Political Graphing: Place Yourself and Others!

**spockman** · 09-28-2010 07:11 AM

Here I have worked up a graph where we can place just about any political philosophy somewhere. You may notice it is missing fundamental things like the advocacy of a Republic or a Democracy, Autocracy or Aristocracy. That is because this is not about a SPECIFIC political ideology. It is about general belief systems. I will explain.

The X axis, (horizontal,) represents economic philosophy. So the farther right the more you advocate economic control/wealth in the hands of individual entities or people, the farther left you go the more you advocate that economic control/wealth distribution should be in the hands of the establishment or the masses in general. The Y axis, (vertical,) is all about social theory. Higher up means more government control, lower down means less government power, (all the way at the bottom means no government at all.) Both lines represent politics.

What this means is that any of the words below should only be understood in their most general and widely used sense, and only in its proper context. So while Right Libertarianism may in fact have a very specific set of followers with well defined beliefs, only apply what they believe about economics in a broad sense to the word. This also means that for anything on the X axis don't draw any social connotations from it! Only use the X axis to determine economic generalizations and only use the Y axis to determine social connotations.

Any combination is possible and for any of the 49 charting combinations I bet you there is someone who believes it! (When graphing yourself, you do not have to fall on a line. On the X axis you can be halfway in between neutrality and Liberalism, for example.)

This is what I see this thread being used for in the coolest ways! 1. Graph yourself.
2. Graph other members. 3. Graph famous people. You can even debate me on whether or not certain words belong where they are, though I hope that doesn't become the focus of the thread. Please don't debate the actual philosophies, though. If I wanted that this would be in ED. I would prefer it to remain 'loungy.' That is fun and lighthearted. (So if someone graphs you way farther right then you think is fair or something like that, try not to get to offended.) So go ahead and graph me if you want, I won't be offended. Or graph someone else, whatever you feel like.

No, you don't have to graph someone to post, haha. Now have fun.

In relation to the primary image of the thread, use the above picture to find out how to vote in the pole if you are unsure of where to go.

**Maria92** · 09-28-2010 07:21 AM

Double negative, reporting in.

**Alric** · 09-28-2010 09:42 AM

Economic liberalism should be on the right side of the graph, since it believes in individual right to property, and a hands off approach to economics. It favors individuals and not groups. And corporatism should be on the left side of the graphic, since it believes in markets regulated by companies, and is a branch of socialism. It favors groups over individuals.

**dajo** · 09-28-2010 09:47 AM

At least on the individual level, double negative. On a political level it's a little more difficult.

**Xei** · 09-28-2010 11:10 AM

Is liberalism really economic rather than social? And is nationalism really just weak totalitarianism rather than an a racial ideology?

Anyway, I took a political poll once and it pegged me as a weak libertarian, so (+, -)... but I really don't think political beliefs can be meaningfully summarised in two bits of information.

I don't see why you can't be very liberal but still have some state control, for example.

**Philosopher8659** · 09-28-2010 12:10 PM

I have never been political. I have always believed that one cannot have a Universe of Discourse without the Unit of discourse. I.e. Until I have understandingl. I believe the search for truth and understanding is more important than blowing smoke up my own ass with worthless opinions.

The one thing I do know for sure, i am responsible for myself--and there is no physical law which can negate that. Not by force nor by consent. A wise man put it this way, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is a political statement. In other terms it was written "Not to be a respecter of persons." In short, follow neither man nor gods, but seek truth. or again, seek the light and walk in the light.

It seems to be an idea I was hatched with.

On a sidelight. The term "control" itself is neuter. It should have been "right" or "wrong."

When a person speaks of wealth, do they understand that by definition, they and they alone are the benificiary of the functions of their own environmental acquisition systems? And that trade is suppose to be based not on the most bang for the buck but on the Law of Reciprocity, for the one is theft and the other just? The phrase "making a profit" itself is corrupted--for no one profits when they believe that a thing is not equal to itself.

When you teach the philosophy of getting more than you give, you promote the psychological perspective of theft and murder--taking someone elses life for your own pleasure. Taking the products of the body, the products it maintains and promotes it own life with, is the same as taking the body itself.

Why not go take the opinions and beliefs of monkeys? The value of the opinion would be the same.

And graphing, well, I believe Descartes was rather simple.

**spockman** · 09-28-2010 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

Is liberalism really economic rather than social? And is nationalism really just weak totalitarianism rather than an a racial ideology?

Anyway, I took a political poll once and it pegged me as a weak libertarian, so (+, -)... but I really don't think political beliefs can be meaningfully summarised in two bits of information.

I don't see why you can't be very liberal but still have some state control, for example.

Yeah, it does have social implications as well, but we are ignoring those. I actually didn't want to use the word nationalism. If any of you can come up with a better word for a society where one is expected to allow the government a large amount trust/power let me know, please.

And in this test, you absolutely could be a liberal with some state control. Socialism/Neutral is just one example. Even socialism/minarchism could work. You could be a right libertarian/totalitarian if you wanted tto be, (again, that would be if you ignored the social/government power issues within right libertarianism and took it purely as an economic philosophy.) And despite the fact that I did put a decent amount of thought into this thread, the point isn't really to get some really valuable ideas. Rather, the point is to have fun with this simple system.

**Xei** · 09-28-2010 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by spockman

And in this test, you absolutely could be a liberal with some state control.

I mean liberal in a social sense (which is really its main meaning)... which are represented by opposite ends of the same line.

