![]() |
Guest article
by John McPherson ![]() For what it's worth, the old notions of "Right" and "Left" politics, categorized along only a single dimension-spectrum, have been updated. David Nolan expanded the categorization to a two-dimensional field, the axes of which are personal-lifestyle freedom, and economic freedom. For an illustration of the new grid, try out the World's Smallest Political Quiz hosted by the Advocates for Self-Government. The Nolan grid shows the difference [between the Statist positions of Right and Left]. In general, the 'Left' tends to be more tolerant on personal-lifestyle choices, and the 'Right' tends to be more tolerant on economic choices. Libertarians in general are tolerant on both, while hard-core Statists in general are intolerant on both. Libertarians, or anarchists? This topic has come up many times on the libertarian lists which I host or belong to. Each libertarian differs (like everyone else) on the degree to which he/she is willing to commit, on any given class of issues, to the Principle of Non-Aggression: the formulation that the fundamental evil/wrong in human affairs is the initiation of potentially lethal force upon peaceable, honest-dealing people. (Note: self-defensive force is not the initiation of force, but a response to protect oneself and others from it.) Those willing to commit totally to a world based on the principle of non-aggression (hence to a world free of "governments", institutions which depend upon the initiation of force simply to exist) are, in the old scheme, considered to embrace "anarchism", a term which quite ironically has been laden unfairly with connotations of high aggression. Thus this noblest class of libertarians are smeared as their opposites. Some theorists of this group are: Herbert Spencer ("The Right to Ignore the State"), Thoreau (at his idealistic best), William Godwin (at least in genesis), David Friedman (Milton's son), Murray Rothbard (probably), Lysander Spooner, etc. The next major class are those who tend to believe that government seems to be a necessary evil, to be used only in the extremely limited functions of national defense, police or night-watchmen to protect people from violence/coercion and property crimes, and a simple justice system to resolve disputes on such issues. A significant percentage of libertarians embrace this position (e.g., Objectivists, admirers of the philosophy of Ayn Rand). The next major class is a large one consisting of "classical liberals," "Constitutionalists," etc. These people tend to have some variation along the left-center-right dimension, so we begin to see significant debates between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. This class has a lot of history, with contributions from the likes of Mill, Jefferson, Paine, Adam Smith, Locke, Charles Murray (to name a modern), etc. Nearly all libertarians are somewhere in the above three classes. The next major class of people, currently a majority, are those allowing a greater degree of government intervention, coercion, taxation, etc., "for the common good," namely in the form of the Welfare State. This class has arranged for government-run public education, highly regulated health care, industry, housing, transportation, etc. There are many theorists in this class, such as Keynes, Samuelson, Clinton and Bush. Here, the "left-right" dimension blossoms into fullness and we have ongoing raging public debates between people who insist upon the same general magnitude of government power, but who seem diametrically opposed on many/all issues. The next major class of people, a minority in the West but perhaps a majority elsewhere in the world, consists of those who want lots of government intervention, involvement, taxation, coercion, etc. Typically they support single ruling Parties or dictatorial leaders, perhaps wish to impose a single form of religion on the populace, generally wishing to strongly control the lives of the people and the economy/trade of their nation-state. You won't find any libertarians here. Key theorists and notables are Marx, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, Amin, Mussolini, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, etc. ... you get the picture.
Win Wenger: John:
Win: John: Privately, many individuals will succeed in avoiding government coercion via loopholes, technicalities, systems such as Terra Libra, operating in the underground economy, keeping a low profile, etc.
Win:
John:
Win:
John:
Win:
John:
Win:
John:
Win:
John:
Win:
John:
![]()
John McPherson (JMlib@genius.ucsd.edu) is host of the
|
Home | SocioTectonics index | Left/Right/Libertarian | |
Contact:
Project Renaissance PO Box 332, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-0332 |
301-948-1122 | ![]() |