NationStates Jolt Archive

In every 2D chart of the political spectrum (the political compass being a prime example) I know of, the main stream spectrum runs counter to what I would predict.

I would, given the parameters, expect it to run from top left (economic and social/political authoritarian) to bottom right (economic and social/political libertarian). However, the mainstream runs bottom left (economic authoritarian and social/political libertarian) to top right (economic libertarian and social/political authoritarian).

Why? This is confusing. :(

you mean the trend is like this " / " instead of like this " \ "? why would you expect it to be different?


i guess its just because of the main/most popular political ideologies run that way: either conservative with economic liberalism and social authoritarianism, or liberal/socialist with economic authoritarianism and social liberalism. as to why this is i don't know and can't begin to speculate. now, time for lunch!

You know, we on the left don't just want to restrict everything and rule with an iron fist. There are very few Stalinists or even simple authoritarians left in the west.

Personally, I believe that left wing economics and social libertarianism is the best way of ensuring the greatest degree of happiness for everyone (as everyone believes about their own views, I guess)...though I take it you don't want this to turn into a debate on my views.

You know, we on the left don't just want to restrict everything and rule with an iron fist. There are very few Stalinists or even simple authoritarians left in the west.In English-speaking countries that may be the norm, but in Europe the lefties are of the authoritarian persuasion.

Personally, I believe that left wing economics and social libertarianism is the best way of ensuring the greatest degree of happiness for everyone (as everyone believes about their own views, I guess)...though I take it you don't want this to turn into a debate on my views.

I agree on the second part... But must disagree on the first... It is nice to see, however, that social libertarianism has a massive following amongst the people here, regardless of economic views...

In every 2D chart of the political spectrum (the political compass being a prime example) I know of, the main stream spectrum runs counter to what I would predict.

I would, given the parameters, expect it to run from top left (economic and social/political authoritarian) to bottom right (economic and social/political libertarian). However, the mainstream runs bottom left (economic authoritarian and social/political libertarian) to top right (economic libertarian and social/political authoritarian).

Why? This is confusing. :(
I've never thought about it before. It seems we're all a little inconsistent in our thinking. My explanation for my own position on the political compass is that I think one should be free to make one's own lifestyle choices, since they don't usually infringe on the rights of others, but economic choices should be more regulated because one person's role in the economy, let's say as an employer, can either help or harm others. Regulation is needed to make sure he doesn't harm people too much.

In English-speaking countries that may be the norm, but in Europe the lefties are of the authoritarian persuasion.

Nutters. :p

Europe has always been the home of political extremism of all possible persuasions, though...

I agree on the second part... But must disagree on the first... It is nice to see, however, that social libertarianism has a massive following amongst the people here, regardless of economic views...

Indeed. You're half-right ;)

I genuinely believe there's a massive skew in action. Many questions are phrased in such a way as to lead one to take the left libertarian view. Which makes the authoritarian right on these boards even more terrifying in my eyes... but I digress. I suspect that people with views of, say, -2.5/-2.5 are actually in the centre.

Really, an NS-style 3D grid is needed.

You know, we on the left don't just want to restrict everything and rule with an iron fist. There are very few Stalinists or even simple authoritarians left in the west.

This could actually be the case, but the lesson us anarchists have learned from the twentieth century is not to trust the socialists when they claim not to be authoritarians/statists/Stalinists. The same old story again and again, they woo the anti-authoritarians and try to use them as a power base, and then once they achieve some shred of power and then it's the kids with the black flags up against the wall.

you mean the trend is like this " / " instead of like this " \ "?

Exactly.

why would you expect it to be different?

Because the second would be intellectually and morally consistant. Why would one favor liberty in X feild but not in Y.


i guess its just because of the main/most popular political ideologies run that way: either conservative with economic liberalism and social authoritarianism, or liberal/socialist with economic authoritarianism and social liberalism. as to why this is i don't know and can't begin to speculate. now, time for lunch!

That's really the cruxt of trhe question. Why does the mainstream of the spectrum run that way and not the other? It seems counter-intuitive to me.

It seems that one would either support government control or not, rather than a picking and choosing.

This could actually be the case, but the lesson us anarchists have learned from the twentieth century is not to trust the socialists when they claim not to be authoritarians/statists/Stalinists. The same old story again and again, they woo the anti-authoritarians and try to use them as a power base, and then once they achieve some shred of power and then it's the kids with the black flags up against the wall.

That's true, and I do know it all too well...A certain group of self-proclaimed Trots I deal with almost daily that i'm very suspicious of. They seem alright, but underneath, they constantly pressure me to join...and make comments such as "If you aren't in a workers union, you're disgracing all the workers that are!" and such. And they always ask the same questions. I bet they have talks on "What to say if confronted by an Anarchist." And "Did you see any Anarchist groups marching with us today?"

Heh. I guess we need to coordinate a bit more, at least in my city.

You know, we on the left don't just want to restrict everything and rule with an iron fist. There are very few Stalinists or even simple authoritarians left in the west.

Personally, I believe that left wing economics and social libertarianism is the best way of ensuring the greatest degree of happiness for everyone (as everyone believes about their own views, I guess)...though I take it you don't want this to turn into a debate on my views.

But those Stalinists would be in the upper left, and thus outside the mainstream spectrum.


As for the later, no, I don't want this to turn into another of the interminable left right debates.

I genuinely believe there's a massive skew in action. Many questions are phrased in such a way as to lead one to take the left libertarian view. Which makes the authoritarian right on these boards even more terrifying in my eyes... but I digress. I suspect that people with views of, say, -2.5/-2.5 are actually in the centre.

Really, an NS-style 3D grid is needed.

Actually, no... The authoritarian/libertarian questions in the test are pulled from the morality question in the test, heavily (like the abortion one, etc.)

Some of them are questions like:

- "I'd Always support my country, whether it was right or wrong..."

- "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it."

- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

- "Military Action that defies international law is sometimes justified."

- "Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened. should always be illegal."

- "All Authority should be questioned..."

- "Marijuana should be legalized..."

- "Our civil liberties are being execessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism..."

- "A significant advantage of a one party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay the progress in a democratic political system."

- "Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried..."

- "In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."

- "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity."

These effect heavily in the equation as to your authoritarian/libertarian view... It's not biased at all...

Because the second would be intellectually and morally consistant. Why would one favor liberty in X feild but not in Y.

From a left-wing point of view, collectivism and economic equality is viewed as liberty, though.

Well, economic liberty is seen by left libertarians as being liberty for the few at the expense of the many. Meaning that the bottom left quadrant, morally and logically, is consistent.

Liberty and freedom are not stand-alones, they need to be taken into context with how they impinge on the freedoms of others.

Um. That's not the clearest statement I've ever made, but I hope you get my gist.

Well, economic liberty is seen by left libertarians as being liberty for the few at the expense of the many. Meaning that the bottom left quadrant, morally and logically, is consistent.

Liberty and freedom are not stand-alones, they need to be taken into context with how they imping on the freedoms of others.

Um. That's not the clearest statement I've ever made, but I hope you get my gist.

Yes, precisely my point. :)

in business lingo... it's a supply curve

Yes, precisely my point. :)

well here's the thing:

you cannot have both financial freedom and financial equality.

to force financial equality on everyone means that you're going to take away financial freedom (see communism);

to allow financial freedom means that there WILL NOT BE financial equality, because some people are more gifted/lucky/driven (etc.) than others (see capitalism)

Ah, but we're not after financial equality. At least, I'm not. Many economic freedoms - at least in the test - relate to corporate freedoms. Taking a position against them does not equate to wishing for financial equality.

well here's the thing:

you cannot have both financial freedom and financial equality.

to force financial equality on everyone means that you're going to take away financial freedom (see communism);

to allow financial freedom means that there WILL NOT BE financial equality, because some people are more gifted/lucky/driven (etc.) than others (see capitalism)

It depends what you view as financial freedom. Right now, I have the freedom to work for someone richer than me, and the freedom to spend money on things (of which said money goes to people richer than me)...but apart from that...gee, what can I do? Not much, really. The chances i'll strike it rich with some hair-brained scheme, lottery win, or lucky investment are really slim. I don't regard economic liberalism as true freedom whatsoever. I believe that if equally, workers can manage and direct the economy together, guided by what is needed and will benefit everyone collectively, rather than what is going to make someone else richer faster, then everyone is happier, and that, in my opinion, is true freedom.

But I digress. My point is that definitions of freedom are subjective, and thus the lower left quadrant is not contradictory at all.

Because the second would be intellectually and morally consistant. Why would one favor liberty in X feild but not in Y.

I see it as akin to buying a nice big comfy sofa, but making sure that it's well screwed together.

Well, I wouldn't say there are any absolute inconsistent views in the case..

economic rightist, social libertarians are as consistent as many economic lefist, social libertarians... They are operating on seperate base arguments. Generally the "rightists" see liberty as an absolute, whereas lefists see liberty as a relative aspect... Both derive their end views from this in regards to economy...

The economically left "Libertaire" that surfaced in france, and that subsequently evolved into anarcho-communistic thought, from their relative viewpoint made the battle-cry "Property is theft!"

Whereas the American economically rightist libertarians view Tax upon property as theft...

Both views are logically consistent with the base ideologies of the two forms... Even though their level of anti-authoritarianism is equal...

The right economics view property ownership as a liberty.. While the left does not...

Not to say either view is inconsistent.... However, the leftist will assume the rightist basis his end goals from the same basic foundation of thought... And thereby will see inconsistency.. And the same occurs vice-versa...

That's true, and I do know it all too well...A certain group of self-proclaimed Trots I deal with almost daily that i'm very suspicious of. They seem alright, but underneath, they constantly pressure me to join...and make comments such as "If you aren't in a workers union, you're disgracing all the workers that are!" and such. And they always ask the same questions. I bet they have talks on "What to say if confronted by an Anarchist." And "Did you see any Anarchist groups marching with us today?"

Heh. I guess we need to coordinate a bit more, at least in my city.

*joins Kanabia*
Yay, there are TWO of us!!! :p
And *I* know who you're talking about... ;)

Very well put, Tek.

Libertarian lovefest, anyone?

*joins Kanabia*
Yay, there are TWO of us!!! :p
And *I* know who you're talking about... ;)

I figured you probably would. :)

Hmmm....

People still seem to be misunderstanding the question.

To, hopefully make it clearer:

The left lower corner restricts economic freedom but not social freedom.
The right upper corner restricts social freedom, but not economic freedom.
My expectration is that the spectrum should run from greater to lesser overall freedom. But it doesn't.

It stretches from maximu economic restriction and minimal social restriction to maximum social restriction and minimal economic restriction.

Why are social freedom and economic restriction, or vice versa, linked? It doesn't seem they should be.

Maybe this illustrates an flaw in either my own or the common the understanding of the definitions.

Maybe the social libertarian types aren't as libertarian as they indicate - restrict lifestyles that persue property?

Or maybe the economic libertarians aren't as libertarian as they view themselves - restrict non-standard economic forms?

Well, as i've said, our definitions of freedom are different. Speaking as a member of the lower-left quadrant, I don't believe that the corporate capitalist model is as economically free as a leftist one for reasons I explained earlier, and thus I believe, in terms of overall freedom, it is more justified and thus it is where I fit on the scale. I feel that my beliefs are more inherently "free" than those in the bottom-right quadrant. I cannot explain the authoritarian right, however.

It's really an oversimplification to look at it on the scale of greater to lesser freedom, I think.

This could actually be the case, but the lesson us anarchists have learned from the twentieth century is not to trust the socialists when they claim not to be authoritarians/statists/Stalinists. The same old story again and again, they woo the anti-authoritarians and try to use them as a power base, and then once they achieve some shred of power and then it's the kids with the black flags up against the wall.
I'm in complete agreeance with you on this. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

yeah, its a disagreement on what exactly constitutes economic freedom - specifically a disagreement about what counts as a just or legitimate system of property rights. from over here on the bottom left, you guys off on the right might as well be advocating the feudal system.

Well, the property issue, from a strictly philosophical point of view, is a principle of contention, because both sides in one way or another place "restrictions" on liberty...

But the economically "right" libertarians are not advocating feudalism (that is an entirely different beast)... Feudalism requires an authoritarian element which is severly lacking... It's like calling Anarchist(tm)/Anarcho-Communism, "Stallinism"... And really an unfair way to paint the other side in arguments. Feudalism exists based upon extremely strict class distinctions, complete ownership by a ruling elite, and the like... Anarch-Capitalism lacks such infrastructure... Class distinctions don't actually exist in a concrete sense, and property ownship is open to all, not merely the "ruling elite"...

Towards the other issue of the "scale" used in the graph... It is set based upon arbitrary statistical criteria... the "graph" could theoretically be put in whatever way possible... You could have economic views on the "Y" and Governmental views on the "X" if needed... More or less "Y" represented level of govenrmental control (+ = more governmental power, - = less) and the economic is set like we normally would think.... "leftist" on the left, and "rightist" on the right...

i didn't say 'is', i said 'might as well be'. the point being that their system of property rights looks to be just about as unjust to me as feudalism looked to their ideological ancestors. for very similar reasons.

rs, expect it to run from top left (economic and social/political authoritarian) to bottom right (economic and social/political libertarian). However, the mainstream runs bottom left (economic authoritarian and social/political libertarian) to top right (economic libertarian and social/political authoritarian).

Why? This is confusing. :(
In my experience of making the NS Political Compass (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg), I have often wondered this very question.

i didn't say 'is', i said 'might as well be'. the point being that their system of property rights looks to be just about as unjust to me as feudalism looked to their ideological ancestors.

Then the problem arises as to the concepts by how "rights" can be unjust. Which then leads to what exactly is meany by "just".

From the rightist libertarian viewpoint, justice = equity... That is law and rights must be applied equally to all persons... And therefore property rights applied to all are just, regardless of how those rights are applied to the all. As long as my rights to my property to not infringe the rights of another to theirs....

We "rightist" libertarians find the "from each acording to his ability; to each acording to his needs" unjust.... To highlight the point.... Because it becomes hypocritical, being it is a raly against Capitalism, where boses derive "benefit" from their employees work... Under the aforementioned precept, others also derive [i]undeserved benefit from the work of another... Libertarian ideologally can thus be considered more like "From each according to his ability; to each according to his ability"..

In English-speaking countries that may be the norm, but in Europe the lefties are of the authoritarian persuasion.
No, they're not. Which groups are you thinking of?

It's true that most European left-wing parties are not as much influenced by the "60s New Left" movement as the British and American leftists are, but I wouldn't call most of them authoritarian.

Then the problem arises as to the concepts by how "rights" can be unjust.

i don't see how that poses much of a problem. things claimed and held as rights don't have any necessary claim to being just. this is especially the case with property rights, which are nothing more than formalized social customs about who has how much access to what.

though the concept of justice does get a bit sticky itself.

yeah, its a disagreement on what exactly constitutes economic freedom - specifically a disagreement about what counts as a just or legitimate system of property rights. from over here on the bottom left, you guys off on the right might as well be advocating the feudal system.

No, that's collectivization. Where all real propert is dispensed by the state, and cannot be alienated.

Liberal capitalism is an progressive move away from that, things reverting to the state is a step backwards.

No, that's collectivization. Where all real propert is dispensed by the state, and cannot be alienated.

that's not what collectivization means, no matter how stalin used the term. collectivization means organizing an economic system (or even just a particular enterprise) on the basis of collective ownership by either the people who work there, or the population as a whole.

Liberal capitalism is an progressive move away from that, things reverting to the state is a step backwards.

true. which is why i don't get what's so attractive about state owneship. the state sucks.

Daistallia, I suspect that part of the measurement for social libertarianism includes a sense of civil rights. Social and personal freedom are not the same as civil rights, but I suspect that they have been treated as such in the compass.

So, civil rights are often linked with economic restrictions - welfare, etc - thus anyone answering in favour of such rights will score highly on social libertarianism. The 'rightist' libertarians kind of get penalised here.

This assumes I'm right in suggesting the test incorporates such definitions. Dearie me, I'm not being very clear in this thread.