View Poll Results: Choose.

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Far Left

    53 47.32%
  • Far Right

    59 52.68%
Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 211

Thread: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    You're asking me whether I'd prefer 19th-century America or the U.S.S.R.? The former, hands down.
    Again we see the problem with the crude linear measurement of political ideology, as if those are the only two available options. Apart from the fact that many elements of 19th century America were far more egalitarian than presently existing conditions, it simply isn't sound to pretend that the USSR is the form of government favored by most or even many people on the "far left." As noted by the Political Compass Analysis:

    Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
    If "state-imposed arbitrary collectivism" was the only or dominant ideology of the far left, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be associated with that monstrosity.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    If "state-imposed arbitrary collectivism" was the only or dominant ideology of the far left, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be associated with that monstrosity.
    I think you are the exception rather than the rule.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    I think you are the exception rather than the rule.
    If there were a swarm of Leninists around every "far-left" function, I'd agree. However, the anti-globalization movement, for example, is primarily anarchist and libertarian socialist in nature.

  4. #24
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    If there were a swarm of Leninists around every "far-left" function, I'd agree. However, the anti-globalization movement, for example, is primarily anarchist and libertarian socialist in nature.
    They're not exactly Leninist, but they're not libertarian socialist either. I think Obama personifies the far left- especially considering that most of the far left support him. He wants "redistribution of wealth", to use his own words. He does not think that people will do this without government intervention (and he is very right to think that). He wants the government to collect wealth and redistribute it. This is what happened in the U.S.S.R. and this is what the far left wants.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    They're not exactly Leninist, but they're not libertarian socialist either. I think Obama personifies the far left- especially considering that most of the far left support him. He wants "redistribution of wealth", to use his own words. He does not think that people will do this without government intervention (and he is very right to think that). He wants the government to collect wealth and redistribute it. This is what happened in the U.S.S.R. and this is what the far left wants.
    The USSR was state capitalist in nature, but presumed to be socialist. Obama is not a socialist, could not presume to be one in his wildest dreams, and is not identified as one except by rightists generally ignorant of political theory and economy. You'll not find a single legitimate socialist who claims him as a fellow, for example. The reason for this is that Obama is a liberal democratic capitalist, which is a relatively "centrist" or "center-left" form compared to the more rightist Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the more leftist social democratic capitalism (also inaccurately identified as "socialism"). But liberalism and socialism are opposing ideologies. Liberalism utilizes welfare state policies to maintain macroeconomic stabilization and the physical efficiency of the working class within a state of affairs wherein the private ownership of the means of production is supreme, thus ultimately sustaining capitalism more than rightist policies would.

  6. #26
    Banned G.I. Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-09-09 @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    247

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Again we see the problem with the crude linear measurement of political ideology, as if those are the only two available options. Apart from the fact that many elements of 19th century America were far more egalitarian than presently existing conditions, it simply isn't sound to pretend that the USSR is the form of government favored by most or even many people on the "far left." As noted by the Political Compass Analysis:



    If "state-imposed arbitrary collectivism" was the only or dominant ideology of the far left, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be associated with that monstrosity.
    LOL, So let me get this right.........You are a communist of sorts, but you feel that it is the individual's responsibility to relinquish his possessions for the sake of the collective rather than the govenrment's...............Haha, Ok, you go first.

    You know, John Lennon had this outlook on things for a while, too. He ultimately decided that personal possessions weren't so bad.
    Last edited by G.I. Joe; 07-09-09 at 12:33 AM.

  7. #27
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Hard to say, really. Both extreme sides want to take away freedoms.

    The extreme left scares me a bit more with the whole socialism bull****. And the whole PC bull****. And the whole affirmative action crap. And the whole, "no one gets a trophy because that wouldn't be fair to the kids that suck" bull****. I fear the US would become pussified socialist nation if the left extremists had their way. A place where people cry if they don't get their way all the time. Or cry if someone else is better than they are. All competition would have to be removed because they don't think it's "fair" if someone is better at something than another person. We'd all be forced to be "equal" which we're so obviously not. The good folks would have to be held back and dumbed down so the not-so-good folks wouldn't get their feelings hurt. And, we'd all be reliant on the government for EVERYTHING. Which means, the government would control every ****ing aspect of our lives.

