http://quillette.com/2017/05/03/time-retire-political-spectrum/The political spectrum creates confusion. It tells us, for example, that both fascist Adolf Hitler and libertarian Milton Friedman are on the “far right,” yet Hitler advocated nationalism, socialism, militarism, authoritarianism, and anti-Semitism, while Milton Friedman advocated internationalism, capitalism, pacifism, civil liberties, and was himself a Jew.
George W. Bush’s big-government, militarist philosophy is considered “right wing” as is Rand Paul’s small-government, anti-militarist philosophy. We say that liberals believe in free speech and conservatives believe in free markets, yet moving to the “extreme left” means clamping down on free speech (as with Stalin or Mao) and moving to the “extreme right” means clamping down on free markets (as with National Socialism). — Hyrum Lewis
So I'm not sure how to answer the poll, as a lot of what passes for "hard left" today is not part of my political outlook, even though Marx is my go-to guy. I've been called a conservative on several occasions, on this forum and elsewhere. I admit I'm attracted to conservatism despite fundamentally disagreeing with it--I think maybe because it's not culturally mainstream, such that independence of thought sometimes seems more common among conservatives, which is a big change in the intellectual landscape. — jamalrob
I don't have a political doctrine, just this political creed: individuality of everyone and exclusion of none; competition without discrimination and cooperation without subordination.
I reject both hierarchy because it imposes superiority as to justify subordination and egalitarism because it imposes equal social status as to justify discrimination. I argue so for a balanced viewpoint, the middle way but not for centrism which I view as an abominable patchwork.
If the right argues for gender supremacism, the left for gender equality and the center for everyone with their chosen / assigned role, I argue for genderlessness, as in the abolishment of gender which I view as an obsolete social construct.
This is my overall standing on political matters, hope I made it pretty clear. I could put a name on this ideology but it's 'already in use'. — Noblosh
That's how I would also characterize an ideal. It's not meant to be anything else but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. An ideal is something to pursue, a direction, not something to achieve, a target.it strikes me as too idealistic and impractical, or perhaps even contradictory — Sapientia
Hierarchy implies authority, correct? In a perfect society, people would no longer need that, reason would suffice.How would society function without any form of hierarchy, then? — Sapientia
Look, I'm not really providing a political theory here but if I would ever come up with one, it would be along those high principles I aspire to, as in following them closer than everything we currently have.Has there ever been any precedent for this which has passed the test of time and proven a success in comparison to alternatives? — Sapientia
Because people are not equal and I see no benefit in trying to equalize them and it would also violate my individuality principle. If people are not equal, they can not handle the same set of rights, obligations, behaviors and duties which defines a social status and therefore should not be forced, not even encouraged to but instead let to follow individual paths even if that means they would inevitably end up with different achievements and so different social statuses.Why do you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination? — Sapientia
On the contrary, it would be the ultimate discrimination, governing society based on a single preconceived notion of how everyone should operate, no longer recognizing individual success or failure because that would mean alteration of the social status which would defeat the very point of egalitarianism.I don't see how it supposedly would. Quite the opposite. It is inherently anti-discrimination. If equal social status was imposed, then discrimination on that basis would either cease to occur or would be suppressed. — Sapientia
But the only solution to discrimination is to judge everyone individually and no longer define anyone by their memberships to groups they don't freely associate with or by those they don't even fit the criteria of. If your goal is, for example, to eliminate all factions in a society in the name of unity and inclusion and you end up with a single all-encompassing one, you didn't really achieve your goal, did you?.What possible alternative could you have in mind which would not be susceptible to the same problem? Any non-egalitarian society must involve discrimination - not to mention a hierarchy, which would be inconsistent with your rejection - and so any justification for such a society must by implication justify discrimination. — Sapientia
That's the point, addressing discrimination, on a constant basis. As for social status, I've already said I see no problem with it and it could very well exist even in a classless society.Do you think that sticking your head in the sand and pretending that discrimination or social status does not exist will magically make the problem go away? — Sapientia
I know that but that doesn't mean I truly understand why, some people are after all better at making a profit than others, the left seems to try to deny that blaming all inequity on social inequality which is true in a sense but avoids the fact that equity doesn't mean equal profit.My stance, and those on the left who are of like mind, includes wanting to see greater equality, or proportionality, both economically and socially - and that includes gender equality, by the way - rather than dealing in absolutes. — Sapientia
Well, what can I say but the fact that I don't really see the point either in gender or in political loyalty as these just seem made-up limitations to me.The ludicrous proposal that gender be abolished, for example, is therefore not compatible with my kind of politics — Sapientia
I argue that gender divide has become arbitrary and so lost its meaning. You can now behave in a certain way or own a certain pair of genitals without the need to abide to one particular gender, so why keep this social construct around when it's obviously obsolete?Individuality for everyone, but you're not allowed a gender? — Sapientia
That's how I would also characterize an ideal. It's not meant to be anything else but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. An ideal is something to pursue, a direction, not something to achieve, a target. — Noblosh
