[BlutoSays]

The thing, though, is that 'economic freedom' and 'personal freedom' -- and *all* 'freedoms', at that -- are really *implied*, as is their *inverse*, 'authority', and so can be readily, better depicted on the regular *one*-dimensional political spectrum.

In other words, at *that* level (of ideology and/or the global scale), the 'economic' and the 'personal / [political]', are basically *level* with each other, and they're not going to be too dissimilar from each other.

A quick example would be the wealthy and their political interests, expressed, to protect and grow that money.

(Note the blue vs. green, political-vs.-economic, 'bottom-up' 'supports', in the following, if you like.)


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show

No, freedoms are NOT implied. If you don't have the corruption of politicans and judges, then the freedom is real. Only when a politician or judge strays out of their lane and attempts to assert control where they don't legitimately have any do things go awry.

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights. It's a negative check on government power granted by God (or by "nature" if you Godless commies prefer). That's important, because those negative checks are NOT granted by "man". Get it? Let me repeat: the negative checks on gubmint under the U.S. Constitution are NOT granted by man. Since those negative checks are not granted by man, they aren't supposed to be taken away by man, even though corrupt politicians and judges often do (temporarily). The more they do this, the more we get to that "Tree of Liberty" scenario which gets really ugly, and once it's turned on, it doesn't get turned off just because someone wants it to be turned off. It's on it's own schedule for burning out.

Yeah, screw the "global" scale because we're a sovereign country. I'm sure one-worlders all around this place don't like that, but I could GAS.

No on your quick example. The wealthy can protect and grow their money without impinging on others. It's only when they break the law that there are problems. Every other complaint just stems from jealousy.

BTW, top dead center of your graphic is waaaaaay off.

Leftward=collective production, individual self-determination ?
Rightward=Hierarchy, sectarianism, tribalism ?

Have you seen how tribal the left is? How they push tribalism every day (whether by the DNC, one of their many affinity groups like BLM or ANTIFA, the mass media or sillycon valley)? They carve everything up by tribe (LGBTQ, skin color, religion, rich vs. poor, givers vs. takers, ethnicity) and then they assemble the pieces they like and hope for more than 50%.

And the left has NOTHING to do with self-determination. That is an anathema to the left. They prefer state control (collective) vs. individual thought on every issue. They want followers, not anyone who gets out of line and challenges group think pushed top-down by the DNC and its adherents.

No, the right wants self-determination. The right wants to be left the F alone from the tyranny of the leviathon of big centrally planned gubmint, whcih is inefficient and F's up everything it touches. Govt does things it's not chartered to do and the things it's supposed to do, it doesn't do well. It's a complete debacle and way out of its lane.

Unless I'm reading that chart wrong. It's too busy. Maybe I'm trying to make too much sense of it.

[Pants-of-dog]

…..Let me repeat: the negative checks on gubmint under the U.S. Constitution are NOT granted by man.
…..

This does not seem to be true.

Why do you believe this?

[BlutoSays]

This does not seem to be true.

Why do you believe this?

Because, unlike you, I understand the Constitutional form of government.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because, unlike you, I understand the Constitutional form of government.

So you believe that god exists and cares and made these rights in the time before creation, just because a piece of paper says so?

[BlutoSays]

So you believe that god exists and cares and made these rights in the time before creation, just because a piece of paper says so?

Yes, I believe God exists and these negative checks on gubmint are granted by God. Got it? Are we clear?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I believe God exists and these negative checks on gubmint are granted by God. Got it? Are we clear?

Yes.

You believe that rights are granted by god solely because of your religious faith and not because of any logical or empirical reason.

Having said that, why would anyone else believe that your religious faith is true in this regard? Many devout Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism. Should we believe in YEC simply because of the religious faith of these other people?

[BlutoSays]

Yes.

You believe that rights are granted by god solely because of your religious faith and not because of any logical or empirical reason.

Having said that, why would anyone else believe that your religious faith is true in this regard? Many devout Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism. Should we believe in YEC simply because of the religious faith of these other people?

Did I say rights are granted? I said it's a negative check on gubmint.

For a leftist like yourself, I doubt logic enters into any thought you have.

I don't really GAF what you believe in.

But I do wonder why you're here 24x7? Do you have a life outside of this place?

[Pants-of-dog]

Did I say rights are granted? I said it's a negative check on gubmint.

For a leftist like yourself, I doubt logic enters into any thought you have.

I don't really GAF what you believe in.

But I do wonder why you're here 24x7? Do you have a life outside of this place?

I do not care if or what you think about me.

