Hmm, look like my comment from my phone never made it. Oh well, now it'll just be one instead of two. ;)

First the easy one: "We know what the right going to far looks like..." is explicitly about German and Italy in the early 19th century. He has said this on multiple occasions, usually by way of immediate phrasing such as "we saw that on full display in the 19th century" - which is clearly not a reference to China, Japan, US, or even Russia. He has made that connection many times directly.

This is, in my estimation, his most egregious core error. He has also said in more detailed discussions that he is referring specifically to the use of ethnicity or race as a determinant of value or merit. Yet this is clearly a left-wing thing not seen on the right. Not merely within the context of collective vs individual, but in pure political terms as well.

By every rational judgement those governments were left-wing:
* They were socialist (Fascism is a subset of Socialism) not just in name but in policy and actions
* They were explicitly anti-capitalist
* They were explicitly anti-libertarian
* Both of their leaders were dyed in the wool of Marxism (yes, Hitler didn't like Marx but also explicitly stated that in his view what Marx failed to grasp was that race and class were synonyms - the rest of Marx' political thoughts he essentially agreed with sans global vs local)

We would also agree that China and Russia were not right wing either for almost the exact same reasons. There were little fundamental differences in philosophy of government between those countries, this it isn't reasonable to say that two of them were Left and two were Right.

Something key to understanding this is that we have to eliminate the commonalities to define the differences. For example, some try to claim he is talking about greed - but greed knows no distinctions here. Greed is either inherently there for all systems or it is a unique qualifier or categorizer. We all, I am sure, know that individualists can be "greedy" just as much as collectivists can. So that can't be an identifier of when one side "goes too far" because it would also be true for the other side.

In order for the phrase to carry useful meaning it has to be not merely unique to either side, but emblematic of it. For example, a dictator is not inherently or exclusively Left or Right - you can have that form of government in either case. Thus you can have a Socialist, Fascist, or Libertarian Dictatorship. (Technically Communism is anarchic in that aspect so you can't have one there; Communism isn't a governmental form by definition - the structure is not that different from anarcho-capitalism but the expectations and reasons are opposites).

And the "too far" phrase is a way of saying "extreme" as in "extreme left" versus "extreme right." This also means that the extreme characterization has to be based on what either side fundamentally is. Extreme hot is characterized by being more hot, for example, not less hot. So to be extreme left or extreme right means to take the primary and unique-to-that-side characteristics and amplify them.

And since we are talking about governments using those ideological categories, how authoritarian said government is is not a valid qualifier as that has to be a factor on either side. Thus the issue with defining a too-far right government.

In part there is the argument that the far right government can't actually be a government. At the extreme of individualism we have no-governance over others because the epitome, the core concept, to individualism is that the individual is the source of all agency and sovereignty. Thus to take that to the extreme means one individual cannot have control over another.

This is why I'm not convinced of the hypothetical emperor example as valid. By definition in that context that isn't a far-right example because to enforce control over groups of people based on that group membership is the opposite of individualism. Thus even a dictator/emperor prohibiting voluntary group associations for any form of governance would not really qualify as right-wing but left-wing. The ultimate group control dynamic is "me" vs "everyone else". Indeed we see this in other writings/speeches of Peterson's where he sees one half of it.

He talks about intersectional and how when you take that to the extreme, you wind up with the individual as the smallest possible minority because not even identical twins are perfectly identical in every way and experience. So in that sense we have on one side "Me vs everyone else" (the largest group controlled by the smallest group) and the other where everyone is a group of one - ie. individualism.

This is why while authoritarianism is not uniquely one-sided in this context, it is strongly unavoidable on one end and impossible on the other. The left tends more authoritarian for other collective reasons as well. Fore example with control being group based, the more free people are to change their group, the less control you have.

For this consider AnarchoCapitalism (AC) again. In the implementation in the Old West (not the Wild West!) you could get kicked out of an association, could be allowed in, and could choose to leave. This places an inherent limit on authoritarian power creep because when the frogs get too warm they jump out of the water pot. As a result, the left always gravitates to groupings you have no say in. Today we call this Identity Politics. And that it is being enshrined in American law and jurisprudence and has been for over a century is a massive stain on the American government and body politic. Specifically I am referring to the "protection" of groups based on immutable characteristics - ie. groups you cannot change your membership in at will.

Which brings us to " But it's not about the stop-point on the Right. It's all about the fact that the Left has no defined stop-point for itself."

I think this is precisely backward. Maximal collectivization of people in control systems is the stop point on the left. But what can be the stop point on the right that still qualifies it as on the right and not a reversal of direction? No matter how you break up the grouping on the left, they are still groupings. Be they arbitrary ("people who vote for X vs Y" or "personal identity") or on immutable characteristics (race, gender), group control is still group control. But again what would that same extremity be for the opposite?

