The Political Spectrum of Individual Liberty

[Slade3200]

The Political Spectrum of Individual Liberty

Leftists—the lemmings of statist bootlickry or the elites of statist thuggery, like the leaders of the Democratic Party—are the only people in the world who deny that fascism proper is historically rooted in the European and American, socialist-progressive movements of the 1920s and '30s, that American progressives admired and praised Mussolini for his nationalistic approach to propagating socialism. Historically, etymologically and ideologically, fascism is an offshoot of Marxist theory. The historical precursors of the latter are Platonic utopianism, Hegelian historicism and Rousseaunean barbarism.

American conservatives and libertarians, of course, are generally constitutionalists, proponents of the classical liberalism of the Lockean tradition of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof: those of life, liberty and property.

A morally, historically and ideologically accurate spectrum would necessarily be a linear continuum and bottomed on individual liberty:






Then there's the historical revisionist version of the spectrum fancied by the state schools and popular culture, albeit, as contrasted with reality:




As Richard Larsen has observed: "Any attempts to describe the political spectrum as 'circular,' rather than 'linear,' are logically untenable. Any attempt to conflate fascism with the American right on the spectrum, is historically revisionist and wholly illogical. It only fits with an inane, and politically motivated model for casting aspersions, for it has no basis in historical, logical, or ideological fact."

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum - Think Research Expose | Think Research Expose

Where do tariffs, walls, and blocked primaries fall on the liberty scale?

 

[Ringtone]

Where do tariffs, walls, and blocked primaries fall on the liberty scale?

One issue at a time. That's the thing about a deceptively nuanced spectrum predicated on the individual liberty of the classical tradition of natural law, rather than deceptively nuanced multidimensional charts that would split the intrinsically inseparable realities of personal and economic freedom and conflate negative and positive rights.

Where do open borders and the motives of its lawless leftist proponents, for example, fall on the liberty spectrum relative to the people's private property rights of geography and citizenship?

 

[Ringtone]

You can do more with a two-dimensional spectrum, but I don't agree with the notion that it's necessarily more accurate, certainly not if it splits personal and economic liberty.

Of course there are "2 sides" to liberty and freedom.. Probably more than enough to go to "multi-space" graphs.. And indeed there are many 3 dimensional "freedom" charts as well..

You could not accurately locate Trump for instance on a 1D chart.. He's big govt.. Loves the power. Deficits don't worry him. He's also a populist and quite socially liberal in fact.. It's foolish to even try comparing him to "other Repubs..

And you're NEVER "free" if the government is socially liberal but want to control your every economic choice.. So progressives, populists, libertarians and narco-thug dictators NEED MORE SPACE to visually define them in a single chart.

I won't even discuss 1D charts because my politics is more nuanced than that. And in my head, I'm working in at least THREE axes... Personal Liberty, Economic Liberty, and Foreign Relations..

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree , for as I told TNHARLEY I find the typical multidimensional charts invariably misleading.

 

[Slade3200]

Where do tariffs, walls, and blocked primaries fall on the liberty scale?

One issue at a time. That's the thing about a deceptively nuanced spectrum predicated on the individual liberty of the classical tradition of natural law, rather than deceptively nuanced multidimensional charts that would split the intrinsically inseparable realities of personal and economic freedom and conflate negative and positive rights.

Where do open borders and the motivations of its lawless leftist proponents, for example, fall on the liberty spectrum relative to the people's private property rights of geography and citizenship?

Fine, we can do one issue at a time. Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all. People do have a right to property and and citizenship but immigration in itself doesn’t impact that. Regulation is needed to manage a civilized society and our different political ideologies have different ideas of where to place emphasis and responsibility. I just laugh at the so called conservatives who get on their high horses about liberty when they clearly support the opposite on certain issues.

Ok I answered your topic now you answer mine... tariffs. Where do those fall on the liberty scale?

 

[Ringtone]

Fine, we can do one issue at a time. Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all. People do have a right to property and and citizenship but immigration in itself doesn’t impact that. Regulation is needed to manage a civilized society and our different political ideologies have different ideas of where to place emphasis and responsibility. I just laugh at the so called conservatives who get on their high horses about liberty when they clearly support the opposite on certain issues.

Ok I answered your topic now you answer mine... tariffs. Where do those fall on the liberty scale?

No, you didn't. You just redefined liberty as the lawlessness of home invasion, prattled something or another informed by the inherently self-negating gibberish of relativism, hopped on a bow-legged horse, and cackled. America belongs to the citizens of America.

 

[Slade3200]

Fine, we can do one issue at a time. Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all. People do have a right to property and and citizenship but immigration in itself doesn’t impact that. Regulation is needed to manage a civilized society and our different political ideologies have different ideas of where to place emphasis and responsibility. I just laugh at the so called conservatives who get on their high horses about liberty when they clearly support the opposite on certain issues.

Ok I answered your topic now you answer mine... tariffs. Where do those fall on the liberty scale?

No, you didn't. You just redefined liberty as the lawlessness of home invasion, prattled something or another informed by the inherently self-negating gibberish of relativism, hopped on a bow-legged horse, and cackled. America belongs to the citizens of America.

And you just ignored my question to digress from a civil conversation to petty insults. Home invasion? Really? Is that what immigration is now? Thanks for playing.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Fine, we can do one issue at a time. Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all.

There's certainly a fundamental case to be made for open borders. But we need to live in a truly free society in order for that to work. We don't live in a truly free society. So, open borders aren't gonna work given that reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fine, we can do one issue at a time. Open borders is true liberty..

It probably is... But --- when you consider the situation as a whole, open borders with "free stuff" for the taking as some of the Insane Clown Posse are proposing is sheer anarchy and quick ride to hell...

That's why I'm a fan of immigration, but I don't trust that my government is agile or smart enough to expand it... I'd be much more liberal on immigration if my govt worked at all or did ANYTHING well.

And borders without customs and immigration -- open or not -- is sheer lunacy.... No matter how liberal or demented progressive you are...

 

[Natural Citizen]

[That's the thing about a deceptively nuanced spectrum predicated on the individual liberty of the classical tradition of natural law, rather than deceptively nuanced multidimensional charts that would split the intrinsically inseparable realities of personal and economic freedom and conflate negative and positive rights.

One of its worst faults is that it assumes that libertine is libertarian. Which is patently false. Libertine is not libertarian. In fact, they contradict each other in principle. So, when they go mixing up what they call social issues, what they're doing is equating libertines with libertarians. This is a mistake. The questions they consequently ask simply do not compute logically.

Of course, there are other faults with it.

The reason I left libertarianism as a movement was because of all of the different factions that decided they were libertarian and made themselves at home under the libertarian tent. And, of course, libertarianism gets systematically misrepresented by people who think they're libertarian, except they aren't.

 

[Ringtone]

One of its worst faults is that it assumes that libertine is libertarian. Which is patently false. Libertine is not libertarian. In fact, they contradict each other in principle. So, when they go mixing up what they call social issues, what they're doing is equating libertines with libertarians. This is a mistake. The questions they consequently ask simply do not compute logically.

Of course, there are other faults with it.

The reason I left libertarianism as a movement was because of all of the different factions that decided they were libertarian and made themselves at home under the libertarian tent. And, of course, libertarianism gets systematically misrepresented by people who think they're libertarian, except they aren't.

Yep. There must be some definite point of reference. Show me a multidimensional chart, and I'll show you the political bias of the person who devised it. I say there's only one legitimate point of reference, only one legitimate standard of liberty: the individual liberty of the classical tradition of natural law. Hence, the linear spectrum with the rule of law per classical liberalism at the center. I'm a Christian. My personal values are "conservative." The fact of the matter is that Christianity is live and let live as your free will moves you as long as you don't violate the life, liberty or property of others. I care what you do with and put in your body only insofar as I want the best for you, but it's not my place or that of the state to babysit you. Rise or fall by your choices, take responsibility for your actions, reap the consequences thereof for good or bad. Politically, I'm a Lockean, which is why I can't support the Libertarian Party of today. We don't live in a libertarian nation. I wish we did. There'd be much less suffering, much less generationally entrenched poverty, dependency and failure. We live in a country with an overweening welfare state, and outcomes matter.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yep. There must be some definite point of reference. Show me a multidimensional chart, and I'll show you the political bias of the person who devised it. I say there's only one legitimate point of reference, only one legitimate standard of liberty: the individual liberty of the classical tradition of natural law. Hence, the linear spectrum with the rule of law per classical liberalism at the center. I'm a Christian. My personal values are "conservative." The fact of the matter is that Christianity is live and let live as your free will moves you as long as you don't violate the life, liberty or property of others. I care what you do with and put in your body only insofar as I want the best for you, but it's not my place or that of the state to babysit you. Rise or fall by your choices, take responsibility for your actions, reap the consequences thereof for good or bad. Politically, I'm a Lockean, which is why I can't support the Libertarian Party of today. We don't live in a libertarian nation. We live in a country with an overweening welfare state, and outcomes matter.

Darn right, man.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberty is a term which should never be mentioned seperate from responsibility.

 

[Ringtone]

[And you just ignored my question to digress from a civil conversation to petty insults. Home invasion? Really? Is that what immigration is now? Thanks for playing.

Huh. Let's go back to what you actually wrote the first time:

Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all. People do have a right to property and and citizenship but immigration in itself doesn’t impact that. Regulation is needed to manage a civilized society and our different political ideologies have different ideas of where to place emphasis and responsibility. I just laugh at the so called conservatives who get on their high horses about liberty when they clearly support the opposite on certain issues.

To say that immigration cannot have an impact on the well-being of a nation's people is simply not true! Intentions are not relevant. Real-world outcomes are what's relevant. Does this or that immigration policy advance or undermine the liberty and well-being of its people?

Current immigration law is destructive, and crossing our borders without permission is not immigration, it's breaking and entering. Build that wall!

 

[Slade3200]

[And you just ignored my question to digress from a civil conversation to petty insults. Home invasion? Really? Is that what immigration is now? Thanks for playing.

