The political spectrum

[TNHarley]

Such a little snowflake.

And yes, it is your definition. It is one you made up to fit into your make believe world of how things should be.

You and reality seem to have no connection at all

What is my definition, Donald? Before you lie AGAIN, please try to bring yourself down to Earth. TIA

 

[LeroyDumonde]

It could work, IMO with certain people. Righties ( ) for example. But it wouldnt ever happen. no government will give up land.
There is a huge chunk of desert in Africa that no nation claims. I guess we could try that area out

People could just take a page out of the Zomia playbook and form small nomadic groups living off government land. They need to be mobile enough to be able to avoid the feds though.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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?

That poster is highly inaccurate:

1. Nazism is not the same as Fascism. Mussolini & Franco were Fascists, but not Nazis. Nazism is a whole different category of sickness.

2. Fascism is an extreme right wing tyrannical philosophy that imposes a strict hereditary socio-economic class system. It's closest to monarchy (which has entirely been left out of the poster).

3. Monarchy is as natural to the human race as a pack is to a dog. it's taken thousands of years for the human race to break away from monarchy.

4. Libertarianism, anarchy, fascism and mob rule inevitably lead to monarchy. Rule by force will be the result of the first 4 which will lead to the fifth.

5. Communism is a tyranny that also leads to a defacto fascist society - but it at least pretends to exist for the benefit of the common people.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

A gang is not an example of anarchy, a gang always has a hierarchy of leaders with rules and enforcement of those rules.

Anarchy cannot have any of those things.

Well then anarchy cannot exist because hierarchies always exist and society always has rules and means to enforce them.

 

[dblack]

You think human nature about such things is likely to end any time soon?

Nope. That would be why I said we're not ready yet. We might never get there.

Semantics?

Guns and billy clubs are "semantics". Didn't you get the memo?

 

[dblack]

No one else has to recognize them as valid.

No one said they do. It's up to us how much our government respects our rights, and how much it tramples them. I think maximizing freedom, while maintain a sane level of security, should be the goal.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Semantics?

Yes, semantics. Rules, laws, and principles, that define what is good vs what isn't, are essentially the same. If you're saying that the community punishes those who commit "bad" acts, then you are conceding, whether you recognize it or not, that this community of yours has laws. You can call these laws "principles", but it's essentially the same when such principles are defining what is good vs bad, and your community is enforcing those rules by "going after" the wrongdoers.

 

[dblack]

Yes, semantics. Rules, laws, and principles, that define what is good vs what isn't, are essentially the same. If you're saying that the community punishes those who commit "bad" acts, then you are conceding, whether you recognize it or not, that this community of yours has laws. You can call these laws "principles", but it's essentially the same when such principles are defining what is good vs bad, and your community is enforcing those rules by "going after" the wrongdoers.

There are all kinds of ways to maintain social norms, and discourage violating them, besides a compulsive state government passing laws and threatening to kill people who don't abide.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, semantics. Rules, laws, and principles, that define what is good vs what isn't, are essentially the same. If you're saying that the community punishes those who commit "bad" acts, then you are conceding, whether you recognize it or not, that this community of yours has laws. You can call these laws "principles", but it's essentially the same when such principles are defining what is good vs bad, and your community is enforcing those rules by "going after" the wrongdoers.

Principles are not laws. Thats stupid.

 

[Oddball]

That poster is highly inaccurate:

1. Nazism is not the same as Fascism. Mussolini & Franco were Fascists, but not Nazis. Nazism is a whole different category of sickness.

2. Fascism is an extreme right wing tyrannical philosophy that imposes a strict hereditary socio-economic class system. It's closest to monarchy (which has entirely been left out of the poster).

3. Monarchy is as natural to the human race as a pack is to a dog. it's taken thousands of years for the human race to break away from monarchy.

4. Libertarianism, anarchy, fascism and mob rule inevitably lead to monarchy. Rule by force will be the result of the first 4 which will lead to the fifth.

5. Communism is a tyranny that also leads to a defacto fascist society - but it at least pretends to exist for the benefit of the common people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well then anarchy cannot exist because hierarchies always exist and society always has rules and means to enforce them.

You are correct, anarchy is merely a philosophical pipe dream that has not real world application outside of someone living totally alone away from all other humans

 

[Oddball]

There are all kinds of ways to maintain social norms, and discourage violating them, besides a compulsive state government passing laws and threatening to kill people who don't abide.

Imagine, the only thing preventing the collision of two 2-ton objects hurting down the road, at a closing speed of upwards of 150mph, is a little yellow paint.

THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Principles are not laws. Thats stupid.

Principles that define what is good vs bad in a community and then are enforced by "everybody going after" the person who breaks those principles, committing that which is "bad" (as you described), is a community rule or law. To assert otherwise is indeed stupid.

 

[dblack]

Imagine, the only thing preventing the collision of two 2-ton objects hurting down the road, at a closing speed of upwards of 150mph, is a little yellow paint.

THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!

If cars were invented today, is there any doubt they'd be illegal?

 

[progressive hunter]

Imagine, the only thing preventing the collision of two 2-ton objects hurting down the road, at a closing speed of upwards of 150mph, is a little yellow paint.

THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!

there is a law to not cross that yellow line,,

 

[Oddball]

there is a law to not cross that yellow line,,

You really think the only thing keeping anyone on their side of the line is the law?

 

[progressive hunter]

You really think the only thing keeping anyone on their side of the line is the law?

I dont do it over fear of death,, because theres a law doesnt come into it,,
but there is a law against it,,,

 

[BackAgain]

If You Let the HeirHeads Tell You to Eat Cake, All You'll Get Is Its Crumbs

You are heavily damaged by over-consumption of platitudes and bullshit.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Imagine, the only thing preventing the collision of two 2-ton objects hurting down the road, at a closing speed of upwards of 150mph, is a little yellow paint.

THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!

I remember driving on a highway where the paint was so old that you couldn't see it at night in the rain. Really made me appreciate being able to see the paint.

 

[Blues Man]

Anarchic Grammar

That's not what "oxymoron" means.

Oh look it's the grammar police again