For the right: we can sum up a core concept around rights as "my right to swing my fist ends when it meets your nose" to use a common expression for it. Meanwhile the Left's version is "your right to swing your fist ends when your group isn't in control and mine is."

Thus if we classify Left and right based on the one consistently distinguishing characteristic - the collectivism of the Left - there is a clear end point at the extreme left, but not one on the right; all examples I've found offered or considered myself are examples of a course reversal, not pushing the accelerator down harder heading to the right.

Collectivism may or not be the explicit goal - I don't think many on the left even think about it as such. However it is the objective character of the Left and the underpinning of their entire set of ideologies. It is unavoidable. However, and again the contrast strikes me, for individualism is is explicitly about individuals - individualism isn't hiding under a blanket with something else written on it.

And that, I think, is a key factor in why it isn't being fought for at large. It is assumed safe and not thought about as the basis of expressions. Which is why the Left can slip their poison pills into language and law. For this let's look at one last historical example and how it could have played out differently.

Let's look at "gay marriage" or "gay rights." Right away I hope by now you react to the terms with an awareness that they are inherently group based. That is key. For this I will speak using my political positions. In my view two consenting adults can engage in whatever courtship, legal, and living arrangements they want - to get married as it were. Why? Because they are individuals with individual choices and are not forcing another into it. That is the individualist argument.

However, the Left didn't take that route - and that was actually intentional. They went, as they always do, with it being based on a group - gay marriage and gay rights - with the group being gay, In fact they doubled down on the collectivism when they shifted it to "you can't discriminate because they/we are born this way" - aha, an immutable group! Now as to the intentionality I mentioned: the major proponents of it explicitly stated they did not want to allow polygamy because that group was seen as even more unpalatable than gay people were and they didn't want that group to have the same rights. And yes, the individualist argument would be against criminalization of polygamy. And that fact was explicitly stated as a reason they didn't want to argue from an individualist position.

Now lest that be seen as an academic or semantic argument, consider some real-world possibilities that expose it as a faulty foundation (not to argue them just as illustration). What if next five years from now we discover/determine that it is not immutable? What if it really is changeable or "a choice." Now what happens to your legal validity? It evaporates. That isn't entirely hypothetical, we see that contention within the "trans" arguments. If anyone can "be a woman" for legal and social purposes, then being a woman is not immutable. And with the foundation of "protected classes" being immutable characteristics then that can no longer be a "protected class."

Contrast that with the individualist argument. With that argument nothing changes in that scenario because foundation hasn't been swept away. Consider, ok one more historical reference, slavery versus indentured servitude. Slavery is seen as "evil" because the individual had no choice in being or becoming a slave, while indentured servitude was a choice. Even today America accepts indentured servitude (the military is the big example here), but not slavery. And the argument there is still individual.


And to close it out:
"Collectivism vs Individualism is an easy choice! Individual!"

Yes, virtually every mentally competent individual when given that explicit choice for themselves will make that choice. The crux of the matter is that they are not being presented the decisions in those terms. And by that being the case they are thinking in collectivist terms, which means the collectivist will usually win because you're dealing in their terms. To support that assertion I'll simply point out that during the 'gay rights debate' era I would talk to people who were initially opposed to "gay marriage" but frame it as individuals consenting adults. When I did that every single person I did that with supported the law not prohibit it - the banning of which was a collectivist law in the first place (group A can do X but not group B)! Even a couple of pastors "converted" to not banning it in law while still being individually opposed to it.

I think I addressed much of the characterization if "extreme" in my other post so I'll just comment here about this comment:
The simple problem is that without religion - without some kind of notion of God - you can't answer the "should" portion of any ethical question

I absolutely can, it is literal child's play. Children and monkeys derive a sense of right and wrong based on interactions and how they react to them or feel about them. My grandson has learned (and is learning; he is only 3 so far) to be kind and treat others ethically based entirely on his experiences and how he reacted to them. A classic example is parents teaching kids to not bite each other by biting them and asking how they liked/felt about getting bitten. It may take some more than others (my brother for example had to get bit repeatedly for the better part of year before he learned it), and some may never learn as they don't dislike it. But it can be done.

Monkeys do the same thing. You can see ethics in their behaviors and they have to religions or beliefs in a deity.
(insert caveat about morality vs ethics here)

If we accept the "existence exists" then it has a right to exist, and this none other have a right to make it not exist without sufficient cause. Ethics determined when that sufficient cause has been met. One doesn't need a god to determine that, even though some rely on what they think their God said on it.

