3 ms·

I will attempt to explain, and I describe myself as "right wing" although it may be more accurate to call myself "romantic conservative": It is typically usefu

I will attempt to explain, and I describe myself as "right wing" although it may be more accurate to call myself "romantic conservative": It is typically useful to ask yourself the following questions about any version of society: - Can you keep your stuff? - Can you do what you want with your stuff? - Who has the weapons? - Who won't be punished for making you do something? Right wingers tend to go on and on about "freedom", but through examination of these four questions it becomes clear that they don't mean it. They don't want you to keep your stuff if you acquired your stuff through theft, so they support a legal system that can prosecute "thieves", meaning that they decide what's "your stuff", and you can't keep it if they decide it's not yours. They don't want you to become trans, abort babies, start anti-national propaganda outlets, etc. so you're not allowed to do whatever you want with your stuff. They only want people who aren't criminals to have weapons, meaning that there are some people who shouldn't have the option to revolt if they want to. They are mostly unwilling to punish police officers even for major transgressions, so they want the martial caste to be immune to consequence. It is clear that all of the talk about "property rights", "liberty", and "freedom" is social posturing in order to appear more morally unimpeachable than their perceived opponents. Most people have semi-authoritarian views about the society in which they wish to live, and right-wingers are no different. Some of these ideals are noble in nature, but the actual implementation of these ideals in reality still requires authority prosecuting violations of rules regarding possession, trade, etc. Therefore, there's no real need to be surprised when "property rights" don't extend to your own body per "right wing" politics; "property rights" isn't actually a meaningful principle among most right wingers, it's merely an ideal that they wish to use as the basis for certain portions of the authoritarian society in which they wish to live. (Another example is loud music; if you own a stereo (your property) and your lot (your land) and you play loud music (your speech), most freedom-loving conservatives will do whatever they can to get the damn music off.)

josephcsible 4y ago
> They don't want you to [...] start anti-national propaganda outlets Distinguish between not wanting people to do something, and not wanting people to be allowed to do something. Isn't a more common position "I wish anti-national propaganda outlets would go away, but I don't think the government should make them go away, since an intact First Amendment is way more important"?
- quacked 4y ago
  Not among voters, no. The majority of US right wing voters would happily shut down <pro-Communist, anti-Christian, etc.> sources using the government. The "I don't like what you say but will defend to the death..." principle is a luxury position most often held by educated centrist right-wingers.

josephcsible 4y ago

> They don't want you to [...] start anti-national propaganda outlets Distinguish between not wanting people to do something, and not wanting people to be allowed to do something. Isn't a more common position "I wish anti-national propaganda outlets would go away, but I don't think the government should make them go away, since an intact First Amendment is way more important"?

quacked 4y ago
Not among voters, no. The majority of US right wing voters would happily shut down <pro-Communist, anti-Christian, etc.> sources using the government. The "I don't like what you say but will defend to the death..." principle is a luxury position most often held by educated centrist right-wingers.