(11-20-2018 09:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 07:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  >> less government (the less the better)

So in your mind anarchists are the ultimate hard right, correct?

I would correct your perceptions.

Right-ist theories are typically rooted in 'equality of access', 'equality in process', and adherence to a process.

First your 'the less government the better' is a stupid caricature (and rather grossly broad stroke) of many branches. Most are actually rooted in the founding documents and the ideal of a limited form of central, federal government. And many actually accept the idea of an large, state government --- the idea of many differing labs, so to speak. With the freedom to 'pick your lab' if you so choose.

If one assumes that the only significant well of governmental power in the United States *should be* the Federal government your pithy description might be spot on. But again, that seems to be another massive differential between 'rightists' and progressives. Your deletion of that other source of significant governmental power is either a basic, fundamental, stupid mistake, but it could be just as well a pathology of your political leaning

=============================

Right-ist policies are not necessarily 'hawkish stances towards war', again kind of a gross over generalization. Rightists typically believe in a strong ability to defend both US lives and US interests. If you want to call that 'hawkish .... towards war' you are free to make any type of definition you wish to. But there is a big honking difference between being pro- strong defense policies and 'hawkish .... towards war.'

I guess if that is a 'tell' for 'hard-right' then Woodrow Wilson, FDR, *and Johnson are three of the biggest 'hard righties' this country has ever seen. Funny, I have never heard them characterized as such.


As for decreased immigration, when you add the tiny lil ol adjective of 'illegal' in front of it I would say for once you might be spot on. Funny how you keep missing that adjective.

I dont think many 'hard rights' are anti-immigration overall as you so opine; perhaps the difference is that the right sees the United States as a 'if you can really contribute, hop aboard' as opposed to 'keep the door open for guests, Marge'. I guess in that regard, since I dont open my door and flag every single passenger in every single car that comes into my cul-de-sac to come in and make themselves a guest, I am a 'hard-right' homeowner.

So I take it from your own self-description of hard right being more for decreased immigration, then the converse of open borders is a true calling card of the hard-left?

To your last comment - isn’t that what you’ve been telling me? That the far left is for open borders?????

I have stated that before, that in my opinion many on the left *are* for open borders or far more lax borders.

The question to you still stands, regardless of how *I* may have characterized it. Why should you care about *my* view on what the left stance is on the subject when the question is about your comments impliedly state about the stance.

You have stated here that a 'far-right' policy is *less* immigration than left, correct or incorrect?

It stands to logic that a 'far-left' position would be the antithesis of the the 'far-right' position, correct or incorrect?

The antithesis of the a 'much, much less immigration' would then be a 'much, much more immigration, correct or incorrect?

So as much as 'closed borders' stands in your book for the furthest of the right, using your own principles, 'open borders' should stand for the furtherst of the left, correct or incorrect?

You seemingly have pretty much vindicated the expression of very loose borders, or open borders, being the position of the hard-left in your characterization, have you not?

If so, thank you for that clarification that you have just provided. If so, I also guess we can put that age-old question to bed for a long, long time....