Newbies

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

AJ — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:30:15 GMT

Yeah, I want to avoid the old left-right stuff. I don't have any insights on visual presentation, but I like the binary model.

As for the other so-called anarchist philosophies, if they don't entail monopoly I would put them at the "0." But of course they generally do, or would be unworkable without a monopoly. However, if such a person exists as an anarcho-communist who merely conjectures that voluntary communism will prevail in the absence of monopoly I would certainly put that person at "0." In my mind, such a person is completely a fellow traveller; it's just that their predictions about how things will turn out are highly unlikely.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Conza88 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:27:34 GMT

Nitroadict:

Conza88:

AJ:

Political spectrum:

1 -------------------- 0

monopoly no monopoly

"On the left wing you have monopoly", and on the "right wing you have no monopoly"...

Odd, I don't see where AJ equivocated either side as left or right. Seems more like a clever metaphor using binary to describe the basis of what the state is: a monopoly, versus stateless society (no monopoly).

So without using the diagram, can you create a descriptive mind map for someone who is immersed in the false left / right paradigm, without using the words "side" or "wing" - that destroys the false paradigm, whilst also erecting a new and correct one?

Nitroadict:
Seems more like a clever metaphor using binary to describe the basis of what the state is: a monopoly, versus stateless society (no monopoly).

Except it runs into the same problem as other 1dimensional models. Where would you put anarcho-communism / other syndicalist philosophies. Stateless societies.. do they belong right next to anarcho-capitalism? Ah lol

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Marko — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:42:37 GMT

revolutionist:

I dont think there is any way to express a political spectrum on even three axes without broadly generalizing.

Yes and no IMO. Three axes would normally give you a cube, but what you really need is a cone. Take the Nolan chart and stick a base rectangularly on the totalitarian end (so that you can simulate differences between potentially endless variants of totalitarianism), and use the freedom score as the height of the cone. The more you are approaching totalitarianism the more variables there are, but the more you are approaching freedom the narrower the room for the state to do things, thus the more uniform your vision is to those around you on the same level of freedom. By the time you reach consistent anarchism at the tip of the cone there is only one political vision shared by all on that level (thus represented by a mere point). Also it would need to be a "concave cone" and the radius of the base actually infinite.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Nitroadict — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:15:50 GMT

Conza88:

AJ:

Political spectrum:

1 -------------------- 0

monopoly no monopoly

"On the left wing you have monopoly", and on the "right wing you have no monopoly"...

Odd, I don't see where AJ equivocated either side as left or right. Seems more like a clever metaphor using binary to describe the basis of what the state is: a monopoly, versus stateless society (no monopoly).

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Conza88 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:54:46 GMT

AJ:

Political spectrum:

1 -------------------- 0

monopoly no monopoly

"On the left wing you have monopoly", and on the "right wing you have no monopoly".

The problem is that it's still using the "left" and "right" wing concept. You then have to deal with the ever persistent propaganda / politicans / everyone using the standard left wing / right wing false paradigm that boxes everyone in.

I kind of see it like trying to re-capture the word "anarchy".

It's a good way to show someone as a concept, but the real issue is to stop using the "left wing" and "right wing" ourselves as Libertarians. Not much is more powerful imo, than refusing to accept either label, and rejecting both for the same reason. This allows folks to 'get out of the statist' box. Middle of the road naturally leads to socialism.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

AJ — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:57:57 GMT

Political spectrum:

1 -------------------- 0

monopoly no monopoly

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

AnonLLF — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:54:46 GMT

I've thought about this issue for a while.It's a issue. The statists I believe use the left right spectrum to make it appear as if there were no other choices i.e. to exclude libertarianism /anarcho capitalism.I always have trouble with the whole left right thing. I speak against war or mention anarchy and i get called a leftist.I speak against socialist and I'm right wing.

Personally I reject both as essentially the same thing with minor differences.I think for most people left and right has no real meaning.I only use it in a short hand way to refer to socialists or conservatives but in a sense all statists-democrats,fascists,socialists,conservatives etc are socialist or in the spectrum's terms "left wing".

