The gbaji CodeFollow

Well. Let's be honest. "left" and "right" are relative terms, are they not? And incidentally, terms that get used and abused in many different ways depending on who's using them and in what context.

To say that the ***** were 'statist' and therefore neither left wing nor right wing is somewhat pointless. Smash started this entire argument by making a statement that presumed that since the ACLU defends ****'s that it *cant* be left wing. Does the diamond support Smash's statement? I don't think so.


I'm well aware of the diamond method of measuring political positions. However, I'm also well aware that most people *do* phrase things in a distinct "left v right" manner. And it certainly seemed that Smash was attempting to do so, since his argument *only* makes sense if you assume that ****'s are "right wing", right?

More to the point, here in the US, we have two major parties. Democrat and Republican. Those two parties, rightly or wrongly, are often also labeled "left" and "right" respectively. Interestingly enough, if you simply rotate the diamond you linked 45 degrees clockwise, you'll find that the "left" and "right" in the square thus produced match up pretty well with the Democrat and Republican parties in the US *and* match up with how most people think in terms of "left" and "right" in terms of US politics.


Smash certainly seemed to be trying to argue a strict "left versus right" argument with regards to the ACLU. I simply responded to that by applying the ****'s into the "side" of politics they best fit in the context we're talking about (US politics, right?). Clearly, if the **** agenda were being pushed today, it would be from within the Democrat party. Not the Republican.

Again. Most of the confusion over terms like left and right arise from the fact that they're used to mean different things. The diamond itself isn't accurate in a classical sense. We get the terms "left" and "right" from the seating arrangements of French Parliment after their revolution. Originally, it refered to those who wanted to maintain status quo (seated on the right), and those who wanted to make major changes (seated on the left). Coincidentally, the status quo in France prior to the revolution was an authoritarian, class based system, while the primary change being fought for was a Liberalist agenda (not at all to be confused with "Liberal" by the way). Interestingly enough, those classical liberalists that made up the "left" back then are what we today call Libertarians. Yet, the diamond doesn't put them left or right, and by my assessment of our political parties, they tend to be positioned to the right (in fact, libertarians are often called a "far right" position in the US).


Um. But we don't live in post-revolution France. We live in the US (or at least the ACLU exists within the US, so this needs to be framed in the context of US politics). Thus, it's inaccurate to take left and right to mean what they meant then. And it's inaccurate to blindly take the diamond definitions (since they're broad and don't actually match how most people use the terms). So, call me silly, but I used "left" in the context of "ideas that are pushed by those typically labeled "left" in US politics. And guess what? Big government (statism) is an attribute generally called "left" in the US. So are pro-labor arguments. And anti-business arguments. It just so happens that those on the "left" end up being statist, but they are statist nonetheless.


Or am I the only one who remembers Smash arguing strongly that we should have a 50% tax, provide all citizens with free education, housing, and medical care, and that it should be the government that decides how much any given job or good should be worth in our economy? If that's not statist, I'm not sure what is...


Let me also add that I have some serious reservations about the diamond methodology of measuring "left" and "right" in our political spectrum. And not just in the fact that 250 years ago, "left" was where the top is in the diamon, and "right" was where the bottom is (so basically, the whole thing rotated 90 degrees sometime between when those terms were first coined and when someone came up with the diamond), and not just in the fact that at least in the context of US political parties, the diamond should actually be rotated yet another 45 degrees clockwise, but also in the fact that the very terms "economic issues" and "personal issues" are a bit vague.


The problem is that we can't say what the scale of "personal issues" means. Nor can we say what the scale of "economic issues" means. Does someone at the 100% economic issues mean he simply cares about the economy the most? But in what way? Does he support massive government intervention and control in order to keep the economy working as well as possible? Or the exact opposite? Or does it even measure "state economy" at all? Maybe the guy at 100% cares the most about personal economic opportunity? And if that's the case, then how does that bode in the broader sense? Same problem applies to personal issues.


From the way the diamond is drawn it appears that those "issues" are measured in terms of "freedom from state control". So a 0,0 means that the state has absolute control both in terms of someone's personal life and his economic future (hence, being completely statist). While a 100,100 argues that the state have no control over either (libertarian).

Those two seem to work ok, but we get into some problems when we look at conservative and liberal positions. Is it accurate to say that one is 100% about economic freedom from the state, but 0% personal freedom from the state if one is a far right conservative? Is that even possible? After all, assuming that 100% economic freedom also includes the ability of any individual to succeed in the economy without interference from the government, how is that possible without also having a degree of personal freedom? The only way we can resolve this is if we define "economic issues" as a broader "state economy" rather then an economy free from the state. In that case, we can have a condition in which the needs of improving the GNP to the maximum possible can be achieved at the expense of people's personal freedoms (for example in a state where your job is picked for you based on where you'd be best, and you have no choice in the matter). But that's a different definition then the one that defines statism.

Same deal with the liberal side. Is it actually possible to have 100% personal freedom but not have any freedom from the government in terms of economics? Interestingly enough, it does seem like some liberals think so, but I don't. This would seem to tie into the idea that you can have strict government control over the economy, tax high, reduce economic opportunity, but provide services and whatnot to "the people" allowing them to pursue whatever things they want. But my personal belief is that there's fundamentally no way for a state to have that much control over the economy and not end up having to reduce personal freedoms as well. I think there are a lot of liberals who believe otherwise, but I simply can't see how it's possible. You give the government that much control over your economics, and it'll have to intrude into your personal life as well.


Dunno. I have a sneaking suspicion that the diamond was cooked up by a group of libertarians in order to "score" themselves at the best on both scales. It's not really accurate for anything else though...

Someday Nobby will find just the right movie to give me a minor part in.


Thankfully this wasn't it.