Can someone explain how a non-authoritarian left is possible?

[Felya]

Anarcho-capitalism, basically. From there you could go less extreme and include a smaller state government as necessary.

It's not a country id want to live in, but it exists as a political ideology.

Anarcho-capitalist is like a fascist-liberal... those terms are oxymorons. What anarchy-capitalism tries to do, is dress up plutocracy in a libertarian skirt.

[Deleted]

The authoritarian ones are the weird ones. From commies to whatever you want to call the internet warriors of today.
But the endorsement of freedoms permeates the left through and through. Hippies, anarchists, emancipation movements...

[Danner]

Ok Im a far right libertarian. I believe in personal freedoms and rights so I don't really understand the left at all. Can someone tell me how it's even possible to be left and not infringe on other peoples rights?

Your misunderstanding is the second statement: "Can someone tell me how it's even possible to be left and not infringe on other peoples rights?". Being an sociopath is, like it or not, orthogonal to being left or right. It is perfectly possible to be leftist and a monumental asshole.

Specifically, you need a political mindset that
- 1: I know best, fuck other opinions (authoriarianism)
- 2: We should improve society so that it becomes a better place for everyone (left-ism)

With such a mindset, you then aim for a political/social order where individual rights and concerns are completely ignored, in favour of the ever-demanding needs of the "greater good". Think of a bee colony if you like. Individual bees literally don't matter, everything revolves around the hive's survival and flourishment.

Obviously, #1 and #2 is indeed in some sort of disagreement here. Because if you have your unimpeded way per #1, you will eventually become a dictator, which is a detriment to the #2 goal. And no matter how well-intentioned your solutions for #2 is, you end up falling in all the same traps as communist countries in the last century did. For all their talks about the greater good of society, it always ended up being a one-man dictatorship.

In fact, communism is the perfect example of the authoritarian left, best represented by Stalin. Stalin was by no question a hardcore authoritarian. Anyone who were perceived to look at him wrongly ended up in Siberia. It was his rule, or a bullet to the head. Obey comrade stalin, or the KGB will get you and your family. But I would also argue his moniker of a leftist isn't incorrect at all. His 5-year plans had the ideal of a competitive communist state in mind, aimed to increase production and make the country a better place to live in. You will find similar sentiments amongst both Mao's cultural revolution and Pol Pot's not-quite brilliant idea to send everyone off to do farming in the countryside.

Hindsight tells us all those reforms were brutal and miserable failures, and had either allowed any sort of sensible dissent it would have been made abundantly clear why before millions had to die. But I do not doubt that they were indeed implemented with an actual ideal of a societal enrichment in mind. Something that would make life better for everyone. Had the people enacting those reforms not been such monumental sociopaths enamored by the idea that they alone knew what was good for the rest of us (requirement #1), I'm sure you would instead have seen social democrat reforms like we did in Norway after WW2 (requirement #2). Those actually worked out, without anyone needing to suffer death by starving or in some concentration camp in the process.

TLDR:
Left-ism is the ideal of compassion, that we should strive for a world where everyone has equal opportunities.
Right-ism is the ideal of freedom, cherishing that we have different strengths and that not everyone need to be equal.
Authoritarianism is the ideal that you do as I say. This ideal can corrupt both left and right mindsets.

[Deleted]

So, what I gather from this thread is that Cherise isn't a libertarian, but a hardcore anarchist, Mad Max style.

[Machismo]

Ok Im a far right libertarian. I believe in personal freedoms and rights so I don't really understand the left at all. Can someone tell me how it's even possible to be left and not infringe on other peoples rights?

Here's the problem, you may be far right, but you aren't really a libertarian.

Let me know when you change your stance on immigration, then we can discuss your attempt to label yourself as a libertarian.

- - - Updated - - -

The answer is simple, voluntary governance.

How does the right achieve anything without being authoritarian? They don't. Instead, they support authoritarians like Trump. If you like a list, I can gladly provide you a long list of Trump's authoritarian policies.

- - - Updated - - -

China is communist though last I heard.. communism being far left and all that?

China is not even close to being communist, neither was the Soviet Union.

[Adam Jensen]

Again, whats your point? You don't seem to realize that most right wing people really don't care about feelings, we only care about facts.

AH HAHAHAHAHAAA AHA HAHAHAHHAA AH AHAHAHA hah ha . . . haaaaaa.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggt.

That's why the right was so quick to condemn Hillary of Benghazi despite the fact that 9 investigations came up dry.
That's why the right is so adamant to stand against gay rights despite the fact that there's no evidence homosexuality causes harm to society
That's why the right is so fervent in their support of abstinence-only despite the fact that abstinence-only states have the highest rates of abortion and teen pregnancy
That's why the right angrily pitched fits about how that Muslim Kenyan Obama was going "take their guns" despite the fact that he never showed any inclination to do so.
That's why the right is cheerfully supporting a wall on the southern border despite the fact that most illegals enter legally through airports
That's why the right is so keen on preserving coal mining jobs despite the fact that coal has been out-marketed by natural gas and other fuels.

