A) Not a centrist. Libertarians do not fit on the left-right axis. B) I'd much rather tar and feather folks for trying to silence assholes than for being assholes, yes. The latter are easy to ignore but you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM (#1012786)
Good ideals don't excuse bad behavior. Speaking of fascists, you might want to read the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] It was the document which defined the original literal Fascist Party's ideals and values. You might find you agree with most, if not all, of it. That's not a problem - I do too. But do you know what history now just remembers them as Fascists? Because ideals don't matter - behavior does. And their ideals were noble, but their methods were fascist.
Tearing down statues, forming digital mobs (alongside real life ones now), extreme racism while claiming it's not racism, and having 0 hesitancy to engage in every possible Machiavellian scheme if they think it will further their ends, and of course an absolute and extreme intolerance for any other worldview is what is increasingly defining the democratic party today. And I suspect that is what they will be remembered for, especially should they continue further down the dangerous path they're already on.
Nah, I notice you guys just fine. Oh, were you talking about Cheeto Jesus? He's just a narcissistic asshat, you're the fascists that want to make everything you don't completely approve of illegal.
I reject politicalcompas's dual axis way of looking at things as well. There is only liberal or authoritarian, the rest is nothing but trivial details.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM
(11 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM (#1012810)
There should be more than one axis, but all of the axes are wider than we often consider, essentially ranging from anarchist (0) to totalitarian (1), or from no government (0) to absolute government control (1). I'd say three axes are appropriate, though it might be more complex than that:
1) Social issues, ranging from no government restrictions (0) all the way to the most repressive regimes you can think of (1). 2) Economic issues, ranging from zero government regulations (0) all the way to an absolute planned economy (1). 3) Foreign policy, ranging from complete isolationism (0) all the way to total interventionism (1).
The first two axes are fairly common, but I don't think foreign policy fits nicely on those two axes. It can also be even more complex than this. Both Libertarians and Republicans would be quite a bit closer to 0 than 1 on economic issues, but there are differences. Republicans support free movement of goods but support restrictions on the movement of labor. If there's a party that truly supports open borders, it's the Libertarian Party. Economists often view labor as being subject to the same forces of supply and demand that apply to goods. Republicans and Libertarians agree on economic policy toward goods but not on labor. So it's more complicated than the three axes, but I think it's a good start. The third axis also is useful in distinguishing the USSR from the DPRK, for example. The USSR would be pretty close to 1 on all three axes. The DPRK would be similar on social and economic issues, but are very close to 0 on foreign policy.
Libertarians are much closer to 0 than to 1 on all three axes. I think there are a lot of Americans who would agree with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but want more government involvement on economic issues. The problem is that the US doesn't have a party fitting that description, so a lot of those people end up voting for Democrats. There's quite a bit of common ground with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but a lot of divergence on economic issues.
I agree it's fundamentally about more or less government, but it's helpful to divide this across multiple issues.
Sounds reasonable but only sounds that way. No other axis even makes sense unless you're way off into authoritarian-land to begin with. A government that isn't trying to control its citizens doesn't have the power to do anything to put themselves on any other axis.
I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM (#1014926)
I actually agree that the best approach to classification is one's views on the size and role of government. This means that the scale is between absolute libertarian (anarchist?) and absolute authoritarian (totalitarian?) governments. This is effectively quantifying one's position on the size of government. However, the role of government is also important. One could support libertarian views on social issues but more authoritarian views on economic issues. It's basically taking your scale of libertarian and authoritarian views and splitting that across multiple issues.
I agree that classifying left vs. right isn't a good way to do it. A libertarian favors small government across for all issues, not just certain ones. But for other political positions, it's not just about the size of government, but about the role of government.
See, I see that as just deciding what flavor of authoritarian you are and that doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a full on anarchist because anarchy is only stable until you get human beings involved. What I am is a minimalist who believes government should have no power except what is absolutely necessary. Not that there should only be laws to cover what is absolutely necessary but that the government should be explicitly forbidden from from creating any others.
I don't have a problem debating what constitutes "absolutely necessary" on any given specific issue but anyone looking to a categorization for what they should believe has turned their brain off and isn't worth debating; they've outsourced their ability to think, so why should I listen to opinions with no thought behind them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM
(1 child)
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM (#1012876)
Proportional representation would solve this dilemma in a heartbeat, which is why it will never, in a million years, ever be allowed by the current political establishment.
