The NBA strife over Hong Kong has laid bare the left’s socialist national agenda and their hatred of liberty.
It’s never more gratifying than when prominent leftists prove several assertions about themselves all at once. Such was the case recently when left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr asserted a false complexity when defending authoritarianism over the cause of liberty.
As reported in the Daily Wire, the prominent NBA coach made the following comments defending the authoritarianism of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’:
When asked about whether he’s ever been asked about China’s record of human rights abuses before, Kerr responded: “It has not come up in terms of people asking about it, people discussing it.”
As is usually the case with leftists, he deflected the deliberate oppression and mass murder of the socialist-left side of the rational political spectrum model in the guise of the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the red herring of the actions of criminals in the states. He then asserted:
“We can play this game all we want and go all over the map. There’s this issue and that issue. The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black and white,” Kerr concluded. “I realize that what’s popular these days is making it black and white. You’re either good or you’re evil. It’s convenient to do things that way, but not realistic.”
In actuality, those words of deflection are only meant to confuse the issue and hide that the socialist-left favours control over liberty, authoritarianism over freedom.
Most complex systems are based on elegant formulations.
While the world is a complex place, most of it’s workings can be explained by relatively simple but elegant formulations such as Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. While there are vast differences between the physical and political sciences given that the latter deal with very complex and changing phenomena and the actions of people in large populations. Both have certain basic precepts that can be used to generally model the political spectrum. In the case of modelling the political spectrum, it’s imagined complexity can be broken down into several basic assertions that correctly explain the situation.
The key difference between the development of the formulations in the field of engineering and those of politics is that there are no groups [perhaps aside from ‘flat-earthers’] that argue over the parameters of Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. No one really has a reason to argue over the law of gravity in non-relativistic sphere.
Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to model the political spectrum, primarily because the groups that make up the various factions have a vested interest in obscuring the true situation.
The right prefers liberty, the left prefers control.
In general terms there are just two sides of politics – left and right. Despite attempts by the left to muddy the waters and confuse the situation, that is the generic formulation. These two terms were born out of the historical events surrounding the French revolution, but have gained different meanings along the way. Howbeit this was the source of the terms, it is incorrect to use the context in which they were coined. As is the case with analyzing most complex systems, it’s best to start with first principles. In the case of any political spectrum model we begin with a statement that sets forth the primary difference between left and right, as engineer and author, Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently termed it:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire”. Robert A. Heinlein
Stating it in as basic terms as possible the right favors liberty over control while the left favors control over liberty. In other words, the right favors minimal government and maximum liberty, while the left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.
The left will of course object to this kind of generalization simply because it casts them in a bad light as authoritarians at heart. One only needs to look at their socialist national agenda to confirm this assertion, in that they prioritize control over the cause of liberty.
The right favors individualism, the left favors collectivism.
We can also consider the two sides in terms of the two basic political philosophies of individualism and collectivism. This also affirms the precepts of rational political spectrum model.
The Oxford English dictionary defines individualism:
1The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
‘a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth’
Synonyms: independence, self-direction, self-reliance, freethinking, free thought, originality
2A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
‘encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit’
The Oxford English dictionary defines collectivism:
1The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
‘the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism’
Synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism
1.1The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
‘the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism’
Please note that these principles are of giving a group priority over individuals. The problem is that since groups or collectives happen to be arbitrary constructs, the rights imbued to them are also arbitrary, or non-existent. It logically follows that only individuals can have rights.
Individual rights, liberals and liberty.
Consider how the Oxford English dictionary defines liberal:
Our latest episode of the NOQ Report Podcast...
1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
Origin
Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.
[Emphasis added]
While the definition refers to ‘moderate political and social reform’, it clearly shows that true liberals favour individual liberty, free trade, placing them on the pro-liberty side of the rational political spectrum model.
This in essence ties everything together, clearly placing liberals in the camp of favouring individual rights and freedoms. While also demonstrating that liberty and liberalism are tied together, having the root word from Latin: liberalis.
Thus, we have set out the basic parameters of the rational political spectrum model:
- The right favors minimal government and maximum liberty.
- The left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.
The actions and policy agendas of the left confirm these general assertions, despite the false protestations of complexity by that side of the political spectrum as exemplified by the words of Left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr.
In part II we will examine in greater detail why it’s important to properly identify and cut through the confusion propagated by the authoritarian left. As well as distinguish their precepts with those of the pro-liberty right.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]
