3 ms·

That's an interesting perspective. I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little consensus on them, but I think this captures the es

by azey47 9y ago

That's an interesting perspective. I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little consensus on them, but I think this captures the essential philosophical and ideological distinctions: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6.jpg http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/... So by my measure, both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle leaning left - both supporting various forms of rights violations. Libertarians are further right, advocating a lot of good rights-protecting policies, but often for the wrong reasons - so they're not consistent in the policies they promote. Also, "closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons" doesn't really make sense, as that's an explicitly anti-laissez-fare policy (if you understand laissez-fare as "abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.", as it's most commonly meant).

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an absolute monarchy would be far left.
- azey47 9y ago
  Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another). The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist? What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of individual rights". I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms, because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.

by azey47 9y ago

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an absolute monarchy would be far left.

azey47 9y ago
Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another). The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist? What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of individual rights". I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms, because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.