Are you a leftist or a rightist?

[Ave]

The only system/ideology you can say respects the individual is pure anarchy. Capitalism requires the state to exist which is a collective and coercive entity, not to mention how coercive corporations (which inevitably emerge in capitalism) themselves are to individuals.

The problem with anarchy is the non-neutrality law and order, which is necessary to maintain individual rights. How would you stop the next guy from killing you without some maintenance of law and order? Ancaps say privatize everything, but does opening the use of force to profit really sound like a good idea? Wouldn't that lead to the creation of a permanently violent society? Again, ancaps say no, because violence is expensive for all parties - which I don't agree with. Violence is only expensive for who it is directed against, not those profiting. I'm not gonna get into detail about this, I just don't imagine anarchism working well for the individual (though it might sound promising on paper).

As far as the state goes, I agree that it is coercive, simply because it requires taxation to exist. I don't have an easy solution to this problem either, there are speculations about how we could fund a state without taxation, one of those being voluntary means of funding government, but I fear that would short-circuit the neutrality of government. The reason government is necessary is because otherwise individual rights cannot be effectively protected. So, a collective entity exists to protect the individual.

Corporations, too, should respect law in my system. They are not above it. And since the role of government is to protect individuals from violence/coercion, that includes from corporations who would break the law. Easier said than done of course, that much is true, but I think it can work.

[Raver]

IMO, liberalism and conservatism are both useful and noble in their endeavors, but in completely opposite ways. Liberalism seeks to bring in new ideas to improve society (both good and bad), conservatism seeks to stop new ideas from degrading society (both good and bad). Centrism can be either good or bad in that it can either bring in bad ideas, while stopping good ideas from coming through simultaneously at its worst (in this scenario, centrism is worse than both liberalism and conservatism - aka establishment neo-liberal Democrats, neo-conservative Republicans and independents) or centrism can bring in good ideas, while stopping bad ideas from entering society at its best (in this scenario, centrism is better than both liberalism and conservatism - aka anti-establishment Democrats, Republicans and independents that seek to change the system by introducing new beneficial ideas and/or rejecting bad ones).

Seems straight forward enough in theory, but where it gets tricky in practice is that most cannot agree on what is good or bad to begin with and that's why politics is a mess that is both fascinating and frustrating for all involved. I think the main point that I'm trying to make is that regardless on whether you're a liberal, conservative or a centrist that you should seek to avoid both forms of extremism on the left or the right, which means either advancing too many bad ideas as a far leftist or stopping too many good ideas as a far rightist. Also, avoiding destructive centrism by preventing good ideas and advancing bad ideas simultaneously. I'm completely aware that I'm generalizing, but I'm trying to paint a picture on how I see politics figuratively and then hopefully some people can open their minds more on how they view politics instead of being stuck with a limited tribalistic mindset.