There is a plethora of labels and spectrums that define and/or explain political ideology. For example, the left and the right, liberal and conservative. Many libertarians may use the Nolan chart as a reference to definition/explanation. From the Nolan chart point of view, the complete opposite of libertarianism is authoritarian and/or statism.
Are there any other methods for defining/explaining libertarianism with respect to other political ideologies. such as the democrats, the republicans, the greens?
I am in the process, though haven’t worked on it in a while, is to have a detailed quiz on what you believe should or should not do and then depict this on a four quadrant diagram with libertarian, conservative, socialist, authoritarian chart; but also a seperate simple left right one which tests your cultural/ moral views which can be, and certainly are in my case, different from what you think should be compelled. So I’d be a culturally conservative (natural dynamist) free market anarchist whereas Roderick Long would be an egalitraian social liberal market anarchist. Though this left right diagram would not necessarily have any bearing on libertarain thought it would be useful for a conservative to see that on this axis they whole heartedly agree with me but they will then see but he thinks there is a better way than compulsion to realise these goals.
You should watch Walter Block’s lecture: Socialism and Facsism: A Political Economic spectrum. I watched it about a year ago and found it to be very helpful. The link is below.
Wing-based politics are the outcome of majority-wins electoral systems. If the system was that no vote could pass without a 2/3 supermajority, then the stable outcome would be 3 political wings instead of 2.
Because Libertarians consider anything but fully unanimous decisions to be unacceptable, the application of a wing to the party makes no sense.
Because Libertarians consider anything but fully unanimous decisions to be unacceptable, the application of a wing to the party makes no sense.
Stranger, can you elaborate on this? I was not aware that libs desire fully unanimous decisions. That is an interesting concept, because if that were the case, we wouldn’t have sooooo silly many laws in place.
He may mean this: It’s not fair to raise taxes if only 51% (or 90%) of people support it, it’s only fair if everyone agrees. That way, there isn’t a minority being robbed.
As I’ve mentioned a couple times, I am an early Rothbardian. I consider libertarianism to be the most authentic form of leftism, in the early, good sense. I also don’t think libertarianism can be fully understood without reference to its radical, liberal nature. Here’s the paper I consider most important in influencing this view:
What makes Libertarians a bit special is that theorists and the average voter, pundit or politician are very close to each other in knowledge and views. The distance is quite bigger amongst Lefties and is just HUUUGE amongst Conservatives: the Conservative intellectual like Scruton or Voegelin considers the Conservative politician or voter or pundit pretty stupid and only useful in the role of the lesser evil.
Therefore I have to ask: do you want to relate Libertarians to Leftie / Conservative voters/pundits/politicans, or to intellectuals?
If it’s about the voters/pundits/politicians, the Political Compass is OK.
If it’s about the intellectuals, I think the Libertarians and the smart Conservatives: Scruton, Voegelin, Oakeshott, Burke, Kekes, John Lukacs, Theodore Darlymple etc. are pretty much in the same boat, just from a different point of view: Libertarians talk about mechanisms, Conservatives talk about culture.
Now, from my Conservative/Libertarian point of view I don’t agree to the Political Compass. Rather I think there is a one-dimensional difference between Modern and Premodern. Modern is about a Gnostic view of a selected elite who has Perfect Knowledge. Premodern is either about the Libertarian view of distributed knowledge (the market) as opposed to centralized knowledge, or about the Oakeshottian Conservative view of practical knowledge (tradition) as opposed to rational knowledge. They are pretty much about the same things, just put differently: markets are driven by entrepreneurs who employ practical, rather than rational knowledge, and the the ideas that survive long in the market become traditions.
But that’s only about the Libertarian, Left, and Conservative intellectuals, NOT about the politicians NOR about pundits like the Weekly F***ing Standard.