Usually the accusation comes from liberals or progressives, that somehow in some undefinable way libertarians are at least allied to conservatives, and at worst are merely a minor variant of the same basic ideology. Even then, it is only the less experienced and less informed liberals and progressives who make that accusation, the rest having found out otherwise and relying on the very lame joke that a libertarian is a conservative that wants to smoke pot.
As a side note, why is it never "a democrat that likes money"?
There are still those who try to compare the two, but after the 2012 Republican National Convention there should be no doubt left of the distance between the two. The way the mainstream Republican Party treated Ron Paul and his delegates showed clearly and effectively that Republicans want nothing to do with those of the libertarian ideology.
Some will protest at this point saying that an unjustified equivocation is being made here between conservatives and Republicans. The problem is, if a large majority of people who self-identify as conservative also self-identify as Republican, and if a large majority of people who self-identify as Republican also self-identify as conservative, then the equivocation is not at this end.
So conservatives, as represented by the Republican Party, do not want the company of libertarians. This has been true for many years, but the 2012 convention established it beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was at that convention where it was announced formally that Representative Paul Ryan would be the Vice Presidential candidate, in a move that was supposed to mollify supporter of Ron Paul. Here are the positions of supposedly libertarian-leaning Paul Ryan:
He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act
So then why is this unexpected attack coming from the other direction? Justin Amash, who should know better, is saying the two ideologies are the same. Not just similar, not just allied, but actually the same. Although Justin Amash is better than the average Republican, he should know better than to make this basic mistake.
It is because, after so thoroughly alienating libertarians, the argument that libertarians should line up behind whatever statist candidate the Republicans are offering has become little more than a bad joke. People aren’t buying that argument. Even progressives are having a tough time explaining what mysterious appeal the current Republican Party should have to libertarians. On top of that, Senator Rand Paul is making things harder for the Republican Party to attract libertarians by endorsing Senator Mitch McConnell over a primary candidate endorsed by the Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus. Every so often Rand Paul realizes he’s alienated too many libertarians and makes a token gesture to say “don’t worry, I’m still with you.” Then he alienates them again.
The gulf between conservatives and libertarians has become starkly visible. It is visible because the Republican Party has made it visible. So if there is going to be any way to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, it has to come from the Republican Party as well. That is where the recent remarks by Justin Amash come in. Perhaps he actually believes what he said, making him a distinct minority within the Republican Party if so. Otherwise he is trying to recreate a shattered illusion.
Even progressives are having a problem pretending that libertarianism is a strain of conservatism. This is creating a real problem for both the major parties. As long as the Republican Party keeps shunning, insulting, and suppressing libertarian views, supporters of the Democratic Party cannot say that libertarian views belong in the Republican Party. The illusion, shared by both, is shattered.
So Justin Amash is saying the two are the same in spite of them not being the same.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Friday, September 28, 2012
Downside of Paul 2012
There were many who were challenged by the 2012 campaign by Representative Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign for president. There were unique challenges for both liberals and conservatives as they were forced to confront what they really believe. Now that the campaign is over there is a whole new challenge for libertarians based on the campaign.
His campaign has given new life to the old lie about how libertarians and conservatives have some sort of closeness that excludes liberals and progressives. Because Representative Paul ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party, he somehow demonstrated that libertarians have a home there.
It doesn't matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated through the primary, and how reprehensibly his supporters were treated at the Republican convention. It doesn't matter that Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul have nothing in common ideologically, or how much Governor Romney and President Obama do have in common. It doesn't matter how Ron Paul's ideas were kept out of discussion through the whole process from first debate to convention close.
None of that matters. All that matters is that Ron Paul has an "R" after his name. The fact that he ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party is proof of that closeness. Never mind that in order to have a reasonable chance at victory he had to run in some major party - that he ran in a major party proves that there is some special affinity for the major party he ran in.
Since the argument being made is not a logical argument, there is no logical counter-argument. One could point out how much Ron Paul was at odds with his own party. One could point out how he wasn't even given a speaking spot at the convention. One could point out how he had to fight for speaking time at the debates. One could even point out how Romney cheated Paul of his delegates even though Romney didn't need to because his victory was already assured.
This isn't an argument meant to appeal to the intellect. It is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions. There is no counter-argument to be made as a result. Although one can say many good things about the Ron Paul 2012 effort, it also gave new life to the big lie.
His campaign has given new life to the old lie about how libertarians and conservatives have some sort of closeness that excludes liberals and progressives. Because Representative Paul ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party, he somehow demonstrated that libertarians have a home there.
It doesn't matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated through the primary, and how reprehensibly his supporters were treated at the Republican convention. It doesn't matter that Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul have nothing in common ideologically, or how much Governor Romney and President Obama do have in common. It doesn't matter how Ron Paul's ideas were kept out of discussion through the whole process from first debate to convention close.
None of that matters. All that matters is that Ron Paul has an "R" after his name. The fact that he ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party is proof of that closeness. Never mind that in order to have a reasonable chance at victory he had to run in some major party - that he ran in a major party proves that there is some special affinity for the major party he ran in.
Since the argument being made is not a logical argument, there is no logical counter-argument. One could point out how much Ron Paul was at odds with his own party. One could point out how he wasn't even given a speaking spot at the convention. One could point out how he had to fight for speaking time at the debates. One could even point out how Romney cheated Paul of his delegates even though Romney didn't need to because his victory was already assured.
This isn't an argument meant to appeal to the intellect. It is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions. There is no counter-argument to be made as a result. Although one can say many good things about the Ron Paul 2012 effort, it also gave new life to the big lie.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Two faces of liberalism
Although five factions of liberalism were explored in Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians was explored in Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, sometimes it is useful to re-examine a subject, to look at it from a new perspective.
One way to consider the problem of liberalism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians is to consider two distinct types of liberals. These types are very difficult to distinguish because they have the same goals and the same proposals to accomplish these goals.
In Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, it was considered that liberals and libertarians have the same end goals of economic fairness and civil liberty but take exactly the opposite approach to reach these goals. Since unlike the conservative to either camp the goals are the same, this could produce sympathy between liberals and libertarians. Since the methods are so diametrically opposed this more often produces friction between the two groups.
Theoretically it should be possible to open up a dialogue to discuss which method would achieve the goal. This seldom works, and one of the reasons it doesn’t work is because of the two types of liberals.
The difference between the two types is very fine. For all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable. What separates them is that one chooses the means in order to reach the goal, while the other chooses the goal in order to reach the means. For instance, while one supports unionization in order to achieve economic fairness for workers, one supports economic fairness for workers in order to achieve unionization. For one the primary purpose is economic fairness. For the other the primary purpose is unionization.
The two types are what makes it so difficult to engage in that dialogue. When a libertarian says "Universal Health Care is not the way to ensure everyone gets health care" one type may be willing to listen. Does the libertarian perhaps have a better proposal? The other type is completely unwilling to listen because any proposal the libertarian might have conflicts with the higher goal of implementing UHC for the sake of implementing UHC.
With that type there can actually be no compromise. While too many liberals are trying socialism in an effort to achieve the same goals of libertarians, these don’t actually care at all about the shared goals of libertarians and liberals but only use the words in an effort to advance an agenda of government power.
In other words, they are conservatives using different rhetoric.
One way to consider the problem of liberalism and the relationship between liberals and libertarians is to consider two distinct types of liberals. These types are very difficult to distinguish because they have the same goals and the same proposals to accomplish these goals.
In Liberals versus the Nolan Chart, it was considered that liberals and libertarians have the same end goals of economic fairness and civil liberty but take exactly the opposite approach to reach these goals. Since unlike the conservative to either camp the goals are the same, this could produce sympathy between liberals and libertarians. Since the methods are so diametrically opposed this more often produces friction between the two groups.
Theoretically it should be possible to open up a dialogue to discuss which method would achieve the goal. This seldom works, and one of the reasons it doesn’t work is because of the two types of liberals.
The difference between the two types is very fine. For all intents and purposes they are indistinguishable. What separates them is that one chooses the means in order to reach the goal, while the other chooses the goal in order to reach the means. For instance, while one supports unionization in order to achieve economic fairness for workers, one supports economic fairness for workers in order to achieve unionization. For one the primary purpose is economic fairness. For the other the primary purpose is unionization.
