NationStates Jolt Archive

You won't be able to get many libertarians to agree with many populists, or many conservatives to agree with liberals. But is it possible that the average person of a libertarian alignment may more closely agree with a conservative than they would with a liberal, or vice versa? For example, I agree a great deal with libertarians' rationale and thinking even though I consider myself an absolute conservative, but I dislike populist political ideology at the same level, perhaps even moreso, than liberal ideology, in spite of the fact that theoretically I should agree as much with populist ideology as I do with libertarian ideology. Even though the political 2-dimensional graph has equal distances between ideologies based on society and economics, is there some warping so that some quadrants are closer than others?

Quadrants.. *sigh* .. what a wonderful word. Not foolin'!

Libertarians seems close to Conservatives. Conservatives seem close to Authoritarians. Authoritarians seem close to Facists. Facists seem close to Socialists. Socialists seem close to Liberals. Liberals seem close to Communists. Communists seem close to Libertarians.

1) Liberalism has nothing to do with the Left.

2) Libertarians should get along well with progressives (ie non-conservatives, often leftists) on social issues, and less well in economics, vice versa with conservatives. It depends on the importance the individual libertarian assigns to those things which they choose.

3) Conservatives should get along well with Authoritarians, because they generally try and guard certain lifestyles and control people's private lives. Pinochet is probably the best example. Conservatives (as well as various free-marketeers) loved him.

Libertarians seems close to Conservatives. Conservatives seem close to Authoritarians. Authoritarians seem close to Facists. Facists seem close to Socialists. Socialists seem close to Liberals. Liberals seem close to Communists. Communists seem close to Libertarians.

**OFFICIAL QUOTE OF THE DAY**

**OFFICIAL QUOTE OF THE DAY**

Clearly our only hope of escaping this endless cycle of politics is to embrace a policy of non-politics! Politicians are always talking about politics, why is that? Do they support politics? Why would they support such an evil thing? Why isn't it US policy to get rid of politics?

Stop the Politics!
Religion is the Only Hope!

;)

Clearly our only hope of escaping this endless cycle of politics is to embrace a policy of non-politics! Politicians are always talking about politics, why is that? Do they support politics? Why would they support such an evil thing? Why isn't it US policy to get rid of politics?

Stop the Politics! Religion is the Only Hope! ;)

**RIGHT ON, BROTHA!!**

Libertarians seems close to Conservatives. Conservatives seem close to Authoritarians. Authoritarians seem close to Facists. Facists seem close to Socialists. Socialists seem close to Liberals. Liberals seem close to Communists. Communists seem close to Libertarians.


This is the way it works :D It's best thought of as a circle.

I can't draw circles here but it works a bit like this IMHO



Regulated economy ....................................................free economy
<---------------------------------------------------------------->
Reds & authoritarians...........................Conservatives, Libertarians


Social matters, like gay marriage, drug use, euthanasia


Regulated society..........................................................free society
<-------------------------------------------------------------->
Cons, theos, Reds (on some matters), authori .............. Libertarians, Reds


So, the only consistent and logical choice is to be Libertarian or Authoritarian!!!

Clearly our only hope of escaping this endless cycle of politics is to embrace a policy of non-politics! Politicians are always talking about politics, why is that? Do they support politics? Why would they support such an evil thing? Why isn't it US policy to get rid of politics?

Stop the Politics!
Religion is the Only Hope!

;)

I vote that we replace government with a quasi-evil panda.

Here's my rationale:

1. All politicians are corrupt and self-serving.
2. They are also very competant in their corruption.
3. Quasi-evil pandas are noted for their incompetance.
4. By introducing a ruler who is corrupt, self-serving and incompetant we can guarantee that many of the attempts to be corrupt and self-serving will go wrong.
5. If a plan that is corrupt and self serving goes wrong then logically speaking it must end up being good and noble.
6. Therefore quasi-evil pandas should rule the world.

QED

This is the way it works :D It's best thought of as a circle.

I can't draw circles here but it works a bit like this IMHO



Regulated economy ....................................................free economy
<---------------------------------------------------------------->
Reds & authoritarians...........................Conservatives, Libertarians


Social matters, like gay marriage, drug use, euthanasia


Regulated society..........................................................free society
<-------------------------------------------------------------->
Cons, theos, Reds (on some matters), authori .............. Libertarians, Reds


So, the only consistent and logical choice is to be Libertarian or Authoritarian!!!

On social matters socialists tend to be extremely liberal, what matters were you thinking of?

Yes.









What, you want more?

On social matters socialists tend to be extremely liberal, what matters were you thinking of?

Some socialists remain adamant about drug prohibition and that it must remain.

Some socialists remain adamant about drug prohibition and that it must remain.

Ah, I see.

I would fall into that camp, drugs are a major cause of crime.

I also read a story in the newspaper this morning about a woman who was nearly strangled to death by a friend of her's who'd become psycotic after taking cannabis.

On social matters socialists tend to be extremely liberal, what matters were you thinking of?

Well, all that stuff that reds tend to repress, y'know, little things like multi-party politics and so on, censorship by the state, lack of individual liberty and freedom, lack of free speech. Minor things like that.

A lecturer at some red rally, now I can't say how true it is cos I read it in a newspaper (or maybe I dreamt it?, anywho). Said lecturer gets up to speak and is not allowed to refer to capitalism as it offends the marxists. He's not allowed to refer to men as it upsets the feminists. He can't wear his leather shoes or belt because it upsets the vegetarians. And in the end you have a naked lecturer who can't speak at all :D

A funny (and largely made up) story to illustrate the point that lefties can be a touch ... ummmm ... censorious about things they don't like.

Plus there was something else. But I've forgotten now.

I vote that we replace government with a quasi-evil panda.

Here's my rationale:

1. All politicians are corrupt and self-serving.
2. They are also very competant in their corruption.
3. Quasi-evil pandas are noted for their incompetance.
4. By introducing a ruler who is corrupt, self-serving and incompetant we can guarantee that many of the attempts to be corrupt and self-serving will go wrong.
5. If a plan that is corrupt and self serving goes wrong then logically speaking it must end up being good and noble.
6. Therefore quasi-evil pandas should rule the world.

QED

THIS IS POLITICAL GENIUS !!!!

Support OQEPOV!!!! (one quasi evil panda, one vote. he/she/it is the panda and it gets the vote!!!)

Facists seem close to Socialists.No. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Not even remotely close. Try again, please.

Ah, I see.

I would fall into that camp, drugs are a major cause of crime.

I also read a story in the newspaper this morning about a woman who was nearly strangled to death by a friend of her's who'd become psycotic after taking cannabis.


Wow! One of those strange, terrifying and blatantly not true crime stories!

No. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Not even remotely close. Try again, please.


Jerusalas does have a point. The phrase political spectrum is misleading. It's better thought of as a circle. Fascism is, in some respects quite close to Socialism and Communism. The insistence on dictatorship for a start. And remember that the word 'nazi' is an anglicised acronym of NSDAP which is something like the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Hitler definitely followed some aspects of socialist thought.

Jerusalas does have a point. The phrase political spectrum is misleading. It's better thought of as a circle. Fascism is, in some respects quite close to Socialism and Communism. The insistence on dictatorship for a start. And remember that the word 'nazi' is an anglicised acronym of NSDAP which is something like the National Socialist German Workers' Party
*sigh* no, too dull a way to fritter away the afternoon.

Enjoy.

Jerusalas does have a point. The phrase political spectrum is misleading. It's better thought of as a circle. Fascism is, in some respects quite close to Socialism and Communism. The insistence on dictatorship for a start. And remember that the word 'nazi' is an anglicised acronym of NSDAP which is something like the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Hitler definitely followed some aspects of socialist thought.

The Nazi Party wanted, specifically, to promote socialist reforms. It's just that said socialist reforms would only apply to German citizens and, if you were a Jew (or a naturalised foreigner, or a second or third generation naturalized foreigner), you were not a German citizen.

They promoted the ownership of all companies by the government, and better rights and priveligdes for workers (who didn't strike). If you want, I can dig up the Nazi Party's charter and post it.

The Nazi Party wanted, specifically, to promote socialist reforms. It's just that said socialist reforms would only apply to German citizens and, if you were a Jew (or a naturalised foreigner, or a second or third generation naturalized foreigner), you were not a German citizen.

They promoted the ownership of all companies by the government, and better rights and priveligdes for workers (who didn't strike). If you want, I can dig up the Nazi Party's charter and post it.


Right...Nazi Germany and Soveit Russia werent that different, in fact "If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground." http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php

i would vote on economics before i would vote on social issues

so i can allign myself with conservatives i suppose

Right...Nazi Germany and Soveit Russia werent that different, in fact "If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground." http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php


Good link. that pretty much gets right to the point of the thread. An' it's even got quadrants!!!!:D

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php


Wow, I never thought of myself as an extremist. But it looks like I am. I is a right-wing libertarian - the only one it seems!!! Economically, I'm to the right of the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour, and I'm more libertarian than them too.

Where are you?

For example, I agree a great deal with libertarians' rationale and thinking even though I consider myself an absolute conservative

which only goes to show that most 'libertarians' aren't actually as big on liberty as they are on opposing the welfare state and promoting power and status hierarchies - since that's precisely the common ground between them and american style conservatives.

conservatives would be appalled by libertarianism worthy of the name.

Jerusalas does have a point. The phrase political spectrum is misleading. It's better thought of as a circle.

no it isn't. it is better thought of as an n-dimensional hypercube, but we can simplify that down a bit for any particular political culture. the circle thing is useless.

Fascism is, in some respects quite close to Socialism and Communism.

maybe incidentally, though that depends entirely on the circumstances of the particular fascism in question. but not in any of its fundamentals. it starts from completely different premises and aims at completely different ends.

conservatives would be appalled by libertarianism worthy of the name.
Conservatives tend to be frightened by anarchy.

Conservatives tend to be frightened by anarchy.

or any sweeping social revolution, such as supposedly proposed by even mainstream american libertarians.

You won't be able to get many libertarians to agree with many populists, or many conservatives to agree with liberals. But is it possible that the average person of a libertarian alignment may more closely agree with a conservative than they would with a liberal, or vice versa? For example, I agree a great deal with libertarians' rationale and thinking even though I consider myself an absolute conservative, but I dislike populist political ideology at the same level, perhaps even moreso, than liberal ideology, in spite of the fact that theoretically I should agree as much with populist ideology as I do with libertarian ideology. Even though the political 2-dimensional graph has equal distances between ideologies based on society and economics, is there some warping so that some quadrants are closer than others?
You're probably not an "absolute conservative", then.

So, the only consistent and logical choice is to be Libertarian or Authoritarian!!!
This is an absurdly simplistic way to think about politics. Firstly, it is capitalism-centric. Communists believe that their way is economic freedom as much as capitalists believe that there way is.

Also, who on earth takes the question, "how much freedom should I limit?" as a starting point to their ideology? No-one. Also, many of us put considerations other than freedom at top of the political agenda.

I would fall into that camp, drugs are a major cause of crime.

I also read a story in the newspaper this morning about a woman who was nearly strangled to death by a friend of her's who'd become psycotic after taking cannabis.
I don't want to derail the thread, but on drugs, isn't it funny how only the already-illegal drugs seem to cause crime? Isn't it funny how prohibitionists never realise that legalisation would put violent gangsters utterly out of business?

Nazis promoted the ownership of all companies by the government
No, they didn't.

which only goes to show that most 'libertarians' aren't actually as big on liberty as they are on opposing the welfare state and promoting power and status hierarchies - since that's precisely the common ground between them and american style conservatives.
I don't blame them. I rate workers' rights and economics in general above abortion and other social issues. Economics is more important.

Wow, I never thought of myself as an extremist. But it looks like I am. I is a right-wing libertarian - the only one it seems!!! Economically, I'm to the right of the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour, and I'm more libertarian than them too.

Where are you?

