Zombie, an anonymous San Francisco blogger and photographer whom I admire, recently wrote an article for Pajamas Media that echoes what I myself have been saying for years: the left/right, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal alternative is a false alternative, and those two ideologies are really just two sides of the same penny: the one espouses (nominal) economic freedom but advocates government intrusion in political issues (the Right), while the other espouses nominal political freedom but advocates complete government intrusion in economic affairs (the Left). This issue is not a marginal issue — and indeed becomes more and more relevant each passing day, as this country creeps closer to outright revolution.
Zombie’s article is worth reading in full, but if you don’t have the time or the inclination, please take a long look at his graph, which he calls the real political spectrum: collectivism-versus-individualism — or, in my words, freedom-versus-statism. It’s not quite the graph I would have made, but it’s pretty good; and if freedom is ever to win the day, it is this distinction that must be understood:
(Note: to see Zombie’s explanation for his categories, click here.)
Very interesting
–
Walter Block has a very good lecture on this exact subject from 2006.
–
I’ll post the link tomorrow.
–
I have said before, libertarians are hippies with guns.
–
But hippies can be fairly obnoxious as well, and wassup with those communes???
–
The other problem I find with hippies, is that when they choose to fit themselves back into society, they often adopt the most totalitarian of perspectives.
They vote for the socialist parties, are quite PC, and generally call for statist solutions to problems.
That is the hippies that got bank jobs after Woodstock that is.
I went up into a pot smoking parlor on Yonge street here in Toronto, and what did I see? A “Ron Paul Revolution” poster – and when I showed him my mises book, the owner was totally down.
–
And I fully agree with Ray – left/right has very little leaning any more – I would actually like to see a political party that was interested in shrinking the size of government.
–
That is the real problem – the oversized bureaucracy that has arisen in our western nations – regardless of the political party that is in power, the bureaucracy remains, and it has it’s own agenda – expansion.
–
The inexorable growth of government as they say.
There is not a single year in my entire lifetime in which the government did not grow. Too bad I can’t say that about my income. Since the government started it’s recent explosive growth, my income (and its buying power) have shrunk. I bet if we shrink government, my income will increase.
Oh, that’s right, we have crises and moral obligations to redistribute income, the government can’t afford for me to keep what I earn, so they need to steal my income, devalue the dollar to destroy my savings, meddle in the housing industry so they destroy my equity, and raise my taxes, which obviously they think I can afford, the fucking assholes, so they can invent more crises and spend more and print more and impose more. But, Nick loves all that government, so I guess that makes it ok.
The Tea Party seems fairly well placed in that chart to me. Ray?
Will the revolution curtail “the inexorable growth of government”? Will it result in anarchy?
I’d have put the UN up there with the Maoists and Stalinists. Still, at least the EU is represented up there. I would also have put the Hippies next to the Bums (or maybe alongside the Greens) rather than down with the Libertarians. It’s all a bit messy (as is the reality) – which makes it closer to the truth than the neat little Left/Right paradigm.
Hi Dave. About “The EU”, which is closer to Stalin/Mao than “FDR/Obama Democrats”. Recent trends in France and UK to cut government suggest these two could be reversed. What do you think?
Also, “Moderate Democrats” vote for Pelosi and trillions in debt, so I wonder if it is imaginary, maybe better called “Unicorns”.
I agree the spectrum is better than left/right, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this done before.
Yes, Zombie gives the tea party pretty high placement on his spectrum — higher than I would, just as he does with hippies and hobos.
Revolutions can go either way. It depends on the philosophical ideology underlying them, and how systematized and clearly codified that ideology is. Right now, the tea party is a haphazard farrago with way to much religion in it and not enough philosophy. Anarchy, in the sense I think you mean it, Marshep, isn’t possible for any length of time, in my opinion. It will inevitably be replaced by the strongest faction to seize control, which faction will then lay down its own version of law and order.
Thank you for your comment, David UK. I liked it.
And thank you for dropping by.
SEASON’S GREETINGS
T’was the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down
–
I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
tired of political clap-trap
–
When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out my window
Saw Obama and his boys
–
They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!
