Originally posted by silent thunder
This is an interesting (if unorthodx) way to look at politics...you aren't using the "traditional" definitions of libertarianism and authoritarianism...but if you want to define your terms on those grounds, OK. Let's take it as a thought exercise. Thus taken, it can be a very helpful antidote to the linearity of the traditional left-right paradigm. But to demand that we make this choice is perhaps even more repressive than crushing complex opinions down to fit the demands of left-right polemics. Sorry, but I won't play that game.

If I absolutely had to label myself, I would choose something like "pagmatist" or "historical realist".Do what needs to be done...just get 'er done. The rest is detail.

edit on 8/30/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

And isn't that where the devil is?

If we cannot at least agree to treat people as we wish to be treated ourselves then we are lost.
Furthermore to wish to go beyond that and issue other decrees and laws upon the people then you are an authoritarian and for every law you do not mandate as necessary you are more of a libertarian. I don't see what is so hard about establishing a difference between more and less laws. This reluctance to call a spade a spade is creating impossible complications and red tape and making the true facts of the matter very hard to see. People who wish to enslave others will always try to obscure the truth or they may even feign indignation and pretend you are trying to fool them with the truth. They will protest and claim it is something else altogether. The truth is the truth and easy to see unless you beat it, pound it, and drag it through a wringer, and then disguise it, to make it unrecognizable as we have done with truth as determined by our system of governance and laws.