The 5 levels of life quality/5 govt types--Left to Paleo-Right

Economics Political Theory
1


Questions:
How accurate is this? Any suggested corrections or edits?

Also, I guess one could ignore the references to Konami’s Castlevania. It’s one of my favorite game series, with the best canon of any mostly fictional story ever.

Extreme left
|democractic/majoritarian rule|
|authoritarianism|
fascism
absolute militarism, force.
Nazism one faction (commonly referred to as the far right)
Marxism (commonly referred to as the far left)
Stalinism (center of this group, as he would kill not a particular group, but rather the whole USSR)
life liberty and property belongs to one group or some groups; some group(s) will get the DP; the other(s) will get off completely.
complete subjectivism
“damn you, it’s my way or you’re dead!”
complete darkness, Ruler is “Lord of the Vampires, King of the Night”; setting is " Eternal Night, like Walter’s castle which has Mathias Cronquist in it, a tactician that could never kill anyone, like Hitler/Marx, who will then overcome their dark predecessor and become Count Vlad Tepes Dracula III/Eternal Lord of the Vampires/King of the Night, although eventually killed and given a 2nd chance, and will succeed as the world is eternal; however their spiritual or blood descendants must be purged"
no right to revolution; it’s completely oppressive, so Revolution is not possible.
regulations do work; only way to have true redist of wealth; those who are virtuous enough don’t accept what’s collected by this absolute state type, but the tyrannical majoritarians do accept.
no attempt to understand the other side.
no right to revolution against tyranny
John Adams (pale flesh, red and black cape, purple blood)
Nazi Germany
North Korea
Iraq
Iran
USSR
Saddam Hussein (likes someone until he feels they quit loving/serving him)
Alex Hamilton (?)
Kim Jung or what the hell the dude’s name is that rains purple/poison over North Korea (likes someone until they quit loving/serving him)
Aaron Burr (like Stalin and Dracula–someone who simply hates the entire human race, rather than a particular ethnicity, and often pretends to like someone they’re using, then plans to kill both, after they’ve served their master, like Dracula’s devil forgemasters Isaac and Hector)
no definite stance on abortion, but likely for it.

moderate left Social liberalism
neo-Conservatives, Democrats (except Grover Cleveland)[martin van buren not so much during his presidency, but before he wasn’t fiscally right, and after he supported Lincoln’s war, Federalists, Christian Wrong
Representative Democracy
Constitutional U.S.
U.K.
Regulations and redist of wealth doesn’t work.
Russia
Not sure whether the DP should exist.
largely subjectivism
not sure what religion to let rule
“I don’t give a **** about anything; what happens, happens, we’ll always be preceded by a new generation, damn it!”
attempts to read minds.
may not revolt against tyranny, but you can, so it can be overthrown; if it is, then lightness, if not then you remain in darkness.
John Adams (Philosophy, but not flesh and blood)
George Washington 100%; kind of like Leon Belmont, a red-blooded, strong willed combatant [with a purple blooded immortal enemy, after being “bound by an old friendship” with Aaron Burr/Count Vlad Tepes Dracula III] except future U.S. presidents (except Grover Cleveland and Thomas Jefferson, who would be Saint Germain from Curse of Darkness) would be his clan]
Oskar Schindler
Alexander Hamilton
Osama Bin Laden
Germany, France (Govt makes everyone love each other and be ultra-tolerant of each other)
no clear stance on abortion
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton Philosophy
Barrack Obama
Bush 41.
Pro-military
Death

Center–Relative Rule
Germany, France (wants a Constitutional government that enforces everyone to love and tolerate everyone else.)
ACLU
CATO institute
no one gets the death penalty; attempts to read minds
the most moderate and open-minded.
one religion is right, people will disagree as to which religion is right.
Bush43 before 9/11/01 (except every person convicted of murder, even those who said “I ain’t no god damn killer”, like poor Dick Hickcock, got the death penalty when he was TX Governor)
total disagreement on gun rights.
works half the time, more or less.

The unified OLD RIGHT/Paleo-conservative:
Moderate Right
Individual Liberty Enforced.
enforcement of individual liberty works.
Classical Liberalism/State of Nature enforcement/Locke Civil Society/Limited government
ACLU
CATO
No central/public military
No central bank
Individual liberty Locke Civil Society
Dr. Paul (death penalty views not explicit if we lived in a Civil Society?)
Pat Buchannan (except against Free Trade)
Ross Perot (maybe an exception)
True Champions of animal rights.
John Locke
Patrick Henry
AoC
Individual liberty
agnosticism
Doesn’t give a damn what you think, knows absolute equilibrium has to exist.
every rapist and killer gets the death penalty, just as brutally. just deserts, through as close to objective means as possible.
Absolute Light; setting is Eternal Dawn
True champions of the economics and True Champions of individual liberty.