Imagine a government with let's say something like 30% republican, 30% democrat, 15% libertarian, 15% green, 10% rando stuff (independents, commies, socialists, nationalists, etc). It'd suddenly mean those corporate handouts and pork might face real opposition, and you'd have folks more interested in pursuing agendas focused on bettering society from a wide array of different perspectives. More importantly, I think that distribution is likely far more realistic than the current bullshit 50/50 democrat/republican nonsense which is driven only by our district based first past the post systems which, at best, are angling towards some sort of instant runoff system which won't change anything.
Instant runoff isn't proportional representation. However, it does make small parties more viable, in that voting for one as first choice doesn't have the effect of wasting your vote. It's a step in the right direction.
Is charity authoritarian? It can transform someone's life for the better (clearly not trivial) and it needn't impose on anyone who wants to ignore it. It's neither liberal nor authoritarian, but charitable actions--i.e. assistance, could be part of government policy. What axis should that be represented on, then?
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
I was trying to think of an economic policy that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as illegitimate, and that is obviously not trivial in terms of the positive difference it can make to some people's lives. By that reasoning, such things should go on their own axis.
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
Nah, I don't care what they're for. Unless they're absolutely necessary (for our continued existence, not to make someone feel better about themselves because they voted for it) and can not be done by the private sector, they should not be done by the state. I just can't back an "what should we use stolen money/liberty from our citizens for" axis, because it's predicated on stealing money/liberty from citizens.
Here are my results [politicalcompass.org]. Left of Sanders without approaching the extreme, but far more libertarian than any mainstream western politician.
I think the site would put me even further onto libertarian except I suspect my strong desire for regulation to protect the environment may be marked as authoritarian. To me, it's libertarian, because I consider the liberty and rights of other species to be of greater significance than freedom for large corporations (which are not people).
-- Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 25 2020, @09:45PM (34 children)
A) Not a centrist. Libertarians do not fit on the left-right axis.
B) I'd much rather tar and feather folks for trying to silence assholes than for being assholes, yes. The latter are easy to ignore but you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:17PM (8 children)
"you ignore fascist fuckwads at your own peril"
You've been doing exactly that for 3+ years now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @10:35PM (5 children)
No, you just fail to see that fascists are trying to control you on both ends of the spectrum.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @11:18PM (4 children)
Ah yes, those damn liberal fascists trying to get healthcare and equality for everyone. Yup, real scary those ones. Your centrist shtick is lame.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2020, @12:54AM (2 children)
I have this broad brush that I use on TMB. His people are used to being painted "alt-right" as well as "alt-white".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 27 2020, @03:05AM (1 child)
"Painted"? Is that like "colored" but for people who can be trusted not to spill?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday June 27 2020, @05:32AM
Mudblood Muggle! Not that that is bad thing, unless you tie it to rightwing nutjob libertariantard idiology!
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @05:14AM
Good ideals don't excuse bad behavior. Speaking of fascists, you might want to read the Fascist Manifesto. [wikipedia.org] It was the document which defined the original literal Fascist Party's ideals and values. You might find you agree with most, if not all, of it. That's not a problem - I do too. But do you know what history now just remembers them as Fascists? Because ideals don't matter - behavior does. And their ideals were noble, but their methods were fascist.
Tearing down statues, forming digital mobs (alongside real life ones now), extreme racism while claiming it's not racism, and having 0 hesitancy to engage in every possible Machiavellian scheme if they think it will further their ends, and of course an absolute and extreme intolerance for any other worldview is what is increasingly defining the democratic party today. And I suspect that is what they will be remembered for, especially should they continue further down the dangerous path they're already on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:32AM (1 child)
Nah, I notice you guys just fine. Oh, were you talking about Cheeto Jesus? He's just a narcissistic asshat, you're the fascists that want to make everything you don't completely approve of illegal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @02:42PM
As usual you spout off idiotically. Good show I say wotwot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:27AM (23 children)
No, because they have a whole axis to themselves. The libertarian-authoritarian axis. [politicalcompass.org]
See for yourself. These are my results. [politicalcompass.org] Which put me solidly on the Libertarian left.
