The Right and the Left need each other - debate

[DrYouth]

Be it resolved that the Right and the Left need each other.

Copied from another thread this discussion was derailing... http://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewto ... 8&start=70

The British System, The Magna Carta, was a compromise between Nobility and Monarch...

Making the monarch responsible to the landowners.

The French and American Revolutions were extrapolations on that theme - empowering citizens - the French to a greater extreme than the American.

Fukuyama feels that the success of the state involves the balance of power of power blocks within the state... essentially holding one another accountable.

The Right tends to favour the entrenched interests... nowadays that leans towards corporate interests and business owners.

The Left tends to advocate for the interests of the disenfranchised, the working class and protection of vulnerable groups.

The health of society involves the balance between power blocks. That none are hamstrung, that all are accountable.

When the left dominates, unions become bloated and inefficient, entitlements and pensions become unworkable, regulations on businesses become unwieldly.

When the right dominates businesses and banks become unaccountable, workers are exploited and unprotected, the commons is neglected.

A healthy society requires balance...

[DrYouth]

And the balance is needed, because it's pretty bad to appreciate a good $5.000 bottle of vine when your servant hates you and could kill you.

That is a phrase that my father used to say: Never fight with the cook! It's bad for your health.

[DrYouth]

The British System, The Magna Carta, was a compromise between Nobility and Monarch...

Making the monarch responsible to the landowners.

And the leftists would overthrow that relationship to have the landowners responsible to an ignominious commune.

At the extreme left there is the possibility of totalitarianism as there is on the right.

The French and American Revolutions were extrapolations on that theme - empowering citizens - the French to a greater extreme than the American.

Nonsense, both revolutions were incited by an aristocracy, the leftist Jacobins made the citizens subject to a commune which resulted in a terror, then when the citizens tried to overthrow that, a military dictatorship was imposed by force,

A good example of the dangers of leftist totalitarian overreach.

the American planting aristocrats awarded no citizenship, there was no American citizenship until 1865, the Miracle of the American revolution, in stark contrast to the French, is that for the first and only time in history, the land owners asserted individual sovereignty by force of arms under the same divine mandate claimed by kings.

As Neil Ferguson points out the American Revolution and the French have important contrasts... The American system is less inclined to leave the left unchecked than the French was. The French Revolution was a stepping stone to the Marxist Revolution and we saw how well that went.

Fukuyama feels that the success of the state involves the balance of power of power blocks within the state... essentially holding one another accountable.

Isn't that the Neocon cuck who declared the end of history in 1992?

Cappy and I are big fans of his two part work... The Origins of Political Order.

The Right tends to favour the entrenched interests... nowadays that leans towards corporate interests and business owners.

No, the right favours the sovereignty of the individual over the prerogatives of a commune, particularly regarding property rights.

You are painting everything in reference to the absolute totalitarian extreme...
This is blinding you to most of the spectrum...
This is where you fall down.
Yours is a logic of counter-extremism...

The Left tends to advocate for the interests of the disenfranchised, the working class and protection of vulnerable groups.

So they tell themselves, but nothing is more disenfranchising and repressive than the leftist militarized nanny police state, particularly for the working classes and vulnerable.

The health of society involves the balance between power blocks. That none are hamstrung, that all are accountable.

Society can get on just fine without the left, nothing says the opposition needs to be a commune.

When the left dominates, unions become bloated and inefficient, entitlements and pensions become unworkable, regulations on businesses become unwieldly, businesses and banks become unaccountable, workers are exploited and unprotected, the commons is neglected.

FIFY

A healthy society requires balance...

Which will only be restored, when the insurgents of the left are brought to heel, and we hang their commune therein.

Those of the right should not be so naive to think that the left is seeking "balance", please, the left is seeking to render all conservative thought to being "thought crime", there's comes a time, where it is no longer sufficient to defend the right, but to defend the right to be of the right itself, and since there can be no middle ground with a commune, a commune which does not adhere to the terms of any parley, nor brook any opposition therein, it becomes an impasse which cannot be resolved by simply voting the left out, rather, the right must fight fire with fire, by counterrevolution against the leftist insurgency bent on the absolute overthrow of our prerogatives.

Yours is a logic of counter-extremism...
Well suited to fighting the Red Scare.
Not well suited to the life of managing a state that is not under "imminent threat"
But then you are a military man.

[DrYouth]

Seriously...

No appetite for this debate.

I'm going to assume that Smitty concedes if he doesn't post in this thread.

[StCapps]

Fukuyama feels that the success of the state involves the balance of power of power blocks within the state... essentially holding one another accountable.

Isn't that the Neocon cuck who declared the end of history in 1992?

Cappy and I are big fans of his two part work... The Origins of Political Order.

Yeah that's the dude Smitty, but even Fukuyama talks crap about "The End of History" these days. Fukuyama's amended interpretation of what he once called "The End of History" is not so ridiculous as the original premise, and The Origins of Political Order is good shit I can vouch for that.

[Smitty-48]

Seriously...

No appetite for this debate.

I'm going to assume that Smitty concedes if he doesn't post in this thread.

Calm yourself, Doctor, I was merely out enjoying some late fall sunshine in the back forty. Moreover, there's nothing to concede to, as you've deftly avoided all the points, and furthermore, I am advised by my American cousins, that extremism in the defence of liberty, is in fact, no vice.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[TheReal_ND]

The right and left will get along as soon as all leftists are lined up on a wall and summarily shot.

[DrYouth]

I know right!

Underwhelming rebuttal from the "leftists are the problem" crowd.

Shall we call it a rout.

[Smitty-48]

Sorry to disappoint you, Doctor, but bear in mind that while you manifestly need us in order for you to engage in your virtue signalling purity spirals, we on the right do not actually have any utility for you whatsoever, and, as I've said, the best rebuttals are delivered by whiff of grapeshot, not a cosy chat.