and awful on the right.

The idea of left libertarianism is a contradiction in terms.

No it isn't ^^ I'm not talking about the American political party, I'm talking about Libertarianism as the antithesis of Authoritarianism. Here's an example of what I was talking about:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism