For the longest time, I thought that anarchism didn't have a place on the political spectrum, essentially due to the fact that it's anti-politics. But I found out recently that anarchism is located around the "far-left" of the political spectrum.
How true is this, exactly? Can anarchism be included on the spectrum? What about libertarianism, as I've heard libertarianism is located on the right side (which doesn't add up to what I stated previously, as anarchism is a part of what libertarianism broadly represents).
Nolan chart:
Anarchy is "above" libertarian.
Also, this:
.
Hey, that's pretty neat. Thanks.
Those were some nice charts, FlyingAxe!
@SkepticalMetal
The reason you've heard that anarchism is considered far-left is because historically anarchism has been synonymous with communism. There were some exceptions, but it is the reason that even Murray Rothbard was originally hesitant to call himself an anarchist. This is changing since the rise of libertarianism quite some time ago, and I expect that it will be fully reversed in the public's eye eventually.
I'm surprised no one has provided a critique of the Nolan Chart yet, since what constitutes a personal or economic issue is very arbitrarily decided and since the state is the antithesis of the market.
Also, does Dr. Paul really favor public transportation? I don't think so, but then maybe he does or maybe I'm misreading.
@ gotlucky
Thanks for the info. But didn't Samuel Edward Konkin III say that he believed that libertarianism was a radical left philosophy?
I don't know much about Konkin. I just read this piece on him by Rothbard. It sounds like Konkin was a lefty, so his view of libertarianism would reflect that. According to Rothbard, it sounds like Konkin's idea of libertarianism is not at all like either Rothbard's or mine.
Well I read a review of the New Libertarian Manifesto (Konkin's book) on Amazon.com by a self-described Rothbardian, who said after reading the book he became an agorist, and was discouraged when he read Rothbard's critiques of Konkin's work, because he said it was the first time he ever saw anything by Rothbard that was so inaccurate and wrong (I haven't read any of this, just so you know). I think Konkin even dedicates the NLM to Rothbard.
All I really know is, is that Konkin supported bringing about a voluntarist society through "counter-economics," which basically means supporting the black market.
Well, I have usually seen the chart as social vs economic, but I understand your point. I think the main idea behind the chart is correct, though it still misses the mark. After all, while most people would consider gay marriage a social issue, it is the libertarian position that not only should marriage be legal, but also it should not be regulated at all. So in that respect the chart is deficient. But I think the main idea behind the chart is good enough.
I don't believe he does, but I the chart in general is accurate, even if the specific politicians may not be placed correctly.
Ron paul is a closeted anarchist.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
If he really was, would he really be running for President on the Republican ticket and serving 12 terms in the Congress?
Maybe he's just non-Agorist.
Rothbard has a great chapter on this in Ethics of Liberty called "Right, Left, and the Prospects for Liberty" where he talks about where communism and the rest lie on the spectrum historically. It's free as a download on this site, so no reason not to check it out in the literature section.
In it he calls the right the traditional side of conservatism. But it gets screwed up to the modern american hearer because 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' are corrupted terms in the modern US.
Liberalism historically meant movement towards freedom. And conservatives were those who were in favor of the status quo, that being of power, privilege, and state power.
So, historical libertarians were effectively on the left. This was largely before socialism, back when it would've been Whigs versus Tories and the like, with whigs in favor of personal freedom and tories in favor of state power and monarchical authority.
There's a lot more to it, including identifications and alliances against the current ruling power messing with stuff.
Suffice it to say, historically an anarcho-capitalist would be a leftist. However eventually the left was taken over by socialists, who adopted state power and became historical-conservatives themselves thereby once they achieved power, adopted the means of the conservatives if not their goals.
Thus, those now in favor of personal freedom and against state power began to consider themselves rightists. Etc.
It's all messed up. I just like to say libertarian, because it's the least corrupted of political terms.