• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which extreme is more dangerous to America?

Choose.

  • Far Left

    Votes: 35 46.7%
  • Far Right

    Votes: 40 53.3%

  • Total voters
    75
If the premise is such that the far left is dangerous to this country because of an unwillingness to confront a particular enemy, both phyically and ideologically, the irony of the situation is that it is the enemy thus ignored which embodies the most conservative agenda known. With some (and I do say SOME) wacked out leftists acting as little more than useful idiots for Islamism, such a premise might be considered as having some validity, but thankfully, extremely few, if any of these people are actually in power. One encounters them far more frequently on the internet, or in academia, but none with any real authority.

Seems to me that what is often lost in conversations such as these due to the partisan nature of the original setup is that if one does consider the differences between the far left and far right here, the end product of that which is being enabled is actually a far right ideology in either case. It only depends on WHICH right wing ideology -- that of the white supremecist/survivalist type goon or the Islamist goon. There is certainly a portion of the left too whacked out to realize much of anything, especially inasmuch that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize Islamism is virulently right wing, but there is also a portion of the right that doesn't realize that when it fights against Islamism, it is upholding LIBERAL values.

Both the far left and far right are dangerous. What I suspect here, though, is that we really aren't talking about the far left and far right, but rather the mainstream left vrs. Mainstream right. In this case, a whole different sort of conversation should ensue, especially in regards to this notion of defending the country. In this case, the mainstream left wants to defend the country more through diplomacy than raw power (carrot vrs. stick), while the right is more predisposed towads the expression of power. If people could only see that the objective here is the same, but only the methods diffrer, perhaps they would refrain from so much finger pointing.
 
Kori summed it up best.

This is picking between getting mauled by a shark or getting set on fire. The far left and the far right are both horrendous choices and neither is a good choice. I don't think either is noticably "more" dangerous to America, they're just dangerous in different ways.
 
Ignore the large contingent of secularist athiests in the FAR left that believe that religion must be abolished for reason to win out and that mention of it anywhere outside of the home should be frowned upon.

We'll not say that some on the Far left feel that kids should be taught they must experiment to find out what they're sexual preference really is and that we should allow for even wilder types of rights such as the ability to marry animals (go check out women marries dog). Yeah, that's not the mainstream left, but the far left.


They don't want 3rd term abortions allowed up to the day before the kid comes out, or government funded abortions, or anything like that...no no no, that may make them sound extreme and far and we can't have that because the far left is completely reasonable, unlike those evil rotten far right people.

Nothing about how they believe multiple industries should be ran by the government instead. Nothing about how anything bad for the environment should be extremely and completely taxed if not banned. Nothing about huge taxes on any kind of stock options. No, no no no, those are FAR to extreme to ever be included in a discussion about the FAR left.



We can't possibly say the FAR left is for banning substances that they deem "unhealthy" deciding you can't eat certain kinds of foods anymore or do certain types of activities anymore. Lets not mention the FAR left would like everyone to be forced to be on this health care, no matter their wealth or ability to own private health care, because that's what'd be most "Fair". Let us ignore that the FAR left would like to take 50% or more of some peoples income to help fund this kind of stuff. No no no, don't say anything extreme about the FAR left disney, that'd just be intellectually honest of you.




Yes, lets not say that the FAR left does not believe we should do anything militarily ever unless we're on the brink of annhiliation and even then its questionable. Lets not say that the far left would like to make it nearly impossible for the government to have a way, legal or no, to do survelliance on any modern technology communication formats.

You are wrong on several levels here Zyph.

First of all, I don't believe the Far Left is mainstream at all. Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to believe that. I have said constantly that my views are to the far left of the mainstream in this country.
I have said that I accept the fact that the Democratic party will likely be anything better than left leaning moderate. There is no chance that the Democrats will ever adopt the views that I hold because the country is much more moderate overall than my personal views.

That said....the far left does not try to confine religion to people's homes. In fact, it is liberals that have been the first to stand up and fight for the rights of individuals to practice whatever religion they want. The only thing that the far left has been vigilant on is fighting the radical right in keeping religion out of the government square...not the public square. Keeping religion out of the schools, not out of the churches. Can you give a single example of where the far left has tried to prevent a private business from placing religious icons or other aspects of religion on their property?