Hierarchy implies authority, correct? In a perfect society, people would no longer need that, reason would suffice. — Noblosh
Look, I'm not really providing a political theory here but if I would ever come up with one, it would be along those high principles I aspire to, as in following them closer than everything we currently have. — Noblosh
Because people are not equal and I see no benefit in trying to equalize them and it would also violate my individuality principle. If people are not equal, they can not handle the same set of rights, obligations, behaviors and duties which defines a social status and therefore should not be forced, not even encouraged to but instead let to follow individual paths even if that means they would inevitably end up with different achievements and so different social statuses. — Noblosh
On the contrary, it would be the ultimate discrimination, governing society based on a single preconceived notion of how everyone should operate, no longer recognizing individual success or failure because that would mean alteration of the social status which would defeat the very point of egalitarianism. — Noblosh
But the only solution to discrimination is to judge everyone individually and no longer define anyone by their memberships to groups they don't freely associate with or by those they don't even fit the criteria of. — Noblosh
If your goal is, for example, to eliminate all factions in a society in the name of unity and inclusion and you end up with a single all-encompassing one, you didn't really achieve your goal, did you? — Noblosh
That's the point, addressing discrimination, on a constant basis. — Noblosh
As for social status, I've already said I see no problem with it and it could very well exist even in a classless society. — Noblosh
I know that but that doesn't mean I truly understand why, some people are after all better at making a profit than others, the left seems to try to deny that blaming all inequity on social inequality which is true in a sense but avoids the fact that equity doesn't mean equal profit. — Noblosh
Well, what can I say but the fact that I don't really see the point either in gender or in political loyalty as these just seem made-up limitations to me. — Noblosh
I argue that gender divide has become arbitrary and so lost its meaning. You can now behave in a certain way or own a certain pair of genitals without the need to abide to one particular gender, so why keep this social construct around when it's obviously obsolete? — Noblosh
An ideal serves the exact function I pinpointed and it's by its nature impossible to achieve. On the other hand, you can have dreams that you can accomplish. For me a dream and an ideal, a target and a direction are indeed mutually exclusive and it's important I never forget this distinction, as trying to achieve an ideal will inevitably lead to tragedy. Don't bother accusing me of asserting facts (see what I did there?) because I'm fully aware of and plead guilty to that.I wasn't arguing against ideals. My criticism was that your thinking was too idealistic (at the expense of practicality). I understand the distinction you've made, and why you've made it, but it only applies to some, and not all, possible cases. The two can, and in some cases do, overlap. They need not be mutually exclusive. So your last sentence amounts to a false distinction.
To say that your thinking is too idealistic is to suggest that there isn't enough overlap between ideal and target. — Sapientia
Yes, as in an ideal one because that's what an ideal implies: perfection.In a perfect society...? — Sapientia
Of course it does and I accept that, yet I say I reject it as I say I reject evil and still understand evil will not go away and I'll have to constantly deal with it.hierarchy serves a fundamental purpose, and if you're going to reject it — Sapientia
Let's just say I like to keep my options open and my principles universal. My petty humor aside, I consider them contradictory only in a practical sense but that is exactly what it confers them practical value as they help me always identify the flaws of say, political movements which exist and therefore are flawed as in imperfect.rather than vague rhetoric with little substance and which suffers from internal contradiction — Sapientia
Sure, sure, I quoted too much my bad. You're so right to sold me but I noticed the opportunity to explain you why I disagree with equal social status and I took it.That is a non sequitur and a red herring. It does not answer my question, which asked why you think that imposing equal social status would justify discrimination. — Sapientia
You're giving me the impression that you do not understand the meaning of the term "discrimination". — Sapientia
You're the one who seems to confuse discrimination with differentiation. Injustice and prejudice are the basis of discrimination. The prejudices I see based on the idea of equality is all people are equal so they should be given equal or if they're not equality must be imposed because it would be the ultimate form of decentralization. If you put these ideas into practice you're sure to create maximum discrimination.it necessarily involves discrimination, since, in order to distinguish an individual from others, one must discriminate between one and other — Sapientia
Yes, it's intended to be an oxymoron. But one can argue that if you eliminate all kind of dissension in a society in the real world, you've successfully transformed that society into one big faction that's all-encompassing in its own societal context. It's just a pretty way of saying unity through force not through free association.There can be no such thing as an all-encompassing faction, because that's a contradiction in terms. — Sapientia
I'm not talking about any negative connotations, I'm talking about the 1st definition that comes up: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. I understand it is defined as differentiation too but I don't use it like that. If you have another word for 'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people' that you use, I would be interested to know, which is it?The problem here is that, somewhat ironically, you've failed to discriminate between different kinds of discrimination. The term has negative connotations, but not all ways in which the word is used are negative. — Sapientia
