This is a new post at a blog that I follow. It was an off-shoot of some comments made about a post that dealt with Ron Paul's recent? appearance on PBS. Some people made some illogical comments about FDR and his relation to fascism and they were called on those comments. One of the blog owners decided that a discussion was needed and started a new thread which he hopes will turn into a multi-post thread. He made some interest comments about fascism, as have some of the other blog owners. Upon closer inspection, one finds that their political views seem to be a little off. When you look at what they claim is a better political spectrum, you find some problems.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about enough to make the convincing arguments that I know exist against some of what has been said at that blog. I'm not looking for someone to take these people on in my stead. What I'm looking for are people to help me with this. I know that there are some people who've studied this era. I'm certainly going to link to the podcasts that deal with this subject. If you'd like to help with this, let me know. I'd certainly encourage you to read the posts involved with the current topic so that you can get an understanding of where these guys are coming from.
Hi bowenj, I'm not a "blog owner", just a contributor. There's only one blog owner. I'm curious what problems you find in the political spectrum I pointed to? And our political views are a little off? From what?
I'm fairly interested in where you are coming from, actually. It would be nice if you could be more specific.
AdamSelene:Hi bowenj, I'm not a "blog owner", just a contributor. There's only one blog owner.
Hi bowenj, I'm not a "blog owner", just a contributor. There's only one blog owner.
Ah. I wasn't thinking in terms of the person whose name the blog was registered under but rather the people who create the substance of the blog. While the central theme of the blog is pretty consistent, there doesn't seem to be one person who directs the flow of the blog. Perhaps it's because I haven't followed the blog since its inception (I have only been following you guys for a little less than a year).
AdamSelene:I'm curious what problems you find in the political spectrum I pointed to?
I'm curious what problems you find in the political spectrum I pointed to?
This is why I came here first. I wanted to be sure that I got this right. The guys here have the resources readily available and are familiar with those resources (which isn't to say that you or the others on the blog are) and their exact locations in the website. However, since we are here, I'll give it my best.
I guess my first problem is with the first political axis. I'm not sure if I'll get this right, so if I'm wrong, please let me know. I'm wondering if authoritarianism is the best polar opposite of individualism. Would collectivism be a better opposite? The reason I ask this is because I'm not sure whether collectivism would fall under the authoritarian philosophy or if authoritarianism is merely one aspect of collectivism. Do you see where I'm coming from? My understanding is that collectivist forms of government are, by their nature, authoritarian governments since they depend on force to enforce their collectivist policies. Am I wrong?
The other problem that I have, and this is not so much a problem of philosophy as it is a problem of degrees, is with your second axis. Some of the people who commented on the axis talked about this, but I'm sure that some people here have their own opinions. For example, I imagine that most people here would place Lincoln far higher on the y axis than Bush. I imagine that some people here would place Bush and Kerry more to the left on the x axis. Similar arguments could be made about FDR. This, of course, would open up the debate about why they are placed where they are and why they should, if indeed they should, be placed higher or more to the left.
AdamSelene:And our political views are a little off? From what?
And our political views are a little off? From what?
As you noted, I probably should be more specific. The one person that I find myself disagreeing with the most is Doug. That's certainly not to say that I don't respect him and his opinions. Whether I disagree with him or not, he always has his reasons for supporting or opposing a particular viewpoint and is able to defend himself and his positions, often times so much so that I am forced to look at my own positions and why I hold them. The most obvious example is that of the Stormfront/Paul issue. While his argument was very well thought out, I found myself disagreeing simply because of principle. Another is his support for the use of force against countries who don't directly threaten us because of their potential to do so. Again, while he does make great arguments in support of his position, I find myself disagreeing with him both for practical reasons and on principle. Based on what I've seen some people here say, I think others here would agree with me. I think he is more of a practical libertarian than a purist libertarian, if there can be such a thing.
As for the others, I don't find myself disagreeing that often. Perhaps it's because I don't see the others commenting nearly as often. I guess the disagreements that I have are disagreements about degree rather principle. I see UCrawford, Brad, Eric, and Jason the most. I don't recall ever disagreeing with Brad, but perhaps that's only because I haven't paid close enough attention. There have been a couple of instances that I found myself disagreeing with Jason (I happen to think that he should simply ignore the people who use ad hominems instead of engaging those people, but that's another issue altogether). I don't recall the instance, just the fact that I did disagree.
I hope I haven't been too vague or confusing. If I am wrong about your axis, please let me know. I certainly don't want to misunderstand the nature of political theory. That would distort everything else that I study. All of this aside, I'm certainly looking forward to this series of posts. While current events have provided everyone with plenty of amusement, history can't be beaten for sources of factual and mythical political intrigue and mythical.