" The Demonisation Of The Right "

[KingBingo]

Have it your own way. The Nazis were left wing, like the BNP and the British Union of Fascists before them .

At last you have got it.

You think your taking the piss, but you actually posted something that made sense.

The BNP are National Socialists. Thats why Nick Griffin stands for election in a Labour stronghold, Barking.

On the other hand you have National Conservatives, which are UKIP. That's why Nigel Farage stands for election in a Conservative stronghold Buckinghamshire.

Just think about it.

Bruce, your problem is that you have been brainwashed so often that Fascism and National Socialism are right wing that when I present you with evidence that is not the case you experience massive cognitive dissonance. What you are experience is exactly like when you show a BTL landlord evidence that house prices are falling.

[KingBingo]

Yes, I got the point of your deliberate lies.

Life has taught me some valuable things about lefties:

1. They are a bit thick.

2. They simply do not perceive common sense, facts or evidence. They simply Imagine what the world is like, and re-brand anything that does not fit.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

I think there is evidence that Hitler destroyed the socialists and communists not because he disliked them, but because he stole most of their ideas. Even down the the red flag.

[Bruce Banner]

Hitler was their hero, until they cottoned on the 99.99% of the population isn't going to vote for Hitler lovers. Hence, in the style of Goebbels, they repeat and repeat a lie to make people believe it.

I wondered why this site is so full of right wing nut jobs, but I suppose that they picked up on Hitler's appeal to the disaffected. Priced out home buyers are today's socialist hating defeated soldiers.

I consider myself to be pretty right wing.

The danger is in extreme right or left wing politics where you get dictators like Stalin and Hitler murdering millions.

[fluffy666]

Exactly. Notice how there are no famous economic and personal libertarians. That's because we are all quite happy letting everybody be, and enjoying a nice cup of tea at home.

It's a problem with politics full stop. The kind of people who seek political power are, generally, the kind of people who like ordering others around. Although I wonder where Boris Johnson (or Ken Clarke) would fall on that diagram.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

I consider myself to be pretty right wing.

The danger is in extreme right or left wing politics where you get dictators like Stalin and Hitler murdering millions.

No they were psychopaths. I think the term is high functioning psychpaths. Their ability to kill innocent people has nothing to do with their political views, it is because they are mental. Normal people dont go around killing others.

[PopGun]

Life has taught me some valuable things about lefties people who compartmentalise themselves and others as right or left wing:

1. They are a bit thick.

2. They simply do not perceive common sense, facts or evidence. They simply Imagine what the world is like, and re-brand anything that does not fit.

Corrected.

[scepticus]

I don't have any extreme views about fascism. I suspect it to be a negative turn of events for civilisation - but I do not assume it to be evil... or even that it will necessarily precipitate evil individuals to positions of power.

I agree.

I am sure, however, that intervening to prevent the insolvencies of banks means that we now live in a fascist state - where the distinction between public and private have become blurred to such an extent that there is no independence (even in a small way) from government.

No, institution of deposit insurance was the definign event here. The recent debt blowout and bailouts are a consequence of that.

Arguably it actually began when state debt started to be used as money, in which case we British were the pioneers.

Perhaps we've taken the best of a bunch of bad choices... either way, the additional power our current circumstances afford politicians means we need to scrutinise what they do all the more closely. The scope for corruption has never been greater.

Increasing technological development requires increasing specialisation which is not viable unless safety nets for individuals are put in place because otherwise specialising in one task is not a good bet. Likewise, a safety net is required to protect us from the downsides of advanced tech (e.g atomic regulators). Thus I believe that technical progress forces more collective arrangements whether it be government or quasi-governmental institutions like banks and insurance companies.

The only thing IMO which would allow technological progress to continue without a matching increase in collective co-ercion would be an expansion in the underlying capacity of the human brain.

[PopGun]

If you carry on like this I'll have to rethink whether it is you who should be inside the reeducation camps (you were setting up).

Thanks a bunch, and to think I let you have Polly all to yourself.

[Lord D'arcy Pew]

The far right attack those they regard as different from themselves , Jews, gypsies, non Arians Etc.

The far left attack their own people, as Stalin did.

The attacks in Norway, although committed by someone from the right, bear the hallmarks of the far left.

[A.steve]

No, institution of deposit insurance was the definign event here. The recent debt blowout and bailouts are a consequence of that.

Arguably it actually began when state debt started to be used as money, in which case we British were the pioneers.

I do not dispute that there are degrees of grey - nor do I seek to pick a defining moment at which public and private became conjoined. All I state is that, for my definition of fascism, direct government investment (capital injection) in otherwise insolvent banks definitely does constitute fascist. It is neither left nor right wing - per se. - and any association with genocide is quite a stretch.

What emerges from today's fascism is something for our futures to dictate. No matter how you look at it, it's relevant to everyone.

