Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Political Litmus test: Determining one’s place on the political spectrum.

Published

on

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

It’s to the advantage of some groups to deliberately confuse the issue as to where one fits in the scheme of politics. Baffling political spectrum models or false labels are used to make this a daunting task. It’s the political version of the old saying that those who believe in nothing will fall for anything. Muddy the political waters to the point of absolute chaos and people will accept whatever they are told is their political ideology.

This is seen with various nonsensical political spectrum models that result in ridiculous political combinations such as an Anarchist-Communist. This incongruous juxtaposition of the complete absence of government control with complete government control is akin to the physical impossibility of Antimatter-Matter. Or there are the more commonplace attempts to make the slavery of socialism the natural extension of ‘Liberalism’. One being of the collectivist or left side of the political spectrum while the other is of the individualist or right side. In both cases, these phenomenon cannot logically exist due to the incongruity of the two concepts.

Simplifying the process to let people determine their ideology for themselves.

The point of this discussion is to end the confusion using fundamental principles in combination with the practical application of the ideological definitions. This will let everyone determine their place in the political universe for themselves instead of having it done for them with some biased questions or confusing graphics.

The engineering fields provide us with the best analytical model for making this determination. This begins with looking to basic principles to develop a ‘rough calculation’ of the answer. Then one proceeds to a more sophisticated analysis of the issue to develop more refined solutions. The first step in grounding the analysis in the fundamentals insures that the results of each stage will be in overall agreement.

The basic principle determining who is on which side of the Political Spectrum.

Author and Engineer Robert A. Heinlein set forth this fundamental principle of the political realm as the first step in this analysis:

Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A. Heinlein

This provides the underlying precept for the rest of this analysis. It is a ‘rough calculation’ giving a very good approximation on where one might fall on the political spectrum. This is most likely objected to by those who would prefer a confused electorate, but its a superb way of making this determination. We will label this the ‘Heinlein line’ in honour of the man articulated this rule.

It should be readily apparent that those who clamour for wealth redistribution, Liberty control and tight regulation of business would fall on the ‘want people to be controlled’ side of the equation. One cannot have these ‘benefits’ without the strict control of the people as well as their property. It should also be obvious that those who want limited government would fall on the ‘no such desire’ side of the line.

We can also refine the determination with a few additional questions along the same lines:
What is the purpose of the government? Is it to impose fairness and equality or is it to let everyone live in peace with minimal interference?

Should government have virtually unlimited power for ‘the common good’ or should it be constrained?

Those on the political Left tend towards the control side of the line. Although they prefer to dress up their control fetish in terms of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’, their ruling over the population is always seems to be the final result. This is contrasted with those on the political Right who want to be left alone, with strict limitations on governmental power.

Developing the metrics of a True Political Spectrum.

Now that we’ve done the ‘rough calculation’ indicating which side someone is situated on the Right-Left divide. We can refine where someone might be on the scale based on the definitions of the various common ideologies.

A political spectrum model is only is good as it’s underlying metric. Utilising nonsensical measurements such as ‘reaction to change’ are only useful to those with a certain political agenda that presumes an inexorable movement of history towards the Left. These only serve to reinforce these agendas without having any logical usefulness.

First principles would indicate that political power translates to governmental power, therefore that should be the generalised metric for any political spectrum model. While there are those who prefer to confuse the issue with 2 or even 3 dimensional constructs, the point here is to array the various ideologies in a logical manner instead of trying to foster a particular agenda. A quick search on the topic will yield a dizzying array of Lines, Squares, Diamonds, Cubes and other indescribable constructs that only serve to bewilder those trying understand the subject. Most often, these are set-up to convince the reader they are of a certain ideological bent when this is nothing of the kind.

Constructing the True Political Spectrum.

A basic two-dimensional graphic is the best illustration of the political spectrum. The y-axis indicates the percentage of government control while the x-axis is the Left-Right specrum line. The Right endpoint indicates 0% Government, while the Left endpoint indicates 100% Government. Definitionally speaking, the Right end will represent Anarchy – or no government control. While the Left end will represent Totalitarianism – Total government control. Please note that this corresponds directly with the ‘rough calculation’ of the Heinlein rule.

