[ghostmonkey]

Do you buy the socialist George Lakoff's framework? He's all about framing, doncha know. If you buy into his framing, you will reach the exact conclusion he wants you to.
Can you show me a specific problem with the definitions?

[oblomov]

I disagree that one may describe ideologies by two dimensions, namely: moral rules and moral order. There are far more dimensions, and the greatest distinctions are not in the application of moral frameworks, but in the justifications for the state itself and in beliefs about human nature.

For example, right-libertarians have a natural law basis for their ideology (they believe in inalienable rights granted by God, threatened by the state), while left-liberals have a positivist legal theory (rights are established by the state).

This is just one example of the flaws in Lakoff's framework. I suggest you read Anarchy, State, Utopia by Robert Nozick for a better understanding of true libertarianism, as opposed to the Ayn Rand cartoon version.

[oblomov]

>>Can you show me a specific problem with the definitions?


I don't just disagree with the definitions, I disagree with the entire idea that one may map ideologies on two arbitrary dimensions.

Why not: map all ideologies on the dimensions "loyalty" and "frivolity"? Or "Pascal" and "Descartes"?

It's a meaningless parlor game.