Replies

Well I teach my kids, authoritarian vs anarchy spectrum. The so called “left” are not yesterdays classical liberal they are to the extreme side of the authoritarian chart, no? Conservatives are for small government, big on societal moral censure and crimes where the rulers are exercising their rightful authority in a very specific limited domain of authority. Don’t need that with socialism. Its ad hoc gov’s domain is whatever serves their whim at any particular moment.

authoritarian vs anarchy spectrum.

While anything as complex as human interactions needs more than one dimension, for the political axis your spectrum is correct.

On the one hand, all authority and responsibilities are collective. On the other, all authority and responsibilities are personal. Three key - and true to life - results can be seen from this "paradigm."

First, the extremes are truly polar opposites, and places in between are truly blends of the extremes. There is no place for anarchy on a spectrum where the ends are national socialism and international socialism. Yet when the extremes are socailism and anarchy, you can find a place for blended combinations (for example, the U.S. Constitution).

Second, on that spectrum, most people are truly moderates. They (we) want a middle-of-the-spectrum blend of some government authority, and some personal authority. The challenge for true moderates is to find an effective balance. One example of that sort of balance - where collective responsibilities (at least at the national level) are established, yet personal responsibilities are also established, is the U.S. Constitution. There can be others, but the real key is where to find the balance between true extremes.

Third, recognizing this as the true spectrum keeps extremists from accusing any opponents of being at the opposite extreme - when in fact they are advocating the same things (just with someone different in charge). It forces them to explain their fine differences in their philosophies rather than merely to demonize all opposition. It would be hard to call George W. Bush of Medicare-Drugs and No Child Left Behind an anarchist, so that means he must either be recognized as a moderate, or accused of being even more extreme than the avowed Marxists. That's a tough sell.

So, keep teaching that political spectrum, and recognize that there are other dimensions that may result in differences in objective between groups who fit in the same place on the one-dimensional political spectrum. Hence you can get socialists who want to use the power of government to make morality a collective responsibility and authority plotted near those who want to use the power of government to make 'immorality' a collective responsibility and authority.

There is a terrible, almost unavoidable tendency on the part of those who advocate collective authority to want every more authority - so even those who have divergent objectives for that authority, end up acting just the same. Only, of course, they want a different group to be dictating to everyone. Themselves.