just like it's easier to dismiss republicans as rich evil religous fundalmentalist who want to destroy democracy and bring on global annihilation?

nazism held that the means of production should be held by the state

socialism contends that the means of production should be held by the people

In what sense can the latter be true without implementing the former? When does the government become "the people" instead of "the state"?

geez, did i say YOU did?

not all republicans but its a good description of our current administration

It really depends on how you view your lefts and rights. I think this chart is pretty accurate.

Except "Libertarian" is listed at the ends of two axes. Nice try, though.

That's because there are libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist

Once, twice, three times a libertarian...

Which one is the Easter Bunny and which one is Santa Claus? I always get them confused.

The problem with your matrix is that the axes don't measure anything meaningful.

A matrix is designed to graph the relationship between two qualities along a spectrum, such as the trade-offs between price and quality.

Your matrix doesn't do this. You've got labels at the ends of each axis, but they don't mean much. A right-anarchist verus a left-anarchist? It's meaningless.

A more effective matrix would map something such as "Rule making: collaborative vs. autocratic", or "Government presence in individual affairs: Absent versus All encompassing", or "Rights to be preserved: Greater good/society (for lack of a better term) vs. individual".

Further, you plot your graph with individuals rather than schools of thought. This renders your matrix utterly useless. A better example, taking two of the above axes, you could plot the National Socialism as "close to all-encompassing, autocratic" and modern day Libertarians as "close to absent, collaborative". You could then provide examples of each group, e.g. 1930's Germany or Harry Browne.

If you want the webpage that explains the chart, the link is below. Sorry for not explaining it earlier.
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politic ... lysis2.php

I don't need it explained, I just find it to be ineffective. But we've gone on ad infinitem on the merits, or lack thereof, of the political compass. Identifying the compass as the source explains the slipshod presentation of the matrix.

Actually, this is pretty much how leftists like me think society should be. I doubt you'll find many people say those who work hard shouldn't be rewarded more than those who don't work as hard. All we ask for is a guarantee that every child has an adequate education, a system of universal health care, the right to organize and a safety net if you fall under hard times or cannot support yourself for a number of understandable reasons. This almost always means the federal government has to step in and guarantee these basic human rights because the federal goverment is the ultimate tool of the poor and the middle class.

The interesting part is that these rights can be strengthened or implemented if we cut back on corporate welfare and excessive military spending. But if we keep wasting money on subsidizing the rich and buying gold-plated weapons, it's obvious that there isn't going to be money for these services.

That's why I support moderate leftists like Nader because they recognize that these values are necessary for a civilized society. It is hard for me to support pure socialists like Walt Brown or pure neoliberals like Badnarik because they are too inflexible, unrealistic and in my opinion, unreasonable.

Quite true, no one will be caught "saying" this. The proof is in their actions, and in the legislation they support.




Sounds great, who pays for it? What about the people who cannot support themselves for reasons that are not "understandable". Who determines which reasons qualify and which don't? Your utopian ideal falls to pieces once you start to evaluate all of the underlying elements required to make them happen.




Guarantee from whom? I suspect what you really mean is the government is required to step in and redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't. It's the "tool of the poor" because it allows them to make off with wealth created by others.



It seems that it is "hard for you" to support "pure" candidates because you have trouble with the truth. Your ideal is some watered down philosophy that allows you to ignore the implications of what you propose, and in the end turns out to be meaningless because you've stripped it of any guiding principals. The "pure" philosophers at least are honest. They may be wrong, but they're honest. If you subscribe to a code of values, any dillution of it is a compromise and an acceptance of what you deem to be wrong.

Those who cannot support themselves due to physical injury, mental handicap, old age, those who seriously can't find work, etc. There are many reasons why people can't support themselves and need aid to survive. I think we can come to an agreement on a range of reasons.



The society as a whole has to guarantee these fundamental rights. And yes, that means the government steps in and redistributes resources through a progressive tax system so people at least have the things I described above. That doesn't mean the government gives people toys, cell phones and beer - it means people must be guaranteed health care, education, clean water and so on. That's how you build a civilized society.



Actually, I say that because I think the United States economy is a good mixture of socialism and capitalism. However, I have problems with how resources are distributed, the lack of a living wage, the power given to corporations and trade laws that benefit the wealthiest individuals. We have the tools and the infrastructure at our disposal to create a civilized society, but they're not being used for the benefit of everyone at the moment. That's why I agree with Nader on most issues because he sees these problems and wants to fix them.

i don't think there is such thing as a "pure" philosophy.
even anarchists agreed on all using the same symbol.

And if we can't?



What falls under the "and so on" umbrella. "And so on" really doesn't have an end, it just goes on and on and so on. Who determines what's a toy versus what's a "fundamental right"?

You keep punting on this question, but the answer is unavoidable--what you advocate is a controlled state, where individual freedom is sacrificed for the "good" of society. That's fine if it's what you believe, but at least have the cajones to identify it as such. I will continue to disagree.





No, that's how you build a welfare state.



Nothing more than demagoguery.

isnt it great that we can all sit here and aruge and my original premise has been buried : that republicans are moving to secure their power in the senate.

[and maybe we should bring up how house republicans have changed republican rules in the house to protect tom delay, and are now looking to change the rules of the ethics committee so they will futher protect not only tom delay, but any politician suspected of wrong doing]

Politicians are always moving to secure their power in whatever house/chamber they reside. This is nothing new. We jacked your thread for something much more fun and incendiary.

well, to be honest, i would be this pissed off if it were the dems pulling this crap!!

I'm voting Fu-Haq in '08!