Where has anyone on the left argued that children should be taught to experiment or advocate for women to marry dogs. That is just another ridiculous claim and scare tactics that the far right has tried to sell America in order to manipulate their agenda.

As for third term abortions...no one on the left is out arguing that this is a good thing or that it should even be allowed without restriction. The far left has basically taken the position that third term abortions should be illegal unless it is deemed medically necessary. The far left is far from advancing an agenda that abortions should be practiced freely and recklessly. We believe that abortion should be legal but few...however, that choice should be the woman's, not the governments.

As for the economy...who on the far left is arguing for Governmental ownership of industries? Yet another lie that you try to perpetuate in your response. True, the far left does believe that companies that are bad for the environment should be regulated and that there should be incentives and penalties for those that operate in manners that hurt the environment.

As for health care....who on the far left is telling you what foods you can and cannot eat? True, there are and always have been governmental controls on substances that are deemed harmful, but your hysteria that the far left is trying to ban food is laughable.
No one on the left is trying to force anyone into government run healthcare. We strongly support a public option and ensuring that people have a choice and that people have access....oh and your 50% theory is just more hysterics. Even the most radical on the right have not tried to argue that health care would cost 50% of everyone's paycheck.

As for national defense. No one on the left believes that we should sit back until we are on the brink of inhilation....but we do have a problem with spending exhorbitant amounts on money on building weapon systems and ignoring any attempt at diplomacy and using our influence and allies to accomplish the same in more peaceful and cost effective ways.
 
Did I not imply that it not already has "worked," primarily in the Spanish Revolution and throughout the Free Territory of Ukraine? I typically refer to Gaston Leval's comments about the Spanish Revolution.

Thats nice but it was a Democracy not Socialism.

"They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life." - The Spanish Revolution: 70 Years On | Anarchist Writers

It was also only 3 years. I could say look at the success of Nazism if you only look at the first 3 years.

That said, the "human nature" comment is certainly nothing new and is more repetitive than anything else.

Repetitive in this case equals the truth of the situation.

I wish we'd see someone trying to utilize the economic calculation problem once in a while, even if it would flop right away...

Why would you want to try something that you know will fail?
 
Last edited:
Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.
Unfortunately, your conclusion is beng held up by straw men....
But that's what happens when you start with a conclusion and then create an argument to support it.
 
You are wrong on several levels here Zyph.

First of all, I don't believe the Far Left is mainstream at all. Where have I ever said anything that would cause you to believe that.

Your entire post.

The majority of what you stated as the far left are typical beliefs of the majority of left leaning people, not the extreme end of the party. On the other hand, for the far right you specifically went to the extremes, not the main stream of "the right".

Thus showing you seem to believe that what is currently rather mainstream liberalism is the far left, what is extreme conservatism is the far right, and apparently the extreme on the left side just doesn't exist to you.

For example, your claim on the religion shows an EXTREMELY FAR right view shared by a small, small minority...that ONLY evangelical Christianity is the only religion everyone is "free" to practice and that they want they want to forece the practicing of the religion on people.

Your example of "the far right" on gay marriage is stating the Right wants the government to determine/regulate who people LOVE and that they believe the government should infring upon civil rights...again, the first part is ludicrous, the second part is completely :spin: based on nothing but your opinion being painted up to be something more than its not.

On reproduction, you imply the "far right" wants goverment to control reproduction, a ludicrous notion carried only by fringe extremists.

On economics, you imply the "far right" specifically don't care if companies "exploit workers" and thinks there should be absolutely no regulation on them of any kind. Again, an extreme minority view.

On healthcare you imply the "far right" only care in regards to it is that it needs to do as much as possible to reward CEO's and share holders, again, an extreme minority view at best and a ludicrous one at worst.

All of which you contrast with extremely main stream liberal views that are propped up as "the far left". You're a hyper partisan making a pathetic point whose words are absolutely worthless. Your post is a disgrace and I'd call it a joke if it was not an insult to comedians everywhere. Paraphased is your "extreme" counter parts to what was listed above:

"Everyone is free to practice any religion"
"People can marry any one they want"
"Doctors and women make the decision on the pregnancy"
"Businesses should be able to function and make a profit, but workers should be protected"
"Every person should be able to have health care"

Yeah, read those compared to the above, and find out why everyone is likely pointing, laughing, and snickering at the thought of the fact you're actually SERIOUS about what you posted.

