Posted on 02/11/2016 12:02:09 PM PST by Torcert
This is a short dissertation on the Real political spectrum, Each step of the way will be confirmed by the dictionary definitions of the various political ideologies and how they relate to the spectrum.
In order to properly set it out in a logical manner we need to base it on the metric of governmental power since this should be the clearest method of distinguishing where the ideologies fall on the spectrum.
1. Government Control scale.
For the sake of simplicity we will use a scale of %0 to %100 with zero for no governmental control and ranging up to 100 for total government control. Since its generally axiomatic that Conservatives and Libertarians favour Limited and lesser government it will start with zero on the Right end of the scale. And by the same token the tendency of the left is for increased government control and thus the Left end will be %100 governmental control.
2. Defining the ends of the scale.
The zero point will clearly correspond to the ideological condition of anarchy.
Full Definition of ANARCHYWhile the 100 point corresponding to the condition of a Total government Control:
1a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker
Origin of ANARCHY
Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
First Known Use: 1539
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
Definition of TOTALITARIAN3. Now that we have established those data points we can examine what occurs as one moves along the scale from right to left
1a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
First Known Use of TOTALITARIAN
circa 1934
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian
The right end scale with smaller percentages of Government control would have Libertarianism followed by Conservatism.
Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism
right wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing
Definition of CONSERVATISMMoving on towards the Left to the higher reaches of the scale corresponding to higher and higher levels of government control
1capitalized
a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
left wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support liberal or socialist ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Left
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left%20wing
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Full Definition of FASCISM
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge
Origin of FASCISM
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
First Known Use: 1921
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Definition of COMMUNISMThus we have set out a basic scale of the real political spectrum backed up by the factual definitions of the various points on the scale. While there may be disagreements with regard to the specific locations where a particular ideology will fall, the overall sequence will still be sound.
1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
You fall into the fallacy of false dichotomy. Your very definition that you quote says "liberal OR socialist" policies. There are liberal policies that are not necessarily socialist, such as eliminating laws on drugs or abortion, both of which lessen the authority of the State, but at a cost to society. That's where your linear model falls apart.
Others have already pointed to other models that fit better, such as the Pournell model.
LexBaird 'eliminating laws on drugs or abortion, both of which lessen the authority of the State'
That is of the Libertarian ideology
LexBaird 'but at a cost to society.'
Having the government pay for it is of the Leftist - Socialist ideology at the other end of the scale
Two separate ideologies, two Different points on the lineal model.
And there you are using a second logical fallacy: begging the question.
It goes like this: “since I am defining the terms as me being correct, I am therefore correct. Thus the question is resolved in the premise.”
Your premise is incorrect because your definitions are too limited, as leftist/rightist and statist/anarchist are not the same line. You model is too simplistic to account for variations, such as absolute monarchy or theocracy (right-wing statist) or revolutionary anarchist (left-wing anti-statist).
And there you are using a second logical fallacy: begging the question.
It goes like this: since I am defining the terms as me being correct, I am therefore correct. Thus the question is resolved in the premise.Where did I say that?
Your premise is incorrect because your definitions are too limited, as leftist/rightist and statist/anarchist are not the same line. You model is too simplistic to account for variations, such as absolute monarchy or theocracy (right-wing statist) or revolutionary anarchist (left-wing anti-statist).That is your Opinion on the matter, nothing more. I've already addressed that issue, what else do you have?
In your initial post, where you set up terms that were predetermined to support your point.
If you define “leftist” as equal to “statist”, and then propose a scale where it is so, then that is “begging the question”. The problem is, your definition isn’t accurate; it is incomplete.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
LexBaird And there you are using a second logical fallacy: begging the question.
It goes like this: since I am defining the terms as me being correct, I am therefore correct. Thus the question is resolved in the premise.Again: Where did I say that?
Read post 45. You pre-defined the terms in your original post to contain your conclusion. That’s what “begging the question” is. Look up the Nizdor link, for further explanation.
Your premise was that the political spectrum runs on a single line, if you define Leftist and Statist as being the same thing. But they aren’t. They are different aspects that may or may not be associated, like “tall” and “skinny”. Just because someone may be both tall and skinny, that doesn’t mean one cannot be short and skinny, nor does it mean that the taller you are the skinnier you are.
Clearly you would have quoted those words by now Had I stated them.
Repeating the same assertion without backing it up with facts DOES NOT make it valid no matter how many times you repeat it.
