So what’s the practical difference between that model and Nolan? It throws motive into the mix* but it’s still basically an axis for economic liberty and an axis for personal liberty.

*I’m not sure that’s a good idea, because it’s very hard to assess motive

Fascism subjugates the individual out of fear of what the individual will do to the all-mighty state. Fearing the effect an individual will have on society, and therefore using supreme amounts of force to subjugate him is *still* an individualist mindset. Moreover, look at the weight fascism (specifically Nazism) puts on specific individuals who are supposed to embody the state.

On the right-wing spectrum from anti-authority to pro-authority, fascism is the far end of the pro-authority side.

Contrast this with applied Marxism, where the force is used in an attempt to create a better, fairer communitarian society for all.

It’s a case of two divergent political philosphies winding up with very similar practical results–millions dead, millions subjugated. But they got there by applying a high level of authoritarianism to different political ideologies.

If the only control you have is over your organization of volunteers, it isn’t really a social plan; it’s an organizational plan that happens to focus on a societal issue.

Exactly. Right-wingers of all stripes (even fascists) are naturally distrustful of the idea that social progress can be imposed from the top down. Right-wingers who believe that society can consciously be changed for the better believe in voluntary association and the marketplace of ideas to do it. They tend to be the absolute least authoritarian people on the right-wing diagonal.

As you move away from the idea that society can be consciously changed for the better, you see the right-wing mindset gravitate towards using force to keep society from degrading. This line of thought starts with religious conservatism and moves all the way to fascism.

The core factor in this is individualism. On some level of thought, all right-wingers are individualists. Objectivists and Libertarians obviously are, while religious conservatives and fascists also are. All four philosophies focus on the individual’s effect on society.

It’s an interesting inverse relationship that’s grown to characterize the “right wing” in politics.

The Republican Party has also been the recent home of socially conservative segments like the Christian fundamentalists. The policies championed by this group are hardly libertarian.

I agree with Nitro and Quincy: Left, Right, Democrat and Republican are insufficient terminology when it comes to the spectrum of Liberty versus Authoritarianism.

Sadly, liberty is not a topic that’s in vogue at the moment.

My question is: Why is there so little coverage of the fact that Obama is the first president ever whose last name starts with O?? Or that we’ve finally elected our 8th left handed president??

It is nice to have yet another confirmation that “race” should not matter, but I think that undue focus on “race” can ironically be the cause of further racism.

Barack Obama promises to be a smooth-talking, educated, articulate, socialist president. No matter complexion he has.

I don’t understand that model. How does one go about advancing some sort of “social plan” without the state’s coercion? A plan presumes a significant amount of control. If the only control you have is over your organization of volunteers, it isn’t really a social plan; it’s an organizational plan that happens to focus on a societal issue.

The left-right spectrum is a broken model for comprehending politics. My preferred model is here.

I’ve got some interesting thoughts on the only consistencies between left and right wing ideologies, and it supports my belief that “left wing libertarianism” can’t exist.

Not everything can be measured accurately by the Left Right political spectrum.

Authority
Left–|– Right
/ || \
Liberty

Education is everything at this point. If we can’t turn the national sentiment away from statism, nothing else matters.

I disagree with the first half of your statement. Libertarianism, is by nature, to the far right of the political spectrum. George Bush has not governed as a conservative – he has governed as a liberal, with excessive intervention overseas, and massive spending increases at home. This was the cause of the Republican demise. Obama will be Bush times 10. Not only will he continue to keep troops in 70% of the countries around the world, he will also significantly increase spending at home, while trying to intrude on second amendment rights and free speech.

Your second statement was valid though.

I really feel we just went from bad to worse in this country.

I agree with Lloyd:

When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.

Obama’s gonna screw us, but the he’s not going to screw us significantly more or less than McCain, Hillary, or Romney would have. Differently, sure, but you can always count on any of them to screw you as much as they can get away with.

Education is everything at this point. If we can’t turn the national sentiment away from statism, nothing else matters.

I haven’t seen you comment here before, so you may be new. I am a libertarian bordering on anarchist. I don’t support “affirmative action” in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I’m nearly opposed to all government policies of any form, because they all seem to spring from that “government” thing, which is simply a euphemism for coercion.

My fellow contributors all also fit somewhere within the “small-l libertarian” spectrum. I can’t speak for any of them in particular, but my belief is that not a single one of them are in favor of affirmative action.