Which of the following spectrums describes the United States political philosophy?

[Liberty]

The bottom Graph is not actually a graph but a single line representing political policy running from totalitarianism to anarchism, It lacks the extra dimension of economic policy that the two dimensional compass possesses. B is clearly only representing the traditional inadequate L-R axis. Now that I have stated exactly the problem I have with this graph I will add that a small time lobbyist is hardly someone to look to for any starling new insights in political science analysis.

WHY would anyone make something more complicated as how people are doing in thier lives versus what politicians are doing readily to fuck it up for partisan purposes?

I think your thinking is part of the problem...

Not my thinking, it is political neophytes thinking they can reinvent political science to suit temporary political aims, Change the definitions because the traditional ones make them look a lot like historical bad guys who had similar ideas.

i think its cute you like to make stuff up. Really.

 

[oreo]

Option A:

Option B:

WTF ya dumbass. You can't even give a question--yet expect an answer--

 

[Neotrotsky]

The bottom Graph is not actually a graph but a single line representing political policy running from totalitarianism to anarchism, It lacks the extra dimension of economic policy that the two dimensional compass possesses. B is clearly only representing the traditional inadequate L-R axis. Now that I have stated exactly the problem I have with this graph I will add that a small time lobbyist is hardly someone to look to for any starling new insights in political science analysis.

WHY would anyone make something more complicated as how people are doing in thier lives versus what politicians are doing readily to fuck it up for partisan purposes?

I think your thinking is part of the problem...

Not my thinking, it is political neophytes thinking they can reinvent political science to suit temporary political aims, Change the definitions because the traditional ones make them look a lot like historical bad guys who had similar ideas.

Please, political science is not a ""hard" science
Like most "soft" science, it is very subjective

 

[Photonic]

WHY would anyone make something more complicated as how people are doing in thier lives versus what politicians are doing readily to fuck it up for partisan purposes?

I think your thinking is part of the problem...

Not my thinking, it is political neophytes thinking they can reinvent political science to suit temporary political aims, Change the definitions because the traditional ones make them look a lot like historical bad guys who had similar ideas.

Please, political science is not a ""hard" science
Like most "soft" science, it is very subjective

Depends on if the "political scientist" is a partisan hack or not.

 

[occupied]

yeah those damn business people! We need more unions! Then the country would be better! MUST CRUSH CAP ITAL ISM! ARRRRRGggghhhh! /pirate

The bottom Graph is not actually a graph but a single line representing political policy running from totalitarianism to anarchism, It lacks the extra dimension of economic policy that the two dimensional compass possesses. B is clearly only representing the traditional inadequate L-R axis. Now that I have stated exactly the problem I have with this graph I will add that a small time lobbyist is hardly someone to look to for any starling new insights in political science analysis.

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Not my thinking, it is political neophytes thinking they can reinvent political science to suit temporary political aims, Change the definitions because the traditional ones make them look a lot like historical bad guys who had similar ideas.

Please, political science is not a ""hard" science
Like most "soft" science, it is very subjective

Depends on if the "political scientist" is a partisan hack or not.

Not really
since they are all partisan,

 

[The T]

Please, political science is not a ""hard" science
Like most "soft" science, it is very subjective

Depends on if the "political scientist" is a partisan hack or not.

Not really
since they are all partisan,

And from my perspective? Second guessing....of the individual.

 

[Photonic]

Please, political science is not a ""hard" science
Like most "soft" science, it is very subjective

Depends on if the "political scientist" is a partisan hack or not.

Not really
since they are all partisan,

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

Yep.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The bottom Graph is not actually a graph but a single line representing political policy running from totalitarianism to anarchism, It lacks the extra dimension of economic policy that the two dimensional compass possesses. B is clearly only representing the traditional inadequate L-R axis. Now that I have stated exactly the problem I have with this graph I will add that a small time lobbyist is hardly someone to look to for any starling new insights in political science analysis.

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

You are giving both graphs more power than they really deserve
The question is of the idea that it represents

We all know they are different
however, is the idea wrong?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Depends on if the "political scientist" is a partisan hack or not.

Not really
since they are all partisan,

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

Yep.

Sure enough
that describes most political science departments

 

[Photonic]

Not really
since they are all partisan,

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

Yep.

Sure enough
that describes most political science departments

Yea, I would say you are accurate in that assessment.

 

[occupied]

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

You are giving both graphs more power than they really deserve
The question is of the idea that it represents

We all know they are different
however, is the idea wrong?

The idea that all tyranny is leftist? Let's just say it is half right.

 

[Liberty]

The bottom Graph is not actually a graph but a single line representing political policy running from totalitarianism to anarchism, It lacks the extra dimension of economic policy that the two dimensional compass possesses. B is clearly only representing the traditional inadequate L-R axis. Now that I have stated exactly the problem I have with this graph I will add that a small time lobbyist is hardly someone to look to for any starling new insights in political science analysis.

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

actually it takes into account economics, as it is a universal concept that the smaller the government the more free markets will be.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

You are giving both graphs more power than they really deserve
The question is of the idea that it represents

We all know they are different
however, is the idea wrong?

The idea that all tyranny is leftist? Let's just say it is half right.

tyranny, perhaps
but the graph points to Totalitarian states and allowing for both factions to play a role

and Totalitarian states are Centrally Planned Economies (collectivism) which are a "creature of the Left"

As I said before:
Would it really matter to the people if an authoritarian gov't was right wing or left wing or "middle wing" for that matter?
No doubt all authoritarian gov'ts evolve into the same oppressive statist machine

Hayek defined Fascism :

"It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization"

 

[The T]

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

actually it takes into account economics, as it is a universal concept that the smaller the government the more free markets will be.

And a larger leeway for Liberty of the people.

 

[occupied]

You stated why it is different - but that does not make it wrong
and
You stated another ad hominem argument- but that does not make it wrong

Is it wrong and based on real facts, why?

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

actually it takes into account economics, as it is a universal concept that the smaller the government the more free markets will be.

Actually political scientists abandoned the single line L-R system many years ago precisely because it does not explicitly deal with the economic systems are in place in a particular country.

 

[Liberty]

Nation states are defined at least as much by economic policy (communism vs, neo liberalism) as they are by political policy (libertarianism vs totalitarianism). The graph ignores the economic aspect, if taking this into account somehow makes the entire field of political science wrong then please explain why.

actually it takes into account economics, as it is a universal concept that the smaller the government the more free markets will be.

Actually political scientists abandoned the single line L-R system many years ago precisely because it does not explicitly deal with the economic systems are in place in a particular country.

Economics is not complicated, you either have free markets or you have central planning. What else is there to it? I have read Sowell, Hazlet, and a few other Austrians. I know Keynes liked to over complicate things but...look where that has got us.

 

[Photonic]

actually it takes into account economics, as it is a universal concept that the smaller the government the more free markets will be.

Actually political scientists abandoned the single line L-R system many years ago precisely because it does not explicitly deal with the economic systems are in place in a particular country.

Economics is not complicated, you either have free markets or you have central planning. What else is there to it? I have read Sowell, Hazlet, and a few other Austrians. I know Keynes liked to over complicate things but...look where that has got us.

That's the problem with people like you, there is no in-between in your mind.

Just black and white can exist, never shades of grey.

 

[Neotrotsky]

"You people"

 

[Photonic]

"You people"

It's possible that I may have just referred to damn near the whole board with that statement, yes.