oh ok.

@Jerm Centarist does not mean 50/50. It's weird that you think that

Would you mind defining centrist?

I'm simply using the idea of centrist of being "in the middle". If I'm wrong, then I'm happy to use a different definition.

Well imm gonna play some old nes games.

I think being in the middle is a fair description... I think another would be compromising

it seems as though the far left and far right seem to agree on everything... regardless of how unrelated those issues might be

That's why I don't worry about left-right labels.

I support rhino horn trade. I support lifting of all prohibitions on drugs. Does that make me left or right? I don't care.

Its not about the label as it is about the representation

maybe I see the center as the grey area

where a lot of issues can often fall

Just ground your worldview on a set of values and principles. Everything falls into place after that. It's far more honest too.

but because outrage generates more activity, truly exploring the grey area is not rewarded

For me there are things on the left that I support as well as the right. That is why I hate the scale, maybe one way to define it is to have a set of values for the center? But again, it is one of those things that no one can ultimately stand for every center value... I agree that it is a grey area.

For me, most things are really that simple. Humans have a tendency to make stuff more complicated for no good reason.

Does me schnarfing a line of coke affect your life? No? Then come and persuade me not to do so. But don't use the state to come into my home at the expense of everybody else.

I would agree that we overcomplicate some issues, but most are geniunely complicated (if we are doing a truthful examination of the issue)

lets use the Alex Jones issue as an example

I am all for free market

but when companies have grown to the scale of FB, Twitter etc.... then they end up having unfettered power that can no longer really be regulated by the free market

Dont get me wrong Alex Jones is a warped douchebag

but should private companies have that kind of power...

@Tom_Servo I agree, and it is still tricky to me. We want private companies to have their own voice, but we don't want them to have the only voice.

same thing happened to the Guptas here

how did all the banks find the same thing at the same time

or colluding with each other which restricts free market

that was an orchestrated move... and we are all fine with it because it serves our purpose.... but pvt companies often need to be regulated

@Tom_Servo Yes, they should. But only if the market gave it to them. If they receive protection from the state, then no. The Guptas received state protection. Alex Jones is hated by the state.

The banks are only private in name. They're not actually private.

@Roovdwalt isn't collusion or monopoly the inevitable outcome of successful capitalism.

?

hence regulations start coming into play?

I am against regulating private companies, I do not want to stop innovation. But I agree that power can get to their heads and if there is a way to have them free without them colluding, I am all ears.

@Tom_Servo where are you from

Collusion can happen in a free market, but it's hard to say since we don't have free markets in the free sense.

Monopolies can only exist when the state prvoides protection. Monopolies can't exist in a free market.

@Tom_Servo Private companies are regulated by the market and don't require state regulation.

@Jerm In the technological world that no longer holds true

huge amounts of capital investment have made it impossible to disrupt the existing "production" means

Give an example, @Tom_Servo