Alternatives to the Left-Right Paradigm.

[Mr Khan]

Soleron said:

sc94597 said:

When you say you are "anti-power" you mean you are "anti-power differences" right? That'd mean you believe that private property is wrong in the instances in which it gives people extra power over others, and the state is wrong in instances in which it gives people extra power over others. Let's call one (property) economic power, and the other (state influence) political power. In that case each corner represents a different thing. In the left-most corner you have extreme differences in political power (theoretically), but not economic power. In the right-most vertex you have extreme differences in both economic and political power. In the top vertex you have differences in economic power, but there exists no political power. Now of course this gets confusing because all economic power is converted into political power in the case of "communism" and still exists, and all political power is converted into economic power in the case of "anarcho-capitalism." 

Anyway, basically from all of that, I think you'd fit right in the middle of the line between Anarcho Capitalism and Communism. That would be right where the "D" for Democracies is.

Yeah that's about right. But all the other people in the centre/"mainstream" triangle share an acceptance of the establishment and having to compromise to get things done. I would be unable to compromise on what I believe is right.

Democracy ought to provide the "checks and balances" the textbooks say it does. But the actual result is gridlock like America (no necessary changes can be passed) or bureaucracy like Britain (the changes that are passed don't affect what actually happens on the ground) 

I know what outcomes I want but I don't know which system to support to produce them.

You know why the most violent people are so violent? They do not believe in compromise.

You have to compromise with the political establishment to some degree, or be prepared to destroy it utterly. Now this has been necessary at some points in history, for instance (how could one compromise with the slaveholders, for instance?) But generally the best progress has come by engaging the system and changing it to suit the needs of the day.

Horse trading is how things get done, but the important thing is that they get done. Once they are done, it is easier to go back and rectify the injustices of the past, rather than demanding immediate rectification of present injustice. Take Apartheid South Africa: they moved slowly with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but the Commission only came about after the Apartheid system was torn down in a compromise that protected white property rights while giving nonwhites full enfranchisement. Similarly in post-Pinochet Chile, where it took some time to bring justice to the perpetrators of Operation Condor, but in the short term democracy was restored by giving certain immunities to Pinochet and his cronies; immunities that could later be worn away.

Of course, sometimes the environment does not allow for full justice, and sometimes it allows for no justice, when the system requires destruction, but these cases are isolated.