The right is the party that:
Fights against evolution.
Fights against global warming
Supports a president who believes in "alternative facts"
Still thinks trickle down will work
Has a significant fraction who think Trump won the popular vote, or that illegals voted in the millions

Yeah.

The right cares about facts. What a joke.

[Pannonian]

AH HAHAHAHAHAAA AHA HAHAHAHHAA AH AHAHAHA hah ha . . . haaaaaa.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggt.

That's why the right was so quick to condemn Hillary of Benghazi despite the fact that 9 investigations came up dry.
That's why the right is so adamant to stand against gay rights despite the fact that there's no evidence homosexuality causes harm to society
That's why the right is so fervent in their support of abstinence-only despite the fact that abstinence-only states have the highest rates of abortion and teen pregnancy
That's why the right angrily pitched fits about how that Muslim Kenyan Obama was going "take their guns" despite the fact that he never showed any inclination to do so.
That's why the right is cheerfully supporting a wall on the southern border despite the fact that most illegals enter legally through airports
That's why the right is so keen on preserving coal mining jobs despite the fact that coal has been out-marketed by natural gas and other fuels.

The right is the party that:
Fights against evolution.
Fights against global warming
Supports a president who believes in "alternative facts"
Still thinks trickle down will work
Has a significant fraction who think Trump won the popular vote, or that illegals voted in the millions

Yeah.

The right cares about facts. What a joke.

I hate to do this, but let's say GOP not the right. I've seen many rational conservative and right-wing people on this forum who don't buy into that bullshit but still identify themselves as "right". Hell, the thread about the terrorist attack is a good example of conservatives calling out the idiots on "their side".

And i don't think a lot of the conservatives i know, you know the one with principles who care about politics, would ever associate with the likes of Cherise.

[SirBeef]

The whole problem with the total individual freedoms the OP seems to want, is that living in a society, specifically any from of democracy requires laws, rules, and regulations as the price of admission if you will. If you want to enjoy the freedoms of such a society, there will be restrictions to individual freedoms.

[Sky High]

you don't have "rights" unless you either have the power to back up whatever rights you think you have or have an overseeing body that gives you those rights. so yeah your'e never going to understand "the left" because you live in a fantasy world where somehow rights just exist on their own.

[Lenonis]

Just feel like pointing out that someone with an IQ of 160 wouldn't need to ask a gaming forum how a non-authoritarian left is possible because they would either be able to intuitively figure it out or understand how to do the research necessary to answer the question. Also, someone with an IQ of 160 would have the critical thinking skills to understand the difference between news and propaganda....*coughInfoWarscough*

In addition, someone who claims to be driven by facts and not emotions wouldn't make such erroneous assumptions.

[Xeones]

Ok Im a far right libertarian. I believe in personal freedoms and rights so I don't really understand the left at all. Can someone tell me how it's even possible to be left and not infringe on other peoples rights?

You are confused here. What you believe in is not "rights". What you believe in is a certain definition of freedom. Rights guarantee you protection from the free actions of others.

I believe rights serve to allow you greater individual freedom than the non-interventionist "freedom" you most likely support.

An example is republicans who want to gut the EPA and allow companies the freedom to poison my air and water. I on the other hand want the right to clean air and water. You probably call it authoritarian.

[Lenonis]

I hate to do this, but let's say GOP not the right.

We are starting to have a really messy definition of right/left. Shouldn't, by definition, the GOP platform represent the right and the Democratic platform represent the left? People's individual views may deviate for that, of course, but you have to have a more concrete definition for these political terms than how someone self-identifies. I mean...we have an abundance of people who self-identify and independent but who are clearly anything but.

[Orbitus]

So, what I gather from this thread is that Cherise isn't a libertarian, but a hardcore anarchist, Mad Max style.

It doesn't help that she doesn't know what she is talking about 99% of the time. She wants to be part of the country, but not part of society. Basically she needs to move her happy ass to a fucking island and be by herself and fend for herself.

[Pannonian]

We are starting to have a really messy definition of right/left. Shouldn't, by definition, the GOP platform represent the right and the Democratic platform represent the left? People's individual views may deviate for that, of course, but you have to have a more concrete definition for these political terms than how someone self-identifies. I mean...we have an abundance of people who self-identify and independent but who are clearly anything but.

I know what you mean, but i myself am sick of being accused everytime something happens "if this would've been a nazi you would have lumped all the right together" - so i'll try to not do exactly that.

Besides, it wouldn't make much sense, when for example one of the first in this forum to call the terrorist attack what it is was someone from the right, who also called out alt-right nazi-sympathizers. If it's against Nazis and racism i don't care about political positions, these people are a threat to the common system we believe in. Do they have to clean their house and their party? Oh yes they do, but i'd rather support them than alienate them.