**JackALope2323** · 09-28-2010 05:57 PM

I myself like to think of myself as a classical liberal, a minarchist, a libertarian, or sometimes even a flat-out anarchist. I believe government has one responsibility, and one responsibility only: The prevention of violence and aggression against it's citizens. It has no responsibility to tell us how to be "moral", how to run our lives, or what to do with our bodies. It has no responsibility to take care of us when we are sick, or unemployed. I believe in individual responsibility for individual lives.

So, +,- here.

09-28-2010 06:11 PM

Rather not say.........

09-28-2010 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

Economic liberalism should be on the right side of the graph, since it believes in individual right to property, and a hands off approach to economics. It favors individuals and not groups. And corporatism should be on the left side of the graphic, since it believes in markets regulated by companies, and is a branch of socialism. It favors groups over individuals.

I agree with Alric now to wait and see if Spockman will change it.

09-28-2010 06:14 PM

You haven't even voted Spockman.

**Xei** · 09-28-2010 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by JackALope2323

I myself like to think of myself as a classical liberal, a minarchist, a libertarian, or sometimes even a flat-out anarchist. I believe government has one responsibility, and one responsibility only: The prevention of violence and aggression against it's citizens. It has no responsibility to tell us how to be "moral", how to run our lives, or what to do with our bodies. It has no responsibility to take care of us when we are sick, or unemployed. I believe in individual responsibility for individual lives.

So, +,- here.

No health care for a homeless man who gets run over by a drunk driver? No food or shelter for an orphaned child? No education if you have no money?

Sorry but I think the best thing that could be said about your views is that they're really naive and stupid... and at worst they're abhorrent.

**spockman** · 09-28-2010 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

You haven't even voted Spockman.

No, I am waiting to balance it out and change the proper things before I cast my vote. My choice to place liberalism where it is is mostly based on what people in the U.S. mean when they say liberal, which is more of an emphasis on socialist principle.

This is probably a mistake to go based on purely American connotations rather than the proper meaning of the word. What ehn would be the replacement word for conservativism, Alric?

09-28-2010 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

No health care for a homeless man who gets run over by a drunk driver? No food or shelter for an orphaned child? No education if you have no money?

Sorry but I think the best thing that could be said about your views is that they're really naive and stupid... and at worst they're abhorrent.

But thats your opinions you know what they say about opinions "Everyone has them". Doesn't mean much either.

**spockman** · 09-28-2010 06:31 PM

So I have voted. I am probably somewhere close to right libertarianism on the x axis and in between individualism/minarchism on the y axis.

09-28-2010 06:32 PM

I would vote but this graph doesn't give me any wiggle room and puts me in awkward position. I'll vote though

**Xei** · 09-28-2010 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

But thats your opinions you know what they say about opinions "Everyone has them". Doesn't mean much either.

Um yes that was his opinion and then I provided my opinion on his opinion. We call this a 'discussion' and it's what discussion boards tend to be used for. No offence but do you have anything useful to say?

09-28-2010 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

Um yes that was his opinion and then I provided my opinion on his opinion. We call this a 'discussion' and it's what discussion boards tend to be used for. No offence but do you have anything useful to say?

I do have useful things to say and some are not even my opinion.

**spockman** · 09-28-2010 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

I would vote but this graph doesn't give me any wiggle room and puts me in awkward position. I'll vote though

I suppose some people could be right on one of the axis for one/both of the options, but I doubt someone won't lean even a little bit in one direction. Even just over the line into the +,+ quadrant, for example, would still count as a +,+.

**Alric** · 09-28-2010 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Xei

No health care for a homeless man who gets run over by a drunk driver? No food or shelter for an orphaned child? No education if you have no money?

Sorry but I think the best thing that could be said about your views is that they're really naive and stupid... and at worst they're abhorrent.

You can have healthcare, orphanages, and education, without government involvement. In fact, before government stepped in we used to have private healthcare, private orphanages, and charities, that all help the poor. So not only is it possible, it has happened. Without large taxes, people donate to charities, or churches, and they in turn help people, who can not help them self.

**Alric** · 09-28-2010 07:13 PM

On an economic left right situation, conservatism and liberalism are both on the same side.

Liberalism means focus on the individual, and holds individuality as most important. Conservatism means taking the old historical approach. In the case of economics, our country has historically been liberal economically. Which means both are the same thing.

Ever wonder why politics is confusing? Because of things like that. Social liberals, are generally not economic liberals.

**Spartiate** · 09-28-2010 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

In fact, before government stepped in we used to have private healthcare, private orphanages, and charities, that all help the poor. So not only is it possible, it has happened. Without large taxes, people donate to charities, or churches, and they in turn help people, who can not help them self.

You mean back when people didn't live past 50, were lucky to finish high school and lived 6 families to an apartment? Ahh those were the days...

**Alric** · 09-28-2010 07:52 PM

No, I am talking about 20 years ago.

**Xei** · 09-28-2010 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

You can have healthcare, orphanages, and education, without government involvement. In fact, before government stepped in we used to have private healthcare, private orphanages, and charities, that all help the poor. So not only is it possible, it has happened. Without large taxes, people donate to charities, or churches, and they in turn help people, who can not help them self.

I'm a pragmatist, so you'll have to provide some kind of quantitative evidence that 'voluntary charity' as opposed to 'forced charity' is sufficient, and some historical evidence that this actually worked properly.