Back to my point:

There is no logical or empirical reason to think that rights (defined as negative checks on government) are granted by god.

History shows us that rights are routinely taken away or given by government and aociety.

[BlutoSays]

Ooooohhhhhh. 37K posts. Now I understand.

[ckaihatsu]

No, freedoms are NOT implied. If you don't have the corruption of politicans and judges, then the freedom is real. Only when a politician or judge strays out of their lane and attempts to assert control where they don't legitimately have any do things go awry.

What you're doing here is just the *politicization* of the judicial branch of (bourgeois) government.

The judiciary is ostensibly supposed to be 'impartial' and 'procedural', so your drawing attention to it just means that you (and the far-left, incidentally) happen to see that institution *more fluidly*, politically, which is valid.

Of course there's no common ground on the *issues* themselves but these 'empirical descriptions', shall we say, are often described similarly by conservatives and the far-left.

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights. It's a negative check on government power granted by God (or by "nature" if you Godless commies prefer). That's important, because those negative checks are NOT granted by "man". Get it? Let me repeat: the negative checks on gubmint under the U.S. Constitution are NOT granted by man. Since those negative checks are not granted by man, they aren't supposed to be taken away by man, even though corrupt politicians and judges often do (temporarily). The more they do this, the more we get to that "Tree of Liberty" scenario which gets really ugly, and once it's turned on, it doesn't get turned off just because someone wants it to be turned off. It's on it's own schedule for burning out.

Well, I appreciate that you're 'post-monarchical', for lack of a better phrasing. Geopolitically, though, the U.S. has been less-than-sympathetic for *other*, less-well-developed countries, for *their* anti-monarchical, popular-revolution political sentiments and movements -- which is *hypocritical*, obviously.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

https://www.monticello.org/site/researc ... -quotation

You conceive of popular revolts as being like those that have happened in recent years internationally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2020_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2021_protests


But your overriding concern is with the *extents* of such, longitudinally, while a more-*political* concern wouldn't be with the *duration*, or even the *energy*, but rather with the mass-conscious *objectives* of such ('anti-tyranny') activity.

Yeah, screw the "global" scale because we're a sovereign country. I'm sure one-worlders all around this place don't like that, but I could GAS.

What about the *economy* -- ? Should there be strict *autarky* for each and every country? Arbitrarily hem-in capitalism's 'universality' that way -- ?

No on your quick example. The wealthy can protect and grow their money without impinging on others.

Untrue, because much economic activity *these* days is based on sourcing *raw natural resources*, which isn't even 'productive' in the sense of *manufacturing* into finished commodities. Sourcing base raw materials from the earth can't be done solely from one's own *personal* property -- it's more akin to F.I.R.E. (finance, insurance, and real estate), and *colonialism*.

It's only when they break the law that there are problems. Every other complaint just stems from jealousy.

BTW, top dead center of your graphic is waaaaaay off.

I just dismissed my current Science Advisor. (grin)

Leftward=collective production, individual self-determination ?
Rightward=Hierarchy, sectarianism, tribalism ?

Have you seen how tribal the left is? How they push tribalism every day (whether by the DNC, one of their many affinity groups like BLM or ANTIFA, the mass media or sillycon valley)? They carve everything up by tribe (LGBTQ, skin color, religion, rich vs. poor, givers vs. takers, ethnicity) and then they assemble the pieces they like and hope for more than 50%.

You're correct *empirically*, and the description is correct simply because even the left-segment has its own capitalist (nationalist) *industries*, as you're itemizing.

And the left has NOTHING to do with self-determination. That is an anathema to the left. They prefer state control (collective) vs. individual thought on every issue.

Yes, those are the *Democrats*, specifically -- because they're *players* in the nationalism industry.

They want followers, not anyone who gets out of line and challenges group think pushed top-down by the DNC and its adherents.

No, the right wants self-determination. The right wants to be left the F alone from the tyranny of the leviathon of big centrally planned gubmint, whcih is inefficient and F's up everything it touches. Govt does things it's not chartered to do and the things it's supposed to do, it doesn't do well. It's a complete debacle and way out of its lane.

Unless I'm reading that chart wrong. It's too busy. Maybe I'm trying to make too much sense of it.

Well thanks for the thoughts and critiques, anyway. Let me know of anything else that you think of.

I'll suggest that -- based on the following recent diagram -- there can be *material similarities* between the already-content / well-off / wealthy, like yourself, and the demographic of *labor*, interestingly -- I posit that the entitled (particularly *rentier*-capital asset owners) *and* possibly working-class laborers have a *similar* material interest that tends toward the status quo, meaning the *settling* for such, given sufficient individual means for enjoying such.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

(By contrast, it's *equity* capital and the bourgeois state that strive for *more* economic activity, which conventionally requires greater inputs of *labor* power -- a drain on *individuality*, triggering an inherent labor material preference for the status quo.)

[Pants-of-dog]

Ooooohhhhhh. 37K posts. Now I understand.

So when the writers of the Constitution enslaved others, were they committing a sin against god since they were depriving black people of the right to freedom?

[Unthinking Majority]

So you believe that god exists and cares and made these rights in the time before creation, just because a piece of paper says so?

I think he's repeating stuff the founders believed, like people were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights etc

Odd religious arguments but that's what they believed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural ... gal_rights

[wat0n]

This is *wishful thinking* on your part -- this recent comment at WSWS sums things up:

Is that why Maduro and Biden are chatting about resuming oil exports to the US?

[ckaihatsu]

Is that why Maduro and Biden are chatting about resuming oil exports to the US?

Hey, you *win*. Whatever. Go-international-trade-links-instead-of-Trumpian-nationalist-retrenchment-and-sanctions.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think he's repeating stuff the founders believed, like people were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights etc

Odd religious arguments but that's what they believed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural ... gal_rights

I assume so as well.

I just never understood why so many people believe this when it is inconsistent with history.

[Unthinking Majority]

I assume so as well.

I just never understood why so many people believe this when it is inconsistent with history.

Maybe they didn't think black people were fully human?

[Potemkin]

Is that why Maduro and Biden are chatting about resuming oil exports to the US?

When a nation’s geopolitical or material interests collide with its abstract ideals, then its geopolitical or material interests will win. Every. Fucking. Time. And a good thing too - if its abstract ideals won, then that nation would probably be wiped off the map in very short order. Maduro is nobody’s fool, and neither is Biden.

[Drlee]

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems Jefferson disagrees with you. That is unless you take the position that Jesus thought that people had the right to keep offensive weapons. That would be laughable.

Then there is this. It is quite specifically the constitution granting a right. This is a right that does not come from God. It is purely a right granted by GOVERNMENT to all citizens.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This grants individuals specific rights and compels local, state and federal governments to take specific action to ensure these rights are upheld.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Oops. There is another one.

Tedious bullshit from the far right.

[jimjam]

Did I say rights are granted? I said it's a negative check on gubmint.

For a leftist like yourself, I doubt logic enters into any thought you have.

Got it POD? You are a "liberal" and, as such, ALWAYS wrong while Pluto is ALWAYS correct ...... .
because he is a "conservative".

End of "debate"....... no critical thinking permitted.

[ckaihatsu]

For example, the U.S. Constitution does not grant any rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems Jefferson disagrees with you. That is unless you take the position that Jesus thought that people had the right to keep offensive weapons. That would be laughable.

Then there is this. It is quite specifically the constitution granting a right. This is a right that does not come from God. It is purely a right granted by GOVERNMENT to all citizens.

I'm quite sure that BS prefers the *initial* U.S., the one under the *Articles of Confederation*:

Many of the most prominent national leaders, such as Washington, John Adams, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin, retired from public life, served as foreign delegates, or held office in state governments; and for the general public, local government and self-rule seemed quite satisfactory. This served to exacerbate Congress's impotence.[23]

Inherent weaknesses in the confederation's frame of government also frustrated the ability of the government to conduct foreign policy. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, concerned over the failure of Congress to fund an American naval force to confront the Barbary pirates, wrote in a diplomatic correspondence to James Monroe that, "It will be said there is no money in the treasury. There never will be money in the treasury till the Confederacy shows its teeth."[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_ ... e_Articles

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallholding


---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This grants individuals specific rights and compels local, state and federal governments to take specific action to ensure these rights are upheld.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Oops. There is another one.

Tedious bullshit from the far right.

I don't think BS *means* to be obtuse, it's just that it *comes out* that way, because of BS's obviously *personal* politics, meaning those of a 'smallholder', in my estimation, as they're called these days. I'm used to the term 'petty bourgeois' -- some capital investment, and capital-empowered "production" and steady profits, probably from sheer resource extraction (usually colonialist, from above), which is thus basically *financial*-only (assets-and-resources), and privileged (a concession from the nation-state), like for that of the actual *aristocracy* of pre-industrial times.

BS: At this point in the game / history-of-things, white-settler agrarian slavery-based nationalism isn't really relevant or useful.


---

Did I say rights are granted? I said it's a negative check on gubmint.

(This is actually anti-monarchical, ahistorically, for whatever that's worth.)