Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That's not what I meant.

You are just plotting for the same variable in the same style.

ETA; Kinda makes it fit your description of propaganda.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
And you need to measure the negative/positive impacts on the majority of an affected population both within and outside a government "authority" boundary.

No you don't. That will just give you the graph in the OP. That is a graph unto itself.

Oh yes you do.

Government policies are the main source of "impacts on a population".

Authoritarian polices have major impacts on populations as well as individuals.

a reply to: xuenchen
Guess you just don't get that this is just one variable. Like semicolligiate said:

It is valid to isolate one variable, as long as everybody knows there are other variables.

That's the problem with line graphs. They are usually only appropriate when taking into account a single variable.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen
Guess you just don't get that this is just one variable. Like semicolligiate said:

It is valid to isolate one variable, as long as everybody knows there are other variables.

That's the problem with line graphs. They are usually only appropriate when taking into account a single variable.

The two variables addressed are pretty important. The OP ranked amount of government control over the individual. I ranked the number of deaths caused by type of government.

Other variables on this thread would be presumably be "what the government claims its intentions are" or " is everybody in the same class".

Without a variable on par with control of life or mortality, the other variables argument is facile and shallow.

a reply to: daskakik

Well you are doing your best to disclaim the concept.

All part of the "de-burring" and "thorne-pulling" process.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Yes, they are all part of the overall picture. They are still just a part.

a reply to: xuenchen

Nothing wrong with the concept but let's take it for what it is.

Besides, as soon as one person questions why the other placed government x at y then you are right back at page one of this thread.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen

Nothing wrong with the concept but let's take it for what it is.

Besides, as soon as one person questions why the other placed government x at y then you are right back at page one of this thread.

Ah yes Watson, that's why we smoke pipes and read Edgar Cayce.

a reply to: xuenchen

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Adolf Hitler was certainly a liberal. He loved immigrants, respected all manner of religion, and praised racial and cultural intermingling!

a reply to: yesyesyes

Except Jews, black people and gay people of course.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: yesyesyes
You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.

To be fair, you don't really need the government for that. One could use a system of private arbitrators.

Of course the thing that always bugged me is that you are still dealing with people who can be bought off or persuaded one way or another.

At that point AC claims to be be leery of government because of corruption but seems to place a lot of trust in people who can be just as corrupt. Almost like the goal is to just be anti-gov for the sake of being anti-gov.

You could use a private system, but then you are having that system act as government fulfilling the same role. The nature of the governance itself has only changed administratively by my perspective. You have also moved things from being manipulatable by the public America citizenry, to being a system controlled by a few powerful private entities. If the administration of law becomes purely for profit, and the system of incarceration is converted to for profit, I imagine there would be a great deal of incentive to increase the costs of legal proceeding and increase the rate of successful prosecution and incarceration. Being "anti government" IMO is more of a cultural identity, than an achievable political objective. All you do when you vote GOP in America is change policies, you do not shrink costs or the level of people serving those policies in any measurable way.

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: yesyesyes
You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.

To be fair, you don't really need the government for that. One could use a system of private arbitrators.

Of course the thing that always bugged me is that you are still dealing with people who can be bought off or persuaded one way or another.

At that point AC claims to be be leery of government because of corruption but seems to place a lot of trust in people who can be just as corrupt. Almost like the goal is to just be anti-gov for the sake of being anti-gov.

You could use a private system, but then you are having that system act as government fulfilling the same role. The nature of the governance itself has only changed administratively by my perspective. You have also moved things from being manipulatable by the public America citizenry, to being a system controlled by a few powerful private entities. If the administration of law becomes purely for profit, and the system of incarceration is converted to for profit, I imagine there would be a great deal of incentive to increase the costs of legal proceeding and increase the rate of successful prosecution and incarceration. Being "anti government" IMO is more of a cultural identity, than an achievable political objective. All you do when you vote GOP in America is change policies, you do not shrink costs or the level of people serving those policies in any measurable way.

profit subject to competition.

Monopolies are a governmental prejudice.

a reply to: yesyesyes

I agree.

A change in name is all that is really accomplished.

Nothing more than pipe dreams of invisible hands keeping things in order.

a reply to: xuenchen

Another extremely poor post from Xuenchen. Why do you still post here?