The political spectrum

[2aguy]

Hitler was a fascist. You know, like you.

I am the farthest thing from a fascist....you, however are right there with what you believe

 

[2aguy]

Except that neither support having a monarch or establishing Catholicism as the state religion.

the democrats are socialists

 

[LeroyDumonde]

the democrats are socialists

Yes and so are Republicans, but that has nothing to do with the political spectrum.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's ridiculous. You might argue it's justified (statists always have their "reasons") but it is clearly state control of procreation. So, I'm not going to chase you around while you just deny it.

if a women needs an abortion procreation has already happened,,,

you still havent given a single example of them wanting to control womens bodies,

 

[dblack]

if a women needs an abortion procreation has already happened,,,

you still havent given a single example of them wanting to control womens bodies,

Deny and deflect, for the win!

We really need the hand-jerking-off emoji.

 

[progressive hunter]

Define true anarchy.

Exactly. Survival of the fittest. Not something I would ever want.

its not survival of the fittest,, a women with a gun is more fit than any man without one,,

someone imposing their will on another is not anarchy,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Deny and deflect, for the win!

We really need the hand-jerking-off emoji.

what did I deny??

give me a single example of them wanting to control womens bodies without bringing murder of an unborn child into it???

 

[BackAgain]

The Lazy Fairies of Laissez-Faire


The Rightists want a totalitarian private sector.

False.

Their agents pretending to be Leftists purposely create government tyranny to drive us into supporting corporate tyranny instead.

Even those of us who dislike leftist political theory find you to be a bit of a twit when you say silly shit like that.

 

[Foxfyre]

its not survival of the fittest,, a women with a gun is more fit than any man without one,,

someone imposing their will on another is not anarchy,,

Anarchy is the absence of government, law, or any other moderating factors or regulation. A man with a machine gun has an advantage over a woman with a ordinary weapon. Without government there is no law. Without law the worst factions among us are free to attempt their worst. The rest of society is in the position of having to be constantly on guard against those factions because there is nothing to restrain them, deter them, discourage them other than deadly force.

No normal person wants to wake up every morning or go to sleep every night wondering if that deadly force will be needed that day to defend person, property, life. But that is all too often the result of life under anarchy.

 

[progressive hunter]

Anarchy is the absence of government, law, or any other moderating factors or regulation. A man with a machine gun has an advantage over a woman with a ordinary weapon. Without government there is no law. Without law the worst factions among us are free to attempt their worst. The rest of society is in the position of having to be constantly on guard against those factions because there is nothing to restrain them, deter them, discourage them other than deadly force.

No normal person wants to wake up every morning or go to sleep every night wondering if that deadly force will be needed that day to defend person, property, life. But that is all too often the result of life under anarchy.

anarchy just means no government/authority,, there can be rules agreed upon by the people,,

any true anarchist doesnt believe in violence against another unless their life is threatened because that would mean you feel you have authority over them,,

we already do wake up every morning wondering if that force will be needed to defend ourselves,,,

 

[Foxfyre]

anarchy just means no government/authority,, there can be rules agreed upon by the people,,

any true anarchist doesnt believe in violence against another unless their life is threatened because that would mean you feel you have authority over them,,

we already do wake up every morning wondering if that force will be needed to defend ourselves,

I don't worry about it frankly. We are fully prepared to defend ourselves if we should have to do so, but we are not afraid of our neighbors around us or those in the next neighborhood or actually most places in the city. I don't expect to have to defend myself when I go to church or the grocery store or go visiting a friend or family. Why? Because we have laws and people to enforce them, we know there will be very few who will challenge those laws and for the most part our society is peaceful and safe.

That is why every group who formed communities managed to have civil, safe, orderly societies in which all were protected because via social contract they agreed on what government was needed to achieve that in a town or county. No state without a working government was admitted to the United States. Sam Houston refused to let their constitutional convention adjourn to go defend the Alamo because he knew if they did not form a government for Texas, they could expect no help, no consideration from the United States. When there is no government, there is no law.

Maybe your small group has a social contract of what rules everyone agreed to, but who enforces them if somebody decides not to abide by that social contract? And again who protects you if the much larger and better armed group next door decides they want your territory too?

