[FACT] The Real Political Spectrum, and Why it is Correct

[tooAlive]

Lets begin by showcasing the incorrect political spectrum and why it is broken. (Special thanks to Hazlnut for the image )

If we look closely at this chart we will notice that both the Right and Authoritarian vertices are sub-labled as "(conservative)."

This of course would effectively make the upper-right quadrant of the chart self-contradicting, as any form of authoritarianism cannot coexist with libertarianism. Simply put, they are polar opposites. Thus rendering this chart broken and useless.

A much simpler and accurate way of describing a political spectrum would be by government control, with each extremity of the spectrum being polar opposites to each other. Like SniperFire put it;

The only way it really works is to apply a binary scale to it and measure the call for relative government control / dominance / force over the populations.

So lets start off by identifying forms of government and list them according to the level of control they possess.

So if we were to make a political spectrum classifying ideologies into this format, we'd have something along the lines of this:

Sources: Political "Left" and "Right" Accurately Defined

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

And now with pictures.

This is the most accurate way of representing each political leaning's current ideology.

 

[Toronado3800]

I like the concept.and have been using Political Compass - Analysis for some time. The whole NAZI Germany on the left thing is another debate but hey, perhaps they are talking the NAZI party before Hitler or am I reading it wrong and they are super authoritarian?

 

[Cowman]

Fact? Where is the body of evidence supporting this fact?

 

[Twofox]

Lets begin by showcasing the incorrect political spectrum and why it is broken. (Special thanks to Hazlnut for the image )

If we look closely at this chart we will notice that both the Right and Authoritarian vertices are sub-labled as "(conservative)."

This of course would effectively make the upper-right quadrant of the chart self-contradicting, as any form of authoritarianism cannot coexist with libertarianism. Simply put, they are polar opposites. Thus rendering this chart broken and useless.

A much simpler and accurate way of describing a political spectrum would be by government control, with each extremity of the spectrum being polar opposites to each other. Like SniperFire put it;

The only way it really works is to apply a binary scale to it and measure the call for relative government control / dominance / force over the populations.

So lets start off by identifying forms of government and list them according to the level of control they possess.

So if we were to make a political spectrum classifying ideologies into this format, we'd have something along the lines of this:

Sources: Political "Left" and "Right" Accurately Defined

An Objective Political Spectrum: 100% Pro-Choice Means 100% Moral Government - Forbes

And now with pictures.

This is the most accurate way of representing each political leaning's current ideology.

This is in fact, correct. In current context, the argument is based on how much control government we should have in our lives. The founding fathers envisioned a country where gov't protects the people, but generally gets out of the way.

The progressives (of both parties), in their neverending quest for more power, have pointed the finger at the "Right" and placed blame wherever they can, as cover for what they are doing, which is increasing governments role in all of our lives, which limits our liberties one small step at a time (ever cook a frog?). The progressives have also taken advantage of both parties quest for more power, which is why sometimes it seems that the republicans play into the hands of the democracts, and vice-versa.

So we have a power hungry representation, which is being coopted by progressive elements who want nothing more than control of the largest economy in the world. Yes it really is all about money and power.

 

[tooAlive]

I like the concept.and have been using Political Compass - Analysis for some time. The whole NAZI Germany on the left thing is another debate but hey, perhaps they are talking the NAZI party before Hitler or am I reading it wrong and they are super authoritarian?

But then you still have libertarianism on the extreme of two vertices. And since liberty cannot be imposed by force, the upper right quadrant would again be rendered moot.

I also don't see the difference between left and right libertarianism. Either you believe everyone is free to act unless they are in violation of the rights of others, or you don't.

And the Nazis being on the left is definitely a whole different debate. We're actually talking about it here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271883-but-arent-nazis-and-fascists-really-left-wingers.html

 

[tooAlive]

This is in fact, correct. In current context, the argument is based on how much control government we should have in our lives. The founding fathers envisioned a country where gov't protects the people, but generally gets out of the way.

The progressives (of both parties), in their neverending quest for more power, have pointed the finger at the "Right" and placed blame wherever they can, as cover for what they are doing, which is increasing governments role in all of our lives, which limits our liberties one small step at a time (ever cook a frog?). The progressives have also taken advantage of both parties quest for more power, which is why sometimes it seems that the republicans play into the hands of the democracts, and vice-versa.

