Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where do you place yourself on political spectrum?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where do you place yourself on political spectrum?

    I drafted few categories based on different spectrums of political opinions. (You can also answer via Nolan's Chart if you know what that is.)

    Liberty scale

    Value monism (core value is singular or derived from single source: non-aggression principle)
    A1) Hardcore libertarianism / Anarcho-capitalism

    Value pluralism (primary: non-aggression principle, secondary: sympathy to less fortunate + environment)
    A2) Softcore libertarianism / Classical liberalism / Minarchism / Geo-libertarianism

    Value pluralism (Of roughly equal importance: non-aggression principle + sympathy + environment)
    A3) Social liberalism

    Value pluralism (primary: sympathy for less fortunate, secondary: Marxist dogma, tertiary: non-aggression principle + other values)
    A4) = C3)) Social democracy / Progressivism

    Value pluralism (American) (primary: the Bible, secondary: non-aggression principle)
    A5) = B2) Tea Party / pseudo-libertarians (i.e tradcons, neocons, all cons)





    Theocracy/nationalist/reactionary scale

    Value monism (core value is singular or derived from single source: a holy book)
    B1) Christian theocracy / Islamic theocracy / Jewish theocracy (literal interpretations)

    Value pluralism (American) (primary: the Bible, secondary: non-aggression principle)
    B2) = A5) Tea Party / pseudo-libertarians (i.e tradcons, neocons, all cons)

    Value pluralism #2 (European) (primary: the Bible, secondary: sympathy to less fortunate)
    B3) Christian democracy

    Value pluralism #3 (European) (of roughly equal importance: the Bible + nationalistic or racial ideology)
    B4) populist factions that are merely reactionary and rarely honest about what they have to offer as an alternative





    Marxist scale

    Value monism (core value is singular or derived from single source: literal interpretation of Karl Marx)
    C1) Communists

    Value pluralism (primary: Marxism, secondary: sympathy to less fortunate (i.e unemployment benefits in place of gulags)
    C2) Modern left / Worker's left

    Value pluralism (primary: sympathy for less fortunate, secondary: Marxist dogma, tertiary: non-aggression principle + other values)
    C3) = A4) Social democracy / Progressivism

    NOTE: Social democracy appears on both Marxist and liberty spectrums (low priority on both). Tea Party appears on both theocracy and liberty spectrums (low priority on liberties).




    ____

    Answer preferably with in the format such as this (copy-pasting the line from the list):

    A2) Softcore libertarianism / Classical liberalism / Minarchism / Geo-libertarianism (you may also underline if one of the words describe you better than other)

    What is above would probably be also my pick for my personal positioning on the available groups. (Second closest would probably be A3) rather than A1).)
    28
    A1: hardcore libertarian
    14.29%
    4
    A2: softcore libertarian
    39.29%
    11
    A3: social liberal
    3.57%
    1
    A4 / C3: social democrat
    7.14%
    2
    B1: Christian or Islamic theocrat
    0.00%
    0
    B2: Tea Party
    14.29%
    4
    B3: Christian democracy
    0.00%
    0
    B4: nationalist
    17.86%
    5
    C1: communist
    0.00%
    0
    C2: modern left or worker's left
    3.57%
    1
    Last edited by whiic; 11-10-2014, 03:12 AM. Reason: Added Tea Party's inclusion on BOTH liberty and theocracy spectrums

  • #2
    I'm actually somewhat divided between A2 and A3.
    Last edited by Teraus; 11-10-2014, 02:35 AM.
    The worlds have shifted.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are also ideologies that don't fit these scales but are on other scales, such as hardcore environmentalism.

      There is also a totally different type of value sourcing method named "value relativism". Value relativism is basically off any scale and hold idea of "nihilism" (i.e general sociopathy and indifference).
      Other outside of any scale positions are "pragmatism" (what constitutes as pragmatic varies on situation, people who don't form any opinion beforehand)
      ...or "opportunism" (holding political values for self-interest only, like a true politician, changing opinion often).

      I couldn't fit them into 10 options allowed by the poll so they remain separate. Also, like said, they're not on any spectrum but can present as a factor of peoples value set (regardless of what they would choose from A1-A4, B1-4 and C1-C3), or as sole identifiers in which case the person would have nothing at all in A1-A4, B1-4 and C1-C3 spectrums.

      ____

      A further clarification: you may comment AND vote the poll because as well (or only vote if you wish to be anonymous). Expressing opinion in text doesn't disqualify voting in the poll. This isn't an election or anything, just trivia, and no voting via messages will be counted to the total.

      ____

      I just noticed I could have had added Tea Party on the lower end (alongside social democracy) of Liberty Spectrum because like social democracy, it has a secondary or tertiary focus on non-aggression principle (i.e negative freedoms aka natural rights).

      The entry would look like this:

      Value pluralism (American) (primary: the Bible, secondary: non-aggression principle)
      A5 = B2) Tea Party / pseudo-libertarians (i.e tradcons, neocons, all cons)

      Technically, it should probably be A4 because it might rank a tad higher on liberty spectrum than social democracy, but I can't alter the catalogue listing. Poll cannot be changed on the fly. I can add Tea Party ALSO to the liberty spectrum if people think it's appropriate. It probably is appropriate.
      Last edited by whiic; 11-10-2014, 03:04 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why isn't there an option for I don't care about politics?

        I also feel like who is in charge and how he leads matters far more than if it is left, right or whatever.

        Comment


        • #5
          I vote for the hippies because they are the only ones that are anti-war. None of this really fits and I don't see why you want to box things so much.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sY2rjxq6M

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rwkropf View Post
            Why isn't there an option for I don't care about politics?

            I also feel like who is in charge and how he leads matters far more than if it is left, right or whatever.
            There's not just left and right. Liberty spectrum is the hidden underdog without (much) representation in parliamentary politics.

            As for the "I don't care about politics" that qualifies as the ultimate form of "pragmatism". I couldn't include it in the poll due to maximum number of options being 10.

            Extreme pragmatism is that generally you don't care about any aspect of politics (economics, civil liberties, gender politics, anything) until it personally affects you. This is just my opinion, but there's a problem with that:

            First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Socialist.
            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Jew.
            Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

            - Martin Niemöller

            To not care about the politics is merely to wait until they come to you. Remember: politics is not just about voting, it's also about shouting FUCK YOU when you feel like it. One voice isn't much, but if it combines with million others it will be heard. If you are silent, it will only make it a self-fulfilling prophecy that people will not care.

            Isn't a big, unified voice of FUCK YOU actually why AVFM even exists? That is what non-partisan politics is.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ok, I'll rephrase what I mean. I still speak out against injustice, but from my point of view, when all leaders pander to the same thing, what is the point in choosing 1 from a group of the same?

              When I said "left, right or whatever", I was just using those as common examples. I care about leadership and what the party does rather than what their point of view is on something where there are many opinions.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think you're missing more than a few.

                I think that nolan's scale is decidedly lacking (possibly also biased and insulting) but considering I favor Personal accountability (the intersection of personal liberty and personal security)and Fiscal responsibility (the intersection of Economic security and Economic liberty) that places me firmly as a centralist.

                that said I more often favor republican and conservative values on the simple fact that while they aren't always correct they are rarely engaged in deliberate tyranny or oppression. practically the only issue I find myself in absolute disagrement with the political right on has been gay marriage and even then it's mostly because the state shouldn't be getting involved with who can marry who at all. and while I do naturally favor christian politicians I would no more favor state enforced religion than I currently favor state enforced anti-religeon.
                "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jack H. View Post
                  I think you're missing more than a few.

                  I think that nolan's scale is decidedly lacking
                  Well, I find it funny that people who use EVEN MORE lacking definer (left - right) (1-dimensional) always call 2-dimensional insufficent... which I know it is, but it's still better (even if not good) than their version.

                  Originally posted by Jack H. View Post
                  (possibly also biased and insulting)
                  Like Universal Declaration of Human Right is racist, bigoted and generally in everyway evil? How is Nolan's chart insulting? I know it's very lacking but is it really insulting? Who does it insult?

                  Originally posted by Jack H. View Post
                  but considering I favor Personal accountability (the intersection of personal liberty and personal security)and Fiscal responsibility (the intersection of Economic security and Economic liberty) that places me firmly as a centralist.
                  I get what your saying, so basically you're in the middle on economic and social liberties. On economic: you don't support communism nor free market but rather a version of so called "responsible capitalism", national socialism or corporatism. On social liberties: your ideology lies in between fascism and libertarian values. The gray are between everything, where majority of people generally fit into. This much I get from being centrist on both axis.

                  I'm just wondering the nicknames you gave them: "personal accountability" and "fiscal responsibility" when you were talking about centrist positions (rather than libertarian one). Because usually, when a person values high on personal liberty it pretty much automatically comes with assumption of personal accountability (because such liberty cannot exist otherwise since protecting people from themselves requires reduction of liberties (a nanny state)). When a person values fiscal liberty it comes with the assumption of fiscal responsibility (because such liberty cannot exist otherwise because social security requires taxation).

                  When you say however that you are a centrist but still value "personal accountability" and "fiscal responsibility"... without your position moving from center toward libertarianism, how should we interpret it? Do you mean you value "SOME personal accountability" and "SOME fiscal responsibility" but not full? Or do you support "personal accountability WITHOUT personal liberty" and "fiscal responsibility WITHOUT fiscal liberty" (because that would perfectly justify calling you a centrist despite supporting libertarian responsibilities (you would just combine libertarian responsibilities with lack of liberties that typically come with it). Is the "full responsibility but without liberty to control your own life" your ideological position?

                  Nolan chart has this problem that it cannot differentiate people who are just gray and boring from people with some radical libertarian opinions combined with some radical fascist opinions. To Nolan's chart, they're all just equally centrist because they average there.

                  There is also a possibility that you have misunderstood the axis of Nolan charts in way that you think positive extreme of personal liberty is "personal liberty without responsibility" and positive extreme of fiscal liberty is "fiscal liberty without responsibility", and you just consider that accepting responsibilities that come with liberties would return you back to centrism. That, or I have understood Nolan's chart wrong assuming that liberties and responsibilities go hand in hand.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I cannot get on board with any political party right now because I feel they all carry the mail toward progressive socialism over personal liberty, however I do lend toward those who can afford it are responsible to help those who need it. But not being forced by government to do so.

                    It seems to me that there are two dynamics that are pure evil and are largely being ignored in American politics. #1. The move toward a "One World Government", the Council on Foreign Affairs is pushing hard for this and many politicians are in agreement with this. The CFR is pushing for an oligarical type government, which is some type of socialism, which is diametrically opposed to the great American experiment concept of personal liberty. They are trying to(and succeeding) to eliminate important aspects of the constitution. 2#. The current model of the concept of the Federal Reserve Bank. No politician is really speaking out against the fact that the Fed is really running the show in America. The owners of the Fed are really controlling our economy and controlling our elected officials. Doesn't matter what issues the politician runs on, look at how he/she votes once in power. Always to the benifit of the Feds and the industry of war.

                    I'm for a federal government to really stick its hands in very little. It should only be interested in protecting our borders from attach (illegal immigration is just that), ensuring that the states do not infringe on individuals rights, focusing on fostering an economic environment toward growth for the majority(not the few wealthy oligarchs), and protecting the environment from ruin including protecting the public from business selling unsafe products, balanced with the need for economic growth, obviously fostering fair trade with other nations and True humanitarian efforts, not for foreign resource exploitation.

                    All social matters, welfare, healthcare,custody matters should not even be a concern of the federal government. They should be handled at the local level. More of a Subsidairity type government.

                    Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

                    Show me a political party that does that, and I'll promote the hell out of it. However, it won't work unless that party becomes the prevailing force in one side of the two party system, creating a true "tug of war", instead of the pretend one we now have with the current two party system.
                    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
                    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

                    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

                    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

                    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

                    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
                      The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon


                      THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

                      But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

                      Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

                      Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
                      Source: Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

                      I myself expect very little from the changing of the guards (Demonstrates to Republicans) due to the facts that very little really changes in Congress. Until collectivism=democracy stops playing house and we the people start to regain our Republic back and honors our constitution to it full glory the way our forefathers hoped we would do, nothing is going to change. These agencies can no longer hide behind shadows of secrets, while telling us how "they" are protecting us (lies)! As for the truth, "they" are protecting themselves from US! These agencies (societies) such as NSA CIA IRS Homeland Security, well the list just goes on and goes, doesn't IT??



                      WE MUST ALL REMEMBER: "THE WINNERS WRITE HISTORY AND THE LOSERS ARE WRITTEN IN HISTORY"

                      It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists to claim that the real power of government is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft — presidents, members of Congress, the judiciary — but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands. Depending on your talk show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers, Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists. Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets; we are an unsuspecting audience.

                      Michael Glennon, a respected academic (Tufts’s Fletcher School) and author of a book brought to us by an equally respected publisher (Oxford University Press), is hardly the sort to indulge in such fantasies. And that makes the picture he paints in “National Security and Double Government” all the more arresting. Considering Barack Obama’s harsh pre-election criticisms of his predecessor’s surveillance policies, for example, Glennon notes that many of those same policies — and more of the same kind — were continued after Obama took office. “Why,” he asks, “does national security policy remain constant even when one President is replaced by another, who as a candidate repeatedly, forcefully, and eloquently promised fundamental changes in that policy?”

                      The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: “a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of US national security policy.” The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved “toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.”

                      If this were a movie, it would soon become clear that some evil force, bent on consolidating power and undermining democratic governance, has surreptitiously tunneled into the under-structure of the nation. Not so. In fact, Glennon observes, this hyper-secret and difficult-to-control network arose in part as an attempt to head off just such an outcome. In the aftermath of World War II, with the Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian control over the military (in 1949, the Hoover Commission had warned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “virtually a law unto themselves”), President Truman set out to create a separate national security structure.

                      By 2011, according to The Washington Post, there were 46 separate federal departments and agencies and 2,000 private companies engaged in classified national security operations with millions of employees and spending of roughly a trillion dollars a year. As Glennon points out, presidents get to name fewer than 250 political appointees among the Defense Department’s nearly 700,000 civilian employees, with hundreds more drawn from a national security bureaucracy that comprise “America’s Trumanite network” — in effect, on matters of national security, a second government.

                      Glennon’s book is not a breezy read: It’s thick with fact and not unappreciative of conundrum (“The government is seen increasingly by elements of the public as hiding what they ought to know, criminalizing what they ought to be able to do, and spying upon what ought to be private. The people are seen increasingly by the government as unable to comprehend the gravity of security threats.”). Nor is he glib with proposed solutions: to adequately respond to the threats posed by a below-the-radar second government will require “a general public possessed of civic virtue,” which prompts Glennon to cite retired Supreme Court justice David Souter’s bemoaning of a “pervasive civic ignorance.” Not all of the problem can be laid at Truman’s feet. And if we ourselves are part of the zeitgeist that allows invisible governments to flourish, repair will be difficult. As Glennon puts it, “the term Orwellian will have little meaning to a people who have never known anything different, who have scant knowledge of history, civics, or public affairs, and who in any event have never heard of George Orwell.”

                      This is no secret conspiracy nor a plot to deprive Americans of their civil liberties. It is the unintended consequence of a thoughtful attempt to head off the very threats that those attempts have inadvertently created. But if Glennon’s book is enlightening it is also scary. And it’s not fiction.
                      Source: ‘National Security and Double Government’ by Michael J. Glennon
                      Last edited by James (Blogger); 11-10-2014, 04:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wish I could have selected nationalist and soft-core libertarian. These things aren't mutually exclusive, at least in the US because ethnic nationalism isn't possible. I think the US would be vastly improved by a reinvigoration of nationalism. Corporations would care more about the US and not offshore jobs to save a few cents, the government would act on the interest of the US (and not some other interests that don't serve the US, like putting tariffs on Chinese made goods for example).
                        White privilege is just like 'the patriarchy' for minorities!
                        Womyn, to take the man out of woman, too stupid to know Y it's a bad idea