The two types are what makes it so difficult to engage in that dialogue. When a libertarian says "Universal Health Care is not the way to ensure everyone gets health care" one type may be willing to listen. Does the libertarian perhaps have a better proposal? The other type is completely unwilling to listen because any proposal the libertarian might have conflicts with the higher goal of implementing UHC for the sake of implementing UHC.
With that type there can actually be no compromise. While too many liberals are trying socialism in an effort to achieve the same goals of libertarians, these don’t actually care at all about the shared goals of libertarians and liberals but only use the words in an effort to advance an agenda of government power.
In other words, they are conservatives using different rhetoric.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Vosem Chart
In an earlier article, the subject of the Vosem Cube was briefly mentioned as an attempt to deal with an economic axis that failed to sufficiently differentiate between mercantilism and socialism with respect to economic liberty. While both systems are a diminishment of economic liberty they are so in different ways to the point where it is difficult to get a more accurate measure of economic liberty. This is compounded by the deliberate refusal of those with a more socialist mindset to differentiate between mercantilism and capitalism.
Name "Vosem" for the Russian word for "eight" because a cube has eight sides, this chart has one civil liberty axis identical to the civil liberty of the Nolan Chart. It has two economic axes which the author labels as "Fiscal" and "Corporate".
The Fiscal axis is clearly the spectrum that runs from socialist to capitalist, whether or not the government should redistribute wealth or directly control certain industries (the two separate definitions of socialist will be discussed in a later article). It is on the Corporate axis where things get muddled.
This is problematic because on the whole it fails to place those who subscribe to Austrian Economics. On the whole Austrians would be on the pro-corporate side, but certainly do not believe that striking workers should be penalized. This should be analyzed by looking at it through the capitalist versus mercantilist question.
In that perspective, a new result is given.
The drawback is that this still splits the mercantilist axis. The problem is with Class 2b, which doesn’t really belong in this axis but needs to fit in somewhere. The problem is to find a location for it.
On the other hand, perhaps libertarians are 1a, the anti-corporates are 1b, and the mercantilists are 2.
Name "Vosem" for the Russian word for "eight" because a cube has eight sides, this chart has one civil liberty axis identical to the civil liberty of the Nolan Chart. It has two economic axes which the author labels as "Fiscal" and "Corporate".
The Fiscal axis is clearly the spectrum that runs from socialist to capitalist, whether or not the government should redistribute wealth or directly control certain industries (the two separate definitions of socialist will be discussed in a later article). It is on the Corporate axis where things get muddled.
CORPORATE
CLASS 1: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want businesses to have the power to hire and discriminate against whom they want -- if an employer doesn't want an immigrant or a member of an ethnic minority working for him, he shouldn't be required by hire any people in that group, even if they are indisputably qualified. They also want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. As they see it, pure freedom of the market will take care of any injustices or inequities, and will promise diversity and creativity. If something done by a business is unethical and/or harmful, people will make the right choice by choosing another business, thereby regulating themselves. They trust the patron public will know and decide what is right. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: it's their business, free enterprise, the magic of the market, property rights, intellectual property violator.
CLASS 2: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.
This is problematic because on the whole it fails to place those who subscribe to Austrian Economics. On the whole Austrians would be on the pro-corporate side, but certainly do not believe that striking workers should be penalized. This should be analyzed by looking at it through the capitalist versus mercantilist question.
In that perspective, a new result is given.
CLASS 1: Someone in the second camp opposes any government protection or favoritism of corporations. They believe in a free market, and if a corporation cannot survive it deserves to fail. The major heads behind huge corporations are viewed as too intimately involved in government. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc on the grounds that a "free trade organization" is a contradiction of terms. They also oppose regulation of businesses beyond dishonesty to be a restriction on the right of people to do business. While Enron is looked down on for their unethical practices, Michael Milken is looked as heroes of free enterprise and examples of unjust government interference in economics. Characteristic catchwords: Free enterprise, corporate welfare, REAL free trade
CLASS 2a: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. They support protective tariffs to keep out foreign competition or import quotas to protect domestic industries. They also support subsidies from the government to businesses on the grounds that it helps domestic corporations, especially against countries where governments support their corporations. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: dumping, domestic industry, what’s good for GM is good for America, intellectual property violator.
CLASS 2b: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.