Societies without government are called 'communism.' But in reality they are anarchy and will more often be violent with the strongest/most powerful ruling everybody else.

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't worry about it frankly. We are fully prepared to defend ourselves if we should have to do so, but we are not afraid of our neighbors around us or those in the next neighborhood or actually most places in the city. I don't expect to have to defend myself when I go to church or the grocery store or go visiting a friend or family. Why? Because we have laws and people to enforce them, we know there will be very few who will challenge those laws and for the most part our society is peaceful and safe.

That is why every group who formed communities managed to have civil, safe, orderly societies in which all were protected because via social contract they agreed on what government was needed to achieve that in a town or county. No state without a working government was admitted to the United States. Sam Houston refused to let their constitutional convention adjourn to go defend the Alamo because he knew if they did not form a government for Texas, they could expect no help, no consideration from the United States. When there is no government, there is no law.

Societies without government are called 'communism.' But in reality they are anarchy and will more often be violent with the strongest/most powerful ruling everybody else.

communism/communes have to have a government to oversee and divide assets equitably,, it also doesnt allow private property,,

anarchy doesnt, the people make agreements between themselves and respect other peoples persons and properties,,

as I said many times, it can only work in small groups voluntarily,,

 

[Oddball]

Well, we're usually pretty much on the same page in these things, but I can't quite get to your point of view there, but I do understand I think what you are saying.

John Adams is quoted as saying: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Madison wrote that (the Constitution requires) ". . .sufficient virtue among men for self-government. . ." (and otherwise) ". . .nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

I've seen many thesis written by people arguing that Adams and Hamilton et al were wrong and the Constitution was not only adequate for a moral and religious people but is wholly adequate for everybody else too.

But when we see high ranking officials in government now arguing that abortion on demand must not be restricted in any way whatsoever, that prohibiting transgendering surgery and hormones for children is unAmerican and tyrannical, that condones the lewd, vulgar curriculum, entertainment, recreation for children even as our First Amendment rights are gradually being systematically eroded as well as the content and intent of the Constitution itself. . .

. . .the words of the Founding Fathers seem more and more prophetic

Agreed...Conversely, a gubmint like the unwieldy leviathan we have now attracts to it just the opposite characters.

Of all the political books I've ever read, this single chapter, from "The Road to Serfdom", encapsulates what we're living through right now more than any other....Talk about prophetic...

Why the Worst Get on Top - FEE

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental byproducts, but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce.

fee.org

 

[Foxfyre]

communism/communes have to have a government to oversee and divide assets equitably,, it also doesnt allow private property,,

anarchy doesnt, the people make agreements between themselves and respect other peoples persons and properties,,

as I said many times, it can only work in small groups voluntarily,,

You apparently don't know what communism is. Have you not studied Marx/Engles at all?

Anarchy would work fine if everybody agreed to live and let live and respect other persons and properties. But human nature simply is not structured that way. Sooner or later somebody wants to do things differently that impact on the value of everybody else's property and/or disturbs their peace. That person shrugs off requests to change his/her behavior. What do you do? Shoot him? Or just live with it?

Again what do you do when the much larger better armed group comes after your property, your wife, your kids? What is there to stop them?

For that matter what will you have to show that your property is yours when somebody else claims it? What ensures your wife and children receive your property if you should die? How do you manage traffic or shared services and who settles the disputes if you can't agree on those things? How do you protect your property values if someone wants to put a pig farm next to your lovely home that you saved most of your life to buy?

 

[progressive hunter]

You apparently don't know what communism is. Have you not studied Marx/Engles at all?

Anarchy would work fine if everybody agreed to live and let live and respect other persons and properties. But human nature simply is not structured that way. Sooner or later somebody wants to do things differently that impact on the value of everybody else's property and/or disturbs their peace. That person shrugs off requests to change his/her behavior. What do you do? Shoot him? Or just live with it?

