What does 'far-left' actually (theoretically?) mean?

[ch33zw1z]

You are completely wrong. Your average liberal in the US wants regulations on privately owned companies with government investment in infrastructure, which does not equal a command economy. Also they strongly believe in private property. You are just wrong about everything.

I would speculate that he's just relying on his own bias and maybe some anecdotes to try and skew it the way he thinks it should be skewed to support his bias.

 

[mikeymikec]

Does the definition really matter to modern U.S. politics? Will classifying people politically akin to labeling jars help? If you want to do something to help everyone in the country by trying to reduce wage disparity via taxation or distribution you're a fucking commie to the other side. If you want citizens to be able to make choices on certain personal issues that go against someone else's religious beliefs you're a baby killer.

Why we even give a shit what these deplorable assholes think is beyond me. They need classifying with a rubber chicken upside their heads

That wasn't really the point of my thread. Initially an idiot on the Internet who likes to throw "far-left" around to mean "anything left of them" got me thinking about the question in the thread title, I thought about what my answer to it would be and then posted here to see what other perspectives there were in trying to define it.

It seems logical to me that if the far-right exists and is fairly well-defined, then having a vague handle on what its flip-side looks like helps put things in perspective.

 

[ch33zw1z]

A lot of people in the US? That is insane. I have never talked to a single person who thinks that or anything close to it. For you to say that is a common believe is either rooted in delusion or dishonesty. Which is it?

I have NEVER found a single person that has held these views.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. It is a simple rubric with a simple outcome that wonderfully demonstrates the dichotomy between LEFT vs RIGHT political spectrum. Yes, a FULL RIGHT SIDE would believe in any and all right to own any personal property. Full stop there. Even nuclear weapons. Owning isn't the same as using it either. Hence that decision making part of the rubric. Again, if you have to quibble or add a shade of gray to your answer for the question then that makes that answer a LEFT answer. Period. You don't 100% believe in personal property ownership. You have a shade of gray. You are not right side on that stance in the rubric there. I am.

Thank you for pointing out exactly why your rubric is stupid. That being said, thanks for confirming you believe slavery is acceptable.

Yes. You are flat out wrong here.

Please quote the basis for your definition.

 

[HumblePie]

A lot of people in the US? That is insane. I have never talked to a single person who thinks that or anything close to it. For you to say that is a common believe is either rooted in delusion or dishonesty. Which is it?

Really? Do you believe the government should regulate ownership (or lack of) Weed? Heroine? Guns? Bombs? whatever? Most Americans, conservative and liberal, don't believe in 100% personal responsibility when it comes to 100% property ownership. Simple as that. The moment you try to define a distinction, is the moment you are no longer RIGHT side of the spectrum, but moving towards LEFT side.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I have NEVER found a single person that has held these views.

HAHA yeah because they simply do not exist.

 

[HumblePie]

Thank you for pointing out exactly why your rubric is stupid. That being said, thanks for confirming you believe slavery is acceptable.

When did I say slavery is acceptable? People are not property. Nice fucking strawman like always again.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Really? Do you believe the government should regulate ownership (or lack of) Weed? Heroine? Guns? Bombs? whatever? Most Americans, conservative and liberal, don't believe in 100% personal responsibility when it comes to 100% property ownership. Simple as that. The moment you try to define a distinction, is the moment you are no longer RIGHT side of the spectrum, but moving towards LEFT side.

Ok so you are bonkers... got it. I don't debate the insane so have a nice day.

 

[brycejones]

Really? Do you believe the government should regulate ownership (or lack of) Weed? Heroine? Guns? Bombs? whatever? Most Americans, conservative and liberal, don't believe in 100% personal responsibility when it comes to 100% property ownership. Simple as that. The moment you try to define a distinction, is the moment you are no longer RIGHT side of the spectrum, but moving towards LEFT side.

So if you don't advocate for personal ownership of nuclear weapons you're drifting left.

You're trying to make a complex matter simple. This only works if you're simple minded, so I guess that explains why it "works" in your mind.

 

[MrSquished]

Your average young liberal in America these days advocate for socialism constructs. Those are government command constructs. Period. That has been what I've seen and through my experience.

You don't know simple political terms. A command economy construct is when the government dictates everything that is produced in the economy, how, and how it is priced and distributed. There is no free market, no competition between private companies. You have zero clue about anything.

 

[fskimospy]

When did I say slavery is acceptable? People are not property. Nice fucking strawman like always again.

Property is defined as anything that is owned or belongs to someone. As people have absolutely been owned and belonged to people throughout history, they can clearly be property. You made it absolutely clear that because you are on the right you are against ANY restrictions on property, which by definition must include slaves.

So are you for slavery, or have you suddenly become a leftist on this issue?

EDIT: although there is a third option - you could be personally against slavery but also oppose any attempt to stop people from enslaving others. I guess that's something, lol.

 

[HumblePie]

Ok so you are bonkers... got it. I don't debate the insane so have a nice day.

Not bonkers, just showing how everyone is mostly in the middle. Far right, and Far left are stupid terms used mainly for pejorative and political points. Pointing out that the definitions of the terms are simple. Same thing with liberal versus conservative. That most people are a little bit of both depending upon the topic at hand as well as which society structure they currently belong to.

 

[Pohemi]

Oh so you advocate for every being able to own any firearm without restrictions then?

Talk about conflating statements and putting words in other's mouths.

My rubric is the basis for LEFT vs RIGHT. Not other shades of political viewpoints. The OP was asking specifically about LEFT vs RIGHT.

