POLITICAL EXTREMISM

Applying consistent thought/principles to political life should not be extreme and traditionally never was extreme. It's also quite dubious the distinctions between "extreme" and "not extreme." On some level it comes down to consistent vs. non consistent, pragmatic vs. non-pragmatic, consensual vs. non-consensual. Some people view extremism more as a means to political ends, rather than beliefs in and of themselves. I think it is important to distinguish between means and ends, however. The two are not interlinked.

Often times the difference is denoted as percentages of preferred tax rates. Libertarians want 1% or less. Conservatives want 10%. Liberals want 25%. Socialists want 75% or higher. "Centrist" is somewhere between those four depending on the size of each constituency. In the case of the US, which is split between conservative and liberal, the ideal rate would probably be near 15-20% in this example. In reality, of course, it's far more complicated.

Then you have "far" left and "far" right people who agree that eminent domain should be done away with. I don't like keystone XL pipeline because it involves forcibly taking individuals' land. Others don't like it because it is generally used by larger corporations to bully the little guy. Others don't like it because they don't like oil or think there are environmental concerns that transcend economic concerns. I've outlined my position on the issue.

What about pro-eminent domain vs. anti-eminent domain? Lots of pro eminent domain people can be found in the majority liberal AND majority conservative populations. The debate usually resides over when it is justified rather than how it can be justified at all.

Is a property-focused perspective "extreme?"

It is certainly uncommon. But the principle is rooted in the more pragmatic ideologies of conservatism, and to a lesser extent, liberalism (in the Unite States). Those two ideologies are willing to throw away the property-focused perspective when it serves their interests. Conservatives love eminent domain when it is for pipelines, while liberals love eminent domain when it is used to protect a rare species of owl or help "restore" our wetlands. But on principle, both will use the property argument against the other.

We already know politics is dumb, though. Why do I care about this?

These inconsistencies are ignored by the public at large whenever these debates emerge. I care because this affects my taxes and the prices of what I will buy and the condition of the world I plan to leave the children I'd like to have. People should not be labeled "extreme" for staying by their principles. If their principles conflict with someone else's wishes, then the debate should start on the legitimacy and validity of the principles in question. Ends don't justify means and all that.

What does the dog have to do with it?

The dog is relaxing after a long, tenuous day to watch some Shark Tank and Grey's Anatomy. She isn't concerned with politics because her principles matter more than vapid, weekly political dynamics.