This definition of left and right is done deliberately. The media finds things in a population where the working classes will be in disagreement (eg the various culture war things, treatment of migrants, abotion rights or brexit) and focus all the discourse over this to funnel voters into polictical parties that actually agree on anything of signifcance (eg who should own the means of production in an economy, whether we should have such inequality, foreign policy, workers rights etc)
It's a pretty clever manipulation to ensure the working class is always fighting each other and never organised to achieve their common interests and ultimately the oligarchy that controls both polictical parties (along with all the media) wins every time.
It's amazing to think that in 2015 how dissapointed i was when labour lost the election. 9 years on I probably won't even bother to stay up to watch their impending landslide!
Absolutely. And Labour under Ed Milliband wasn't even that much of a threat! Labour have been completely house broken with *ugh* Starmer. You only have to look at how the entire media and even elements in the Labour Party went along with the Corbyn antisemitism allegations to see how afraid they are of someone prepared to actually stand up for things like the NHS
You know those hardcore communists who have always said that all American (and by extension, European puppet) politicians and political parties are right-wing, just that some are a little more right-wing and some are a little less right-wing? Over the last two-three years I started to realize they were right.
"It would be nice if we could get over these labels, but unfortunately labelling is an essential human trait"
That's easy, you are neither left or right, you are a 'statist'. Your believe that centralized power in the operation of key facets of everybody's life is a good thing. State power is coercion. All of the "good things" the state does is with the barrel of a gun pointed at your head. All these groups and all their tags and labels fall under the category of 'statist' as they all want big government to "fix" things in their worldview of "the common good". You're still young, you'll understand one day that If it isn't voluntary, it's slavery and that all taxation is theft.
I always wonder how people who describe themselves as non-statists imagine society functioning without services like a police force or a fire department, funded by taxation. If you could choose not to pay for those services and you did choose not to pay for them, what would you do if your house was robbed or caught fire? Or if your neighbour's house caught fire and he wasn't paying for the fire service? It works out better for everyone if everyone is entitled to these services, but for that to work everyone has to contribute - what's the alternative that non-statists are proposing?
Excellent question, and one often asked by those unfamiliar with small government advocates. We often hear this described as "What about meh roads?" and sure enough there is a lot more to it than just 'who would 'pay' for these roads. Without going into too much detail here (perhaps I'll write something on this later) the current situation is 'road socialism' where a 'public' thoroughfare, often established by confiscating other peoples property, is provided to the 'public' and these people drive their cars over these routes establishing new neighborhoods and businesses until the road becomes outstripped and more 'improvements' are deemed 'necessary' by confiscating more land and money (taxes) until that improvement becomes outstripped and the process repeats creating super-cities (death mazes), pollution and crime whilst consuming more property and money. But... what if this was instead all voluntary and the property owners didn't yield to the voracious appetite of the state such as the Amish where they have the healthiest lifestyle and pollution free areas on earth? And what if people lived in harmony with nature and their neighbors through voluntary association? If you're an asshat and treat your neighbor poorly, you don't get to trade with him or cross his property! Again, this is WAY too simplified an explanation, but just think of the paradigm we have now and what USED TO BE the norm. Before 1913, all roads and most schools, fire suppression and policing were voluntary and privately held in the US. The introduction of the FED, WWI and Woodrow Wilson put an end to that.
I really appreciate you asking a rational question instead of the usual normie reaction of jumping down my throat and denouncing me without discussion.
I asked some very clear questions and you didn't answer any of them, so please don't go telling me that I'm young and I need to grow up to understand these wishy-washy ideas about ownership and the Fed and whatever
Oh, so sorry, I thought you were concerned about the dystopian end-of-empire nightmare these super-sized governments have built. My bad, obviously I don't belong here. I'm out. The world is devolving into an Atlas Shrugged novel, please enjoy your neo-feudal tyrannical future.
You still didn't answer my sincere and straightforward questions. Who would 'volunteer' not to be protected by the police, apart from someone with their own private militia? And people who can't afford to pay the police or fire service just don't get police or fire protection? That sounds more like a neofeudal dystopia to me. Paying taxes might not be fun, but in a properly functioning state you do actually get something for your money, and one of those things is the knowledge that everyone is protected, not just you personally.
I'm maybe not the best at communication, so let me put a finer point on my words. People do not need a big government superstructure to survive and thrive, in fact they're death traps!. I again point out the Amish. If you aren't familiar, they have no need for a massive police force as their voluntary society is through the church and the code of conduct expected of the faithful. If you are a dickweed, you will be ousted from the society by others refusing to interact with you. In a large-size secular society, no matter how depraved you are, people are forced to accept you, house you and feed you creating a welfare state where everyone depends upon daddy government to provide.
At least the small towns are great. Without coercion people pitch in. I was a volunteer firefighter and coastal water rescue captain for many years. We kept the fire suppressed and people pulled from the drink, all with no pay. Equipment paid for by donations and grants. We did have the pigs, but they were mostly a hinderance. Private municipalities exist too in private communities with their own fire and security.
Explaining all this would take pages, my friend.
I would kindly like to suggest reading Hayek, Mises or Rothbard to give you an idea of how a non-coercive society would function. If you haven't read the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, well, I submit you may want to check it out. It is a tome t 1,100 pages, but the writing is great and the plot leaves most people changed for life.
This definition of left and right is done deliberately. The media finds things in a population where the working classes will be in disagreement (eg the various culture war things, treatment of migrants, abotion rights or brexit) and focus all the discourse over this to funnel voters into polictical parties that actually agree on anything of signifcance (eg who should own the means of production in an economy, whether we should have such inequality, foreign policy, workers rights etc)
It's a pretty clever manipulation to ensure the working class is always fighting each other and never organised to achieve their common interests and ultimately the oligarchy that controls both polictical parties (along with all the media) wins every time.
It's amazing to think that in 2015 how dissapointed i was when labour lost the election. 9 years on I probably won't even bother to stay up to watch their impending landslide!
Absolutely. And Labour under Ed Milliband wasn't even that much of a threat! Labour have been completely house broken with *ugh* Starmer. You only have to look at how the entire media and even elements in the Labour Party went along with the Corbyn antisemitism allegations to see how afraid they are of someone prepared to actually stand up for things like the NHS
You know those hardcore communists who have always said that all American (and by extension, European puppet) politicians and political parties are right-wing, just that some are a little more right-wing and some are a little less right-wing? Over the last two-three years I started to realize they were right.
Or should I say... left.
:p
"It would be nice if we could get over these labels, but unfortunately labelling is an essential human trait"
That's easy, you are neither left or right, you are a 'statist'. Your believe that centralized power in the operation of key facets of everybody's life is a good thing. State power is coercion. All of the "good things" the state does is with the barrel of a gun pointed at your head. All these groups and all their tags and labels fall under the category of 'statist' as they all want big government to "fix" things in their worldview of "the common good". You're still young, you'll understand one day that If it isn't voluntary, it's slavery and that all taxation is theft.
I always wonder how people who describe themselves as non-statists imagine society functioning without services like a police force or a fire department, funded by taxation. If you could choose not to pay for those services and you did choose not to pay for them, what would you do if your house was robbed or caught fire? Or if your neighbour's house caught fire and he wasn't paying for the fire service? It works out better for everyone if everyone is entitled to these services, but for that to work everyone has to contribute - what's the alternative that non-statists are proposing?
Excellent question, and one often asked by those unfamiliar with small government advocates. We often hear this described as "What about meh roads?" and sure enough there is a lot more to it than just 'who would 'pay' for these roads. Without going into too much detail here (perhaps I'll write something on this later) the current situation is 'road socialism' where a 'public' thoroughfare, often established by confiscating other peoples property, is provided to the 'public' and these people drive their cars over these routes establishing new neighborhoods and businesses until the road becomes outstripped and more 'improvements' are deemed 'necessary' by confiscating more land and money (taxes) until that improvement becomes outstripped and the process repeats creating super-cities (death mazes), pollution and crime whilst consuming more property and money. But... what if this was instead all voluntary and the property owners didn't yield to the voracious appetite of the state such as the Amish where they have the healthiest lifestyle and pollution free areas on earth? And what if people lived in harmony with nature and their neighbors through voluntary association? If you're an asshat and treat your neighbor poorly, you don't get to trade with him or cross his property! Again, this is WAY too simplified an explanation, but just think of the paradigm we have now and what USED TO BE the norm. Before 1913, all roads and most schools, fire suppression and policing were voluntary and privately held in the US. The introduction of the FED, WWI and Woodrow Wilson put an end to that.
I really appreciate you asking a rational question instead of the usual normie reaction of jumping down my throat and denouncing me without discussion.
I asked some very clear questions and you didn't answer any of them, so please don't go telling me that I'm young and I need to grow up to understand these wishy-washy ideas about ownership and the Fed and whatever
Oh, so sorry, I thought you were concerned about the dystopian end-of-empire nightmare these super-sized governments have built. My bad, obviously I don't belong here. I'm out. The world is devolving into an Atlas Shrugged novel, please enjoy your neo-feudal tyrannical future.
You still didn't answer my sincere and straightforward questions. Who would 'volunteer' not to be protected by the police, apart from someone with their own private militia? And people who can't afford to pay the police or fire service just don't get police or fire protection? That sounds more like a neofeudal dystopia to me. Paying taxes might not be fun, but in a properly functioning state you do actually get something for your money, and one of those things is the knowledge that everyone is protected, not just you personally.
Hey Alistair,
I'm maybe not the best at communication, so let me put a finer point on my words. People do not need a big government superstructure to survive and thrive, in fact they're death traps!. I again point out the Amish. If you aren't familiar, they have no need for a massive police force as their voluntary society is through the church and the code of conduct expected of the faithful. If you are a dickweed, you will be ousted from the society by others refusing to interact with you. In a large-size secular society, no matter how depraved you are, people are forced to accept you, house you and feed you creating a welfare state where everyone depends upon daddy government to provide.
At least the small towns are great. Without coercion people pitch in. I was a volunteer firefighter and coastal water rescue captain for many years. We kept the fire suppressed and people pulled from the drink, all with no pay. Equipment paid for by donations and grants. We did have the pigs, but they were mostly a hinderance. Private municipalities exist too in private communities with their own fire and security.
Explaining all this would take pages, my friend.
I would kindly like to suggest reading Hayek, Mises or Rothbard to give you an idea of how a non-coercive society would function. If you haven't read the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, well, I submit you may want to check it out. It is a tome t 1,100 pages, but the writing is great and the plot leaves most people changed for life.