“You either want to give more power to the state or you don’t.”
I pretty much agree with this statement, which means that you pretty much agree with the definition of the political spectrum because increased state power means more coercion.
RINOs are leftists.
“But you are assuming that people on the left support coercion. They don’t”
Yes they do, by definition. If the don’t support coercion, then they’re not leftists. Maybe I can help you more if you try to give me an example of someone you think is a leftist who doesn’t support coercion.
To use education as an example, the concepts of private schools and homeschooling are rightist because they’re voluntary. If someone believes a family’s educational budget should be forcefully removed via taxation and spent on the government’s monopolistic schools that the family’s children are forced to attend, then the person is a coercionist and therefore a leftist. The person might delude himself that he’s a bleeding heart who wants public education for all, but in practice he is being immoral.
If a person advocates a forced welfare state instead of allowing people the freedom to participate in voluntary charity, then the person is being coercive, immoral, and leftist.
Are you worried about recognizing the immorality in people you personally know who fancy themselves as bleeding heart do gooders but who believe in forceful and violent tactics? I’m worried about their souls, so I think pointing out that their beliefs put into practice are unnecessarily forceful and potentially violent might help them change their ways. Leftists don’t want to admit that they’re violent, but they are. Just like how someone who hires a hitman is also guilty of the murder even if the hirer doesn’t pull the trigger personally, people who use the government to take others’ taxes by force are violent even if they don’t issue the threats and execute the warrants personally.
I just think we need to kill traditional terms and move into something that makes more sense.
For Example:
My mom is a Democrat.
When I explained to her that both parties are the problem.
She then asked me.
Well.. which side are you on?
I told her.
Mom. I am for the "decentralization" of government to allow local communities to have more power. This is because they are closer to the people they serve.
When I explained it to her like this.
She got on my side and agreed.
I was having the same convo with someone who is considered to be "far left".
When I told them about the decentralization of government.
It made sense to them and they also agreed that's a good idea.
The Cabal has already tainted the
"Left" vs "Right"
"Blue" vs "Red"
"Black" vs "White"
"Gay" vs "Straight"
labels...
We need to move past them and come up with new ways to communicate what we believe in.
When I communicate what I am in this new way.
Tons of people who are on the left agree with me.
So this is why I say that Left vs Right is now useless.
These labels already have too much baggage behind them.
Like I said at the beginning, the cabal perverted the labels. I’m not going to let the cabal’s squid ink make me give up on the usefulness of the properly defined political spectrum. If you’re trying to communicate with someone who has been confused by the cabal, for example someone who has been tricked into thinking that coercive National Socialism is on the right, then I can see why you’d think it’s easier to avoid using the spectrum’s terms. In those cases, maybe eschew the abstract terms and just go with more direct or literal terminology, like “coercionists” instead of leftists. But for the sake of expedience in communicating over a word-counted medium like twitter like what James Woods was doing, the shorthand “the left” is fine.
Is your mom your example of a leftist who you think doesn’t support coercion? Well, what makes her a Democrat? Does she agree with violently enforced taxation? With the forced welfare state? With government schools? With the retirement planning financial sector being commandeered by the state? With people being mandated to purchase the products sold by the health insurance corporations? If the answers are ‘yes’, then she supports coercion, and I’m sorry to say that she’s immoral at least in those instances. Even Christians have been tricked into supporting coercion and making themselves immoral.
The leftist cabal’s meddling with the labels of the political spectrum was less effective at pitting people against each other than the cabal’s tactic of coercively taxing some people to give politically-privileged handouts to other people. You can see how coercion breeds resentment much more effectively than labels do.
At the extreme end of decentralization is non-coercive individualism, so there’s a lot of overlap in the concepts of your preferred labels with those of the properly defined political spectrum.
You still haven’t really provided an example of a leftist who doesn’t support coercion. And you didn’t answer what makes your mom a Democrat.
“You either want to give more power to the state or you don’t.”
