A theoretical discussion on political positions.

In US Politics thread and possibly other political discussions in OTC, we've had frequent topic drifts. Sometimes the conversation shifts, from current political issues of the region, to general viewpoints on political theory: the what and why.

So this thread is for political theory and their basis, and how they relate to political positions ("locations" on the political charts). This is so we can learn what these positions mean, and really understand the reasoning behind how people think in politics.

---

Some basic definitions I can attempt:

The first distinction we can make is how much the "authority" of state and government should there be. Two common words are Libertarianism: belief that government is a minimal security, and it should be restrained to avoid restricting liberty; and Statism: belief that authority is necessary and deserves respect, and it has responsibility to care for its people. Disclaimer

But perhaps the more common distinction is the "left-right politics". This is because of the stances people have and had in economic, cultural, governmental, and diplomatic affairs. Left-Wing has been characterized with emphasizing "social change to create a more egalitarian society (quote Wikipedia)", and/or simplified to economic order and social freedom. Right-Wing has been characterized with "acceptance or support of social hierarchy", and/or simplified to economic freedom and social order.

I should also mention Conservatism, which thinks that change is a careful or fragile concept and should be carefully limited or restrained to avoid careless damage, and Progressivism, which aims to make reforms and embrace the process and burden of change for the better. These words tend to get (mis)used somewhat differently in the political field, especially in American politics IMO.

Please keep in mind that the colors I used are not necessarily representative of anything.

---

Some guidelines for this thread:

• Political positions: I suggest using a Nolan Chart or other multi-dimensional models for this discussion. Single-dimensional spectrum is too simple for the big picture.

• Please clarify your definitions so we're talking about the same thing. We want to be on common ground for a discussion to happen.

• You can state your political orientation and its rough positioning, along with its reasoning, if it helps.

• It's possible that during the discussion, you might shift your political "location" on the axes, or at least where you thought the location was. It's possible in a civil talk.

Long story short, if politics threads get a topic drift to a theoretical side, bring that here.

edited 10th Apr '13 2:35:11 PM by Trivialis

...I'd like to start by disagreeing with the dichotomy of Libertarianism versus Statism, and, rather, I'd frame it as Libertarianism versus Authoritarianism. I'd define the two sides as follows: Libertarianism is the focus of the system on the defense of personal freedom from all who may threaten it, and Authoritarianism is the focus of the system on the defense of societal order and morality from all who may threaten it. Libertarianism does not preclude Statism, but, rather, shows a focus on the individual, rather than the society. This means that there could still be government enforcement of certain stuff in a government on the Libertarian side of things, but they would focus on such things as protecting individual freedoms from the encroachments of others, such as through slavery, as well as the disenfranchisement of minority groups. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, would focus on enforcing things that would harm society as a whole, or are perceived to do so, such as the banning of drugs.

This is, btw, one way in which I disagree with the Nolan Chart, as it does not, to my knowledge, acknowledge that personal freedom can be encroached upon by forces other than the government, or, at the very least, doesn't find it relevant.

As for my own political orientation, I am extremely Left-Wing, more so than any other person I know.

edited 13th Sep '12 1:52:38 AM by deathpigeon

I am very much a leftist. Of course, I'm also European, which means that even my definition of 'right' would be considered leftist by you crazy Americans.

I believe that it is the government's job to uphold, enforce and execute the social contract: the implicit agreement one enters on entering a community, be it through birth or migration, and states the terms on which the members of the community ensure the well being of any other member of said community. The government does this by pooling a community's resources through taxation, and use said resources towards the betterment of both the community and the individual.

What I consider to be a worrying trend is individual and corporations that have gained enough power to break away from the social contract. Now that they have made it to the top of the social pyramid and no longer benefit from it, they seek to shirk their responsibilities towards their fellow humans, even though they are hoarding a pile of resources that they can never reasonably spend on their own. I believe in such cases, that it is the government's duty to step in and enforce the contract by taxing the rich more than the non-rich, even if the rich can no longer benefit from it. Such is the contract they entered.

Healthcare and education are the central pillars that ensures one's well being. As such, they are the government's responsibility, and it is unthinkable that one's access to either should be limited in any way or shape. Private institutions should be available to those that can afford it, but everyone should always have access to high-quality care and education, no matter their income.

Society consists naturally of 'winners' and 'losers'. One will eventually gain more power than another, that is something that can not and should not change. What one must never forget, however, is that the division is determined by lottery, rather than fair competition. If one falls behind for whatever reason, he or she must be granted the resources required to get back on his or her feet.

Religion is one's own individual business which the government should neither encourage nor suppress. Religion has no place in any government institution.

Killing, in any situation or form, is dirty business that taints humanity. As such, it should never be glorified.

Aaaaaand I think that about sums it up. Well, at least when it comes to the general stuff. Someone should bring up abortion or something so we can get into specifics:P

edited 13th Sep '12 2:36:18 AM by Kayeka

By specifics do you mean a 5 page bitch fest about how Pro-Life is fascist and Pro-Choice is murder?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

...Let's go into something less divisive like whether or not God exists, or Picard vs, Kirk, or any other topic, just, please, no abortion. That never ends well.

I'd like to point out that I was joking to make a point about how this thread seems more than a little vague.

To respond to another post from that thread:

It actually has worked; look up the Jewish kibbutz.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Liberalism... both social, political and economic. I see this term nowhere... And, no: it doesn't directly equate with libertarianism or progressivism, although it can overlap both, in parts. But, only in parts.

Mainly, most modern, European liberals don't shy away from government enforcement of their agenda (although, they're not as overly-fond of government interference in all areas of life, as some more to the right are, and show a strong belief in open access of governmental information and a restructuring of political systems along more consensus-building, rather than confrontational, lines).

FYI: I'm a social-Liberal with leanings left of centre (by European reckoning of "centre").

edited 13th Sep '12 8:21:26 AM by Euodiachloris

The more I think about it, the more I would put my particular axis to be Kyriarchy vs. Anarchy. Kyriarchy being social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission.

The important thing to note here...I'm not an anarchist. I'm actually about the middle (or slightly leaning towards the anarchy side of things), but I think that generally speaking political positions fall onto that graph.

For all the hub and bub, generally speaking even (big-L) Libertarians are way off towards Kyriarchy, in my opinion.

I'll give an example..in the US, I think that the lack of single-payer health care actually builds Kyriarchial institutions as people are more tied to their jobs for the health care, reducing their freedom and making them more "under the thumb".

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Bingo. It's why many European Liberals accept that for freedom, sometimes government intervention is needed to provide structures (like national insurance, health care, etc.) that liberate the choices for those using them. For some reason, a lot of Americans find this counter-intuitive. Particularly those with Libertarian leanings. I don't always get why.

I chalk it up to cultural difference. <shrugs>

Hence, government is only Evil when it oppresses. Big government (and its associated structures) need not be, if it is both open, accountable and adjustable by the electorate. As well as policed and questioned: regularly.

edited 13th Sep '12 9:40:39 AM by Euodiachloris

...You know, I'm beginning to suspect that, for a purely theoretical discussion, merely two dimensions aren't enough. I mean, a potential third dimension was already mentioned with Conservatism versus Progressivism, but I'm not sure whether or not three would be enough either... Of course, having too many dimensions isn't practical for every day use, but it is useful for theoretical discussion.

Do we really have to do all this color coding of words? It's pretty distracting.

Anyway, yeah, Libertarians do seem to willfully ignore social and economic forces that can suppress people even worse than the government if there's no government interference. They seem to believe in a mythical event that will make us all rational actors. And don't realize that "rational" and "moral" and "good for everyone" don't exactly always line up. CE Os act perfectly rationally, for THEIR benefit. There's not, necessarily, much rationale to pay employees more when they've already proven they'll work just as hard for less money when no other options are available.

Things like this are why I dislike Libertarians and Ayn Rand. Their philosophy is willfully blind to human nature. (Really, for all that Rand hated altruism her philosophy seems to require a certain amount of it just work as she intended. IE; people deliberately not initiating force on others for their own personal benefit.)

