NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2007.png

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian. That is absolutely laughable and just plain absurd. Then it lists the Democrats (except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment) as center-right (meaning inconsistent Capitalist) and the non-Ron Paul Republicans as pure right (meaning pure Capitalist). The Democratic Party should be listed as center-left (meaning moderate Communist), especially since they are promoting instituting Socialism, despite its horrible track record. The Republicans (other than Ron Paul) should be center-right, because they usually support Capitalism, though they are inconsistent (they support Socialist programs to increase the profits of corporations, such as the FDA, Medicare Part D, the Federal Reserve, the Security-Industrial Complex, and the Military-Industrial Complex). Kucinich and Gravel should be listed as far left, center-left, because they are among the most consistent advocates of Socialism. Ron Paul should be listed as far more libertarian and slightly further to the right.

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong as relates to the presidential candidates proves that it is useless as a measure of political beliefs. I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results (for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).

Ron Paul is not as libertarian as you think.

For example, view this (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm). Pro-life, anti-stem cell, against gay adoption, tough border control, supports an amendment for school prayer.

And the Democrats are hardly socialist. Just left-leaning.

The Democrats are about as left-leaning as my right hand.

you clearly have no idea what socialism entails.

He's one of those people who believes that any policy that perhaps leans left is pure outright full blown socialism. I'm against socialism myself, but the wild accusations many US libertarians and conservatives make against liberals is insane.

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian.

Notice how close to the line between authoritarian and libertarian he is. Notice how far to the right he is. Libertarian, in the political compass, is about actual LIBERTY. If you want Libertarian, you wanna look at how far to the right they are. In that sense, he is perfectly positioned.

Then it lists the Democrats (except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment)

You'll notice that anti-economic freedom is what gets them on the left.

Anti-2nd Amendment is why they're hovering so close to the middle line.

as center-right (meaning inconsistent Capitalist)

No, just meaning capitalist. The ones closer to the middle may be more inconsistent though. It's still right on target though.

and the non-Ron Paul Republicans as pure right (meaning pure Capitalist).

Isn't that what the republicans list themselves as?

The Democratic Party should be listed as center-left (meaning moderate Communist)

Hahahahahah! Let me just finish laughing here. You think the democrats have ANYTHING in common with even the most moderate of communists?

, especially since they are promoting instituting Socialism, despite its horrible track record.

They're not even close to instituting socialism.

The Republicans (other than Ron Paul) should be center-right, because they usually support Capitalism, though they are inconsistent (they support Socialist programs to increase the profits of corporations

Socialist programs to increase the profits of corporations...

...do you even know what socialism is about?

the Federal Reserve

A distinctly capitalist notion, as it allows banks (another capitalist notion) to regulate the value of currency, yet another capitalist notion.

Kucinich and Gravel should be listed as far left, center-left, because they are among the most consistent advocates of Socialism.

You've proven yourself unaware of what socialism is.

Ron Paul should be listed as far more libertarian and slightly further to the right.

Ron Paul is fine where he is. Libertarian means LIBERTY, not Libertarian.

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong

No, it is not wrong. It's just that the US is far more right and authoritarian than the rest of the world.

(for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).

The political compass is far more universal. If you list Democrats as socialist, what the hell do you list the socialist people here in Denmark as? Communist? What do you list the communist party as? Off the charts?

No, it is you who fails to see that the US is, as I've already said, far more right and authoritarian than even americans see.

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian. But only very slightly so.
You seem to be interpreting the scales of left-right and libertarian-authoritarian as binary.

Then it lists the Democrats (except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment) as center-right (meaning inconsistent Capitalist) and the non-Ron Paul Republicans as pure right (meaning pure Capitalist). Well they are; none of them are hard-core commies.
Even the most leftish politicians in America are very right-wing compared to lefties from the rest of the world.


Meh, whatever.. Just transpose all politicians a few inches to the bottom left if that fits your world view better. They're not objective scales anyway.

Ron Paul is not as libertarian as you think.

For example, view this (http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm). Pro-life, anti-stem cell, against gay adoption, tough border control, supports an amendment for school prayer.

And the Democrats are hardly socialist. Just left-leaning.