The drawback is that this still splits the mercantilist axis. The problem is with Class 2b, which doesn’t really belong in this axis but needs to fit in somewhere. The problem is to find a location for it.
On the other hand, perhaps libertarians are 1a, the anti-corporates are 1b, and the mercantilists are 2.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
A Combined Chart
Recently the Pournelle Chart was analyzed. It has both its advantages and disadvantages when compared to the Nolan Chart, but overall is a good way to represent the political spectrum.
That leads to the question of what the result would be if the two charts were combined. Given that the liberty axis of the Pournelle Chart is basically the vertical cross axis of the Nolan Chart, it would simply be a matter of substituting the one axis with the two axes to create a cube. The three axes would be Economic Liberty, Civil Liberty, and Rationality.
To view it directly on the Rationality axis it would look exactly like the Nolan Chart, which means that the only thing to describe is the high and low rationality end of each of the four corners.
Starting with the corner of high economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism and objectivism. The low rationality aspect is counter-cultural anarchism.
In the corner of high economic liberty and low civil liberty, the high rationality aspect should be considered conservatism excepting the fact that conservatives do not embrace economic liberty. Either the theoretical model needs a new name, or the modern conservative needs to embrace a new name. A low rationality equivalent would be the Theocrat. The difference is that one is the security conservative and the other the moral conservative. The theocrat, the moral conservative, is technically an authoritarian but as Ayn Rand pointed out they consider economics to be less important than civil matters and are willing to not regulate it because other matters are more important.
In the corner of low economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is the welfare liberal. These are the ones that support welfare due to the belief that government can solve economic problems. Their low rationality counterpart is the libertine who relies on government to support. There is no overarching philosophy behind this position other than a feeling of entitlement.
In the final corner of statism, the high rationality aspect is communism, in which there is a belief in government planning of all aspect of society, while the low rationality aspect is fascism.
Perhaps there could be further refinements, especially further examination how to effectively measure the rationality axis, but this could also be considered a more descriptive model than either of the parent models when considered alone.
That leads to the question of what the result would be if the two charts were combined. Given that the liberty axis of the Pournelle Chart is basically the vertical cross axis of the Nolan Chart, it would simply be a matter of substituting the one axis with the two axes to create a cube. The three axes would be Economic Liberty, Civil Liberty, and Rationality.
To view it directly on the Rationality axis it would look exactly like the Nolan Chart, which means that the only thing to describe is the high and low rationality end of each of the four corners.
Starting with the corner of high economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is libertarianism, including anarcho-capitalism and objectivism. The low rationality aspect is counter-cultural anarchism.
In the corner of high economic liberty and low civil liberty, the high rationality aspect should be considered conservatism excepting the fact that conservatives do not embrace economic liberty. Either the theoretical model needs a new name, or the modern conservative needs to embrace a new name. A low rationality equivalent would be the Theocrat. The difference is that one is the security conservative and the other the moral conservative. The theocrat, the moral conservative, is technically an authoritarian but as Ayn Rand pointed out they consider economics to be less important than civil matters and are willing to not regulate it because other matters are more important.
In the corner of low economic liberty and high civil liberty, the high rationality aspect is the welfare liberal. These are the ones that support welfare due to the belief that government can solve economic problems. Their low rationality counterpart is the libertine who relies on government to support. There is no overarching philosophy behind this position other than a feeling of entitlement.
In the final corner of statism, the high rationality aspect is communism, in which there is a belief in government planning of all aspect of society, while the low rationality aspect is fascism.
Perhaps there could be further refinements, especially further examination how to effectively measure the rationality axis, but this could also be considered a more descriptive model than either of the parent models when considered alone.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Another political spectrum
While libertarians are quite familiar with the Nolan Political Science Chart, it isn't the only attempt to more accurately graph the political map. Moreover, as shown in Conservatives Versus the Nolan Chart it doesn't depict the political landscape as accurately as it could, given that modern American conservatism isn't synonymous with Nolan conservatism.
Another chart that is slowly making waves is the Pournelle Chart, another two dimensional representation. He starts his essay with the standard attack on the inconsistencies of the standard one-dimensional spectrum, but proceeds from there to describe his own alternative model.