Fuck the self proclaimed independents, some of them are just to cowardly to openly proclaim what they stand for, but i'll gladly support and unite with any conservative or right-winger that thinks these despicable idiots and their apologist in chief are a danger to western society.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I like how the OP claims to pay attention to facts and then spends an entire thread denying facts when linked, and providing no counter facts other than their own word.

- - - Updated - - -

AH HAHAHAHAHAAA AHA HAHAHAHHAA AH AHAHAHA hah ha . . . haaaaaa.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggt.

That's why the right was so quick to condemn Hillary of Benghazi despite the fact that 9 investigations came up dry.
That's why the right is so adamant to stand against gay rights despite the fact that there's no evidence homosexuality causes harm to society
That's why the right is so fervent in their support of abstinence-only despite the fact that abstinence-only states have the highest rates of abortion and teen pregnancy
That's why the right angrily pitched fits about how that Muslim Kenyan Obama was going "take their guns" despite the fact that he never showed any inclination to do so.
That's why the right is cheerfully supporting a wall on the southern border despite the fact that most illegals enter legally through airports
That's why the right is so keen on preserving coal mining jobs despite the fact that coal has been out-marketed by natural gas and other fuels.

The right is the party that:
Fights against evolution.
Fights against global warming
Supports a president who believes in "alternative facts"
Still thinks trickle down will work
Has a significant fraction who think Trump won the popular vote, or that illegals voted in the millions

Yeah.

The right cares about facts. What a joke.

To be fair, Cherise thinks that only infowars and breitbart are real, factual news sites, and everything else, including the entire rest of the media and anything that paints the right wing in a bad light is all "fake".

[Endus]

We are starting to have a really messy definition of right/left. Shouldn't, by definition, the GOP platform represent the right and the Democratic platform represent the left?

That doesn't make any sense, because then you've defined "left" and "right" not as ideological positions which vary in character, but solely based on which team pushes an idea, in American politics alone. If the Republicans put forward a universal health care plan tomorrow, would that magically make universal healthcare "right-wing"? No. It would mean the Republicans came towards the left on that particular issue.

[Lenonis]

That doesn't make any sense, because then you've defined "left" and "right" not as ideological positions which vary in character, but solely based on which team pushes an idea, in American politics alone. If the Republicans put forward a universal health care plan tomorrow, would that magically make universal healthcare "right-wing"? No. It would mean the Republicans came towards the left on that particular issue.

Hmm...that's a good point. However I guess my original point stands that labels in US politics is getting extremely messy because people are self identifying as whatever they want. I mean you have libertarians supporting the banning of gay marriage. Cause that makes sense.

I just think we need move away from any sort of self-labeling as a valid measure of a person's political views and go back to actually judging their views themselves.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Just feel like pointing out that someone with an IQ of 160 wouldn't need to ask a gaming forum how a non-authoritarian left is possible because they would either be able to intuitively figure it out or understand how to do the research necessary to answer the question. Also, someone with an IQ of 160 would have the critical thinking skills to understand the difference between news and propaganda....*coughInfoWarscough*

In addition, someone who claims to be driven by facts and not emotions wouldn't make such erroneous assumptions.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that their 160 IQ is based on a Simpson's themed internet IQ test, and not the IQ test they give to kids when they're below the age of 8.

Also, even if it were the genuine IQ test, IQ can and typically is misused to demonstrate how smart or stupid someone is. There have been vast swaths of people with high IQ who are just... this dumb. And people with low IQ's who went on to be (or stay) rich.

[Lynarii]

We are starting to have a really messy definition of right/left. Shouldn't, by definition, the GOP platform represent the right and the Democratic platform represent the left? People's individual views may deviate for that, of course, but you have to have a more concrete definition for these political terms than how someone self-identifies. I mean...we have an abundance of people who self-identify and independent but who are clearly anything but.

Not at all. The political right/left is not that US-centric (in fact, the terminology originated in France). There have been politically right or left groups of people throughout history, and the US political parties are more 'a little right' vs 'a lot right' than left vs right. Terms like 'communist' 'socialist' 'fascist' 'libertarian' etc are words with actual definitions and meanings, even if people frequently misuse them to mean 'person with a viewpoint I do not like'.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Anarcho-Socialism is Left-Libertarianism. Which is the closest to my political beliefs. Non-authoritarian left people exist... admittedly we are probably rare at this point.

Which is probably why it will never happen, it relies on people voluntarily participating.

But that's why any kind of anarchistic or pure libertarian government will never exist. They all rely on voluntary participation and voluntary, non-policed, adherence to good morals.

Anarcho-capitalism (what most libertarians advocate for) relies on businesses not being greedy, when that's the very nature of running a business, greed on at least some level, and many take it to the extreme.