Shocking. Truly shocking!
Not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @01:39AM
Same AC replying to himself.
I ran across this [politicalcompass.org] after I posted the above. It should enlighten some and anger others. The funniest part is that I'm way farther left and way more libertarian [politicalcompass.org] than all of those folks.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @02:35AM (16 children)
I reject politicalcompas's dual axis way of looking at things as well. There is only liberal or authoritarian, the rest is nothing but trivial details.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @10:23AM (11 children)
There should be more than one axis, but all of the axes are wider than we often consider, essentially ranging from anarchist (0) to totalitarian (1), or from no government (0) to absolute government control (1). I'd say three axes are appropriate, though it might be more complex than that:
1) Social issues, ranging from no government restrictions (0) all the way to the most repressive regimes you can think of (1).
2) Economic issues, ranging from zero government regulations (0) all the way to an absolute planned economy (1).
3) Foreign policy, ranging from complete isolationism (0) all the way to total interventionism (1).
The first two axes are fairly common, but I don't think foreign policy fits nicely on those two axes. It can also be even more complex than this. Both Libertarians and Republicans would be quite a bit closer to 0 than 1 on economic issues, but there are differences. Republicans support free movement of goods but support restrictions on the movement of labor. If there's a party that truly supports open borders, it's the Libertarian Party. Economists often view labor as being subject to the same forces of supply and demand that apply to goods. Republicans and Libertarians agree on economic policy toward goods but not on labor. So it's more complicated than the three axes, but I think it's a good start. The third axis also is useful in distinguishing the USSR from the DPRK, for example. The USSR would be pretty close to 1 on all three axes. The DPRK would be similar on social and economic issues, but are very close to 0 on foreign policy.
Libertarians are much closer to 0 than to 1 on all three axes. I think there are a lot of Americans who would agree with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but want more government involvement on economic issues. The problem is that the US doesn't have a party fitting that description, so a lot of those people end up voting for Democrats. There's quite a bit of common ground with Libertarians on social issues and foreign policy, but a lot of divergence on economic issues.
I agree it's fundamentally about more or less government, but it's helpful to divide this across multiple issues.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 26 2020, @01:44PM (8 children)
Sounds reasonable but only sounds that way. No other axis even makes sense unless you're way off into authoritarian-land to begin with. A government that isn't trying to control its citizens doesn't have the power to do anything to put themselves on any other axis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:32PM (5 children)
I think you've independently rediscovered the effect where the far ends of each axis curve towards one another as their governments become similar. Your own personal compass is skewed so far to libertarian / anarchy that left / right have very little meaning to you. It's fine to redefine the compass in your own head, but try to recognize the fact that the other positions are important to other people. The whole model is built around graphing what is and isn't important to different people across the whole population and across history as well. If you just want to throw the compass in the trash and say "NO, mine is the one true way!", I wish you luck in that.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:09PM (4 children)
You're trying to promote criteria of secondary importance to equal primary importance when they're predicated on the criteria of primary importance having a minimum value in the first place. This is not logically sound.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:03PM (3 children)
It wouldn't be logically sound if you were correct about the left / right criteria being predicated on liberty (the libertarian / authoritarian metric) having a minimum value (IIUC). You're not correct about that.
The existence of economic policies that can be positioned on the left / right axis does not imply minimum liberty. For sure the state will be imposing a hell of a lot of restrictions on liberty to implement such a system, but it can still be parsecs away from the theoretical minimum.
Minimum liberty / maximum authority would make 1984 and most other fictional dystopias look like a party in international waters. We'd be talking brain implants that correct, punish or outright prevent all thoughtcrime instantaneously and everyone living in communal camps with no concept of privacy, ownership or leisure at all. Or did I misunderstand when you were talking about a "minimum value"?
