Vox Day is a syndicated columnist and Christian Libertarian.

In the article, he presents a few graphs and charts trying to define where the major political parties fit on the "political spectrum".

Using communism as the anchor for the extreme left wing...

Do you agree with the article and his interpretations of the political spectrum, specifically the location of "Libertarian"?



If not, re-create your own Chart following the same criteria (communism as 0) between 0 and 100.

According to Vox, this is of course up to debate, and is not set in stone but...

"What it does provide, however, is a reasonable starting point for a discussion of the left-right political spectrum based on identifiable facts and philosophy instead of ignorance, deception and half-baked history"

Very interesting, Zac, but Vox Day's (cool name!) concept is not quite original. I'm been familiar with the Left-Right spectrum as 100% collectivism at the extreme Left and 100% individualism at the extreme Right since 1972, when I investigated the John Birch Society, which has been using it at least that long. (Btw, I don't necessarily consider association with the JBS to be a bad thing; I found them to be very nice people and pretty sensible conservatives, except for their quirk about conspiracies, which is just wacky but that's the only thing about them that is.)

I do prefer that version over the traditional Lelt-Right spectrum, and would pretty much agree with where Mr. Day placed the ideologies or parties on it, IF we're going to be limited to just a one-dimensional representation, but I don't see any reason why we have to be. Why not use a two-dimensional graph such as this? (Take the test, which is really short, and you'll see the graph.) That's called a Nolan Chart (after its creator, David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party), and it's what most libertarians of my acquaintance prefer to use. Separating the Economic Axis and the Social Axis like that looks much more accurate to me.

I think this depends your purpose in defining the left right spectrum. Libertarian is of course particularly hard to pigeon hole since they vary form the conservative to the radical varying greatly.

If we are talking of the left right spectrum in a theoretical way then i believe it is of more use, since it isn't subject to the stereotypes of society.

I am a Liberal Libertarian, and find the idea of being pigeon holed as right wing troubling since the public (especially here in the Uk) views the Right as am area of political thought that focuses too much on national security , defence and policing. For me, I want these issues rolled back. I do not want the state to develop greater and greater power through the police and I do not want mass expenditure for foreign invasions impeding on the freedom of others. Yet these are being exercised by a right wing govt as we speak. I therefore propose that we keep this post focused in a theoretical way and not diverge into popular opinion of what is the left and what is the right.

I prefer Nolan's chart to the left-right spectrum, as well. In fact, I don't tend to look at politics as liberal/conservative, but Statist/Individualist.

- Rick

The Nolan Chart is (in my opinion) the most accurate one! The farther away from the top you land- the less "Libertarian " you really are!

Not only is his scale far from any reality, it's does exactly what he is trying to avoid. It crams a multidimensional issue into a 2 dimensional gradient.

The Nolan chart and their kind are the only valid representation as they illustrate all dimensions. The "tests" are dubious, but the chart as representation is fantastic.

The "Left vs Right" is only valid when measured and displayed with "Authoritarian vs. Libertarian".


This is why I say no true libertarian can be for Bush. His policys are plainly against liberty and solidly in "Authoritarian" land. "Left vs. Right" is only half the picture.

Ummmm, yeah right! And John Kerry and the Dems are champions of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate (oh, and keep reality in mind- our Libertarian candidate will NOT be elected)? Are you saying that tax-payer funded "universal" health care (just one example of thousands) is a core policy position of any "true" libertarian?

I guess this is as good a place as any for me to begin my posting career on these forums, so, with that in mind.... Onward and upward.
I consider myself to be a strong libertarian. I find myself conservative on fiscal issues (as I believe most Libertarians do) and I find myself liberal on social issues (as most Libertarians do). I may be more "conservative" on social issues than some however. I am deadset against abortion and believe there should be a constitutional amendment banning it since it infringes on the rights of the child. I am pro death penalty but with caveats which I could get into another time. I think drug legalization, as with most issues, is strictly within the pervue of the states. If Nevada wants legalized marijuana and Ohio does not, I am good with that. I think most Libertarians are moderate or centrist if you will. Most, if not all, of the Libertarians I come into contact with are very open to debate and not likely to engage in the flaming that I see from the extreme left and the extreme right. I think most conservatives (self declared) and most liberals (self declared) are really Libertarians who are stuck in a rut. There are many conservatives I know that support the idea of legalizing marijuana but won't usually go as far as to say that they support legalizing other drugs. Most liberals I know are totally against government intrusion into their lives but support socialist policies (which really baffles me).

shouldent it be a 4-way chart?


showing communism - capatlism, and libratarinaism - athortarianism

You (or I) may be a little confused Mabzie. "Capitalism" and "libertarianism" go hand in hand. As do "communism" and "authoritarianism".

You may be thinking of the Nolan chart, with 4 quadrants representing "liberal" on the left, "conservative" on the right, "authoritarian" on the bottom, and "libertarian" on the top.

That is a half-truth. There is libertarian communism - it is called anarchism. And there is authoritarian capitalism - it is called fascism.

I envision a chart with two axes, but different from the Nolan Chart. The y-axis is the size of the state - small/no government at the top, big government at the bottom. The x-axis is the property righs axis - complete privatization on the right, complete common access on the left. The result is this:

Anarchism-----------Mutualism--------------Libertarianism
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Democratic----------Muddled Middle -------Conservativism
Socialism | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Communism---------Meritocracy---------------Fascism

Sorry about the y-axis. They deleted my extra spaces.

I registered Libertarian in my own state lately- so here goes.

I am part of the "libertarians on campus" at my local university, and provide some "adult supervision" as it were LOL

This debate is wonderful- because we have this same debate on going right now on campus

My personal belief as to why libertarians don't get elected ( though I believe my state collected the largest percentage in the nation per capita of the libertarian ticket, for which I am quite proud!) - is because of the lack of pragmaticism. Lofty ideas are great, but sometimes don't work in the real world.

Yes, the democratic party has become both the party of fiscal conservatism and individual liberties (how in the world did that happen?)

You can be VERY authoriatarian, even dictitorial, and still be capitalist- cases in point, theocracies in the middle east, and Singapore- which is probably the strictest dictatorship of oligarchs in the world today- where even chewing gum is verboten- but no one would argue that it is not a capitalist nation.

Being a libertarian in America with our puritan roots is very difficult I believe. We SAY we want liberty, but when some issue comes up for us to butt our noses into, we jerk our knees and say 'THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW".

I believe in capitalism, but I think the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the corporation, and that we currently do not live in a capitalist state, but a corporatist one. I also believe that is one of the reasons we, as libertarians, have such an uphill battle getting elected- we are not supported by corporate interests, whereas corporate America, and it's subsidiary, the Republican party, and with a nice down payment on the Democratic party, have all elections locked up right now.

I think it is very hard indeed to pigeon hole the current crop of libertarians, because we are so diverse. This might change if we start to move more mainstream, and our platform is altered slightly.

I believe that national security is a legitimate arm of goverment- and being pragmatic, that means that you have to take care of the poor with some goverment programs at some level or another, because masses of poor, desperate poeple, create a very unstable goverment, and impossible for capitalism free of most corruption to survive.

Same with health care. I do not believe the profit motive and health care mission are compatible in any way (with the exception of "niche" medical procedures, such as lasix surgery or cosmetic stuff) - and not paying attention to the health of a nations poeple is destabilizing to that goverment- which again, if a libertarian goverment can't survive due to the destabilzing issues above, what good is it to be a libertarian- if it doesn't work?

Sometimes I equate libertarianism, pure libertarianism as it is defined by some, as an impossible utopian state similar to communism- sound good on paper, but impossible to implement because of the complexities of large populations and human nature towards corruption.

For instance, some libertarian, on this site, I forget who, basically says that state constitutions should be able to violate the federal constitution and federal laws. This would mean states are fundamentally allowed to violate individual rights, such as interacial marriage (loving vs Virginia)

So, until the libertarian moves out of the utopian land of the dreamer, and gets some real world answers to the nations problems, it will just continue to be a long shot no way to win third party!

Yes. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I also would agree with Day that National Socialism (Nazism) is more left than right by modern notions. My own notions are probably around 90 on the scale, in that I agree that many so-called libertarians are quite anti-free-speech when it comes to religion.

Perhaps among the options Day mentions as "half-baked" are these:

(1) "Liberals rely on change, conservatives resist change;" Day mentions this in terms of "progress toward what?" Many libertarians or paleo-conservatives would argue that the government needs to be changed significantly, to get smaller. Which brings up another...

(2) "Americans apply government like shampoo-- some apply it liberally, some conservatively, and when the next election comes, we blather, wince and repeat." The assumption here is that all liberals like big government and all conservatives are small-government libertarians. This notion, too, is getting antiquated.

Day's scale is primarily geared toward fair play when referring verbally to a left-right spectrum. One observation from Day's column is that the left-right spectrum has been quite resillient through several major changes in the dominant political debates. Two-dimensional or three-dimensional representations get difficult to talk about verbally. For example, the Nolan Chart represented in a diamond orientation might require libertarians to start being called "top-wing", or totalitarians as "far-bottom extremists". While I wouldn't mind being called a top-winger, I'm not so sure that would catch on.

The problem with Day's spectrum is that people have become so comfortable with placing Nazism on the far right that thumping for realigning the spectrum so that Nazis are left of Democrats would be a tough sell. If libertarians agree to their new status on the extreme right-wing fringes, then the confused will certainly begin associating libertarians with Nazis and might even invent some term like neo-libertarian to emphasize it.

If everyone would agree that Nazis and Fascists are to the left of Democrats, then I wouldn't mind my libertarianism being associated with the far right. But I think it would be an uphill battle-- too many Democrat partisans love to associate conservative Republicans with swastikas-- they would not like being closer to the swastika than the Republicans, even if it makes more sense.

CruisingRam brings up an interesting point...


While I would agree the Republicans have dropped that ball, I would question whether the Democrats have actually recovered their fumble. Raising taxes is rarely considered fiscal conservatism (the talking point is "fiscal responsibility", that noble quality of being self-disciplined enough to pay for your pork-barrel spending by raising taxes). And I am unaware of the Democratic Party recently promoting true individual liberties except as a battering ram against the Bushies or as an excuse to take individual liberties away from others-- but that is a topic for another thread. My point is that if libertarians could coalesce into a unified movement, whether within a major party or a third party, we might be able to recover the fumbled fiscal-conservatism and individual-liberties votes. Third parties are fine, but not very effective now that elections are so close-- we might have to bite the bullet and become a distinct coalition in one of the two major parties, as much as it pains me to say. Remaining randomly distributed amongst them dilutes our voices.

One of the problems with these models is the changing definitions of types of goverments. I personally consider the US a oligarchy of competing corporate interests- a fascist state on the corporate side.

I reject almost all claims that Europe is socialist- because the goverment does not control means of production, they have stock markets, and poeple can rise from the bottom to become rich. So there is some kind of open economy.

The main problem with Libertarians today is they are utopians with little basis in reality, and I try to instil some realism in my own libertarian party, to helpt them become more mainstream and win some darn elections!

I disagree with your assertion there. If that were true, then the libertarian and democratic parties would merge. I agree partially with the individual liberties part, though.



No problem there. They have little personal freedom, but reasonable economic freedom (though I'd imagine taxes aren't very low).



You've hit the nail on the head there. The only way corporations can have power through government is when there IS a powerful government. Getting regulations passed that support your business/industry at the expense of newcomers/other industries is all too common. Getting rid of all the regulations would put an end to unnatural monopolies. And "natural" monopolies also dissolve with time, as technology makes it easier to, for example, have more than one power company provide power to a certain region.

I'd also propose, though, that our voting system naturally tends toward a two party system as the stable equilibrium. San Francisco has recently had great success with instant runoff voting, which encourages
"independent-minded and third party candidates who can run and introduce fresh ideas into electoral debate."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-23.htm



I am also pragmatic. However, in my experience it has always been that "taking care of the poor" with government programs does more harm than good, as people come to depend on these programs and don't work to get themselves out of poverty. Being a libertarian, I believe that the way to reduce poverty is not to address the symptom, but the problem, which is too high income taxes (someone running a business has to pay that tax for each and every employee, which reduces the supply of job positions) and too much regulation on new businesses (punishing entrepeneurship). We feed the poor with one hand and with the other try to stop them from getting out of poverty. We're avoiding "teaching a man how to fish" as the saying goes, and just saying "here, take this fish, we'll have another for you tomorrow".

What I've learned of the government / economy relationship supports my views.

As far as health care goes, again government regulation makes it far more expensive than it has to be. I have no problem with private investigation to keep consumers aware of issues (ie, consumer reports), and private safety organizations.



I agree partially with this. It seems that just about every system of government depends on something that everyone looks up to to be incorruptible. In totalitarianism, that is just one person or a small group of people, which doesn't last long. In our government, we have stalled that by having three branches that control each other. The main problem I see is that there is little to stop the branches / parties from making deals with each other, at the expense of citizens. Our government is HUGE compared to early america. I don't know how libertarianism deals with corruption, because there will always be someone with just a little more power than everyone else, and corruption grows unless checked by something.

I also don't really know how libertarianism deals with foreign policy and such (possibly lack of information on my part)

All in all, I don't think your view that the rich/middle class should subsidise the poor really jives with libertarianism. You seem to lean more toward liberalism, though perhaps on a much smaller scale than all the government programs that exist today.

asoko

Ok, now you definitely seem to be liberal and wearing libertarian clothing. Your view on corporations is not surprising. Do these corporations force you to buy their products? Or stop you from expressing your point of view? That's what facism is. You have complete freedom to stop buying anyone's product. Now, try doing that with government programs (ie, stop paying your taxes) and see what happens.

The majority of Europe is socialist, with high tax rates and lots of government-run services. Maybe not 100%, if that's what you mean. Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of socialism. I would also argue that there is a degree of socialism in the US today, starting with FDR's New Deal (of which the TVA still exists, for one).

In any case, the US still has the very high average freedom relative to the rest of the world, making it one of (if not the most) libertarian country. It is easier to go from rags to riches here than in Europe (maybe not Switzerland - they have very low taxes, but not as much individual freedom).

As far as having little basis in reality, I completely disagree. Nowhere has there ever been a completely libertarian country. Partial experiments in libertarianism, however, have been very successful. For example:



Winning elections is not worth compromising half of your core values.

asoko