There is something called the Nolan scale that explains this quite well.what are the core principles that you stand for, on what side of the political spectrum do you sit. (libertarianism as a whole not personal leaning)
You are absolutely correct, TD. I fixed it.your examples of the extreme are pathetic Guy. Madcow is a lesbian liberal not some sort of trotskyite marxist and Limbaugh is mid right at best. You also are not a libertarian but a contrarian communitarian. Your concept of economic freedom involves massive government redistribution of wealthy
you seem to have a deluded sense of what certain words mean. does 'liberal' mean fascist to you just because you are against liberalism, because thats how it looks.Actually, there is a lot here to answer.
First, that Libertarian chart, which is supposed to show one's position politically, is a real mess. Libertarians go out of their way to put down big government as being too complicated. And they are absolutely correct. However, they turn right around and come up with something overly complicated, like that chart. makes no sense to me.
I prefer the simple "Left - Center - Right" scale. It's universally accepted that Marxism, mainline Socialism, and Democratic Socialism, are Left Wing, so that is the best place to start. They are all Collectivist. And since Progressive is really nothing more than Fascism, we must also include Fascism in the Left. It's all Collectivism, where the State takes precedence over the Individual.
At the opposite side, the Right Wing, is Individualism, which is the exact opposite of Collectivism. THis includes Classic/Real Liberals(such as myself), "so called" Libertarians, and at the far right, anarchists.
And in the center would be Federalists, who believe in a mixture of centralized government and individual Liberty.
This is about as simple as it gets, and at the same time explains the entire political spectrum. Tell you what, look down at my Signature, and click on the link I have provided, and you will see just what I mean. It does a great job of explaining all this, with the possible exception of the Roman history part. I think they are a bit in Left Field there.
DontWorryBeHappy's Signature of "Intelligent liberal" is an oxymoron. is completely incorrect. Like most people, he follows the old FDR lie about what, and who, is a Liberal. Frederic von Hayek, Dr. Walter E. Williams, Dr. Milton Friedman, Thomas Jefferson, Lord Acton, Dr.James Buchannan(the economist), and a host of Liberty loving people are correctly called Liberals, because we believe in Individual Liberty.
Most people called Liberals today, are nowhere near being Liberals. It's a Lie perpetuated by FDR in the early 30s when he was campaigning for president. He grabbed the name and ran with it, and the rest is history. Now that he is finally being examined closely, the misuse of the word Liberal is also coming under scrutiny. Fifteen years ago, almost nobody realized this. But today, it is known by millions of informed people, and in another decade perhaps it will regain it's reputation as it well deserves.
In fact almost ALL Real Liberals are Informed Liberals, which is just the opposite of the Signature.
The problem is that you, like most people, have fallen victim to FDR's stealing of the word Liberal, to cloak himself, since at the time the word Progressive has gotten a bad name. The correct definition of a Liberal is someone who believes in Individual Liberty. Today's 'so called' liberals, such as yourself, don't like Individual Liberty, unless the State authorizes it.you seem to have a deluded sense of what certain words mean. does 'liberal' mean fascist to you just because you are against liberalism, because thats how it looks.
right side of the spectrum is far from being holy and the left deffinitly does not include fascism, it is the extreme of right wing ideology, and your attempt to generalize beliefs into being black and white, good and evil, leftwing loonies and right wing enlightened, are as pathetic as your misunderstanding of your own ideology. for instance i identify as a liberal, and an anarcho-communist.
if you claim that the extreme of liberalism is the indivdual dominated by the state, then the extreme of the right wing woul be domination by the corporations. and i doubt most freedom loving libertarians wouldn't bother to make much of a distinction between one system of oppression and another.
Spencer reminded his readers that two types of societies had long been in contention: the militant, or status-based, type versus the industrial, or contract-based, type. Advocates of the latter, who later became known as both Whigs and Liberals, accomplished the Herculean task of “resist[ing] and decreas[ing] the coercive power of the ruler over the subject.” After detailing this earth-shaking record, Spencer wrote, “t seems needful to remind everybody what Liberalism was in the past, that they may perceive its unlikeness to the so-called Liberalism of the present. . . . They have lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for individual freedom versus State-coercion.”The magazine went on to lament the absurd division of freedom into personal and economic varieties, one for the left and one for the right: “That separation explains how it can be that the same term is now used in different places to say opposite things. What is harder to explain is why ‘liberal’ has become such a term of abuse. When you understand that the tradition it springs from has changed the world so much for the better in the past two and a half centuries, you might have expected all sides to be claiming the label for their own exclusive use.”
There is no better person to turn to for insight into the changing notion of liberalism than Herbert Spencer, who examined the matter in “The New Toryism,” found in his 1884 collection The Man Versus the State (online, thanks to the Liberty Fund, at Spencer, The Man Versus The State, with Six Essays on Government, Society, and Freedom | Library of Economics and Liberty). Not so ironically, Spencer worked at The Economist from 1848 (five years after its founding) to 1853.