The first axis of his chart is "liberty", which could be considered the cross-axis of the Nolan chart ranging from statist to libertarian. That is common to many attempts to rectify the political spectrum, but Jerry Pournelle felt that was inadequate. The reason is that it groups fascists and communists on one end as if they are the same, and it groups anarchists and libertarians at the other end as if they are the same. He felt a second axist was necessary to separate out these ideologies.
The axis he came up with is called "attitude towards planned social progress" or "rationalism", the belief that society's problems can be solved by reasoned solutions. After adding this axis he was able to differentiat the communist from the fascist and the libertarian from the anarchist.
On the corner of statist and rationalist one finds Communists and Socialists. The corner of statist and irrationalist one finds Fascists and Theocrats. The corner of rationalist and anti-statist is occupied by the libertarians and objectivists. Finally the corner of irrationalist and anti-statist is Anarcism and counter-culturalism. Conservatives and Liberals are both near the center by having midway opinions of both the state and the ability of planning to achieve social goals.
Another chart that is slowly making waves is the Pournelle Chart, another two dimensional representation. He starts his essay with the standard attack on the inconsistencies of the standard one-dimensional spectrum, but proceeds from there to describe his own alternative model.
The first axis of his chart is "liberty", which could be considered the cross-axis of the Nolan chart ranging from statist to libertarian. That is common to many attempts to rectify the political spectrum, but Jerry Pournelle felt that was inadequate. The reason is that it groups fascists and communists on one end as if they are the same, and it groups anarchists and libertarians at the other end as if they are the same. He felt a second axist was necessary to separate out these ideologies.
The axis he came up with is called "attitude towards planned social progress" or "rationalism", the belief that society's problems can be solved by reasoned solutions. After adding this axis he was able to differentiat the communist from the fascist and the libertarian from the anarchist.
On the corner of statist and rationalist one finds Communists and Socialists. The corner of statist and irrationalist one finds Fascists and Theocrats. The corner of rationalist and anti-statist is occupied by the libertarians and objectivists. Finally the corner of irrationalist and anti-statist is Anarcism and counter-culturalism. Conservatives and Liberals are both near the center by having midway opinions of both the state and the ability of planning to achieve social goals.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Conservatives versus the Nolan Chart
The Nolan Chart defines a conservative as someone who advocates economic liberty but also advocates government regulation of civil matters. Is that definition accurate? Within the context of the chart it is certainly accurate but does a modern American conservative hold the same beliefs?
The problem with the Nolan Chart is that modern American conservatives do not necessarily hold those beliefs. As discussed in Liberalsim, Conservatism, and Libertarianism a there are several factions all sharing the label "conservative", and only one of them is strong on economic liberty. Other schools show general disinterest, and a couple of schools favor government involvement in the economy. Mercantilism is not capitalism, and advocates for mercantilism are not the same as advocates for the free market.
A tangent is necessary here as some will object to the term "mercantilism" as it is used with reference to a school of conservative thought. Mercantilism originally described policies of Great Britain in the 19th century with regards to the gold supply. Some wish to keep the definition so restricted, but if that is the case there is no suitable term for similar policies in other locations or in other times. Mercantilism, some would say corporatism, refers to using the government for the benefit of domestic industries by a variety of methods including but not limited to import quotas or tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks to domestic industries, and government contracts. These are all designed to restrict the amount of competition a domestic company faces or to support a failing domestic industry. Union-unfriendly legislation is also used to increase profits without the necessity of competition.
The problem most people have with thinking about mercantilism as not being an anti-liberty ideology is twofold. First people often think of socialism as being the anti-liberty economic ideology, and mercantilism certainly isn’t socialism except in the most outrageously loose sense of the term. Second, mercantilism doesn’t have an ideological base the way that capitalism and socialism do. It borrows somewhat from capitalism, but the arguments in favor of mercantilism are either purely emotional (appeals to patriotism quite often) or simply lobbying.
Socialists in a truer sense often think mercantilists are not advocates of government intervention in the economy, as shown by Democrat accusations of that nature towards Republicans. The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t advocate intervention, it is that Republicans advocate the wrong interventions. If an analogy could be made between religion and politics, liberals are theists because they believe in government while libertarians are atheists because they do not believe in government. Conservatives, under that analogy, are heretics. They do believe, they have the wrong beliefs, and because they have beliefs (however wrong) they are not atheists. When a liberal accuses a conservative of being anti-government, the accusation is based on the inability (due to intellectual laziness) to tell the difference between atheism and heresy.