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by christo930 View Post
                          I wish I could have selected nationalist and soft-core libertarian. These things aren't mutually exclusive, at least in the US because ethnic nationalism isn't possible. I think the US would be vastly improved by a reinvigoration of nationalism. Corporations would care more about the US and not offshore jobs to save a few cents, the government would act on the interest of the US (and not some other interests that don't serve the US, like putting tariffs on Chinese made goods for example).
                          No they aren't in any way exclusive. Nationalism vs globalism is a separate issue. I just, rather than put in axis, listed some pre-existing groups of people. Nationalistic libertarians I would say are primarily libertarian, the nationalistic part being usually pragmatic because it's easier to protect libertarian value as an independent state than in a global environment where outside nations are pressuring you to regulate stuff. In this sense, I'm also quite (pragmatically, not ideologically) nationalistic as I don't want ideas negative to achieving my goals to come from outside.

                          I included the group of nationalists because in Europe many countries have a protest party where people direct anger toward EU, against budget cuts of public sector, against banks, unemployed or immigrants. These are usually center-leftist parties with isolationist, occasionally even racist but more likely just religionist under... or overtones. Places that don't have these populist parties have a communist party to collect protest votes. There are of course Libertarians, Pirates, etc. liberty focused radicals but because they are liberty focused rather than authoritarian, and they don't use hate-rhetoric, they largely fail to collect protest votes against more corrupt centrist parties. Actually pretty sad.

                          But anyway nationalism, if it means controlled borders, controlled citizenship, and generally not being ashamed and apologetic just for being white (you know, slavery was bad but we aren't responsible of our grandfathers sins). Totally compatible with libertarianism. I also think that any healthy libertarian or even liberal SHOULD take pride on THOSE THINGS they've managed to do better than their neighbouring countries (or countries in Africa). If you can't take pride in anything, it will take away motivation to improve. (Just don't take too much pride and think everything is perfect.) The multiculti belief that all cultures are equally good if (in my opinion) highly toxic in the long run, despite being tolerant and non-conflicting in short run. If you can't believe in objective good, you cannot do good even in your own country.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Value monism (core value is singular or derived from single source: non-aggression principle)
                            A1) Hardcore libertarianism / Anarcho-capitalism

                            Value pluralism (primary: non-aggression principle, secondary: sympathy to less fortunate + environment)
                            A2) Softcore libertarianism / Classical liberalism / Minarchism / Geo-libertarianism
                            I disagree that A1 does not include: sympathy to less fortunate + environment.

                            There have always been private charities, and much of the government sponsoring of charity is really designed to buy votes and lock the recipients into generational dependency on government handouts so they will create a reliable class of voters for the pro welfare party. Private charity, on the other hand, tries to get those being helped back on their feet so they are not in such an unfortunate situation, and has always offered help to the disabled.

                            Much of the poverty in the US is caused by government interference designed to protect client classes of the ruling party from having to compete with poor people for their jobs. This done through licensing, regulations, permits, minimum wage laws, and business taxes. Government has effectively driven industry out of cities, and created guilds for all the best paid jobs. The ladder of opportunity has been closed off from poor people.

                            Environmental abuse happens because of public ownership of much of the land and almost all of the water and air. Were these things owned by private enterprise, they would aggressively defend their property against polluters. It is public ownership that allows, for example, a paper mill to do hundreds of millions of dollars damage to a river while their only cost is a few small campaign contributions every two years, which is nothing compared to the huge cost of cleaning up their discharge water. If the Mississippi River Corp owned the river, they would have their lawyers all over that mill as soon as they discovered it was dumping toxic waste in their river.

                            Libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism is the most compassionate towards the poor, because only those systems have a solid plan to make them unpoor, and private ownership is the best way to protect the environment.
                            Liberty, Equality, Humanity

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh, I forgot to add, Environmentalism and Socialism belong in B1.

                              Both are totalitarian religions.
                              Liberty, Equality, Humanity

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X