You're linking to that "On the Issues" site of dubious accuracy instead of to the radical Libertarian websites (such as the ones I read daily) that are strongly for Ron Paul. Libertarians have legitimate disagreement over abortion. Some are pro-choice, but the radical libertarians tend to be either middle-of-the-road (that is, they're opposed to killing any baby who can survive outside the womb) or pro-life (because an unborn baby is a living being and libertarians oppose aggression). Ron Paul isn't against stem cell research (I don't know where you got that idea), but he is against government funding of it (as all libertarians are, because the market should decide whether or not to utilize stem cell research and the fact that the government is being lobbied to fund it casts doubt on its potential for success). He isn't against gay adoption, but he definitely is against government funding for that purpose (as all libertarians are). Libertarians are not always for open borders either (under pure libertarianism, all land would be privately owned and what is currently considered immigration would be trespassing). Libertarians are not opposed to school prayer, provided that it is voluntary (if it is a public school, though a private school has the right to require prayers since they own their property and anybody who wishes not to participate should simply not attend that school). Ron Paul's stances on the "social" issues are not incompatible with libertarianism. Anybody who thinks that has absolutely no clue what libertarianism is (though people often claim that libertarians are "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative," that isn't accurate, as no libertarian supports aggressive war, libertarians oppose the corporate welfare advocated by conservatives, and libertarians may disagree on the social issues).

To claim that the Democrats aren't socialists is absurd. All of them are calling for the government to nationalize health care, to ensure Universal(lly poor) Healthcare. They have never abandoned the New Deal and never actually ended welfare (the claim that Clinton tore apart the New Deal that the extreme left makes is a lie, but the extreme left has been lying for so long that you can't take them at face value). The Democrats are promoting class war politics (for example, the left still believes that those innocent lacrosse players are guilty and that Nifong botched his investigation, because they don't care about the truth or about justice, only about class war politics). It is an absurdity to say that the Democrats aren't socialists (meaning "moderate Communist").

Does anyone have the positions of non-US politicians on the same scale ?

And: people claiming the US-democrats as socialists don't know what they're talking about, US-democrats are a center-right political movement, yes they do claim some socialist measures, but their overall policies are very much center-right. The US is just soo scared of actual left-wing movements since the cold war that they call anyone who isn't a diehard capitalist, a comunist...

I often think the US-republicans have some need to call the US-democrats left wing, because if the US-democrats are placed in the correct (center-right) spot, the US-republicans get pushed of very close to extreme right, which, ofcourse, they don't want to be associated with.

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong as relates to the presidential candidates proves that it is useless as a measure of political beliefs. I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results (for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).

Of course it's useless. The measures of right/left/etc... are meaningless. You really need to measure one's political philosophy in other terms. How one approaches social and fiscal issues is a good way. Why, because one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time -- Something this quiz doesn't seem to get.

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian. That is absolutely laughable and just plain absurd. Then it lists the Democrats (except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment) as center-right (meaning inconsistent Capitalist) and the non-Ron Paul Republicans as pure right (meaning pure Capitalist). The Democratic Party should be listed as center-left (meaning moderate Communist), especially since they are promoting instituting Socialism, despite its horrible track record. The Republicans (other than Ron Paul) should be center-right, because they usually support Capitalism, though they are inconsistent (they support Socialist programs to increase the profits of corporations, such as the FDA, Medicare Part D, the Federal Reserve, the Security-Industrial Complex, and the Military-Industrial Complex). Kucinich and Gravel should be listed as far left, center-left, because they are among the most consistent advocates of Socialism. Ron Paul should be listed as far more libertarian and slightly further to the right.

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong as relates to the presidential candidates proves that it is useless as a measure of political beliefs. I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results (for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).

Translation: "This doesn't agree with my opinion. It said things I don't like, so it's wrong."

The further right you are on political compass, the more economically liberal you are. The further down, the more socially liberal you are. That's all it measures, it's not exactly rocket science. I use liberal in it's proper sense here.

And to the OP: Did you read the FAQ on the site? Try this question. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq20)

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian.
He is. You don't see anyone bitching the 'liberals' are 'right authoritarians.' Move on.

Does anyone have the positions of non-US politicians on the same scale ?http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

a more up to date figure:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif

Well, you have to remember that the center of political debate in the US is to the right of many liberal European nations. As such, what you deem to be liberal might actually be considered quite conservative in, let's say, Sweden.

And wait until you get into my country. We're much, much to the right of you folks, I might as well be labeled a radical.

oh noes!!! your super-duper Mr. Wonderful Ron Paul ain't as Libertarian as you thought/hoped/had been fooled into thinking he was.
Worse, those ebil nasty commie Dems aren't as leftist as you imagined and, as such, wouldn't lead your country into an evil Stalinist nightmare if elected into the Whitehouse.

Whatever can you do about it?
re-evaluate your own personal political beliefs and realise just how naturally right-leaning the USA political scene is;
or
dismiss this discovery as a 'fraud' and 'inaccurate' and thus save yourself the time and bother from self-introspection and enlightenment.

which to choose, which to choose, which to choose...

He's one of those people who believes that any policy that perhaps leans left is pure outright full blown socialism. I'm against socialism myself, but the wild accusations many US libertarians and conservatives make against liberals is insane.

That kind of policy overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh, possibly the best leader Iran ever had, and made a laughingstock of democracy in the Middle East.

Just a little food for thought here.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

a more up to date figure:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif

Thanks

I hope the OP takes note and sees that the compass he posted is actually pretty acurate.

Thanks

I hope the OP takes note and sees that the compass he posted is actually pretty acurate.
The only issue I have with the above graph is the Dalai Lama's position. I think he's a lot more authoritarian than that. Read up his views on sexuality - pro-life, anti-masturbation, anti-gay, heck he even goes so far as to say we're not to have sex during the day!

Libertarians have legitimate disagreement over abortion.

Regardless, he isn't socially liberal, as he is not going to let people make their own choice. Socially liberal in the extreme would be to let people have abortions, even if you're against it.

Libertarians are not always for open borders either (under pure libertarianism, all land would be privately owned and what is currently considered immigration would be trespassing).

Again, putting him further towards authority than liberty.

Ron Paul's stances on the "social" issues are not incompatible with libertarianism.

Libertarianism on the scale does not represent your ideology - it represents social liberty.

To claim that the Democrats aren't socialists is absurd. All of them are calling for the government to nationalize health care, to ensure Universal(lly poor) Healthcare.

Once the democrats push for free education, paying students to study, free healthcare (mine is, btw, more efficient than your healthcare. Lots of people link the sources all the time, but I'm kinda busy, so I can't be bothered), actually providing houses for the homeless, oppurtunities for drug addicts to reintregate themselves into society and giving enough in welfare for people to live on, then I will maybe call them socialist.

(for example, the left

What left? The democrats who are, gasp, all on the right?

It is an absurdity to say that the Democrats aren't socialists (meaning "moderate Communist").

They don't even get close to being socialist.

The only issue I have with the above graph is the Dalai Lama's position. I think he's a lot more authoritarian than that. Read up his views on sexuality - pro-life, anti-masturbation, anti-gay, heck he even goes so far as to say we're not to have sex during the day!

Indeed, indeed.

The problem is that different cultures have different positions on various things. Remember the 2000 election between Gore and Bush? It was so evenly divided that they needed SEVEN WEEKS to finally establish a winner. In Canada, it would have been over the first day, as Bush would've taken Alberta while Gore swept everything else. In Iran (pretending for the moment that they really DID have free and fair election, and pretending that having both candidates being nonmuslim wasn't an issue), however, Bush would have won by a wide margin.

So yes, democrats are leftist WITH RESPECT TO AMERICA, but they are centrist or slightly rightist with respect to the whole world. Those moderate republicans, meanwhile, would are a bit rightist here in the use but would be solidly to the right if you take the whole world into account.

It's always seemed to me that the Compass places U.S. politicians kind of inaccurately. I don't have a problem with Democrats being on the economic center-right, but they (and Rep. Paul) probably ought to be on the other side of the horizontal axis (placing them... gasp! In the "libertarian" quadrant!).

It also really surprises me that they've got Clinton and Edwards as the most socially liberal of the mainstream Democrats.

Lastly, Ron Paul isn't really even that good of a libertarian. :p

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong as relates to the presidential candidates proves that it is useless as a measure of political beliefs. I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results (for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).

US Democrats ARE conservatives.

Why, because one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time -- Something this quiz doesn't seem to get.Actually, the quiz gets this perfectly. What the OP doesn't get is that there aren't any presidential candidates on the graph that ze posted that fit these criteria.

US Democrats ARE conservatives.

Compared to where you live, perhaps. But globally, our party is centrist. Sure, some democrats are conservative, but others are liberal.

Compared to where you live, perhaps. But globally, our party is centrist. Sure, some democrats are conservative, but others are liberal.

Only if compared to the modern GOP could the Dems be considered in the remotest sense of the word "centrist".

Compared to where you live, perhaps. But globally, our party is centrist. Sure, some democrats are conservative, but others are liberal.

No, the Democratic Party is conservative.

Compared to where you live, perhaps. But globally, our party is centrist. Sure, some democrats are conservative, but others are liberal.

