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

[SniperFire]

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

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

The 'Political Spectrum' leaves out just one thing. That would be 'Kingdom' or perhaps 'Empire' - both on the far, far Left of government control over the populous.

 

[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

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

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

dear fucking idiot,


read the whole definition not just the parts you think you like.

fucking asshole

 

[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

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.

You dont get to change the definition of words to back your historically failed ideas.


We are a type of democracy according to EVERY dictionary or encyclopedia on earth

 

[tooAlive]

You dont get to change the definition of words to back your historically failed ideas.


We are a type of democracy according to EVERY dictionary or encyclopedia on earth

Democracy = Ochlocracy = Majority Rule = Mob Rule = Tyranny of the Majority

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.[1]

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably fits here more:

I'd also say, you're a bit too quick to dismiss the two dimensional spectrum given here. You've purposely misunderstood how the x/y axis works. Can I explain further?

In the two dimensional version, the vertical Y axis represents the push pull between Libertarian-ism vs Authoritarianism. This means transition up and down vertically corresponds to government control.

Vertically, the Extreme Authoritarianism example is dictatorship. Without question. The extreme Libertarian stance is Mob rule.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Horizontally, the extreme Left is represented by the stereotypical vapid consumer. Think that tech geek that would say stuff like "iPhone? That's so 2008. I have an HTC Dream with Andriod Ice Cream Sandwich optimized..." In that case, it is innovation for innovation's sake resulting in a culture of disposable things (and often people). The extreme Right is the stereotypical Old Fart saying things like "In my day we went uphill both ways in the snow with no feet!" The past is romanticized and clung to with innovation being extremely distrusted.

How these interact is interesting. An Authoritarian/Conservative government would be an Authoritarian government deriving power from past tradition. A non-controversial example would be a dynastic monarchy. The right to rule absolutely is derived from past tradition, not embedded in even the qualities of the current genetic heir to power.

An example of a Liberal/Libertarian government would be a population that changes forms of government at a whim. Tossing aside one government for another as the Mob rule saw fit with no respect for past history or tradition. This is probably the closest you can get to a "true Democracy", which everyone fears as a form of government for a reason.

It is worth noting, that even here the extremes tend to meet. If you're familiar with the Reimann Mapping Theorem (you can map the 2 dimensional plane one to one onto a sphere) this makes sense. But the general idea is you can go off an edge and wrap back around to the other side when your system inevitably fails in the extreme.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

 

[tooAlive]

I posted this in the other thread, but it probably fits here more:

I'd also say, you're a bit too quick to dismiss the two dimensional spectrum given here. You've purposely misunderstood how the x/y axis works. Can I explain further?

In the two dimensional version, the vertical Y axis represents the push pull between Libertarian-ism vs Authoritarianism. This means transition up and down vertically corresponds to government control.

Vertically, the Extreme Authoritarianism example is dictatorship. Without question. The extreme Libertarian stance is Mob rule.

The Horizontal X axis represents the push and pull between Cultural innovation (Liberalism) versus Cultural Traditionalism (Conservatism). Transition Left represents the willingness to innovate, sometimes just for innovation's sake, while transition Right represents how steeped in tradition the culture as a whole is.

Horizontally, the extreme Left is represented by the stereotypical vapid consumer. Think that tech geek that would say stuff like "iPhone? That's so 2008. I have an HTC Dream with Andriod Ice Cream Sandwich optimized..." In that case, it is innovation for innovation's sake resulting in a culture of disposable things (and often people). The extreme Right is the stereotypical Old Fart saying things like "In my day we went uphill both ways in the snow with no feet!" The past is romanticized and clung to with innovation being extremely distrusted.

How these interact is interesting. An Authoritarian/Conservative government would be an Authoritarian government deriving power from past tradition. A non-controversial example would be a dynastic monarchy. The right to rule absolutely is derived from past tradition, not embedded in even the qualities of the current genetic heir to power.

An example of a Liberal/Libertarian government would be a population that changes forms of government at a whim. Tossing aside one government for another as the Mob rule saw fit with no respect for past history or tradition. This is probably the closest you can get to a "true Democracy", which everyone fears as a form of government for a reason.

It is worth noting, that even here the extremes tend to meet. If you're familiar with the Reimann Mapping Theorem (you can map the 2 dimensional plane one to one onto a sphere) this makes sense. But the general idea is you can go off an edge and wrap back around to the other side when your system inevitably fails in the extreme.

But then the horizontal X axis would only make sense when speaking from an authoritarian point of view; as there really is no real distinction between left and right libertarianism.

Also, I'd like to point out that libertarians don't advocate for a democracy; instead we advocate for a republic. Instead of having the "majority rule" or "mob rule," you have the rule of law. Which is basically a government that defends the inherent rights of all people outlined in a constitution.

And I totally agree with your last part.

 

[tooAlive]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

The far right doesn't care who you marry, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

The far right doesn't care who you marry, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

Maybe you should fill in the far righters on that. They don't seem to be getting the message.

