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

[Deleted]

It's definately in the extreme, and not representative for the normal European left, but when Americans talk about healthcare turning their country into a socialist hellhole, they've got no idea what crazy shit actual socialists spew. They rarely talk actual helthcare, other examples are "citizen salary", where everyone from the doctor to the janitor is paid equal wages from the goverment. Suddenly it doesnt seem that bad when your "left" only talks about healthcare huh? :P

But isn't it just more reason to fight them? If you give them a finger, they'll take the whole hand and all that. Also America is more socialist than you know.

[Slant]

But isn't it just more reason to fight them? If you give them a finger, they'll take the whole hand and all that. Also America is more socialist than you know.

Bullshit America is more socialist than we know... You have no idea what you're talking about.

And... "reason to fight them"? For what, having a different opinion? Now that would be authoritarian under your own definition. :P

[PosPosPos]

The difference between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism is the former tries to maximize happiness to the largest group of people, and the latter tries to maximize suffering to the largest group of people.

That's it. The far-right group including our very own OP simply wants the freedom to harm others, which ironically results in restricting the freedom of all the other good and peace loving people.

[Deleted]

Bullshit America is more socialist than we know... You have no idea what you're talking about.

And... "reason to fight them"? For what, having a different opinion? Now that would be authoritarian under your own definition. :P

First, in America single mothers who are unemployed make more than than the average salary.. thats socialism.

Also why shouldn't we fight them? I mean politically of course, not beat them up like Antifas do.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism is the former tries to maximize happiness to the largest group of people, and the latter tries to maximize suffering to the largest group of people.

That's it. The far-right group including our very own OP simply wants the freedom to harm others, which ironically results in restricting the freedom of all the other good and peace loving people.

Thats just nonsense.. as a far right person, I confess, I don't care about you at all, live or die as you please..

[PosPosPos]

First, in America single mothers who are unemployed make more than than the average salary.. thats socialism.

Also why shouldn't we fight them? I mean politically of course, not beat them up like Antifas do.

By "politically" you mean running a car through peaceful protestors?

Nice.

First, in America single mothers who are unemployed make more than than the average salary.. thats socialism.

Also why shouldn't we fight them? I mean politically of course, not beat them up like Antifas do.

- - - Updated - - -



Thats just nonsense.. as a far right person, I confess, I don't care about you at all, live or die as you please..

Which is why your ilk are doing things like running cars through innocent people and shooting up whoever they hate on a daily basis, right?

[Slant]

First, in America single mothers who are unemployed make more than than the average salary.. thats socialism.

Also why shouldn't we fight them? I mean politically of course, not beat them up like Antifas do.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats just nonsense.. as a far right person, I confess, I don't care about you at all, live or die as you please..

I'd like to have the source for your claim about single mothers. And this is regardless of the fact that America having social mechanisms in place doesn't make them socialistic. Calling a country that has real issues with general healthcare socialistic is really stretching the definition by A LOT.

Why you shouldn't fight them? Because the US would be an authoritarian regime if you fought dissenting opinions like that. Didn't you just say the US is the only non-authoritarian country? Don't spoil it now...

[Deleted]

I'd like to have the source for your claim about single mothers. And this is regardless of the fact that America having social mechanisms in place doesn't make them socialistic. Calling a country that has real issues with general healthcare socialistic is really stretching the definition by A LOT.

Why you shouldn't fight them? Because the US would be an authoritarian regime if you fought dissenting opinions like that. Didn't you just say the US is the only non-authoritarian country? Don't spoil it now...

Well US is huge it's not that easy to give healthcare to everyone than like say in.. Denmark. Just compare all the large countries. China.. bet no one has healthcare there. Russia? Are you kidding me? India.. and so on. And the countries in Europe that have good social security either have natural resources or insane taxes and are failing.

Also fighting your political opponents is not authoritarian because guess what, they can fight back. The one with the strongest arguments wins.

[Crispin]

But isn't it just more reason to fight them? If you give them a finger, they'll take the whole hand and all that. Also America is more socialist than you know.

They're free to express their opinion tbh, it's not hate speech or a revolution, but an opinion. "fighting them" is simply just voting for another party.

- - - Updated - - -

insane taxes and are failing.

