Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Nolan chart
|
This article has been edited by Anarchopedians, and to that extent represents Anarchopedia's philosophy. While it may at first seem less than subtle, what is printed elsewhere is the extreme You are welcomed to adjust your perception of Normality |
AP ED |
The Nolan chart is a 2-axis political chart.
It is also called 'the world's smallest political quiz'.
The Nolan chart was created by David Nolan, the founder of the 'libertarian' party.
The problem with economic freedom or personal freedom or indeed anything about Libertarianism is when one starts to take it too seriously. The two axes arguably do not exist at all. The Nolan chart consists of 2 political axes: 'personal freedom' and 'economic freedom', both of which are an invention of Libertarians, neither of which is a true ideological parameter.[1]
There is nothing to stop someone putting Libertarianism in Populism's place, because they offer neither egalitarianism's freedom of having to worry about who is richer anymore (contrast with Libians' claim of not having to worry about taxes anymore), or its lack of other defined restraints (that is all that egalitarianism is, therefore it cannot impinge on personal freedom. That is sort of predefining the unknown of what Egalitarians might want, as a government, but has a counterpart and then some with the unknown of what might be in store with Libertarian government).
Personal freedom, for the sake of argument, is not exclusive to left wing groups any more than economic freedom is to the right. Egalitarianism, for example, is a freedom granted by the left, of an economic kind, and certainly the proletariat would not feel themselves restricted by equal pay.[1] The Second Amendment 'right to bear arms' afforded Americans by an 18th century provision to ensure that the new government would not be short of armed recruits in time of war is staunchly defended by the right wing, and could easily be construed to be a personal freedom.[2]
The example of the 2nd Amendment and egalitarianism is pure anathema to Libertarians as it both lies quite within the parameters of their definition and yet stands equally perfectly opposed to the bias of of their definition.[1] Once one gets past the 'no taxes for anyone' (and therefore, no benefits for everyone) booby prize posing as a door prize, there remains a long list of freedoms only for wealthy capitalists: a greater (in some cases, vastly greater) total tax savings, and abolishment of the entire, admittedly maze-like set of restrictions on business, each and every one an example of a gatekeeper set up to block the loopholes that amoral businessmen unceasingly attempt to exploit.
What is a freedom for one may be a restraint to another. The freedom to extract value from the proletariat without government extracting value from capitalists, for example, restrains both the capacity of government and the proletariat's to receive economic value equivalent to their labor.[1]
What is true about the Nolan chart, despite its dubious axes, is the significance of the presence or absence, in the three corners of the Nolan chart, of all of Libertarianism's political rivals. Libertarianism uses the red herring of Proof by assertion to link political rivals to negative spots on the chart (low personal freedom, low economic freedom, low both).
- Fear of Anarchism. The one philosophy that is missing. Libertarianism superficially resembles it. But it dare not even raise its spectre, lest it be swept away by the very fears that it seeks to manipulate. Libertarians would also be well served, in an immoral sort of way of pure gain, if those who might be attracted to Anarchism would never get to / have to decide between them. While Lib's place in the top right corner is in some dispute, due to restraint of wages, Anarchism's is not. Both types of freedom are the object and the means of Anarchism, by default. Whatever criticism a person might have of either type of freedom, there is no denying that in Anarchism, there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of either.
- Fear of Communism. Economic freedom neatly ignores egalitarianism, as previously noted. Movements that are opposed to capitalism are in opposition to Libertarianism, but Libertarianism is situated to cash in on the right wing's conflation of left-wing spending as being 'big government' (ignoring the numerous examples of the right wing spending more on making people in other countries dead than the left does on making its own people healthy). Movements that support social programs are considerably less competition for the tiny Libertarian movement for this reason, but also because they can be conflated with Communism, disposed of in the popular imagination and by 60 years of propaganda from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. This is also the Pot calling the kettle red, because Libertarianism never intends to give money to the masses.
- Fear of Authoritarianism. Movements that are Libertarianism saves its biggest gun for its biggest threat; the right wing that it most closely resembles. Movements that are opposed to 'big government' are in competition with Libertarianism for supporters. Not that they are completely wrong about declaring the status quo to be authoritarian; for example, Patriotic Correctness existed long before Political Correctness, and it is a testament to the right wing's authoritarian roots as much as to the left-wing's overactive conscience that it is set to continue long after.
Why Nolan included totalitarianism in the bottom left corner is no mystery. Everyone hates it, no one loves it, no one will bother to check if it is true. And yet it is a completely bogus argument. Totalitarianism, as it is defined, not as it is applied, is most definitely the very definition of restraint of personal freedoms. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with economics, and thus can exist anywhere along the bottom of the chart, from left to right. This also illustrates the most compelling similarity between totalitarianism and other right wing systems. The more totalitarianism supports capitalists, as the Nazis did when keeping industrial entities intact, the more it resembles the right wing. And, bearing in mind the Thin end of the wedge fallacy, the more the right wing restricts personal freedoms, as they did with the Patriot Act, whose timing and content so closely resembled the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act that were enacted after the Reichstag Fire in Nazi Germany, the more it resembles totalitarianism.
Populism is a dubious concept at best; with all the sweeping disdain that the ruling class can muster, it attempts to conflate its low opinion of the quality of the follower with the quality of the message. It is a truism that communism showed how the haves and the havenots interacted, and absurd to say that this scenario, or any other, can be criticized because it is popular. Anti-communists define it in the narrowest way possible, using the unfamiliar words to describe unfamiliar concepts that communists used, concepts that have existed for such a short time that they never got to be familiar before they got demonized. They are content to define populism as the communist Class Struggle; proletariat vs bourgeoisie. Others are more restrained, but the cat is out of the bag; populism is a system specifically designed for pre-emptive labelling. If it can label communism first with a Thought-terminating cliché, the correctness of communism's definitions may never be assessed. In its least narrow sense, it is even more a truism; a description of popular governments with no other drawbacks, necessarily.
The real mystery is why Nolan was so stupid as to include populism. Since they are, or were, popular governments, Nolan could have saved himself the trouble of alienating potential supporters of such philosophies; as easily as 'populism' can be conflated with them.
The truth is that populist movements can be found anywhere on the Nolan chart, because what is popular to a population is entirely a matter of their culture; the only distinction of populism that is not a fait accompli is that it attempts to gain power by pandering to popular sentiment and uses propaganda. Populist movements can easily be opposed to both capitalism and big government, for example.
"The Nolan chart is one of the 2 most popular political charts, the other being the single-axis left-right spectrum." This is rather amusing, as it is not a testament to Nolan's genius, or even a mark of the degree of popularity of Libertarianism, that there are only two well-known such charts. Nolan's is one of the two most popular because it is one of two total. It is number two by default. No one else bothered.
See Also[edit]
Citations[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Readings in the philosophy of law by Jules L. Coleman, page 120. "Conventional wisdom places libertarianism and liberal egalitarianism at opposite ends of a continuum of liberalism"
- ↑ Personal Freedom: The Founders' Second Amendment. Closeout item - Reduced price while supplies last. Order NOW! (for real, it really says that)