Again what do you do when the much larger better armed group comes after your property, your wife, your kids? What is there to stop them?

instead of just telling me I am wrong, why not explain what I got wrong??

and when did I say that about anarchy?? in fact thats what I meant when I said it can only work in small groups where everyone agrees,,

if a large group comes after me I do the same thing I do now,, defend myself,,

calling the cops is useless since I will be dead by the time they got there,,,

 

[Foxfyre]

instead of just telling me I am wrong, why not explain what I got wrong??

and when did I say that about anarchy?? in fact thats what I meant when I said it can only work in small groups where everyone agrees,,

if a large group comes after me I do the same thing I do now,, defend myself,,

calling the cops is useless since I will be dead by the time they got there,,,

I did explain what you got wrong. You responded before I completed an edit.

Yes you defend yourself when that larger, much better armed mob comes for you but you have a much better chance if the police show up to back you up. Otherwise you have pretty much no chance.

The purpose of the Constitution was to allow the various states to live in peace and function as one nation without doing physical or economic violence to each other. At the same time it allowed each state to form itself into whatever societies it wish to have short of violating the rights of the others.

Without government, without laws, without enforcement of laws, there is no security in our rights, our person, our property. The Constitution does not assign us the rights we will have. It is structured so that the government cannot and will not violate the rights we are born with.

Yes, there are people who have sometimes turned the Constitution on its head, ignored it, violated it, misinterpreted it. And they have established their own set of rules and 'laws' to replace what once protected our unalienable rights. I am one of the strongest advocates for a small, efficient, effective government that works for the people and not for its own benefit and we don't have that any more.

But because I object to an overwhelming, far reaching, self serving government that works only for itself does not mean that I see no value in good government. I think there can be no security of rights, peace or security without good government.

 

[Oddball]

That you in your ignorance are on the other side reassures me as to the accuracy of my position.

Go away, boi...Adults are talking here....And enjoying the conversation, for a change.

 

[progressive hunter]

I did explain what you got wrong. You responded before I completed an edit.

Yes you defend yourself when that larger, much better armed mob comes for you but you have a much better chance if the police show up to back you up. Otherwise you have pretty much no chance.

The purpose of the Constitution was to allow the various states to live in peace and function as one nation without doing physical or economic violence to each other. At the same time it allowed each state to form itself into whatever societies it wish to have short of violating the rights of the others.

Without government, without laws, without enforcement of laws, there is no security in our rights, our person, our property. The Constitution does not assign us the rights we will have. It is structured so that the government cannot and will not violate the rights we are born with.

Yes, there are people who have sometimes turned the Constitution on its head, ignored it, violated it, misinterpreted it. And they have established their own set of rules and 'laws' to replace what once protected our unalienable rights. I am one of the strongest advocates for a small, efficient, effective government that works for the people and not for its own benefit and we don't have that any more.

But because I object to an overwhelming, far reaching, self serving government that works only for itself does not mean that I see no value in good government. I think there can be no security of rights, peace or security without good government.

I still dont see where you explained what I got wrong when I said even communist have/need governments,,

considering most fire fights last seconds cops are of no use when they take minutes to get there,,, and thats not even getting into cops have no responsibility to protect me,,


did you see where I explained why I am a rational anarchist??

if you did you wouldnt be wasting my time with all this nonsense,,

 

[evenflow1969]

We need to put this shit to bed.
The extreme left is tyranny, the extreme right is anarchy.

The political spectrum is not from one tyranny to another, it is from tyranny, to total freedom. The very definition of "spectrum" should tell you that.
A spectrum is the scale of 2 opposites. Not two similarities.
Please drop your middle school interpretation of left vs right.
Real liberals are not leftists. How could someone that believes in small govt and liberty be on the side of collectivism and big govt?
Most republicans are not righties. How can people that want to use the govt to shove their version of morality down peoples throats be righties? How can people that want to use the govt to control and bail out the private sector be righties?

Only the fringes are being served at the moment. Have no idea how to fix it. Oh well good news is I am old. Not to long till I will be dead and won't care either way.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I still dont see where you explained what I got wrong when I said even communist have/need governments,,

considering most fire fights last seconds cops are of no use when they take minutes to get there,,, and thats not even getting into cops have no responsibility to protect me,,


did you see where I explained why I am a rational anarchist??

if you did you wouldnt be wasting my time with all this nonsense,,

You live in an anarchist society already. Just look at the government as a crime syndicate. Feel free to ignore its rules, not use its money, and defend yourself against it when it initiates violence against you.