 

[tooAlive]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

The far right doesn't care who you marry, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

Maybe you should fill in the far righters on that. They don't seem to be getting the message.

Well, in actuality it's the far righters that don't need to be filled in.

It's the ones that are barely even on the right that feel they need to impose their beliefs on others.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But then the horizontal X axis would only make sense when speaking from an authoritarian point of view; as there really is no real distinction between left and right libertarianism.

It actually does make sense from any Vertical level. One way to think of it is the horizontal Left/Right component represents the cultural root of the form of government. For example, our Constitutional form of Government would be a Left/Libertarian quadrant form, as it's original creation had almost no historical or cultural root in the USA. It was actually quite the opposite as it rejected a very State empowered form of government in the Articles. In addition, it includes a mechanism for constant revision and even a mechanism for a complete abandonment of the system.

I'd give the ancient Roman government (pre Cesear) as an example of a Right Libertarian government. There the democratic tradition was a deeply rooted cultural phenomenon based out Hellenistic tradition.

So up/down is about level of control, left right is about how rooted things are in tradition or existing culture.

Ironically, in the 2 dimensional spectrum Fascism is a true anomaly as you see it in Nazi Germany. If you map the two dimensions onto a 3D sphere, they'd be true north. Fascism was a completely new form of government that retroactively tried to justify and use cultural tradition, making them a solid WTF in terms of the Progressive/Conservative Horizontal axis. They came out of the complete chaos of the Wiemar Republic, seized power using mob rule tactics, and then governed as a complete dictatorship that encourage the mob to act out against state enemies, again placing them squarely on the WTF position of the Libertarian/Authoritarian Vertical.

There's a reason these debates on where to place the Nazi's run to 100's of pages over time. It's not because anyone is scared to own up to them, as all extremes fail in a spectacular way. It's because we've literally never seen anything like the Nazi's before or since. I can totally get why people alive at that time thought they were facing true evil. They were. And true evil never fits nicely in boxes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The far right doesn't care who you marry, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

Maybe you should fill in the far righters on that. They don't seem to be getting the message.

Well, in actuality it's the far righters that don't need to be filled in.

It's the ones that are barely even on the right that feel they need to impose their beliefs on others.

So you define them as "barely on the right"????

So, in other words, you are attempting to redefine political terms in order to put YOUR position in the most flattering position?

Gee, there's a novel approach. Good luck.

I really don't care anyway. I've been ignoring self-imposed political labels for quite some time now. I just listen to the proposal and decide if I like it or not. Keeping up with where politicans attempt to "position" themselves is a useless endeavor imho.

 

[SniperFire]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

It isn't about what they 'want', bozo.

It is about force of government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

It isn't about what they 'want', bozo.

It is about force of government.

Once again you completely miss the meaning of the conversation you are trying to inject yourself into.

Go stalk someone else.

 

[Avorysuds]

I like this scale and it makes a lot more sense to me. The definitions are meaningless when both sides mean absolute Government control. Many consider Bush to be far right (big evil Government) then claim Obama is center as if that makes Obama less Government. My issues has been both Obama’s and Bush’s policies are near identical, socially, economically and foreign policy. The main difference is everything that made Bush’s policies “evil, bad, fascist, destructive” many on the left simply ignore under Obama, and the fact that most of these polices have been very much expanded, like wars/military.


I am more on the libertarian end of the spectrum, I believe Government is limited by the constitution that restricts most of Governments powers. I believe what we have today is pretty far left, Republicans and Democrats together have created a vastly overpowered Government that it quite literally can’t even afford.

Looking at the definitions it would seem America is a semi-oligarchy. Semi as in the DNC and RNC pick the front man but as an average American citizen you actually have no chance to become President, you can’t even get in the debates. While both sides claim to have different platforms the one thing they share in common is they never repeal the powers of Government that they won elections on. Again Obama said he would end wars, cut spending and not raise taxes… He lied on every front. Same goes for Bush.

 

[Avorysuds]

The charts are pure fantasy. The truth is that there is no correlation between "right wing" or "left wing" and freedom or authoritarian.

The far right wants to control who can marry who
The far left wants to regulate gun ownership

There are plenty of similar examples from BOTH extremes.

REAL liberty lies in the middle.

It isn't about what they 'want', bozo.

It is about force of government.

Once again you completely miss the meaning of the conversation you are trying to inject yourself into.

Go stalk someone else.

See again, you’re wrong even in your examples.

As a libertarian, who supports very limited Government as defined by our constitution I see Marriage as none of Governments business on the federal level. If you see where that power is given to the federal Government in the constitution please list it.

So once again, both sides are left in that they believe in Governments rule and all you did is prove that. Even your example claiming “the right” wants to control who can get married and who can’t is wrong because you claim that “the left” does not want that power… Yet you base that on the left simply allowing more to get married. In the end if 10 people got married both the left and the right in your example control the same amount of people through Governmental powers, powers not given by the constitution.


So the OP is correct, you simply support more Government as long as you agree with how it's done per your example.