I would love to put every self proclaimed Libertarian through a sociology/history course dedicated to the study of what makes the poor man poor.

My personal Political Position?

I'm mildly Conservative, of a pragmatic British non-ideological "if it isn't broke, don't fix it sort" — and of the sort inclined (if something needs fixing) to use a solution that already works. In terms of Foreign Policy, I'm a supporter of The Commonwealth and with working with similarly-minded nations, like Japan — and perhaps, quietly moving away from American and EU influence*

. Militarily, I like strong military, since I feel we're going to need it in the not-too-distant future, and I'm quietly*

Most of the time

Patriotic. I take The Poppy deadly seriously.

In terms of people, I don't believe in "Rational Actors", because human beings are not at all rational — it's just there to make economists lives easier, not reflect reality.

As you can guess, the current situation in the USA confirmes the worst Eagleland Type 2 and Face Palm tendences, for me.

@ Lady deathpigeon:

Could Pragmatism be another sub-category?

Yeah. I felt like it!

edited 13th Sep '12 10:52:16 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

So pragmatism versus ideology? Could wo- Wait, ''Lady'' deathpigeon? O.o

Well, I believe people can and do behave rationally. Just not one hundred percent of the people one hundred percent of the time. And again, I also don't believe that "rational" and "good for people who aren't me" don't always line up when thinking of end goals. It's perfectly rational for CE Os of certain types of companies to do things that screw over other people, for instance. Bain was very good at what it did, after all.

This is also why I don't think anarchy can work either. It relies on the rational actors even more so than Libertarianism. You'd have to have everyone being perfect all the damn time. It ignores factors like alcohol, bad days, and the fact that some things offend people more than other people think it would. Sometimes, shit just happens. Also, no protections against cults of personalities which can easily turn into dictatorships.

I vote Democrat, but I guess my position is that of "whichever group looks like it's actually trying to help people effectively". I consider myself both an optimist and a pragmatist, in the sense that I think we'll end up mostly okay regardless, and that there are better, more effective ways than what Republicans are suggesting to achieve that.

I believe that pluralism is something that needs to be embraced and protected. It is not the role of the government to enforce it's belief system or cultural values; it only needs to ensure that each individual is free to have their own social views, not that the world conform to theirs. Religion is definitely a big example of what I'm talking about here.

While I take progressive stances on most issues, my thought process tends to lean somewhat libertarian. For example, I largely believe in the Non-Aggression Principle like they do, but I interpret it differently. I don't see taxation as coercion because the government, in turn, provides vital services for us in exchange for our patronage. But a corporation whose activities cause environmental damage are most certainly in violation with the NAP because they're affecting not just people who buy their products, but those who don't. This is an entirely unfair and involuntary exchange far worse than any tax. Speaking of corporations, I really do like them in theory. Limited liability is an important concept that needs to be kept because it allows for innovation beyond something a single individual could pull off. However, there's a huge problem right now because corporations are taking risks that aren't necessary at all, and are quite often foolish. Take the carelessness that led to the BP Oil spill, for example. I'm really disappointed in the current libertarian movement in America because of how quick they are to turn a blind eye to the excesses and power grabs done by corporations just because they aren't the government. At least with a government, you have some limited amount of say in the democratic process, which I believe limits their potential for tyranny by comparison.

I also believe that to achieve real economic freedom, you cannot simply allow the government to overlook the poor and disadvantaged. It must be acknowledged that there are real reasons why even hard working people are sometimes unsuccessful because of things entirely outside of their control, and this needs to be addressed in order for our social mobility to grow.

In short, I'm basically a typical left-winger with an anti-authoritarian bent.

@All: You're free to define your own axes, but please try to be objective with them so that other people can use it too in the topic.

The main reason I said Libertarianism and Statism is because these words seemed to be more objective and less derogatory. I find Statism to be more appropriate than Authoritarianism in that sense; personally, authoritarianism seems to imply oppression, whereas statism does government authority justice (United Russia party seems to endorse it).

