Are Nazi's Left Wing or Right Wing?

[erowe1]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/ron-paul/

Did you have anything specific in mind?

 

[Christian Liberty]

There are a variety of things wrong with your diagrams. Number one is that libertarian <> anarchist. Number two, which is beyond laughable, is that you have the commie, Mandela, as more libertarian than Margaret Thatcher. ROFLMAO

I seriously doubt its his graph, but yeah, its crap. I'm an ancap and I only get like -4 or so on the social l/a portion of that test. And I don't even know what they consider to be economically "right wing". I honestly don't think a +10 would be a purely free market position. I never support government intervention for anything and I have only ended up with like +7 or so.

The idea of a two axis scale is appealing. I'd actually say we probably need more than two. But the particular one for political compass is crap.

You are not a child. You grew up in this so-called "tyranny" and you had the chance to make more of yourself in this country than most had in any other country in this world. Whether you took advantage of that opportunity is yours to own. It's true that things have been getting worse gradually for many years and after 9-11, by leaps and bounds. But, for quite many years and more than a few generations, Americans had a more free life, with more opportunity, in this country than most anyone else in the world.

You seem to believe that if we were to have your vaunted anarchy, poof, the sun would be shining and the birds would be singing and no one would ever have to bat an eye to ensure that it didn't swirl down into a cesspool. And that is naive beyond all belief. So, how about you stop the constant BS that ooooo ooooo the country isn't as free as when it was first founded. No shit sherlock. Enough people didn't stay vigilant, educated and last, but not least, moral.

As an ancap, I have nonetheless always agreed with this point. I don't see any intrinsic reason anarcho-capitalism could prevent the formation of the state anymore than a limited government constitutionalism could contain the same. Ultimately, both require vigilance. However, I believe anarcho-capitalism is more logically consistent than constitutionalism.

Libertarianism taken to its conclusions is anarchism, yes. Furthermore, that graph has both an economic and a social axis. The social axis is authoritarian/libertarian, and the economic axis is left/right.

On a rational scale Rothbardian ancaps would be somewhere around -9 to -10, and minarchists prrobably somewhere in the -7 to -9 range. I only get like -4 on that test.

And on a rational test, a purely free market economist would be on one extreme or the other, but I'm only like +6 or 7 on that test to the economic "Right".

Its a crap test, honestly. Abortion and gay adoption, yeah those are "liberty issues" but forget hard drugs or guns. Someone could literally support banning every gun and any drug but pot and yet get a perfect libertarian score on that test. We need a better one.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

There are a variety of things wrong with your diagrams. Number one is that libertarian <> anarchist. Number two, which is beyond laughable, is that you have the commie, Mandela, as more libertarian than Margaret Thatcher. ROFLMAO

This is an interesting response considering you didn't respond to the post before it which, unlike this one that you responded to, was directed toward you with questions about your classification system.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Did you have anything specific in mind?

I thought you might like some help with the Ron Paul/CONstitution research.

 

[FrankRep]

Libertarianism taken to its conclusions is anarchism, yes. Furthermore, that graph has both an economic and a social axis. The social axis is authoritarian/libertarian, and the economic axis is left/right.

You forget that the term "Libertarianism" is extremely broad where a strict Constitutionalist and an anarchist are classified as Libertarian.

Before you say only Anarchists are Libertarian, I'll show you Ron Paul.



Ron Paul: What is a Libertarian? A Strict Constitutionalist



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZKHYRfyoE

 

[erowe1]

I thought you might like some help with the Ron Paul/CONstitution research.

I honestly don't want to do the research. I think it's a good idea, but too big of a commitment for me right now.

Also, I think the times we'll see him most clearly say something either positive or negative are going to pop up in recordings of him speaking when he has to think on his feet, and not in his writing. Plus, he's only been out of office for less than 2 years now, so he hasn't had much of an opportunity yet to air his criticisms of the Constitution publicly.

 

[erowe1]

You forget that the term "Libertarianism" is extremely broad where a strict Constitutionalist and an anarchist are classified as Libertarian.

Before you say only Anarchists are Libertarian, I'll show you Ron Paul.



Ron Paul: What is a Libertarian? A Strict Constitutionalist



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZKHYRfyoE

I'm trying to think of some sense in which AnCaps would not qualify as strict constitutionalists. And I can't come up with any. Can you?

Every time a strict constitutionalist points to anything and says that the federal government should never do it, an AnCap will always agree.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I'm trying to think of some sense in which AnCaps would not qualify as strict constitutionalists. And I can't come up with any. Can you?

Every time a strict constitutionalist points to anything and says that the federal government should never do it, an AnCap will always agree.

AnCaps think the government should do NOTHING. So, of course, they agree with the strict CONstitutionalists 99% of the time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You forget that the term "Libertarianism" is extremely broad where a strict Constitutionalist and an anarchist are classified as Libertarian.

Before you say only Anarchists are Libertarian, I'll show you Ron Paul.



Ron Paul: What is a Libertarian? A Strict Constitutionalist



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVZKHYRfyoE

Personally I think the word "libertarian" is big enough to fit different kinds of people. As Walter Block (ancap) has pointed out, we already have the word "Anarcho-Capitalist" to describe.... well.... anarcho-capitalists. I think its OK to stretch the word "libertarian" a little to include minarchists and near-minarchists who agree with us 90+% of the time.

