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: 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.