On the pathological need to divide politics into "right" and

[Prussia-Steinbach]

the default is private for profit ownership by firms

I already asked for a source. Source it or digress.

we may not have started there

We didn't.

but the natural historic social evolution lead the entire world there now...

Source or valid line of reasoning that capitalism's natural and not state-enforced.

...and the only way to change that pattern (no matter the end goal) is to have increased regulation, expropriation, increased taxation, redistribution (one or several) etc

Incorrect.

that's why anything that is anti-capitalist is termed left because it requires some form of increased regulation that opposes the current state of the free market

Incorrect.

[Infected Mushroom]

the default is private for profit ownership by firms

I already asked for a source. Source it or digress.

we may not have started there

We didn't.

but the natural historic social evolution lead the entire world there now...

Source or valid line of reasoning that capitalism's natural and not state-enforced.

...and the only way to change that pattern (no matter the end goal) is to have increased regulation, expropriation, increased taxation, redistribution (one or several) etc

Incorrect.

that's why anything that is anti-capitalist is termed left because it requires some form of increased regulation that opposes the current state of the free market

Incorrect.

I don't really need to source it. It's clearly the natural state of things at this particular point in human social evolution. Otherwise, how do you explain that variants of free market capitalism are the only systems being practiced in 99% of states on the planet?

As for your links to left wing anarchism, as I say, you are confusing end goal with method. My classification scheme is based on the method to get to the end point, not the end point. If the world is currently saturated by free market capitalist systems, then the advocation of a radically different system must entail left wing methods, hence the classification as left (unless it is pro market in the sense of merely removing regulations, in which case it is right-wing).

[Pandeeria]

...identifying myself as a liberal conservative...

A liberal conservative.

A liberal conservative.

What in the name of all that is good and true is a liberal conservative?

Probably someone who is socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I don't really need to source it.

Yes, actually, you do.

It's clearly the natural state of things at this particular point in human social evolution.

No, it isn't. If it was, I wouldn't ask for a source. Not that that invalidates me asking for a source. If you're right about this, a source should be pretty damn easy to come by.

Otherwise, how do you explain that variants of free market capitalism are the only systems being practiced in 99% of states on the planet?

Keyword: States.

As for your links to left wing anarchism, as I say, you are confusing end goal with method.

The end goal is free market socialism. The method can vary and is irrelevant.

My classification scheme is based on the method to get to the end point, not the end point.

Your classification scheme is inaccurate, nonsensical bullshit.

If the world is currently saturated by free market capitalist systems, then the advocation of a radically different system must entail left wing methods, hence the classification as left (unless it is pro market in the sense of merely removing regulations, in which case it is right-wing).

Markets have nothing to do with private/hierarchical/dictatorial vs. collective/democratic ownership of the means of production and running of businesses.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't really need to source it.

Yes, actually, you do.

It's clearly the natural state of things at this particular point in human social evolution.

No, it isn't. If it was, I wouldn't ask for a source. Not that that invalidates me asking for a source. If you're right about this, a source should be pretty damn easy to come by.

Otherwise, how do you explain that variants of free market capitalism are the only systems being practiced in 99% of states on the planet?

Keyword: States.

As for your links to left wing anarchism, as I say, you are confusing end goal with method.

The end goal is free market socialism. The method can vary and is irrelevant.

My classification scheme is based on the method to get to the end point, not the end point.

Your classification scheme is inaccurate, nonsensical bullshit.

From your point of view.

I find it very systematic and internally consistent. And what's more, it maps on pretty well to most people's conceptions about what is left and right (hence providing a good guideline for justifying the existing mainstream characterisations).

I disagree with your insistence on me needing to use a source that proves that free market capitalism is the current state of the natural human social evolution. I also don't see why you are so fixated on it being ''states'' (as far as I can see, states are part of that evolutionary curve too). Whatever is practiced by 99% of the planet at a given time is the natural state of human social evolution at that point in time. Its just market forces evolving and consolidating.

From the dawn of history to now, we've been moving towards states and capitalism. If you want to disturb that trend and turn things in another direction, you need a strong heavy-handed state. It doesn't matter what the end goal is, if getting there requires that in the economic sphere in a substantial form, it is left wing.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

From your point of view.

No, from a regular and established debater on NSG. Sourcing is standard procedure, bud.

I find it very systematic and internally consistent. And what's more, it maps on pretty well to most people's conceptions about what is left and right (hence providing a good guideline for justifying the existing mainstream characterisations).

This system of yours has already been shown to be complete bullshit, solely by the existence of left-wing market ideology.

I disagree with your insistence on me needing to use a source that proves that free market capitalism is the current state of the natural human social evolution.

Disagree with it all you want, you're only digging your grave deeper each post you go without a source. Prove capitalism is natural and does not require an artificial state.

From the dawn to history to now, we've been moving towards states and capitalism.

Communes, the USSR, increased business regulation, prove this, yes.

If you want to disturb that trend and turn things in another direction, you need a strong heavy-handed state.

Bullshit.

It doesn't matter what the end goal is, if getting there requires that in the economic sphere in a substantial form, it is left wing.

Anarchism requires no State.

[Pope Joan]

I agree with the OP.

The left/right dichotomy is a Continental parliamentary archaism ill suited to modern conditions.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

It's the whole cold war thing, people just tend to form two sides and be this way about them. That said, it sounds like you might not fully understand what liberalism and conservativsm actually entail. Maybe you'd benefit from taking the political spectrum test?

[Pope Joan]

It's the whole cold war thing, people just tend to form two sides and be this way about them. That said, it sounds like you might not fully understand what liberalism and conservativsm actually entail. Maybe you'd benefit from taking the political spectrum test?

Liberalism means agreeing with the MY Times and public broadcasting, which urge me to support Netanyahu and condemn Iran. If I do so, does that make me liberal?

No, I would be a blind fool.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

It's the whole cold war thing, people just tend to form two sides and be this way about them. That said, it sounds like you might not fully understand what liberalism and conservativsm actually entail. Maybe you'd benefit from taking the political spectrum test?

Liberalism means agreeing with the MY Times and public broadcasting, which urge me to support Netanyahu and condemn Iran. If I do so, does that make me liberal?

No, I would be a blind fool.

Hahaha Social liberalism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high individual autonomy and comparatively low hierarchy, while social conservativism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high authority and comparatively high hierarchy. Economic liberalism typically means calling for more government regulation of business to ensure fair competition and counteract some of the negative effects of class, whereas economic conservatism typically means calling for less government regulation of business on the argument that the free market will direct itself in a way that's mutually beneficial for most people.

[Fanosolia]

Liberalism means agreeing with the MY Times and public broadcasting, which urge me to support Netanyahu and condemn Iran. If I do so, does that make me liberal?

No, I would be a blind fool.

Hahaha Social liberalism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high individual autonomy and comparatively low hierarchy, while social conservativism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high authority and comparatively high hierarchy. Economic liberalism typically means calling for more government regulation of business to ensure fair competition and counteract some of the negative effects of class, whereas economic conservatism typically means calling for less government regulation of business on the argument that the free market will direct itself in a way that's mutually beneficial for most people.

I thought economic liberalism means something similar to laissez faire? mind you I am using what I find in a google search so... maybe i'm wrong

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Hahaha Social liberalism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high individual autonomy and comparatively low hierarchy, while social conservativism means, loosely, supporting comparatively high authority and comparatively high hierarchy. Economic liberalism typically means calling for more government regulation of business to ensure fair competition and counteract some of the negative effects of class, whereas economic conservatism typically means calling for less government regulation of business on the argument that the free market will direct itself in a way that's mutually beneficial for most people.

I thought economic liberalism means something similar to laissez faire? mind you I am using what I find in a google search so... maybe i'm wrong

It's ridiculously convoluted. "Neoliberalism" and "classical liberalism" both mean something similar to laissez faire, but the economic policy of "liberals" like the democratic party and the greens is the opposite.

[Fanosolia]

I thought economic liberalism means something similar to laissez faire? mind you I am using what I find in a google search so... maybe i'm wrong

It's ridiculously convoluted. "Neoliberalism" and "classical liberalism" both mean something similar to laissez faire, but the economic policy of "liberals" like the democratic party and the greens is the opposite.

My god politics, that one thing you can make simple, and you still convolute it some how. Needless to say I just go with what wikipedia says, and write of any deviance as multiple interpretation

[Ashworth-Attwater]

A liberal conservative.

A liberal conservative.

What in the name of all that is good and true is a liberal conservative?

Probably someone who is socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.

Broadly, yes.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

I thought economic liberalism means something similar to laissez faire? mind you I am using what I find in a google search so... maybe i'm wrong

It's ridiculously convoluted. "Neoliberalism" and "classical liberalism" both mean something similar to laissez faire, but the economic policy of "liberals" like the democratic party and the greens is the opposite.

It's funny because the many governments that have been accused of "neoliberalism" haven't been similar to laissez faire at all.

[Lydenburg]

Me and all my chinas used to describe anybody we thought was a bit off in the head as "left of centre". I think we learned it from a John Travolta film.

[Ashkera]

I'm gonna comment on the OP rather than the natural nature of the economy...

In countries with first-past-the-post, winner-take-all systems, getting a coalition of 51% and excluding everyone else is the most logical thing to do, politically. Any fewer and you won't win, any more and you'll have to compromise more of your ideals.

Outside of the electoral process, there's the "halo effect" and its inverse, the horns effect. We associate positive qualities with people and things we already like, and negative ones with people we don't like. That peoples' worldviews should create a great big ball of mud out of everything they don't like seems only natural.