Those things above aren't "The Far Left" or "The Extreme" left, they're just kind of mainstream left thoughts. The things you posted on the right are extreme, if not just completely ludicrously fictious, notions spun in the most damnable language possible.

Your post, and your opinions in this thread, are crap.
 
I think extremism in any form is dangerous. I think that anyone who is going to point their finger at one side more than the other is probably doing so for partisan reasons.
 
It's an illusion to believe that there is a "far right" and a "far left".

They are both on the same side of extremity. I'm not sure if you'd label them right or left extreme.

I'd prefer to leave it at "extreme corruption".
 
Thats nice but it was a Democracy not Socialism.

All forms of socialism are democratic because socialism is necessarily based on the public ownership and management of the means of production, which requires a distinctly participatory nature. You're likely misapplying the label of "socialism" to the state capitalism of the USSR and the PRC, which is a common error.

It was also only 3 years. I could say look at the success of Nazism if you only look at the first 3 years.

Yes, that's a problematic element. But your point would be sounder if the anarchist collectives had collapsed because of internal deficiencies. However, they collapsed because of overwhelming external military aggression, including aggression from their alleged "allies" on the Republican side. So the point is thus that we know organization according to anarchist and libertarian socialist principles can work, a conclusion we likely could have reached without the experience of the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, etc., through microeconomic analysis of the performance of workers' ownership and management in the capitalist economy, since this element is at the core of socialism.

Repetitive in this case equals the truth of the situation.

I'm afraid not. Your comments on "human nature" are likely based on an assessment that involves an understanding of socialism as abandoning individual self-interest in order to "act for the collective." Unfortunately for you, this is not the case, and as to the related tiresome "objection" about incentives, compensation differentiations are maintained in a socialist economy

Why would you want to try something that you know will fail?

Almost all criticisms of socialism ultimately fail. It's simply that I'd be interested in seeing a higher level of familiarity with political economy than is typically exhibited by anti-socialists.
 
Almost all criticisms of socialism ultimately fail.

This one doesn't:

Socialism does not work, has never worked, can never work, and will never work.

Then again, naturally, one cannot have "anarchic collectives" because the existence of a collective implies the existence of agreed upon rules, which is a form of government, and hence not anarchic.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the choice between "which extreme."

Letting extremist forms of ideology get in the way of good common sense is always a bad thing. There is no "more." I don't even really see a difference.
 
This one doesn't:

Socialism does not work, has never worked, can never work, and will never work.

Replace "socialism" with "laissez-faire capitalism," and you'll have a fundamental truth there. I've already asked you several times to restrict comments about socialism to either pertinent threads (though this thread author doesn't seem to mind if his thread goes in this direction) or accept my offer to a True Debate. Then again, considering that you simply flatly ignored the description of Spanish libertarian socialism, I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with socialist political economy, and indeed, economics in general, prior to accepting such an offer. Firstly, while we examine these practical examples, I'd recommend more thorough study of the Spanish Revolution. Consider Leval's full quote.

In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . .

This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other.

It's thus always seemed tremendously ironic that professed support of libertarian socialism is depicted as naive or utopian while professed support of laissez-faire capitalism is an acceptable mainstream position in many liberal democracies, considering that the former has been implemented whereas the latter has not.

Then again, naturally, one cannot have "anarchic collectives" because the existence of a collective implies the existence of agreed upon rules, which is a form of government, and hence not anarchic.

This is an extremely basic fallacy committed by those unfamiliar with anarchism. I'd be content to explain it to you if this was the first time that you'd committed such a fallacy, but after unyielding repetition, it's admittedly growing somewhat tiresome. As previously mentioned, anarchism does not involve opposition to all forms of social and political organization, but opposition to all forms of hierarchical social and political organization, which is the basis for opposition to the centralized, hierarchical, "formal" state. Anarchists do not consider horizontal and non-hierarchical social and poltiical organization through libertarian collectives and communes to be "government." Feel free to do so if you want, but you'd simply be mired in a semantics quibble rather than substantive analysis. That said, I would challenge you to find a single major self-identified anarchist theorist or commentator who uses the terms "anarchy" or "anarchism" to mean chaos and disorder. The term in the sense I use it has always been that of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Mikhail Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, and so many others. Can you name a single anarchist book, pamphlet, or any other publication that uses the term in the sense that you do? :2wave:
 
I concur. I'm glad you've chosen to abandon your short-sighted objections to socialism.

