• 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
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:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.........
 
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."
 
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."
And where does personal profit fit into the grand scheme of things here, or is that eradicated?
 
And where does personal profit fit into the grand scheme of things here, or is that eradicated?

You'll have to define "personal profit" far more concretely if you expect a sound answer to that. Libertarian socialist theory doesn't necessitate the elimination of competitive market exchange, for one thing. Indeed, because of the conditions of wealth and market concentration in the capitalist economy, the market socialist economy is able to maximize legitimately competitive market enterprises through the elimination of monopolistic and more broadly oligopolistic conditions. However, I personally advocate communist economic structure, since I believe that markets are inefficient allocation devices that are outmatched by decentralized participatory economic planning.
 
You'll have to define "personal profit" far more concretely if you expect a sound answer to that. Libertarian socialist theory doesn't necessitate the elimination of competitive market exchange, for one thing. Indeed, because of the conditions of wealth and market concentration in the capitalist economy, the market socialist economy is able to maximize legitimately competitive market enterprises through the elimination of monopolistic and more broadly oligopolistic conditions. However, I personally advocate communist economic structure, since I believe that markets are inefficient allocation devices that are outmatched by decentralized participatory economic planning.
That's a very interesting theory. I want to do some more research on it before I form an opinion.
 
That's a very interesting theory. I want to do some more research on it before I form an opinion.

Try Peter Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles for a specific summary of anarchist communism, of course and the far more expansive An Anarchist FAQ for a far broader examination of anarchism and libertarian socialism as a whole. Anyway, I'm glad to see that your interest on this political message board seems to be learning rather than merely "winning" even when maintaining a fallacious position, as some have an excessive focus on. :)
 
Try Peter Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles for a specific summary of anarchist communism, of course and the far more expansive An Anarchist FAQ for a far broader examination of anarchism and libertarian socialism as a whole. Anyway, I'm glad to see that your interest on this political message board seems to be learning rather than merely "winning" even when maintaining a fallacious position, as some have an excessive focus on. :)
Well, I must admit that I am very pro-capitalist and very free market minded, however I try to give everything a fair shake, so as to at least have an informed understanding of both sides of the spectrum.

As far as the whole "winning" thing, I can't remember a time when I saw someone concede that their point had been defeated, so it's a futile venture in my eyes.
 
hmmm...lets see:

Religion: The Far Left believes that everyone should be free to practice whatever religion they choose...in their homes and in their churches. The Far Right believes that everyone is free to practice evangelical Christianity and that includes forcing the government to include it even in non-religious functions.

Gay Rights: The Far left believes that individuals should have the right to marry the one they love and that no one should be denied basic human rights based on sexual orientation.
The far left believes that the government should regulate who people can love and marry and believe that the government should help enforce infringements on civil rights.

Reproductive Freedom: The Far left believes that the choice to terminate a pregnancy should be made by the mother and her physician. The Far left believes that the Government is in the best position to make that decision.

Economics: The Far left believes that companies that enact policies that benefit American workers should receive incentives for doing so. They believe that companies should be able to make a profit, but not off exploiting the workforce.
The Far right believes that companies should be able to make as much profit as they can, even if it comes at the expense of exploiting workers. Companies are in the best position to regulate themselves because they are inherently "good-willed".

Healthcare: The far left believes that a country as rich as America can find a way to ensure that every citizen is entitled to basic healthcare.
The far right believes that insurance companies and hospitals should remain "for profit" industries and should try to make as much profit as they can to reward their CEO's and shareholders.

National Security: The far left believe that we should never forfeit our way of life and our values in order to achieve a false sense of security. If we allow terrorists to change our way of life, we have lost our soul as a country.
The far right believe that we should forfeit our values, give government more power over citizen's and change our values and way of life to become more like our enemies so that we can fight them on their playing field.

Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.
 
Well, I must admit that I am very pro-capitalist and very free market minded, however I try to give everything a fair shake, so as to at least have an informed understanding of both sides of the spectrum.

But do you realize that free markets haven't existed, and minimally restricted markets haven't existed in an industrialized economy? Presently existing capitalism was built on the basis of state protectionist and interventionist policies, not laissez-faire principles.

As far as the whole "winning" thing, I can't remember a time when I saw someone concede that their point had been defeated, so it's a futile venture in my eyes.

I've done it and had others say the same to me. Ultimately, I don't think it shows moral or intellectual weakness as much as obstinately maintaining a false belief in the face of reason does.
 
Both.

They both tend to end up as dictatorships or something equally stupid.

The most danger comes from a two party system where the parties involved are basically the same. We end up with no choice and more of the same.

In the end we really do have the government we as a people and nation deserve.
 
hmmm...lets see:

Religion: The Far Left believes that everyone should be free to practice whatever religion they choose...in their homes and in their churches. The Far Right believes that everyone is free to practice evangelical Christianity and that includes forcing the government to include it even in non-religious functions.

Gay Rights: The Far left believes that individuals should have the right to marry the one they love and that no one should be denied basic human rights based on sexual orientation.
The far left believes that the government should regulate who people can love and marry and believe that the government should help enforce infringements on civil rights.

Reproductive Freedom: The Far left believes that the choice to terminate a pregnancy should be made by the mother and her physician. The Far left believes that the Government is in the best position to make that decision.

Economics: The Far left believes that companies that enact policies that benefit American workers should receive incentives for doing so. They believe that companies should be able to make a profit, but not off exploiting the workforce.
The Far right believes that companies should be able to make as much profit as they can, even if it comes at the expense of exploiting workers. Companies are in the best position to regulate themselves because they are inherently "good-willed".

Healthcare: The far left believes that a country as rich as America can find a way to ensure that every citizen is entitled to basic healthcare.
The far right believes that insurance companies and hospitals should remain "for profit" industries and should try to make as much profit as they can to reward their CEO's and shareholders.

National Security: The far left believe that we should never forfeit our way of life and our values in order to achieve a false sense of security. If we allow terrorists to change our way of life, we have lost our soul as a country.
The far right believe that we should forfeit our values, give government more power over citizen's and change our values and way of life to become more like our enemies so that we can fight them on their playing field.

Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.
Reproductive freedom? LOL........Is that what you're calling it now? Wow.......
 
Both.

They both tend to end up as dictatorships or something equally stupid.

Linear political spectrum, again. But of course, we've never seen libertarian socialism degenerate into dictatorship, since it's based on "voluntary collectivism at [a] regional level with no state involved," and we have seen its implementation, since, "[h]undreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period."
 
Linear political spectrum, again. But of course, we've never seen libertarian socialism degenerate into dictatorship, since it's based on "voluntary collectivism at [a] regional level with no state involved," and we have seen its implementation, since, "[h]undreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period."

It will not work. I am not going to debate it as it is only my opinion. I will say one of the reasons it will not work is human nature and the quest for power.
 
Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.

You mean what you are considering the far right's views are the very things that have made this country the great country that it has been.

And profit (Greed), while I agree it can be something that leads to alot of problems it is also something that will motivate people far more then anything else.

I feel both the far right and the far left are equally dangerous. However I believe that the far left is gaining more and more popularity and acceptance. So I will have to say the left is slightly more threatening at this time due to this.
 
Quite the easy question.

The American far-right is more dangerous to the word and less dangerous to America, while the American far-left is more dangerous to America and less dangerous to the world.

If the question is about what's more dangerous to America, then it's obviously the Far-Left.
Unless you don't ask what's dangerous to America's existence, but rather to America's values... and in that case I'll still go with the Far-left.
 
It will not work. I am not going to debate it as it is only my opinion. I will say one of the reasons it will not work is human nature and the quest for power.


When an ideology is sold as one where humans must disregard their own human nature and act in a "new" way, then you know that ideology is DOA.
 
From what you've just said, you seem to be more moderate than anything else. You surely don't seem further left than PrezBo. You'd have to go to Berkeley to find that.

Then I can't believe you have ever listened to anything he's ever said. There is no such beast as a far left president.
 
FTR there is no such thing as the "right wing".

There are those who believe in the concept of limited Government, State's rights, originalism, individual liberty & free-markets, then there is the left-wing who despises all of that.

We weren't the "right wing" until the progressive era came along and the Government/central planning became the savior of all humanity.
 
FTR there is no such thing as the "right wing".

There are those who believe in the concept of limited Government, State's rights, originalism, individual liberty & free-markets, then there is the left-wing who despises all of that.

We weren't the "right wing" until the progressive era came along and the Government/central planning became the savior of all humanity.

This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read. Are you seriously going to try to argue that the right-wing with its big brother/big government policies related to their social conservative agenda is the party of limted government?
:spin::spin::spin:

If by "limited government" you meant to say "enormous governmental control", then I guess you were right.
 
It will not work. I am not going to debate it as it is only my opinion. I will say one of the reasons it will not work is human nature and the quest for power.

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.

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.

That said, the "human nature" comment is certainly nothing new and is more repetitive than anything else. I wish we'd see someone trying to utilize the economic calculation problem once in a while, even if it would flop right away...
 
FTR there is no such thing as the "right wing".

