Left - Right : Epiphany

[entruil]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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?

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Nibblewitz]

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