Unfortunately there is no spot on the Nolan chart for a real world conservative. What would be needed is a third dimension to show this different means of economic interventionism. An attempt has been made here but the labels need further adjustment to more closely fit the model to the real world.
The problem with the Nolan Chart is that modern American conservatives do not necessarily hold those beliefs. As discussed in Liberalsim, Conservatism, and Libertarianism a there are several factions all sharing the label "conservative", and only one of them is strong on economic liberty. Other schools show general disinterest, and a couple of schools favor government involvement in the economy. Mercantilism is not capitalism, and advocates for mercantilism are not the same as advocates for the free market.
A tangent is necessary here as some will object to the term "mercantilism" as it is used with reference to a school of conservative thought. Mercantilism originally described policies of Great Britain in the 19th century with regards to the gold supply. Some wish to keep the definition so restricted, but if that is the case there is no suitable term for similar policies in other locations or in other times. Mercantilism, some would say corporatism, refers to using the government for the benefit of domestic industries by a variety of methods including but not limited to import quotas or tariffs, subsidies and tax breaks to domestic industries, and government contracts. These are all designed to restrict the amount of competition a domestic company faces or to support a failing domestic industry. Union-unfriendly legislation is also used to increase profits without the necessity of competition.
The problem most people have with thinking about mercantilism as not being an anti-liberty ideology is twofold. First people often think of socialism as being the anti-liberty economic ideology, and mercantilism certainly isn’t socialism except in the most outrageously loose sense of the term. Second, mercantilism doesn’t have an ideological base the way that capitalism and socialism do. It borrows somewhat from capitalism, but the arguments in favor of mercantilism are either purely emotional (appeals to patriotism quite often) or simply lobbying.
Socialists in a truer sense often think mercantilists are not advocates of government intervention in the economy, as shown by Democrat accusations of that nature towards Republicans. The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t advocate intervention, it is that Republicans advocate the wrong interventions. If an analogy could be made between religion and politics, liberals are theists because they believe in government while libertarians are atheists because they do not believe in government. Conservatives, under that analogy, are heretics. They do believe, they have the wrong beliefs, and because they have beliefs (however wrong) they are not atheists. When a liberal accuses a conservative of being anti-government, the accusation is based on the inability (due to intellectual laziness) to tell the difference between atheism and heresy.
Unfortunately there is no spot on the Nolan chart for a real world conservative. What would be needed is a third dimension to show this different means of economic interventionism. An attempt has been made here but the labels need further adjustment to more closely fit the model to the real world.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism.
This text uses America Centric definitions.
In America there are several different factions of liberals.
First there are the civil libertarian liberals, not to be confused with the minority rights liberals. These are the types most aligned with libertarians. Whether the issue is pornography, gay marriage, drug legalization, or prostitution, these are the ones (found in the ACLU or the Democratic Freedom Caucus) that agree with libertarians. They are very strong on civil issues, and slightly less on economic issues.
Then there are the union liberals. For them, protecting the working class is their motive. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are very concerned with protecting American Jobs. They aren't concerned about economic issues over much, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy. Ironically this school of liberalism finds itself in alliance with one of the schools of conservatism, Mercantilist conservatism.
Then there are the environmental liberals. This faction is quite often at odds with the union liberal, as the environmental regulation proposed can quite often be harmful to the creation of jobs. While compromise makes all schools of progressive liberalism (except union liberalism) advocate the measure of environmental liberals to some extent, these are the core of that movement. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy, just in a different way from union liberals and mercantilist conservatives.
Welfare Liberals are very much the core of American Progressive Liberalism. They range from the moderates of implementing a safety net to the extreme of a totally managed economy, all for the sake of helping the poor through taxation policy, government hand out policies, outright nationalization of portions of the American economy (such as health care), and regulation of the rest. While there isn't great concern for civil liberties here, economic liberties are completely dead within this tradition.
Finally there are also minority rights liberals. They are separate from civil liberty liberals for a reason, and that reason is the radicalization of this faction. Too many members of this faction are bigoted against groups outside their own minority. To hold up examples of the most extreme, look to Andrea Dworkin as an extremely radical misandrist feminist, or La Raza for Hispanic rights, or Louis Farakhan for African-Americans. They are quite opposed to both economic and civil issues as defined by classic liberals, and quite in favor of reverse discrimination.
There are also several smaller schools of liberalism.
Then there are several different factions of American conservatism.
Paleoconservatives, a smaller faction, are the one type which can be considered moderate libertarians. On economic matters they agree almost entirely with libertarians, and on civil matters they agree mostly.
Mercantile conservatives are the leading faction, and have been since the Republicans were called Whigs, and since the Whigs were called Federalists. Some may object that they should oppose government regulation when it harms their own interests, but that is not always the case. They dislike government regulation on themselves but accept it if it gives them an advantage. On civil issues they care little either way and are quite willing to advocate increased government control of civil matters in exchange for increased government control on economic issues provided that control gives them an advantage. While they are often seen as opponents of Union Liberals, they are often allies of Union Liberals. A tariff that increases the cost of imports protects American Industry (which satisfies the mercantilist conservative) also protects American Jobs (which satisfies the union liberal).
Moral conservatives are another major faction. While most exemplified by the Religious Right, it includes all those who advocate security above liberty. The moral conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters. This school is not strong on economic thought, and is willing to exchange advocacy of government control of economic issues for advocacy of government control of civil issues. Any suggestion that drug laws or prostitution laws be loosened causes panic among this crowd.
Closely allied to the moral conservatives are the security conservatives. Like the moral conservative the security conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters, and is not strong on economic though. While they lack the motive to police drugs or prostitution the way the moral conservatives do, they view any civil rights that impede police work as detrimental to society. While not strongly inclined by nature towards moral legislation the way the moral conservatives are, the fact that said legislation is law is enough to make them react with horror to any suggestion the laws be loosened.
Then there are the neoconservatives. These are the worst that conservatism has to offer. They are quite fond of regulation both economic and civil. They have no problems at all with a welfare state, since their ideology has a root with Trotsky. Because of that root, they have no problem with military adventurism, reshaping the world in their image in the spirit of Trotsky's "eternal revolution." They also have from Leo Strauss the belief in an elite that rules the ignorant masses, and from Machiavelli the belief that it is quite acceptable for leaders to lie to their subjects for the subjects own good. This, by the way, is the faction currently occupying the White House.
There are also lesser schools of conservative thought.
Then there are the factions of libertarians.
First there are the civil libertarian liberals, already described.
Then there are the paleoconservatives, already described.
Then there are the anarcho-capitalists, the most extreme form of libertarian. While most libertarians come out in favor of very limited government power, they come out against all government power.
Then there are the classic liberals, the core libertarians to the point where classic liberal and libertarian can be used interchangeably, who are considered soft by the anarcho-capitalists for our minarchism. This is by far the largest faction of libertarians.
Then there are the objectivists. While in agreement with classic liberals on almost everything there are a few key points of difference regarding the respect to be shown to those who disagree.
The leading schools of economic thought among conservatives are mercantilism, supply side / right Keynesianism, and some monetarism. Capitalism can be found among the paleoconservatives.
The leading schools of economic thought among progressive liberals are socialism, demand side / left Keynesianism, and some georgism. Capitalism can be found among the civil liberty liberals.
The leading schools of economic thought among libertarians are Capitalism, with traces of monetarism and georgism.
In America there are several different factions of liberals.
First there are the civil libertarian liberals, not to be confused with the minority rights liberals. These are the types most aligned with libertarians. Whether the issue is pornography, gay marriage, drug legalization, or prostitution, these are the ones (found in the ACLU or the Democratic Freedom Caucus) that agree with libertarians. They are very strong on civil issues, and slightly less on economic issues.
Then there are the union liberals. For them, protecting the working class is their motive. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are very concerned with protecting American Jobs. They aren't concerned about economic issues over much, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy. Ironically this school of liberalism finds itself in alliance with one of the schools of conservatism, Mercantilist conservatism.
Then there are the environmental liberals. This faction is quite often at odds with the union liberal, as the environmental regulation proposed can quite often be harmful to the creation of jobs. While compromise makes all schools of progressive liberalism (except union liberalism) advocate the measure of environmental liberals to some extent, these are the core of that movement. They are not overly concerned with civil issues, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy, just in a different way from union liberals and mercantilist conservatives.
Welfare Liberals are very much the core of American Progressive Liberalism. They range from the moderates of implementing a safety net to the extreme of a totally managed economy, all for the sake of helping the poor through taxation policy, government hand out policies, outright nationalization of portions of the American economy (such as health care), and regulation of the rest. While there isn't great concern for civil liberties here, economic liberties are completely dead within this tradition.
Finally there are also minority rights liberals. They are separate from civil liberty liberals for a reason, and that reason is the radicalization of this faction. Too many members of this faction are bigoted against groups outside their own minority. To hold up examples of the most extreme, look to Andrea Dworkin as an extremely radical misandrist feminist, or La Raza for Hispanic rights, or Louis Farakhan for African-Americans. They are quite opposed to both economic and civil issues as defined by classic liberals, and quite in favor of reverse discrimination.
There are also several smaller schools of liberalism.
Then there are several different factions of American conservatism.
Paleoconservatives, a smaller faction, are the one type which can be considered moderate libertarians. On economic matters they agree almost entirely with libertarians, and on civil matters they agree mostly.
Mercantile conservatives are the leading faction, and have been since the Republicans were called Whigs, and since the Whigs were called Federalists. Some may object that they should oppose government regulation when it harms their own interests, but that is not always the case. They dislike government regulation on themselves but accept it if it gives them an advantage. On civil issues they care little either way and are quite willing to advocate increased government control of civil matters in exchange for increased government control on economic issues provided that control gives them an advantage. While they are often seen as opponents of Union Liberals, they are often allies of Union Liberals. A tariff that increases the cost of imports protects American Industry (which satisfies the mercantilist conservative) also protects American Jobs (which satisfies the union liberal).
Moral conservatives are another major faction. While most exemplified by the Religious Right, it includes all those who advocate security above liberty. The moral conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters. This school is not strong on economic thought, and is willing to exchange advocacy of government control of economic issues for advocacy of government control of civil issues. Any suggestion that drug laws or prostitution laws be loosened causes panic among this crowd.
Closely allied to the moral conservatives are the security conservatives. Like the moral conservative the security conservative stands in distinct opposition with libertarians on civil matters, and is not strong on economic though. While they lack the motive to police drugs or prostitution the way the moral conservatives do, they view any civil rights that impede police work as detrimental to society. While not strongly inclined by nature towards moral legislation the way the moral conservatives are, the fact that said legislation is law is enough to make them react with horror to any suggestion the laws be loosened.
Then there are the neoconservatives. These are the worst that conservatism has to offer. They are quite fond of regulation both economic and civil. They have no problems at all with a welfare state, since their ideology has a root with Trotsky. Because of that root, they have no problem with military adventurism, reshaping the world in their image in the spirit of Trotsky's "eternal revolution." They also have from Leo Strauss the belief in an elite that rules the ignorant masses, and from Machiavelli the belief that it is quite acceptable for leaders to lie to their subjects for the subjects own good. This, by the way, is the faction currently occupying the White House.
There are also lesser schools of conservative thought.
Then there are the factions of libertarians.
First there are the civil libertarian liberals, already described.
Then there are the paleoconservatives, already described.
Then there are the anarcho-capitalists, the most extreme form of libertarian. While most libertarians come out in favor of very limited government power, they come out against all government power.
Then there are the classic liberals, the core libertarians to the point where classic liberal and libertarian can be used interchangeably, who are considered soft by the anarcho-capitalists for our minarchism. This is by far the largest faction of libertarians.
Then there are the objectivists. While in agreement with classic liberals on almost everything there are a few key points of difference regarding the respect to be shown to those who disagree.
The leading schools of economic thought among conservatives are mercantilism, supply side / right Keynesianism, and some monetarism. Capitalism can be found among the paleoconservatives.
The leading schools of economic thought among progressive liberals are socialism, demand side / left Keynesianism, and some georgism. Capitalism can be found among the civil liberty liberals.
The leading schools of economic thought among libertarians are Capitalism, with traces of monetarism and georgism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)