It's worth mentioning yet again as well that if you cut back state intervention too much, to the point of approaching anarchy, it absolutely does not maximize liberty, because other entities (individuals or mobs) will keep popping up to control / attack / steal from other individuals. In a sense, you could say, that's how we eventually got the systems we have today.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:47PM (2 children)
You're reading me wrong. I meant that there is a certain level of (not maximum) authoritarianism necessary to either modern definition left or modern definition right policies. There is a specific (and entirely unacceptable to me) amount of liberty that must be taken away before either can put enough policies in place to warrant considering as a secondary characteristic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @11:58PM (1 child)
Ah yeah I see where you're coming from. It's a coherent if perhaps unusual position to believe that the whole left / right spectrum is founded on an unacceptable violation of human rights.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 30 2020, @12:29AM
Didn't used to be unusual. A couple hundred years ago it was the bull's eye.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2020, @10:17AM (1 child)
I actually agree that the best approach to classification is one's views on the size and role of government. This means that the scale is between absolute libertarian (anarchist?) and absolute authoritarian (totalitarian?) governments. This is effectively quantifying one's position on the size of government. However, the role of government is also important. One could support libertarian views on social issues but more authoritarian views on economic issues. It's basically taking your scale of libertarian and authoritarian views and splitting that across multiple issues.
I agree that classifying left vs. right isn't a good way to do it. A libertarian favors small government across for all issues, not just certain ones. But for other political positions, it's not just about the size of government, but about the role of government.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 01 2020, @12:22PM
See, I see that as just deciding what flavor of authoritarian you are and that doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a full on anarchist because anarchy is only stable until you get human beings involved. What I am is a minimalist who believes government should have no power except what is absolutely necessary. Not that there should only be laws to cover what is absolutely necessary but that the government should be explicitly forbidden from from creating any others.
I don't have a problem debating what constitutes "absolutely necessary" on any given specific issue but anyone looking to a categorization for what they should believe has turned their brain off and isn't worth debating; they've outsourced their ability to think, so why should I listen to opinions with no thought behind them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:08PM (1 child)
Proportional representation would solve this dilemma in a heartbeat, which is why it will never, in a million years, ever be allowed by the current political establishment.
Imagine a government with let's say something like 30% republican, 30% democrat, 15% libertarian, 15% green, 10% rando stuff (independents, commies, socialists, nationalists, etc). It'd suddenly mean those corporate handouts and pork might face real opposition, and you'd have folks more interested in pursuing agendas focused on bettering society from a wide array of different perspectives. More importantly, I think that distribution is likely far more realistic than the current bullshit 50/50 democrat/republican nonsense which is driven only by our district based first past the post systems which, at best, are angling towards some sort of instant runoff system which won't change anything.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday July 02 2020, @01:55PM
Instant runoff isn't proportional representation.
However, it does make small parties more viable, in that voting for one as first choice doesn't have the effect of wasting your vote. It's a step in the right direction.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @01:43PM (3 children)
Is charity authoritarian? It can transform someone's life for the better (clearly not trivial) and it needn't impose on anyone who wants to ignore it. It's neither liberal nor authoritarian, but charitable actions--i.e. assistance, could be part of government policy. What axis should that be represented on, then?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:10PM (2 children)
Charity is voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's theft not charity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @02:06PM (1 child)
I was trying to think of an economic policy that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as illegitimate, and that is obviously not trivial in terms of the positive difference it can make to some people's lives. By that reasoning, such things should go on their own axis.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @09:55PM
Nah, I don't care what they're for. Unless they're absolutely necessary (for our continued existence, not to make someone feel better about themselves because they voted for it) and can not be done by the private sector, they should not be done by the state. I just can't back an "what should we use stolen money/liberty from our citizens for" axis, because it's predicated on stealing money/liberty from citizens.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2020, @03:19PM (1 child)
You disgust me, moderate.
My results [politicalcompass.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2020, @02:15AM
Not surprised. I'd expect you would be intolerant if you're that much of an extremist.
You go, girlfriend!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:22PM (2 children)
Here are my results [politicalcompass.org]. Left of Sanders without approaching the extreme, but far more libertarian than any mainstream western politician.
I think the site would put me even further onto libertarian except I suspect my strong desire for regulation to protect the environment may be marked as authoritarian. To me, it's libertarian, because I consider the liberty and rights of other species to be of greater significance than freedom for large corporations (which are not people).
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 29 2020, @12:13PM (1 child)
Um, neither are other species. =P
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday June 29 2020, @01:40PM
I see what you did there, Buteo.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 26 2020, @02:06AM
No, they only project on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0