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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism). We must understand how politics is influenced by economics, if we ever wish to improve upon it.

[Nihilist_santa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[maskedmelon]

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.

This is an interesting proposition and could have some merit^^ The only problem I see with it is enforcement. Politicians already accept all sorts of property they are not permitted to.

[Nihilist_santa]

Nice ^

[maskedmelon]

lol

Thank Hathor for Google.

[Nibblewitz]

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.

I'm not so sure you do. Unfettered capitalism is governed by black hole physics: money will pool in the hands of those who have. The same amounts of power will be purchased, just not purchased through a government who might possibly roll some prosperity down hill.

What you seem to really want is a world run by totalitarian factions (corporations). Very similar to what we have now sans humanitarian organizations; they couldn't exist in the world of red and black.

[maskedmelon]

You should look into Economic Determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_determinism). We must understand how politics is influenced by economics, if we ever wish to improve upon it.

I read the wiki article you linked, but struggled to digest it. The article suggested that it both was and was not a Marxist idea, but never seemed to elucidate in what it was other than economic class being the foundation for all other social & political relationships. If that is true, why aren't peoples of various economic classes united in political & social views. The article just spent more time talking about people who agree or disagree that it is a genuine Marxist philosophy.

[Nibblewitz]

That's the point. Values, customs, beliefs, ideals, institutions, etc. are all derived from the economic construct. Your place in the economic system dictates your ideas and beliefs, if you take stock in economic determinism. It also highlights the perceived struggle between the rich and poor in Marxism.

[Nibblewitz]

What is the role of government?

We seem to have differing opinions about how the government should operate and I think the fundamental discussion starts with this question.

[maskedmelon]

I'm not so sure you do. Unfettered capitalism is governed by black hole physics: money will pool in the hands of those who have. The same amounts of power will be purchased, just not purchased through a government who might possibly roll some prosperity down hill.

Oh, so corporations are able to purchase the same amounts of power from the City of Butte, Montana as they can from United States of America? Why don't they just work with Butte then? Fewer people to deal with.


What you seem to really want is a world run by totalitarian factions (corporations). Very similar to what we have now sans humanitarian organizations; they couldn't exist in the world of red and black.

No, that's again precisely the opposite of what I said, although I do believe humanitarian organizations are a detriment to humanity. The situation that you describe though is the situation you would realize with a powerful government in a capitalistic society. In a capitalistic society the absence of a robust government to exploit means corporate survival hinges on defending oneself from competitors.

You make the false presumption that a large government is somehow inherently virtuous and officials would not be purchased by corporations in an environment of unfettered capitalism. We know that not to be true based on current circumstance. Right now our largest for-profit entities exist only because of government. They'd have died the death they should have had the government lacked the power to spare them.

[fash]

corporatist (good or bad, that is a position on the right)

It's a stretch to call corporatism a position of the right. Capitalism, sure, but not corporatism. Bank and fiat regulations that select for crony capitalism and socializing risks for too-big-to-fail banks/Wall Street fall on the left side of economic freedoms.

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.

My point there was that in the context of a large government that the left can control, it's unreasonable to expect things to stay as they are. A shift toward larger government is the outcome in that context. A "massive shift to the left" is jumping out of the frying pan & into the fire.

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

I wasn't talking about US's Libertarian party either. I was referring to left libertarianism e.g. libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism (libertarian communism), anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism.. any of those non-vanguardist collective doctrines or egalitarian ideologies that don't understand economics.

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.

Interesting, but does this do anything besides save you some time in a democratic government? When they want more gibs, they'll burn down cities. When they want to vote, they'll martyr for publicity and plant bombs.

[maskedmelon]

That's the point. Values, customs, beliefs, ideals, institutions, etc. are all derived from the economic construct. Your place in the economic system dictates your ideas and beliefs, if you take stock in economic determinism. It also highlights the perceived struggle between the rich and poor in Marxism.

But it doesn't. You have people with wildly different beliefs throughout the political spectrum. Can you give a specific example of how people of a particular economic class hold the same beliefs? How about the middle class?

[entruil]

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

Hi.

This is from RP on Feb.26,2002.

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism! "

Peace

[Nibblewitz]

Aspects of unfettered capitalism exist in society and have terrible implications. Speculative investment and the destruction of international trade barriers come to mind.

P.S. I don't want to have a philosophical debate about Marxism; it is an interesting theory and has some explanatory power, but I have no intention of shoving it down anyone's throats. It is a classical concept and worth mentioning when discussing the intersections of economics and politics.

[entruil]

intersections of economics and politics.

I just want to leave this here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

[Nihilist_santa]

Interesting, but does this do anything besides save you some time in a democratic government? When they want more gibs, they'll burn down cities. When they want to vote, they'll martyr for publicity and plant bombs.

No it just removes the power of bureaucrats to grant favors. Its just a thought I mull over from time to time. I just find it kind of self defeating that we have these "citizen" leaders. No term limits combined with the "right" to pursue your own interest as a politician is kind of bullshit. Civil service/politicians should have to enter into a system they can not rig or profit from. This would draw only those with a genuine interest in efficient and just operation of that system toward it to begin with. In Plato's version children are tested to see if they fit into this class and are then raised by a family belonging to that class so as to instill those values.

If we have to use democratic methods the way you avoid "gibs" and riots is you use a timocratic method to decide voter eligibility. Then you create a way for those who desire to do so to progress into the timocracy based on some system of merit. Heinlein the sci-fi author and libertarian had proposed limiting citizenship and its rights to only those who served in the military. So something along those lines could be adopted.

[maskedmelon]

Aspects of unfettered capitalism exist in society and have terrible implications. Speculative investment and the destruction of international trade barriers come to mind.

P.S. I don't want to have a philosophical debate about Marxism; it is an interesting theory and has some explanatory power, but I have no intention of shoving it down anyone's throats. It is a classical concept and worth mentioning when discussing the intersections of economics and politics.

Yeah, I'm not arguing for the virtues of unfettered capitalism. I am just identifying the danger of large government in such an environment. You contend government should restrain capitalism, which I agree with. The danger that I see is when you have a large government that does not do that, which is necessarily the case such an environment. Put another way, restraining capitalism moves things to the left, so you no longer have a large government on the right.

[maskedmelon]

Oh, so corporations are able to purchase the same amounts of power from the City of Butte, Montana as they can from United States of America? Why don't they just work with Butte then? Fewer people to deal with.



I read your post wrong when I wrote the Nibs. You said "whether purchase through government or not," so this analogy would not apply.

My last post still applies though^^

[Ahldagor]

No it just removes the power of bureaucrats to grant favors. Its just a thought I mull over from time to time. I just find it kind of self defeating that we have these "citizen" leaders. No term limits combined with the "right" to pursue your own interest as a politician is kind of bullshit. Civil service/politicians should have to enter into a system they can not rig or profit from. This would draw only those with a genuine interest in efficient and just operation of that system toward it to begin with. In Plato's version children are tested to see if they fit into this class and are then raised by a family belonging to that class so as to instill those values.

If we have to use democratic methods the way you avoid "gibs" and riots is you use a timocratic method to decide voter eligibility. Then you create a way for those who desire to do so to progress into the timocracy based on some system of merit. Heinlein the sci-fi author and libertarian had proposed limiting citizenship and its rights to only those who served in the military. So something along those lines could be adopted.

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

[Nihilist_santa]

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

I have always been on the fence with term limits and change my mind on the issue often. The negative associated with term limits is it forces you to discard people when they are doing a good job. I have been thinking lately a better system is no limits but have regular reviews or some such in which the power can be revoked. Its supposed to sort of work like this currently in the US but the problem is we have cliques of politicians who seldom enforce these options against their own buddies therefore it should fall to an outside body or be up for a kind of general vote of confidence. Which is similar to just having an election. The problem is the voters dont want to run the country or keep up with how the politicians are doing. Thus the auxiliary class idea again rears its head.

[Nibblewitz]

The government model in Starship Troopers is an interesting format that I lean towards. Civil service for civil rewards in some fashion gives an incentive that is currently lacking in most governments. Also, I think term limits in all elected offices and courts, even appointed positions, would have a net positive on how government functions within the US.

You make a good point, and I think civil motivation is a major role of government. I would hate to see the world continue in its feudal system of wage-slavery, and I don't see the free market producing an advocate for human advancement. Our current systems have fostered personal gain over collective gain, and a freer market would do the same with more intensity.

[entruil]

You make a good point, and I think civil motivation is a major role of government. I would hate to see the world continue in its feudal system of wage-slavery, and I don't see the free market producing an advocate for human advancement. Our current systems have fostered personal gain over collective gain, and a freer market would do the same with more intensity.

guess i dont get the premise... all i hear is how freedom is bad because fake freedom isn't working... sry friends

[Daywolf]

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 yeah in the established 2D view it's horrible. I think it's meant to confuse us, no I'm sure it is. Well you know how I rank in the general 3D view from those posted quizzes, closer to the center than most/all here, on a little right and a little libertarian. Not my ideal placement but what I've come to consider works in this environment.

But what I consider functioning is not our present reality in practice. It's all about name tags now, with the old names crossed out and something new scribbled in. Like Hillary is NOT "right", but left-authoritarian. Everything that falls out of her mouth is based on deception to get as many votes as possible by those not paying attention to what she's done over the decades. People like McCain are just the same, votes right along with it. Capitalism isn't capitalism, but primarily corporatism now, just as much as the middle-class has been suffering which imo best prospers under true free-market capitalism.

My 2D view is probably much different than left-right, but globalist-nationalist, more that counts to me, and I hates globalism. I mean great, people have their own ideas of it, but it still is what it is by practice regardless of the deceptive wording. Some people are willing to go with just what works, others their ideas of some utopian existence they were sold as just out of reach. And it seems the more they reach for utopia, the more they are handed dystopia. And confident in that if they reach for even more they eventually will get it, but it's just more about following the pied-piper and a total leftist-totalitarian existence.

Heck, I can hardly even call myself a conservative any longer because there is hardly anything left to conserve. I've become more the revolutionary I suppose, like from the 230 years ago perspective. You all live under the graces of the king and deal with his tyranny each and every day. And the king is mad in his new clothes, and the people are mad thinking he actually has clothing on.

[entruil]

You all live under the graces of the king and deal with his tyranny each and every day.

cheers

[Daywolf]

hah well... rereading it now, only part I'd edit is the last line, I wrote it all quick on my way out the door. We do see the kings new clothes, it's just that the king is invisible. Like with 0bama for instance, he's just a manikin, a puppet. Someone like him is just displaying one of the kings royal suits for us all to see.

Seriously, limited federal govt, very limited. It only works now when it's broken, when it's shut-down and doing nothing. Power to the individual states, then if you don't like your state you can move etc. Ok, it's not utopia either, but imo it works.

[maskedmelon]

So we have had some good discussion, but nobody (aside from Nibs' suggestion that government should be large enough to move things left) has really spoken to the two basic premises that I poorly established in my OP:

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.

We can discard the HRC thing for now, that was an observation that I don't care to spend any more time thinking about or substantiating ^^ More interested in thoughts on the above.

[maskedmelon]

Seriously, limited federal govt, very limited. It only works now when it's broken, when it's shut-down and doing nothing. Power to the individual states, then if you don't like your state you can move etc. Ok, it's not utopia either, but imo it works.

I agree with this. It allows government to be more representative of its people. State governments could then develop as strongly or weakly as they like. The only problem with this is the inconvenience of travel and interstate relations. We'd have more options though.

It doesn't speak to the question of differing needs on the right and the left though.

[Nihilist_santa]

So we have had some good discussion, but nobody (aside from Nibs' suggestion that government should be large enough to move things left) has really spoken to the two basic premises that I poorly established in my OP:

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.

We can discard the HRC thing for now, that was an observation that I don't care to spend any more time thinking about or substantiating ^^ More interested in thoughts on the above.

This line of thinking is Chinese finger cuffs. Some say it should have many axis. Its really just meant to make some people look like extremist and others moderates depending on which group or idea is being demonized.

Comes from the French parliament with loyalist to the king on the right and the commoners and revolutionaries on the left. You can draw from that what you want but that's the origin of the left vs right visual that created the spectrum. It was essentially commoners vs nobles which could represent any number of political economic or social ideas today.

So the answer is no to both of your questions.

ETA: This thread is more like dementia than an epiphany.

[maskedmelon]

This line of thinking is Chinese finger cuffs. Some say it should have many axis. Its really just meant to make some people look like extremist and others moderates depending on which group or idea is being demonized.

Comes from the French parliament with loyalist to the king on the right and the commoners and revolutionaries on the left. You can draw from that what you want but that's the origin of the left vs right visual that created the spectrum. It was essentially commoners vs nobles which could represent any number of political economic or social ideas today.

So the answer is no to both of your questions.

ETA: This thread is more like dementia than an epiphany.

You said you were with my OP up to the point of the HRC thing. Why the disagreement with these more concise premises?

It is of course a spectrum, so I would expect things to shift as we approach center, but I am not sure what that transition looks like. I would t expect a sudden flip flop from extreme libertarian on the right to extreme authoritarian. On the left as one crosses the left/right axis. I'm not sure we can reliably pinpoint that axis either.

That aside, why do you disagree?

If you've a government that controls property, but not the people, how can it survive inefficiency?

Conversely, if you've a government that controls the people, but not the money, what really controls the government and by extension the people?

[sOurDieSel]

Doesn't matter if it is LEFT or RIGHT. A multi-cultural society will never last long before falling into decay.

[Nihilist_santa]

Doesn't matter if it is LEFT or RIGHT. A multi-cultural society will never last long before falling into decay.

^ This. Blood and soil.

and Masked I changed my opinion about the thread because this is becoming an alartiesque conversation that is subject to ferengi manipulation of words and ideas.

[entruil]

Left and Right are two sides of the same coin.

Good starting point for me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.

But that's a bit much...

Left and Right by necessity divide up/split certain parts of natural yearnings to get us arguing between ourselves so they can do whatever they want.

In the current state-of-things, I would say both Left and Right, by necessity, need a big government to succeed and in turn they become the criminals.

[maskedmelon]

^ This. Blood and soil.

and Masked I changed my opinion about the thread because this is becoming an alartiesque conversation that is subject to ferengi manipulation of words and ideas.



Well what about my three questions in the last post? What do you see wrong with them? I am actually looking for more thought on this, because while I am confident in this idea since it allowed me to better understand incongruent if-then sorts of views that I have, but remain skeptical of it because it is new (to me) and has not been vetted.

I'm a little over enthused with it too as evident in my exchange with Nib, when I didn't fully digest the entirety of his initial post that I disagreed with and then failed to make clear distinction between what I was suggesting and what he was. If you don't care to answer my questions, how about you ask me questions to poke holes in it?

[fash]

nobody (aside from Nibs' suggestion that government should be large enough to move things left) has really spoken to the two basic premises that I poorly established in my OP:

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.

Read about r/K selection theory and how it models behavior in politics. That'll keep ya busy with the left/right topic for a while.

Try looking at it in terms of resource scarcity and competition. When resources are plentiful, a population (and not just humans) will grow and expand as far as possible by exploiting those resources to proliferate reproduction. As the left gains control of government (e.g. via democracy), they tend toward redistributing abundant resources to the unproductive and uncompetitive since that is the most successful strategy to expand that unproductive population. You can see this boon increase reproduction rates of several types of welfare recipients. A large government is necessary in order to extract the resources from the productive part of the population that owns the resources.

On the other hand, when resources are limited, there is naturally competition, and success in that competitive environment requires productivity, which drives survival and selection towards structures like family units.

Resources are finite, and only when made unavailable or exhausted, do you you see drastic shifts to the right e.g. government/economy collapse in severe cases. When resources are abundant, you see shifts to the left, and in that case the larger government facilitates redistribution.

[fash]

Good starting point for me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.

Be sure to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature before reading about Natural Law and Natural Rights in order to keep it in context.

[maskedmelon]

Read about how r/K selection theory and how it models behavior in politics. That'll keep ya busy with the left/right topic for a while.

Try looking at it in terms of resource scarcity and competition. When resources are plentiful, a population (and not just humans) will grow and expand as far as possible by exploiting those resources to proliferate reproduction. As the left gains control of government (e.g. via democracy), they tend toward redistributing abundant resources to the unproductive and uncompetitive since that is the most successful strategy to expand that unproductive population. You can see this boon increase reproduction rates of several types of welfare recipients. A large government is necessary in order to extract the resources from the productive part of the population that owns the resources.

On the other hand, when resources are limited, there is naturally competition, and success in that competitive environment requires productivity, which drives survival and selection towards structures like family units.

Resources are finite, and only when made unavailable or exhausted, do you you see drastic shifts to the right e.g. government/economy collapse in severe cases. When resources are abundant, you see shifts to the left, and in that case the larger government facilitates redistribution.

This is precisely the reason for my argument. In an far left environment, you NEED and strong central government to combat r-selection otherwise you'll bankrupt the state. You need to optimize by mandating things like which people do what work, who should reproduce, who is entitled to medical care, etc.

On a far right environment, competition ensures r-selection is of minimal concern, but in the presence of a strong government an entirely different problem arises: dominance. Ordinarily it wouldn't be a concern, because less efficient entities would fall to more efficient ones. However in the presence of a strong government, a successful entity may protect itself from future failure do to inefficiency by redefining the rules to its benefit. You effectually end up with a corporate Alex predator as indefinite overlord. The government no matter how powerful in a wholly free market setting becomes nothing more than a weapon of the wealthiest player.

[maskedmelon]

I should add Fash, that you are operating under a premise of democratic control or r-selected control, which would not be authoritarian because r-selection is inherently libertarian. An authoritarian government would be tasked with the work that nature was prevented from doing.

[Nibblewitz]

Paint me left if you want, but I am against globalism and imperialism which are foundations in both camps. I wonder why.

[fash]

I should add Fash, that you are operating under a premise of democratic control or r-selected control, which would not be authoritarian because r-selection is inherently libertarian. An authoritarian government would be tasked with the work that nature was prevented from doing.

I have generally been assuming we're discussing democratic governments in this thread, yes. Believe I said so earlier in the thread. A democratic government can absolutely be authoritarian though (think tyranny of the majority). Also, authoritarian governments aren't somehow unnatural, nor would I say r-selection is inherently libertarian. I think you're trying to collapse way too munch into authoritarian/libertarian & left/right axes (I'm certainly guilty of this too).

[maskedmelon]

I have generally been assuming we're discussing democratic governments in this thread, yes. Believe I said so earlier in the thread. A democratic government can absolutely be authoritarian though (think tyranny of the majority).


Good point. Democracy can exist in a range along the authoritarian-libertarian scale, but I would say it's range is necessarily more libertarian than a republic, which is more libertarian than a monarchy for example because the peoples' liberties are less within their control at each step. Does that make sense or am I not saying that right?

Also, authoritarian governments aren't somehow unnatural.

Hmm yeah, not what I meant to suggest. When I said the government is tasked with doing the work nature was prevented from doing, I was referring to outcomes resulting as the specific intent of man, rather than something else (nature). Yes we could consider man's behavior as part of nature and therefore everything is natural, but then that only requires us to find different words to discuss the same distinction ^^

I think you're trying to collapse way too munch into authoritarian/libertarian & left/right axes (I'm certainly guilty of this too).

Yeah, it's not as bad as trying to stack everything along the left-right scale, but still not ideal.

[Ahldagor]

Doesn't matter if it is LEFT or RIGHT. A multi-cultural society will never last long before falling into decay.

