It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 63
23
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
So, maybe everyone would move to New Hampshire?

You can try but if they elect Trump governor he might build a wall.

Seriously, balkanization is a real possibility.


I don't know, that seems outlandish to me but you do force me to consider it.




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well Semicollegiate's answer was that he would have a hard time finding work and a place to live.

I didn't think that that answered the original question and it definitly didn't sound realistic.

Just to keep things clear the question was about AC, not minarchy or US with re-enacted Constitution.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Well Semicollegiate's answer was that he would have a hard time finding work and a place to live.

I didn't think that that answered the original question and it definitly didn't sound realistic.

Just to keep things clear the question was about AC, not minarchy or US with re-enacted Constitution.


I think he was assuming you were talking about a non-violent criminal such as a thief or an embezzler.

For violent crime, there really is only one solution.

Of course, I don't mean people who get into fist fights but, people who deploy violence as a means.
edit on 28-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



Indeed, the surveillance state may actually be a blessing in disguise as government increasingly makes itself irrelevant.


Sounds Orwellian and anti AC.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

No it said "violent criminals? Serial killers? "

What surprised me was that the answer and the explination sounded like a collective solution.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: greencmp



Indeed, the surveillance state may actually be a blessing in disguise as government increasingly makes itself irrelevant.


Sounds Orwellian and anti AC.


Well, it's one of those pandoresque things, it ain't going back in the box.

Counter surveillance is the only response.

All of the systems are privately available and all of them should be deployed by everybody.

That might be closest we will ever get to a "transparent" society.

It creeps me the hell out too but, I don't see any other option.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

-Robert A. Heinlein

... or his reputation.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



What surprised me was that the answer and the explination sounded like a collective solution.


Yep it does sound that way. I think they do realize (maybe a little bit) that some form of control is inevitable. Even if they set up an AC country successfully it will eventually end up with some form of government. It's inevitable. Unless everyone is good and there's no evil or corrupted people.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
No, in AC a criminal has to work off his crime, like paying a mortgage. No prisons. Although some boarding houses might specialize in criminals that no one else will rent to.

Suppose someone in AC gets hold of a nuke.

How do you deal with him?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

No it said "violent criminals? Serial killers? "

What surprised me was that the answer and the explination sounded like a collective solution.


I'm sure he misunderstood.

However, there is an argument to be made for the victim to decide the punishment regardless of the level of the offense so long as the crime was solely directed at the victim or victims.

For instance, a pacifist might actually abhor the idea of punishing their assailant and freely dismiss all charges.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I agree that it sounds that way but I don't think it's for the reason you stated. There is still the idea of law and order but it is not done through government. I guess you could say that it is the companion of the invisible hand, the other invisible hand.

I don't trust either of them.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



For instance, a pacifist might actually abhor the idea of punishing their assailant and freely dismiss all charges.


It's arbitrary. Some criminals may go free, others get worse punishments even death despite the same crimes being committed.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
No, in AC a criminal has to work off his crime, like paying a mortgage. No prisons. Although some boarding houses might specialize in criminals that no one else will rent to.

Suppose someone in AC gets hold of a nuke.

How do you deal with him?


That's one of the reasons why I have to take order #2 on the menu, minarchism.

However, it is possible to work this threat out for AC and it is not inconceivable that even nuclear weapons, a political tool of intimidation and not efficient destruction, would be an outmoded negotiation tool.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Or lesser crimes.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: greencmp



For instance, a pacifist might actually abhor the idea of punishing their assailant and freely dismiss all charges.


It's arbitrary. Some criminals may go free, others get worse punishments even death despite the same crimes being committed.


That's 100% true and I can't argue with it but, is uniformity of sentencing the object of justice? Or is it dissuasion?

Equality of outcome isn't my forté anyway.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I don't think it is either but, it is a strong selling point of authority.
edit on 28-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I just thought of something.

Let's take Nazi Germany as a example. It wanted to get rid of the "undesirables" right? So that is not equality.



Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism.

en.wikipedia.org...



Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s. A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

I don't think it is either but, it is a strong selling point of authority.



Far-left politics or extreme-left politics are left-wing politics that are further to the left than mainstream centre-left politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. Most far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 8/28/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



I don't think it is either but, it is a strong selling point of authority.


Oh yeah. It is all about trust or mistrust of other people.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

I don't think it is either but, it is a strong selling point of authority.


It reminds me of the minimum sentencing laws that have caused such a travesty of justice as to fill our prisons with non-violent pharmacoeconomic offenders.

Mind you, I don't want to fill our graveyards either but, I advocate instantaneous deadly defense as the solution to violent criminals.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I just thought of something.

Let's take Nazi Germany as a example. It wanted to get rid of the "undesirables" right? So that is not equality.



So did Margret Sanger

So did Communist USSR

So did/does Communist China

So did Communist Vietnam

So does North Korea

So does Cuba

etc. etc.




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Are you talking about political dissidents?

And BTW:



So did Margret Sanger


This is the kind of thing we would expect from you. Playing the emotional aspect. What does she have to do with the government? I suppose you are running out of ammo in this debate.
edit on 8/28/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join