The founders idea of a political spectrum

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you are unable to comprehend this it, is on you not I.

Your ignorance and stupidity has you imagining that others think of a political spectrum as static.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

I'll go so far as to say they had no opinions on communism and socialism.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

They understood tyranny and liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

They understood tyranny and liberty.

Yes they did....unfortunately, todays right wing conservative is clueless

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

They understood tyranny and liberty.

They also understood how to persuade in argument.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Mr. Fitnah

Are you saying that it is impossible to be a rightwinger and an authoritarian?

Or are you only looking at economic freedom, and not social freedom?

If it is economic freedom, Libertarianism and conservativism is the same.

If it is social freedom, conservative is a bit authoritarian, Libertarian is the oppoite of authoritarian.

Finally, at the end of the of both economic and social freedom is Anarchy--because there are no rules in anarchy. Anarchy and totaloppression is not preferred by any civilization Moderation is best!

 

[JBeukema]

try it now, its a line from to much government> through to the place the founders chooseX> to anarchy

Anarchy<--Democracy ---- Oligarchy-->Monarchy

applied economically,

Laissez Faire<-- Some regulation -- strict regulation/mixed economy --> central planning

Each of these can be broken down

eg:

democracy (democratic type)

unrestricted direct democracy (mob rule) --- mixed democracy -->representative democracy


The entire concept s overly simplistic, of course- you can have a social democracy, for instance, with either a federated or a confederated system with direct or representative democracy at any given level, varying degrees of financial regulation/planning, varying amounts of protected liberties or 'rights' versus limitations on liberties (laws)...


The 'spectrum' is for simple-minded folk like Fitnah who can't be bothered with petty details like actual ideology or practice/

 

[boedicca]

By the beard of the profit, you need to be a bit more sober before you post things like this.

I might agree with you, I usually do, but I can't figure out what you are doing here

It's pretty clear to me.

The real spectrum is Totalitarianism vs. Liberty, not the faux version of two flavors of Totalitarianism at each end.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hey Mr. Fitnah

Are you saying that it is impossible to be a rightwinger and an authoritarian?

Or are you only looking at economic freedom, and not social freedom?

If it is economic freedom, Libertarianism and conservativism is the same.

If it is social freedom, conservative is a bit authoritarian, Libertarian is the oppoite of authoritarian.

Finally, at the end of the of both economic and social freedom is Anarchy--because there are no rules in anarchy. Anarchy and totaloppression is not preferred by any civilization Moderation is best!

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin



"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us."
Benjamin Rush

 

[Flopper]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

Yep! As if they had some insight into dealing international credit crises, immigration, rising CO2 levels, oil spills, balance of trade, and terrorism

 

[amrchaos]

By the beard of the profit, you need to be a bit more sober before you post things like this.

I might agree with you, I usually do, but I can't figure out what you are doing here

It's pretty clear to me.

The real spectrum is Totalitarianism vs. Liberty, not the faux version of two flavors of Totalitarianism at each end.

But you can say that if only you are looking at the spectrum in terms of social liberties-also know as civil liberties.

Maybe the way the left and right are divided create problems in terms of understanding.

On the left, the division is by economic extremes, Communism(total governmental control of economy), then Socialism(Mixture of governmental control and regulations), then Lberalism(Predominately regulations and some governmental interference).

On the right, the Division is social: Facism(total social oppression), Conservatism(social moderation i.e. some restrictions and some toleration) and Libertarianism( virtual social toleration and freedom). Note:Anarchism is a part of Libertarianism from this view point.

I think the Nolan scale is probably the best way to view this. I prefer to look at my politicians in terms of their social tolerance versus the economic scale. The more of a "Social Libertarian" you are, the more I like you. Economic Ideology plays second fiddle in my decision process.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, with the graphic it makes more sense.

The spectrum is not between tweedledum and tweedledumber, but from freedom to slavery. Labels are irrelevant, reality is what counts. People who want to wear the jackboot standing on their neighbor's neck vs those who respect their neighbor's rights as well as their own responsibilities.

I can agree to that.

With this line you cant play political pot and kettle games, you are either moving towards oppression and tyranny or liberty,
I can see why it isnt used.

A con game is what it is, Mr. F, you fake and posuer. The more one moves into libertarianism, the more the strong take advantage of the weak. You incompetent philosopher, or unethical one.

I bet you belong or espouse the John Birch Society model of how to tyrannize America. We don't need any Welch-clones spouting nonsense, Fitnah. Hike, son, hike.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I do not wish to take advantage of anyone, I prefer to work with my family to provide for our needs and wants.
I do not require the government to take from others because I am unwilling to do for myself.

I see the government as a source of equal protection under the law, not the source of equal stuff as everyone else has.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
____________

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, see, here's the problem.

Conservatism does in fact promote economic freedom, but it does not promote social freedom.

Liberalism promotes social freedom, but does not promote economic freedom.

So, your chart needs another dimension, an x,y axis.

Like this:

This is known as the "Nolan Chart", and is much more accurate.

Note that it's creator, David Nolan, was a staunch Libertarian.

You can check out the Nolan Chart here .

Very, very good. At politicalcompass.com: The Leading Politics Site on the Net one can pretty closely estimate where s/he is on the compass. I landed almost dead center. Here I am extremely well balanced or wishy washy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I vote that the founding fathers had no conception of the complexities of government today

They understood tyranny and liberty.

Certainly not in your sense, Mr. F.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey Mr. Fitnah

Are you saying that it is impossible to be a rightwinger and an authoritarian?

Or are you only looking at economic freedom, and not social freedom?

If it is economic freedom, Libertarianism and conservativism is the same.

If it is social freedom, conservative is a bit authoritarian, Libertarian is the oppoite of authoritarian.

Finally, at the end of the of both economic and social freedom is Anarchy--because there are no rules in anarchy. Anarchy and totaloppression is not preferred by any civilization Moderation is best!

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin



"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us."
Benjamin Rush

But you do not understand what constitutes "civic virtue", Mr. F., while you misread American history for your own personal purposes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do not wish to take advantage of anyone, I prefer to work with my family to provide for our needs and wants.
I do not require the government to take from others because I am unwilling to do for myself.

I see the government as a source of equal protection under the law, not the source of equal stuff as everyone else has.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams
____________

You believe falsely that government can only do what an individual can morally and ethically do. Since an individual cannot wage war or tax his neighbor, then neither can government by your political philosophy. Suffice it to say, you are wrong.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

But you do not understand what constitutes "civic virtue", Mr. F., while you misread American history for your own personal purposes.

Please ,tell the class what it is I dont understand about the nature of "civic virtue" or "public virtue" as it was known at the time, and what it really means.

Be specific and please provide documentation and examples.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But you do not understand what constitutes "civic virtue", Mr. F., while you misread American history for your own personal purposes.

Please ,tell the class what it is I dont understand about the nature of "civic virtue" or "public virtue" as it was known at the time, and what it really means.

Be specific and please provide documentation and examples.

You first, Mr. Fitnah. This is your thread.