Exactly how is Denmark or Norway failing?

[Slant]

Well US is huge it's not that easy to give healthcare to everyone than like say in.. Denmark. Just compare all the large countries. China.. bet no one has healthcare there. Russia? Are you kidding me? India.. and so on. And the countries in Europe that have good social security either have natural resources or insane taxes and are failing.

Also fighting your political opponents is not authoritarian because guess what, they can fight back. The one with the strongest arguments wins.

The EU has about 500 million people compared to the US with 350 million. The EU practically has universal healthcare across the board. And you're telling me the US can't do that, because... it's too huge? Puh-lease... you don't have it, because the US is not socialistic, not because it's practically unfeasible.

China? Let's look at Wikipedia...

Healthcare in China consists of both public and private medical institutions and insurance programs. About 95% of the population has at least basic health insurance coverage. Despite this, public health insurance generally only covers about half of medical costs, with the proportion lower for serious or chronic illnesses. Under the "Healthy China 2020" initiative, China is currently undertaking an effort to cut healthcare costs, and the government requires that insurance will cover 70% of costs by 2017.[1][2][2] The Chinese government is working on providing affordable basic healthcare to all residents by 2020.[3]

95% of the population have basic health insurance coverage.

India...

In India the constitution grants free healthcare for all. In fact each district headquarters in most states have one or more Government hospitals where everything from diagnosis to medicine is given for free. In fact most experts agree that building on this Government and public healthcare units across the nation is crucial to India's future and that private insurance is probably not conducive to India's conditions. [2]

India is having problems, due to the bad implementations, so technically you're right about them. But in theory you're wrong and they want to address that.

Germany's natural resources are pretty much depleted. Not "depleted" depleted, but we make so much more money with production rather than resources that it's financially unfeasible to go back to mining when you can import cheap steel from Russia or wherever. The EU is also hardly failing. In fact, the EU just managed to solve a major financial crisis (caused by the US, btw), save a country from literal bankruptcy, invites 2+ million refugees while feeding said country all the while providing general healthcare and social services for the entire population AND being a really fucking awesome place to live in. The EU is a pretty big success story, to be honest.

You need to beef up your arguments, mate. Because the way you're fighting, the right doesn't stand a chance.

[Crispin]

The issue Cherise, is fixing on purely left or right politics. Taking the best from both sides and hitting the center is what makes several European countries work quite well.

[Deleted]

India is having problems, due to the bad implementations, so technically you're right about them. But in theory you're wrong and they want to address that.

Germany's natural resources are pretty much depleted. Not "depleted" depleted, but we make so much more money with production rather than resources that it's financially unfeasible to go back to mining when you can import cheap steel from Russia or wherever. The EU is also hardly failing. In fact, the EU just managed to solve a major financial crisis (caused by the US, btw), save a country from literal bankruptcy, invites 2+ million refugees while feeding said country all the while providing general healthcare and social services for the entire population AND being a really fucking awesome place to live in. The EU is a pretty big success story, to be honest.

You need to beef up your arguments, mate. Because the way you're fighting, the right doesn't stand a chance.

My BF is dutch so I know whats going on there. A guy went to jail for wearing a pig hat in front of a mosque. Not exactly what Id call "awesome". Europeans have to sacrifice their freedom for that. This is not a good thing at all. Anyway, Im going to bed.

[Muzjhath]

Because I dont see how the left could possible achieve anything without being authoritarian? Freedom means you get to be highly selfish.. left on the other hand is collectivist.

Haven't read more than this.

However non-authoritarian people on the left believe that people would chose not to be highly selfish and want to help their fellow human.
Instead of being gigantic assholes who only cares about themselves, are too uneducated or stupid to know just how much public education has helped humanity, and know the cost saver that public health is. Same as how public roads and sanitation is a common good.

So where your ideology goes by "Be selfish as a little shit-turd and take what you can and laugh in everyone elses face!" non-authoritarian leftism would be "Use what you have for yours and everyone's betterment".

Edit: I personally don't buy into this because most people are dicks. Why I'm right of center (slightly) politically in my country.

