I have a question, and I'd really like an answer

This guy, ZC, posted this on another thread:

No chr*stian can be a true conservative...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959296/posts?q=1&&page=101

Commisar ZC is leading the purge I guess.

I've picked up on the same phenomenon has you have, although we might not see it exactly the same way. The way I see it, political ideologies don't exist on a continuum, but in a circle, like the face of a clock. Thus, you have most of your "mainstream" type people somewhere between, say, 3 o'clock (the 'right') and 9 o'clock (the 'left'), with the mushy-middle fence sitters hanging out around 6 o'clock. Once you go earlier than 3 o'clock on the right and 9 o'clock on the left, that's where you'll start seeing the extremists. The most extreme "far right" and your extreme "far left" are so far out there that they are huddling on either side of 12 o'clock and sometimes they actually meet right at 12 o'clock. Extremists have a lot in common, whether they're on the right or the left; that's why you are perplexed by the similarities.

All IMHO, of course.

Absolutely right - its a circle, not a line.

And thats the exact reason why Lord Haw Haw (Baghdad Pat) could tie in so readily with Lenora Fulani.

I've picked up on the same phenomenon has you have, although we might not see it exactly the same way. The way I see it, political ideologies don't exist on a continuum, but in a circle, like the face of a clock. Thus, you have most of your "mainstream" type people somewhere between, say, 3 o'clock (the 'right') and 9 o'clock (the 'left'), with the mushy-middle fence sitters hanging out around 6 o'clock. Once you go earlier than 3 o'clock on the right and 9 o'clock on the left, that's where you'll start seeing the extremists. The most extreme "far right" and your extreme "far left" are so far out there that they are huddling on either side of 12 o'clock and sometimes they actually meet right at 12 o'clock. Extremists have a lot in common, whether they're on the right or the left; that's why you are perplexed by the similarities.

All IMHO, of course.

There is a great deal of truth in that. But at least in other countries their right extremists are advocates of l'ancien regime of the Czarist or imperial cavalry. How did we get stuck with a bunch of Jefferson-worshipping, suit wearing businessmen as our equivalent to these, and what is the connection between the two "rights?" Why is our "czar" Thomas Jefferson, our "throne and altar" decentralized libertarianism, and our Prussian militarism "America first" pacifism??? And again, why do the same people advocate both systms simultaneously, except that we never get any of the "fun stuff?"

There's a measure of humor in my questions but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

There's a measure of humor in my questions but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

I suggest that the source of the humor in your question is not what you think. By all means explain this...

How did we get stuck with a bunch of Jefferson-worshipping, suit wearing businessmen as our equivalent to [the Czarist or imperial cavalry].

And while your at it, would you also define (IYO) what you mean by "Jefferson-worship?!" Are you actually attempting to suggest that an individual exercising Capitalist principles in a free market economy(a businessman)is somehow synonymous with some dragoon of oppression weilding power in defense of tyrannical authority? If so, you must elaborate.

You repeat this mantra, our "czar" Thomas Jefferson. I must conclude, by the tone of this reference that the principles espoused by TJ do not represent yours in the least, so understand my confusion at the possesive reference on your part. Do you also reject the same principles as espoused by Adam Smith, Frederick Bastiat, John Locke, the economics of Von Mises. That being said, what ARE your own principles relative to those of TJ's (and the rest for that matter). You have established the tone of this debate accordingly, I think it is appropriate for you to now explain that position. Without such elaboration, your charge stands naked and absurd in its entirety.

You insist on camparing philosophical positions (as manifested politically) in this nation with those of other countries. For instance...in other countries their right extremists are advocates of l'ancien regime of the Czarist or imperial cavalry. We do not! I would suggest that this is the source of both your confusion and your folly. As Ms. Rand pointed out nearly half a century ago in one of the most striking analyses of American politics since the age of Jefferson, other nations in the world are morally bankrupt and simply bare little or no comparison whatsoever to unique American phenomenon. This is not to say that their are not people elsewhere in the world who worship, defend, and espouse those same principles, nevertheless it is important to note that nowhere in the world, in any age, nor any place since, has the primacy of individual rights been codified and then established under rule of law and defended under the flag of a nation. Any attempt to understand American politics via a global paradigm is simply ridiculous. Try understanding Aristotle by only reading Plato and you will be left with a similar degree of confusion.

RE: The circular reference...There is a great deal of truth in that. No! There's not! There is no valid circular comparison between the two extremes in the philosophic definitions of human existence... Just as at the far end of the pH scale you don't get a remixing of the properties of bases and acids. I suggest that you will get the same explosive result when you attempt to try it. There is no compromise between freedom and slavery, poison and food, life and death.

Again, why do the same people advocate both systms simultaneously, except that we never get any of the "fun stuff?"

ANSWER (again): Typically they don't! When they do, they are wrong. But do let's hear you explain what is meant by 'fun' stuff.

Ping! (post 105) (I couldn't resist, JG)

There is no valid circular comparison between the two extremes in the philosophic definitions of human existence

Exactly! AS I pointed out the notion that on a linear scale the far right and lefts are identical is plain foolish, what then is the point of the scale?

The circular scale, favored not surprisingly by self-described centerists who are actually leftwingers (I'm not accusing anyone here, just pointing out where this comes from), is no better a mesh for the real world.

Let us examine the circular scale and where anarachy libertarianism, and all the rest go to see how this does not work.

Taking a clock face as the example, at 12 we have anarchy. at about 2 we libertarianism, at 4 conservatism and at 6 we have moderatism. This works well enough I suppose.

Now lets look at the other side. We run into a problem immediately in what the leftist equivalent is of libertarianism. Keep in mind we are arguing actual philosophy here and not just labels. So the fact that leftists use terms like 'civil libertarian' in such a way doesn't mean much.

In actual use a 'civil libertarian', at a minimum, favors strict government control of the economy, the supremacy of group right over individual rights, and the enforcement of 'tolerance' edicts for favored groups.

So to sum this up the the 10 position on the left is null. Now at 8 we have (modern) liberalism.

So this leaves us with nowhere for extremist leftism like fascism and communism, and with an empty quandrant. A failed model obviously.

Let's then return to the simple linear scale and see how it fairs. In this case we'll use a 0-10 scale representing government power and its level of centralization...

0 - Anarchy
2 - Libertarianism
4 - Conservatism
5 - Moderatism
6 - (Modern) Liberalism
8 - Authoritarianism
9 - Fascism
10 - Communism

This scale decribes the real world, and the relations of various political movements, quite well. It stands the test of usefulness and accuracy well, making this an obvious choice for use.

Yep! Couldn't have summed it up any more clearly than that!

LOL!

I'm a little nervous about replying as someone might punch the abuse button on me, even though I've seen at least twenty threads today where the F-word is spelled right out.

What will be a long read BUMP