Well I would say some sort of economically right wing socially centrist kinda guy...It says I'm Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.97

So thats puts me to the right almost all the way to the right economically, yet more towards the middle between Authoritarian and Libertarian. (closer to authoritian...probably because of my views on religion and gay marriage)

I don't know...there are so many political ideologies that splinter off of others that they are all aligned with other ideologies at some point in time.

Generally, you would group them more according to their relative value placed on personal freedom rather than a right-left spectrum, with it further subdivided according to the various types of freedom. Of course, this doesn't take in to account the dozens of smaller ideologies. (I personally consider myself a techno-utopian transhumanist progressive neoliberal, but...)

No, they didn't.

11 Abolition of incomes not earned by work.
13 We demand nationalization of all businesses (trusts)....
14 We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared.

Happy?

lefties can be a touch ... ummmm ... censorious about things they don't like.

Whereas those on the right just shut up when they see something that offends them... they're all so polite. Rush Limbaugh is a model of decorum...

Whereas those on the right just shut up when they see something that offends them... they're all so polite. Rush Limbaugh is a model of decorum...

First of all, I like Rush.

Second of all...I dont know what things are like over there in England, but here in America, its the lefties that dont shut up if they see something they dont like. Whether it be God in the pledge of allegiance, God on the money, 10 commandments in buildings like courts, or, that we arnt taking action into our own hands concerning Iran, but rather are making the mistake of waiting for our European allies to do it, when they said the EXACT opposite about Iraq, that we were too rash and made the mistake of NOT waiting for our European allies. I swear to God Hillary Clinton said that. Jesus I have no faith in people like her.

Happy?
You'll have to show me a link, because I know for a fact that they didn't nationalise anything.

You'll have to show me a link, because I know for a fact that they didn't nationalise anything.
*gasp*

A politician that promised one thing and did another? Never!

The Nazis did what it took to get into power, which meant saying they would nationalize this and that. It doesn't mean they ever actually did it. That's why the party line can say one thing and the actual result can be totally separate. I'm betting they didn't include "extermination of all the jews, homosexuals, mentally handicapped people and gypsies" in the party handbook, but that didn't stop them in the end.

Stop the Politics!
Religion is the Only Hope!


Religion is nothing but politics, only with mythology dictating the politics instead of realworld situations.

no it isn't. it is better thought of as an n-dimensional hypercube, but we can simplify that down a bit for any particular political culture. the circle thing is useless.



:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Dangerous Animals
lefties can be a touch ... ummmm ... censorious about things they don't like.

Whereas those on the right just shut up when they see something that offends them... they're all so polite. Rush Limbaugh is a model of decorum...


Depends on which kinda rightist you're on about. I know lots of authoritarian rightists will have views I don't agree with, but, as long as no-one is forced to live values they don't believe in then they can say and do what they like.

Lots of people in the UK adore the Monarchy. Personally, I think they're a bunch of scroungers. But hey, not everyone shares my views, so if people want to buy and read books about the Royals and have pics of them on their wall, good for them. Not my business to tell them how to live their lives.

Same goes for religious stuff - it's just not my cup of tea at all, so you (or anyone else) can head off down the Temple, Church or Mosque on your religious day and pray to your God and, just as long as you don't make me do it, I won't whinge about it.

Same with helping the poor. You may want to help the poor, give to charity. I don't/can't. Does that make me a bad person? Yes/possibly/no. Point is, I shouldn't be forced to pay any more tax than the bare minimum, but I actually am forced to pay a lot of tax (GBP 700 in this month's pay packet :eek: ) - so I do whinge about that because I'm forced to live by a value-set I don't believe in.

I'm a libertarian, who took a political poll, and scored in the 1st percentile out of all scored as likely to be Marxist, so I guess I'm about as non-communist as you can get. But part of my libertarian beliefs is that countries have the right to choose their own laws democratically, so I have little problem with Chavez, for example, doing what Chavez does, in his own country.

First of all, I like Rush.

Second of all...I dont know what things are like over there in England, but here in America, its the lefties that dont shut up if they see something they dont like.
This just seems a little bit off to me:
You listen to Limbaugh, but you don't think that the conservatives ever whine about things they don't like?