Compared to the Left in any other country, US Democrats are decidedly conservative.

Why, because one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time -- Something this quiz doesn't seem to get.
Sure it does. Look at the damn quiz.

Sure it does. Look at the damn quiz.

Ignore him. He's on the Ron Paul is the best libertarian ever bandwagon.

the radical libertarians tend to be ... pro-life.Buh? Over here in Europe being a radical libertarian in terms of abortion means advocating a woman's right to have an abortion up until the day before she gives birth... and very, very rarely, beyond as well. This is because the foetus/baby is not considered to be alive in its own right. Nor yet have any meaningful connection with another human, and therefore, for want a better word, no 'soul' yet.

That was what made me raise my eyebrows the most. But all the rest of it was almost as nonsensical.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2007.png

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian. That is absolutely laughable and just plain absurd. Then it lists the Democrats (except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment) as center-right (meaning inconsistent Capitalist) and the non-Ron Paul Republicans as pure right (meaning pure Capitalist). The Democratic Party should be listed as center-left (meaning moderate Communist), especially since they are promoting instituting Socialism, despite its horrible track record. The Republicans (other than Ron Paul) should be center-right, because they usually support Capitalism, though they are inconsistent (they support Socialist programs to increase the profits of corporations, such as the FDA, Medicare Part D, the Federal Reserve, the Security-Industrial Complex, and the Military-Industrial Complex). Kucinich and Gravel should be listed as far left, center-left, because they are among the most consistent advocates of Socialism. Ron Paul should be listed as far more libertarian and slightly further to the right.

The fact that the Political Compass is self-evidently wrong as relates to the presidential candidates proves that it is useless as a measure of political beliefs. I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results (for example, it would never list the Democrats as being moderate conservatives).
Hmm? Whatever your standards are on the politicians' placements, that isn't quite relevant to the concept ITSELF. I came here more so expecting something about the concept, which is the same general concept being used by the Nolan Chart; dividing the views that it associates with each other into two dimensions.

However, I think the idea ITSELF is flawed; while it does split up the views into 2-D rather than a line, making it better than the political spectrum, it still associates many separate opinions with each other at the same time. This would seem to make sense with regards to "more or less capitalistic" and "more or less socially libertarian" but even issues within these have room for further variation.

For example, if you would label opposition to interventialist foreign policy as part of the "socially libertarian" component, then how widely would this be applied? Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq War, did that make the "liberal" label apply to him? I doubt it; according to Wikipedia, he was against abortion, homosexuality, and even birth control, while some "conservatives" (in quotation marks because one has to wonder how much meaning that label has) like Sean Hannity are in favour of the Iraq War AND birth control; if being against the Iraq War is "socially libertarian" and being against birth control is "socially authoritarian" then would that imply that the two contradict each other? Even on the "more or less socially libertarian" axis, Hannity and Pope John Paul II would be closer to each other than either would to someone who is for the Iraq War and against birth control or for birth control and against the Iraq War. That suggests that even a separate axis for social vs economic still wouldn't genuinely reflect opinions.

Now for an example even within the Nolan Chart, and I assume you're referring to this: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Provided that in this hypothetical example, two people agreed with each other on all the questions except for the one about sex and the one about drugs; person 1 chose option A for the one about sex and option D for the one about drugs, and person 2 chose option D for the one about sex and option A for the one about drugs. These people disagree on both issues, yet they would be given the same position on that chart, then if someone else chose option A for both issues or option D for both issues, they would be given a different position than the first two people, despite that both person 1 and person 2 would have more common ground with the third person than they would with each other. So it still doesn't represent different opinions very well, because it doesn't take into account how separate these opinions are; this has more to do with the concept.

Add on top of that how the very concept doesn't take into account other factors than opinions being represented, such as let's say how informed someone is about the issues, and you've got a bit of a mess.

But the only way to make sure two people with nonidentical votes have nonidentical positions is to use an n-dimensional graph where n is the number of questions determining your position, and humans can't deal with a 48-dimensional graph!

Therefore you're forced to either use a near-trivial number of questions (2, or 3) or use multiple questions that share an axis.

But the only way to make sure two people with nonidentical votes have nonidentical positions is to use an n-dimensional graph where n is the number of questions determining your position, and humans can't deal with a 48-dimensional graph!

Therefore you're forced to either use a near-trivial number of questions (2, or 3) or use multiple questions that share an axis.
No we're not. We should instead consider that maybe opinions aren't something that should be "measured" in the first place.