–
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink
–
He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!
–
‘On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi’
He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause
And as they flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!
–
So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DON’T WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE !!!!
Socialism and Fascism: A Political-Economic Spectrum Analysis
–
Great lecture by Block from the Mises institue.
–
I know Ray is a fan of Reisman, so here is a lecture from the same series in 2005.
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian
–
Both very worth watching for the full half hour.
We make models all the time.
Mathematical. Digital. Scale. Political.
Left, Right or the middle. The traditional politics use a one dimensional
number line. The political establishment (including the media) forces you to
choose left, right or the middle. and what a muddled middle it is.
Ban abortion, right vs. abortion on demand, left. We are left to endlessly
fighting about trimesters and stem cells. An endless debate in my opinion. One
of a myriad of social issues forever unsolved.
Corporations are bad and rich people are greedy so share the wealth with us,
the workers, left vs. What’s mine is mine, poor people are greed so go get your
own right. One of a myriad of economic issues forever unsolved.
It is fashionable among the politically astute among us to claim herself to be
economically conservative and socially liberal. Or a social and economic
liberal, or a conservative socially and economically. Why might we try to
differentiate here?
Yet we continue to squabble about what the middle should be. Our politicians
skate us into a triple axle spin. We are told that a representative has to have
some politically defined perfect life. If you have ever spanked your kid, paid
cash to get your lawn mowed, didn’t file a form, screamed in public, had an
affair,
I think we need more pointed debates.
If you wind up in jail and then court, what one document do you want in your
posession?
Is there a better model? Can we define the middle a bit better?
Yes!
I propose left right be economical. Up down be social. Thus north becomes freedom for both economic and social issues. South becomes govt. control of both econimic and social outcomes.
East (right) is economic freedom and west (left) us government control.
I am going north!
EJ
Bottom Line. Instead of a one dimensional model, lets evove to a two dimensional model.
And then to a 3D model with even more freedom.
This model is not new. It does need to be discussed.
Ray says
So Ray, as I understand it, the nations of the world are currently in a state of anarchy with regards each other.
–
does this mean you are in favour of a word government? a “United Nations” an “International criminal Court”
–
or how about an International Court for the Environemnt?
–
If anarchy is as bad as you claim.
Redmond wrote: > So Ray, as I understand it, the nations of the world are currently in a state of anarchy with regards each other.
No. Anarchy is a society without an organized government.
But there is currently no organised world government
All of these binding treaties that are enforced by governments begin to resemble a functioning world government of sorts – would you agree with that?
Interpol,world criminal court, extradition treaties, UN Peacekeepers – etc etc.
So is there currently a Minarchist World Government?
“So is there currently a Minarchist World Government?”
No. There’s an absolutely massive and staggering bureaucratic apparatus in place.
As Wichita Falls, so falls Wichita Falls.
So, is world government here? A New World Order if you will?
What say you?
–
I am assuming you are not a member of the John Birch Society. Is this correct?
Nations are still obviously sovereign.
I belong to no fraternity, club, group, gang, church, committee, guild, or grange. And as you will no doubt recall, I’ve addressed the John Birch Society — and your question — before, on my defunctive website, among other places.
Ray says ->
How about the United States – is Colorado Sovereign?
The Federal government has for well over 100 years now ultimate power over the states, though many state Constitutions DO express sovereignty.
Which of course has little to do with a one-world government.
wow. this is a daring but very unthoughtful attempt of putting all of us into boxes. being a libertarian of kinds i refuse to be put into a box. that tea party is coming up all the time and, since we are putting people in boxes here anyway, let’s add a third dimension to this flat representation: knowledge versus ignorance. and where do you think most of the tea party-ists will end up?
jungle…
IMO, the Tea Party will eventually be assimilated by the right we see now
commies should be at lower right, facists at upper right… but maoists don’t count, the orientals have different idealogy
Thank you for your comment, nvren, but I beg to differ (about the orientals): Mao Zedong was much influenced by Lenin, the Russian Revolution, and Karl Marx.