So what defines right and left?

It is not a matter of principle.
It is a matter of degree.
Unless you are telling me that there should never be help for those who need it?
It is perfectly possible to change the levels of help and the definition of when it kicks in.
But surely it is just human to help the disabled, the ones between jobs, ones who have been swindled, scammed or stolen from?
Are you really going to "stop" the help the community could give?

 

If less fortunate people still pay taxes or did so in the past, they have every right to expect help when they need it.
Even animals who move in packs do that.

 

I repeat.
The protection of the rights of the indivual, meaning every individual becomes by logic, protection of the community.
I see no conflict.

 

Except what the left believes only helps those administering poverty programs become middle class. In the end the only real way to help the poor is get them jobs. Anything else is bullshit.

 

What China has is what is called on the left state capitalism. And note Mso as that he was died closer to 50 years ago than a hundred. China has, in essence become that thing that Mao feared most. Note there is not now nor has there ever been or ever will be a communist country. That stage of human development ended not long after Joe what ever was recognized as the tribes best flint knapper and people started to trade with Joe for the things he .ade rather than go to the trouble of knapping it's themselves. At that moment two things happened, the birth of trade specialization and the very beginning birth pangs of capitalism.

 

Minor correction Louis didn't play dumb he was dumb. And poor little Marie was no brighter. A few hundred years of in breeding saw to that. In the end the European desire to place another Louis on the throne of France was a failure, though it took another few decades to make it clear. Strangely the very country that was chiefly responsible for the Bourbon Restoration became the first to ditch the idea of a monarch as much more than a figure head.

 

But if the individual idea of self fulfilment is to paint the world red with the blood of his beheaded .victims then what?

 

Trickle down economy illustrated

 

Another whatif.
I don't do whatifs. It is like talking to à shapeshifter. You make up the story and expect me to follow on.
No thanks.

 

Maybe in whatever country you are in, it is.

 

You're being deliberately ignorant of the reality that conflict between individual rights and community exist.

As one example, what are your views on gun control vs the right to bear arms? Do you not see a conflict existing there?

 

I spent over two weeks discussing it.
I don't do repeats.
And the issue is not one of left/right.
It is nor a defining issue in which one opinion is the credo of all those who identify as r/l.

 

Of course not. Let's stop this nonsense. I'm tired of it.

 

It sounds like you're really hesitant to get specific or objective in describing your views... I assume its because it reinforces the undesired perception that you do in fact tend toward leftist views... it would of course be simple for you to try dispell this suspicion if its incorrect ...if you want. But it doesnt seem like you do want to.

 

I repeat.

Just for you.
Gun Control is NOT a political issue IMO.
It is a social issue expressed through the legislative voice which could be of either view.
To put it more concretely, both left and right can support or deny gun control.
It is perfectly possible to be of the left, an economic expression describing greater redistribution of wealth, and dislike abortion.
The two have nothing in common.
Where you are coming from is a construct that has solidifier like concrète where to wear a badge means you have achieved the right opinions on a wide range of things, and once you believe in one thing you have to fall into line with the rest.
A bit like the Boy Scouts. You have mastered the understanding of various skills and are now à pure member of our organisation.
Well tits to that.
I will never conform to the accepted text written by those who seem to have little understanding of the world outside your own borders.
Left and right are universal concepts with contextual overtones. For example in the UK left is indeed à stronger redistribution of wealth but it has strong connotations about traces unions and foreign aid. Things like gun control and abortion are nowhere in sight.
Now you asked where I think individual rights are placed vis à vis the rights of the community.
I told you in terms of the fundamental meaning of left/right liberal or conservative.
I won't go off piste and discuss gun control or any other social issue.
IMO when you granted rights to individuals you grant them to all. This becomes The Community which automatically takes on the aspect of the individuals therein.
The silly condition of having to have certain opinions about social issues in order to earned à passkey is frankly lazy and puérile.
It stunts freedom of thought and you become one of the hive.
And I have NEVER danced to someone else's tune.

 

Sorry not a story and not the point. The point of course is that the world is full of all sorts of crazy in varying degrees. The notion that everyone should get to do their own thing comes with fault lines that society has to constantly patch and mend.

Their has to be basic standards some lines have to be drawn and no small part of that argument between left and right is about where and as importantly who gets to draw the lines especially when where the lines meet things get a bit blurry.

 

So what is the nonsense:
A. The Left thinks government need to help less fortunate Americans,
B. The Right thinks government should not help less fortunate Americans.

 

That's not how human nature works .. nor any social mammal nature for that matter.

Community MUST come first, for humans to flourish. Humans do very badly without the context, boundaries, answerability, and validation of community.

When an individual is disconnected enough from community to 'express himself' without consideration of the impacts of that choice, they are never going to 'want to protect and contribute to the community'.

 

Without solid community, individuals cannot thrive.

 

I don't think you know what the term Marxist means

The UN was founded by the Establishment - which has always funded and supported communism. Before and after The Sealed Train.

The first Secretary General of the UN was Alger Hiss - a communist traitor working within the Roosevelt Administration. Of course he was later convicted for his treasonous activities.

Hiss was just the tip of a very large iceberg however. Harry Dexter White, Phillip Jessup, Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Curry, etc... all communist traitors working within the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, all loyal to the Establishment, and all integral to the Founding of the UN.

The UN is a den of vipers. Corrupt through and through. Always has been.

 

Thats definitely not true. Certainly some cannot thrive, and probably most cannot thrive because they've been raised into learned communal depency. But theres still plenty of people who thrive more dispite others getting in there way than because of others helping.

Though I spose it does depend alot on what you consider 'thriving'.

 

Lone wolves are real (and need to be pretty wealthy, obviously), but the vast majority of us do much better with a team behind us.

I consider thriving roughly as: stability, food/water/shelter security, community, physical fitness, productivity, service to others, and a life immersed in nature.

 

Good one, I got a chuckle out of that, lol...

You're supporting things that on the surface seem laudable; but, underneath are attacks upon our society and sovereignty.

Anything that undermines the family is of use to the Establishment in their efforts to reorganize American society, and transform the population from a people who are dependent upon themselves and their family, to a population made up of weak, dysfunctional individuals that are necessarily dependent upon government.

In short, a society transformed from self-reliant individuals to a society of serfs.

Marx wrote about the need to abolish the family, so did Gramsci. Anything that undermines the family unit is to be supported by the left - for the purpose of destabilizing the family, and thus destabilizing the society.

Feminism was step 1... divorce, drugs, alcoholism, homosexuality, premature sexualization of children, single parent homes, welfare, food stamps, inheritance taxes, social security, Medicaid, etc...

Anything that serves to weaken families, weaken family bonds, remove fathers from the household and from the children's lives, sever generational bonds, etc...

All of it is useful to the left in achieving their goals of destroying liberty, destroying Christian society, and destroying America.

And the vehicles used to deliver these poison pills are easily disguised as "equality, fairness, assistance, compassion, etc... "

You, like the vast majority, see things on a very superficial level.

Our nation is coming apart at the seams, because the Establishment is tearing down the old society - to be replaced with one that is populated with obedient serfs.

 

I dont do conspiracy theories.
None of the above are in anyone's policy.
They are the result of modern cultural movement that happens everywhere in modern western society largely fuelled by the media, not politicians.
They exist because we believe in freedom of speech .
Any prévention of the public's choice of lifestyle militates against those fundamental principles.

 

This is actually even decent. A Brit sci-fi booktuber complaining about all of the Leftist booktuber. LOL