Political Charts: Where do you Fit?

It's not quite accurate to say that Paleolibertarians are "indifferent" to morals and traditions. Many Paleolibertarians are very traditional and morally conservative, but their intense opposition to government means that they will only go so far in accepting and respecting rank, which all governments depend upon. Paleolibs are therefore naturally more rebellious than Paleocons, who accept government as necessary in a fallen world and actually see it as reflecting the necessarily archical order of society.

Hmmm. Good point. I did phrase it rather poorly.

I was thinking something that would capture a spectrum from enjoying strong leadership and contenting one's self with little input, and desiring intensive participation at all levels of the process.

So I can picture both extreme Kratic Apathetic "dictatorial" (is that a word?) and Kratic Anapathetic "mob rule" state.

Radical, for example, is generally a term that defines a person's extremity (as in, both totalitarians and anarchists are "radicals" because they exist at the fringe of the political spectrum).

Actually that is not true. Technically, there are no "radical" conservatives. The term for an extreme conservative is "reactionary". It's just that "radical" sounds better in rhetoric so it's meaning has changed slightly from its origins to now be used for the extremes of either wing.

Language is fun like that.

3.favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms

Actually, language isn't technical. It's messy and words have multiple meanings, including both yours and mine. Which is my point: radical is often used to represent either end of the spectrum (or unusual points that lie orthogonal to the conventional spectrum), provided the individual in question wishes to overhaul the existing system.

Language is fun like that.

I thought long and hard about all the labels I used, and few are entirely satisfactory. I settled on Radical because the people on the left who tend toward the "Radical" perspective readily accept the label and use it to distinguish their own idealistic leftism from the more pragmatic, power-minded perspective of the lower left. And yes, one can be more or less radical, and the less radical are more moderate.

Ask your paleolibrarian about it.

Zing, Dennis. You get +1 vote for that one.

Entelechy, could you elaborate on the difference between paleolibertarian and individualist? I don't quite understand Anarchic, Arche, or being indifferent to either.

now I have another book to go buy.

A $40 book at that!

I think I'm an individualist leaning towards paleo-libertarian. I'll have to read this book. Why is there a term such as paleo-libertarian when there are no neo-libertarians?

That's a good point and something that I view as a flaw in the compass he has devised. Neo-libertarians do exist (though the philosophy is inconsistent). They are basically a war-mongering nationalist bunch who do not like business regulation, personal regulation and taxes.

I would like to see how they plan on funding their empire-building without taxation...

Wow I just read about them on wikipedia. I've never even heard the term before. How the hell can you favor a government that intervenes militarily overseas and expect that government to leave the domestic situation alone? Oh well, it seems like a typical response to 9/11 - stupid and counterproductive.

Neo-libertarianism is a foolish and misguided ideology. I have far more respect for paleoconservatives. My understanding is that paleoconservatism and good ole fashion libertarianism are pretty similar, but that paleoconservatism sees more legitimacy in government and isn't as opposed to regulating some personal behavior.

This paleo label is starting to irk me. Nobody wants to be labelled a caveman.

Thank you Entelechy, I understand better now. I guess I am definitely a paleolibertarian than.

Archy is not about judging another person's "worth," but about looking to another person as one's leader, ruler, or guide. Archists accept that someone has to be in charge. If the person in charge fails to live up to his archic office, the solution is to replace him with another person, not to try to arrange things so that no one is in charge. If you have a bad king, you get a new one; you don't declare a republic.

@Not-a-Number raises an interesting point about Ayn Rand and religion. Rand did indeed extol heroic individuals who rise above the rabble. She saw herself as such a superman and lorded herself over those around her. But this only proves that she was not an egalitarian, not that she was an archist. She fails as an archist because she was unwilling to accept anyone else over her. This is typical of extreme individualists. Thomas Jefferson railed against the inequality that would have required him to submit to popes or kings, but lorded himself over his 130 slaves. The principle Rand and Jefferson lived by was not archy, but their own individual interest. Recall the young Gore Vidal confessing himself "an absolute monarchist, on the condition of course that I be that monarch." This is individualism, not archism, which always looks up to someone higher, ultimately to God.

Archists are of course more accepting of hierarchies, viewing them as a fact of nature if nothing else, but they need not believe in God to believe in hierarchy. Neocons, for instance, recognize the utility of religion in support of the socio-political hierarchy, but their own belief in God is often suspect. Many tend toward a naturalistic conservatism, as opposed to a theistic traditionalism.

On the other hand, theism is, by definition, a recognition of rank (arche), a belief that man is subject to a supreme being. It should not surprise us then that the more religious one is, the more likely one will be found on the right. This is empirically verifiable. Surveys show that self-identified conservatives go to church more often than self-identified liberals. This is not to say that no one on the Left believes in God, but that belief in God is more consistent with an archical outlook, which is the basis of what we call conservative or right wing.

On Rand, submitting to one's own reason hardly qualifies as a recognition of rank. Rand simply changed her mind, based on new information. Ultimately, her only guide was her own self and its reason. This is inconsistent with the archistic outlook, which is based on a recognition of rank between actual persons, requiring humility and selflessness.

On the Iraq war, the alignment for and against the war would have be a lot different if a Democratic president had ordered it. Granted the parties differ on their approach to foreign policy, and there are ideological reasons why Clinton would prefer to bomb Serbs and Bush would prefer to invade Iraq, but each side tends to support the wars its own presidents order.

On Jefferson, the point is that he was inconistent in being an egalitarian slaveowner, and that individualism explains such inconsistency. Archism doesn't.

Good points. One reason my categories might not seem to make sense is that readers forget the variation from the center within each perspective and mistakenly compare someone near the center with someone much farther out. This is especially true of comparisons between Radicals and Individualists, because Radicals tend toward the extreme on account of their idealism, whereas Individualists tend toward the center on account of their self-interest.

You are just really inconsistent, therefore, you are a moderate.

You are just really inconsistent, therefore, you are a moderate.

Inconsistent or brilliant? ;-) I wonder if Einstein was ever called inconsistent.

I don't follow.

Ask youself: What is the principle that relates each of these preferences? I would expect that you would be hard pressed to identify one. This would put you somewhere in the middle, where it is often not possible to pin people down more precisely. A moderate or populist Theocon might be the best description.

Angel, yea, I agree. I wavered back and forth between Progressive and Individualist. In the end I decided on Progressive because I do believe smart organization can provide a good framework that benefits everyone.

Just as Newsvine provides a framework for discussion and information that actually encourages individuality and creative thought. That's how I see the role of government - overall be a like a good bulletin board website -- easy to navigate framework, informative, interactive with the public, quick to respond to glitches, and provide specific services equally accessible to everyone. What the approx. $420 Billion spent on the Iraq war could have done for America!! Basic preventative health care? Education? Funding for scientists to develop ways to decrease oil dependence or improve our eco footprint? Why does money magically appear to fund a war but not for the things I list here?

But, I digress... sorry!

What the approx. $420 Billion spent on the Iraq war could have done for America!!

Like what exactly? There are 300 million Americans. That amount of money is $1400/person, spread over several years. Actual spending on the war over several years is still not up to what we spend on interest payments on our debt in one year, which in turn is not as much as what we spent on Medicare/Medicaid. Universal health care would probably cost $250 billion/year. I don't mind that cost, but it's no good pretending that Iraq spending could have covered it.

Imagine if it wasn't stolen from people in the first place :)

Universal health care would probably cost $250 billion/year.

Brian, check your numbers. Medicare/Medicaid already cost near triple that figure. Universal would be a good trillion and that would be for very very basic coverage only.

The actual debt of the federal government is 59.1 trillion.

Are you aware that the number sequence after trillion is zillion? These numbers are so great it boggles the mind.

Hi Brian and Adam - Just to clarify - I did not mention "universal health care". I do mention basic preventative care and several other possible uses for the funds, copied below, to make the point that my Progressive mind feels that before tearing down or rebuilding the infrastructure of other countries perhaps we should focus on strengthening our own.

The original topic is very interesting and I do apologize for straying off topic. If we want to talk healthcare perhaps we start another discussion? ~ MV

--Basic preventative health care? Education? Funding for scientists to develop ways to decrease oil dependence or improve our eco footprint? Why does money magically appear to fund a war but not for the things I list here?--

What is "basic preventative care"? How much care does $350/person/year buy you? If you're paying out of pocket that's maybe two doctor visits, assuming they don't prescribe you anything.

As to why money magically appears, it's because Congress can order more printed whenever they feel like it. They recently had to raise the federal debt limit to $9 trillion to pay for government spending - which includes spending on all the things you list there. We spend big money on Medicare and Medicaid. We spend money on education. We spend money on research. The spending on the war is really not that big a portion of the spending pie. Are you arguing that because we spent X on program Y, then we should obviously be able to spend X on program Z as well? That's not a sound view. Although to be fair it is one that Congressmen make all the time.

Check out http://www.federalbudget.com/ to see how much money we're spending where. Spending on the Department of Health and Human Services in particular has gone up about $150 billion in the last 3 years.

@Not a Number - where did you get the 59.1 trillion figure from? That's $50 trillion higher than I've heard about.

Hey Brian, I know what you mean.

The government does not calculate future spending promises.

Here is one site, though his final total is a little different than mine.

Crap, I forgot I can't post links. sorry, just google it.

Thanks. So my share is $500,000. Nice.

However, the White House and the Congressional Budget Office claim Medicare and Social Security aren't true liabilities because government can cancel or cut them at any time.

Ah, of course. That will be fun won't it?

I typed up a long response, but I just deleted it as I realized you don't actually have an identifiable point.

I made my point. I'm done.

Really? Can you point me to your thesis statement? I have no idea what you were trying to convey with your statements. You want to government to fund the half dozen programs you list and not waste any money and to make poor people not be poor anymore? I have no idea what you want. You compare two numbers, one of which is 120 times larger than the other, and act like its a ridiculous idea that the smaller of those numbers is not as important as the larger of those two numbers.

And the ** - what is up with those?

I think this pretty much sums it up:

America's approx total liability is $59.1 Trillion (including SS & Medicare) so why worry about the $420 Billion (and growing) Iraq war spending?

Can our government improve its money management to ultimately help fund all these budget allocations and/or pay off some debt?

I believe MarsViolet is asserting that borrowing against the liability of the country to wage war is not good policy, especially since it's being done in favor of providing healthcare.

There is a false dichotomy here though. It's not like the money was allocated for health care and then taken away from that to fund the war. The money didn't exist before. Also, I thought that first sentence was written sarcastically. I can't really tell though, which is why I asked.

People, things you write may seem crystal clear to you when you write them, but to other people they may not be so clear.

Wow...I totally missed this the first time around. Thanks! Individualist, nevertheless.

I completely don't remember this, and apparently didn't comment the first time around, but I DID take the poll.......guess I was in a rush. Anyway, Individualist (huge surprise lol)