Edited July 25, 2011 by A.steve

[Traktion]

I actually did mean "antichrist". Self reliance and a removal of the power of the political class to be replaced by democracy and free markets is not a popular view.

Minarchism is a practical approach for those who feel that anarchism is a beautiful theory but that it is more practical to retain nation states and for part of the collective actions of a society to be carried out through a very limited state as a matter of practicality rather than ideology.

I know that some will see this as an intellectual compromise. It might well be but it is a good step on the way from "here" to "there".

I used to put myself in the minarchist camp, until I realised that even a limited state is not needed*, therefore the need to compromise evaporated.

* IMO, much of it is a case of letting go of what we have been indoctrinated to believe. If you start every question political/social/economics question with 'if there was no government...', you find yourself reaching alternative solutions. As free market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) has the zero aggression principle it its core, with no individual having a monopoly on the use of force, it is a sound and superior moral basis to start from.

As theft and violence are morally wrong, allowing for such 'necessary evils' in a minarchist state is a big compromise on this core principle. I found myself unable to support such a position, went on a journey of thought and realised that it was a compromise which isn't needed.

[Executive Sadman]

At last you have got it.

You think your taking the piss, but you actually posted something that made sense.

The BNP are National Socialists. Thats why Nick Griffin stands for election in a Labour stronghold, Barking.

On the other hand you have National Conservatives, which are UKIP. That's why Nigel Farage stands for election in a Conservative stronghold Buckinghamshire.

Just think about it.

Bruce, your problem is that you have been brainwashed so often that Fascism and National Socialism are right wing that when I present you with evidence that is not the case you experience massive cognitive dissonance. What you are experience is exactly like when you show a BTL landlord evidence that house prices are falling.

Indeed, why is it so difficult for people to understand.

The original eugenicists, fascists, crazies were all liberals. Hell, Keynes was head of the British Eugenics society.

Political discourse for the last 50-years has been based on a lie.

[fluffy666]

I used to put myself in the minarchist camp, until I realised that even a limited state is not needed*, therefore the need to compromise evaporated.

* IMO, much of it is a case of letting go of what we have been indoctrinated to believe. If you start every question political/social/economics question with 'if there was no government...', you find yourself reaching alternative solutions. As free market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) has the zero aggression principle it its core, with no individual having a monopoly on the use of force, it is a sound and superior moral basis to start from.

As theft and violence are morally wrong, allowing for such 'necessary evils' in a minarchist state is a big compromise on this core principle. I found myself unable to support such a position, went on a journey of thought and realised that it was a compromise which isn't needed.

The problem is one of political stability.

First observation: Many political studies have been done showing that as long as you keep group size under 150, you do not require formal rules or government. That's a small enough group such that 'everyone knows everyone', cheats don't prosper, and the inappropriate use of force against someone else will be punished.

Problem comes when group sizes get bigger and bigger. Once a group size becomes such that individuals can no longer keep track, cheats (of any kind) start to prosper. And by 'cheat', I mean anything from breaking an agreement to murder. And with no formal mechanism to enforce contracts, punish wrongdoing (no real definition of wrongdoing!), or stop cheating, then you have to either suck it up or form a government.

Plonk 10,000 committed anarcho-libertarians on an island (with sufficient resources to sustain them) and I'd bet that if you came back a couple of years later and said 'Take me to your leader', you'd be taken to their leader.

[Injin]

The problem is one of political stability.

First observation: Many political studies have been done showing that as long as you keep group size under 150, you do not require formal rules or government. That's a small enough group such that 'everyone knows everyone', cheats don't prosper, and the inappropriate use of force against someone else will be punished.

Problem comes when group sizes get bigger and bigger. Once a group size becomes such that individuals can no longer keep track, cheats (of any kind) start to prosper. And by 'cheat', I mean anything from breaking an agreement to murder. And with no formal mechanism to enforce contracts, punish wrongdoing (no real definition of wrongdoing!), or stop cheating, then you have to either suck it up or form a government.

Plonk 10,000 committed anarcho-libertarians on an island (with sufficient resources to sustain them) and I'd bet that if you came back a couple of years later and said 'Take me to your leader', you'd be taken to their leader.

Completely missed the point.

The point is that problems get resolved without attacking people. Doesn't mean no leaders, no organisation, no defence or anything like that. it just means that it's socially verbotten to attack others to get them to obey you.

That's all. An incredibly simple idea.

[A.steve]

... just means that it's socially verbotten to attack others to get them to obey you.

That's all. An incredibly simple idea.

And a beautiful paradox, to boot.

[Chesnor]

And a beautiful paradox, to boot.

Indeed. I am still waiting for the answer to this one.

[Riedquat]

Completely missed the point.

The point is that problems get resolved without attacking people. Doesn't mean no leaders, no organisation, no defence or anything like that. it just means that it's socially verbotten to attack others to get them to obey you.

