You have to have both. A light touch (government) to guide that they don't even know is there

but that balance is damn hard to get

so does that mean that in your view if one side got everything they wanted, it wouldn't be as good for that side as it would be bad for society at large?

there would be a society to worry about then. You are forming one of two echo chambers. Either complete anarchy would rule with warlords, or there would be a systematic dstruction as indiviuals are crushed under a authoratarian rule

got to keep those echo chambers under control, as things spiral from there

which one of those scenarios is the liberals getting what they want?

liberals are collectivists that value group identities over indiviual people

ah I see now

though I feel that this still hasn't been explored as fully as it could

I live on Long Island, east of NYC

for instance, the ancap scenario only applies to ancaps

I haven't come across the kind of faggotry I've seen in Portland

there are other factions of the right that wouldn't destroy all government institutions and replace them with raw power

just was talking pure putting the indivual over the group mentality of the old 'fuck you, got mine' types

those your talking about are left of right basically, taking in some elements of the left

I see, so in this model what is the distinction between right wing collectivists and left wing collectivists?

nothing in that scale, the right and left would apply toward another sliding scale. I see it as 3 intersecting scales

indiviual vs collective, change vs staying the same, active vs passive

that's interesting. I kinda forgot that centrists and constitution libs tend to use the authoritarian v libertarian scale

There are too many people in NYC to allow Antifa to do bullshit blockades like they did in Portland back in October

And the NYPD would not tolerate that

you'll find that no one really fits even in one single area and will often hold ideas from all over the sides politically

of course. And my apologies. I'm not trying to label anyone here

my perspective is pretty skewed atm

so a single person will say that in some instances the government needs to take control, while also saying there are instances where it needs to stay out.

That in some instances the greater public good outweighs the single person and the reverse in others. (such as stopping disease from spreading over the single sick person)

I used to be a secular talk - sargon type guy

but recently I've been consuming a lot of right wing philosophy

we'll say that we need to preserve the past, while looking at the future for example. As a idea of embracing both sides at once

I think I understand

I guess my thing is that whichever one you do, even in moderation, there will be a losing party

ughhhh... there is not much good to watch on amazon prime... if I didn't get it for the shipping (and saved more then I spent on a year buying a phone during prime day0

Also I think we can perceive the left and right as having different goals, and the path to achieving those goals may or may not call for a government solution

for example libertarians and liberals are both left wing socially, but disagree on the method to liberalize society

most today are collectivists that sacrifice their indivuality over to a group think hivemind now though. They get their opinion from reading a except of a blog from facebook, and treat it as though it has some bearing on their very sense of identity to the point that they cannot let it get debated (they have no debate points and it's personal to them)

basically the borg

NPC meme

I have not sacrificed myself to groupthink and never will

uncontrolled echo chamber liberalism taken to it's inevitable conclusion

I think most would freak out knowing I love firearms

arms made of fire? sweet

Guns