I've never had any short sighted objections to socialism.

All my objections are based on the long view that socialism sucks, no matter which way it's looked at. A real hoover of a social theory, that one is. Who the hell in their right mind would want to be a slave? But only people who want to be slaves, or people who don't think they'll become slaves, want socialism.

Don't know about you, but I oppose slavery.
 
Don't know about you, but I oppose slavery.

I can't do anything but oppose slavery. That's why I oppose this kind of thing:

ed4a754f.png


Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Now ain't that somethin'?! :2wave:
 
I can't do anything but oppose slavery. That's why I oppose this kind of thing:

ed4a754f.png


Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Now ain't that somethin'?! :2wave:

And yet the only real success you can point out is a system that lasted what? 3 years?

I said I am not going to debate this and I am not.

It does not work, period.
 
Last edited:
Oh come off it, you're as bad as DisneyDude with this bull****. You're not talking about the far left here but just "left wing" people


Really? So all the Left-Wing DESPISES capitalism? Cause I know a great deal of left leaning people that positively believe we should remain capitalistic. They all despise individual liberty? I know a great deal that feel very strongly for it, a number of them on this site who are supporters of the 2nd amendment. That bull**** you spewed above was nothing but hyper partisan tripe and frankly you and Disney are more the same then you'd likely want to admit.

Why don't you take a minute from that "hyper-partisan" crap, and re-read what I wrote? (FTR, I don't use Marxist terminology to describe freedom, so the euphemisms "Capitalist/capitalism" hardly ever emanates from my keyboard.)

Sure, some may identify with the left & still be in favor 2nd amendment and many other individual rights. That doesn't mean the the political left identifies the same individual liberties. They simply do not. For the most part the political left is against the 2nd amendment, State's rights, limited government, original intent in interpreting the Constitution, free-market capitalism and individual liberty. (the latter being a fallacy if there is a system absent of the ability for a cash payment to be exchanged for a good or service). I'm sure you are aware of that.

Disney and I have a lot in common if he believes that the role of the federal Government is clearly laid out in the Constitution & that anything that isn't in the Constitution is left up to the States and the people. He and I are a lot alike if he believes that the power is too centralized, with too much unchecked authority - bearing a stark resemblance to the Washington DC that people like Thomas Jefferson warned about. Disney and I are a lot alike if he believes that charity isn't a function of government and the most government should do is provide a temporary safety-net. He and I agree if he thinks it is the highest corruption to expand the public dole to create a future voting constituency. Dis and I agree if he thinks that the Constitution is a tool to limit the power of government.
 
I can't do anything but oppose slavery. That's why I oppose this kind of thing:

ed4a754f.png


Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Now ain't that somethin'?! :2wave:

LMFAO

Yeah, we're all "forced" to be "slaves". Pahlease. In this country, if you don't like what you're getting paid, you go somewhere else. If you don't like your job, you find another one. And, if you don't like working for someone else, you start your own business. How in the world you can compare that to "slavery" is beyond me.
 
And yet the only real success you can point out is a system that lasted what? 3 years?

No, I also pointed to the Free Territory of Ukraine and the Paris Commune, and expanding somewhat, should also mention the Israeli kibbutzim, the municipalities of Chiapas still under the control of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, the autonomous Shinmin region of Manchuria, the successes of workers' management in Yugoslavia, the successes of workers' ownership and management in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation of the Basque region of Spain, and the successes of workers' ownership and management in general, which are integral elements in the formation of enterprises superior to the orthodox capitalist firm and would be at the core of the libertarian socialist economy.

I said I am not going to debate this and I am not.

It does not work, period.

Actually, I provided an example of its successful implementation that involved millions of people, and you dismissed it because it was eventually destabilized by overwhelming military force rather than collapsing because of internal deficiencies. :shrug:

LMFAO

Yeah, we're all "forced" to be "slaves". Pahlease. In this country, if you don't like what you're getting paid, you go somewhere else. If you don't like your job, you find another one.

Freedom is somewhat more expansive than the mere ability to choose a specific master, and your "defense" (even if it was entirely correct, which it isn't) merely addresses the issue of transition between different agents that employ wage labor in the capitalist economy rather than liberation from the hierarchical structures of wage labor altogether. For example, if there were an island chain of monarchies each ruled by a different king and transition between these island chains but not outside of them was an available option, it would be merely disingenuous to claim that this freedom of transition provided freedom from monarchical authoritarianism. Similarly, it would also be disingenuous to claim that people in China or Saudi Arabia or any other authoritarian country are "free" because they have some degree of mobility rights. Lastly, you imply that quitting a job and getting a new one is a seemingly effortless task. But that's not the case, because a sufficiently high rate of equilibrium unemployment is utilized in the capitalist economy to effectively "scare workers straight." For example, we have Shapiro and Stiglitz's Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device:

[T]o induce its workers not to shirk, the firm attempt to pay more than the going wage; then, if a worker is caught shirking and he is fired, he will pay a penalty. If it pays one firm to raise its wage, however, it will pay all firms to raise their wages. When they all raise their wages, the incentive not to shirk again disappears. But as all firms raise their wages, their demand for labor decreases, and unemployment results. With unemployment, even if all firms pay the same wages, a worker has an incentive not to shirk. For, if he is fired, an individual will not immediately obtain another job. The equilibrium unemployment rate must be sufficiently high that it pays workers to work rather than to take the risk of being caught shirking.

So since a certain rate of equilibrium unemployment is necessary as a negative incentive to ensure effort extraction, it's not really correct to claim that workers can just switch jobs at will.

And, if you don't like working for someone else, you start your own business.

Unfortunately, that's reliant on a somewhat utopian conception of capitalism. In reality, we have the factors of wealth and market concentration to deal with (which is why so many new start-ups fail), as well as the limited social mobility that exists in the U.S. and in other countries that prevents the majority of the working class from accumulating sufficient financial means to "start [his or her] own business." When we consider the fact that most aggregate capital accumulation is built upon intergenerational transfers (i.e. inheritance), things grow even more complicated.

How in the world you can compare that to "slavery" is beyond me.

It's simply a matter of a libertarian objection to the authoritarian and hierarchical structure in the workplace that would be condemned as such were it manifested through the vessel of a state as well as the conditions that compel workers to accept such an arrangement. Those conditions are characterized by inequivalent power between laborers and employers that subject the former to a greater degree of coercive influence (recalling what work and subsequent subordination in the workplace is an effective necessity). As noted by Adam Smith, "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate," and as noted somewhat more complexly by Alfred Marshall, "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely related groups of facts that labor power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market." Then consider the observation of Sidney and Beatrice Webb:

[T]he manual worker is, from his position and training, far less skilled than the employer...in the art of bargaining itself. This art forms a large part of the daily life of the entrepreneur, whilst the foreman is specially selected for his skill in engaging and superintending workmen. The manual worker, on the contrary, has the smallest experience of, and practically no training in, what is essentially one of the arts of the capitalist employer. He never engages in any but one sort of bargaining, and that only on occasions which may be infrequent, and which in any case make up only a tiny fraction of his life.

I would complement that with the political scientist Robert Dahl's explanation of influence terms, which rage from rational persuasion to manipulative persuasion to inducement to power to coercion to physical force. Considering the numerous disadvantages of the working class in terms of their sustenance reserve, their lesser skills of negotiation that have been bred by the capitalist economy, the role of equilibrium unemployment in serving as a threatening influence to ensure effort extraction, and the role of extraction of surplus labor and subordination under hierarchical authority in the workplace itself, it seems absurd to suggest that workers are not subject to one of the more negative forms of influence, such as "power" or "coercion." The consistent libertarian will condemn such influence terms.
 
That's like saying would you rather die by electrocution or lethal injection. Either way, you're still dead!

In the past (60's), the far left has been known to get violent. But in recent years, the real violent domestic terrorists are on the far-right. In fact, they're so far out there, I'm not even sure its fair to call them right.

Pro-Life is a conservative 'right' position.

