Left Wing or Right Wing? Take Pop Quiz in OP!
- Thread starter photonrider
- 582 comments
- 42,085 views
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I'm not confusing anything, im saying the meaning of the word has changed and or evolved over time so simply saying I'm Libertarian can mean anything.This usually precedes a dramatic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of something...
Oh boy
Let's go back to basics then.
The Political Compass has two scales. The vertical is "social freedom" and the horizontal is "fiscal freedom". Each scale goes from "zero government intervention" to "total government control".
The right of the horizontal scale is "fiscally zero government intervention". The left of the horizontal scale is "total government control of all resources". These correspond to "Conservatism" (right wing) and "Socialism" (left wing).
The bottom of the horizontal scale is "socially zero government intervention". The top of the horizontal scale is "total government control of all behaviour". These correspond to "Liberalism" and "Fascism".
To determine your position on the scale, you are asked your stance on a number of issues. For each issue you can adopt positions roughly equivalent to "Total government control", "Largely government controlled", "Largely not controlled by government" and "Zero government control". These answers will put you in certain positions on the chart: if you favour government control on fiscal matters, you will be placed to the left on the horizontal; if you favour less government control on social matters, you will be placed to the bottom on the vertical.
Combining your answers gives you a position on each scale and combining the scales gives you a plot on the chart. Your plot can be one of approximately seventeen positions, but typically it'll be one of eight as few people will give entirely consistent answers on any one scale, much less both. Most people will find themselves in one of three, which is odd as most politicians and political parties are placed in a fourth, different position.
Libertarianism is, specifically, a combination of a liberal social stance (a minimum of government control on behaviour) and a conservative fiscal stance (a minimum of government control on resources) - pretty much liberal conservatism. Libertarianism is the purple quadrant of the chart. You're confusing it with liberalism, which is anything in the bottom half of the chart, both purple and green.
Bernie Sanders, for example, holds a position of liberal socialism (green), not libertarianism.
Anarchism is, specifically, a combination of zero government control on behaviour and zero government control on resources. It would be +10, -10 on the chart - the furthest right and bottom possible. It is, to be fair to you, the outer limit of the libertarian view, where "minimum" is defined as "zero".
Unfortunately in this instance he's talking about property that happens to be life... depending on when you think life starts
See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
Therefore explained here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Trust me, everything you explained I already know and understand, but your term for what it means and your idea of leftist Libertarianism is wrong.
The idea of Government is a centrist idea how that government works socially is either Authotarian or Libertarian.
The thing that messes it up for those unsure how socialism progresses more left from a highly State situation is the community takes control of those functions from state in a anarchist fashion till the state doesn't exist.
Think of it as a Union that swallows the state.
- 86,919
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it can't. You can't describe Pinochet, Blair, Obama and Stalin all as Libertarian because it doesn't mean that.
What?
Socially how it works is on a spectrum from authoritarian (or fascist) to liberal - it's not either/or, as it can be more one than the other on any given issue. Fiscally how it works is on a spectrum from socialist to conservative. The mix of the two spectra is how you get a position on a 2D chart.
Libertarianism is conservative liberalism, whereby small government is favoured and government powers are restricted to protection of rights. What you call "left-libertarianism" is social liberalism (or, far more colloquially, 'hippyism'), which favours individual freedom but shared natural resources (like land, property, money, water, minerals) - which is at odds with property rights.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I already shown you in detail that Libertarianism is actually an umbrella term, if you choose to ignore that then fine but don't use it as fact.No, it can't. You can't describe Pinochet, Blair, Obama and Stalin all as Libertarian because it doesn't mean that.
Libertarianism is conservative liberalism, whereby small government is favoured and government powers are restricted to protection of rights. What you call "left-libertarianism" is social liberalism (or, far more colloquially, 'hippyism'), which favours individual freedom but shared natural resources (like land, property, money, water, minerals) - which is at odds with property rights.
Property in principle is a right wing ideal.
The idea of Government is Centrist (in a Libertarian Circle because the far right or left back lack one in the first place.
- 86,919
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, you've just used it as one - just as mainstream press tends to use "right wing" to mean "racist" when it actually means "fiscally conservative". Except with your own random addition that it could mean anything...
The correct term for socially liberal ideals, whether socialist (left) or capitalist (right) is - shockingly - "liberal".
Nope. Property rights are a moral principle. Recognition of them is a right wing principle.
Again, what? The far left has a huge government to oversee redistribution of wealth. The far right isn't implicitly governed, but then if it's also a fascist one it will be in order to apply the authority innate to that mindset.
The only position that is ungoverned is anarchism (extreme capitalism, extreme liberalism). Centrism has nothing to do with anything.
Last edited:
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
@mustafur On abortion, while libertarians can disagree about when life begins, and so disagree about when the right to life should be preserved, an anti-abortion stance necessarily requires curtailing the rights of the mother.
