Alliance between Left & Right
I believe it's possible to unite humanity and stop with this ancient division that has been responsible for so much of the human suffering for thousands of years, escalating in evil ever since and culminating itself with Hitler and Stalin, but despite all these wars the problem is still not solved.
It appears that there is a fundamental difference and fundamental philosophy between humans, and we can roughly divide people into two groups, politically. Now the borders may be hard to define, and there are different flavors of it, but roughly, we have right-wing people and left-wing people.
- Right-Wing: focusing on Self & Family, focusing on Economic Growth & Personal Liberty
- Left-Wing: focusing on Communities & Society, focusing on Economic equality and Social Equality
Now at first look, they look like mortal enemies because of course the traditional methodology of the left of achieving social equality was with force:
- Left loves to increase taxes on rich people to subsidize poor people
- Left loves to make rich people poor, because poor is the lowest common denominator
- Left loves to redistribute things that are not equally distributed
And of course this ends up in horrible systems, where everyone is impoverished, and equality doesn't have any value anymore.
I would argue that it's possible to achieve both equality and freedom at the same time, but the ruling class doesn't like the answer. See there has always been a classical method of ruling over people:
DIVIDE & CONQUER
And the left & right paradigm couldn't be a more obvious example of this. Now I agree that fundamentally there is difference between leftist and rightists, because they feel they have different priorities.
But what if I tell you that despite their differences, both their goals can be achieved by going down the same road. Let me tell you my philosophy:
DISADVANTAGED:
A) The bad way to equality: If a person is blind, let's make everyone blind to be equal.
B) The good way to equality: If a person is blind, let's invent a technology that will cure his blindness so that we can be equally healthy!
POVERTY:
A) The bad way to equality: If a person is poor, let's make everyone poor by taxing the rich.
B) The good way to equality: If a person is poor, let's give him better advice to escape poverty, and guidance/education to empower himself and earn more money.
SOCIAL EQUALITY:
A) The bad way to equality: Gay marriage is illegal, let's legalize it.
B) The good way to equality: Why do you need a government license at all to marry a loved person? Adults should be free to associate.
You see where I am going? Yeah the anomaly is always the Government, and the solution is always friendship & voluntary interactions.
The ruling class will always control the population by dividing them, and the Government loves to do this through Democracy. In democracy you the left always fights against the right. How about cooperating?
Because if you really thing about it, without the government, there is no point in fighting between people, we can have both equality and freedom at the same time.
Besides how can you have equality when you have a totalitarian institution ruling above you? And how can you have freedom?
So I believe the left & right has to unite in a common goal to spread liberty & equality, but without the government.
Upvote, ReSteem & 
"Left loves to increase taxes on rich people to subsidize poor people
Left loves to make rich people poor, because poor is the lowest common denominator
Left loves to redistribute things that are not equally distributed"
wrong on every possible level :^)
We wish to eliminate leeches....We see the rich who do no work but get most of what the poor make as thievery of the highest order.
You are getting neo-liberalism and leftist mixed up. Hint neo-liberalism is still right wing.
please listen to this before you make another post on leftism....
Also real leftism is anarchist. Stalin was state capitalist, he went against the ideals of communism in literally every way possible.
Ok but what I am saying is that:
"Means justify the end, not end justify the means"
So I would like the empowerment approach, where disadvantaged people would become empowered, instead of advantaged people becoming unpowered.
So I am for pro human excellence, and I would like if all people would become successful.
That has always been the approach to leftism.
That is good, then we can really have an alliance.
I kind of get confused with all this 20th century communism thing, because it's very easy to fool the masses, once you give too much power and place too much faith in a small group of people like the Bolsheviks.
So my point being is that the government and the rulers will always try to hijack any real movement.
Bolsheviks are cancer of the highest level. "We take the worst of left and right wing ideologies and put in a big government, we also call ourselves the only real communists.....What's the communist manifesto?"
We are after the destruction of private property. That is how the rich and governments extort the working class.
I tend to have some small disagreements there. I think the working class is more broad than people realize, I think investors are crucial for an economy, you might not call them workers because they dont do physical work, but they do take individual risks, to quarantine the economy from systemic risk (like the banking system that has enveloped the entire world). Basically equality in the sense that we dont like monopolies, but people are still free to show their best talents.
I am not sure what you mean by private property, I think you pretty much realize by now that cryptocurrencies are very essential for human liberty, and it's private property, the keys are private.
If you mean by things like corporations/companies, then I sort of agree, because a corporation is a fictional government approved entity.
"I might think of a system like something of a basic income ,but until something like that comes out, these are the options."
Wrong
Also the only option is extort or get extorted what you said made no difference, it just gives them an opportunity to extort earlier.
How about a system where you get what you produce.......like I said
Read my welfare article, I don't advocate for taxes, it would be all voluntary.
It would be sustainable and it would give enough income for people to get started, and whatever they earn besides that would be their bonus.
Like you said, you dont want people to sell their labor,because you consider that as slavery, but now if they have 1 asset that they can rely on, they have a better negotiating power.
Like if you are starving you might take a toilet cleaner job out of necessity.
But if you have an asset like a basic income ,then you refuse that job and search for a better one.
If people are to become rich no matter what it necessarily must come from the labor of the poor, it doesn't appear magically.
You can't have people making more money than they produce from labor and be against oppression of the lower classes.
If all property is owned the only thing a working man has to sell is his labor. You can easily give him just enough to survive and survive yourself off his labor.
Work and get the results of your labor taken or starve. That is indirect force, but force nonetheless
No. Indirect force is not responsible, just like a kitchen knife manufacturer is not responsible if a person accidentally cuts himself with it.
I would have some interesting ideas how to help people start off in life, so that by the time they turn 18 they can have enough cash to do something productive. I might write an article about that. You might want to check my idea about a voluntary welfare system:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@profitgenerator/decentralized-voluntary-welfare-system
But basically it comes down like this: For a kid, the parents are his income source, and parents should provide enough resources for that kid to start off well in life. For an adult, he can either inherit, borrow, or work for his assets.
I might think of a system like something of a basic income ,but until something like that comes out, these are the options.
It has happened before. If one man is able to command another economically through private property.
A revolution would likely break out into mutualism, market socialism, and communism.
Market socialism for example has free trade, like capitalism, but the workers are able to control the workplace, opposed to an outside owner.
This is incompatible with capitalism, however, a person will easily be able to choose which one he/she would like to live in.
" If one man is able to
commandanother economically through private property."There is no
commandin capitalism, there is only cooperation. If I am paying 100 people to perform a service for me, that is not slavery. If I pay them why would they revolt?It is a contractual relation, if they dont honor their part of the contract, that will just tarnish their reputation. And they will lose their collateral/guarantee that they have pledged.
Private property is something you labor on another owns and personal property is something that you own and use.
Yeah but you still need investors to finance big projects. Even if money would not exist, you still need to organize a lot of people in a good way to build a bridge for example. And we just know from experience that with money's it's the easiest to do this, even internationally.
So the systems that money has with it like lending, investing, trading, should not be dismissed.
It's not that I advocate for feudalism, but there has to be some sort of private property system, there is just no other way.
Now if you say that that is enforced with violence, I agree that should be changed. I think a global reputation system + global land registry blockchain is a far better system than courts and land registry office.
So I would like to have capitalism without violence, where emphasis is put on reputation an integrity.