Opinion Is Libertarianism/Anarchy left or right?

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Oh and here's the post you staunchly refused to address too, you mental midget.

Lol!
I have no problem repeating that over and over again. Any absolutist government is on the left by the American spectrum since it's antithetical to classical liberalism. This is something even a toddler could grasp. Nothing in Europe is on "the right" by an American standard. Hell even Canadian Conservatives are more left then your Democrats but you have your equity glasses drilled to deep into your thick fucking skull to digest that. This is what happens when you burrow yourself into the left lounge and reaffirm each other's rediculous world views

So now let's do what you do and see how it plays out for you. I'm going to ask you a really important question, and I think you need to answer it for this conversation to continue in earnest (sounds familiar?) Napoleon. Left winger or right winger and why?

Edit: PS I have no clue what you are talking about concerning that thread which I never even participated in.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Libertarianism is one step away from anarchy. Almost zero government intervention. So why is anarchism considered a leftist ideology? Isn't the CHAZ place basically anarchy? Why are they lumped with leftism? Why is libertarianism considered right wing when it's so close to no government or anarchy?

It is far right. Tyranny/Communism is far left. It's a scale of dominant government to no government. ANTIFA are not really anarchists though. They are fighting a free society to trade that system for tyranny. They think they will have more significance and benefits in that system, but they are being duped.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You guys have a hierarchy and you don't even realize it. Jack is the one who holds the leash you are the one that wears it, Trotsky and fawlty are the gay couple next door and rational is there pet that humps you ever so gently.

This is a sleazy tactic that doesn't really merit a response, but for the record, I have deep respect for @Falsedawn's posting. Our interests (that is, the things we think and post about) don't line up as much as my and other posters' do, but I think he's one of the sharpest guys here.

 

[grimballer]

No. How is that relevant to anything I have said?

Sounds to me like rationalizing based on which kind of big government you prefer. Health problems are an internal and external threat and a public concern, health is essential to to the pursuit of happiness. Also, environmental changes are an external threat, are environmental protections an example of big government?

Replace “health problems” with terrorism and “health” with security.

 

[Phi-]

It is far right. Tyranny/Communism is far left. It's a scale of dominant government to no government. ANTIFA are not really anarchists though. They are fighting a free society to trade that system for tyranny. They think they will have more significance and benefits in that system, but they are being duped.

You know I could've made that graphic just as well, exchanged Anarchy with Fascism and you would've still posted it because you don't know any better?

 

[grimballer]

I just think regardless of which forms of government force you support it is disingenuous to call one thing "big government" and the other "small government". Obviously, if you like that our military is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, you like big government.

You’re comparing apples and oranges

Without police you get anarchy and without military youre vulnerable to outside threats.

having those 2 is essential for individuals to enjoy their rights and freedoms to the fullest.

While you could argue about how big police and military should be and talk about all the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with them, it’s not the same as forcing ppl to accept some type of government plan or program against their will and tax them for it.

 

[grimballer]

Iran has 99% of the population with the same religion. I wouldn't say it's more diverse than Alabama (don't know Shelby, specifically).

Iran has many different ethic and religious minorities.

Teheran itself has close to 9 million ppl. That’s twice the size of the entire state of Alabama.

you really think 99% of ppl living in Teheran are Persians and Shia muslims?

You don’t need a PhD in international studies to know this.

But you have heard them say that it's a super important issue that we use state power to prevent trans people from using the bathroom or volunteer at libraries, and that we shouldn't treat them with respect, etc. And that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Also, as I said, they're more likely to try to use the gov't to engineer more ethnic homogeneity. And that people of certain religious persuasions are not real Americans, etc. I think you spoke without thinking, but you gotta admit that this notion of Republicans as more tolerant of nonconformists is pretty crazy.

“They’re more likely to”?!?

What kind of argument is that?

Progressives are “more likely to” send their political opponents to re-education camps and treat some ethnic groups like 2nd class citizens.

can we stick with actual facts instead of nonsense like that?

also progressives are forcing women to accept biological men in their bathrooms and trying to change the definition of marriage.

Progressives want to force all men to be viewed as women? Not any that I've ever heard of. I think you're confusing "treat people with respect, even if they're eccentric" with "force everyone to be the same." That's as wrong as it's possible to be.

there’s a difference between treating ppl with respect and forcing ppl to go along with their narrative.

Rachel dolezal should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean she can force everybody to go along with what she claims.

Wait, what? What punishment have you seen progressives propose? And until very recently, people *were* in fact forced to accept one definition of marriage (and Republicans even codified that into law). Many Republicans still support that. Again, it doesn't seem that you thought this one through, or do you think that "conformity" means that everyone does their own thing, and "nonconformity" means that you force everyone to do the same thing?

