The terminology is all convoluted to me. I can't see any discernible criteria arising from that chart.
izquotes.com/.../...ve-robert-a-heinlein-82517.jpg
I like this quote which establishes the most basic criteria for liberty. That leads to a spectrum which deals with individual rights: your right to do what you want, say what you want, ingest what you want, do what you want with your own property, do what you want with your own body, practice the religion you want, etc.
That would lead to minimal freedom on one end (fascism, communism) and maximum freedom on the other (classic liberalism).
It also allows us to actually measure it scientifically.
cdn.cnsnews.com/.../...m_index_and_sub-indices.jpg
I like this basic distinction since it is actually measurable and makes a whole lot of sense to me. Unfortunately the "left/right" terminology is all muddled and varies from nation to nation.
What confuses me most about these charts is where they place anarchy. If that implies no government and just voluntary cooperation among people, it should be at the very center since it implies maximum freedom. That said, I think anarchy should simply be omitted from these charts since it's not dealing with how governments should be organized. It's concerned with not having governments at all. It's a "null/nil" type of view and doesn't have a place in the spectrum in my opinion.
@ak666
Your "scientific" chart shows some biases.
The personal freedom to own a gun must be weighted pretty low if the US is at the bottom of the list and Australia, UK and Canada are rated MUCH higher. Also, I can criticize homosexuality and Islam in the US, Canada... not so much. Free speech?
For economic freedom, New Zealand with 34.5% of GDP taxed has much more economic freedom that the US with 26% of it's GDP taxed.
I don't have a PhD in political science and neither do you. All I did was post a graph made people who do have degrees in political science. Multiple people from multiple political beliefs. They all agreed and that's their conclusion.
Get used to it unless you become an actual expert in the field.
@John_Doesnt
C'mon John! Stop thinking I'm some inexperienced kid that swallows your propaganda.
6% of political scientists are Republican (No bias there, right?)
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...-scien_n_229382.html
Actually, I was referring to ak666's graph.
If you're not also ak666, I'll tell you the same. There's bias there. Just like your "spectrum" has a bias. I can't believe that equal numbers of political scientists from each political persuasion were consulted in it's development. Maybe an equal number of liberals, Socialists and Communists participated.
@I-am-a-nobody
Ever think the reason most public colleges are liberal is because conservatives want to cut funding to public colleges? Why would any professor vote to lower their own wages or even get fired?
You ARE "some inexperienced kid" who swallows Fox New's propaganda.
@John_Doesnt
Ever think that most "political scientists" at liberal public colleges are just in it for their own selfish interests?
Yeah, and I'm supposedly naive...
@I-am-a-nobody
by your paranoid thinking education and a good career are "selfish reasons".
@John_Doesnt
Yeah, I love education... just not brainwashing... (See your End of discussion "question" above)
And i'm all for a good career, I just don't think the "political scientists" are doing a good job of it if people are believe the falsehoods you've promoted here.
Oh, and I've probably spent more time in my life reading MSN and Yahoo news than watching Fox News.
I'm just experience enough to sort through the lies (at MSN and Yahoo) until I get to the couple kernels of truth.
@I-am-a-nobody
again I'm going to point out that the leftists on here have no problem admitting they could be on the side of Communism. But conservatives get butthurt and throw a tantrum when they realize that Hitler is called by historians as a "Social Conservative".
You're supposedly 55 years old, but you're acting like a spoiled brat who can't admit he might have the same faults as his opponents. It's pathetic.
@I-am-a-nobody I agree with you about guns but what I mean about scientific is that it's actually based on data. They're not weighting individual rights like the right to bear arms as contributing more to the score than, say, the right to free speech.
It's mainly a measure of what you're free to do without government coercion. The right to bear arms is the ultimate protection against government but it doesn't reduce government coercion. It's to ultimately serve as a last stand to protect against government coercion, but it's meeting force with force. It doesn't reduce government force, so to speak.
We can put it this way: if it was a "individual protection when liberties are infringed index" (phew), then countries which offer the right to bear arms would rank way higher than those that don't. With a general freedom index though, such rights only contribute to the score as, say, the right to use narcotics, the right to free speech, private property rights, etc.
The indices have their own bias, undoubtedly, since they're just kind of tallying up how many things you're allowed to do as an individual without the government being able to say what you are and aren't allowed to do with threat of force.
As another example, communists would find this index to be very biased against them since one of the greatest contributing factors is economic freedom which revolves around private property rights. Communists are against private property rights in the first place and would prefer everything to be owned by the state, so they would rank extremely low in terms of the human freedom index.