Oh, but there's no contradiction between a classless society and social status. Unless you have the same understanding about class as you have about faction so I should try to explain what I understand by 'one faction' and 'one class': the abolishment of free will. I argue: what are classes for? Social structure, of course. But they always have these negative side-effects so we should try to come up with better ways to keep the social structure instead of repressing individuality to hide the class system's defects. You see, there's some irony in your political thought as well: instead of being about adressing the imperfection of the system, it's about adressing the inherent imperfection of the individual, specifically you try to eliminate discrimination by eliminating its basis, individuality which in my book is the same as trying to solve your life's problems by commiting suicide or in political context, trying to achieve a perfect society by giving up a perfect society.You're trying to reconcile too much, and without sufficient care, and, as a result, you're just ending up in contradiction. If there's inequality, and social status, and individuality, then there is hierarchy, and class, and a basis for discrimination - which will inevitability occur - and all of the problems that accompany these things. — Sapientia
This is the misunderstanding, this where giving up the perfect society ensues from. It's true, if you try to do the impossible you're certain to fail but just as I've already covered my view on that, just because something can not be logically achieved doesn't mean it's also illogical to pursue it.The bottom line is, you can't have your cake and eat it. It might be a nice idea, but it just ain't possible. You're biting off more than you can chew, methinks. — Sapientia
I know the left's paradigm and right's one is basically the opposite. But why even 'discriminate' (as in the way you're using this word) between need and ability? Where does the focus on need end and where does the one on ability begin, or the other way around?It's about a greater focus on need, rather than ability. — Sapientia
That's not a problem in itself.There is a small minority who horde a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth. — Sapientia
And this does not result from the previous statement.No ability is so great as to merit that much relative wealth — Sapientia
I don't understand on what the left is basing this train of thought. Inequity is a consequence of reality itself so I don't deny it, I reject arbitrary redistribution. Make a better system and wealth will redistribute itself and inequity will automatically decrease, until the new system's contradictions will start to mount up again of course.and there are plenty of others who do more to deserve a fairer share of that wealth, or who are in greater need of it, so it ought to be redistributed — Sapientia
I understand, you're talking about equity.and not so that everyone gets an equal proportion, but so that people get the right proportion, based upon a fairer assessment of needs, skills, importance, and so on. — Sapientia
Society's function isn't to endorse individual claims. You can call yourself whatever just don't expect special treatment because of that. Gender used to have a role in keeping the social structure now it lost it with the gender revolution so why keep it around? It's a relic that does no longer have any societal value. What is now called gender is just a bunch of preferred behaviours or lifestyles, nothing more. The new dichotomy is gestator or inseminator, roles which define genders no more.Gender identification is important to vast numbers of people. You could think of virtually any defining feature as a limitation in some way, but that's what makes us who we are. You yourself have endorsed individuality, and this is part of that. Selectively calling only this or that particular aspect of individuality pointless strikes me as one-sided, seems to miss the point, and looks like special pleading (unless you concede that all aspects of individuality are essentially pointless). — Sapientia
I was restating that I don't conform to any particular political doctrine.As for political loyalty — Sapientia
Not an argument, just an allusion to cultural conformity.It obviously serves a purpose, has a use, and is valued, by innumerable people, all across the globe, and this will most likely be so for years and years, for generations to come. — Sapientia
I'm not talking about cultural eradication of gender but the end of societal endorsment of the notion of gender through constitutions and legislations.And why desire to abolish it if that'd be futile? There isn't really an option to keep it or dispose of it - that's just more hypothetical tomfoolery. Rather, it will either stay or leave based on various factors such as appeal, usefulness, and how ingrained it is. — Sapientia
No I don't think the right argues at all for gender supremacism. That's a meme of the left, and despite your protestations to the contrary, you are a radical leftist.If the right argues for gender supremacism, the left for gender equality and the center for everyone with their chosen / assigned role, I argue for genderlessness, as in the abolishment of gender which I view as an obsolete social construct. — Noblosh
You're right, I meant patriarchy, sorry.No I don't think the right argues at all for gender supremacism. That's a meme of the left — Agustino
I dare you to come up with something to support that claim of yours, like an argument. For example, just because I reject traditionalism doesn't mean I embrace modernism so try not to make that fallacy, if you're going to argumentate, of course.and despite your protestations to the contrary, you are a radical leftist. — Agustino
Please provide an argument showing that right ideology argues for patriarchy.You're right, I meant patriarchy, sorry. — Noblosh
I just did - the fact that you use unsupported leftist memes (such as the Right being patriarchal) shows that you are a leftist, despite your protestations.I dare you to come up with something to support that claim of yours, like an argument. For example, just because I reject traditionalism doesn't mean I embrace modernism so try not to make that fallacy, if you're going to argumentate, of course. — Noblosh
You can still be politically liberal If you're just personally conservative on culture. Being a liberal doesn't mean that certain aspects of culture aren't palatable to you or that you don't have a hard time understanding some minority issues, it just means not being culturally imperious.Generally speaking, I would say that I'm on the Left when it comes to economic issues but tend towards the Right when it comes to cultural issues. — Erik
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.