The political spectrum

[Harpy Eagle]

Nothing wrong with Nationalism.

Change is a meaningless term as is progress since they are subjective.

Attacking ILLEGAL ALIENS

Amateur

Nothing wrong with a lot of things till you take them too far.

 

[Foxfyre]

Distinctions without much of a difference....Both are brutal, conformist, individual-killing ideologies...they only differ ever-so-slightly in form.

Agreed. As I responded to Harley, a difference of theory but essentially the same effect.

 

[Foxfyre]

the farthest left is a dictatorship/king where power is in the smallest control such as a single person,,

as for true communism,, thats about the same as anarchy where there is no formal government and the people decide, far right,,

Except that in anarchy, the people don't decide. The fastest, strongest, most fit decide. The apt analogy is two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would selflessly care for the whole and work for the collective. Since that is contrary to human nature in all of human history, the effect would be little different than a lawless and inevitably brutal anarchy.

 

[TNHarley]

Except that in anarchy, the people don't decide. The fastest, strongest, most fit decide. The apt analogy is two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would selflessly care for the whole and work for the collective. Since that is contrary to human nature in all of human history, the effect would be little different than a lawless and inevitably brutal anarchy.

There is the NAP principle. In theory, strength wouldnt make a difference.

 

[progressive hunter]

Except that in anarchy, the people don't decide. The fastest, strongest, most fit decide. The apt analogy is two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would selflessly care for the whole and work for the collective. Since that is contrary to human nature in all of human history, the effect would be little different than a lawless and inevitably brutal anarchy.

if the strongest are deciding then its not anarchy,, they represent an authority/government,,

anarchy just like true communism is about being voluntary,,

both can only happen in small groups where the people can sit together and make choices that all can agree on,,

you didnt finish the analogy,,

a well armed sheep contesting the decision,,

 

[Foxfyre]

Fascism was a made up term by communist mussolini after he was kicked out of the Italian communist party....he needed to start his own grift, so he hid his communism behind a new word....fascism......

Mussolina I think was no communist and had no intention of being one. Fascism is an extremely difficult term to pin down, but however it is structured, it is effectively a totalitarian system where a very few dictate what rights, property, liberties the people will have.

I'm working from memory here so could get some facts wrong but I believe the term originated with political movements in Italy in WWI, the fasci, who incorporated both left and right wing philosophies into their ideology. Mussolini put those concepts into overdrive with his totalitarian fascism that closely resembled Hitler's Nazi-ism including persecution of the Jews.

So you have fascism/totalitarianism which exalts the government/state as essentially "God" for the people to serve with a top down structure as opposed to the extremely liberal--now considered classical liberal--intent of our Founders for a bottom up structure of government in which the government serves the people. The latter is definitely a right wing concept which used to be liberal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is the NAP principle. In theory, strength wouldnt make a difference.

In realty it has always made the difference.

Human nature has not changed away from that and never will.

Your theories never have any connection to the real world.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is the NAP principle. In theory, strength wouldnt make a difference.

NAP requires government to enforce. In pure communism there is no government.

 

[2aguy]

Mussolina I think was no communist and had no intention of being one. Fascism is an extremely difficult term to pin down, but however it is structured, it is effectively a totalitarian system where a very few dictate what rights, property, liberties the people will have.

I'm working from memory here so could get some facts wrong but I believe the term originated with political movements in Italy in WWI, the fasci, who incorporated both left and right wing philosophies into their ideology. Mussolini put those concepts into overdrive with his totalitarian fascism that closely resembled Hitler's Nazi-ism including persecution of the Jews.

So you have fascism/totalitarianism which exalts the government/state as essentially "God" for the people to serve with a top down structure as opposed to the extremely liberal--now considered classical liberal--intent of our Founders for a bottom up structure of government in which the government serves the people. The latter is definitely a right wing concept which used to be liberal.

Mussolini was a life long communist, his father was a socialist....

Fascism, as I pointed out, was Mussolini's grift after the communists kicked him out. Mussolini wasn't obsessed with Jews or race the way the German leftists were.....

He had become one of Italy's most prominent socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He bitterly denounced Italy's "imperialist war", an action that earned him a five-month jail term.[36] After his release, he helped expel Ivanoe Bonomi and Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist Party, as they were two "revisionists" who had supported the war.