[Wyrt]

Well US is huge it's not that easy to give healthcare to everyone than like say in.. Denmark. Just compare all the large countries. China.. bet no one has healthcare there. Russia? Are you kidding me? India.. and so on. And the countries in Europe that have good social security either have natural resources or insane taxes and are failing.

Also fighting your political opponents is not authoritarian because guess what, they can fight back. The one with the strongest arguments wins.

Why does landmass matter? Especially when that landmass is already broken up into smaller chunks calls states?

[Slant]

My BF is dutch so I know whats going on there. A guy went to jail for wearing a pig hat in front of a mosque. Not exactly what Id call "awesome". Europeans have to sacrifice their freedom for that. This is not a good thing at all. Anyway, Im going to bed.

You're grossly misrepresenting facts. On purpose, if your BF is Dutch. The man was not sent to jail. He wasn't even arrested. He was detained for disobeying the orders of a police officer by putting on the hat himself after the officer had told another man to take it off. He was held for one hour. What you fail to mention is also that he's not just a random dude with a hat. He's a leading figure of the PEGIDA movement, a right-extreme anti-muslim movement that is associated with neo-nazism and that they had an anti-muslim rally in front of said mosque.

Yes, I'd abso-fucking-lutely call that awesome. Protest all you want, but show some respect while doing it. And follow the orders of public authority while you're at it, too. There is no freedom to be a dick in Europe. And that's just how we like it.

[Muzjhath]

Haven't read more than this.

However non-authoritarian people on the left believe that people would chose not to be highly selfish and want to help their fellow human.
Instead of being gigantic assholes who only cares about themselves, are too uneducated or stupid to know just how much public education has helped humanity, and know the cost saver that public health is. Same as how public roads and sanitation is a common good.

So where your ideology goes by "Be selfish as a little shit-turd and take what you can and laugh in everyone elses face!" non-authoritarian leftism would be "Use what you have for yours and everyone's betterment".

Edit: I personally don't buy into this because most people are dicks. Why I'm right of center (slightly) politically in my country.

Adding to this here. I have several rather well of cousins who vote to the left who would undoubtedly be better of with a right-wing coalition government. They vote left because they want a society that help each other more. A stance I can respect even if I don't agree with their reasoning of what constitutes "help".

[Glorious Leader]

Id like to know how a non authoritarian right is possible? It strikes me that every single fucking policy they have is in some way shape or form meant to opress one group or another.

[Wyrt]

Id like to know how a non authoritarian right is possible? It strikes me that every single fucking policy they have is in some way shape or form meant to opress one group or another.

I think they dream of a world where they can get anally reamed by corporations on a daily basis. Why? I don't know, most of them don't seem to be owners of corporations.

[zealo]

Id like to know how a non authoritarian right is possible? It strikes me that every single fucking policy they have is in some way shape or form meant to opress one group or another.

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.

[Glorious Leader]

Anarcho-capitalism, basically.

Would probably be the most oppresive form of capitalism you could find. Nobody is going to want to live in misery and destitution so the rich dont have to pay a cent in taxes. They will have to be forced into it.

Read Hoppe. Tell me how liberating a monarchy of elites to rule sounds.

By the by anarcho-capitalists are not genuine anarchists. They are in actuality gross statists. Genuine anarchists are for the eliminatiom or private property.

[Felya]

I think they dream of a world where they can get anally reamed by corporations on a daily basis. Why? I don't know, most of them don't seem to be owners of corporations.

They associate stability with corporations. The pretty much the entire concept of the right is that the populace is too stupid to make it without the elite. In every concept, from the rich leaving for Atlus to shrug, to moochers versus job creators, to the concept of supply side economics. The right depends on the authority of the elite.

Today we call them corporations, but we called them kings before. Much like corporations, a group was able to maintain power, by dissolving personal accountability across its kingdom. Much like now a day, when say coal becomes less profitable, it's not the royal family that is hurt. It's the serfs, the working class that gets butchered, before the owners fly off.

That's what makes the current political climate so idiotic. When Bush was president, love him or hate him, the massive tax cut he gave was appropriate. We had a booming industry, an economy that was strong enough to result in no deficit. Right now, as coal miners bitch about lost jobs and the nature of America employment shifting, doing what Trump promises is the opposite of what needs to be done. Our WW2 head start is over, we cannot continue with more of the same...