Though if for some reason we must (if so, I think that's a problem in itself to begin with) I suppose it would be somewhat reasonable to settle for a 2-D chart instead of a line, but at the same time just remember that being closer to each other on such chart doesn't necessarily mean their opinions are more similar.

oh noes!!! your super-duper Mr. Wonderful Ron Paul ain't as Libertarian as you thought/hoped/had been fooled into thinking he was.
Worse, those ebil nasty commie Dems aren't as leftist as you imagined and, as such, wouldn't lead your country into an evil Stalinist nightmare if elected into the Whitehouse.

Whatever can you do about it?
re-evaluate your own personal political beliefs and realise just how naturally right-leaning the USA political scene is;
or
dismiss this discovery as a 'fraud' and 'inaccurate' and thus save yourself the time and bother from self-introspection and enlightenment.

which to choose, which to choose, which to choose...


Hmm? Which would be easier and involve less thought? You're right! It's so hard to choose.:rolleyes:

Buh? Over here in Europe being a radical libertarian in terms of abortion means advocating a woman's right to have an abortion up until the day before she gives birth... and very, very rarely, beyond as well. This is because the foetus/baby is not considered to be alive in its own right. Nor yet have any meaningful connection with another human, and therefore, for want a better word, no 'soul' yet.

That was what made me raise my eyebrows the most. But all the rest of it was almost as nonsensical.

The Big-L Libertarian party in the US is basically just a scam to suck pot-smoking college boys into the Republican Party. All they really care about is taxes and any form of business regulation, both of which they oppose. Civil liberties and drug legalization they give lip service to, nothing more. And frankly, a whore gives better lip service.

Translation: "This doesn't agree with my opinion. It said things I don't like, so it's wrong."That was kind of my take on the OP. I personally rarely disagree with the compass, which is why it's on my sig.

You're linking to that "On the Issues" site of dubious accuracy instead of to the radical Libertarian websites (such as the ones I read daily) You know since they're "racdical Libertarian Websites" don't you think they might be, oh, UNTRUTHFUL AND BIASED!!!!

The Big-L Libertarian party in the US is basically just a scam to suck pot-smoking college boys into the Republican Party. All they really care about is taxes and any form of business regulation, both of which they oppose. Civil liberties and drug legalization they give lip service to, nothing more. And frankly, a whore gives better lip service. I call it the "THE MARKET WILL SAVE THE WORLD" Party.

AKA the Bullsh*t party.



PS: Ron Paul has no concept of reality and would glady let millions starve in the street in the name of "Getting rid of a nanny state".

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2007.png



Actually, this just confirms everything that a large number of people on NS already knew.

This also gives me even more reason to vote third party in November 08.

The Big-L Libertarian party in the US is basically just a scam to suck pot-smoking college boys into the Republican Party. All they really care about is taxes and any form of business regulation, both of which they oppose. Civil liberties and drug legalization they give lip service to, nothing more. And frankly, a whore gives better lip service.
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9903/lolz20catti4.jpg

Niice pussy!!!

~snip long quote worth quoting, but too long~

This is a far better way to analyse it and prove that it has faults.

Firstly, this supposedly accurate measurement of political beliefs has the only Libertarian who is running for president (Ron Paul) as an Authoritarian. That is absolutely laughable and just plain absurd.


The "Authoritarian-Libertarian" axis measures position on civil rights and liberties. When the quiz uses the word "libertarian" it does not mean "How closely you match to the U.S. Libertarian Party;" instead, it means "liberal position on civil rights and liberties." As has already been pointed out by other posters, Ron Paul takes very conservative positions on many issues, including abortion and immigration.


(except for Gravel and Kucinich, who are ironically listed as Libertarians, even though they are anti-economic freedom and anti-2nd Amendment)


Again, the "Authoritarian-Libertarian" axis measures position on civil rights and liberties, NOT economic position. The "Left-Right" axis measures economic position in terms of "collectivist vs. individualist." When the quiz says "libertarian" it does not mean "U.S. Libertarian Party."


The Democratic Party should be listed as center-left (meaning moderate Communist), especially since they are promoting instituting Socialism, despite its horrible track record.


The Political Compass quiz is made and operated in Europe. Thus, the political spectrum presented by it is that of Europe. The policy of most "extreme" American Democrat is at best an almost perfect centrist in European politics. And I don't think that Europeans would consider an authoritarian-corporate-capitalist-with-the-occasional-food-stamp party as "moderate Communist."

Then again, it's my observation that the average U.S. Libertarian Party member considers even looking at another human being a manifestation of communism.


I personally would place far more trust in the Nolan Chart as a measure of political beliefs because it gets far more accurate results


Where "accurate results" means "Any deviation from agreement with the U.S. Libertarian Party platform is authoritarianism."

Tell me, where does this family of ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism) go on the Nolan Chart?

"Authoritarianism, of course." :rolleyes:

In a somewhat more serious vein. I'm not a fan of the Nolan chart, but relative to the other, "contenders," Ron Paul appears to be about where he belongs. More freedom of commerce than any of the others and more social freedom than most of the others. I really don't know from Gravel, but Kucinich does seem to belong more in the social freedom and more in the regulation of commerce camp than Paul. So what, really is the problem here?

Hillary, Obama, et al are more to the right(authoritarian-capitalist) than I am? Wow, that's a surprise...:rolleyes:

Ron Paul is fine where he is. Libertarian means LIBERTY, not Libertarian.


2+2=5

No fucking way! Libertarians are not Libertarians!?!?!?! That blows my fucking mind!

You are so far gone you are literally convincing yourself that a word does not mean what it means? Just like the doublethink thing above?

2+2=5

No fucking way! Libertarians are not Libertarians!?!?!?! That blows my fucking mind!

You are so far gone you are literally convincing yourself that a word does not mean what it means? Just like the doublethink thing above?

Have you ever thought that perhaps people are not what they claim to be?

Have you ever thought that perhaps people are not what they claim to be?

That's not what he said. Maybe he should watch what he says more carefully?

You know since they're "racdical Libertarian Websites" don't you think they might be, oh, UNTRUTHFUL AND BIASED!!!!

I call it the "THE MARKET WILL SAVE THE WORLD" Party.

AKA the Bullsh*t party.



PS: Ron Paul has no concept of reality and would glady let millions starve in the street in the name of "Getting rid of a nanny state".
Exactly. The libertarians are the "go in live and let God sort them out" social party. I don't trust Libertarians as far as I can kick them over a cliff because their primary point is "all hail the 'invisible hand'!" Then Ron Paul gets worse with his authoritarian advocation of stopping federal courts from doing their job in relation to sexual orientation & practice, homosexual marriage, and religious expression laws.

2+2=5

No fucking way! Libertarians are not Libertarians!?!?!?! That blows my fucking mind!

You are so far gone you are literally convincing yourself that a word does not mean what it means? Just like the doublethink thing above?

Libertarian =/= [US] Libertarian Party member.
Welcome to twenty posts ago.

Short answer to post beneath: Find the context. Understand it. Re-read. Notice your error. Apologize.

2+2=5

No fucking way! Libertarians are not Libertarians!?!?!?! That blows my fucking mind!

You are so far gone you are literally convincing yourself that a word does not mean what it means? Just like the doublethink thing above?

Long answer:
This is the political compass we're talking about. The political compass defines you on two scales: Whether you're economically left or right (collectivism, individualism) and whether you're socially liberally or authoritarian.

Now, being socially liberal is called, by the compass, Libertarian. The entire reason this thread exist is because someone misunderstood that this compass comes before the libertarian party of the US and therefore used the word libertarian as meaning social liberty as opposed to economic liberty.

We've been trying to explain this time and time again, but I am getting closer and closer to just starting a rant on how libertarians fail to see that libertarian could actually mean more than one thing, just like every word in the english language. You see the word like that I used? That one has two distinct meanings, as does Libertarian.

If you want to be Libertarian on the political compass then, going by what has been posted and what we know of libertarians, you should be pretty far to the right on the scale, which essentially means the following:
You want people to have individual economic freedom, as opposed to collectivism.

Now, where would the Libertarian philosophy lie on the social scale? Would you be closer to Libertarian (i.e. socially liberal) or Authoritarian (the opposite, clearly). Judging from what has been said and written, it seems most people would find themselves either in the middle or a bit above, closer to authoritarian, with some "radicals" finding themselves closer to Libertarian (which means, I stress again, for social liberty).

So it can vary on the up down scale, basically.

Now tell me, do you understand the two meanings of Libertarian, the context in which it is used and why the original poster is wrong in his assesment that it is flawed? Do you also understand why a later poster better explained what truly is flawed about the compass?

Let me sum it up for you, again, if you didn't:
Libertarian has two meanings. In the compass, it is social liberty, in your mind, it is a political party.
The closer to the middle you are, the less clear it becomes which answers you chose. The closer to the edge, the more exact the compass becomes.