There are those who believe in the concept of limited Government, State's rights, originalism, individual liberty & free-markets, then there is the left-wing who despises all of that.

You had me up until "originalism" (which needs more explanation) and "individual liberty". If you're going to make a blanket statment like that, then you'd better start explaining why liberals are the ones who certainly seem to support individual liberties much more often than conservatives. One has to look no further than the topics of abortion rights, keeping forced prayer out of schools and institutions (indeed, keeping religion out of state institutions to begin with), freedom of marriage, censorship, and privacy. The list can go on, but I can think of very few topics beyond second amendment rights where conservatives clearly support "individual liberties" moreso than liberals.

I respect their right not to have an abortion, yet that respect is not returned if me and my girlfriend have one. I respect their strong belief in the institution of Christianity and i'm happy that they found comfort in that belief, but I don't believe, but that respect isn't returned when I say that i'd prefer to have my public institutions secular (seriously, we have God on our money, our motto, and there are churches everywhere. How much more "God this" and "Jesus that" do we need?). I respect their right to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and since they believe that, they should marry someone of the opposite sex. I believe that marriage should include same-sex couples, yet that respect is not returned if a same-sex couple wants to have equal recognition for their marriage. There's more, but you're getting the point. It's a total falsehood that liberals despise "individual liberties" - quite the opposite. The very term "liberal" should tell you that.
 
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

If you're going to put it in quotes and attribute to him, at least get the quote right. You missed a vital word in your paraphase.

"Those who would give up essentialliberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

First, essential is a bit of importance there. Second, it seems to at least acknowledge that if there is a disparity in regards to the amount of safety earned in exchange for the limiting of liberty that it may not apply.

hmmm...lets see:

Religion: The Far Left believes that everyone should be free to practice whatever religion they choose...in their homes and in their churches. The Far Right believes that everyone is free to practice evangelical Christianity and that includes forcing the government to include it even in non-religious functions.

Ahhh, good to see DisneyDude out in his true hyper partisan ways. Remember folks "the far left" is mainstream left to Disney and "The far right" is as extreme as possible.

So the FAR left just wants everyoen free to practice whatever they want. 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. That'd make the far left sound as extreme as the far right, and god we can't have THAT now can we Disney!?

Gay Rights: The Far left believes that individuals should have the right to marry the one they love and that no one should be denied basic human rights based on sexual orientation.
The far left believes that the government should regulate who people can love and marry and believe that the government should help enforce infringements on civil rights.

Oh look, Disney does it again. Who'd have EVER imagined. The Far left just wants poeple to get married and have human rights. 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.

Reproductive Freedom: The Far left believes that the choice to terminate a pregnancy should be made by the mother and her physician. The Far left believes that the Government is in the best position to make that decision

I just can't believe it, Disney's being a hyper partisan hack AGAIN here. Wow, who'd have imagined. So the FAR left just wants women and her doctor to make the choice. 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.

Economics: The Far left believes that companies that enact policies that benefit American workers should receive incentives for doing so. They believe that companies should be able to make a profit, but not off exploiting the workforce.
The Far right believes that companies should be able to make as much profit as they can, even if it comes at the expense of exploiting workers. Companies are in the best position to regulate themselves because they are inherently "good-willed".

Another huuuuuge surprise here. Yes, the FAR left just believes in incentives, that's it. Nothing about believing they should forcefully legislate how much employees, from the bottom to the top, are. 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.

Healthcare: The far left believes that a country as rich as America can find a way to ensure that every citizen is entitled to basic healthcare.
The far right believes that insurance companies and hospitals should remain "for profit" industries and should try to make as much profit as they can to reward their CEO's and shareholders.

Yes, yes that's exactly it. The FAR left is just here to make sure everyone has healthcare. YIPPPE! We're All Healthy! 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.

National Security: The far left believe that we should never forfeit our way of life and our values in order to achieve a false sense of security. If we allow terrorists to change our way of life, we have lost our soul as a country.
The far right believe that we should forfeit our values, give government more power over citizen's and change our values and way of life to become more like our enemies so that we can fight them on their playing field.


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.

Yeah....I would say the far right is much more dangerous to the values of America.

Excuse me a moment Disney. There was something stated later on in this thread that is appropriate for that utter and completely disgusting, hyper partisan, absolutely worthless trash that you call your opinion up above.

:spin::spin::spin:

FTR there is no such thing as the "right wing".

There are those who believe in the concept of limited Government, State's rights, originalism, individual liberty & free-markets, then there is the left-wing who despises all of that.

We weren't the "right wing" until the progressive era came along and the Government/central planning became the savior of all humanity.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom