RE: The political side that is the "correct" side.
May 28, 2018 at 5:17 pm
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2018 at 5:23 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 28, 2018 at 5:05 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: All roads leads to the centre. They aren’t mutually exclusive but rather intertwined on both sides of the coin. You can’t have one without the other, really.
You say they aren't mutually exclusive but then you say you can't have one without the other?
I agree, they aren't mutually exclusive. That's why I asked if you meant socially centre, economically centre or both.
It is confusing for you to on the one hand say they aren't mutually exclusive and then on the other say that you can't have socially centre without economically centre?
I disagree completely. You can be left, centre or right socially and anywhere in-between. You can be left, centre or right economically or anywhere in-between. And any combination thereof. It's two separate spectrums... they do correlate but they aren't the same spectrum.
Quote:Both are contextual and liable to change left or right depending on the context. Economics especially varies day to day as policies shift, mainly, to keep growth stable, inflation controlled, and interest rates within a tolerance.
Like I said, they correlate. And they do affect each other. But you can be economically left and socially right. You can be economic right and socially left. Stalinism and Facisim are both strong right socially (authoritarianism) but they are opposites economically.
(May 28, 2018 at 5:10 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Freedom of speech is great, but someone yelling "FIRE" in a movie theatre should face legal consequences.
I agree with this exception but I think it's an exception that can be made while still being very far left.
Quote:People should be able to own guns, but they should be registered, and people should have to go through training in order to use them, and be prosecuted if they do not store them securely.
I don't think sensible regulations makes someone less liberal. And I don't think allowing or disallowing guns makes someone more liberal. I'm not sure that the freedom to kill others or defend oneself from others who kill is liberal.
At least for me, it's just whatever leads to the least shootings. I am not sure whether no guns is the best way to reduce shootings as it does mean more criminals will have them. But then, on the other hand, here in the UK most guns are illegal and we get less shootings here than in America. Although there may be other countries where guns are legal but there are less shootings than the UK?
For me that would just be a matter of what leads to the least deaths and severe injuries. So it's an empirical matter for me. I am not sure that being in favor of freedom includes being in favor of the freedom to harm each other. Like I said, my view is that everyone should have maximum freedom as long as they don't hurt others(I don't think the "as long as they don't hurt others" part makes me less left than I could be?), the exception is of course being if having the ability to hurt others by means of self defense leads to less harm and violence overall.
