Dark Kanatia
27-05-2005, 09:38
This is inspired by another post debating whether Hitler is right or left wing. I'm sick of the vagueness and uselessness of these terms. So I have decided to make a list of political terms. These are up for debate as anything in politics is but I will try my hardest to make them as non-partisan, accurate, and balanced as humanly possible.
Rights and Freedoms
There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A freedom is something that someone can choose to do without interference. A right is something that someone believes should be provided to people. Freedoms require little or know laws, while rights have laws that detail who gets what, when, where, and how.
For example: Freedom of health care and right to health care. Freedom of health care means that everybody is free to pursue whatever health care they want and can get. The right to health care means that everybody is provided with health care. Comparing the US and Canada: the US has more freedom of health care but fewer health care rights, while in Canada people have less freedom of health care but have more rights to health care.
Rights and freedoms can be contradictory. The creation of new rights often leads to the destruction of freedoms while the creation of new freedoms often leads to the destruction of rights.
For example: Freedom of speech and the right not to be discriminated against through speech are contradictory. For if we limit the use of derogatory terms to increase people's rights not to be discriminated against, we limit the freedom of speech of people to use derogatory terms , and vice versa.
For example: The right to health care limits economic freedom, while more economic freedom may limit health care rights.
Too often rights and freedoms are confused.
For example: "Right to free speech" and "freedom of speech" sound similar and are often used interchangeably. But this is not correct and leads to inaccuracies in arguments. "Freedom of speech" implies that everybody is free to say what they want without interference. The "right to free speech" implies that someone is granted the ability to say what they want freely(presumably by the government). So the "right to free speech" is just that a right, and is granted by some agency (usually the government) which means that agency can also limit it and take it away. While "freedom of speech" implies that no agency can restrict speech.
Sometimes the difference between the freedom to do something and the right to do something becomes murky as seen in the example above. This can lead to inaccurate debates.
Freedoms usually end where rights begin and vice versa. A lot of political debate takes place due to people debating where the balance point between rights and freedoms is.
For example: The freedom to swing my fists usually ends where it begins to infringe on someone else' right not to be punched in the face. Total freedom would allow me to swing my fists even if someone else's face was in the way. Total rights would disallow me from swinging my fists to prevent me from accidently hitting someone else's face. Political and moral debate has usually ended in the balance point of rights and freedoms to where I'm allowed to swing my fist unless it connects, or has a high chance of connecting, with someone else's face.
Being anti-freedom or anti-rights is not always bad as everybody agrees that there whould be some limits on freedoms, so as to create more rights, or some limits on rights, so as to create more freedoms.
Political Scales
There are six scales to measure someone's political values: civil freedom, econonic freedom, political freedom civil rights, economic rights, and political rights. Although, this gets murky when considering international relations, so I'm only going to discuss intra-state politics, not inter-state politics.
There is some overlap between the three areas so no guide is defnitive.
There is also overlap between rights and freedoms, especially concerning political rights and freedoms.
Civil freedom- Freedom concerning personal actions and non-political group actions. Examples of civil freedoms can include: the freedom to ingest drugs, the freedom to choose a sexual partner of someone's preference, freedom of mobility, and the freedom to void oneself in public.
Civil rights- Something personal that is believed should be provided to someone. Examples of civil rights can include: the right to health care, the right to drugs, the right to a sexual partner, the right to void oneself to neighbors.
Economic freedom- Freedom concerning money, property, services, and ownership. Examples of economic freedoms can include: freedom to own property, freedom to protect property from others, and freedom to destroy property.
Economic rights- Something concerning money, property, services, and ownership that is believed should be provided to people. Examples of economic rights can include: right to own a car, right to food, and the right to health care (notice that this can be both an economic and a civil right, depending on how it is framed).
Political freedoms- Freedoms concerning political action. Examples of political freedoms can include: freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.
Political rights- Political abilities or actions that are provided to people. Examples of political rights include: the right to vote, the right of assembly (notice that depending on how this is framed it can be a right or a freedom), and the right of free speech.
Left-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. It is usually used to signify someone who believes in high civil rights and freedoms, high economic rights, and low economic freedoms.
Right-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. Usually used to signify someone who believes in high economic freedoms, moderate civil freedoms, but low economic and civil rights.
General Political Tendencies
Some people due to their personalities, values, goals, and beliefs have some general political tendencies which can be evaluated. As well on every issue there are multiple positions, each of which may fall into one of these general tendencies.
Conservative- A conservative is someone opposed to rapid change. They prefer the status quo or gradual change. Someone can be conservative on one issue but liberal on another.
Liberal- A liberal is someone who believes in change. Someone can be liberal on one issue but conservative on another.
Radical- Someone who wants immediate and drastic change. Often used derogatorily for someone looking forward to an unachievable, utopian dream.
Reactionary- Someone who wants change back to the ways things used to be. Often used derogatorily for someone looking back on a "golden age" that didn't exist or is seen as being better than it actually was.
Centrist- Someone who trys to find a point near the middle of the liberals and conservatives. Against extremes and tries to find a middle ground or happy median. People can be centrist on some issues but not on others.
Authoritarion- The more authoritarian someone is the more they believe that people should be controlled by the laws of the land and the more aspects of people's lives should be controlled by the ruling body. This has little to do with the political structure. There can be authoritarian democracies or non-authoritarion dictatorships.
Centralization- The degree to which a central governing body controls politics. A highly centralized state has one central governing body which controls politics. A high decentralized state has many localized governing bodies with a weak central governing body.
Republicanism- The degree to which a system or ideology believes a citizen should become involved in political affairs. A very republican state has high citizen involvement, a less republican state has low political involvement. Republicanism is also a form of government, so sometimes the two types of republicanism are confused.
Political Ideologies and Systems
These terms are not agreed to by everyone and there is often much debate over what term means what. There is often a dissassociation between theory and practice which furthers confusion. I'm merely providing a basic working definition of these terms. I am not free from bias but will try to be as non-partisan and unbiased as possible. I may come back and change this if someone asks me to and I beleive that it is reasonable, or if I have something else to add or take away. Suggestions are welcome.
Anarchy- This is a state where there is no government and no central ruling body. There are many versions of anarchy, and sometimes there are decentralised councils or other forms of ruling bodies. But pure anarchy has no governing body at all. It is extremely high in all three types of freedom and rights are non-existant (or almost non-existant, depending on the type of anachy).
Capitalism- This is an economic system where government has little or no control over economic affairs. Pure capitalism allows the free market to do as it may in economic matters. Capitalism has extremely high economic freedoms, and few economic rights. Capitalism does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, except sometimes it may limit civil rights which also require economic rights (such as the right to health care) and it may increase civil freedoms that have a bearing on economic freedoms (such as freedom to consume drugs and freedom to purchase and sell drugs may go hand in hand).
Communism, Classical/Marxist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common, but not under a central governing body. There are many economic rights but few economic freedoms. Does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, per se. But many communists of this type believe in a system with high levels of civil and political rights and freedoms.
Communist, Authoritarian/Leninist/Stalinist/Masoist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common and is controlled and distributed by the government. There are (in theory) many economic rights but very few economic freedoms. It does not affect other types of rights and freedoms, per se. But often is accompinied by extremely low levels of civil and political rights.
Confederacy- A type of extremely decentralized federation. The states or provinces within the confederacy are loosely allied for narrow reasons, and the federal governing body's powers are extremely limited. Very high in political freedoms and rights. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms, but due to the weak federal government has a hard time limiting freedoms and a hard time maintaining rights.
Constitutional Monarchy- A monarchy where the monarch's powers are limited by law. Usually has moderately high political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.
Democracy- Means rule of the people. This has led to some debate over what "the people" is and who is a person. There are various forms and definitions of democracy. In pure democracy 50%+1 of people can do whatever they want. Usually is high on political rights and political freedoms, but the levels vary depending on the type of democracy. Democracy does not in and of itself affect the other two types of rights and freedoms.
Dictatorship (Despotism)- Where one person wields political control. Usually has extremely low levels of political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.
Fascism- This is a political system where the state, and the glorification of the state, is the ultimate goal. One person is in charge and runs the state in an authoritarion manner to (in theory) better the position of the state. In fascism, there are few freedoms of any kind, and there are some rights.
Federalism- A system by which there are two or more levels of government each of which is more or less considered equal to the other. In a centralized federation the federal government has the balance of power. In a decentralized federation, the states/provinces hold the balance of political power. Usually high in political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.
Fuedalism- A hierarchical economic system whereby the lowest socio-economic level pays taxes to the level just higher to them, who pays taxes to those just higher than them, and so on until the second highest level pays taxes to the highest socio-economic level. In return each socio-economic level is supposed to protect and support those of lower socio-economic status. A system of no economic and political freedoms and some economic and poltical rights. Has no direct effect on civil and political rights.
Libertarionism (Classical Liberalism)- A system of government in which the government is very small and does not intrude into the lives of citizens. Very high in civil and economic freedoms, with very few civil rights and almost no economic rights. Does not have a direct effect on political rights.
Monarchy- A system of government in which a monarch has absolute political control based on descent (usually patrilineal), justified through a god-given right to rule. Has very few, if any, political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms.
Nazism (National Socialism)- Nazism is not the same as fascism, although the two are often used interchangeably. Nazism is fascism with a racial component. In fascism the state is the goal in Nazism, the state is a tool to racial goals. Other than this difference, read fascism as it is similar.
Oligarcy- Where a small group of individuals control the political structure. Has few political rights and freedoms, and has no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.
Representative Democracy- A democracy in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. High in poltical rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms. Often just called a democracy.
Republicanism (Liberal Democracy)- Similar to representative democracy. A system in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. Also has laws limiting the power of the majority to violate the freedoms of the minority. Moderately high in political freedoms, very high in political rights. Is often somewhat high in civil freedoms and rights dues to protection of minorities. Often reffered to as simply democracy. Do not confuse with the other defintion of republicanism.
Socialist- Sometimes used interchangeably with communism, but is usually viewed as less extreme than communism. An economic system where goods and services are redistributed (to various degrees) to provide more economic equality. Usually is high in economic rights, and low in economic freedoms.
Theocracy- Where government and laws are based upon a religious scripture. Usually has very low civil rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on political or economic rights and freedoms.
Tyranny- A system where one person or group has political control and weilds it solely according to their own desires. Usually completely lacking in freedoms of any kind. May have some rights, but usually not to many.
There's my guide. May it be of use to those who read it. I have tried to be as unbiased, accurate, and non-partisan as possible. If you have any questions, comments, criticisms, or hate mail, post it in the thread. If I have time I will make any corrections or additions that I deem proper based on what is posted.
Rights and Freedoms
There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A freedom is something that someone can choose to do without interference. A right is something that someone believes should be provided to people. Freedoms require little or know laws, while rights have laws that detail who gets what, when, where, and how.
For example: Freedom of health care and right to health care. Freedom of health care means that everybody is free to pursue whatever health care they want and can get. The right to health care means that everybody is provided with health care. Comparing the US and Canada: the US has more freedom of health care but fewer health care rights, while in Canada people have less freedom of health care but have more rights to health care.
Rights and freedoms can be contradictory. The creation of new rights often leads to the destruction of freedoms while the creation of new freedoms often leads to the destruction of rights.
For example: Freedom of speech and the right not to be discriminated against through speech are contradictory. For if we limit the use of derogatory terms to increase people's rights not to be discriminated against, we limit the freedom of speech of people to use derogatory terms , and vice versa.
For example: The right to health care limits economic freedom, while more economic freedom may limit health care rights.
Too often rights and freedoms are confused.
For example: "Right to free speech" and "freedom of speech" sound similar and are often used interchangeably. But this is not correct and leads to inaccuracies in arguments. "Freedom of speech" implies that everybody is free to say what they want without interference. The "right to free speech" implies that someone is granted the ability to say what they want freely(presumably by the government). So the "right to free speech" is just that a right, and is granted by some agency (usually the government) which means that agency can also limit it and take it away. While "freedom of speech" implies that no agency can restrict speech.
Sometimes the difference between the freedom to do something and the right to do something becomes murky as seen in the example above. This can lead to inaccurate debates.
Freedoms usually end where rights begin and vice versa. A lot of political debate takes place due to people debating where the balance point between rights and freedoms is.
For example: The freedom to swing my fists usually ends where it begins to infringe on someone else' right not to be punched in the face. Total freedom would allow me to swing my fists even if someone else's face was in the way. Total rights would disallow me from swinging my fists to prevent me from accidently hitting someone else's face. Political and moral debate has usually ended in the balance point of rights and freedoms to where I'm allowed to swing my fist unless it connects, or has a high chance of connecting, with someone else's face.
Being anti-freedom or anti-rights is not always bad as everybody agrees that there whould be some limits on freedoms, so as to create more rights, or some limits on rights, so as to create more freedoms.
Political Scales
There are six scales to measure someone's political values: civil freedom, econonic freedom, political freedom civil rights, economic rights, and political rights. Although, this gets murky when considering international relations, so I'm only going to discuss intra-state politics, not inter-state politics.
There is some overlap between the three areas so no guide is defnitive.
There is also overlap between rights and freedoms, especially concerning political rights and freedoms.
Civil freedom- Freedom concerning personal actions and non-political group actions. Examples of civil freedoms can include: the freedom to ingest drugs, the freedom to choose a sexual partner of someone's preference, freedom of mobility, and the freedom to void oneself in public.
Civil rights- Something personal that is believed should be provided to someone. Examples of civil rights can include: the right to health care, the right to drugs, the right to a sexual partner, the right to void oneself to neighbors.
Economic freedom- Freedom concerning money, property, services, and ownership. Examples of economic freedoms can include: freedom to own property, freedom to protect property from others, and freedom to destroy property.
Economic rights- Something concerning money, property, services, and ownership that is believed should be provided to people. Examples of economic rights can include: right to own a car, right to food, and the right to health care (notice that this can be both an economic and a civil right, depending on how it is framed).
Political freedoms- Freedoms concerning political action. Examples of political freedoms can include: freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.
Political rights- Political abilities or actions that are provided to people. Examples of political rights include: the right to vote, the right of assembly (notice that depending on how this is framed it can be a right or a freedom), and the right of free speech.
Left-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. It is usually used to signify someone who believes in high civil rights and freedoms, high economic rights, and low economic freedoms.
Right-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. Usually used to signify someone who believes in high economic freedoms, moderate civil freedoms, but low economic and civil rights.
General Political Tendencies
Some people due to their personalities, values, goals, and beliefs have some general political tendencies which can be evaluated. As well on every issue there are multiple positions, each of which may fall into one of these general tendencies.
Conservative- A conservative is someone opposed to rapid change. They prefer the status quo or gradual change. Someone can be conservative on one issue but liberal on another.
Liberal- A liberal is someone who believes in change. Someone can be liberal on one issue but conservative on another.
Radical- Someone who wants immediate and drastic change. Often used derogatorily for someone looking forward to an unachievable, utopian dream.
Reactionary- Someone who wants change back to the ways things used to be. Often used derogatorily for someone looking back on a "golden age" that didn't exist or is seen as being better than it actually was.
Centrist- Someone who trys to find a point near the middle of the liberals and conservatives. Against extremes and tries to find a middle ground or happy median. People can be centrist on some issues but not on others.
Authoritarion- The more authoritarian someone is the more they believe that people should be controlled by the laws of the land and the more aspects of people's lives should be controlled by the ruling body. This has little to do with the political structure. There can be authoritarian democracies or non-authoritarion dictatorships.
Centralization- The degree to which a central governing body controls politics. A highly centralized state has one central governing body which controls politics. A high decentralized state has many localized governing bodies with a weak central governing body.
Republicanism- The degree to which a system or ideology believes a citizen should become involved in political affairs. A very republican state has high citizen involvement, a less republican state has low political involvement. Republicanism is also a form of government, so sometimes the two types of republicanism are confused.
Political Ideologies and Systems
These terms are not agreed to by everyone and there is often much debate over what term means what. There is often a dissassociation between theory and practice which furthers confusion. I'm merely providing a basic working definition of these terms. I am not free from bias but will try to be as non-partisan and unbiased as possible. I may come back and change this if someone asks me to and I beleive that it is reasonable, or if I have something else to add or take away. Suggestions are welcome.
Anarchy- This is a state where there is no government and no central ruling body. There are many versions of anarchy, and sometimes there are decentralised councils or other forms of ruling bodies. But pure anarchy has no governing body at all. It is extremely high in all three types of freedom and rights are non-existant (or almost non-existant, depending on the type of anachy).
Capitalism- This is an economic system where government has little or no control over economic affairs. Pure capitalism allows the free market to do as it may in economic matters. Capitalism has extremely high economic freedoms, and few economic rights. Capitalism does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, except sometimes it may limit civil rights which also require economic rights (such as the right to health care) and it may increase civil freedoms that have a bearing on economic freedoms (such as freedom to consume drugs and freedom to purchase and sell drugs may go hand in hand).
Communism, Classical/Marxist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common, but not under a central governing body. There are many economic rights but few economic freedoms. Does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, per se. But many communists of this type believe in a system with high levels of civil and political rights and freedoms.
Communist, Authoritarian/Leninist/Stalinist/Masoist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common and is controlled and distributed by the government. There are (in theory) many economic rights but very few economic freedoms. It does not affect other types of rights and freedoms, per se. But often is accompinied by extremely low levels of civil and political rights.
Confederacy- A type of extremely decentralized federation. The states or provinces within the confederacy are loosely allied for narrow reasons, and the federal governing body's powers are extremely limited. Very high in political freedoms and rights. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms, but due to the weak federal government has a hard time limiting freedoms and a hard time maintaining rights.
Constitutional Monarchy- A monarchy where the monarch's powers are limited by law. Usually has moderately high political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.
Democracy- Means rule of the people. This has led to some debate over what "the people" is and who is a person. There are various forms and definitions of democracy. In pure democracy 50%+1 of people can do whatever they want. Usually is high on political rights and political freedoms, but the levels vary depending on the type of democracy. Democracy does not in and of itself affect the other two types of rights and freedoms.
Dictatorship (Despotism)- Where one person wields political control. Usually has extremely low levels of political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.
Fascism- This is a political system where the state, and the glorification of the state, is the ultimate goal. One person is in charge and runs the state in an authoritarion manner to (in theory) better the position of the state. In fascism, there are few freedoms of any kind, and there are some rights.
Federalism- A system by which there are two or more levels of government each of which is more or less considered equal to the other. In a centralized federation the federal government has the balance of power. In a decentralized federation, the states/provinces hold the balance of political power. Usually high in political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.
Fuedalism- A hierarchical economic system whereby the lowest socio-economic level pays taxes to the level just higher to them, who pays taxes to those just higher than them, and so on until the second highest level pays taxes to the highest socio-economic level. In return each socio-economic level is supposed to protect and support those of lower socio-economic status. A system of no economic and political freedoms and some economic and poltical rights. Has no direct effect on civil and political rights.
Libertarionism (Classical Liberalism)- A system of government in which the government is very small and does not intrude into the lives of citizens. Very high in civil and economic freedoms, with very few civil rights and almost no economic rights. Does not have a direct effect on political rights.
Monarchy- A system of government in which a monarch has absolute political control based on descent (usually patrilineal), justified through a god-given right to rule. Has very few, if any, political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms.
Nazism (National Socialism)- Nazism is not the same as fascism, although the two are often used interchangeably. Nazism is fascism with a racial component. In fascism the state is the goal in Nazism, the state is a tool to racial goals. Other than this difference, read fascism as it is similar.
Oligarcy- Where a small group of individuals control the political structure. Has few political rights and freedoms, and has no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.
Representative Democracy- A democracy in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. High in poltical rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms. Often just called a democracy.
Republicanism (Liberal Democracy)- Similar to representative democracy. A system in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. Also has laws limiting the power of the majority to violate the freedoms of the minority. Moderately high in political freedoms, very high in political rights. Is often somewhat high in civil freedoms and rights dues to protection of minorities. Often reffered to as simply democracy. Do not confuse with the other defintion of republicanism.
Socialist- Sometimes used interchangeably with communism, but is usually viewed as less extreme than communism. An economic system where goods and services are redistributed (to various degrees) to provide more economic equality. Usually is high in economic rights, and low in economic freedoms.
Theocracy- Where government and laws are based upon a religious scripture. Usually has very low civil rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on political or economic rights and freedoms.
Tyranny- A system where one person or group has political control and weilds it solely according to their own desires. Usually completely lacking in freedoms of any kind. May have some rights, but usually not to many.
There's my guide. May it be of use to those who read it. I have tried to be as unbiased, accurate, and non-partisan as possible. If you have any questions, comments, criticisms, or hate mail, post it in the thread. If I have time I will make any corrections or additions that I deem proper based on what is posted.