I totally agree, but they could have added anarchy on the far far right too... real anarchy not that fake radical left kind
It would then seem that many of our founding fathers would have wanted us Constitutionally just left of anarchy. Certainly not in the center.
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..
It’s BS that anyone calls fascism “right wing”.
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? |
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.
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.
I would disagree on one item: the placement of libertarianism. One could, by its rhetoric, also place the ACLU there. One could, by their rhetoric, place Emma Goldman's anarchists there. But both aided and abetted and one was founded by bolsheviks. When the Libertarian party actually accomplishes something, when it has something to show for all the rhetoric, I'll say it belongs where it is. Right now I see the party and movement as enablers of the left. My instinct is, as with anarchism, the ideology inherently always empowers the opposite of what is claims and the liberty its members often sincerely wish to advance.
But we have seen how it doesnt work that way in practice. We saw it in 1998 when the LP knocked Ensign out (by under 800 votes) and gave us Harry Reid as Majority leader. We saw it in 2002 when the LP was caught taking money from the DNC to run ads against the GOP in the south. We saw it in 2004 when the LP allied itself with the Green party to contest the Ohio vote.
When liberty is confused with licentiousness, the reaction and the result is a Zero tolerance society. The ACLU, by its promotion of "civil liberties", has empowered the courts, empowered lawyers and created a web of laws and regulations which have ensnared the nation. Unfortunately, as I see it the intentions many sincere libertarians have of advancing liberty has had and will have the same outcome as the ACLU has enjoyed with the only difference being the ACLU always intended to restrict freedom while the vast majority (but not all) of those who promote libertarianism do not.
