I took the survey at the Nolan Chart website. I got the address off of Glenn Beck's website. I was somewhat surprised that I came out so strongly libertarian, as I am pro-life (but my position is a libertarian one). Many die hard libertine libertarians are pro-abortion, and the only reason I bring that up is that it seems to me there is a sizable demographic in that movement that is just that: Libertine, which is not really libertarian as it does not address responsibility, particularly when their right to do whatever they wish infringes on another's rights. It's anarchy to the extreme. I see libertarian as more minarchist, but we are getting away from the message.Glenn Beck has a video up at Fox News where he lectures us about the political chart to the left here. What I ask is for you to take the quiz and let me know where you stand. You might be surprised.
A retort to the Glenn Beck can be found here.
Click on Glenn Beck's Video below:
Thank you for reading this blog and god bless Judge Andrew Napolitano.
19 comments:
The questions on the Nolan Chart are clearly skewed toward making people "libertarians". Questions 4 and 10 are an example of offering a clear lack of options. You are either Pro-UN or you are in favor of pulling back all military options within the territorial limits of the US.
I found it interesting that the question of legalization of all narcotics (a plank of the Libertarian Party) wasn't included.
I don't think that the Nolan Chart is credible.
I felt the same way for the most part. On other political tests I have taken, I am usually Right libertarian or on the conservative side as it were, a little bit. Again, there were not a lot of choices and they didn't include life issues as well as drugs. I am not an interventionist per se, but a responder for sure. If you step up to the plate, you'll find out quickly. They really didn't have that choice. I do think the Nolan chart itself is more spot on than plain left and right for sure, but the test could be more thorough, and I bet if one searches the internet, one will find it.
The problem with these charts is that they're arbitrarily contrived constructs with no basis in reality. The Nolan deal is basically an adaptation of the bullshit they teach in poli-sci classes about politics being a sort of circular progression wherein the "far left" becomes the "far right". It's pure bullshit. If there is a picture to be drawn it is a straight line with totalitarianism on the left end and anarchy on the right. After all, it's politics we are describing not the human condition per se. It is in light of this that I am so fucking disgusted when some sniveling, proud, little asshole prattles on about "real" libertarians and how they have essentially nothing in common with so-called conservatives. It's not only shit-stupid on it's face, it's destructive to the cause of limited government. These political identities people use are completely useless. Hell, I'm a libertarian, but the Libertarian Party would call me a fascist because I don't find all that compelling a case for selling heroine at the fucking 7-11. Likewise, I believe that government has a role in preserving the culture that created said government in the first place and that using it's power of force to actively undermine that culture is the very essence of tyranny.
"Real" libertarians disagree.
I would disagree that they are arbitrary. Just like any other test if you will, they are trying to categorize people into groups for some understanding.
As far as being circular, under certain conditions or abstractions that could be true or proven, but it's just one way to look at things.
For me, I find one of the more important comparisons to be where someone falls on the authoritarian/libertarian line, which is a measure of how much government someone thinks is acceptable, how much control it has in our lives. Things like left and right become less meaningful under that filter.
The problem, at least as how I see it is that the government is used as a proxy in a fight over what you or I believe should be our culture, our way of life. I don't believe that the government is a solution to our problems, but it should be a guardian of our natural rights. When you look at someone who is more authoritarian in nature, they see the government as power than can be used to promote their philosophy, if you will. Progressives have done this well, but so have some socons that seem to have more in common with the taliban than anything American. We have a good set of rules in the constitution, and they were written down by men that understood liberty, natural rights, what made America special, and how that grand experiment could flourish. That lesson is lost on most people today because they are more interested in their own agenda and irrational self-interests as opposed to what is right and what works well.
As far as the libertarian party goes, they are just a party, like the GOP or the dems, and don't really mean squat in that they don't represent any system of thinking or reason, just a group of people that want to hold power. In the case of the libertarians, they are filled with libertines that have forgotten Thomas Jefferson's lesson on rights, which Judge Napolitano outlined, and is what I will leave you with:
"Jefferson believed that each individual has "certain inalienable rights." That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of "liberty" on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual's rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty."
Jefferson was a fucking genius and this lesson has been lost on the libertines that run the Libertarian party and most of the idiots in the democrat and republican parties.
"I would disagree that they are arbitrary. "
Then explain to me the distinction between a "liberal" and a "statist" per your Nolan chart. And while you're at it explain just what the hell if anything a so-called centrist believes on this or that policy issue.
I maintain that it's only function is in creating a contrived set of political labels that do little to accurately describe the agenda of those it labels. It is self-serving and devoid of any real significance.
And before you jump on me, let me clarify:
The federal government shouldn't be there to promote a religion, including statism, it is not meant to take on such subjects like family values or marriage (lots of these subjects are populist in nature so as to sway people's emotions), and it certainly wasn't intended to pay people bills, medical or otherwise. For us at least, it was to be transparent and not be in the way of what we want to accomplish with our lives, in the constraints of the same equal rights of others. It's not there to give us a damn thing per se, but boy, everyone seems to have their hand out now a days.
It's significant to the person that made it up. There is a difference between statism and liberalism. In fact, what you and I call libertarian at one time would be called classical liberalism. People that espouse liberty in the definition that I put down here earlier. A lot of liberals happen to be statists that's all, but not all. Like I said, I prefer the comparison between what you or nolan would call statism versus libertarianism. In your view, I could say the traditional left right paradigm is bull shit too. And a lot of times it is.
I'm not talking about promotion. I'm talking about preservation. That is why governments are created in the first place. Government exists to preserve the society that created the government. It has no other legitimate purpose.
The founders pretty much all agreed with the concept of government as a necessary evil. Those two words are quite powerful. Necessary means you can't flourish without it, and evil describes it's nature. The necessity was in preservation of what they considered worth preserving. Government has no "right" to exist other than as an expression of popular will. As a servant of the people at large. They considered government an agent of the people, not an ethereal, detached arbiter of right and wrong.
"A lot of liberals happen to be statists "
With all due respect, Friend, that's as dumb as saying, " A lot of gay people happen to be homosexuals."
The word "liberal" doesn't mean anything anymore because the lexicon has been successfully altered by the left. The same goes for the word conservative, which is why any "test" that uses such dated nomenclature is doomed to irrelevance.
Well Chuck, we agree on Statism versus libertarianism then.
If you agree that they are opposites, then yes. What I don't cotton to, however, is the bullshit notion that conservatives are statists or that "liberals" promote liberty. So called liberals are statists and conservatives are simply libertarians who respect the role of tradition in society.
Again, the circular model is manifestly false. It's purpose is deception. The only accurate expression of the reality is a straight line with anarchy on the right end and totalitarianism on the left end. Gradations in between. It's less useful for calling someone a name, but it's much more accurate in describing their political beliefs.
Best,
Chuck.
p.s. It's telling that the chart has no place for anarchist. That's because it doesn't fit in the circle. Everything fits on a line though.
"Just like any other test if you will, they are trying to categorize people into groups for some understanding. "
And by the way: In case I haven't been clear, I completely reject the assertion that a desire for "understanding" is at the root of that bullshit chart. I would offer that it's goal is a finding to the express detriment of understanding.(just as is the case with most polling) After all, a finding is a tangible, marketable thing in the political arena. Understanding...not so much.
Actually chuck, it is possible to be liberal and not a statist, just as it's possible to be a conservative and be a statist. It might not work out that way for most, but people like that do exist.
May be you'd like this better: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
That's true only if you ignore what those terms mean in today's vernacular versus what the dictionary says.
I'm a classical liberal who supports liberal democracy. This is why modern day "liberals" and the "democratic" party are my enemies.
Ya folla? :)
Most liberals want to use the state to attain their agenda. Some on the right do to, although I believe they are in a much smaller minority. What makes the left so dangerous is that they have infiltrated out schools and media, and pretty much go unchallenged, particularly the school teachers and their accomplices. Kids today have little chance unless they somehow get an education after their supposed education, or they are properly educated at home
Everyone involved in politics wants to "use" their state for this or that. I suppose that makes everyone involved in politics a statist.
Everyone seems to agree that something we call government is a necessary thing. The point of contention is in defining it's nature. Is government essentially good? Is it essentially bad? Is it supernatural?
First off, I am talking about the federal government. Using the power of the government to further an agenda not support by the constitution (healthcare for example) is statist. I take the Randian view of a limited federal power, and separating economy, church and state. Just the basics.
Actually you've mixed up the definition of Libertarian to mean the same as Liberal.They don't mean the same.
lib·er·al /ˈlɪbÉ™rÉ™l, ˈlɪbrÉ™l/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Liberals believe there can not be too many freedoms despite despotism or debauched conduct. Such as the ACLU who defend all immoral cases but refuse to defend moral ones stating the criminal has rights yet forgetting the rights of the victims...
Whereas LIBERTARIAN :lib·er·tar·i·an
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian).
–adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
The difference is the morals. Libertarians think freedoms should be monitored for the good of all and hold it to a standard much like our Founding Fathers of USA who were Christian and held that God granted certain inalienable rights to each human but too much license leads to a more negative society. They hold we are all created equal, have the right to a government who of the people, for the people, and by the people, etc. You know the stuff they stopped teaching in school so they could indoctrinate our kids and society into thinking on a socialist level.
Look up classical liberal
Post a Comment