Defining terms, explaining conceptual frameworks

[malakos]

I have a challenge particularly for the regulars of this board (or any lurkers who are feeling brave), and I hope some of you may be willing to take me up on it. I won't attack any of your answers, but I may ask questions about them.

There tends to be a fair amount of fast and loose with terms here. For example, "the Left" is often used as a catchall for anyone who pushes identity politics or big government. Another example would be "the Alt-Right", which basically means any White person who is prejudiced. I find both of those usages to be quite errant and wanting.

I'd like to dissect these terms and concepts we take for granted (and yet have often used in divergent and unclear ways). Feel free to take a stab at defining any common political term we tend to discuss here, or explaining any more complex concepts.

Ideas to help start off: justice, rights, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, identity politics, racism, Alt-Right, feminism, bigotry, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, populism, globalism, democracy, republic, citizenship, tolerance, "fake news", fact, propaganda, liberty, privilege, terrorism, equality/equity, immigration, progressive, law

Also a few ideas for basic conceptual explanations:

-Does the notion of a Left-Right spectrum make sense? If so, describe the range of it. Or does it make more sense to conceive of the political map as multi-axial?

-Is the existence of the State inevitable? Is its existence a good? What is the fundamental purpose(s) of the State?

-Is taxation theft?

-Is there any daylight between morality and politics? Or perhaps more pertinently, should there be?

-Whose interests are politics supposed to serve in a society? That of all? If interests are in conflict, how is serving them all a possibility? How are interests to be balanced in statecraft?


Other ideas are welcome too.

 

[malakos]

I know I'm throwing a lot out, but do feel free to be as particular and partial as you feel like, if only to get the ball rolling.

 

[Fred90]

What is the fundamental purpose(s) of the State?

People have probably written their doctoral dissertations on this question alone.

 

[Klingsor]

-Is taxation theft?

Yes. But so is property, so watcha gonna do?

 

[malakos]

Yes. But so is property, so watcha gonna do?

So you don't believe in the social contract?

 

[Klingsor]

So you don't believe in the social contract?

If *you* believe in the social contract, that answers your earlier question: taxation isn't theft.

 

[malakos]

If *you* believe in the social contract, that answers your earlier question: taxation isn't theft.

It would. You said that taxation is theft. Which suggests you don't believe in the social contract. No?

 

[twoton]

IFor example, "the Left" is often used as a catchall for anyone who pushes identity politics or big government. Another example would be "the Alt-Right", which basically means any White person who is prejudiced. I find both of those usages to be quite errant and wanting.

I wouldn't agree that Alt-Right includes every prejudiced white. I think Alt-Right includes more intensity than basic prejudice.

-Does the notion of a Left-Right spectrum make sense? If so, describe the range of it. Or does it make more sense to conceive of the political map as multi-axial?

It makes sense at the surface. If you dive deep into the philosophies, I think it starts to become a circle. Both socialism and conservatism can reach a tipping point into totalitarianism.

-Is the existence of the State inevitable? Is its existence a good? What is the fundamental purpose(s) of the State?

Yes, always has been always will be, whether tribal, clannish, geographic, or national identity. A person, to survive life, needs other people. Other people need other people. The State is the organization that (should) exist to help everyone help each other. The purpose of the state is to provide for the welfare and well-being of the people it encompasses. It's the social contract.

-Is taxation theft?

No, not at all. In my mind, taxation is far closer to being an investment.

-Is there any daylight between morality and politics? Or perhaps more pertinently, should there be?

There shouldn't be. A society's morals are absolutely necessary in politics; they form the foundation upon which the trust and faith of the people depend.
I'd wager that most of the complaints about Trump are based not on alleged criminal activity, but on his immorality and the unethical composition of his being.

-Whose interests are politics supposed to serve in a society? That of all? If interests are in conflict, how is serving them all a possibility? How are interests to be balanced in statecraft?

The interests of all must be served, beginning with those least able to protect their own interests. In statecraft, particularly geopolitical statecraft, there is one supreme rule that must be followed: The highest priority of the state is the survival of the state. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Perados]

Yes. But so is property, so watcha gonna do?

So you don't believe in the social contract?

If *you* believe in the social contract, that answers your earlier question: taxation isn't theft.

It would. You said that taxation is theft. Which suggests you don't believe in the social contract. No?

Serious?

 

[malakos]

Cool. Thanks for participating and answers all of those questions. I may come back later to explore more of what you've said.

I wouldn't agree that Alt-Right includes every prejudiced white. I think Alt-Right includes more intensity than basic prejudice.

To be clear, I agree that what constitutes the Alt-Right is considerably more complicated. What I was describing was the ways that terms are sometimes used in this forum with a severe lack of precision. "The Left" and "Alt-Right" are both examples of terms that have been so misused numerous times (I chose those two because it is one example of a term "my" side has misused, and one the "other" side has misused).

 

[malakos]

Serious?

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01010010 01110101 01110011 01110011 01101001 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001011 01110010 01100101 01101101 01101100 01101001 01101110 00101110

 

[Fred90]

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01010010 01110101 01110011 01110011 01101001 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001011 01110010 01100101 01101101 01101100 01101001 01101110 00101110

Wow, that was weird.

 

[IntactMale]

Anyone with a little bit of awareness knows how to translate that.

Binary to Ascii Text Converter

 

[Klingsor]

It would. You said that taxation is theft. Which suggests you don't believe in the social contract. No?

I believe "the social contract," "taxation is theft," "property is theft," etc., are things people believe, or don't believe, as they see fit. Since I don't see any definitive metaphysical warrant to settle the matter, I'm inclined to take any such notions with a grain of salt. What matters is the practical utility of people holding such beliefs, and that too can vary depending on the circumstances.

If you ask me about taxes, I don't enjoy paying them, and would be happy to stop--as soon as they come up with an alternative system that provides the same benefits.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Wow, that was weird.

No, Fred.
That was clever.