So we have a power hungry representation, which is being coopted by progressive elements who want nothing more than control of the largest economy in the world. Yes it really is all about money and power.

I totally agree with you. The "Right" have in power today is definitely on the left of the political spectrum. Slightly to the right of liberals, but to the left nonetheless.

 

[Black_Label]

Here we go again with the radical right wing nonsense.

 

[Truthmatters]

In every dictionary and encyclopoedia in the world a republic is a type of democracy.


trying to change definitions to fit your historically failed ideas is dishonest

 

[SniperFire]

Anybody who postulates that Hitler was a Libertarian should just stop ingesting valuable oxygen and off himself.

LOL

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies








Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

[Black_Label]

Far-right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism.[8] Often, the term "far right" is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis,[9][10][11][12][13] and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and — in the case of Nazism — genocide of people deemed to be inferior

Far-right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy - New World Encyclopedia


Forms of democracy



Forms of government

Part of the Politics series




List of forms of government
Anarchism
Aristocracy
Authoritarianism
Autocracy
Communist state
Democracy
Direct democracy Representative democracy Despotism
Dictatorship
Fascism
Feudalism
Hierocracy
Kleptocracy
Kritarchy
Krytocracy
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Ochlocracy
Oligarchy
Plutocracy
Republic
Mixed government Constitutional republic Parliamentary republic Socialist republic Capitalist republic Single-party state
Thalassocracy
Theocracy
Timocracy
Totalitarianism
Tyranny


Politics Portal

There are many variations on the forms of government that put ultimate rule in the citizens of a state:

Representative democracy

Representative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election. Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.

There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems.

Liberal democracy

Classical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name "liberal") of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws. Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized, with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.

Socialist democracy

Socialism, where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a representative democracy.

Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in rural communist China.

Anarchist democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.

Sortition

Sortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A much noted classical example would be the ancient Athenian democracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.

Tribal and consensus democracy

Certain ethnic tribes organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy.[20] However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.[21]

 

[SniperFire]

I bet Black_Libtard argues that Hitler was a Libertarian.


LOL

 

[Truthmatters]

please just stop being soifucking stupid you argue against the very definitions of words

 

[Black_Label]

I bet Black_Libtard argues that Hitler was a Libertarian.


LOL

He was a radical right wing fascist, not a liberal like you think he was! LMAO!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This is the most accurate way of representing each political leaning's current ideology.

and the Founding Fathers fall about here....conservative to libertarian....

 

[tooAlive]

In every dictionary and encyclopoedia in the world a republic is a type of democracy.


trying to change definitions to fit your historically failed ideas is dishonest

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies
Definition of DEMOCRACY

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Rule of the majority = mob rule = 51% have control over 49% of the populace. In comparison, a republic:

Republic
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

In a republic, the elected official(s) defend the inherent rights given to the populace by the constitution.

There is no 51% vs. 49%, as all citizens have the same inherent rights. So no, a democracy is not the same thing as a republic.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
pluralde·moc·ra·cies








Definition of DEMOCRACY


1

a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

You do realize that the bolded is antithesis to our national political system, don't you?

I'm guessing you don't....

 

[SniperFire]

I bet Black_Libtard argues that Hitler was a Libertarian.


LOL

He was a radical right wing fascist, not a liberal like you think he was! LMAO!!

'Liberal' is a libertarian thing.

Just because you totalitarian progressives use the word does not change this fact.

What is 'liberal' about banning sugary drinks, stifling free speech, banning guns, etc., you ignorant fuckwad?

 

[tooAlive]

I bet Black_Libtard argues that Hitler was a Libertarian.


LOL

He was a radical right wing fascist, not a liberal like you think he was! LMAO!!

'Liberal' is a libertarian thing.

Just because you totalitarian progressives use the word does not change this fact.

What is 'liberal' about banning sugary drinks, stifling free speech, banning guns, etc., you ignorant fuckwad?

They're liberal because they want to grant homosexuals the right to get married, and libertarians are Nazis because... They don't care if homosexuals get married or not??