Talk:Nolan chart

The nolan chart criticism is really just a semantic quibble. The term populism is defined by most textbooks as socially conservative (hang the commies!) and economically liberal (government will buy your food!). This doesn't mean the Nolan Chart is against anything, only that it employs conventional definitions. Anarchism is neat but not when it makes its points on technicalities. If you want to criticize anything, it's the definition, not those who employ it. 69.142.154.10 19:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to address the issues of all three of us. I would like to point out a couple of things. Firstly, that the page author seems to have a different definition of populism than the mainstream, so that needs to be cleared up. Secondly, you are mistaken when you say the author criticizes Nolan chart users. This has no bearing on the article, but I mention it in the hope of sparing your feelings. The author quite clearly identifies the chart itself as faulty.

Me, personally, I think Economic Freedom is a steaming pile, and the Nolan Chart a small one, if equal in olfactory offense. The common conception of Economic Freedom is informed by the shell game set up by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation: the Index of Economic Freedom. A fabrication from whole cloth, this index is by definition not peer-reviewed, because the criteria by which it ranks nations is not published. Economic Freedom in general is an attempt by capitalists, who have never been responsible for the employment of workers, as they can and will terminate employment at any time, from also relieving themselves of the responsibility of paying taxes. It seems unlikely that they can ever avoid having to provide goods and/or services, but who knows. I did not expect Economic Freedom either.

My above concerns will not stop me showing the small number of facts associated with the Nolan chart. Anarchangel 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)