i understand that. i am saying that your view of the political spectrum, of right and left, is flawed and inadequate. it is taught in poli 101 to engineering majors that dont care, so they never have to think about it again. it inaccurately equates personal freedoms, inasmuch as they oppose collectivism, with right wing fascism by placing libertarians and small government conservatives on the same side with fascists. in reality, the small government conservative is equally opposed to fascism and communism. he is in favor of the opposite of both, because they are the same. i agree. but i think your big government policies are crazy extreme. i think the current state of things is extreme and oppressive. i think people are too eager to describe whatever their current state is as "moderate" merely because it is the status quo. i think they lack perspective and are too influenced by their particular time and mindset. yunno, their zeitgeist, mein freund. if you lived under both i doubt you would see much difference. either way, you arent making decisions for yourself. you could lie to yourself if you were communist, and think "this is a workers party, power to the people! i am in control, wheeee!" but you would surely still be bowing down to a dictator of some sort. there is really no such thing as communism in practice. the power is not in the hands of the "community" as the name implies. it is a lie, a trick to get you to keep from questioning your dictator. for example, castro isnt really the people's leader. he is effectively fascist. don't believe him when he says he is for the people. he is tricky. the power is not in the hands of the people. i am not an anarchist either, because in practice anarchy=chaos, and chaos means people trample each other's freedoms. we need a little government (but not too much!) to keep things in balance. everybody loves balance.
exactly. that is a flawed model. some people do not fit on the scale. to place them anywhere only misrepresents them. the way to look it at the political spectrum is to define it in terms of central control vs individual control. total freedom, anarchy at one end, with total control at the other end, statism, totalitarianism. it doesnt matter if the controller calls himself a national socialist or a dictator or a communist voice for the people. he keeps his authority over you just the same. the old "left-right" model is inadequate for any discussion involving anyone over 10 years old.
martin has the patience to essentially type out my exact understanding of the political spectrum. This gets back to my earlier point that the big picture, i.e. an objective look at the role and purpose of government, is entirely missed in modern elections. People can't seem to agree on that, largely due to ignorance or indifference, and as such, we're left debating marginal topics like abortion, public smoking, race-based analysis, etc.
i agree entirely with that too. instead of practical analysis of what is important, which in my estimation is: 1. economic freedom 2. strong defense and national security 3. separation of church and state 4. everything else people tend to think in terms of how they like to think of themselves. they care about what they think a person they want to be cares about. not what actually matters. anecdote: a friend of mine and i were talking about who we would vote for last presidential election. we talked about taxes and defense and finally he came to the conclusion: "i think i will vote democrat becaue they are not jerks regarding gay rights". and this makes me weep, and i know he says it partially because there was a girl in the room and he wants to seem like a kind fellow. and that kind of thinkiing always frustrates me. so many of the issues that get the most airtime are total non-issues, and are primarily vehicles for people to define themselves.
Nonsense. A poltical spectrum of right and left is widely accepted and understood and has stood the test of time. A balance point can always be found. Fringe elements don't always fit the model, obviously. They don't fit much anywhere, sir. No equilibrium. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. -- John Lennon on acid I don't have any big government policies, I advocate balanced government policies. Again you confuse moderate positions with something else and imagine the reasoning behind them instead of listening. Moderate simply means "not extreme" and is a broad range of positions on both sides of center. My governing factors are balance and pragmatism. Not polls, not zeitgeist, not staus quo, or even centrism. No one denys that fascists and communists are both totaliatarian and could be described as two sides of the same coin. But they are opposite sides and they are polar opposites politically, socially, and economically. They are alike only in their dictatorship. As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid. -- Adolf Hitler
Single-issue politics are a major problem in the election system and directly linked to the biggest problem, which is partisan politics. To modern politicians, party priorities come before national interests and the will of their constituents. The other problem is the obsolete electoral college "winner take all" system that lets the main power reside in Texas, Florida, New York and California (The Hispanic States of America) and makes it impossible for third political parties to emerge.
yes, like i said it is very simplistic and elementary model. there comes a time when a more nuanced understanding is necessary. sig heil