Last time I was:
7.88,-4.62
This time it's:
7.38,-5.64
To summarize, I'm noticing a lot of you are in the lower left. According to the website that means I agree with you on just about everything that doesn't involve money.
Last edited:
- 86,919
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You redefine words to have "near infinite meanings"...
Oddly the word "Libertarian" was defined by libertarians - it's a manufactured word - and means "one who advocates for liberty in thought and conduct". It's not an umbrella term for liberalism and it is much less a term with "near infinite meanings".
Libertarian socialism still doesn't exist, but social liberalism does and requires a government or there's no way to redistribute wealth. The liberalist part means you're socially free, but the socialist part means that you don't own things - so what happens when you refuse to part with what you have? Nothing? What happens when other people see this and also refuse? Eventually force is required.
The same thing applies to anarchocommunism, which only works on extremely small scales and for very short periods of time - as only extreme fascism can protect the democratisation of resources. Without it, one individual or group rapidly becomes more powerful than any others and becomes a de facto government. It can only work on levels where there are so few individuals or resources that acquiring more resources doesn't give any individual sufficient power to overcome the will of the remaining individuals. Religion works well to control these populations too
Neither of these examples gives any credence to your "government is a centrist creation" notion.
I concur, but some would argue that we already (and should) curtail the rights of people who threaten and act to deny the rights of others. They'd argue that because the foetus is a life from their point of view, the mother is threatening its right to life by aborting it and her rights should be curtailed.
I don't agree, but I can see the consistency.
I'm usually +5, -5
I've done it four times now and always hover about that spot.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Here's what the website says about the poll
poll website
So left is economic control (government), right is economic freedom (less government). Up is social control (government), down is less social control (less government). I think that's the end of that discussion.
Edit:
If you think for some reason that communism will be born from total economic freedom, you'd be wrong, but you'd be on the right side of the chart if you supported that outcome.
Last edited:
- 86,919
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'll say.
Yes. We are not in your head and cannot hear your thoughts or interpret what you mean from what you say unless you actually say it.
Represents who or what?
He doesn't represent me, or @JKgo, or @mustafur, or @niky, or @S_Bridge, or @Spurgy 777 - because we are not Americans. For that matter he doesn't represent you because, as a Libertarian, he is in the purple sector and you are in the green one - along with Bernie Sanders.
Certainly in the context of politics and the US Election, Gary Johnson's name makes sense and if you were to post:
in the US Election thread it would be mostly understood.
But randomly placed in the Political Compass thread it makes no sense. No-one knew you were going to say it and without any context there's no relevance to it. Without context you could mean Gary, or Lyndon B., or you could just be calling someone a penis...
- 38,919
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Unfortunately in this instance he's talking about property that happens to be life... depending on when you think life starts
This is getting beyond the scope of this thread, but life isn't property. Your body is what you own. Let's be absolutely consistent here and not overly mustaphorical.
- 38,919
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
First part wrong, second part right, 3rd part on the right track but too metaphorical. OK, we need to make a new thread about this now. Or bring up the old one that I felt I wasn't prepared to argue and explain my position correctly. I don't want to fight about it but I think it's worth writing about intelligently to share with you guys. Give me some time to prepare what I've learned since then.
It's a good thing I didn't open my mouth this time
In all seriousness, that life does belong to the mother, at least for a spell.
It's not even worth arguing if you can't even present a consistent argument that makes sense no matter what in a framework that makes sense no matter what. This is too important of an issue-- it should fall in line just like everything else in a system that works. Laws are supposed to mitigate conflict, not create it.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
- 38,919
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
OK, that's where I remember talking about this stuff. I can't believe it's been two years! Wtf. Having read that again, I think I know why I didn't respond. The formatting is such a pain in the ass to get everything quoted with the correct context. I miss nested quotes. May have to do this in blog form or just write something somewhere that's much easier to quote and recall with correct context.
- 1,020
- Madison, WI
- FerrariF1GT
- FerrariFan24
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I have done business with the man, I also remember how he governed the state I live in. I can say in all honesty that I vote for someone with a conscience and character, I trust him and I do not trust the others. Of course I do not agree with all he stands for but I do agree enough to simply let him do his business so I can do mine.
Does any of that make sense to you?
Does any of that make sense to you?
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
No.
Which man is "the man?" The comment I quoted at you references both Johnson and Sanders. I can't address any of the rest of what you wrote without knowing this very basic first step.
You seriously need to start taking it to heart when people tell you to be clearer in your posts here.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,390
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I'm a little more centered now than when I took this before, but my views have changed now that I'm little older.
This has also shown me that none of the front running candidates in the US Election this year are anywhere near what I believe in. I had sort of an idea that it was that way, but I suppose it's nice to get some sort of confirmation (even if it might be flawed in some way).
Similar threads