I like your idea alot and I myself tried to create a spectrum - up towards greatness and liberty and down towards tyranny and totalitarianism. The problem is however you frame it someone will object. If you do it this way minarchists will object that they are in the middle and democrats will object that they are situated right next to fascism.Socialists will hate it too.So it's tricky.Statists don't like it being so obvious what their beliefs amount to either.I can't think there is any solution to this.I think we should just reject all charts and spectrums all together.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

chloe732 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:31:55 GMT

Great stuff, everyone. This challenged my thinking on the subject. I had never seen the two axis presentation; my stick figure concept is indeed "shallow" in comparison.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

revolutionist — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:03:28 GMT

I dont think there is any way to express a political spectrum on even three axes without broadly generalizing. What is weird, is depending on how you define it, (and where you come from in your intellectual journey) libertarianism is both the true right and the true left. You can place it as the true right if you put Socialism on the left, mixed economy in the middle and free market on the right. There is another weird way to do it. You can put the Free Market on the Left, Neo-Mercantilism (corporate state) on the right, and socialism in the middle (socialism is a misguided attempt to create a "free" society out of a corporate state).

I don't bother with political spectrums or charts anymore. I can never find one I like.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Wanderer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:57:09 GMT

A one-dimensional spectrum is naïve, to say the least. The 2-dimensional spectrum makes a lot more sense. Also, the republicans are no more interested in freedom than the democrats. They are the same. Lastly, freedom should be put on the right, and tyranny on the left.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Conza88 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:28:02 GMT

chloe732:
Is the above representation useful?

No, it simply re-jumbles the false left / right paradigm. It needs to be rejected.

Forwards towards liberty, or backwards towards tyranny. My proposition was imagine a ladder, at the top you have individualism (liberty / anarcho-capitalism) and at the bottom you have collectivism (tyranny / socialism), but that didn't really make a good enough distinction I don't think in terms of the socialism, i.e voluntary or coercive.

Someone here posted this awhile ago.

Negative rights
"If I take your stuff, I'm invoking that I have more rights than you. That you do not have the right to the stuff but that I do. Negative rights rejects this. It is egalitarian regarding actions. If something is bad for one (to do), it is bad for all.

Positive rights
I have a right to something. Society owes me. This implies that there is a right to supply this, and also a right to take from others to supply this. Implied is also that it is the state that can take and supply this. If everybody has a right to things and has the right to decide what, and has the right to take it, then you're at pure chaos and might makes right. Suggesting universality to people who believe in positive rights, namely that if it's good to coercively provide X then it should be good for anyone to coercively provide X, is usually quickly rejected. They don't reject the proposition that it's good to coercively provide X but that it should be good for anyone. So they believe in public law different from private law. If I steal from my neighbor and give it to my parents it's theft. If a police man steals from my neighbor and gives it to my parents then it's social welfare."

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

chloe732 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:16:36 GMT

The Late Andrew Ryan:
...democrates, republicans, and socialists heavy into social freedom would all be center and that isn't useful in practice. I prefer the 2 axis graph used in the worlds shortest political quiz

What does it mean when socialists are into "social freedom"? Doesn't it mean that state is granting these "freedoms"? If so, aren't the socialists on the path to dictorship as the model would indicate?

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Beefheart — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:09:59 GMT

I've always used a personal model where the right is "positive liberty" and the left is "negative liberty". It tends to be the least offensive/controversial means of displaying opinions, and I don't mind it.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

Esuric — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:01:42 GMT

It's old. Statism is usually on the right and anarchism on the left.

Re: A New Political "Spectrum"?

The Late Andrew Ryan — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:46:06 GMT

It's a pretty good model in theory but doesn't work in practice, democrates, republicans, and socialists heavy into social freedom would all be center and that isn't useful in practice. I prefer the 2 axis graph used in the worlds shortest political quiz