Circular Thinking - Graphic Analogs of the Political Spectrum - An Ideology Refresher

Pejeu
I believe quite the opposite.

I believe planning, systematisation, standardisation, simplification and centralisation are essential.

It is how you and I are able to communicate over the internet right now.

It is how a part manufactured in Europe will fit correctly with a part manufactured in the US.

It is how man got into space and went to the moon.

It is how functioning cities and nations and national industries and economies are best designed, built and kept running and maintained.

I also believe in economy of scale and the inherent value in reducing unneeded and wasteful/useless diversity and fragmentation where it is unnecessary and redundant.

For instance in the number of brands and models of products and their constituent parts.

I would much rather have designs, ideas and prototypes compete and not the finished products themselves.

And then only put into production the one design. The winning one. Or a combination of the features and attributes found best among all of the competing designs.

That way you have just one production line and the best features of all the reviewed designs.

At most have a single model for each price point.

This is actually where industry is currently heading by more or less its own volition, believe it or not.

By need and the compelling power of market forces, no less.

You have mergers and acquisitions which reduce diversity by reducing the number of brands and model ranges on the market and thus reducing redundancy/needless diversity.

You have car manufacturing concerns like GM reusing the same parts and platforms over and over, for many apparently or superficially different, badge engineered models.

In the future the PSA Peugeot Citroen and Opel of Europe will merge. Mercedes/Daimler and Reno/Samsung may merge as well.

You have talk of a modularised mobile phones with a common mainboard shared and deployed to by all manufacturers.

The problem with socialism is that it was tried to far ahead of its time.

It was too revolutionary.

It's like your parents make you behave and do things a certain way and you rebel and fight tooth and nail against it with your teenage angst.

Only to find out, years later, why they were making you behave a particular way or do something in a particular fashion and how right they were.

You, over there across the pond, are the angsty teenagers.

You will see, you will learn that that and why a particular way is better.

But you will never understand or accept until you learn the hard way: by trying everything else first.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

You will naturally rebel against the truth you have not arrived at yourself, by trial and error.

For instance repealing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution (Cue Shock and Horror!).

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Planning (if you want to be successful and efficient in reaching your goals, that is) goes on in every facet and at every scale in society.

Why this right wing persistent assumption that large scale planning is counterproductive, that the bigger the project or application being developed/built, the more efficient it is to just wing it?

You plan your shopping, your vacations, your home improvements, your expenditures etc.

Why should things be any different at a local, state or federal government scale?

Why shouldn't there be coherence, consensus and conformity in what the objectives and the strategies employed to attain them are at a national scale?

It is, after all, how corporations are run?

Will you stop objecting when / if the one world government is actually a one world corporation?

Why do you detract about government the very same thing which you would applaud or, at the very least, be silent about regarding a corporations?

You know we do still have a very capable and competent private sector puttering about and waiting for the opportunity to begin building wealth again. Aristocracy aside, yes, we all do want to make money.

The example attributing the internet to the state reminds me of Al Gore's claim to authorship some years ago.

Frankly, without entrepreneurs, you would not have it at all.

I do talk about what I think is a tremendous threat here: Crony Capitalism - The American Economy is Not a Free-Market Economy

Pejeu

 

What illusions?

You strike me as rather paranoid with regard to the left.

But I know this is a trait common to most right wing Americans.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Trust the Romanian Socialist, eh? Trust but verify.

As long as you are not referring to 'R' Republicans yes, I am right wing (on the second image). I am for individual freedom and minimal government. You should be too.

"The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments." -Ludwig von Mises

reply to post by greencmp


Verify what? That I'm Socialist? Pinko-communist, bleeding heart progressive populist?

I freely and proudly admit as much.

Bad government is synonymous with right wing government, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand you want to draw distinctions between yourself and 'r' or 'R' Republicans or what not but that really doesn't mean anything to me.

As far as I'm concerned all right wingers are mostly alike.

Pejeu
reply to post by greencmp

 

Verify what? That I'm Socialist? Pinko-communist, bleeding heart progressive populist?

I freely and proudly admit as much.

Bad government is synonymous with right wing government, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand you want to draw distinctions between yourself and 'r' or 'R' Republicans or what not but that really doesn't mean anything to me.

As far as I'm concerned all right wingers are mostly alike.

I thought you weren't a communist, it is no big deal btw, it is just that you denied that earlier.

Republicans and Democrats are statists, proponents of big government whatever flavor of fascist ideology is center stage. There is no such thing as good government, only weak government.

Take a look at the second image for an idea of what I am describing here.

greencmpI thought you weren't a communist, it is no big deal btw, it is just that you denied that earlier.

I was just mocking what you probably label me internally as.

I don't believe in the abolition of money (just for profit fractional reserve banking) or private property (though I do think the amount and type of possessions you may have as well as the amount of money you can earn should be bound upwards at some point somehow; though I would gladly entertain debate as to how high that point should be).

I would also like to see a guaranteed, unconditional minimum income as proposed by your beloved Milton Friedman:

Republicans and Democrats are statists, proponents of big government whatever flavor of fascist ideology is center stage.

I like big government.

And big business.

You know, GE, Daimler, GM etc.

There is no such thing as good government, only weak government.

I thoroughly disagree with you there.

Besides, you're basically claiming that weak sauce is better than normal sauce.

Or that watered down wine or beer or whiskey is better than full strength.

Or that more of a good thing is worse.

Or a little of a bad thing is good.

Why should we have government at all if it is so bad as you make it out to be?

Take a look at the second image for an idea of what I am describing here.

Too complicated for my blood.

Pejeu

greencmpI thought you weren't a communist, it is no big deal btw, it is just that you denied that earlier.

I was just mocking what you probably label me internally as.

I don't believe in the abolition of money (just for profit fractional reserve banking) or private property (though I do think the amount and type of possessions you may have as well as the amount of money you can earn should be bound upwards at some point somehow; though I would gladly entertain debate as to how high that point should be).

I would also like to see a guaranteed, unconditional minimum income like proposed by your beloved Milton Friedman:

Republicans and Democrats are statists, proponents of big government whatever flavor of fascist ideology is center stage.

I like big government.

And big business.

You know, GE, Daimler, GM etc.

There is no such thing as good government, only weak government.

I thoroughly disagree with you there.

Besides, you're basically claiming that weak sauce is better than normal sauce.

Or that watered down wine or beer or whiskey is better than full strength.

Or that more of a good thing is worse.

Or a little of a bad thing is good.

Why should we have government at all if it is so bad as you make it out to be?

Take a look at the second image for an idea of what I am describing here.

Too complicated for my blood.

edit on 2013/9/30 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/30 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/30 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/30 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Maybe you should read my reply, I am not a fan of Milton Friedman but, he deserves credit for the example which is enlightening.

Why should we have government at all? Not sure, it wouldn't be my first choice but, like it or not, as a militarily significant world power some government seems inevitable. If it is necessary, I prefer our constitutional republic.

greencmp

Thinking Outside the Circle. Political spectra are often designed to make a “center” appear reasonable.

xuenchen
reply to post by Carreau

 

Maybe this chart is more accurate ....

Oooh, I like these. You could start a whole new art movement with stuff like this. You could call it "delusionalism." Maybe even "willful-confusionalism."


PS-- The "center" is often made to appear reasonable, because that's often the most reasonable approach. Extreme Leftists and Extreme Righties (lol).... any guesses what they have in common? They're all extremists. And yes, that word is as dirty as it sounds. Or should be, at the least.

Historically speaking, it seems like its the extremists who mess things up the worst, with their unwillingness to compromise.

Compromise is not always a bad thing. And there is definitely a reason the phrase "happy medium" exists.

iwilliam
Oooh, I like these. You could start a whole new art movement with stuff like this. You could call it "delusionalism." Maybe even "willful-confusionalism."


PS-- The "center" is often made to appear reasonable, because that's often the most reasonable approach. Extreme Leftists and Extreme Righties (lol).... any guesses what they have in common? They're all extremists. And yes, that word is as dirty as it sounds. Or should be, at the least.

Historically speaking, it seems like its the extremists who mess things up the worst, with their unwillingness to compromise.

Compromise is not always a bad thing. And there is definitely a reason the phrase "happy medium" exists.

It sounds like you are working from this model above and your assertion is that the extreme left and right are associated with the terms liberal and conservative respectively as they are contemporarily applied.

It is my assertion that the 'left' and 'right' are, in fact, both statist philosophies. While they may appear to be ideologically opposed, they employ the very same tools of authoritarianism and thus belong on the same side of the street, so to speak. Communism and fascism being the 'extreme' forms of each.

Compromise is, in fact, a bad thing as it results in a diminishment of the standards argued for. So, as an individualist, I would have to accept less liberty and freedom to make a compromise with you. Whereas you, as a statist, would have to accept less power to the government to arrive at a compromise with me.

I think that we probably both view an acceptable compromise as just shy of our ideal ratio. I do not believe either of us would consider that ratio a 'compromise' in the sense that you wish to apply it.

If I gave you a hat that said 'state official' and put you in the sandbox outside or if you gave me a hat that said 'sovereign individual' and put me in a labor camp, I do not see that a 'happy medium' between us could be arrived at, would you not agree?