Can you be Anti Authoritarian on the left?

[fncceo]

You can be anti-authoritarian on either side ... it's the type of authority you are against that defines your side.

If you hate this guy ...

Or you hate this woman ...

Define kind of authority you are against.

I get the picture of the cop, but what the hell is the girl in the second picture an "authority" in?

PMS?

Imposing your will, your beliefs, or your agenda on other by force is very much an example of authority.

Shouting down opposition is another example of authority.

Claiming to solely possess morality is an appeal to moral authority.

It's something of which both sides are guilty.

 

[JGalt]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

 

[fncceo]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

 

[Asclepias]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

"Provide for the general welfare...."

 

[P@triot]

It's all about doing the best you can for the most folks.

That’s exactly what every murderous authoritarian dictator in world history claimed. Joseph Stalin made that claim. Vladimir Lenin made that claim. Fidel Castro made that claim. Che Guevara made that claim. Chairman Mao made that claim.

Oh the irony.

 

[P@triot]

Also remember that all freedoms have at least a few limits, like shouting fire in a crowded theater for example.

Snowflake...not being able to shout “fire” in a crowded theater has nothing to do with a limitation on freedoms. It has to do with buying a ticket, entering private property, and agreeing to abide by the rules of that private property.

Man you are a truly special kind of stupid.

 

[Crepitus]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

 

[Asclepias]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

Thats not a team or a functioning society. Freedom is only available when you are only responsible for your self. In a society you have a responsibility towards others be it suppression of your own actions or theirs. Without that responsibility to each other a society doesnt exist. It falls apart.

 

[Crepitus]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

 

[Crepitus]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

You an retain freedom amongst a group of people who do not ask or desire you to take responsibility for them and who similarly don't attempt to take responsibility for you.

Mutual respect is the key to freedom.

What does mutual respect have to do with freedom?

 

[P@triot]

The safety of a few vs the freedom of many, or the freedom of a few vs the safety of many.

Here’s the thing though, snowflake - the U.S. Constitution never guaranteed you “safety”. It guaranteed you liberty. Your ignorance and your platitudes don’t trump the U.S. Constitution. The puppy just don’t.

 

[Asclepias]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

 

[P@triot]

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

Completely free. Dumb ass.

 

[fncceo]

In a society you have a responsibility towards others

In most societies yes. But there are alternatives. Objectivism offers an opportunity to escape the bondage of other people.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Rand

 

[JGalt]

Keeping it short since that seems to get more of a response.

Mostly a question to those who self identify as being more left wing.
And hopefully is treated with honest responses and not just emotional venting.


Also is there a forum "topic" for just asking questions and getting honest responses from both sides of the spectrum? you know, learn why a side thinks the way the do?

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

It's not government's job to guarantee you "quality of life." That's for you to obtain on your own. In other words, the constitution does not guarantee you an income, an education, healthcare, housing, a car, a telephone, or internet service

It does however, guarantee freedom and safety.

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

110% free to earn as much money as he or she wants to. Even enough to buy something to eat. If that person can't afford something to eat, they're obviously a slave of their own ignorance or laziness.

 

[P@triot]

“Provide for the general welfare...."

...is strictly limited to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government.

 

[P@triot]

How free is a person who can't afford to eat?

How “free” is a person who is forced to provide a meal for a parasite such as yourself, by a left-wing authoritarian such as yourself?

 

[Crepitus]

Um, being anti-authoritarian is pretty much what the left is all about.

So when you mandate Obamacare...that is “anti-authoritarianism” in your limited little mind?

Interesting can you explain more?
If the authority at hand is government do you still believe it to be true?

Yes. the things we on the left want to accomplish with government are about enhancing freedom, safety, and quality of life for the majority of people.

If those desires are ever at odds do you choose safety, and quality of life for the majority of people over freedom? Or do you believe freedom is always the answer for safety, and quality of life for the majority of people?

No such thing as freedom unless you are completely alone. Once you team up you loose your freedom as you are now responsible for more than just yourself.

I agree to a certain extent.

Where does the line stop for you?

You can be free, and still be a responsible member of a society. Unless you are referring to a lack of responsibility as freedom.

 

[JokerX27505]

My current hypothesis is this.

right: The very few things that are placed above freedom in the hierarchy of values is taking care of the physical well being of those you are responsible for usually being household family. "Personal responsibility > everything else."

Left: The very few things that are placed above freedom in the hierarchy of values is taking care of the physical well being as well as the emotional well being of as many people as possible in an attempt at achieving the most good possible even if its at the expense of others "biggest bang for your buck"

what do you guys conclude?
Where does freedom go in your hierarchy of values?

 

[Asclepias]

“Provide for the general welfare...."

...is strictly limited to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government.

"The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts andExcises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." This clause,called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. "