History suggests that monocultures fail over time due to stagnation. The beginnings of multiculturalism is through trade because culture A wants to trade with culture B, so in order to facilitate efficient procedures it helps to learn the opposite culture (diffusion of ideas). A way to get around that is to conquer the other and instill your culture, but then you possibly have to deal with the local's insurrection and, as happened with Rome, spreading too thin to actively enforce the culture. Both are an inhenrently complex and difficult idea to maintain.

[maskedmelon]

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.

Just read up on HHH and it is just the kind of thing that I would expect to see come out of a libertarian state. I like the emphasis on freedom of association and exclusion and think people should be free to group as they like and I'd expect a wide variety of local flavors to spring up ^^ So long as they held to libertarian principles I don't see the issue.

Libertarian minarchism fits the bill pretty darn well of what I think is ideal for a capitalistic societies. Localities could govern themselves as the saw fit and people could find peace with their own.

You run into the same challenge that I mentioned earlier with differences (potentially drastic) in law from place to place complicating interstate/municipality travel/relations of course, but for the most part people are free to do as they like be it build a family, amass a fortune or die in a ditch.

[Daywolf]

1. Limited government is necessary on the right

2. Robust government is necessary in the left.
Govt doesn't innovate or produce, directly. Whenever they try, it turns into a shambles. A big robust left govt only functions until it runs out of the money from the right and center.

[Laugher]

Ok I'm clearly not going to put the effort in big word use that occurred in the OP when I say:

I believe the tl;dr here is that Masked is taking it upon themselves to discredit posters who (in short) half-assedly post? What will become of all the Rachels, Joeys, Chandlers and Monicas if the forums are just Rosses?

Related article:

https://medium.com/@thatdavidhopkins/how-a-tv-sitcom-triggered-the-downfall-of-western-civilization-336e8ccf7dd0

[Nibblewitz]

Does everything boil down to left, right, center, and all their connotations?

[Nihilist_santa]

Just read up on HHH and it is just the kind of thing that I would expect to see come out of a libertarian state. I like the emphasis on freedom of association and exclusion and think people should be free to group as they like and I'd expect a wide variety of local flavors to spring up ^^ So long as they held to libertarian principles I don't see the issue.

Libertarian minarchism fits the bill pretty darn well of what I think is ideal for a capitalistic societies. Localities could govern themselves as the saw fit and people could find peace with their own.

You run into the same challenge that I mentioned earlier with differences (potentially drastic) in law from place to place complicating interstate/municipality travel/relations of course, but for the most part people are free to do as they like be it build a family, amass a fortune or die in a ditch.

Ok now you are thinking but you have to take it all the way. How do you protect this society from larger statist systems? or a cabal of smaller groups working to control things like international commerce? I bet the native Americans thought they had a pretty ideal minarchist system going until they ran into better organized state powers that had no qualms about acquiring their resources and lands by force.

[entruil]

thanks for this thread and another one u bumped earlier masked... pretty soon u guys will have peace, at least i wont disturb it...

[maskedmelon]

thanks for this thread and another one u bumped earlier masked... pretty soon u guys will have peace, at least i wont disturb it...

Which one, the Forum Decorum? I hope to flesh that one out a bit more. You not disturbing anything though ^^

[entruil]

Which one, the Forum Decorum? I hope to flesh that one out a bit more. You not disturbing anything though ^^

not sure but i disturb everything... yes that one...

[maskedmelon]

Ok I'm clearly not going to put the effort in big word use that occurred in the OP when I say:

I believe the tl;dr here is that Masked is taking it upon themselves to discredit posters who (in short) half-assedly post? What will become of all the Rachels, Joeys, Chandlers and Monicas if the forums are just Rosses?

Related article:

https://medium.com/@thatdavidhopkins/how-a-tv-sitcom-triggered-the-downfall-of-western-civilization-336e8ccf7dd0

Well, thank you; I am flattered ^^ Alas, I am neither so clever nor so noble as to pursue such lofty ambition. The good people of this place are gifted, by genius or by madness, with unparalleled insight.

In the torrent of revelation, truth rains unclean that the thirsty might know it's bitter taste.