We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Point taken, but conservatives often make the mistake that if there is a logical contradiction or an undesirable outcome that leftists are going to wake up one morning and say "Golly Gee! We've been getting it all wrong!" Liberalism is driven by social cues, not logical ones.
And yet, we persist.
Assistant Village Idiot
Amen Brother! You cannot change their minds, most are set in concrete.
• Nazism and racism are on the extreme right. Not everyone on the right is an extremist, and the right has more or less set a boundary at racism (though that boundary has been eroded of late).
• The left is defined by egalitarianism. There is an extreme left defined by "equity", the equality of outcomes. The left has failed to define a clearly delineated boundary, leaving it associated with "equity" extremists.
• "Groups can be multiplied without limit. That's not a problem. That's a fatal flaw."
Peterson is correct that people can take extreme views on the left, and that those views can lead to various contradictions. Perfect equity is not achievable, however, it is not necessarily extreme to see disparities in equity being due to historical wrongs that can and should be rectified.
Peterson's fear seems to be that rectifying these historical wrongs empowers a bureaucracy to rectify these wrongs, but that's true of just about everything society does. His is a prescription for impotence. Bureaucracies have their own momentum, and there should be controls on the power of bureaucracies, but they are necessary to the proper workings of government, whether building highways or enforcing minority voting rights.
Uncle Max: I don't get what Nazism has to do with " the right".
The political right is traditionally defined as advocacy of hierarchy. Nazism advocated a strictly hierarchical society, with a single all-powerful leader, and a ranking of races with Aryans above the others, and some only fit to be slaves. That is how Peterson and most scholars use the term, and is consistent with general usage.
Uncle Max: Nazis were socialist, no?
They didn't advocate that the government own the means of production, and they drew strong support from corporate leaders. A military may have universal healthcare, but is very much a hierarchical organization.
Uncle Max: The "right" wants none of this, at least not in the US. They want to be left alone.
That's not always the case. Social conservatives, for instance, are on the political right, and want to use government to control various aspects of people's private lives.
I'd say that the danger on the right is that we make ourselves comfortable with the idea that people should continue to be exposed to the natural consequences of their own actions, but then we're uncomfortable failing to intervene to alleviate the misery that results. My own partial solution is to encourage everyone who can't stand watching the misery to intervene personally at his own expense, but the inevitable drift of society is to try to force one's fellows to go along. Quite often, this impulse becomes diseased to the point of insisting that others foot the entire bill, or nearly the entire bill.
The danger on the left is not so much that a bureaucracy is peculiarly necessary to perform the redistribution of goodies in order to establish perfect equality of outcomes. The danger is that force will always be required, and the force takes the form of theft in service of the alleviation of envy. For all the harm that unbridled self-interest can do in a free-market system, that harm is dwarfed by the harm from force fueled by envy. I don't say that as a theoretical proposition argued from first principles. I say it as the indisputable verdict of 100 million people murdered by collectivism in the 20th century.
Texan99: I'd say that the danger on the right is that we make ourselves comfortable with the idea that people should continue to be exposed to the natural consequences of their own actions, but then we're uncomfortable failing to intervene to alleviate the misery that results.
Which is why most people are not on the extremes. Most think people should be responsible for themselves, but most also think there are limits to allowing people to fall into dire circumstances. Consequently, most support market incentives, but also support a social safety net.
Texan99: The danger on the left is not so much that a bureaucracy is peculiarly necessary to perform the redistribution of goodies in order to establish perfect equality of outcomes... I say it as the indisputable verdict of 100 million people murdered by collectivism in the 20th century.
Most people on the political left do not support establishing a "perfect equality of outcomes", or even support the use of government power to enact change, seeing government as a tool of the right.
Missing the point with word salad as usual. The topic was how each side of the spectrum goes wrong when it tends to an extreme. It's trivial to observe that most people don't make the mistake of going to the extreme.
It's also trivial to suggest that the solution to the problem of not wanting to witness the mess people make of their lives when they are faced with the consequences of their own actions is to help them. The entire point was that there's no problem with wanting to help them as long as you don't force someone else to foot the bill for easing your own conscience.