State of Nature–|Individual Liberty|
Most Right
Anarcho-capitalism–Self-Government
atheism; belief in Nature’s god/the divine. Doesn’t care which one it is; there will be punishment for bad actions after departing earth, and there will be eternal salvation with all people after temporary punishment
Absolute Light; always a fresh dawn ahead; will always be a dawn ahead forever.
Declaration of Independence.
AoC
Patrick Henry
Ayn Rand
Thomas Jefferson
John Locke
(=The author of this document. some friends forever of this document’s author as it’s written. Eventually, all of his friends forever will be=)
individuals and Nature’s god are detterents against deprivation of life, individual/true liberty, or true property
True champions of economics and True champions of individual liberty

2

Right - Net tax producers

Wrong - Net tax consumers

3

I tried formatting a quote of your OP properly, but got lost in the middle with the run on sentences :frowning:

4

I’m sorry about that, but I really appreciate you trying to interpret my not so great writing. I actually now have a few questions about a state that enforces individual liberty, as well as it not working as well as a society that John Mill envisioned. [i.e., one with maximum individual liberty with minimized pain.]

Nature’s god (whoever the divine being is) would be the best deterrent in any society, right?

In anarcho-capitalist society wouldn’t the divine prevent the most people from raping, and stealing, as they’d be punished for that, and equally after departing the earth? Also, Ayn Rand pointed out, with her Objective Law, that only the divine (but not man) can read another man’s mind. Does Objectivism suggest that only the individual and Nature’s god know for certain that the individual intended to deprive another individual of life or liberty?

If yes, then does that mean that only Nature’s god (i.e., the divine) can provide a true just desert individual by individual upon one departing earth?

Rather, an anarcho-capitalist society citizen’s defense and detterents would be better than a Social Contract.

Even if the Social Contract and Civil Society enforcement officers were paid by a .5% sales tax with gold (or an even more valuable Natural metal) are all of the following good reasons why it wouldn’t work?

  1. It would turn into a nationalist society if people immigrated, or if population naturally increased, then more would need to be protected or punished.

  2. The tax would have to go up, or enclosing borders would have to be built to circumvent more population growth–>free trade would be cut off, the liberty for people to leave the land to aide another nation (anarcho-capitalism supports the individual aiding another nation, just as long as it’s not a centralized state, right?)

  3. So, a social contract society, really turns into a paleo-con society, right? Or is even the level 5 (extreme left) which I described to be possible for paleoconservatism to evolve into?

Questions about anarcho-capitalism:

  1. Technically, it’s wrong to say that anarcho-capitalism is no government, right? It’s self-government in the State of Nature, and also governed by the divine.

Or, do anarcho-capitalists considerably consider an anarcho capitalist society to be one with no government? I’d say no, because it’s the State of Nature, and a State is a government, but was wondering what you thought.

  1. Also, what was our legendary hero’s (Ludwig von Mises, of course) reason(s) for believing Anarch-capitalist society will never exist?

I can think of some, of which some, one, or none may be right. Someone here needs to better educate me on our hero.

My main 2, I don’t know if they’re his reasons, but here the are. I’m sure his reasons are good reasons though. I still could never give up educating the masses, however.

French school of thought: Classical liberals are generally the most rational and the weakest willed people. They educate people, but they generally tend to submit to socialists…

English school of the thought: …as the socialists really never have given up, ever since life ever existed on earth. If one were to think about it, the dinosaurs, or at least 99% of them, were fascists. They killed each other because they couldn’t handle petty Natural divisions, and did bad things like killing and stealing. There has never been an Old Right society in existence before.

5

You’re trying to define groups. Which is the opposite of libertarians. We don’t think or conform to specific schools of thought rigidly or dogmatically. Well, most of us anyway.

I think you need to spend some time reading Rothbard, because anyone who creates an anarcho-capitalist definition without Rothbard and Hoppe doesn’t understand Anarcho-Capitalism.

6

But liberterians comprise a group.

Unless they create it themselves, and it happens to be extremely similar to the ones proposed by Rothbard and Hoppe.

7

Out of convenience we use it as a label. But even here, we have political libertarians, anarchists, left anarchists, libertarians, minarchists, left libertarians, eklektarkists (SP!), etc.

I don’t ask people, “are you a libertarian?” because I know the answer will tell me almost nothing. I ask them if they support the non-aggression principle and free markets. Many libertarian and non-libertarians can identify with those principles.

8

I think it’s more appropriate to describe libertaranism as a name of philisophical territory, completly opposite to that of Statist territory, that is comprised of varying flavors derived from similar core themes concerning liberty, non-agression etc.

At best, libertarianism is an umbrella term, in the same way that Marxism could be considered an umbrella term over it’s variants (i.e. leninism, trotskyism, etc).

I think this only obvious when one studies political charts & takes referrence to Wikipedia, but this has given me an idea over how useful it would be to map out what umbrella terms would consist of, possibly for easier referrence, which I believe was the OP’s intent in the first place. Although, I would probably try & attempt to display them from a tactical viewpoint, not so much as strategic or formal.

Additionally, I think umbrella metaphor also works as some variants on central themes may seem to stray to edge of the umbrella, & perhaps go outside of it & for some details, no longer relate to the original term itself. Mutualism could be considered one, regarding it’s perspective on STV & LTV, but more obviously, recent variants like neo-liberalsm, neo-conservativism, & neo-libertarianism would be more apt candidates (Ii.e. lack of in-depth info on mutualism on my part)

… and with that, my lunch break is over :stuck_out_tongue:

9

You forgot Hoppeans.

10

The problem is that left and right are mainly cultural terms, I agree that there exist certain ideologies that correspond to various cultural beliefs and I suppose in this sense you could say that those ideologies who implentation would bring about the flourishing of certain cultures could respond points along the spectrum from left to right.