But what's useful about these indices is that it gives you some spectrum with scores that rise the more liberty you have to do things without government telling you what you can and can't do. It helps establish a spectrum where fascists and communists would be on one end, for example, while a capitalist or classic liberal would lean towards the other end.
The main point I was hoping to make is that terms like "left" and "right" and "liberal/conservative" seem arbitrary these days. I can't find any discernible criteria. Let's take some issues like:
1) Legalizing Narcotics (more freedom)
2) Raising Minimum Wage (less freedom)
3) Affordable Care Act + Individual/Employer Mandates (less freedom)
4) Legalizing Prostitution (more freedom)
5) Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance in Schools (less freedom)
6) Prohibiting Pledge of Allegiance in Schools (less freedom)
We can take these types of issues and ask someone overall if they're generally in favor or more freedom or less. I find that a more useful distinction than "left/right", "liberal/conservative".
@ak666 Communists are NOT against private property rights in general.
Communists are against private property rights of production and trade means in society (manufacturing plants, farmlands, banks, housing companies etc)
@jacquesvol Oh sorry, I used "private" property and not "personal" for that sole reason. What economic freedom indices define in the realm of property rights is largely related to private property and owning the means of production. Even the notion of "economic freedom" would probably take on a very, very different idea in a Marxist society. These freedom indices are often very much entrenched in a capitalist idea of freedom.
I believe it is so becouse of how deep the belief of some people is in what they stand for. Their view of the world makes such pictures appear distorted becouse liberals might put conservatism at the spot of nacism and vice-versa. It isn't affectable by explaining as positions and lifestyles of certain people can't allow a change in opinion becouse it would mean doubting what got them to their current position.
I'm not sure if English is your second launguage, but you definitely made no sense.
I was going to ask if you post things like this just because but then I read the comments... I can't believe there's so much "debate" about this! Like... come ON.
People like to believe the loonies are all on the other side.
Nazi didn't do slavery they killed people
My father in law was raided from HS by German troops. His whole class was send to a work camp in Germany for 4 years. in my opinion that's slavery.
Part of my family was killed. One aunt survived Auschwitz because she had been able to hide long enough to be on one of the last transports.
killing is better than slavery?
Did I write or imply that?
Nazis made more victims than the millions they murdered.
@jacquesvol I was replying to the opinion owner not you.
they where not forced to work they where asked to work there the once who chose to work and not die that's not slavery
wtf opinion owner? Are you a Holocaust denier or are you just gonna sit there and say they weren't forced to work in concentration camps?
@ilikeflowers02 You're stating that if the slave doesn't commit suicide it's not slavery.
what I'm saying is Nazi didn't force people to work they ask them to work and if they refused they killed them thats not slavery
Thus refusing forced work would be suicide by nazi.
lol not slavery
@jacquesvol Good luck on this one.
@BellePepper LOL :)
forcing somebody to work for free is slavery. Whether you do it by threats or by tying them down it is slavery.
Slavery definition: a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom.
Why do some people have such a hard time with dictionary definitions?
Because nazi gremany was not a slave country
You're 13 years old and I didn't read that.
But Goddammit what are they teaching you in school? They should have taught you about concentration camps by now at the age of 13. Are you homeschooled or something?
no they taught me how Nazi Germany was a world problem into hater took it down
They didn't teach you anything.
yes they did
Watch a movie about the Holocaust and see why people are so pissed off with you for claiming the Nazis didn't have slaves.
I posted a definition of slavery.
And look in Wikipedia too
to me Nazi Germany needs to come back
ilikeflowers02 Then we'll know we need to bomb it in a early stage, instead of waiting till it starts rebuilding its WW2 army.
are you trolling or really a Nazi supporter?
John_Doesnt
Me? Neither
@jacquesvol I'm asking the opinion owner. She thinks "nazi Germany needs to come back".
She's dumb or a troll, or both.
I'm a Nazi supporter I hate jews
Dumb thus.
(; k
@jacquesvol her account is new and now inactive, meaning she's a troll.
Clear
Opinion
6Opinion
The National Socialist Party (Nazis) were NOT right wing. They were fascists who believed in government control (left wing). Your spectrum is something trumped up to stifle free market conservatives by painting them as Nazis.
itsnobody.wordpress.com/.../
βWe are socialists, we are enemies of todayβs capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditionsβ
β Adolf Hitler, Hitlerβs speech on May 1, 1927. Cited in: Toland, John (1992). Adolf Hitler. Anchor Books. pp. 224β225. ISBN 0385037244.
Wrong on multiple levels. First Hitler was a liar, duh. Second the Nazis didn't actually practice any of those beliefs he states if you paid any attention in history.
@John_Doesnt
Well, he sure wasn't a free market conservative!
I mean, I get it, you have the Socialist/Communist education system backing your claims, but the truth is your claims are wrong and they've always been wrong. So, you can use pictures and a made up spectrum to fool a bunch of 20 somethings who don't remember a president before George W Bush, but you're not fooling me.
"My claims are wrong and have always been wrong".
A whole lot of science in there. He was in favor of free market for the wealthy.
It's called "social conservatism" and it took me 2 seconds to Google Hitler's political views. Hitler was anti-immigration, anti-communism, believed that Germany was a "Christian nation" and was pro-military spending.
Conservative you dink! If liberals can admit Communism is the extreme far left why can't you admit the nuttiness of your political beliefs?
@John_Doesnt
As I said elsewhere, since Fascism is relatively to the right of Communism, it was considered "right wing" (usually by Communists/Socialists) especially in Germany and Italy.
Concerning Hitler's Christianity...
I found this...
"Although Hitler quoted scripture in many of his early speeches, he later referred to it as βa fairy story invented by the Jews,β and in 1942, the Bible became a banned book in Germany."
AND this...
"In light of evidence such as his rejection of the tenets of Christianity as a teenager,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historians find no evidence that Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian faith."
https:/en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Conservatives don't ban the Bible.
Conservatives forced the bible down people's throats in public schools and on government buildings. They made people pay taxes for it while giving tax breaks to ANYBODY who called themselves a religion.
READ the first amendment. It does NOT say free speech, it does NOT say free religion. It says freedom from religion.
@John_Doesnt
Actually the First Amendment says this:
CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Yes, Congress shall not establish a religion or PROHIBIT its free exercise. So, if a state like Alabama wants to promote a religion they are free to do so. If they want the Ten Commandments in a state government building, they are free to do so under the constitution. If a child wants to read a Bible in a school's free reading time, he has the right to do so.
And yes, putting the Ten Commandment in a building is NOT establishing a religion any more that referring to God in the Declaration of Independence does.
I'm sure you can emigrate to Europe if you want hyper secularization.
You ignored the fact that it was mandatory for years to read the Christian bible in public schools. It was a law. Learn some history about conservatives and they are the original sjw's.
Forcing people BY LAW that anal sex was illegal because "The bible says so". Telling people not to "take the lord's name in vain" on TV. Forcing schools not to teach evolution because "The bible says so".
You are beyond ignorant of history.
@John_Doesnt
And whats with the "Far left is communism & far right is Nazism. End of discussion! "
Can you quit with the condescension and bullying already?
Yeah, that "End of discussion!" garbage might work for a university professor dealing with a bunch of naive kids, but it doesn't work with an adult who has been closely following elections back to 1972!
Again you dodge my arguments. You didn't answer for the fact that conservatives have been forcing their Christian beliefs down everyone's throats for hundreds of years.
Stick to 1 argument.
The whole fucking picture is wrong. Nazism was the german form of socialism. Fascism was the Italian form of socialism. Socialism is an inherently leftist ideology.
Monarchy isn't left or right. It's a completely subjective form of government.
Anarchism is more of a right wing ideology. The modern palatable version of anarchism is libertarianism. The core of leftism has always been: Large centralized government, Extreme restrictions, And Redistribution of wealth. Complete and total opposites of anarchy.
To me this list looks like it was compiled by a child. A child with no understanding of history, politics, geography, and economic models.
everybody thinks their side is the good side.
this is clearly conservative bias.
No, it is an informed and historically accurate bias. I am not alligned.
far right is bad but not Nazi. Nazi's were German soldiers that served Hitler years go. they are extinct now. and far left is communism in the sense that everybody will be poor and a select few will be rich but the "everybody" won't know about the select few and how they live.
both extremes are bad.
it's nice that the right doesn't want to admit they could possibly be on the side of "bad" but also a obvious problem.
any which way describe as "far" whether its right or left is to far lol.
but right is better then left because they don't go against free speech and admit to their mistakes more often.
oh that's not biased*
sarcasm.
You have lost my intellectual respect.
even told me straight up and everything lol. I'm shattered lmao.
they do though they admit to being wrong more often not always some of them are scummy as hell. and they allow others to talk. have you seen the Berkeley riots. left wing liberals stopped a man from speaking because they don't want people to hear what he had to say. it looks they have weak arguments that can't stand up to the right because they've resorted to violence.
it looks like they shouldn't be respected intellectually. but I guess you don't care. your definition of intelligence seems to (how much the person agrees with me).
why'd you run away...
are you startled?