Ok, I cant resist, on more for the road. ;)
As a corollary, good can not exist without evil, so if God doesn't exist, neither does the devil. Who benefits from that misconception? The devil.

So I take it from your terms you are referring to the Judeo-Christian mythos. In that scenario my first comment is to finish the sentence with " - if the devil exists" because it is otherwise incomplete.

But then I must joint out that in that mythos, the devil serves god's aims and exists at his pleasure just as we all do. Therefore, in your scenario God also benefits, and benefits ultimately. After all you did assert "good can't exist without evil", so neither can God exist without the Devil, and in the JC mythos God is the supreme driver and arbiter, and the Devil is needed to provide the contrasting option for humanity to exercise free will - "God's created gift to mankind". Thus ultimately that which benefits the Devil still benefits God.

An honest person and a criminal share many intrinsic qualities, but they do not share a commonality of spirit or soul. So human equality cannot be based on intrinsic qualities either.

Please back up your assertion that Rand sees human beings as molecular machines. In Atlas Shrugged, it is the villains that promote that philosophy.

Okay, I wasn’t clear on whose statement you disagreed with, and I’m still not. The statement you quoted was mine ("So discussions on this site should relate in some way to Objectivism, not simply to philosophy in general"), and it’s the statement that you’re saying you disagree with. Also, we have both been members here for over 10 years, so I’m not clear which of us you’re referring to.

"Many religions, past and present, are allied with the state."

Aside from this being a red herring, it is false here in the United States. You have the burden of the argument to demonstrate a church+state partnership and those largely ended before WW I. I can't think of a single non-Islamic nation where the church dictates control of the State with the exception of the Vatican.

"In the U.S., many religions are given exemptions from property taxes, forcing taxpayers (often against their will) to pay for the government services that religiously-owned properties receive."

I'm not sure where you get the notion that there are property tax exemptions for religious buildings. Please cite a state in which such is true, because I can't find any in a quick online search. It certainly isn't true in my state.

But let's go to the underlying assertion that somehow these edifices (and their congregations) are getting something for nothing. As a consequence, those very same congregations are now restricted from freely exercising their right to speech. Until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and the legal interpretations which came with it, religious congregations were the #1 place in America where political debate would take place. Now, those congregations are prohibited _on pain of losing that tax-exempt status from discussing politics in any meaningful way. The secularization of America has not been without its casualties and the primary one has been Speech.

So let's define good. There is good as a noun and good as an adjective. In describing something as "good" (adjective) as I explained above it is in reference to its utility - its ability to aid us in accomplishing some goal. In that "judgement context" as you put it, that valuation is personal as it pertains to that person achieving a goal through the utilization of some object. Is not the universe an object? I would argue that it is - for without it where would we exist? Thus within that context - the same one Peterson is using - the universe fulfills a specific, objective purpose in aiding our advancement. Thus it is good.

Used as a noun, "good" is a process - a distinct though ephemeral concept embodying the principle of advancement. It's contrary is evil, being that which seeks to prevent such advancement. (This is why progressivism is evil because it seeks to stagnate or repress individual human development.)

"Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside). "

Yes, this is something he actually harps on quite a bit much to the dismay of the hit-squad person interviewing him at a given moment. He repeatedly illustrates that inequality exists in all systems, and that this is because we are not all identically equal (as opposed to equal under the law); intelligence, work ethic, motivation, skill, natural talent, and even luck are not evenly distributed. Because of this no system can be devised that eliminates inequality.

That view, IMO, meshes precisely with the Objectivist axioms. It is based on a perceptual bases (it always exists) and this leads to the concept of inevitability due to the underlying reality (such as how it exists is all animals, and even microorganisms). He then proceeds to dismiss that as an object that can be had and should be the goal of any economic or political systems.

He then proceeds to explain that the most rational hierarchy is one based on capability, competence, and thus merit - which IMO also dovetails into Objectivism as well.

" I quickly replied, "If you tax me near the rates being proposed I'll go buy another house." (insert cricket sounds here). Haha!"

Nice! I used a similar argument when involved with politics years ago (and I am most likely not original in it): "I'll donate 10% of my income to charity, minus the percentage the government takes from me, so if you take 5% I only give 5%. Take more than 10 and I give nothing."

Man, the looks on people's faces were a sight to behold! >.<

"Capitalism, free markets and liberty also create a tiered system - the tiers being determined by ability and one's willingness to work (crime aside)."

Well said. I think one thing is that capitalism, however, doesn't prevent one from moving between tiers. That's the American dream: starting out with nothing and eventually winding up with a home with a white picket fence and car in the driveway. You can't get that from socialism because socialism installs the not-so-proverbial glass ceiling on progress. (It also supports incompetence. See Hunter Biden.)