Right wing, Left wing

[David1967]

That sums us up pretty well.
I only hope that we influence the Big Two in the direction of liberty.

Yes!!!!!

 

[David1967]

I don't think I could ever be like The Donald.
Tis not that I'm better.....I'm just not up to the task.

That was a very interesting way to put it. But I agree. Even if a person does like Trump I think you have to try pretty hard.

 

[Sunstone]

You may need two wings for the bird to fly, but I think Chris Hedges criticism of the current situation is spot on --- the Left Wing is either defunct or dead in America, and consequently, the more moderate Liberals have very little influence on politics. You don't have balance in this county. You've got an active Right Wing and no real left to counter it.

 

[David1967]

You may need two wings for the bird to fly, but I think Chris Hedges criticism of the current situation is spot on --- the left wing, liberalism, is either defunct or dead in America, and contra propaganda outlets like FOX and Limbaugh, it has been for some time. You don't have balance in this county. You've got an active Right Wing and no left to counter it.

I agree that balance is needed. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives are going away any time soon, nor should they. I think there are some decent ideas from both sides. I generally shy away from trying to label myself, but my overall views seem to be on the more moderate side of most things. However I took one of those online political tests once just for fun and it put me in the libertarian category.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....I took one of those online political tests once just for fun and it put me in the libertarian category.

You're doomed!
We tend to see the political differently from most, ie, not just left v right, aka liberal v conservative.
Also, I see the "center" as being relative....the middle between that ill-defined left & right.
So it's never one extreme entirely in charge.

Btw, are you familiar with the Nolan Chart?
It's how I view things...

 

[David1967]

You're doomed!
We tend to see the political differently from most, ie, not just left v right, aka liberal v conservative.
Also, I see the "center" as being relative....the middle between that ill-defined left & right.
So it's never one extreme entirely in charge.

Btw, are you familiar with the Nolan Chart?
It's how I view things...

Yeah I can totally relate to that. I have very good personal friends who are self defined liberal and conservative. I fit in to an extent with both ,but not entirely with either one. That's why I just usually, if someone insisted on a label, identifying myself as moderate. In discussions I always seem to be the one trying to find common ground. Sometimes with some success sometimes not so much. Libertarian...HMMMM. Am I really doomed to forever dwell in this Limbo?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah I can totally relate to that. I have very good personal friends who are self defined liberal and conservative. I fit in to an extent with both ,but not entirely with either one. That's why I just usually, if someone insisted on a label, identifying myself as moderate. In discussions I always seem to be the one trying to find common ground. Sometimes with some success sometimes not so much. Libertarian...HMMMM. Am I really doomed to forever dwell in this Limbo?

If you're lucky.

 

[Sunstone]

My major beef with Libertarianism, David, is that unregulated free markets tend to create huge disparities in wealth between the richest and poorest members of societies. Since political power follows such concentrations of wealth in the hands of a relatively few people, unregulated free markets can be thought of as allowing a relatively few people to exercise enormous political power while virtually disenfranchising everyone else. Not even the local millionaire has much power compared to a multi-billionaire. In all of history, no representative democracy or republic has long withstood huge wealth inequality. The historical tendency has been for the society to transform into an oligarchy and from there, into a tyranny. So, if Libertarianism is be a viable system that does not contain within it the seeds of its own destruction, it must involve some degree of regulation and redistribution downward of wealth. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Revoltingest]

My major beef with Libertarianism, David, is that unregulated free markets tend to create huge disparities in wealth between the richest and poorest members of societies. Since political power follows such concentrations of wealth in the hands of a relatively few people, unregulated free markets can be thought of as allowing a relatively few people to exercise enormous political power while virtually disenfranchising everyone else. Not even the local millionaire has much power compared to a multi-billionaire. In all of history, no representative democracy or republic has long withstood huge wealth inequality. The historical tendency has been for the society to transform into an oligarchy and from there, into a tyranny. So, if Libertarianism is be a viable system that does not contain within it the seeds of its own destruction, it must involve some degree of regulation and redistribution downward of wealth. At least, that's how I see it.

As with all political perspectives in Americastan, no single one holds sway over all things.
The Libertarian Party Platform is only one competitor against the agendas of the Big Two.
So there's no need to fear the extremes.
They aren't going to happen.
(We'll never be that popular.)

We'd be much worse off if we had only Dems or only Pubs running everything (IMO).
But we could do with some influence in the direction of.....
- Lower taxes
- Less war
- Less criminalization of victimless acts
- Less warantless surveillance
- Less corporate welfare
- Loser-pay tort reform

 

[David1967]

Sunstone said, "My major beef with Libertarianism, David, is that unregulated free markets tend to create huge disparities in wealth between the richest and poorest members of societies. Since political power follows such concentrations of wealth in the hands of a relatively few people, unregulated free markets can be thought of as allowing a relatively few people to exercise enormous political power while virtually disenfranchising everyone else. Not even the local millionaire has much power compared to a multi-billionaire. In all of history, no representative democracy or republic has long withstood huge wealth inequality. The historical tendency has been for the society to transform into an oligarchy and from there, into a tyranny. So, if Libertarianism is be a viable system that does not contain within it the seeds of its own destruction, it must involve some degree of regulation and redistribution downward of wealth. At least, that's how I see it."

Revoltingest said "
As with all political perspectives in Americastan, no single one holds sway over all things.
The Libertarian Party Platform is only one competitor against the agendas of the Big Two.
So there's no need to fear the extremes.
They aren't going to happen.
(We'll never be that popular.)

We'd be much worse off if we had only Dems or only Pubs running everything (IMO).
But we could do with some influence in the direction of.....
- Lower taxes
- Less war
- Less criminalization of victimless acts
- Less warantless surveillance
- Less corporate welfare
- Loser-pay tort reform"

David1967 said, I actually agree with most of what you both said.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....I actually agree with most of what you both said.

You're no fun!

 

[David1967]

You're no fun!

I guess I could try to be disagreeable if you like.