On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 02:49:31 -0500 Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote:
> > > On 11/20/18 10:41 PM, juan wrote: > > >> http://pilobilus.net/Political.Oritnetation.Grid.png > > > > > > I don't think the 2d graph adds much. The assumption that 'economic' > > freedom and 'personal' freedom are different things is obviously flawed. > > Also, the assumption that 'conservatives' favor 'eonomic' freedom whereas > > 'modern' 'liberals' favor 'personal' freedom is flawed as well. In practice > > both 'conservatives' and 'liberal' are...fascists =) > > Not economic vs. personal freedom, but rather, economic (commerce) vs. > coercive (political) agency: Concentration of capital and firepower in > more or less hands. That would be your X axis? > > > Nolan came up with his chart because libertarianism doesn't fit the > > mainstream left/right classification, BUT the notion that mainstream left > > and right are half libertarian is complete bullshit, wishful thinking and > > dishonest pandering. In practice, both liberals and conservatives pay some > > *lip service* to 'personal' or 'eonomic' freedom while fully supporting > > fascism. > > I was under the impression that Nolan came up with that chart in an > effort to persuade people dissatisfied with the Left/Right spectrum that > they "belong in" the Libertarian Party. I guess that's a related reason. > > I can't fault his motives: It's not that I fault his motives. Rather I think the chart misrepresents the nature of left and right. In the nolan chart left and right are halfway between libertarian and authoritairan, but in reality they have varying degrees of authoritarianism. > Before the hostile takeover that converted > the Libertarian Party to a Radical Conservative a.k.a. Coprporatist org > back in the late 1990s, the Party had a lot to offer - I was a fan and > booster. Today, I can not distinguish Libertarian Party advocates and > its (rare) candidates for political office from "socially tolerant" > Republicans. The Libtards do talk a slightly different game, but I > could not care less about that: Performance is my bottom line. What's your take on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Accord Anyway, my understanding is that the LP was supposed to be a means to 'educate' people rather than to seize power. It seems to have failed in both accounts at any rate. And at times the LP candiates were outright neocons, so, self-parody. > > > Anyway, we can simply have a line (or segment I guess) with anarchists > > on one end and authoritarians on the other end. And then we can classify > > the whole library accordingly. > > That's the X axis on the graph... > > > As to the placement of left and right in your graph, seems to me that > > both left and right should be at the top since both are authoritarian. And > > none of them favor free enterprise either... > > I put the Right near the Anarchist end of the scale, because "Private > power" vs. "State power" indicates one central State authority vs. > numerous competitive State-chartered Corporate entities: Think Soviet > Union vs. United States, toward the end of the Cold War era. But state chartered and privileged businesses are hardly anarchist? Another interpretation could be that your bottom left quadrant is literally "anarcho capitalism", but that's confusing because at least in theory "anarcho capitalism' is a synonym for full free enterprise. Though granted more than a few self styled 'anarcho capitalists' are 'anarcho' fascists. Overall I think the problem in your graph is that your capitalism/free enterprise axis should be parallel to the authoritarian/anarchist axis since authoritarian systems control all aspects of the lives of the subjects including of course economic activity. However in a cartesian plane the data in te X axis isn't necessarily related to the data in the Y axis. The x,y components are independent so you can have any combination of x,y and you can have things like "authoritarian free enterprise" which is a clearly contradiction. here's one possible take. https://anonfile.com/v9EdG0l7bf/pol_svg notice that the area marked in grey repesents "authoritarian individualism" which is something that doesn't make sense so even in this case teh 2d format isn't optimal. > > Thanks to several generations of full saturation Big Lie propaganda, > many people believe that Corporate Capitalism "is" Free Enterprise. Indeed. > But > in real life the two present as natural enemies: When an independent > sole prop or partnership starts cutting into a major corporation's > market by bringing a superior product to market at a competitive price, > our Corporate Capitalists use their massive financial reserves to > destroy the independent enterprise: Yes. So perhaps in your graph you could have labeled the "capitalist" side as "corporatist". Also, I haven't fully researched this but I believe that mussolini described his system as corporatist. > Dump lookalike products on the > market at a loss, regulate their competitors out of business with the > help of friendly, well bribed State agencies, or etc. Yes, the main mechanisms that first come to mind are : 1) so called 'intelectual property' 2) cemtral banking and 'cheap' credit for cronnies 3) regulation 4) government contracts > This perspective > comes from first hand observation, as a participant in high functioning > small businesses stomped flat as soon as they became competitive by > bringing superior products at completive prices to market. > > :o) > > > > > > > > > > >
