Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR

Post Reply New Topic

We seem to be indulging in a mania of generalization.

Not only do we classify people on the basis of their stated support or opposition to a particular policy, but then we go on to assume that their support or opposition to all other policies will fall neatly into a preconceived box of beliefs.

I suggest that nothing could be further from the truth.

Politics is the study of power--who exercises it over whom and to what degree. Every political discussion is, at root, a discussion of who has the power to make decisions that affect other people, from whom do they derive that power, and are they exercising that power properly?

To abstract to a very generalized description, conservatives are those who resist change to established power structures. But by that definition, we make a very grave mistake when we conflate the "right wing" with "conservativism." (As puddingmouse has already observed.)

So what is the "right wing?" Well, in it's original conception in revolutionary France, the conflation was more accurate. But now, I subscribe to Hayak's view that the political spectrum is no longer a linear spectrum with conservatives on one end, socialists on the other and liberals in the middle. To suggest that libertarians can be identified on a spectrum that is defined by positions relative to socialism and conservativism is really meaningless.

Now we have statists and libertarians; capitalists and socialists; authoritarians and egalitarians; localists, regionalists and nationalists and a wide variety of other "-ists" all trying for power like a pack of dogs with a blanket.

That fight is not a bad thing, in my view, provided that it is not a 'winner take all' proposition. No political ideology can succeed indefinitely. If one view is completely shut out of power, then they are incentivized to use aggressive means to gain it, and disincentivized to accommodate divergent views once they have gained it.

So what is the political bent of PPR? To my mind, there is none. To the extent that this allows us a full and frank discussion from a multiplicity of points of view, I think this is valuable. To the extent that it causes us to descend into a frenzy of tossing barbs from intractable positions, I think it is pointless.

^ and this is my point. My so called "garbage" comes from trying to understand the nature of things, from reading the news, from reading about science, from taking an interest in the trials and tribulations of the masses. Where as your spew is GARBAGE as it is molded around a disparate collection of semi coherent ramblings many centuries old.

^ what keep telling myself that those who believe in the ramblings from the OT are an accurate depiction of the creation of the universe and life on earth are a bunch of self deluded nutjobs? Don't need to keep telling myself that as it is blinding obvious. Unlike you I refuse to burn scientific discoveries that disprove creation.

Yes well I doubt that imperialism was the only issue that any political leader back then felt strongly about. If your only complaint is the words he used might i suggest replacing right with conservative?