Political compass! (who believes what?)

[caveden]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right. This is not a matter of opinion, it's pretty logical: http://www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=200
Even a little kids understand that taking what belong to others is not a good idea, even little kids react violently when people take what's theirs, you shouldn't really need the full philosophical explanation to understand what most 4 years old can grasp.

Besides, this whole Left-Right thing doesn't make much sense. I would never say I'm "right-wing".

[1714117583]

1714117583

[BCEmporium]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right.

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

[Alex Beckenham]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right.

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

Even within cultures, it's a matter for individuals.
But you still get a +1.

[BCEmporium]

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand. 

+1

Let's never forget that those advocating for complete slavery abolition on the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th were viewed by the majority as "radical extremists". Abolishing slavery was indeed a very radical and extreme idea at that time.

Wrong! The ones keeping slavery were pretty extremists themselves. Eventually what we got was a moderate position between those two groups, which we call "abolishing slavery". Some of the arguments of those "anti-slavery extremists" if you listen to them now you would be calling them utterly racists, as it sounds they're talking of blacks as dogs... matter of time.

[caveden]

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

Ethics is not a matter of culture, it's a matter of logic. Try reading the text I indicated you.

[caveden]

Wrong! The ones keeping slavery were pretty extremists themselves.

No, they were not. They were just keeping status quo. Slavery was a reality in human race since a man became capable of producing more than his basic needs. It existed pratically everywhere, for millenia.

The radical ones were those trying to abolish it. And curiously the arguments used against them were quite similar to the arguments used against those who oppose the state.

[BCEmporium]

Ethics are bind to what one consider or not "right" within a given cultural background. Everything is relative, the belief of "absolute truth", "absolute evil or goodness" is actually the root of all extremism and fanaticism.
If you want to put it to terms is even pathetic that a mortal creature claims to "own" a piece of land, taken that piece of land is virtually immortal whereas its "owner" isn't. So to the very bottom of the subject you just "lend" a piece of land for a while.

As for radicalism, keeping the "status quo" can be a radical position, moderation isn't measured by "reaction = moderation / revolution = extremism", moderation is measured by awareness that despite you need a route to follow (a set of conventions we call "right and wrong"), the others' point of view isn't "just wrong" because it's different of yours.

[caveden]

Ethics are bind to what one consider or not "right" within a given cultural background.

You clearly didn't read the text I indicated you and keep repeating something wrong. Basic ethics can be logically determined, do not confuse it with personal values.

Everything is relative, the belief of "absolute truth", "absolute evil or goodness" is actually the root of all extremism and fanaticism.

hehe, if "there is no absolute truth", what is this sentence itself? It can't be an absolute truth itself... meaning that in certain situations, the sentence "there is no absolute truth" is not true. But if this very sentence if false at any situation, that means that in this situation there is an absolute truth, making the sentence false always.

Absolute truths do exist.

As for radicalism, keeping the "status quo" can be a radical position, moderation isn't measured by "reaction = moderation / revolution = extremism", moderation is measured by awareness that despite you need a route to follow (a set of conventions we call "right and wrong"), the others' point of view isn't "just wrong" because it's different of yours.

Wow, now radicals want to maintain the status quo... basically you're defining radicalism as what suits you better.

From the very dictionary definition:

radicalism (uncountable)

    Any of various radical social or political movements that aim at fundamental change in the structure of society

As I said, those wanting to abolish slavery in the beginning of the 19th century were extreme radicals. What they fought for was a fundamental change in the structure of society.

[BCEmporium]

So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...

As it looks I'm talking to an extremist, and extremists are impossible to talk to (doesn't matter if from right or left wing, authoritarian or libertarian), taken everything they "believe in" is "the truth" and everything someone else's does or believe is "wrong"...

For Radicalism it means:

the state or nature of being radical, esp in politics.

Radical:

a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.

Extremism:

the condition or act of taking an extreme view.

Extreme view: Take one's vision or belief as supreme, ultimate and incontestable truth

Extremism can be taken to the "status quo", back in 44 for an instance kill Jews was a status quo of Nazis and it was quite an extremist measure. We don't call the allies extremists, despite by winning the war they caused a major shift within the German society.

[caveden]

So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...

I just gave you the logical demonstration that they exist, didn't you follow? The negation of this sentence is a logical contradiction, meaning that the sentence is necessarily true.

And if you really need an example: 2+2=4.

[BCEmporium]

2 what plus 2 what? May not necessarily be 4, if 2 atoms of hydrogen meets 2 atoms of oxygen they will combine to form water and release 1 atom of oxygen, so here 2H+2O = H2O+O.
Still, mathematics are abstract within abstraction layers there're "absolute truths" or at least results that can be taken as somewhat "absolute". However you don't run your life based on mathematics nor its apparent "perfection", but on social interaction.

Your play with words on the sentence makes it funny and end up to be truth, even the sentence "there's no absolute truth" can be false, but by having the possibility to be false makes it also true. Doesn't mean you didn't put a fallacy and make a statement of denial to be judged as statement.

[grondilu]

Caveden, I agree with what you said about abolitionnists being seen as extremists at their time, but you lost me when you say ethics is a matter of logic.   To me it is just not, really.

The exemple of someone defending his property is a good exemple.  Some people don't even believe in property.  "Property is theft", as Proudhon said.  So, those people can think they have the right to take other people belongings, with force if necessary.  To you and me it is silly and outrageous, but for them it is highly moral.  And logic has nothing to do with this.

[caveden]

Caveden, I agree with what you said about abolitionnists being seen as extremists at their time, but you lost me when you say ethics is a matter of logic.   To me it is just not, really.

Ethics, sometimes called "natural rights" (I don't like this term very much), can be logically determined based solely on human nature and axiom-like premises like "full obedience of ethics must not culminate in human race extermination".
The text in Portuguese I had linked to BCEmporium is good logical explanation of property rights done by Hoppe, you could take a look if you will. Here's the English version: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe11.html

[BCEmporium]

caveden,

You mean "common sense" as "ethics".
Yes, I do agree to the use of common sense, thus I'm aware of its volatile nature, that's what I'm pointing out. Like saying back on 18th Century and Slavery, for the "common sense of the age", at least within the ruling power and to some extent to slaves themselves (mostly didn't even think on a different way of life), slavery was just "perfectly normal". Nowadays is an obnoxious practice, not extinct but no longer accepted on most regions of the globe.

I lack the time now, but later I'll explain this and some misconceptions to practical common sense within that Robinson Crusoe text you sent me.

[caveden]

2 what plus 2 what? May not necessarily be 4, if 2 atoms of hydrogen meets 2 atoms of oxygen they will combine to form water and release 1 atom of oxygen, so here 2H+2O = H2O+O.

Dude, seriously, it's basic definition of math that, unless otherwise specified, in a simple addition like 2+2 we're talking about items of the same nature.

Your play with words on the sentence makes it funny and end up to be truth, even the sentence "there's no absolute truth" can be false, but by having the possibility to be false makes it also true. Doesn't mean you didn't put a fallacy and make a statement of denial to be judged as statement.

Sorry but you seems to have problems with logic. The sentence "there's no absolute truth" is a logical contradiction itself, simply because it implies that sometimes it cannot be true (otherwise itself would be an absolute truth). But if sometimes it's false, then sometimes there are absolute truths, what makes the initial sentence false entirely, and its negation, "there are absolute truths", true.
If you can't see that, I'm sorry but I don't think I can write it any better. I'm not playing with words at all.

[caveden]

caveden,

You mean "common sense" as "ethics".

No, I don't.

This is getting pointless. Please, try reading the text I indicated you regarding property rights. I challenge you to find logical flaws in it. The people on the site are very responsive and may answer you better than I, leave comments there if you don't understand something.

I have to go now. Best regards

[BCEmporium]

2+2 is abstract, means nothing nor have practical use by itself, within the real and practical sphere, which like or not is where we live, 2+2 even for the same kind may not mean 4. World and the Universe is not maths, as it tend to chaos.

On RC story you get all the flaws of the genesis of private property, thus men take more care of what they "own" than what they believe to be "public", the genesis of private property is... stealing.

RC is a demonstrative of morality of the time it was written, Friday doesn't come to be RC friendly neighbor, but RC's maiden, as it was "morale acceptable" at such time that a white guy is the "primarily owner" of everything he lays hands on. So RC doesn't only takeover ownership of the island - which happens to be already inhabited by "savages" - who for the morality of such time wasn't even "human" to take to account of ownership - but also take ownership of Friday.
And if RC is just a fictional character, the pioneers on the American West or Australia aren't but what they did wasn't much different than our imaginary Robinson Crusoe.

I then found some legitimacy on those opposing the idea of private property, but also illegitimacy as they pretend to be heirs of those they aren't... in the modern "all owned" World, those claims renders few than some willing to release land in order for them to "steal for themselves" later on.

Is human nature based on stealing and are we all robbers? Perhaps...

EDIT:

So in the end, whoever wrote that text, forgot one thing: Why there's private property? And the answer is simple: Because there's a force that allows it to remain private, like police and military. Both rely in a government to be enforced.
So private property doesn't "avoid conflicts", it's the security forces who does it. This is also the reason why in genesis this private property distribution was so biased; because the "white man" was way more technologically advanced than Africans and can coerce anyone to accept his claims. And this is not an exclusive of "white man", less than one century before the Portuguese arrival in the Indian ocean a group of Chinese sailors, under command of Zheng He, already did practically the same, killing the entire army of where is now Sri Lanka due to its king refusal into "pay tribute" to the Chinese Emperor.

Actually, and as the demographic pressure is as intense as now, never before the existence of governments were so justified in order to keep private property, for those who believe in such. Making anarchy anachronistic. It would make more sense on the middle ages, when space wasn't anything near scarce, but those poor folks got a "freedom relief program" we name as "governments" (mostly Monarchies).
This also leads to the other bogus interpretation of "first to arrive, first to get" rule; until where is one claims of ownership legitimate? 1 Hectare? 1 Country? 1 Continent? The World? Greed uses to have several issues with borders...

[em3rgentOrdr]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

I do not believe this makes sense.  Fascism is characterized by strong authoritarian beliefs as well as belief in Nationality, Race and the State.  Fascists believe in a strong ruling authority.  Your red boxes in the upper corners might be considered fascists but the lower ones cannot be.  By the definition of the chart the lower you go the less authoritarian, and therefore the less fascist, you are.  People in the lower reaches of the chart believe in very little or no structured authority.  They just have different opinions on what that would/should look like.  Just because you strongly believe something does not mean you would force it upon other people.

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

[BCEmporium]

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

It's implicit within the "strongly agree". Let's say you "strongly agree" that those with pink shirts shouldn't pick the train, if you see a guy with a pink shirt in the train you'll try to put him away, if he's persistent your actions would move from an initial attempt of speech to a more violent and coercive reaction. Or if you're shy you'll feel inner revolt to have that guy there.
That's just plainly natural...

[em3rgentOrdr]

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

It's implicit within the "strongly agree". Let's say you "strongly agree" that those with pink shirts shouldn't pick the train, if you see a guy with a pink shirt in the train you'll try to put him away, if he's persistent your actions would move from an initial attempt of speech to a more violent and coercive reaction. Or if you're shy you'll feel inner revolt to have that guy there.
That's just plainly natural...

No. STRONGLY AGREE != will impose with force.