You are a special kind of stupid.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Yes bonkers

FTFY

 

[HumblePie]

You don't know simple political terms. A command economy construct is when the government dictates everything that is produced in the economy, how, and how it is priced and distributed. You have zero clue about anything.

Absolute command economy certainly is that. Like everything there is grays. Paying taxes for police, roads, and schools for examples are socialism and government command constructs. Of which in the US those were at one time ALL privatized.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ok so you are bonkers... got it. I don't debate the insane so have a nice day.

What's funny is that by that quoted criteria, most conservatives are actually liberals, haha.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Talk about conflating statements and putting words in other's mouths.

You are a special kind of stupid.

He is either mentally insane or intentionally trying to derail the thread with bombastic nonsense. I would guess the latter but either way not worth your time.

 

[MrSquished]

Absolute command economy certainly is that. Like everything there is grays. Paying taxes for police, roads, and schools for examples are socialism and government command constructs. Of which in the US those were at one time ALL privatized.

You stated the average liberal in the US could be placed in Venezuela and be just fine with the system there, which is, indeed, a command economy where the government under Chavez often seized the means of production and individual wealth and ran them. You should try to keep up with your own statements. The average liberal here supports none of that.

 

[sandorski]

Your average young liberal in America these days advocate for socialism constructs. Those are government command constructs. Period. That has been what I've seen and through my experience.

First, ""Socialist"(correction) Constructs" are not Socialism. Secondly, the reason many are advocating for certain Socialist Constructs is that it turns out that the Capitalist Constructs fucking suck and where those Socialist Constructs are used they are fucking awesome in comparison.

Ideological Purity is BS, open your eyes to the faults in the system you espouse.

 

[HumblePie]

Property is defined as anything that is owned or belongs to someone. As people have absolutely been owned and belonged to people throughout history, they can clearly be property. You made it absolutely clear that because you are on the right you are against ANY restrictions on property, which by definition must include slaves.

So are you for slavery, or have you suddenly become a leftist on this issue?

EDIT: although there is a third option - you could be personally against slavery but also oppose any attempt to stop people from enslaving others. I guess that's something, lol.

Property is defined as ownership. Ownership has to be recognized by others. People not wanting to be slaves are not property. Thus there is no ownership. If someone wants to willingly be owned as a slave by someone else and those two like the arrangement, I don't care what the heck they do. It is a difference with a distinction. If that either of those two don't like the arrangement anymore, then there is no more ownership there either. The average salary person is technically a corporate slave in that sense. They agree to do the bidding of the company until the point they don't want to. While they are in agreement, they are an asset to the company (aka property).

Do I agree with slavery? Not in the traditional sense you are trying to state here in forcing those against their will to be the property of another. Because people forced against their will to be a slave will instinctually not recognize themselves as the property of another.

 

[Pohemi]

Of which in the US those were at one time ALL privatized.

Have to toss a new lie out in each post, huh?

Property is defined as ownership. Ownership has to be recognized by others. People not wanting to be slaves are not property. Thus there is no ownership.

Yes of course...the African slave trade of several hundred years never actually happened and those people weren't made slaves because they didn't agree to be slaves so all better! amirite?

Holy christ, you're a dipshit.

 

[HumblePie]

You stated the average liberal in the US could be placed in Venezuela and be just fine with the system there, which is, indeed, a command economy where the government under Chavez often seized the means of production and individual wealth and ran them. You should try to keep up with your own statements. The average liberal here supports none of that.

Venezuela is not a 100% command economy. There is private ownership there as well. It has more of the economy under the command of the government in comparison to the US.

 

[HumblePie]

Have to toss a new lie out in each post, huh?

Wrong. Schools, roads, and police were all privatized only in the US in our history.

 

[HumblePie]

First, ""Socialist"(correction) Constructs" are not Socialism. Secondly, the reason many are advocating for certain Socialist Constructs is that it turns out that the Capitalist Constructs fucking suck and where those Socialist Constructs are used they are fucking awesome in comparison.

Ideological Purity is BS, open your eyes to the faults in the system you espouse.

Wrong. Socialism constructs are socialism. It is you deciding what degree you want to apply the label at. You are trying to make it a difference with a distinction when in reality it is not. At what point in your opinion does a government move from being not socialist to socialist do you draw the line at? I promise you that line isn't going to be the same for everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

He is either mentally insane or intentionally truing to derail the thread with bombastic nonsense. I would guess the latter but with way not worth your time.

I'm fairly confident he has some sort of mental disorder or at least is on the spectrum approaching one.

Property is defined as ownership. Ownership has to be recognized by others. People not wanting to be slaves are not property. Thus there is no ownership. If someone wants to willingly be owned as a slave by someone else and those two like the arrangement, I don't care what the heck they do. It is a difference with a distinction. If that either of those two don't like the arrangement anymore, then there is no more ownership there either. The average salary person is technically a corporate slave in that sense. They agree to do the bidding of the company until the point they don't want to. While they are in agreement, they are an asset to the company (aka property).

Do I agree with slavery? Not in the traditional sense you are trying to state here in forcing those against their will to be the property of another. Because person against their will isn't recognizing themselves as the property of another.

It is unquestionable that people have been bought and sold against their will throughout history, up through and including today. You are clearly saying that you don't think humans should be owned as property, which is great, but by your own argument now places you on the left because right now, today, someone is owned by another person.

Welcome to the resistance.