Its a bit of a continuum problem, but for me, I'd draw the line for the NAP with relation to laws. We know almost all non-anarchists support some taxation, but my ultimate question would be whether someone supports aggression when it comes to the LAWS. There are cases that are legitimately debated, so I'd stick with the cases that no sane person could really debate. Drug use is clearly not aggression, so anyone who wants to ban drugs is not a libertarian. Gun ownership is clearly not aggression, so anyone who wants to ban gun ownership is not libertarian. Prostitution is not aggression, so anyone who wants to ban prostitution is not libertarian, etc.

I'd also say that anyone who wants to intervene all around the world or for the government to have more than a single digit % of GDP is not a libertarian. Interventionism is easy to explain here, murder is the worst crime of them all, it doesn't really matter what else you support if you're OK with murder. As for GDP, I guess this is somewhat arbitrary, why "single digit" as opposed to something else? I have two reasons I draw the line with single digit numbers, though I understand why that is somewhat arbitrary.

1. Its a low number. Lots of conservatives support lower taxes, but still support relatively "mainstream" amounts of taxes. 9% of less is a radical departure from the status quo.

2. More importantly (I know this won't really fly for some), the Bible (1 Samuel 8) clearly defines a 10% tax rate as tyrannical. And tyranny certainly can't be libertarian. So I'd draw the line there for that reason as well.

So basically, I'll call anyone a libertarian who:

1. Supports peaceful foreign policy

2. Supports limiting government to a single digit percentage of the GDP (0% is also a "single digit" when applicable)

3. Supports enforcing laws only against crimes with victims.

I can understand the logical reasons for wanting to limit "libertarian" to ancaps. I certainly believe minarchism and constitutionalism are less principled than anarcho-capitalism. But we already have the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" to describe this. I view myself as being on the same team as anyone who fits under the above three categories. Those who seriously deviate from those three I would view as radical statists, and those who only slightly deviate from those three I'd view as moderate statists.

I'm trying to think of some sense in which AnCaps would not qualify as strict constitutionalists. And I can't come up with any. Can you?

Every time a strict constitutionalist points to anything and says that the federal government should never do it, an AnCap will always agree.

I agree.

 

[erowe1]

AnCaps think the government should do NOTHING. So, of course, they agree with the strict CONstitutionalists 99% of the time.

Why do you not say 100% of the time.

A constitutionalist is anyone who says, "The federal government should not do anything that is not enumerated in the Constitution."
An AnCap is anyone who says, "No state should ever do anything."

Therefore, all AnCaps are constitutionalists.

As of now, this syllogism looks sound to me.

Maybe the reply would be that my characterization of constitutionalists is lacking, and that to be a constitutionalist one must also positively advocate the federal government doing certain things. But if so, what things are those? Is there any federal spending at all that Ron Paul could not vote to cut down to $0 while still keeping his oath of office, on the grounds that the Constitution obligated him to vote for it? If so, somebody help me, because I can't think of it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why do you not say 100% of the time.

A constitutionalist is anyone who says, "The federal government should not do anything that is not enumerated in the Constitution."
An AnCap is anyone who says, "No state should ever do anything."

Therefore, all AnCaps are constitutionalists.

As of now, this syllogism looks sound to me.

Maybe the reply would be that my characterization of constitutionalists is lacking, and that to be a constitutionalist one must also positively advocate the federal government doing certain things. But if so, what things are those? Is there any federal spending at all that Ron Paul could not vote to cut down to $0 while still keeping his oath of office, on the grounds that the Constitution obligated him to vote for it? If so, somebody help me, because I can't think of it.

I guess I agree with what you're saying, but the ideologies aren't exactly the same. That said, I'm comfortable identifying as both, for the reasons you describe.

Most people who say they are Constitutionalists (Including Ron Paul, BTW) do support a little bit of government, so there's that.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Why do you not say 100% of the time.

A constitutionalist is anyone who says, "The federal government should not do anything that is not enumerated in the Constitution."
An AnCap is anyone who says, "No state should ever do anything."

Therefore, all AnCaps are constitutionalists.

As of now, this syllogism looks sound to me.

Maybe the reply would be that my characterization of constitutionalists is lacking, and that to be a constitutionalist one must also positively advocate the federal government doing certain things. But if so, what things are those? Is there any federal spending at all that Ron Paul could not vote to cut down to $0 while still keeping his oath of office, on the grounds that the Constitution obligated him to vote for it? If so, somebody help me, because I can't think of it.

If it were 100%, I'd say it. ( just giving the non-AnCaps some wiggle room. )

Only if the CONstitution said nothing.

Therefore all CONstitutionalists are AnCaps. (WRONG!)

Uh, a valid syllogism requires two premises, a conclusion and no error in logic.

Perhaps you can find your answers in here. (help arrives)
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

 

[compromise]

I agree there should be (at least) two axes used to compare differing ideologies. Political Compass puts left/right on a strictly economic scale.

Yeah the auotbahn was a big public works project. It wasn't even used very much initially.

Assad and Jintao are most definitely not economically to the right of Stephen Harper. Hollande is a libertarian? Come on, the guy who expanded stop and search policies in France and is an ultra hawk on foreign policy?