If I wanted to be really blunt, I could have defined a spectrum ranging from anarchy to tyranny. They're theoretically useful as limits, but few think those limits are realistic and/or desirable. Political axes are just that - they're meant to be theoretical measures of a particular dimension, not a scale of how desirable or realistic a system is.

However, you and others here do bring up a good point, when you bring up regulation to prevent abuse from other people and go beyond government intervention vs freedom from government authority.

I didn't include liberalism because it gets confusing and the meanings people attach may contradict. It's split between classical liberalism, stressing liberty from "the rule", and American liberalism, a left-wing thought emphasizing government action to provide the liberty. Wikipedia: According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism". (link)

I find conservatism and progressivism to be reasonably general terms for the purpose of discussing the concept of change. They have uses beyond politics; you can be conservative with your own personal finance by not spending a lot, like I tend to be. But my choice of words are just guidelines provided by the OP, not Word of God. I'm aware that "liberal" can also be an adjective opposite of conservative in this general sense.

---

Now, my own position is centrist, but leaning a bit left and libertarian side (moreso thanks to this forum ). Because I defined the axes as theoretical, I don't see the extremes to be workable in reality. Having taken World's Smallest Political Quiz and Political Compass, I got pretty much moderate results. I got closest to libertarian and democratic candidates in "I Side With" quiz.

I'm "soft" on telling people what to do, so I tend to support social liberty, but I still think there are some things reasonably positive with a paternalistic government. I'm more stringent when it comes to life (abortion, death penalty, suicide). Fiscally, I think capitalism still works best, but I find government intervention as acceptable for providing more equity.

Well, of course, the axes are generally culturally-specific.

For example, in Britain, one could add Europhillic-Europhobic.

Myself believes that the state is a force for good, if used effectively. The state should provide for everyone, and give equality of opportunity, and help maximise the equality of outcome.

So, I'm general statist.

However, I do believe in the power of corporations in society. As long as they are kept out of political influence, and they meet stringent government targets on environmental, social, and economic (i.e. tax) outcomes.

I also am a Europhile; i.e. I support a deepening of the EU as a unit, and support a European identity.

I also am very socially left-wing, in that I support gay rights, etc, and - crucially - the use of the state to enforce those rights.

Well, this site includes seven axes:

1. Cosmopolitan vs. nationalistic.
2. Secular vs. fundamentalist.
3. Visionary vs. reactionary.
4. Anarchist vs. authoritarian.
5. Communistic vs. capitalistic.
6. Pacifist vs. militaristic.
7. Ecological vs. anthropocentric.

edited 22nd Sep '12 4:53:22 PM by deathpigeon

1. Most Cosmopolitan.

2. Most Secular.

3. Moderate Visionary

4. Moderate Authoritarian

5. Slightly Capitalist

6. Moderate Pacifist

7. Slightly Anthrocentric

My scores on it were:

1. 50% cosmopolitan.
2. 85% secular.
3. 66% visionary.
4. 59% anarchist.
5. 54% communistic.
6. 92% pacifist.
7. 7% anthropocentric.

According to the test, I'm a cosmopolitan social democrat, and only 2% of the other cosmopolitan social democrats were more extremist than me.

Took your test. The language was confusing and broken. BLARGH!

Lesse...

Cosmopolitan 35%

Secular 75% (only 75%?!)

Visionary 40%

anarchistic 37% (?)

communistic 37%

pacifist 19%

anthropocentric 37%

Social Democrat. Jeeze, it's almost like I should vote for Barack Obama not just to oppose Mitt Romney, but because I actually agree with his position. WTF?

So, it's now a political compass thread?

For some reason it made me into some silly sort of commie ("social democratic Cosmopolitan" in normalese):

• 19% cosmopolitan
• 10% fundamentalist
• 3% reactionary
• 9% anarchistic
• 11% communistic
• 3% militaristic
• 54% anthropocentric

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

The test isn't the best written one, but I feel like the axes are good.

The other thing is that those tests consequently try to tell me I'm some sort of leftie, so I have no choice but to find them all slightly "off".

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"