this:
thanks neverdem.
Posted on 09/09/2009 11:31:47 PM PDT by neverdem
I believe that chart is by far the best representation of political thought that I’ve seen over the years. A line doesn’t really adequately cover the real world, whereas a plane does a lot better job of it. I’m about a 85/85 on that chart.
Let me expound on your point, if I may...
The left side of the spectrum involves concentrating the power and decision making locus into the hands of fewer and fewer people. In order to make the populace supplant their goals and decisions with the goals and decisions of these few, force must be used.
The right side of the spectrum, including the true liberals (”conservative” really is meaningless), decentralizes and dilutes the decision making locus to the individual, culminating in anarchy where the individual does whatever he wishes to do without regard to others.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Federalist 51
Same here. That's one version of what's usually called the Nolan Chart.
My belief is that you can't much restrict either of social or economic freedom without restricting the other. I can't come up with anything as simply intuitive as the Nolan Chart to show that process.
Where I would fall would depend on if I'm answering from my more philosophical or more practical mind. That is, whether I'm considering where we could be or where we might proceed from where we are.
On one axis is the usual left-to-right, liberal-to-conservative spectrum. On the other axis is the spectrum from totalitarian-to-libertarian.
In other words, one axis represents your political beliefs, the other represents the degree to which you think those beliefs should be enforced on everyone.
An example of a totalitarian conservative would be the biblical Pharisees, or the Taliban. A totalitarian liberal would be Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc..
The call real anarchy “anarcho-capitalism”. When you hear about anarchists on TV it’s always the misnamed leftists who protest at the WTO.
It’s BS that anyone calls fascism “right wing”.
Thanks for the chart.
Ditto that. Even the dope smoking Libertarians believe in some laws and government to protect individuals from predators. Pure anarchy is the law of the jungle.. perfect freedom to do whatever you have the power to accomplish with no government to interfere at all. The hell hole of Somalia or the tribal territories of Pakistan are examples of places with no government and no law. The guy with the most guns can do whatever he wants.
On the far left extreme, I would say places like North Korea and Cuba have transcended mere Communism, and instead become totalitarian, dictatorial monarchies. Marx and Lenin are just ideological fig leafs.
this:
thanks neverdem.
| What??? You mean you really can't tell the difference between live-and-let-livers and control freaks?Huh??? |
| The ancient left-right political spectrum was developed when the world was still based on feudalism, a system made up of only "givers" and "takers," (serfs and landlords, or taxees and taxers), long before there was any widespread protection of free (UNcoerced) trade or any developed entrepreneurial ("middle") class (which engages only in mutually-agreed-upon transactions). That ancient spectrum is so useless (or useful to only the deceitful) in modern times it must be relegated to the status of being hopelessly obsolete. Notice how some people even try to put socialists on the "left" and fascists on the "right" (as if they trampled peoples' lives any differently), and then trap you into accepting the bizarre and evil notion that freedom is somehow a "compromise" between, or a combination of, two allegedly "opposite" collectivist extremes. This, of course, is absurd on its face, and actually leaves limited-government advocacy and the essence of freedom totally off the chart out of the picture. Further, doesn't it also strike you as obvious that when you try to draw a parallel between the good guys and the bad guys, you often wind up whitewashing the bad guys instead of tarnishing the good guys as you intended? Newsflash!: Your basic political choice is NOT which type of control freak or which type or how much intrusive government to have, but WHETHER to have ANY intrusive-type government AT ALL. YOU may be prone to irrationality or hysteria; YOU may be afraid of individual liberty. ... but that does NOT give you a right to remove LIBERTY from the choices altogether, which is what the "left-right" spectrum essentially does. Isn't it time YOU started thinking outside the "Which type of powerful government should we have?" box? |
Some other versions are linked here: http://FreedomKeys.com/nolancharts.htm
Good. Can add Anarchy at the far end.
I can stop thinking now, and agonizing about why so many people have such complex and unique views on life.
They are all obviously insane and need to be medicated or institutionalized.
Most anarchists are little more then common thieves. But when confronted by a person brandishing a firearm to secure their property, they will recoil into their standard libtard mentality
That is to say, that there should be two different axis, and a vector that is comprised of components of both axis will plot to a point. The axis reflect philosophies concerning both personal and economic liberty in conjunction with governmenental authority over both.
Actually, what I learned about the polical spectrum was that it distinguished conservative from liberal with regards to how much social change each advocated. The more conservative one was the less social change they would tolerate.
At each end of the spectrum were those who were militants, i.e., ultraconservative radicals (reactionaries) that would use violence to keep / prevent change from occuring. However, reactionary conservatistism results essentially in revolutionary radical libaralism (wrap-around to the far left). That is because if change is the norm, then preventing change is de facto liberal.
Same thing with the other side of the spectrum, militant radical liberal (revolutionary) results in reactionary radical conservative. That is, only so much change can actually be progressive, change that is too great or socially encompassing results in some sort of re-establishment of pre-existing socials structures, ecoomic policies or other social norms.
That’s about where I tend to land on those things as well.
>>It’s BS that anyone calls fascism “right wing”.
On that note, see the Hayek quote on my FR profile page. It’s the 3rd one, two paragraphs long. He covers this issue quite well, I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
