Since I've been irked by the left recently, and abortion seems to be the topic of the month I'm doing this,
Please refrain from answering this thread if you must disagree with one of theses following points:
1) This thread is not about abortion - but how language / propaganda works
2) There is no real "solution" to abortion: no amount of reason, logic or whatever will answer de facto and in a universal non tautological manner how you feel about this issue.
3) In as generic a sense as possible you can understand why someone may be "for" or "against" abortion" - What I mean is, it simply does not appear to be some fanatical position on either side.
I don't watch the news all too much, but I heard twice in 3 weeks some canidate called an "extreme right winger" because he opposed abortion.
This has led me to several thoughts:
- "extreme rightism" to me seems to be a very dirty word - certainly a more dirty ord in most people's mind than "extreme leftist". Honestly words like "extreme", "moderate", etc ought to be purged from political language (purging left and right would be too optomistic). These words can cause major divisions - and as with all intellectual things, the left is simply better at using words like this to their advantage (as te system is made for them)
Is being for abortion "extreme" leftism - if so, are we supposed to care?
- somehow social ethics have been divided right and left along fairly neat lines - this is insane to me. It isn't about "scope of government", "balanced budgets", scope of military, economic policy, or any sane thing that seems within the scope of politics; with all the social media, etc to divide people so nice and neat via custom / ethics / moral preferences by "right" and "left" lines is a bit scary - and furthermore, I don't think this was always the case.
-As far as pure political divisions are concerned, liberterians may be the best on focusing on actual sociology - the problem is exactly when they focus on "social issues" .
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Some libertarians are like a kid in algebra class who memorizes all the formulas, knows how to apply them, but has no way to tell if the answer is correct or not. He just keeps refering to the formula and seeing if the answer matches it -- but what if the formula doesn't apply here? Abortion is like that really poorly put together word problem that doesn't have the answer in the back of the book.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
It has a simple and clear answer. Just like the State has simple and clear answer.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
He just keeps refering to the formula and seeing if the answer matches it -- but what if the formula doesn't apply here?
lol, that analogy works well - I know I may let the hounds of hell loose here, but Block may be the poster boy for this. There is certainly an "Asperger" type element involved in some liberterianism.
lol, that analogy works well - I know I may let the hounds of hell loose here, but Block may be the poster boy for this.
Oh, you mean so you get to make points, but not have to deal with replies to them? I'm sorry that's not how forums work.
To restate - and this is the last I'm going to say on this:
1) Abortion is not the point of this thread - it could almost be replaced by "widgets"
2) I was trying to focus on how I am seeing politics work and possess people. If you think my set up is way off I simply am not here to address you - that's why I said please refrain from posting - as you would serve no purpose to any conversation I am willing to have in this thread. It may not be how the forum works, but it is how I work in relation to posting this thread.
I simply don't want to get into "abortion is good/bad" there are plenty of other active threads out there for that if you wish to participate in one.
Anywho, that's as far as I'm going to strain from anything of that matter in this thread.
You know where you can shove your mysticism
Up my ass?
You not commenting on other people's replies is one thing. You asking people not to comment on your posts is another.
2) I was trying to focus on how I am seeing politics work and posses people, if you think my set up is way off I simply am not here to adress you - that's way I said please refrain from posting
- as you would serve no purpose to any conversation I am willing to have in this thread
I suppose there's a difference in someone being right wing and "extreme right wing," but they bring up two different things. Your typical conservative (in a traditional sense) would be right wing, or in another sense classical liberal. Abortion is where most traditional conservatives err in gov't regulation, but how is one an extreme right winger when it appears that most people would consider the likes of Hitler or Mussolini as "extreme right wing." Who are the extreme left wingers? They make it a moral case leaning in their favor, and it really depends if the persons perspective is in sync with theirs as well, that the extreme right winger is against women's rights, and the extreme left winger wants to provide health care for all (typically it's worded to where the left is always "positive"). They are both statists, but is one statist moderate and another extreme?
