We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
'Communists' you refer to are 'far left' defined by a single party left system. Only thing beyond them on this spectrum, is 'revolutionary left' and/or 'militant left' (think Naxals). Again, with the latter you would do well keep in mind the adage - one man's militant is another's....
Finally, a lot of the right is also scattered across the spectrum. There is the 'economic right' (think Adam Smith), or the 'religious right' (think VHP). Then, there has always been an amalgam of this which comes in as the 'nationalistic right' - gathers support by aligning money and fervour (generally against any one 'other').
Incidentally, both the 'nationalistic right' and 'single party left' ate similar - centralising, ham-fisted, rhetorical.
Therefore, people like me (left of centre waala left liberal crowd) are against both - China ka communism, and Hitler ka fascism. I do not want either. However, I am willing to live with my law firm friend's ka 'economic right' while arguing for a better deal for those less fortunate than us. Humein Adani, Ambani, Jindal ki oxygen se issue nahin hai, but unki monopolising tendencies se hai which stand on crony capitalism.
Left right bahut deep hai. Yeh aapko Arnab nahin samjha payega, aur na main. Aap apna chilaana jaari rahein.
Of course blanket illogical/irrational beliefs should not be given the highest platform. But if someone uses logic and rationality to argue the abovesaid points they shouldn't be cancelled. There is an unnecessary amount of "gotcha" everytime something that doesn't conform to the left-liberal viewpoint is said. It is unfortunate that those who wield the most social capital are rigidly left-liberal and then do ALL THEY CAN to exclude such view points because they are "problematic" etc etc.
Plus if you are really sure about where you stand politically, don't let a bunch of college kids ruin your commitment to your ideals.
Moreover it is not an objective three front choice but an entire spectrum to choose from. Socially, I am a liberal leaning towards right. And I have shifted towards right from left when I realise how left contradicts free speech itself. People need to know that two contradicting ideologies are extremely essential for a society. As per John Rawls’ harm theory, free speech must be curbed only when it incurs direct (or maybe indirect too) harm to an individual. But let people speak? The thing is that when you say institutions must not have any rw society, you are polarising views towards a single ideology. When a single ideology, be it left or right, exists in any closed space, we have witnessed what happens in regards to Hitler, lenin and stalin. Contradicting ideology, no matter how harsh it is, must exist in order to create a balance. If an institution is full of left wingers and the authority becomes autocratic, who is gonna criticise it? Criticism brings about changes.