You got the right wing side completely wrong except for conservatism since liberals are the ones who are fascist.
@Indian-African
Exactly!
The whole thing started with the false premise of:
Since Communists are on the left the opposing fascists are on the right.
That may have been true in a relative sense in 1930's Germany and Italy, but it has no bearing in the US in this century or the previous one.
How is imposing your religion of Christianity not fascist? You are historically ignorant on multiple levels because it's been the conservatives telling people how to have sex, who to marry, what to say on TV, what to say in school and how to dress.
Lmao you liberals are the ones who are policing speech. Telling people to use "pronouns", and telling people you can't say this and that cause it's "racist" and "sexist".
Ignoring history just makes you look willfully stupid. Conservatives have been telling people since their crazy religion was invented what to say, wear, eat, think and have sex with.
Religious fascism is still fascism no matter which God said so.
Meanwhile muslims want sharia law, demand everyone follow their stupid sharia law, go around in uk, Europe etc policing people telling non muslims they can't drink etc. Go look at saudi arabia they don't even allow showing affection in public.
by the way im an Atheist.
and Muslims are generally conservative. There are conservative atheists. Just like there are dumb and ignorant atheists.
You're saying I am dumb and ignorant? Typical.
@John_Doesnt
Oh, please. Are you saying liberals don't try to limit free speech?
These are the people that try to keep a kid from reading his own Bible during "free reading" time.
www.foxnews.com/.../...-bible-in-my-classroom.html
But the left would never impose their beliefs on the rest of us, right?
Like I said, you can fool a few naive 20 somethings, but you won't fool anyone who knows history.
@Indian-African It's pretty obvious you are dumb&ignorant.
@I-am-a-nobody can you read? Read the first amendment and it does not say anywhere that people have complete and total free speech. DO you think it should be legal for someone to make violent verbal threats to you and your family?
What the constitution DOES say is that congress cannot make laws based on religion. Like Christianity.
You conservatives need to learn to READ the constitution that you so love to quote.
@I-am-a-nobody and Fox News is your source? Seriously, you have no concept of what unbiased is.
@John_Doesnt
"What the constitution DOES say is that congress cannot make laws based on religion."
Hmmm that's funny, the US Constitution says they can't ESTABLISH a religion (see Church of England or Church of Sweden, etc.) Are you looking at a different constitution?
... let's see... "Thou shall not murder" is in the Bible... gotta strike that one down immediately.
And again for the record... I've seen maybe 10 hours of Fox News (at my in laws) in the last six months (outside of seeing how Hillary got whipped) and yes, they are biased. Likewise, the NYT and WaPo and CNN and MSNBC are biased. (And I've used those other sources just as much if not more.)
@I-am-a-nobody are you done blocking me or are you just gonna block-post-block?
in my opinion communism is conservative socialism but to each their own.
But the pic I posted is from political experts. I agree that both sides get crazy when they get extreme and I'm just saying that both political parties should respect what the experts have said.
Yeah from what I know abouttu communism it is conservative... if they followed the rules of Marxism it wouldn't be the reality of it is in my opinion so I guess I disagree with the experts. I'll look into more.
John_Doesnt These 'political experts seem to ignore that there's big difference between absolute monarchy and democratic monarchy. Democratic monarchy exists in many EU countries. Absolute monarchy existed until the second half of the 19th century (In Japan and China until the end of WW2). It still exists in some non western countries.
@jacquesvol if you heard from a physics expert that Frictional force is Fmax = ΞΌ Ξ or a historical expert told you that Russians had paved roads before the French you would accept it as fact. But every dumbass with an opinion thinks they're a political expert and people who disagree are only "experts".
Communism is fucking applied Marxism. In a nutshell it's the polar opposite of capitalism. It was Karl Marx's kneejerk reaction to the monopolies and income disparity that early western capitalism caused. Read some Karl Marx and you will understand.
@manspreader I'm sick of conservatives pretending to be political experts. Go back to your farm and church.
lmfao. You are an idiot. You lack a basic understanding of economic models. And you muddy the terms up. If you need a label to understand my views it would be capitalistic progressive. But that probably flies so far above your empty head that you won't be able to formulate a cohesive response other than some pseudo-politcal jargo you heard from fox news or cnn.
@manspreader nice, throw insults and not back up anything. I'm still sick of conservatives pretending to be experts.
Through your comments and the questions you gave me the only "backing" i need for what I said. You: uninformed, politically illiterate, and lacking historical understanding.
I agree. Extremes are never good.
Far right is Fascism. Nazi is a political party.
Fascism was the Italian form of socialism lead by Mussolini.
far, far left.
I'm Italian. I think I know.
@manspreader "conservative socialism" was hitler's official political affiliation.
No it was National Socialism.
Everyone was conservative back then compared to the modern climate, which is why historians would classify in that way. Every year those labels come to mean different thing socially.
@manspreader Fascism is right wing.
@manspreader conservatism still stands for forcing religious beliefs down a country's throat.
Fascism was Italian socialism. Socialism is a left wing ideology. If Fascism is socialism and socialism is left, then fascism is a left wing ideology.
@John_Doesnt I'm conservative.
So your saying that hitler shoved religion down there throats? I'm confused now. the waters are getting muddy john.
@manspreader hitler shoved his version of Christianity down people's throats. Every conservative and Christian likes to be a dumbass though and say hitler was an atheist somehow. But his motivations and excuses for enforcing them were based on Christianity and a Christian unbringing.
@manspreader Fascism and National Socialism had zilch to do with Communism or Socialism. Mussolini hunted Communists and Socialists even before being 'official' chiefs of state and continued it until their deaths. Their first laws and decrees were in favor of industry. And they continued that till the end.
The only thing you might argue is that Mussolini wrote for a socialist publication when he was young.
They gave him the pink slip pretty soon.
That's not how it works
When you get a PhD in political science like the people who made that graph did than you can make your thesis about why it's wrong.
Uh, minored in global commerce, took ap gov, almost went to grad school in politics, my mom worked for senators, have a bunch of relatives that live and work in the dmv, played enough civilization for a lifetime and, more simply, the internet exists...
For starters, politics isn't a spectrum; it's a grid. Literally anyone who knows anything about politics knows that. And if you're basing it on American politics, anarchism is more synonymous with right wing politics... But what do I know? π
Ooh, "almost" went to grad school. Well you're clearly qualified for a Nobel prize.
Would you let somebody perform surgery on you who "almost" went to medical school? Would you let somebody build your house who had a relative that was a contractor, but themselves never built anything.
Again, REAL experts made this graph.
Lol, a dude who doesn't know shit about politics commenting on my qualifications ππππππππππππ. Dis nigga serious too ππππSome people just don't have 80k on hand. But this isn't head level shit. This is shit anyone with a 3rd grade education can understand. No, but I'd expect someone who almost went to med school to know where the right arm is located and to know the difference between a hand and an eyeball. But I can tell you're trying. π
A real expert didn't make it. I can tell you that right now. Just cause you wanna fit your confirmation bias and stroke your ego in something you clearly know Jack shit about doesn't make you right or usurp others comments. Let me guess, some expert and 1st hand source quoted this form Abe Lincoln, too
pics.onsizzle.com/...t-abraham-lincoln-5242750.png
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OfwhGQONbg
I guess you really can't fix stupid π
All of my references are from political scientists in my text books. THEY know more than the both of us and you're stupid to try and refute them with memes and a YouTube video.
No they not. Stop lying πππ
1, you haven't sourced anything academic. 2, And for proof, here's your 1st 3 links on a Google search of said graphic
americainchains2009.wordpress.com/.../
mrvcle.weebly.com/left-wing-vs-right-wing.html
https://www.themoralofthestory.us/?p=6222
Nigga, if you gonna lie, at least be good at it ππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππ
We the People: An Introduction to American Politics (Ninth Essentials Edition)
I read this in my college class and it is my source. It's written by multiple political parties and is unbiased. It's a freaking textbook.
John you're stupid and you know nothing about economic or political models. Anyone with a basic understanding of civics and history will tell you that the picture is completely wrong. It looks like it was thrown together by random.
@manspreader "basic" is right. Your understanding isn't advanced like the people who made the chart.
EVERYBODY thinks their a political expert, but you're not. Politics is a lot more complicated than you think.
"Politics is a lot more complicated than you think". Hahaha bro it is, more than you think. All of you fuckin people think that you can use these labels to explain historical economic and political models, It is disgustingly oversimplified in your mind. You prove that by the graph. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Facism isn't right wing though.
yes it is. Every idiot thinks the opposing view is all the nut jobs.
Do you know what a right/left wing system of government is? Do you know how Fascism works?
Yes, and if you Google "Hitler's political beliefs" every unbiased section calls his political views "socialist conservatism".
I know it's hard to understand, but that's what the experts agree on.
The terminology they are using is going over your head , Herm.
@herminipper
Fascism is right wing.
Most Helpful Opinions