I pretty much agree with this statement, which means that you pretty much agree with the definition of the political spectrum because increased state power means more coercion.
RINOs are leftists.
“But you are assuming that people on the left support coercion. They don’t”
Yes they do, by definition. If the don’t support coercion, then they’re not leftists. Maybe I can help you more if you try to give me an example of someone you think is a leftist who doesn’t support coercion.
To use education as an example, the concepts of private schools and homeschooling are rightist because they’re voluntary. If someone believes a family’s educational budget should be forcefully removed via taxation and spent on the government’s monopolistic schools that the family’s children are forced to attend, then the person is a coercionist and therefore a leftist. The person might delude himself that he’s a bleeding heart who wants public education for all, but in practice he is being immoral.
If a person advocates a forced welfare state instead of allowing people the freedom to participate in voluntary charity, then the person is being coercive, immoral, and leftist.
Are you worried about recognizing the immorality in people you personally know who fancy themselves as bleeding heart do gooders but who believe in forceful and violent tactics? I’m worried about their souls, so I think pointing out that their beliefs put into practice are unnecessarily forceful and potentially violent might help them change their ways. Leftists don’t want to admit that they’re violent, but they are. Just like how someone who hires a hitman is also guilty of the murder even if the hirer doesn’t pull the trigger personally, people who use the government to take others’ taxes by force are violent even if they don’t issue the threats and execute the warrants personally.
I see where you are coming from friend.
I just think we need to kill traditional terms and move into something that makes more sense.
For Example:
My mom is a Democrat.
When I explained to her that both parties are the problem.
She then asked me.
Well.. which side are you on?
I told her.
Mom. I am for the "decentralization" of government to allow local communities to have more power. This is because they are closer to the people they serve.
When I explained it to her like this. She got on my side and agreed.
I was having the same convo with someone who is considered to be "far left".
When I told them about the decentralization of government.
It made sense to them and they also agreed that's a good idea.
The Cabal has already tainted the
"Left" vs "Right" "Blue" vs "Red" "Black" vs "White" "Gay" vs "Straight"
labels...
We need to move past them and come up with new ways to communicate what we believe in.
When I communicate what I am in this new way. Tons of people who are on the left agree with me.
So this is why I say that Left vs Right is now useless.
These labels already have too much baggage behind them.
Like I said at the beginning, the cabal perverted the labels. I’m not going to let the cabal’s squid ink make me give up on the usefulness of the properly defined political spectrum. If you’re trying to communicate with someone who has been confused by the cabal, for example someone who has been tricked into thinking that coercive National Socialism is on the right, then I can see why you’d think it’s easier to avoid using the spectrum’s terms. In those cases, maybe eschew the abstract terms and just go with more direct or literal terminology, like “coercionists” instead of leftists. But for the sake of expedience in communicating over a word-counted medium like twitter like what James Woods was doing, the shorthand “the left” is fine.
Is your mom your example of a leftist who you think doesn’t support coercion? Well, what makes her a Democrat? Does she agree with violently enforced taxation? With the forced welfare state? With government schools? With the retirement planning financial sector being commandeered by the state? With people being mandated to purchase the products sold by the health insurance corporations? If the answers are ‘yes’, then she supports coercion, and I’m sorry to say that she’s immoral at least in those instances. Even Christians have been tricked into supporting coercion and making themselves immoral.
I'll stick to using "Decentralization" vs "Centralization" of power.
The Cabal didn't pervert the labels. There created these labels to put people against each other.
The leftist cabal’s meddling with the labels of the political spectrum was less effective at pitting people against each other than the cabal’s tactic of coercively taxing some people to give politically-privileged handouts to other people. You can see how coercion breeds resentment much more effectively than labels do.
At the extreme end of decentralization is non-coercive individualism, so there’s a lot of overlap in the concepts of your preferred labels with those of the properly defined political spectrum.
You still haven’t really provided an example of a leftist who doesn’t support coercion. And you didn’t answer what makes your mom a Democrat.