Some things people consider as "extreme right wingers" are: racists, sexists, Christian fundamentalists, pro-war, pro-life (irony), pro-censorship on moral grounds, etc. The [extreme] left wingers are the ones who are generally seen as: egalitarian, pro-choice, anti-racist/sexist, extends government programs for the poor, pro-any government program to help anyone, anti-war (but not really), but keeping in mind they see to it they use the government to help the poor on moral grounds as well. It's just a preference of who and what they want the government to do, they don't care what group of individuals they ignore who do not agree, as long as the agenda is extended to all.
This is what happens when one takes this sort of "formula" on the other side. I think may be somewhat of the Austrian problem with "scientism" - it's grabbing random variables while insrting them where the formula simply can't apply and doing these odd trains of "logic".
Basically I don't think most of these issues have a historical consistancy with being specically right/ left - it is a relatively new phenomena, and it has been established in an amazing and ingrained fashion (hell, "red" and "blue" states is a new phenom - those were never traditional colors until probably about '04).
While maybe some of this was already brewing before; part of me think it is "academics" , propagandists, and the usual card carrying leftist groups responding specically to issues dealing with the re-election of G W Bush and than the Republican taking a strong reactionary position to the attack and digging their heels in - and tha has caused massive stereotypes that were not as defined as they were before. I could be wrong on that, but that is my gut feeling.
And to be even more cynical - I'll bet millions of people who had no concern for half of these issues or who held beliefs (perhaps even "strong" beliefs) in other issues changed them semi-radically in order to follow the social norms of the times - which is whatever their political party said. This may be nothing new, but I'm not that old so if I am right and this is what happened, this is new to me. But the Republicans and Democrats of my parents and Grandparents generation simply don't care about these "hot button" issues all that much.
pro-censorship on moral grounds
I'd just like to point out that , yes this is the way people like to paint it; the left wing is just as moralistic and pro-censorship - their just better at making people like their morals better and getting away with not looking like "moralists".
One of the most egregious doublethinks I've seen in a long time is this abortion one:
There is no politician telling you how to reproduce. There are none. This slogan is totally irrelevant yet spouted constantly. What they really mean is "DESTRUCTIVE RIGHTS". An abortion is not an exercise in reproduction but one in destruction. The pro-choicers blatant insensitivity is starting to get me pissed. It's as if it is unfathomable to them there might be someone who is not OK with having their money stolen and given to someone who is going to scrape the bloody remains of a fetus of their vagina. They have the audacity to demand it as a right. "MY RIGHT TO VIOLENCE". Shit, give everyone free guns too.
This is always the problem with the left. Welfare, in terms of how words are popularly understood, is welfare and not wealth-destruction, dependency-creation, slowing-economy, or creating-a-parasitic class. Of course those latter things are bad. No one wants those right? Welfare is good. Thus when you say that you oppose welfare you oppose that which is good. No one hears your opposition to wealth-destruction, etc.
The phrasing of legislation and popular activist speak is designed to intimidate dissent. No one will oppose things which are 'good', 'sensible', 'reasonable', and 'humane', because that would make them bad, evil, selfish, etc.
Yes the right left divide is insane. One is constantly hearing the words leftist/rightist on the news as if somehow it is a descriptive label. One is expected to know what leftism/rightism entails.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist.
It's perfectly OK to have strong feelings / ethics / morals or whatever you want to call it about such actions (in a sense, I have some too to a degree on things likethis); but I'm with Mikka on this; these actions and names are getting used in ways they simply can't be used. And when we have a system that is built for "activism", "right demanding", and general rabble rousing everytime you say you are for/against abortion you are playing right into their system and categories...you simply can't win, you will always be "reactionary" if you play their little language games.
Not only that; there may be something in the "liberterian" spirit to realize that a bunch of self righteous, priveliged, yuppie college kids "humanitarian" activists demanding rights for God knows what is an absurd picture - do we really want to be a part of this crowd. My guess is that picture is what initially attracted some of us to liberterianism - to me a sytem like we have comes off as either a good joke or a bad tragedy.
Oh I don't deign to enter the abortion arena. If someone asks me about it I ask them if that's all they care about. But the methods of anti-communication in use are totally shameful.