3 ms·

> my definition is consistent with the historical usage Like with the historical usage of the term "hacker" I think we have to accept that the real world usage

by Canada 11y ago

> my definition is consistent with the historical usage Like with the historical usage of the term "hacker" I think we have to accept that the real world usage is now so muddled that on a general forum such as this you can't fall back on that anymore. Left is whatever they say on MSNBC and right is whatever they say on FOX NEWS (or your local equivalents) And I hope we can agree that whatever those they is completely partisan. Totally disconnected from any political, social, or economic philosophy. Utterly devoid of intellectual honesty. > The definition of left/right I gave describes a very general moral principle. I don't know that it does. For example, compare the modern American libertarians (see Murray Rothbard) vs the left libertarians who predate them. (see Mikhail Bakunin) Both see the state as evil. Their morals are pretty much the same. Their only difference is in how to structure government to protect the interests of the individual. One is right while the other is left. And whether or not the state itself is inherently evil is not a left/right debate either. There's obvious examples of authoritarians on both sides.

js8 11y ago
> I think we have to accept that the real world usage is now so muddled that on a general forum such as this you can't fall back on that anymore I don't want to accept it. I don't accept it with respect to other words either, such as hackers or democracy (despite GDR calling itself democratic). > Both see the state as evil. Their morals are pretty much the same. Their only difference is in how to structure government to protect the interests of the individual. One is right while the other is left. I am not really all that familiar with them to be the judge here, but if their morals are pretty much the same, then one can hardly be left and the other hardly right according to my definition. I think this may be a case of misapplied labels, but I am not sure. > There's obvious examples of authoritarians on both sides. That doesn't mean anything. Just my opinion - left/right moral distinction is used within your ingroup, but authoritarianism resolves to what the ingroup is.

by Canada 11y ago

js8 11y ago

> I think we have to accept that the real world usage is now so muddled that on a general forum such as this you can't fall back on that anymore I don't want to accept it. I don't accept it with respect to other words either, such as hackers or democracy (despite GDR calling itself democratic). > Both see the state as evil. Their morals are pretty much the same. Their only difference is in how to structure government to protect the interests of the individual. One is right while the other is left. I am not really all that familiar with them to be the judge here, but if their morals are pretty much the same, then one can hardly be left and the other hardly right according to my definition. I think this may be a case of misapplied labels, but I am not sure. > There's obvious examples of authoritarians on both sides. That doesn't mean anything. Just my opinion - left/right moral distinction is used within your ingroup, but authoritarianism resolves to what the ingroup is.