Try arguing on what I have actually stated.
I did. Your actual statements in your original post are examples of the classic “begging the question” fallacy (i.e.: the conclusion is defined in the premise) and the fallacy of excluding the middle ground (i.e.: only the extremes are true), and the fallacy of false dilemma (i.e.: there are only two possible choices).
You cannot set up an argument by defining terms to suit your needs, denying alternate and valid definitions, and then claim your definitions support your conclusions so therefore you are right. It’s faulty logic. Your inability to understand that, and your inability to recognize illustrating examples as examples and not direct quotations, is not my problem.
Repeating the same assertion without backing it up with facts DOES NOT make it valid no matter how many times you repeat it.
The facts are, as I have cited, that your argument is based on logical fallacies. I have shown the structure of the fallacies you used. You can continue to try to deny that, but you would be better served by reading your own advice, and realize that denying it doesn’t make your argument valid.
If you continue to argue the notion that the political spectrum can be reduced to a single line, you shall have to show how other, multi-dimensional models as suggested by others are not superior. Your current argument fails, due to flawed logic.
But, as we are probably the only people still following the thread, I see no real point in continuing this.
And yet you cannot cite where I made the assertion you claimed.
Read this carefully and slowly...
In. Your. First. Post. You. Used. At. Least. Three. Fallacies.
1) Begging the question
2) False Dilemma
3) Excluded middle
You support your argument with several definitions that are carefully limited to only support your conclusion. That is “Begging the Question”. Your definitions indicate that “Right” and “Left”are the only choices. That is False Dilemma, since there are other choices. You use only the most extreme possible definition. That is Excluded Middle, since other definitions exist.
When I wrote “It goes like this: since I am defining the terms as me being correct, I am therefore correct,” I was demonstrating how a “question begging” (aka “circular logic”) fallacy is structured, not trying to quote you.
Are you clear now? Or shall I explain it to you a fifth time?
LexBaird When I wrote ";It goes like this: since I am defining the terms as me being correct, I am therefore correct," I was demonstrating how a "question begging" (aka "circular logic") fallacy is structured, not trying to quote you.
And you are trying to set up a false pretense.
Read this carefully and slowly...
YOU have to show where I made the those aforementioned statements.
Are you clear now? Or shall I explain it to you a fifth time?
I can do this all day if you want..
1. Government Control scale.
Begging the question; assumption in definition that linear scale is correct.
3. Now that we have established those data points we can examine what occurs as one moves along the scale from right to left.
False dilemma; right and left not only choices.
left wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support liberal or socialist ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Left
Excluded middle, because you ignored the first and third part of the definition, and only considered the "or socialist" part.
Do you assume that what YOU say is also correct?
No, but I can clearly see what you propose is not correct. It is too simplistic. Your model does not account for political positions that do not fit your rigid definitions. Multi-dimensional models exist that work better than yours, and a couple have been pointed out on this thread already.
If you can point to flaws in what I assume, have at it.
2. Excluded middle - where did I do that?
3.. Did you miss the this of the post part in your quest to somehow claim the Excluded middle
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Full Definition of FASCISM
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge
Origin of FASCISM
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
First Known Use: 1921
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Definition of COMMUNISM
1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
Since its generally axiomatic that Conservatives and Libertarians favour Limited and lesser government it will start with zero on the Right end of the scale. And by the same token the tendency of the left is for increased government control and thus the Left end will be %100 governmental control.
you set out an incomplete and artificially limited definition, set up a choice between two extremes using that false definition, and assume your conclusion within your proposal.
What you define as "axiomatic" and "tendency" are immediately assigned as true values. But they are not automatically true. They are correlated, but counter-examples abound of totalitarian Right-wingers and anarchist Left-wingers, so your premise fails from the outset.
You then state:
Now that we have established those data points we can examine what occurs as one moves along the scale from right to left.
But you haven't established that the scale is from Left to Right, and that totalitarian is at one end and anarchy is at the other. You've simply asserted it, as shown above. Yet, you say that things must be placed on this scale. That is the false dilemma, because things exist which don't fit that scale. Assigning them a place on it is a forced choice. Where do you place a totalitarian theocracy or absolute Monarchy on your scale? Where do you place the black-masked Leftist anarchists who want to abolish money? Where do you place George Washington compared to George III?
I’m still patiently waiting for you to address the other definitions I mentioned - or does eviscerate your ‘Excluded middle’ premise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.