    However. The extreme right want to remove other freedoms, such as sexual choices, religious choices, etc. They want their mythologies to rule over me. They want to tell me who I can have sex with and how. They want to tell me what I can put in my body and how much. If they had their way, their fantasy 'god' (aka government) would control every ****ing aspect of our lives.

    If EITHER of them had complete control of the country, I would expatriate as soon as was humanly possible.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by G.I. Joe View Post
    LOL, So let me get this right.........You are a communist of sorts, but you feel that it is the individual's responsibility to relinquish his possessions for the sake of the collective rather than the govenrment's...............Haha, Ok, you go first.
    I'm an anarcho-communist. I advocate the expropriation of the means of production from the financial class and collectivization and establishment of direct democratic management of such amongst the general population and workers at individual syndicates. The central reason for this on efficiency grounds is that libertarian socialism's focus on the labor cooperative is able to maximize the efficiency benefits of workers' ownership and management that have already been demonstrated in the capitalist economy (though there are of course other reasons). The moral reason for this is that private property effectively functions as a private state in many various ways, since the authoritarian hierarchies present in internal firm structure in the capitalist labor market act to inhibit liberty to the same extent that authoritarian hierarchies present in the state do. Even classical liberal defenses of property rights cannot justify presently existing corporate capitalism, as defenses of the individual's right to the product of his own labor or the product generated through mixture of his labor with a resource (Locke) obviously cannot be extended to defenses of the individual's "right" to "ownership" of massive corporate structures created through state aid designed to employ the aforementioned hierarchical wage labor.

    Hence, I instead advocate the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed in a non-hierarchical and bottom-up through participatory direct democracy, and employing such management in both the social and economic realms (which cannot be properly separated, really), which would necessitate a libertarian socialist economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by G.I. Joe View Post
    You know, John Lennon had this outlook on things for a while, too. He ultimately decided that personal possessions weren't so bad.
    I've never maintained a belief that personal possessions were "bad" in the first place, even aside from the fact that I don't usually make morality-based comments so much as efficiency-based comments.

  9. #29
    Banned G.I. Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-09-09 @ 04:23 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    247

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I'm an anarcho-communist. I advocate the expropriation of the means of production from the financial class and collectivization and establishment of direct democratic management of such amongst the general population and workers at individual syndicates. The central reason for this on efficiency grounds is that libertarian socialism's focus on the labor cooperative is able to maximize the efficiency benefits of workers' ownership and management that have already been demonstrated in the capitalist economy (though there are of course other reasons). The moral reason for this is that private property effectively functions as a private state in many various ways, since the authoritarian hierarchies present in internal firm structure in the capitalist labor market act to inhibit liberty to the same extent that authoritarian hierarchies present in the state do. Even classical liberal defenses of property rights cannot justify presently existing corporate capitalism, as defenses of the individual's right to the product of his own labor or the product generated through mixture of his labor with a resource (Locke) obviously cannot be extended to defenses of the individual's "right" to "ownership" of massive corporate structures created through state aid designed to employ the aforementioned hierarchical wage labor.

    Hence, I instead advocate the establishment of horizontal federations of decentralized collectives and communes managed in a non-hierarchical and bottom-up through participatory direct democracy, and employing such management in both the social and economic realms (which cannot be properly separated, really), which would necessitate a libertarian socialist economy.



    I've never maintained a belief that personal possessions were "bad" in the first place, even aside from the fact that I don't usually make morality-based comments so much as efficiency-based comments.
    So, again, you advocate the the voluntary forfeiture of personal property for the sake of the common good.........

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

    Quote Originally Posted by G.I. Joe View Post
    So, again, you advocate the the voluntary forfeiture of personal property for the sake of the common good.........
    No. I never advocated the forfeiture of personal possessions; personal possessions are quite distinct from private property. In an oversimplified explanation, "private property" involves monopoly ownership and control over a resource substantive enough to employ hierarchical wage labor because others do not have access to it. Personal possessions are items (usually personal items) of a nature sufficiently trivial to not pose such a threat. For example, your watch would be a "personal possession," while a large watch factory that dominated a region would be "private property."

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •