The political spectrum

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Here is a political spectrum quiz.
Although I think that the questions are biased to the left.

Political Typology Quiz

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I think that the Republican Party is much closer to the center than the Democrat Party.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

the person being threatened decides if they need to kill someone,, doesnt change what anarchy is,,
those others that threaten you are no different than a bear or any other animal wanting to kill you

nothing you said changes the fact you dont even know what anarchy is,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

have you ever voted for a person in either of the parties??

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

doesnt matter,, the law abiding people are restricted from defending themselves by an authority/government,,

so it cant even be brought up in a discussion about anarchy let alone be portrayed as one,,

 

[Foxfyre]

the person being threatened decides if they need to kill someone,, doesnt change what anarchy is,,
those others that threaten you are no different than a bear or any other animal wanting to kill you

nothing you said changes the fact you dont even know what anarchy is,,

A primary definition is: the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

Which invariably results in the second primary definition: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.

Again if you like the idea, I'm sure there are still places in the world where you can have that. I still prefer a society in which I don't have to worry a great deal about my neighbors taking all my stuff if I leave the premises for awhile and I don't need to take my gun to the grocery store. I'm glad people who agree with me greatly outnumber those who will agree with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

doesnt matter,, the law abiding people are restricted from defending themselves by an authority/government,,

so it cant even be brought up in a discussion about anarchy let alone be portrayed as one,,

I don't approve of a government that restricts citizens from defending themselves. But a government who exerts that kind of authority is very much in the wrong.

That does not mean that there should be no government at all.

 

[progressive hunter]

A primary definition is: the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.

Which invariably results in the second primary definition: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.

and thats why I said it can only exist in small groups,,

every example you provided wasnt anarchy as stated above,,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

nothing you said changes the fact you dont even know what anarchy is,,

anarchy is the nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.

It is in fact chaos.

In anarchy the only thing that keeps me from killing you is you having more guns than I do. If I do kill you there is no negative consequence in it for me at all. Everything you had I now have.

 

[Foxfyre]

and thats why I said it can only exist in small groups,,

every example you provided wasnt anarchy as stated above,,

Who keeps the small groups in their own space? Again what happens when the small group next door decides they want what your small group has and they are more people with more guns? Every example I have provided re the likely, pretty much inevitable, results of anarchy fit the definition 100% accurately.

You on the other hand vote down my posts and criticize my position on this and accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, but you haven't offered your own definition of anarchy. Why don't you do that?

 

[progressive hunter]

I don't approve of a government that restricts citizens from defending themselves. But a government who exerts that kind of authority is very much in the wrong.

That does not mean that there should be no government at all.

I never said you did,, nor did I say governments shouldnt exist,,

I myself am a rational anarchist that knows no person or group of people have the wisdom or right to dictate how I live my life,, but because I am a rational person that understands that I am not the only mother fucker on the planet that a government is necessary and so I have accepted our constitutional republic as the governing rules,,

the problem youre having is you keep giving examples that have nothing to do with true anarchy,,

 

[progressive hunter]

anarchy is the nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.

It is in fact chaos.

In anarchy the only thing that keeps me from killing you is you having more guns than I do. If I do kill you there is no negative consequence in it for me at all. Everything you had I now have.

chaos is what happens in places like chicago,, true anarchist dont impose their will on others by killing them, or any other reason,,

if you wanted to kill me for no reason you are a tyrant not an anarchist,,

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said you did,, nor did I say governments shouldnt exist,,

I myself am a rational anarchist that knows no person or group of people have the wisdom or right to dictate how I live my life,, but because I am a rational person that understands that I am not the only mother fucker on the planet that a government is necessary and so I have accepted our constitutional republic as the governing rules,,

the problem youre having is you keep giving examples that have nothing to do with true anarchy,,

Define true anarchy.

 

[progressive hunter]

Define true anarchy.

other than your definition simply put its the absence of government/authority,,,

if a stronger person imposes their will on you they consider themselves the authority over you,, thats not anarchy,,

 

[Rye Catcher]

They say a picture is worth 1000 words....to make this fit in our country today replace Radical with Dem and Reactionary with Repub.

WOW, This picture is clear and concise. A couple of comments:

• Anarchy is the Idiot Fringe
• The Republican Party has slipped to fascism
  • 14 Points of Fascism
  • Trumpism

 

[progressive hunter]

WOW, This picture is clear and concise. A couple of comments:

• Anarchy is the Idiot Fringe
• The Republican Party has slipped to fascism
  • 14 Points of Fascism
  • Trumpism

yes the repubes have slipped further into fascism,, thats because the constitution has fascist elements to it,,

the real problem is democrats left fascism in the dust and moved further into totalitarian extremism,,,

 

[OldFlame]

Hyper-nationalism.

Fighting against change and progress

Attacking of other races.

Where do you get your definitions from?

There's nothing about moving towards freedom and less government on the spectrum that includes any of those.

What's hyper-nationalism?

If 'change and progress' means away from freedom and less government then of course it would be fought against. 'Change and progress' will mean different things to just about every individual. The concepts of freedom, individualism, and small government aren't represented by any party in this country.

 

[OldFlame]

Not in this country it does not.

I don't know why you keep basing the absolutes for a definition of something on this country. Political right and political left have finite meanings, it doesn't necessarily mean they are represented at all in this country.

 

[TNHarley]

Where do you get your definitions from?

There's nothing about moving towards freedom and less government on the spectrum that includes any of those.

What's hyper-nationalism?

If 'change and progress' means away from freedom and less government then of course it would be fought against. 'Change and progress' will mean different things to just about every individual. The concepts of freedom, individualism, and small government aren't represented by any party in this country.

"Progress" in this country means more govt and less individual rights. Of course, that is just ANOTHER word these fools rape. Big govt is as old as civilization. True progress would be less govt.

 

[OldFlame]

In effect yes. In theory no. Marx/Engles envisioned a selfless society in which each would receive according to his needs from each according to his ability, i.e. no private property, no private ambitions, but all working for the good of the whole and ensuring everyone had what they needed. What they left out of the equation was human nature that those who receive without working rarely have incentive to work and also those who work without reward are not likely to have incentive to keep voluntarily working. The result of course is either starvation or anarchy, i.e. survival of the strongest.

I think that's the main difference between the two 'sides' in this country, one ignores human nature to their peril, and the other knows that human nature will never allow the supposed utopia to come to fruition.