User Panel
Someone please list 5 attributes that are the hallmark of modern extreme right wingers.
|
|
Quoted:
Someone please list 5 attributes that are the hallmark of modern extreme right wingers. Lets see if anyone can hit a target that moves each time new person fires at it. |
|
Quoted:
Someone please list 5 attributes that are the hallmark of modern extreme right wingers. VTHOKIESHOOTER, RDak, Batman...., Cincinnatus, 95 percent of the rest of Arfcom. ETA: Oh, the attributes(?).......we all like five different types of guns. |
|
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Putin. He's not much of a communist, thoroughly entangles business and govt -an essential part of fascism on the right-, and as the quintessential strongman, is even admired here. Osama anchors the religious but anti-govt end of the spectrum: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find death bitter, I don't want to die deceived." |
|
Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. The Constitution Party. The good part: We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
The bad part:
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Putin. He's not much of a communist, thoroughly entangles business and govt -an essential part of fascism on the right-, and as the quintessential strongman, is even admired here. Osama anchors the religious but anti-govt end of the spectrum: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find death bitter, I don't want to die deceived." Yes, but how do you quantify his being a member of the KGB during the Soviet era? Very restrictive government control and anti-business IIRC. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But you could also say that since some "conservatives" are authoritarian, the fact that they want government control, would mean that they would be in the center of a left to right scale.
A single axis model (left to right on a line) is a flawed model of politics. A much better model is two axis (left to right and also up to down). It's called the Nolan chart. http://www.insteadofablog.com/images/nolanchart.gif A lot of people here are conservative but highly authoritarian, while I am conservative but highly libertarian. These are very far apart politically and are represented as so on the Nolan chart. eta: I'd probably be somewhere around or just under the second "a" in Libertarian. It would look like this –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– socialist progressive liberal conservative constitutional libertarian anarchist According to libertarians. You do realize that anarchism is a leftist political-economic theory? Mikhail Bakunin ring a bell? Nolan's chart is an attempt to relocate libertarians as the "true" right. This is to avoid falling on the left side of the spectrum, where they belong. It all depends. Leftists like to use anarchy as a tool to usher in government control. True anarchists, are people who believe that people will ultimately be able to peacefully coexist without government. So not only do you have to ways to determine political the spectrums, but you also have two ways in describing anarchy. Which is the ultimate goal of communism. Beat the altrusim into them, until they are able to realize the correctness of it for the good of all. Its a theory of enlightenment that can only be attained by training the ignorant masses to be good and look out for the betterment of the whole. Goes against the very nature of mankind. And they have to use thugs to get there (which kind of defeats the purpose of exercise to begin with). |
|
Quoted: Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual. which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum. Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. The Constitution Party. The good part: We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
The bad part:
When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else. For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people? If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not. The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless. You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't. |
|
Left/right is part of a circle. Go too far to either side and you end up in the back of the circle. The back side is where insanity and monstrous acts hide.
CJ |
|
Quoted:
Sorry I'm late to the thread. Did I make it in time for the slapfight over whether or not Nazis are Leftist or not? round 2 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual. which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum.
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. The Constitution Party. The good part: We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
The bad part:
When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else. For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people? If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not. The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless. You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't. To be serious, that's how I quantify it..........it's too subjective to do otherwise, and, even my definition is subjective. Just not as much IMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Left/right is part of a circle. Go too far to either side and you end up in the back of the circle. The back side is where insanity and monstrous acts hide. CJ Dupe. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Putin. He's not much of a communist, thoroughly entangles business and govt -an essential part of fascism on the right-, and as the quintessential strongman, is even admired here. Osama anchors the religious but anti-govt end of the spectrum: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find death bitter, I don't want to die deceived." Yes, but how do you quantify his being a member of the KGB during the Soviet era? Russians move to the private sector when government collapses, Americans move to government when business fails. Suborning govt elements isn't only rightwing tradition, it's competitive business practice, and enterprising businessmen thrive in any environment. |
|
Quoted: Yes. Compare the far left quasi-communists and the far right libertarians with anarchistic tendencies. If you took everyone in America and lined them up on a political spectrum, do you think that people on both of the extreme ends are about equally as nuts/paraniod/batshit crazy? Yes/No/FBHO? |
|
Quoted: Yep... Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––>Adolf Hitler Extreme Left Extreme Right You would be wrong. Hitler was a leftist. A racist leftist... but still a leftist. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Putin. He's not much of a communist, thoroughly entangles business and govt -an essential part of fascism on the right-, and as the quintessential strongman, is even admired here. Osama anchors the religious but anti-govt end of the spectrum: "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find death bitter, I don't want to die deceived." Yes, but how do you quantify his being a member of the KGB during the Soviet era? Russians move to the private sector when government collapses, Americans move to government when business fails. Suborning govt elements isn't only rightwing tradition, it's competitive business practice, and enterprising businessmen thrive in any environment. Hmmm..........gotta think more on that one. Ok...........Russians moved into the mafia era first, then, and not really well currently, the capitalist era. I think the jury is still out on that one relative to Russia IMHO. Oh, America does move more to government (communism) in recent years when businesses collapse. Well maybe facism to an extent also, considering all the bailouts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Let's try asking this way. Via Wikipedia: Charles Coughlin was a controversial Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan's National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than thirty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the "Nation's Union of Social Justice." He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s.
After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and later to rationalize some of the policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The broadcasts have been called "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being Social Justice, first with, and later against, the New Deal... After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January 1940, a New York City unit of the Christian Front was raided by the FBI for plotting to overthrow the government. Coughlin had never been a member but his reputation suffered a fatal decline. Coughlin was also an isolationist and had attacked "Wall Street Communists" on a regular basis. The Vatican silenced him in 1936. http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx73/flamicane/coughlin.jpg So, evil right-winger or evil left-winger? Why? Fascist...........in between IMHO. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Let's try asking this way. Via Wikipedia: Charles Coughlin was a controversial Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan's National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than thirty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the "Nation's Union of Social Justice." He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s.
After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and later to rationalize some of the policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The broadcasts have been called "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being Social Justice, first with, and later against, the New Deal... After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January 1940, a New York City unit of the Christian Front was raided by the FBI for plotting to overthrow the government. Coughlin had never been a member but his reputation suffered a fatal decline. Coughlin was also an isolationist and had attacked "Wall Street Communists" on a regular basis. The Vatican silenced him in 1936. http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx73/flamicane/coughlin.jpg So, evil right-winger or evil left-winger? Why? Fascist...........in between IMHO. radical leftist is what he was. No question. I am just not willing to go into a huge post why, but there is no question. His religion was only an avenue to reach more people and give his stupidity some credibility. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. Let's try asking this way. Via Wikipedia: Charles Coughlin was a controversial Roman Catholic priest at Royal Oak, Michigan's National Shrine of the Little Flower Church. He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than thirty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the "Nation's Union of Social Justice." He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s.
After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary, and later to rationalize some of the policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The broadcasts have been called "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture". His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being Social Justice, first with, and later against, the New Deal... After 1936, Coughlin began supporting an organization called the Christian Front, which claimed him as an inspiration. In January 1940, a New York City unit of the Christian Front was raided by the FBI for plotting to overthrow the government. Coughlin had never been a member but his reputation suffered a fatal decline. Coughlin was also an isolationist and had attacked "Wall Street Communists" on a regular basis. The Vatican silenced him in 1936. http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx73/flamicane/coughlin.jpg So, evil right-winger or evil left-winger? Why? Fascist...........in between IMHO. radical leftist is what he was. No question. I am just not willing to go into a huge post why, but there is no question. His religion was only an avenue to reach more people and give his stupidity some credibility. If that is true.......then I agree. And a RADICAL leftist to boot. |
|
It all comes down to what I believe is extreme. My view of extreme is sure to be different from the person that just lives in a different place than I do. Lots of variables involved in what is considered a extreme view. Fighting for Concealed Carry might be considered a extreme right-wing political exercise in some areas where it would be considered mainstream in other areas.
All the posts here about what I should be viewing as left-right don't mean squat as it's what I believe is extreme is what really matters when it comes to me supporting one view over another. If I view you, your cause, or your idea as "out-there" it does not mean a thing if you are right-left as to me you are just "out there" and you won't get my support. Left-Right does not mean as much to me as the matter to be considered. Lots of nut jobs on either end of the middle painting each other with the extreme brush. |
|
Ok, here's a tough one......a bit off topic........who of these four who is the most rabid right winger:
VTHOKIESHOOTER, RDak, Batmanacw, Cincinnatus. |
|
Yes AND no.
The hard core sovereign citizen total antigoverment types? YES, but they are very few in numbers. There are LOTS of moonbat liberals. So many that they are almost mainstream. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual. which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum. Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. The Constitution Party. The good part: We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
The bad part:
When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else. For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people? If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not. The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless. You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't. That is why having a linear spectrum is absolutely wrong. You cannot (usually) define a person's political beliefs on an X axis. You must have an X and Y axis, because most governments have a different set of standards when it comes to social freedoms as opposed to economic freedoms. If you had only an X axis, then you'd have "communist" on one side, and "Randian" on the other. How many political parties are close to Randian in praxis? Yes, it'd be nice to define an X axis as being "Pure Control" and "Pure Freedom", but it doesn't work that way. In modern history, we've only seen the "Pure Control" aspect emerge via Communism throughout the 20th century. We have yet to have a nation that embraces pure, unadulterated freedom. America has, at times, been close to it, but has usually fallen off the wagon at one point or another which made it invalid as a pure freedom society (1890's come to mind, sans the Jim Crowe laws). Generally, we see every major Western party embrace some idea of the government as an instrument to 'fix' something - social mores, financial standings, business regulations. What they fix makes them Republican (fixing social mores), or Democrat (fixing business' wrongs against society). Thus, when a Y axis is introduced as government imposing social regulations, you can better define governmental systems. In an X-Y axis system, such as the one from PoliticalCompass, Nolan's Political Chart, and so on, you can better understand where parties lie. Conservatives, being upper-right, Libertarians being right, Randians being Lower-right, Anarchists being bottom, Greens/Ultra-liberals being lower-left, Socialists being left-, Communists being upper-leftists, and fascists being top. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ok, but they still advocate government control over the individual. which would put them on the left side of my linear spectrum. Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. The Constitution Party. The good part: We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:
The bad part:
When we talk about right wing/left wing, it leaves no room for anything else. For instance, were would that leave libertarian type people? If I say that I'm a centrist, people equate that as moderate, which I'm not. The point that I'm trying to make is that labels in this day and age are useless. You either favor maximum freedom on the individual, or you don't. That is why having a linear spectrum is absolutely wrong. You cannot define a person's political beliefs on an X axis. You must have an X and Y axis, because most governments have a different set of standards when it comes to social freedoms as opposed to economic freedoms. Yes, it'd be nice to define an X axis as being "Pure Control" and "Pure Freedom", but it doesn't work that way. In modern history, we've only seen the "Pure Control" aspect emerge via Communism throughout the 20th century. We have yet to have a nation that embraces pure, unadulterated freedom. America has, at times, been close to it, but has usually fallen off the wagon at one point or another which made it invalid as a pure freedom society (1890's come to mind, sans the Jim Crowe laws). Generally, we see every major Western party embrace some idea of the government as an instrument to 'fix' something - social mores, financial standings, business regulations. What they fix makes them Republican (fixing social mores), or Democrat (fixing business' wrongs against society). Thus, when a Y axis is introduced as government imposing social regulations, you can better define governmental systems. In an X-Y axis system, such as the one from PoliticalCompass, Nolan's Political Chart, and so on, you can better understand where parties lie. Conservatives, being upper-right, Libertarians being right, Randians being Lower-right, Anarchists being bottom, Greens/Ultra-liberals being lower-left, Socialists being left-, Communists being upper-leftists, and fascists being top. Then there is no such thing as a left wing or right wing. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is why having a linear spectrum is absolutely wrong. You cannot define a person's political beliefs on an X axis. You must have an X and Y axis, because most governments have a different set of standards when it comes to social freedoms as opposed to economic freedoms. Yes, it'd be nice to define an X axis as being "Pure Control" and "Pure Freedom", but it doesn't work that way. In modern history, we've only seen the "Pure Control" aspect emerge via Communism throughout the 20th century. We have yet to have a nation that embraces pure, unadulterated freedom. America has, at times, been close to it, but has usually fallen off the wagon at one point or another which made it invalid as a pure freedom society (1890's come to mind, sans the Jim Crowe laws). Generally, we see every major Western party embrace some idea of the government as an instrument to 'fix' something - social mores, financial standings, business regulations. What they fix makes them Republican (fixing social mores), or Democrat (fixing business' wrongs against society). Thus, when a Y axis is introduced as government imposing social regulations, you can better define governmental systems. In an X-Y axis system, such as the one from PoliticalCompass, Nolan's Political Chart, and so on, you can better understand where parties lie. Conservatives, being upper-right, Libertarians being right, Randians being Lower-right, Anarchists being bottom, Greens/Ultra-liberals being lower-left, Socialists being left-, Communists being upper-leftists, and fascists being top. Then there is no such thing as a left wing or right wing. That is correct. There is no left wing or right wing. There are social authoritarians, and libertarians. There are economic authoritarians and libertarians. If you took out the social/economic axis, you'd be left with Communists and Randians. Which in that case could be a fine X axis, but the fact is, most people would be stuck as centrist, as they'd have some sort of authoritarian policy, and some sort of libertarian policy. |
|
I would argue that the difference between extreme leftism and extreme rightism is the desire to move towards an imaginary future utopia versus the desire to move backwards towards an imaginary idyllic past. Both are equally dangerous for both are based in illusions which are unachievable. Their economic actions are only a means by which they attempt to achieve their impossible social ends.
|
|
The question you pose does not have a simple answer.
My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed. Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher". I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds. Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale. In reality, "not so much". Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense. I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site. What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs. But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue. Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends. If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest. This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty. The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level. Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me. This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity. I am willing to compromise - to a point. I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point? Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving. People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country. We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people. Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking on my part. I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV. |
|
Quoted:
If you took everyone in America and lined them up on a political spectrum, do you think that people on both of the extreme ends are about equally as nuts/paraniod/batshit crazy? Yes/No/FBHO? Yes |
|
Quoted: That has been pretty much my experience in politics, so I find myself without any home.The question you pose does not have a simple answer. My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed. Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher". I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds. Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale. In reality, "not so much". Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense. I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site. What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs. But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue. Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends. If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest. This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty. The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level. Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me. This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity. I am willing to compromise - to a point. I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point? Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving. People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country. We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people. Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking on my part. I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV. |
|
Quoted: The question you pose does not have a simple answer. My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed. Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher". I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds. Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale. In reality, "not so much". Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense. I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site. What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs. But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue. Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends. If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest. This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty. The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level. Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me. This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity. I am willing to compromise - to a point. I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point? Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving. People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country. We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people. Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking on my part. I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV. I 100% agree, particularly about local government being the best government. Most leftists think I'm a jackbooted fascist, most libertarians think I'm a moralistic bible beater, and most Conservatives think I compromise too much. |
|
Quoted: The question you pose does not have a simple answer. My views have always landed me in the "libertarian, with conservative leanings" category any time I have answered any questionnaires like the one for the "Nolan Chart"... yet over the years peoples' opinions of my points-of-view have changed. Over the last five years or so "conservatives" have tended to view me as a "democrat who can't call himself a democrat"; "libertarians" consider me a "fascist/ statist"; and leftists consider me the "hell-spawn of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher". I don't know any fascists, so I have no idea where I would rate in their minds. Each of those groups have people who would consider me to be the antithesis to their beliefs - the "extremist" on the other end of their scale. In reality, "not so much". Just for one example from my personal experiences and observations... conservatives with a strong social conservative streak generally do not like me in a political sense. I've been called all sorts of names IRL by this group, and I've seen some of those same monikers tossed around on this site. What's funny/ sad about that, is that I personally share about 90-95% of the same beliefs. But my libertarian grounding does not believe that it is the Federal government's place to dictate what should be a personal issue. Personal issues should be handled by the person and their family/ friends. If, and that is a big if in my mind, something rises to the need of being regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest level of government - State government at the highest. This meets the standard of minimal federal government, maximum liberty. The States keep most of the power, and the citizens of those States have a better chance at actually influencing the laws than they do trying to influence laws on a national level. Why people fail to grasp the basic concept that local governance is the easiest for the people to maintain control of, is astonishing to me. This one basic difference leads to a rift where there should be unity. I am willing to compromise - to a point. I am very reluctant to vote to replace a statist with another statist - what's the point? Statists are eroding our liberty, and I don't care for it one bit, regardless of the flavor of koolaid they happen to be serving. People need to start looking at the real issues that face this country. We need fiscal responsibility, a smaller federal government, a return of power to the States, and a return to personal and social responsibility by the people. Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking on my part. I don't speak for anyone other than myself, so this is definitely IMHO and YMMV. Take the Political Compass test at www.politicalcompass.com . Post your results, and you'll find out where you stand very quickly. Generally, I am a very, VERY conservative person by nature (don't smoke, gamble, drink, do drugs, waited to have sex in wedlock alone, don't own many firearms, never transgressed our current government, ect), but I am very libertarian in the fact that I believe its 100% personal/private conviction, and no such views should be held by the state. It makes me look like a cooky drug-pusher on AR15.com (as per the RP Heroin thread), yet I have been a youth pastor and pushed to our kids not to do drugs (as I believe it is my moral obligation to inform those who have voluntarily joined my sunday school classes to hear why it is dangerous to adhere to use such things on a personal level). |
|
Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me
1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. |
|
Quoted: Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me 1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. Libertarian. Pretty cut and dry. The only question would be #8 if you support foreign interventionism, or merely a strong army. Generally, Libertarian is anti-interventionist, but that doesn't mean isolationist and shy's away from activity in other nations. Here's my PoliticalCompass.org chart. Mind you, not every question is 'great', but generally, it gives you a good idea of where you stand: |
|
for the record, Hitler was a populist.
His place on the left/right spectrum was meaningless with regards to his impact on history. |
|
Quoted: The problem with #8 the way some libertarians view it, is that in these times, sometimes interventionism is the correct move. Taking the battle to the enemy, intervening before something happens on our soil, etc... That takes a well-funded, professional, well-trained military force. It's not going to be "cheap" and it's not going to be "small". Having said that, there are places the mil can cut costs and size - it just needs to be done carefully without politics getting in the way. IMHO (ex-mil)Quoted: Libertarian. Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me 1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. Pretty cut and dry. The only question would be #8 if you support foreign interventionism, or merely a strong army. Generally, Libertarian is anti-interventionist, but that doesn't mean isolationist and shy's away from activity in other nations. Oh - the political compass domain is listed for sale and that link is now a search-link site. nvm - the site you linked in your response to my post is different than the one in your post. I have taken several different styles of these tests over the years and I know where I stand - others tend to classify me differently when I don't conform 100% to their viewpoint. |
|
NO.
Extreme right ends where Anarchy begins.. and only an extremely naive person would believe anarchy would last longer than the battles for power before it came to some kind of order. Anarchy will never be people just minding their own business and not interfering with others rights.. Government is a lesser and necessary evil in very limited form. More evil the larger and more powerful it gets. |
|
I have a Dictionary of Philosophy that describes Adam Smith as extreme, and Ayn Rand as extreme, but describes Karl Marx in neutral terms.
|
|
Quoted:
No, the “extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists. See, reality is what it is, it’s objectively real so to speak. But different people perceive reality differently. All of our perceptions are influenced by what we have been taught, our emotions, and our world view in general. “Extremists” are people who see reality far differently than it actually is. And, in our culture, everyone is constantly bombarded by the left wing version of reality. It’s embedded in virtually every television show, in our educational system, on the news, in our comedians jokes. Unless you isolate yourself completely from the culture you will be exposed. An, even then you will get it second hand from people who haven’t completely isolated themselves from pop culture. This provides a check to right wing extremism. But there is no such check on left wing extremism. A person can go through life and never even hear an opinion expressed that contradicts the left wing world view. That pretty much nails it. Impeach Obama before he Destroys the Extreme Left. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The problem with #8 the way some libertarians view it, is that in these times, sometimes interventionism is the correct move. Taking the battle to the enemy, intervening before something happens on our soil, etc... That takes a well-funded, professional, well-trained military force. It's not going to be "cheap" and it's not going to be "small". Having said that, there are places the mil can cut costs and size - it just needs to be done carefully without politics getting in the way. IMHO (ex-mil)Quoted: Libertarian. Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me 1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. Pretty cut and dry. The only question would be #8 if you support foreign interventionism, or merely a strong army. Generally, Libertarian is anti-interventionist, but that doesn't mean isolationist and shy's away from activity in other nations. Oh - the political compass domain is listed for sale and that link is now a search-link site. I taken several different styles of these tests over the years and I know where I stand - others tend to classify me differently when I don't conform 100% to their viewpoint. Well, the question on #8 would be (IMO) what kind of intervention are we talking about: Iraq/Afghanistan-style pre-emption, or Yom Kippur-style pre-emption. Big difference, IMO. I would think that most libertarians would be in favor of intervention in a Yom Kippur style. A libertarian (at least in my view) isn't going to be involved in a war where it would be a 3rd party, either (e.g. Libya). Defense would focus on existing, real threats to the country and its allies, and nothing else. e.g. if Russia and China were at war, we'd stay out and let them kill each other. The PoliticalCompass site was the wrong one. They use the .ORG address and not the .COM. I have no idea why they don't own the .COM address as well. |
|
Quoted: Hello brother!Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me 1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. |
|
What is right wing? This definition is different in America (vs Europe). In America, extreme right wing could mean Christian theocracy. I could mean extreme classical liberal. It could mean a combination of the social policies of Christianity and market policies of classical liberalism.
In my opinion, extreme right means classical liberalism. In this case, there is no such thing as being too extreme in one's love for freedom. |
|
Quoted:
Here are 10 things that I believe strongly in. You all classify me 1)No person, or collective has the right to the property or life of another 2)I do not believe in any government social safety net 3)I do not believe in government protecting us from ourselves (drugs, fatty diets, etc) 4)I am pro life but do not want a government strong enough that would investigate any lost pregnancy 5)I do not support government restricting Plan B contraception or birth control pills 6)I do not believe in government funding of education 7)I do not believe that property, income or investments should be taxed 8)I believe in a powerful military that will keep our foreign enemies in check and allow for free trade across borders and seas 9)I'm for free trade 10)Religious dogma should not play a part in the creation or enforcement of laws. Spot on. |
|
Where would:
1. no bans on guns at all. 2. truth in sentencing. 3. severely restricted Federal and State Government. 4. mandatory transparency on all Government levels. 5. mandated restrictions on taxation. 6. close the fucking borders. 7. accountability and being punishable for being an elected official or appointed official and using your position for illegal activity. Fit in? |
|
Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Al QaedaQuoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Adolf Hitler Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right public education Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right Thats what it should look like! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Al QaedaQuoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Adolf Hitler Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right public education Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right Thats what it should look like! If your choosing between communism and theocracy anyway.. More Government <––––––––––––––––––––––> Less Government Left<––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––>Right What you have is Government dominance Secular <––––––––––-> Government dominance religious |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.