[UK] Yet ANOTHER far-right party launches in the UK

Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,634
Location: Reading, England

14 Feb 2013, 10:22 am

thomas81 wrote:
BookPerson wrote:
If I may say so, these guys are not far-right wing. They would be far-left wing, in my opinion. The idea that fascists are right-wing is a fundementally flawed idea, that fails to recognize the totalitarian-freedom divide of the political spectrum. Maybe I'm just looking at it like an American, but far-right would be Libertarianism, not racism. The further left one goes, one finds control (what this party advocated), and the further right one goes, one finds more freedom (i.e. Voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.). At least, that's how I view it.



Right wing does not equal freedom. Freedom is a loaded concept with different interpretations, depending on what side of the spectrum you are sitting on.

Left wingers see freedom in greater government protection against co-ercion and exploitation from the private sector. In many cases, big business is more adept at removing and undermining freedoms through wage slavery and barring of union assocation rights than the government are. You cant therefore say left wing does not equal freedom. Also racism is an exclusively anti-marxist, right wing phenomenon. If anarcho capitalism became a reality you would eventually see wages dropping to near slavery levels. This is what happens in economies where there are no government enforcement to protect the living standards of the least well off. Trickledown economics are a nonsense, wealth does not move downwards, it gravitates near the top. The rich are rich because they hoard wealth.

If you want to see hands off government in action, go to one of the private enterprise compounds in china where companies are having to install nets around the building perimeter to stop workers throwing themselves off the top floor.

I think you're both wrong here.

The "left-right" axis is misleading. We could better represent political alignment in a 2D plane, with one scale representing "liberty" and one representing "capitalism", "corporatism" or similar.

Françoise Hollande is a socialist, libertarian (in the classic sense of the word) politician.
Ron Paul is a capitalist, libertarian politician.
Josef Stalin was a socialist, totalitarian politician.
Benito Mussolini was a capitalist, totalitarian politician.

Here is a diagram to help display what I mean: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ ... lchart.png



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

14 Feb 2013, 10:30 am

The non initiation of force is freedom.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

14 Feb 2013, 11:04 am

The_Walrus wrote:

The "left-right" axis is misleading. We could better represent political alignment in a 2D plane, with one scale representing "liberty" and one representing "capitalism", "corporatism" or similar.



the problem with this model is that some if not most capitalists regard themselves as being 'pro liberty'.

The correct scale is actually four quadrants of left vs right along the horizontal and authoritarian vs libertarian on the vertical.

By libertarian, I mean power of government [lack of] which isn't necessarilly a pro capitalist stance. There is also anarcho syndicalism which is the left wing equivalent of anarcho capitalism. Anarcho syndicalists are anarchists that seek the abolishment of both government and capitalist ownership.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,634
Location: Reading, England

14 Feb 2013, 11:13 am

That is exactly what I proposed though? Liberty= libertarianism.

I did think "what about social issues?", but those can be put down with liberty IMO. Against abortion? Authoritarian. Against gay marriage? Authoritarian. Against the construction of religious buildings? Authoritarian.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

14 Feb 2013, 11:24 am

the problem with the american model suggested by bookperson is that Capitalism = Freedom.

This is far from the case. It is possible to be a capitalist, and an ultra authoritarian. This is the definition of fascism. In fact this was the direction that the USA was moving in for a while. Americans need to be careful.

Besides, anarcho capitalism does not guarantee protection from authoritarianism. Libertarianism prohibits nothing, including the use of force by the wealthy to protect the hegemony of the wealthy. All that is happening is that power is switching from the elected to the rich.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,634
Location: Reading, England

14 Feb 2013, 11:56 am

When I said "libertarianism", as my post made clear, I meant in the traditional use of the word i.e. promoting the liberty of every individual as long as the liberty of others is not harmed. J.S. Mill (who essentially gave us comprehensive education, for example) rather than Milton Friedman.



IDontGetIt
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: Cheshire, UK.

14 Feb 2013, 12:05 pm

The political scale is actually ring-doughnut shaped. If you go far enough in one direction you come back round to where you started.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,434
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

14 Feb 2013, 12:12 pm

IDontGetIt wrote:
The political scale is actually ring-doughnut shaped. If you go far enough in one direction you come back round to where you started.


i've heard this theory before, i think its rubbish though. Theres no ambiguity between the principles of one polar opposite ideology to the other. It doesnt follow that subscribing to one extremity will inevitably end up with agreeing with its opposite. There was no chance of Hitler ever becoming a communist if he kept becoming more right wing.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,634
Location: Reading, England

14 Feb 2013, 1:24 pm

No chance of Ron Paul coming out as a totalitarian either. I suppose you could argue that freedom is slavery... :wink:



BookPerson
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2012
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 150
Location: Under the Milky Way

14 Feb 2013, 1:25 pm

I respectfully disagree with some of the opinions here.

Freedom is something that we all possess, but may not be able to exercise, due to the monopoly of force and coercive nature of government. We all possess natural rights to liberty (acting as one pleases, as long as there is no violating the non-aggression axiom), property, and life (i.e. self-ownership). We could debate the left-right model and other models for some time, but it may still ignore the fundamental issue of coercion. In my view, one may be a left-wing democratic socialist or a right-wing authoritarian capitalist, yet both still fail to address the questions of government (i.e. questioning if it should exist, if it is right to exist, etc.). In my opinion, as an Austrian School Libertarian, government operates off a monopoly of force and land (i.e. delcaring its territory and forcing itself involuntarily upon those living there), committing wholesale robbery against the populace (i.e. taxation), violating natural rights, and often possessing a central banking system, enabling it to manipulate economic cycles.



IDontGetIt
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: Cheshire, UK.

14 Feb 2013, 2:47 pm

thomas81 wrote:
IDontGetIt wrote:
The political scale is actually ring-doughnut shaped. If you go far enough in one direction you come back round to where you started.


i've heard this theory before, i think its rubbish though. Theres no ambiguity between the principles of one polar opposite ideology to the other. It doesnt follow that subscribing to one extremity will inevitably end up with agreeing with its opposite. There was no chance of Hitler ever becoming a communist if he kept becoming more right wing.

Oh. I hadn't heard it before, I just made it up. :lol:



ICY
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 183
Location: Hertfordshire England

14 Feb 2013, 2:49 pm

BookPerson wrote:
I respectfully disagree with some of the opinions here.

Freedom is something that we all possess, but may not be able to exercise, due to the monopoly of force and coercive nature of government. We all possess natural rights to liberty (acting as one pleases, as long as there is no violating the non-aggression axiom), property, and life (i.e. self-ownership). We could debate the left-right model and other models for some time, but it may still ignore the fundamental issue of coercion. In my view, one may be a left-wing democratic socialist or a right-wing authoritarian capitalist, yet both still fail to address the questions of government (i.e. questioning if it should exist, if it is right to exist, etc.). In my opinion, as an Austrian School Libertarian, government operates off a monopoly of force and land (i.e. delcaring its territory and forcing itself involuntarily upon those living there), committing wholesale robbery against the populace (i.e. taxation), violating natural rights, and often possessing a central banking system, enabling it to manipulate economic cycles.


Government is inevitable, as we can see from tribal communities and our close relatives in the animal kingdom. They live in groups run by whoever is top of the hierarchy as well as claim and defend territory in order to utilise its resources. In the event of a government ceasing to function in any given area, those who chose to live alone would be either conquered or killed by those who had formed a group for the same purposes as the above.