But... But... The standard 'I don't care' answer is 'Squirrel'!

I don't think those are actually parties, they are basic political views.

Thinking about that chart though, it's pretty interesting how whoever made it, changed the word anarchist to libertarian. Someone is trying to make people equate libertarianism with anarchy. Most of the people I have seen who would call themselves libertarian, are not against government per se, rather, they are against big, unconstitutional, out of control government, that sticks its nose into every aspect of their daily life. Big difference.

First off, it's hard to have a political conversation that doesn't eventually devolve into arguments--we'll be watching this thread.

Second, there is an ungodly number of parties to begin with, and even trying to narrow it down by country doesn't really help.

In the US alone, the recognized major parties are; Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Constitution. If we talk minor, there's more than 20.

Then of course, there are ideals that may not align with a party that you may believe in. Then again, there are also parties that work well in theory (Communism) but don't in practice.

We'll? Okay, watch away. As to the rest, "parties," are just something that someone has put a name on, in order to group people with similar ideas together. An individual however, is rarely completely one party or another. Usually, each individual has their own take on any given situation, and then someone comes along and says you belong in this category or party because most of your views fall into it.

It's kinda strange once you realize that.

Merica.

According to Wikipedia at least, the Nolan chart considers individualism to be a libertarian view, not an anarchist view. I think that's the spirit in which it's meant - anyone who would equate that with anarchy probably just doesn't like or understand what libertarianism is.

I don't really align myself with a party per se. I've found I agree with parts of the platforms of both the major parties, and I try not to become too wedded to either one.

My views don't tend to work well in the nolan chat system... which amusingly makes some people think I am lying/trolling, that no one can possibly hold views not categorized by those terms...

My employer strongly believes in voting, so we have election day off from work, so if I feel like voting, I flip a coin for every position (which really pissed off a lady one time when she realized what I was doing)


Issues though, i tend to come as as supporting environmental protection, gender equality, gay rights, gun rights, population control, regulated capitalism, freedom of expression (including hate speech), strong local government, lax immigration laws, elimination of the minimum wage, legalized prostitution, etc... in no particular order.

Scytale wrote:According to Wikipedia at least, the Nolan chart considers individualism to be a libertarian view, not an anarchist view. I think that's the spirit in which it's meant - anyone who would equate that with anarchy probably just doesn't like or understand what libertarianism is.

I agree, but that's kinda my point. Look at the chart, you have polar opposites from left to right and top to bottom. What is opposite of libertarianism in that chart? Anarchy, if I understand it right, wants NO GOVERNMENT. I think most people who equate themselves with libertarianism want at least some government, just not overbearing out of control government, so I don't think it's really a good opposite of statist.

Hyperion wrote:Issues though, i tend to come as as supporting environmental protection, gender equality, gay rights, gun rights, population control, regulated capitalism, freedom of expression (including hate speech), strong local government, lax immigration laws, elimination of the minimum wage, legalized prostitution, etc... in no particular order.

Same here, for most issues.
Luckily, in my country most of these things aren't hot topics. Gay marriage has been legal since 2002 here, though it was never expressly forbidden. All in all I live in a pretty open minded and free country. Though in the wake of the drama around sexism there were some laws created that limit free speech in favour of protecting people against sexism. EG making a derogatory remark about someone in a sexist way is now punishable by a fine and/or jail time. Without the need of going through the defamation route.

Poet1960 wrote:

Scytale wrote:According to Wikipedia at least, the Nolan chart considers individualism to be a libertarian view, not an anarchist view. I think that's the spirit in which it's meant - anyone who would equate that with anarchy probably just doesn't like or understand what libertarianism is.

I agree, but that's kinda my point. Look at the chart, you have polar opposites from left to right and top to bottom. What is opposite of libertarianism in that chart? Anarchy, if I understand it right, wants NO GOVERNMENT. I think most people who equate themselves with libertarianism want at least some government, just not overbearing out of control government, so I don't think it's really a good opposite of statist.

I see what you mean. Maybe it depends on the perspective you take - statism could be seen as a limitation on the freedom of the individual or an expansive presence of government that allows it to properly care for individuals. I'm sure any statist would take the latter view, and see its opposite as anarchy - because the focus is on the presence or non-presence of government. A libertarian, on the other hand, realises that the focus is on the freedom or non-freedom of the individual, which is the point you're making!

My point is that I think libertarianism (perhaps like you) is a perfectly valid antonym for statism from the perspective of the individual. A statist might disagree, but they would be taking the perspective of the state.

Lastly, if it means anything, Wikipedia tells me Nolan was a libertarian, so there's that

Scytale wrote:
I see what you mean. Maybe it depends on the perspective you take - statism could be seen as a limitation on the freedom of the individual or an expansive presence of government that allows it to properly care for individuals. I'm sure any statist would take the latter view, and see its opposite as anarchy - because the focus is on the presence or non-presence of government. A libertarian, on the other hand, realises that the focus is on the freedom or non-freedom of the individual, which is the point you're making!

My point is that I think libertarianism (perhaps like you) is a perfectly valid antonym for statism from the perspective of the individual. A statist might disagree, but they would be taking the perspective of the state.

Lastly, if it means anything, Wikipedia tells me Nolan was a libertarian, so there's that

He was? Well that's interesting. Might explain why it was used instead of anarchist. Thing is though, if you are going to do polar opposites, you need to be consistent. You have liberal on one side and conservative on the other. You have statist, big government on one side meaning all power to the state (it runs every aspect of your life) and on the other, libertarianism which does NOT equate to a polar opposite. Anarchy does though.

So libertarianism would probably fall somewhere in the middle between anarchy and the centrist part, not be the extreme on the other end of statist. Most government vs no government=statist vs anarchy. Those are polar opposites, not libertarianism and statist.


LOL. "Maybe it depends on the perspective you take - statism could be seen as a limitation on the freedom of the individual or an expansive presence of government that allows it to properly care for individuals." Yes, yes indeed. It does depend on your perspective. I know you are just giving an example and theorizing and probably don't believe this part, but did you read it? People really do think that way. I would guess that those noble lords from days of yore, felt so much compassion for their serfs, as they dominated every single aspect of their lives, it was for their own good whether the peasants thought so or not.

No matter what you call it, it still boils down to limiting individual liberty. You can give all kinds of nice sounding words to put spin on it, but in the end, it's really all about making your own choices, or having them forced on you by someone else, no matter how noble their excuse may sound.

Yeah I don't buy the 'caring state' thing, it was as you say just theorising. Point taken about polar opposites. Maybe Nolan wasn't precisely taking true polar opposites but rather taking the most contrasted view to statism. Whatever~

Scytale wrote:... Maybe Nolan wasn't precisely taking true polar opposites but rather taking the most contrasted view to statism. Whatever~

Well, thats possible I suppose, but then it sort of negates the whole purpose of the chart. The extremes are what define the boundaries of the chart, so if you don't have an extreme on all ends, then it sort of skews the chart.

For what it's worth, I don't think those labels are intended to denote the extremes -- just the general areas in each quadrant.