• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "left------right" policital spectrum

C_Felix

Master Poster
C_Felix
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
2,953
Location
Just outside Raleigh, NC
Democrats----------------------------------Republicans

Dems on the left
Republicans on the right

More liberal on the left
More conservative on the right
(At least in the States anyway.)


When I tell people I'm more libertarian than anything, and then tell them, "I'm more conservative than most Republicans. But, to me, that results in being socially liberal. Gay marriage? Nothing against it in the federal constitution, so it should be okay on a federal level. The state level is another question."

I've been thinking about where do libertarians fit into the left---right spectrum? To me, there is some wrapping around of libertarian beliefs...

What if it is more of a circle? A clock for usage here.

Liberals at noon
Conservatives at 6
Libertarians would be at 9 or 3?

Where do you guys think Libertarians, "Progressives" like Obama, RINO's like Romney and Penn Jillette and/or Neal Boortz fit on the clock?

That is, if you think there is a wrapping around of beliefs...
 
C_Felix said:
Democrats----------------------------------Republicans

Dems on the left
Republicans on the right

More liberal on the left
More conservative on the right
(At least in the States anyway.)


When I tell people I'm more libertarian than anything, and then tell them, "I'm more conservative than most Republicans. But, to me, that results in being socially liberal. Gay marriage? Nothing against it in the federal constitution, so it should be okay on a federal level. The state level is another question."

I've been thinking about where do libertarians fit into the left---right spectrum? To me, there is some wrapping around of libertarian beliefs...

What if it is more of a circle? A clock for usage here.

Liberals at noon
Conservatives at 6
Libertarians would be at 9 or 3?

Where do you guys think Libertarians, "Progressives" like Obama, RINO's like Romney and Penn Jillette and/or Neal Boortz fit on the clock?

That is, if you think there is a wrapping around of beliefs...
Click to expand...

It usually goes with Progressives and Conservatives at opposite ends and liberals and libertarians at opposite ends. So we'd have Progressives at 12, conservatives at 6. Libertarians at 3, and Liberals at 9. On this scale Most current Democrats are between 7 and 8, and most modern Republicans are between 4 and 5.
 
I think this is why a lot of skeptics lean toward the libertarian. At one end of that axis is the freedom to do what you want with your property (but not someone else's) and the other end is no control over your own property. That end contains both overbearing dictatorship, and lawlessness where thieves, mafia, and warlords take it.

It has parsimony in explaining why those types of countries suck for providing general wealth for people, and also helps explain why more socialist nations also lag in per capita technological advancement.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I think this is why a lot of skeptics lean toward the libertarian. At one end of that axis is the freedom to do what you want with your property (but not someone else's) and the other end is no control over your own property. That end contains both overbearing dictatorship, and lawlessness where thieves, mafia, and warlords take it.

It has parsimony in explaining why those types of countries suck for providing general wealth for people, and also helps explain why more socialist nations also lag in per capita technological advancement.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that what you say has little or no basis in reality, you do say it with conviction!
 
It seems today Libertarians are considered right wing. If I'm socially left wing... most of he social issues seem to be settled the way I would like (I'm Canadian). So it really leaves issues like spending.... and taxes which I'm at least a bit more libertarian leaning on.
 
Trakar said:
Aside from the fact that what you say has little or no basis in reality...
Click to expand...
I recommend Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist. The theory behind markets (individual title to property and a stable system of contract law) runs from Adam Smith through von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. There's abundant empirical support for the theory.
There's also abundant empirical support for the generalization that politicians don't care for theories that don't enhance their power, however.
 
All political models simplify to a certain extent; indeed, that is the object of a political model, to allow us to look at things without a dozen complicating factors. The left-right axis works very well in the United States, and when people ask, "What about the libertarians?" my inclination is to line them up against the wall and shoot them. (Kidding!)

Another model which works fairly well is the X-Y axis, where one scale measures support for personal freedoms (social issues), and another measures support for property freedoms (taxes and regulations). In general, Republicans score high on the latter and low on the former, while Democrats do the opposite. Libertarians end up with high marks on both, while totalitarian governments (whether far left or far right) do poorly.

A third model takes the basic left-right paradigm, but twists the ends around to form a ring, whereby the far left and far right end up closer to each other than they do to the center.
 
There are as many dimensions as there are issues on which people differ that you use to classify people. Drug policy is (nearly) independent of banking regulation, for example. Defense policy is (nearly) independent of environmental policy. Abortion policy is (nearly) independent of food safety regulation.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I recommend Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist. The theory behind markets (individual title to property and a stable system of contract law) runs from Adam Smith through von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. There's abundant empirical support for the theory.
Click to expand...

rationalizations generally construct support for the point they seek to support, it should be unsurprising when they actually seem to achieve that end.

There's also abundant empirical support for the generalization that politicians don't care for theories that don't enhance their power, however.
Click to expand...

generally agreed.
 
Any attempt to define anyone's political beliefs across the sum total of issues that will appear in one lifetime is pretty tricky.

Any attempt to do it solely in one dimension is not only doomed, but it provides a backdrop for confrontational politics whithout which the world would be a better place.
 
Trakar said:
Do you have a dictionary handy? How do you perceive my statement as not in accord with the standard and typical definition of the term?
Click to expand...
I agreed with Trakar. Trakar describes himself quite well: ""rationalizations generally construct support for the point they seek to support". Smith, Friedman, and Ridley provide abundant empirical support for their recommendation of the market order. Trakar argues by inuendo that their evidence is "rationalization".
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I agreed with Trakar. Trakar describes himself quite well: ""rationalizations generally construct support for the point they seek to support". Smith, Friedman, and Ridley provide abundant empirical support for their recommendation of the market order. Trakar argues by inuendo that their evidence is "rationalization".
Click to expand...

Not at all, evidence is evidence, it is the arguments and perceptions that connect and tie evidence into the support of one's beliefs and convictions that constitute (by definition) "rationalizations."

I simply agreed with your statement that "There's also abundant empirical support for the generalization that politicians don't care for theories that don't enhance their power, however." I may have broadened the category from mere "politicians" to include "those arguing politics," do you feel that this is improper or incorrect? if so, how so?
 
Trakar said:
Not at all, evidence is evidence, it is the arguments and perceptions that connect and tie evidence into the support of one's beliefs and convictions that constitute (by definition) "rationalizations."

I simply agreed with your statement that "There's also abundant empirical support for the generalization that politicians don't care for theories that don't enhance their power, however." I may have broadened the category from mere "politicians" to include "those arguing politics," do you feel that this is improper or incorrect? if so, how so?
Click to expand...
Nope. Review:
(Malcolm): "I recommend Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist. The theory behind markets (individual title to property and a stable system of contract law) runs from Adam Smith through von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. There's abundant empirical support for the theory."
(Trakar): "rationalizations generally construct support for the point they seek to support, it should be unsurprising when they actually seem to achieve that end"...
then:...
(Malcolm): "There's also abundant empirical support for the generalization that politicians don't care for theories that don't enhance their power, however.
(Trakar): "generally agreed."
So Trakar's reference to "rationalizations" and "construct support" applied to Ridley, Smith, and Friedman, who were not politicians. Further, "construct" is pretty close to "fabricate" or "invent". I supplied cites to authors who supply abundant evidence. Trakar supplies inuendo. So when we refer to people "construct(ing)" rationalizations, I suggest Trakar look in the mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom