Thoughts Aloud

â—„Daveâ–º says:

Thanks for the early critique, Steel.

It seems a little biased, I don’t know if that was the intention or not.

Oh, sure. The whole purpose is to try to get others who have been trapped in the Left/Right dichotomy, to rethink allowing the politicians to keep them there. Until I publish the essay, one needs to read “The Political Spectrum” to appreciate what I am trying to accomplish and my reasoning behind suggesting an Up/Down orientation.

I really don’t understand why centrists are where they are on the chart.

That is the beauty of the diagram. If one is close to the middle on the Left/Right spectrum, they can become aware that they are actually very close to the ideal of Individual Liberty, which is NOT a Right Wing position; but more of a libertarian one. Moreover, centrists, independents, swing-voters, et al, turn out not to be unprincipled, as the partisans would have it; but actually occupying hallowed ground, while resisting the pull toward more government control of their lives from either L/R direction.

It looks a bit like Anarchy is labeled as having Less liberty.

Hmmm… that is unfortunate, if others read it that way too. The “Less” refers to “Government” and is the opposite of the “More” at the bottom. Up is trending away from government control of our lives, and Down is trending toward more. Obviously (I thought), anarchy is zero government, the extreme of Liberty, and servitude in a Tyranny represents maximum government.

Why do you put thinkers in the upper right? Aren’t universities usually on the left somewhere?

Sorry, the “Thinkers vs. Feelers” sort is an old theme of mine, which you have not encountered yet. I don’t regard academia as where most serious critical thinking is done. Most of their students don’t even learn how to do it there anymore. But that was not what I was referring to; it is just a rough sort I have noted over the years. From the rough draft of my pending essay:

One other political division that I have not particularly emphasized, but have noticed with remarkable consistency, is that between “Thinkers” and “Feelers.” If one carefully notices the predicates employed by many espousing “fairness” and “equality of outcome” for “victims,” they are emoting rather than thinking rationally. In discussions where I might say “I think,” or “I suppose,” or “I reckon,” they are more likely to say, “I feel.” Where I might “understand” or “comprehend” something, they will “grasp” or “get a handle on” it. Where I get an “idea” or a “notion” in my “head,” they respond with a “feeling” in their “gut” or from their “heart.” “Hardhearted” ideas elicit their shock and dismay, and in person they will even physically recoil at any suggestion that someone might deserve to suffer the consequences of poor choices, etc.

I by no means wish to imply that feelers can’t think or that thinkers can’t feel, they both can and do. I will say that my experience is that trying to reach a feeler with logic, or a thinker with emotion, is like trying to communicate in two different languages. Such efforts are fraught with the prospect of misunderstandings, and rarely effective. To the extent that one is capable of speaking in the other’s native language, one can be more persuasive. If not, it is often a waste of time to even try.

As to the placement, it was not meant to be a L/R thing; but rather an UP/DOWN sort, and there was no room left on the vertical axis. I guess I do tend to associate the feelers with the PC altruists, both Left and Right; and those on the Left tend to appeal to the emotions more, while those on the right tend to appeal to the authority of their holy writs (which they personally feel or believe is dispositive). 🙂

They probably don’t even belong on the diagram; but to the extent that the emoters might wish to demonstrate their ability to think, and consider where they wish to locate themselves on the map, so much the better. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

â—„Daveâ–º says:

Thanks. Go for it. Take this one and make it better. If it is, I’ll adopt it. Just don’t discount the efficacy of:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. –Ronald Regan (1964)

…for convincing a fair number of people to give it serious consideration. â—„Daveâ–º

â—„Daveâ–º says:

John, I just edited an earlier paragraph than the three above in my draft of Part Two:

As Ronald Reagan suggested in his elegant attempt to awaken America to the folly of Left/Right thinking, in his remarkable “A Time for Choosing” speech, the important axis is the vertical arrow I have labeled “Government.” Less government trending toward Liberty is “Up,” and more government trending toward tyranny is “Down.” Beyond the upper tip, is the chaos of no government called anarchy. Below the lower tip would be the bondage of servitude, where government doesn’t even matter to the enslaved individual.

Does that help? â—„Daveâ–º

â—„Daveâ–º says:

John, I really apologize for the delay in getting the above comment posted. Somehow it got in the moderation cue and I received no notice that anything was in there. There is no reason I am aware of that it should have been intercepted, so I will start paying closer attention to see if it happens again.

I see where we are having a semantics issue. You are discussing “anarchism” as a political philosophy with sub-camps within it, which could indeed be all over the map; while I and others are only using the word “anarchy” in its dictionary sense:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Thus, by our usage, to say “Anarchy is as much a creature of…” would be incorrect, for it is the state of complete absence of authority or any cohesive principle.

I well recall quite a debate I had on my original forum a couple of years ago with a pesky cannabis beclouded anarchist from Arkansas calling himself “Hogeye,” who was much enamored with Murray Rothbard. It was quite an education while it lasted. I soon had to ban him and deleted much of the debate all over the board in disgust, when he started advocating killing Narcs and cops. He was a piece of work! â—„Daveâ–º

â—„Daveâ–º says:

Well, no, of all five choices from your dictionary, 1c would be the least like what I intend to mean by including the word “Anarchy” on the spectrum chart. I mean all three of my definitions above from Answers.com, which pretty well cover the other four of yours. The fact that some Utopian Dreamers, be they enamored with capitalism or Marxism, think that somehow their worldview could ever be accepted by 100% of the inhabitants of the world, thereby eliminating the need for coercion, is immaterial. In the real world, anarchy = chaos; government = coercion.

I will say that although both camps demonstrate profound naivete regarding human nature, the Marxists are the more deluded ones. There is simply no way that altruism could ever work beyond an exceedingly tiny agrarian commune, which would have to be organized on some other cohesive psychologically motivating factor, such as family, clan, or religion.

Else, the moment all coercion were lifted, it would revert to a free market system where achievers would excel over the slothful. It could not be otherwise, and I hasten to note that the resulting anarchy would quickly be indistinguishable from that of the anarcho-capitalists. Thus, even if somehow mankind arrived at anarchy deliberately, it would still be a state of free market traders with no government, and belongs at the top of the chart. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º