What does "far right" mean anyway?

[Happ Hazzard]

How is it any more right wing than left wing?

[unbeliever]

I'm wondering if the "right" has become defined only by reference to the "left".

The popular left is confused about whether they are authoritarian or libertarian. Removing restrictions in one place e.g. treating homosexuals better, and imposing them elsewhere e.g. fox hunting.

Perhaps the right is just everybody who is not a socialist.

 

I'm by no means in favour of fox hunting by the way and have never had anything to do with it. If anybody asked me if they should go fox hunting I would tell them that it is cruel and I wouldn't do it. But saying as much was always enough for me. Banning it seems authoritarian.

[Happ Hazzard]

The left don't know what they are about any more. They try to be everything to everyone and end up being just a confused mess.

[skinz]

I'm wondering if the "right" has become defined only by reference to the "left".

The popular left is confused about whether they are authoritarian or libertarian. Removing restrictions in one place e.g. treating homosexuals better, and imposing them elsewhere e.g. fox hunting.

Perhaps the right is just everybody who is not a socialist.

 

I'm by no means in favour of fox hunting by the way and have never had anything to do with it. If anybody asked me if they should go fox hunting I would tell them that it is cruel and I wouldn't do it. But saying as much was always enough for me. Banning it seems authoritarian.

 

Saying sexual assault was never enough, so banning it by law is authoritarian? Do you consider all law authoritarian?

[Stan Tamudo]

The left don't know what they are about any more.

 

How do you know?

[unbeliever]

Saying sexual assault was never enough, so banning it by law is authoritarian? Do you consider all law authoritarian?

 

Erm. No. Of course some law is absolutely necessary and sexual assault is a good example of something which should be outright banned.

Things which are seriously harmful to people should be banned. I never suggested otherwise. Things which are moderately harmful should be regulated to mitigate the harm they do. Things which just bother or offend people should be left alone. It's called tolerance.

Edited September 19, 2013 by unbeliever

[Happ Hazzard]

It's just my opinion. Anyone else watching Question Time now?

[I1L2T3]

If almost everyone claiming to represent the left or supporting socialist ideas defines far right to be anything they strongly dislike, what else am I to conclude?

Please, go ahead and define the "far right" in some other terms and explain to me how believing in small government is a moderate version of it.

 

I dislike what are considered to be far left parties too, SWP etc... Have a think about that.

 

Believing in a small government in itself is not extreme. It's the process of making it happen where the baggage gets added on. It seems that to remove state-provided services from vulnerable people that users of the services become targets. The Tory revisions to the Atos regime accompanied by a relentless managed media campaign a case in point.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 22:48 ----------

 

I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that some do make a life style choice.

 

How many?

 

Anything other than your anecdotal evidence?

[skinz]

Erm. No. Of course some law is absolutely necessary and sexual assault is a good example of something which should be outright banned.

Things which are seriously harmful to people should be banned. I never suggested otherwise. Things which are moderately harmful should be regulated to mitigate the harm they do. Things which just bother or offend people should be left alone. It's called tolerance.

 

If "regulated" doesn't work, what do you then suggest? Laws are not just defined by protecting people from being harmed directly, they also encompass other attributes..animals, property, environment. All of which come back to the well being of man. My next door neighbours cat ****es in my garden. Would it be ok to set a pack of hounds on it? No it wouldn't, because we have laws prohibiting me from doing so...as we do for the fox. Laws apparently being broken simply because of a God given right or they have no respect for the law..

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2013 at 23:24 ----------

 

 

how many?

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

...........................

Edited September 19, 2013 by skinz

[unbeliever]

I dislike what are considered to be far left parties too, SWP etc... Have a think about that.

 

Believing in a small government in itself is not extreme. It's the process of making it happen where the baggage gets added on. It seems that to remove state-provided services from vulnerable people that users of the services become targets. The Tory revisions to the Atos regime accompanied by a relentless managed media campaign a case in point.

 

Many more people would be able to fend for themselves if there was less regulation and less tax. As I said before, many people who are currently in receipt of benefits just need to be taxed less.

There will always be those who need help beyond this, but nowhere near as many as are currently state dependent because of too much tax and regulation.