ELF and the environment is 'left' position.

Sure the pro-environment movement in the extreme has lead to the loss or property. And getting doused in paint by Peta certainly ruins a night out, however... when you're talking about shooting people dead because you disagree with them, the far-right (in past 2 decades anyway) has the body count.

I would not call Timothy McVeigh left or right, nor would I call the Unabomber left or right. These extremes have to be defined as Anti-establishment, anti-American. They believe in nothing except themselves and their own limited world view.
 
--
ed4a754f.png


Wage slavery. The economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme in which the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation")

I would agree if the only way that capital venture could flourish was from wealthy private individuals starting up companies directly or through secondary agents (bankrolling their kids start-up or on the stock market) but there are many examples of successful companies started up by people with little or no wealth behind them.

Ironically, you could even count the free software / open source movement as a success story that has benefited from existing under a capitalist world.

-- consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus value from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation.

That's one way of looking at the process - I believe humans tend to show reward based behaviour. Few people would put themselves through the stress of starting up their own capitalist venture without promise of some form of reward and equally few people would submit their services to a company or business without promise of some form of reward.

Where I do disagree with most people who hold views such as yours is when we consider incentivisation - the last person I discussed such ideologies with (on another forum) couldn't get past the fact that without incentives (i.e. genetic: leaving a legacy to their children or family or financial: the financial reward of making their life better or challenge: the sheer challenge to be the best in your field) then many people wouldn't bother starting up businesses.

I couldn't agree with him that people would simply go through the stress and strain of starting up a company / production facility simply to see the rewards or incentives go elsewhere. A true socialist might see something wrong with someone like Bill Gates leaving a huge fortune to his children who would then have a huge advantage over anyone else if they wanted to run their own business (A great example here in the UK is Paul McCartney's talentless daughter Stella McCartney - her success is based on her father bankrolling her ventures and her hiring better designers she can sign her name to) but then without the capitalist framework that allowed Bill Gates to create his software company we might not have the Windows company itself.

Simply put - take away incentives and people don't get out the front door to change the world.
 
It's like a bully giving you a choice of being punched with his left fist or his right... They are not opposite extremes, just two flavors of socialism - I reject both of them.

The extreme I favor is the very top of the Nolan Chart - complete individual liberty.
 
Last edited:
Your entire post.

The majority of what you stated as the far left are typical beliefs of the majority of left leaning people, not the extreme end of the party. On the other hand, for the far right you specifically went to the extremes, not the main stream of "the right".

Thus showing you seem to believe that what is currently rather mainstream liberalism is the far left, what is extreme conservatism is the far right, and apparently the extreme on the left side just doesn't exist to you.

If what you post is correct, then I am happy to say that I guess rather than being "far left" I am mainstream left and more in line with the majority of the country. That is very encouraging.
 
Sure, some may identify with the left & still be in favor 2nd amendment and many other individual rights. That doesn't mean the the political left identifies the same individual liberties. They simply do not. For the most part the political left is against the 2nd amendment, State's rights, limited government, original intent in interpreting the Constitution, free-market capitalism and individual liberty. (the latter being a fallacy if there is a system absent of the ability for a cash payment to be exchanged for a good or service). I'm sure you are aware of that.

As a solid liberal and member of "the left", I find your argument that the left is against individual liberties as a whole rather remarkable. Seriously, you don't generally see the left being opposed to a woman's right to choose, religious freedom in public institutions (religious freedom in general), privacy issues, marriage equality, etc. I think you are simply trying to paint the left as being un-American and unrealistic, and the way to do that is to label them as a political group who prefers less individual liberties than conservatives. You cite the second amendment as your source for this. While this issue is one where conservatives as a whole support moreso than liberals, all of the individual liberties I mentioned above aren't threatened by liberals. They're threatened by conservatives.

If anything, liberals as a whole want more individual liberties, not less. You're accusing Zyphlin of being hyper-partisan in his rhetoric, yet what he said is pretty much dead-on. All I heard from you in two posts thus far is how liberals stand against individual liberties, yet you fail to acknowledge the shortcomings of conservatives as a whole when it comes to those exact same liberties. I'd say if anyone is being hyper-partisan on this thread, it isn't Zyphlin.
 
Back
Top Bottom