That's all. An incredibly simple idea.

And a totally impossible ideal in any system where it's possible for cheats to prosper because, and you always seem to miss this basic point, there will always be people who will attack others to get what they want. It is impossible to have any system where it could never be beneficial for an individual to do so, short of having so much surplus of everything that everyone can have everything they want (and even then you'd still have personal clashes).

As an ideal to use as a starting point it's reasonable, then aim for something with the fewest compromises to it that'll work in the real world.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Riedquat

[Injin]

And a totally impossible ideal in any system where it's possible for cheats to prosper because, and you always seem to miss this basic point, there will always be people who will attack others to get what they want. It is impossible to have any system where it could never be beneficial for an individual to do so, short of having so much surplus of everything that everyone can have everything they want (and even then you'd still have personal clashes).

As an ideal to use as a starting point it's reasonable, then aim for something with the fewest compromises to it that'll work in the real world.

You can either have randomised cheats, thieves, killers and a generally moral system they live in but are outcast from.

or

you can have randomised cheats and a huge instiution of official cheating, killing and theft which is run by the most evil around and they are immune from even bad opinion of their actions.

For some reason you are saying the second one is better!

But ofc, i am being illogical....

[Injin]

And a beautiful paradox, to boot.

No paradox, it just means (for example) you do evil stuff, you never get laid again. Or have a friendship.

And so on.

[Chesnor]

No paradox, it just means (for example) you do evil stuff, you never get laid again. Or have a friendship.

And so on.

Won't the outcasts just tool up, come back and run things?

I think they did, which is why we are where we are. And why we will always get back here.

[Traktion]

And a totally impossible ideal in any system where it's possible for cheats to prosper because, and you always seem to miss this basic point, there will always be people who will attack others to get what they want. It is impossible to have any system where it could never be beneficial for an individual to do so, short of having so much surplus of everything that everyone can have everything they want (and even then you'd still have personal clashes).

As an ideal to use as a starting point it's reasonable, then aim for something with the fewest compromises to it that'll work in the real world.

There will always be a minority of people who attack others. No state will ever fix that and arguably, the honest people are violated, in an attempt to do the impossible. That's if you believe the state is even acting on behalf of the interest of the many; with the bailouts, the corporatism and corruption of politics, I'd say this is questionable.

However, with no state, anyone can defend themselves with equal force to the attackers. Private security of your choice could defend you and your stuff from harm, on your behalf, if you wish. However, private security would have no special powers to violate others and the perpetrators would be both their targets and customers; this balance would likely result in less violence and abuse being the best solution. In short, it would be mutually beneficial for the minimum amount of violence to be used to calm the situation.

Additionally, constantly attacking others is going to quickly result in people shunning you. You would get listed as someone not to trade with or trust, until you had cleaned your reputation up again. Without being able to trade, you will become poorer, as you are stuck with what you can make yourself. Therefore, it is beneficial to keep your reputation untarnished.

[fluffy666]

Completely missed the point.

The point is that problems get resolved without attacking people. Doesn't mean no leaders, no organisation, no defence or anything like that. it just means that it's socially verbotten to attack others to get them to obey you.

That's all. An incredibly simple idea.

It's socially verboten to attack others to get them to obey you in our society - and if anyone tries it on you, you can get the police to stop them.

More seriously, both fundamentalist communism and fundamentalist libertarianism run into conflict with human nature (once you get part the critical group size). If you are prepared to ignore this in the pursuit of your perfect society, you've started down the road to 're-education camps'.

[winkie]

No paradox, it just means (for example) you do evil stuff, you never get laid again. Or have a friendship.

And so on.

How about putting them in stocks and throwing rotten tomatoes at them?

Edited July 25, 2011 by winkie

[Traktion]

The problem is one of political stability.

First observation: Many political studies have been done showing that as long as you keep group size under 150, you do not require formal rules or government. That's a small enough group such that 'everyone knows everyone', cheats don't prosper, and the inappropriate use of force against someone else will be punished.

Problem comes when group sizes get bigger and bigger. Once a group size becomes such that individuals can no longer keep track, cheats (of any kind) start to prosper. And by 'cheat', I mean anything from breaking an agreement to murder. And with no formal mechanism to enforce contracts, punish wrongdoing (no real definition of wrongdoing!), or stop cheating, then you have to either suck it up or form a government.

Plonk 10,000 committed anarcho-libertarians on an island (with sufficient resources to sustain them) and I'd bet that if you came back a couple of years later and said 'Take me to your leader', you'd be taken to their leader.

With modern communications, is the 150 group size still valid? When were such political studies done?

With the likes of social networks, websites, forums etc, it is easy to build up webs of trust in a way which would be impossible just a decade or so ago. TBH, even without the Internet, knowing someone who knows something else is how a lot of trade works. However, the Internet gives us ways and means to check credentials of people far and wide, without having to know them personally.