He was rewarded with the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000.[37] John Gunther in 1940 called him "one of the best journalists alive"; Mussolini was a working reporter while preparing for the March on Rome, and wrote for the Hearst News Service until 1935.[25]Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[38] During this period Mussolini considered himself an "authoritarian communist"[39] and a Marxist and he described Karl Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."[40]

Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TNHarley]

In realty it has always made the difference.

Human nature has not changed away from that and never will.

Your theories never have any connection to the real world.

Its not my theory. Neither is gravity, BTW. Thanks for the credit anyway!

 

[2aguy]

Spoken like someone who has never read their bible.

Name the Commandment that allows for murder....the one that allows for adultery.......please, we will wait.

So if you are not following the Commandments or the teachings of Jesus, but claiming you are a Christian, you are no different from a Vegan eating a steak proclaiming their veganism.....

 

[TNHarley]

NAP requires government to enforce.

Thats not my understanding of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

if the strongest are deciding then its not anarchy,, they represent an authority/government,,

anarchy just like true communism is about being voluntary,,

both can only happen in small groups where the people can sit together and make choices that all can agree on,,

you didnt finish the analogy,,

a well armed sheep contesting the decision,,

You can disagree all you want, but anarchy has proved to be an extremely unpleasant, unsatisfying, brutal and oppressive system everywhere it has been tried. Without laws, rules, regulation to ensure that all are protected, the weakest among us will not be and will be at the mercy of the strongest. Or if everybody is armed with no regulation of how those arms will be used, you have a perpetual shooting gallery such as we see in inner city Chicago or other areas controlled by the 'fittest'.

In our American history there have been lawless societies, i.e. Deadwood SD in its hellfire days. There was so much oppression by the strongest of the weakest, many murders. It didn't help that it was established illegally on Sioux land. But it was establishment of a government with law and order that saved Deadwood and allowed it to continue as mainstream American society. It didn't collapse and fade into oblivion like so many other mining towns.

Human nature being what it is, anarchy, i.e. no rules, no regulation, no laws and certainly no law enforcement, is a terrible form of society unless everybody agrees on everything. And that just isn't going to happen. Even societies in the Bible fared poorly without some form of government.

 

[progressive hunter]

You can disagree all you want, but anarchy has proved to be an extremely unpleasant, unsatisfying, brutal and oppressive system everywhere it has been tried. Without laws, rules, regulation to ensure that all are protected, the weakest among us will not be and will be at the mercy of the strongest. Or if everybody is armed with no regulation of how those arms will be used, you have a perpetual shooting gallery such as we see in inner city Chicago or other areas controlled by the 'fittest'.

In our American history there have been lawless societies, i.e. Deadwood SD in its hellfire days. There was so much oppression by the strongest of the weakest, many murders. It didn't help that it was established illegally on Sioux land. But it was establishment of a government with law and order that saved Deadwood and allowed it to continue as mainstream American society. It didn't collapse and fade into oblivion like so many other mining towns.

Human nature being what it is, anarchy, i.e. no rules, no regulation, no laws and certainly no law enforcement, is a terrible form of society unless everybody agrees on everything. And that just isn't going to happen. Even societies in the Bible fared poorly without some form of government.

its clear you dont know what anarchy even is,,,

tell me whos stronger,, a 6 ft man or a 5'2" women with a shotgun??

anarchy is just no government/authority,, there can be rules set by the people involved,,
as I said it can only work in small groups

 

[Foxfyre]

Mussolini was a life long communist, his father was a socialist....

Fascism, as I pointed out, was Mussolini's grift after the communists kicked him out. Mussolini wasn't obsessed with Jews or race the way the German leftists were.....

He had become one of Italy's most prominent socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He bitterly denounced Italy's "imperialist war", an action that earned him a five-month jail term.[36] After his release, he helped expel Ivanoe Bonomi and Leonida Bissolati from the Socialist Party, as they were two "revisionists" who had supported the war.

He was rewarded with the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000.[37] John Gunther in 1940 called him "one of the best journalists alive"; Mussolini was a working reporter while preparing for the March on Rome, and wrote for the Hearst News Service until 1935.[25]Mussolini was so familiar with Marxist literature that in his own writings he would not only quote from well-known Marxist works but also from the relatively obscure works.[38] During this period Mussolini considered himself an "authoritarian communist"[39] and a Marxist and he described Karl Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."[40]

Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He could label himself anything he wanted, but socialism is not communism and, in fact, according the Marx/Engles theory, there is no authoritarianism in communism so 'authoritarian communist' is an oxymoron from the get go.

You are correct that Mussolini was not obsessed with the Jews but after Hitler rescued him from prison he abandoned his Jewish mistress of several decades and declared a vendetta against the Jews. He ordered that Jewish children would not be allowed to attend public or private schools, all Jews must be expelled from professorships in all universities. Jews were banned from civil service, the military, banking and insurance industries.

 

[Foxfyre]

its clear you dont know what anarchy even is,,,

tell me whos stronger,, a 6 ft man or a 5'2" women with a shotgun??

anarchy is just no government/authority,, there can be rules set by the people involved,,
as I said it can only work in small groups

Four or five 6 ft men or midgets with shotguns will have a 5'2" woman with a shotgun at a significant disadvantage. And I for one don't want to have to take my shotgun to the grocery store. I like the idea that assault, battery, murder is illegal and enforced by law and I don't have to worry a whole lot about that when I go to the grocery store.

 

[progressive hunter]

Four or five 6 ft men or midgets with shotguns will have a 5'2" woman with a shotgun at a significant disadvantage. And I for one don't want to have to take my shotgun to the grocery store. I like the idea that assault, battery, murder is illegal and enforced by law and I don't have to worry a whole lot about that when I go to the grocery store.

OK since you want to up the ante how about 20 women with guns against those 4-5 men??

we can play this game all day long of you want,,

you do realize every example youve given has a government/authority involved dont you?? not a true anarchy,,

in chicago its the government that restricts honest law abiding people from having guns to defend themselves from the rogue element,,

 

[Foxfyre]

its clear you dont know what anarchy even is,,,

tell me whos stronger,, a 6 ft man or a 5'2" women with a shotgun??

anarchy is just no government/authority,, there can be rules set by the people involved,,
as I said it can only work in small groups

So what happens when somebody else's small group decides they like your area or business or whatever more than their own and decide to go after yours? There will either be a small war with people getting hurt or killed, or you allow them to have your stuff. It is anybody's guess which side will have the most gunpower.

What quality of life is there when there have to be guards constantly posted, when you are in the position of having to kill or be killed? Who decides what is justified killing and what is not?

Or is the better concept of social contract by which people agree on what rules, regulations, laws will be enforced and elect a government to enforce them so that the weakest do not have to fear the strongest so much?

 

[White 6]

thats funny cause I get attacked every time I said republicans are left wing not right using this same scale,,

I don't consider either party more radically prone to assholery. The outspoken radicals of both parties are assholes. Both are destructive to the fabric of America. Both give their parties a bad name. Following the lead of either one, leads to the destruction of the country as we learned about it, growing up.
The best we can hope for is to find people that best try to project themselves from the middle ground, willing to work, willing to speak, legislate and act in a conservative manner, and I am not talking about the newly evolved political definition. This is why I will not commit to a party, and vote for people from both parties. Basically, the parties suck, as they do not reign in their radical assholes, so both parties act irresponsibly.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK since you want to up the ante how about 20 women with guns against those 4-5 men??

we can play this game all day long of you want,,

you do realize every example youve given has a government/authority involved dont you?? not a true anarchy,,

in chicago its the government that restricts honest law abiding people from having guns to defend themselves from the rogue element,,

But Chicago does not enforce its own laws when it comes to gangs and therefore the rogue element has free rein to wreck whatever havoc it chooses. That is what anarchy almost invariably comes to look like.

I prefer a society in which laws are enforced to protect the weak against the strong, in which people can choose to live in peace and not have to worry about their personal safety beyond a reasonable degree of caution. A society in which laws protect our rights to property, liberty, pursuit of happiness and not just who has the fastest or more powerful gun. At the same time I keep and know how to use a gun to protect myself and my family against the very few who defy the law.

I will never agree that anarchy is an acceptable or beneficial situation for any society.