Huh. Let's go back to what you actually wrote the first time:

Open borders is true liberty... I’m not a proponent of that but if we are talking about liberty then open is liberty for all. People do have a right to property and and citizenship but immigration in itself doesn’t impact that. Regulation is needed to manage a civilized society and our different political ideologies have different ideas of where to place emphasis and responsibility. I just laugh at the so called conservatives who get on their high horses about liberty when they clearly support the opposite on certain issues.

To say that immigration cannot have an impact on the well-being of a nation's people is simply not true! Intentions are not relevant. Real-world outcomes are what's relevant. Does this or that immigration policy advance or undermine the liberty and well-being of its people?

Current immigration law is destructive, and crossing our borders without permission is not immigration, it's breaking and entering. Build that wall!

Now you are distorting my words. I never said immigration didn’t have an effect on the well being of a nations people. You just made that up! I said it doesn’t impact property or citizen rights. Impacts on our country is a whole different discussion. See I was staying on Topic and addressing your points. Try it sometime.

 

[Ringtone]

Now you are distorting my words. I never said immigration didn’t have an effect on the well being of a nations people. You just made that up! I said it doesn’t impact property or citizen rights. Impacts on our country is a whole different discussion. See I was staying on Topic and addressing your points. Try it sometime.

A nation's immigration policy most certainly can and does impact the quality of its citizens' execution and expression of their fundamental rights, and, once again, illegal aliens are trespassing on our property and stealing our resources. Lawlessness is not liberty!

 

[Slade3200]

Now you are distorting my words. I never said immigration didn’t have an effect on the well being of a nations people. You just made that up! I said it doesn’t impact property or citizen rights. Impacts on our country is a whole different discussion. See I was staying on Topic and addressing your points. Try it sometime.

A nation's immigration policy most certainly can and does impact the quality of its citizens' execution and expression of their fundamental rights, and, once again, illegal aliens are trespassing on our property and stealing our resources. Lawlessness is not liberty!

And now you divert to “illegal immigration” which was never part of the discussion?! Pathetic. Stick to the topic and stop making shit up that I didn’t say.

 

[cnm]

American conservatives and libertarians, of course, are generally constitutionalists, proponents of the classical liberalism of the Lockean tradition of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof: those of life, liberty and property.

And slavery.


edit...And with that, ignoring historical reality for some golden age fantasy.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The real Leftists, and Liberals are really those for Individual Liberty.

Not only is it Classical Liberalism, and the first Leftists were for Capitalism.

But, by implementation it's actually Liberalism, and the Left too.

Because Capitalist freedoms sells out to Liberal values, like Pornography, Hollywood smut, and shoot 'em up films, Prostitution, Illicit drugs, Abortion, LGBTQ Bars, Facebook censoring out the Conservative opposition, Google censoring searches in the Liberal direction, Gangster Rap music smut, and degeneracy, Liberal media, media degeneracy, jobs outsourced in mass to a hostile China, and Illegal Immigrants being hired by Capitalism.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The Political Spectrum of Individual Liberty

Leftists—the lemmings of statist bootlickry or the elites of statist thuggery, like the leaders of the Democratic Party—are the only people in the world who deny that fascism proper is historically rooted in the European and American, socialist-progressive movements of the 1920s and '30s, that American progressives admired and praised Mussolini for his nationalistic approach to propagating socialism. Historically, etymologically and ideologically, fascism is an offshoot of Marxist theory. The historical precursors of the latter are Platonic utopianism, Hegelian historicism and Rousseaunean barbarism.

American conservatives and libertarians, of course, are generally constitutionalists, proponents of the classical liberalism of the Lockean tradition of natural law and the inalienable rights thereof: those of life, liberty and property.

A morally, historically and ideologically accurate spectrum would necessarily be a linear continuum and bottomed on individual liberty:






Then there's the historical revisionist version of the spectrum fancied by the state schools and popular culture, albeit, as contrasted with reality:




As Richard Larsen has observed: "Any attempts to describe the political spectrum as 'circular,' rather than 'linear,' are logically untenable. Any attempt to conflate fascism with the American right on the spectrum, is historically revisionist and wholly illogical. It only fits with an inane, and politically motivated model for casting aspersions, for it has no basis in historical, logical, or ideological fact."

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum - Think Research Expose | Think Research Expose

By classical definitions Authoritarianism is actually a Right Wing value.

The problem is Americans tend to be so ignorant, and arrogant, they actually think not only Republicans are Right Wingers, but the center of the Right Wing World.

In reality neither is true.

 

[K9Buck]

Mussolini and Hitler both opposed free-market capitalism. Who in modern America is generally opposed to free-market capitalism? The Democrats.

Mussolini and Hitler supported government takeover of education. Who in modern America supports government takeover of education? The Democrats.

Mussolini and Hitler supported government takeover of healthcare. Who in modern America supports government takeover of healthcare? The Democrats.

Mussolini and Hitler supported high taxation to fund their societal dreams. Who in modern America supports high taxation to fund their societal dreams? The Democrats.

Mussolini and Hitler supported endless government regulations to control business and citizens. Who in modern America supports endless government regulations to control business and citizens? The Democrats.

In spite of all of that, Hitler and Mussolini are "far-right"?