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

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
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.
Click to expand...


Please provide the compelling evidence that supports your redefinition of "construct" and the "intent" you seem to be reading into my posts.

One engaged in politics, especially an elected or appointed government official; Specifically, one who regards elected political office as a career; A politically active or interested person; A sly or ingratiating person
Click to expand...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politician

Smith, Ridley and Friedman certainly seem to have been individuals who were politically active and interested advocates of public policy, which certainly is in accord with the popular and common definition linked above. As I stated, I may have broadened the inclusion a bit, but if you feel that this is inappropriate, please explain why you consider it so or why you wish to exclude them from your declaration.
 
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...

By "abundant empirical evidence", you mean "ideological screeds that they consider proven by virtue of them having written them", right?
 
I think at least in the US there are pretty much two sides in their culture war. Two sides that matter anyways.

Libertarians are a bit of a mix of both, but in practice they tend to get along with the conservatives better.
 
3point14 said:
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 without which the world would be a better place.
Click to expand...

Sadly, yes.
 
Chaos said:
By "abundant empirical evidence", you mean "ideological screeds that they consider proven by virtue of them having written them", right?
Click to expand...
No. I mean thoroughly referenced historical studies. I recommend that you read them before you grossly mischaracterize the authors. Have you read any of the authors I mentioned?
 
The reason Libertarians (and libertarians) are identified with the right is because... they tend to identify with the right; social issues take a back-seat to economic issues. The late Christopher Hitchens published in right-wing journals because he cared only about the war against "Islamo-fascism."

The exceptions are a small, small minority: Geo-libertarians (Georgists), Liberal-tarians (Brink Lindsey, Will Wilkinson -- both fired/"let go" from Cato), "Bleeding-heart" libertarians (see their blog).

I submit there's also a difference between people who tend to be socially liberal/ "fiscally" conservative and libertarians. For years Bill Maher self-identified as a libertarian when he wasn't a libertarian. Maybe he still does.
 
In the world of ideas any spectrum is too restrictive. But if we are looking at real countries the left-right spectrum works quite well often enough. The major exceptions I can think of are regional/linguistic/ethnic where there is either a separate party or there are multiple left and right parties for each group.
 
C_Felix said:
Democrats----------------------------------Republicans

Dems on the left
Republicans on the right
Click to expand...


Or alternatively, as Clement Attlee is supposed to have said, the Republicans, who are a bit like our Conservative Party, and the Democrats, who are a bit like our Conservative Party.
 
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...
'Left', 'Right' et al. are all aliases for the same con artist.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Right, the Jews.
Click to expand...
Do feel free to offer up your proof of that. In the appropriate forum with those who agree with you, so that I don't have to waste my time looking at it.

On second thought, let me that care of that right here and now.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I hear a great whooshing noise... :p
Click to expand...

Not unusual with that guy...

-------

C_Felix:

Judging by your original post with the clock model, I thought you were already thinking beyond left-right. Anyway, what you can do is bend the continuum -- horseshoe model of politics -- and ideologies, as they tend to the extremes, begin to resemble one another (e.g., anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists (as in SOMALIA), or totalitarian communists and Nazi Fascists).

But libertarians tend to self-identify based on whatever issue animates them personally (in the Libertarian Party, on the social issue side, it's often drugs).
 
C_Felix said:
I knew this stuff and I've taken political spectrum quizzes which plotted me on the x-y axis.

For some reason, when I was thinking about this, I was thinking in a too linear fashion; one dimensional; left or right. I wasn't thinking 2d.

I'm going to chalk this up to a brain fart.
Click to expand...
Go with Venn diagrams... :D
 
Where do National Socialists fit on the political spectrum?
 
C_Felix said:
I've been thinking about where do libertarians fit into the left---right spectrum? To me, there is some wrapping around of libertarian beliefs.
Click to expand...

Given the number of types of libertarian it entirely depends.

The "contract is all" mob are basicaly hard right. The "hate the state" mob are much the same. The universal basic income mob would be somewhere on the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom