I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:32PM (5 children)
I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:09PM (4 children)
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:03PM (3 children)
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:47PM (2 children)
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @11:58PM (1 child)
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 30 2020, @12:29AM
Didn't used to be unusual. A couple hundred years ago it was the bull's eye.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.