You mean like all the calls for censorship and attacking ppl with different political opinions? Or calling for hate speech laws and trying to expand the hate crimes laws...

nothing really.

And definition of marriage is pretty clear and it was like that since beginning of times. It’s one of the oldest human institutions
... Way before republicans even existed.

So nobody forced “their definition” of marriage. That’s what definition of marriage is.

And you (like majority of progressives and new age liberals) can’t seem to distinguish between conformity/nonconformity and social norms.

Just cause you don’t want to conform to something doesn’t mean you get to force your nonconformity on others and force them to accept it.

the only thing you’re free of is political/governmental persecution and physical and (to some extent) verbal attacks.

if you decide that for you “fuck you bitch!” means “hi, how are you dear?”, that’s your right, but you can’t force others to play along.

You can be edgy and not a victim of conformity and continue greeting ppl like that, but don’t except them to be friendly with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Iran has many different ethic and religious minorities.

Teheran itself has close to 9 million ppl. That’s twice the size of the entire state of Alabama.

you really think 99% of ppl living in Teheran are Persians and Shia muslims?

You don’t need a PhD in international studies to know this.

That's what I see when I do a quick search for the answer to that question. If you have a good source that contradicts it, by all means, share. At any rate, I don't think one can deny that political representation for minorities is pretty much non-existent there, right?

“They’re more likely to”?!?

What kind of argument is that?

I'm not aware of any progressives advocating using immigration policy to manipulate us into being more homogeneous. Many rightists do.

Progressives are “more likely to” send their political opponents to re-education camps and treat some ethnic groups like 2nd class citizens.

can with stick with actual facts instead of nonsense like that?

See above. Your thing is a wild fantasy, while I'm talking about the real world.

also progressives are forcing women to accept biological men in their bathrooms and trying to change the definition of marriage.

Allowing nonconformists to exist is "forcing people to accept nonconformity" which makes them the true conformists? Does that really sound plausible to you? Be honest.

there’s a difference between treating ppl with respect and forcing ppl to go along with their narrative.

Rachel dolezal should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean she can force everybody to go along with what she claims.

And no one is forcing anyone to go along with any narrative. The right is freaking out that people want to refer to others by their preferred names and pronouns, no? They're trying to use social pressure to enforce conformity, while progressives are trying to use it to allow people to do their own thing.

You mean like all the calls for censorship and attacking ppl with different political opinions? Or calling for hate speech laws and trying to expand the hate crimes laws...

nothing really.

So "harsher sentencing for racially motivated murders" are an infringement on free speech. But what about trying to shut down companies for fact-checking a gov't official? What about trying to stop publication of books that would embarrass a gov't official? What about firing professors and teachers at public institutions for having progressive views? What about gov't agents attacking nonviolent protesters? In reality, free speech is legitimately under attack in America by the right, and people are screeching about stuff that doesn't relate to free speech at all.

And definition of marriage is pretty clear and it was like that since beginning of times. It’s one of the oldest human institutions
... Way before republicans even existed.

So nobody forced “their definition” of marriage. That’s what definition of marriage is.

This is a fallacious argument for why forced conformity is good; it's not a refutation of the claim that the right prefers to force conformity. Also note that marriage has changed a lot in other ways over its life.

And you (like majority of progressives and new age liberals) can’t seem to distinguish between conformity/nonconformity and social norms.

Says the guy who thinks that progressives criticizing people is an infringement on their free speech. But, no, the right has argued that SSM should be legally banned, that transgendered people should be legally forced to use certain bathrooms, that immigration should be legally restricted to whites, etc.

Just cause you don’t want to conform to something doesn’t mean you get to force your nonconformity on others and force them to accept it.

the only thing you’re free of is political/governmental persecution and physical and (to some extent) verbal attacks.

if you decide that for you “fuck you bitch!” means “hi, how are you dear?”, that’s your right, but you can’t force others to play along.

You can be edgy and continue greeting ppl like that, but don’t except them to be friendly with you.

This is the same, though. You started out arguing that it's progressives who demand conformity and Republicans who are OK with different cultures and lifestyles, etc. Now you're arguing that Republicans are right to demand conformity. Which is fine (I mean, I'm a live-and-let-live guy, myself, but I understand what you're saying), but it's a different discussion. It's like that other guy who started with "the right opposes more gov't control," and responded to my pointing out that that's false by arguing that more gov't control is good. OK, but admit that the original point was wrong.