As one moves from the Right to the Left, government control increases. Libertarians are a short distance in from the Right end desirous of minimal government. Conservatives are a little further along in wanting a little more, followed by the Liberals desirous of ‘moderate political and social reform’ but still ‘favouring individual liberty’ and ‘free trade’.

Keep in mind that we are still on the Right side of the political spectrum, the side that favours the individual and individualism.

Over on the Left side of the political spectrum past the ‘Heinlein line’ the ideological terms are often used interchangeably. Moving Leftward there are the ever vaguely defined progressives who believe in ‘moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action’. Then there are the Socialists, Fascists, Communists or one of the myriad of synonyms for these ideologies. These ideologies are all of the collectivist mindset that necessitates expansive government control in order to operate.

The Takeaway.

It should be clear that instead of a complicated graphical models or a set of biased questions, one can easily determine their place on the political spectrum with some basic logical reasoning. Along with a check on the actual meaning of certain ideological terms.

One can easily surmise that most people would be of the ‘no such desire’ in controlling others on the Right side of the political spectrum. Which most likely would explain why things are not taught this way, there would be far fewer Leftists as a result.

Culture and Religion

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA proof that she’s at least 1/1024th Native American. Twitter responds appropriately.

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA proof that shes at least 11024th Native American Twitter responds appr

There’s a strategist in Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ear who thought it was a good idea to release results of a DNA test showing a likelihood that one of her very distant descendants was Native American. The advice taken. The results were predictable.

The test shows she is at most 1/32nd Native American if she is six generations from her Native American ancestor. That’s her best-case scenario. At worst, her ancestor was as far back as ten generations which would make her 1/1024th Native American. To put that into perspective, if she were to honor her heritage by engaging in 1/1024th of a four-hour Native American Sweat, she’d be in and out of the lodge in 14 seconds.

Elizabeth Warren releases results of DNA test on Native American ancesty

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2018/10/15/warren-addresses-native-american-issue/YEUaGzsefB0gPBe2AbmSVO/story.htmlThe inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warren’s critics. If her great-great-great-grandmother was Native American, that puts her at 1/32nd American Indian. But the report includes the possibility that she’s just 1/1024th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.

This publicity stunt was designed to let everyone know she’s serious about running for President in 2020. She wanted to be able to call out President Trump on his promise to give $1,000,000 to charity if she could prove Native American heritage. He won’t pay, of course, which will get plenty of headlines calling him a deal-breaking scoundrel, but was it really if for her to be the focus of even more jokes on social media?

Here are some of the reactions on Twitter. You decide:

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Katherine Timpf on fighting political correctness

Published

on

Katherine Timpf on fighting political correctness

National Review reporter and Fox News contributor Katherine Timpf often discusses political correctness. She talks about it so often that one might think it’s a subject she enjoys, but in reality it’s simply a problem she passionately wants to solve.

In American society, it is way too easy to offend. People do not want to hear that their perspectives are wrong. That’s apparently some form of violence. They don’t want to hear an opposing viewpoint. That’s allegedly a form of oppression. Many on the left feel entitled to express their opinions in any way they see fit and also to prevent others from sharing their opinions if there’s a difference in worldviews.

The hypocrisy of political correctness is thick.

As Timpf recently pointed out on National Review, it’s a problem that doesn’t have an easy solution, but trends are pointing to positive movement against the specter of political correctness.

Political Correctness: Study Finds 80 Percent of Americans Think It’s a Problem

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/political-correctness-problem-according-to-80-percent-of-people/I could go on for pages and pages, but you get the point: Writing about political correctness sometimes makes me feel as if everyone has gone mad, and I’m very glad to see that this doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, a strong majority of people apparently agrees with me. A strong majority believes that political correctness has gone too far, and probably would agree that we need to be careful to protect our ability to speak freely in this country.

That’s certainly encouraging, but it still doesn’t make me feel entirely better. After all, the small, PC-obsessed mob can sometimes be very powerful. Once it decides that someone or something is racist or sexist, that conclusion can carry a lot of weight. It can ruin careers and lives. It can remove perfectly good, innocuous words from acceptable speech, because even the people who might not see a problem with those words don’t want to risk being accused of racism or sexism for using them. The only answer is to keep fighting, to keep exposing and mocking such overreach when it occurs — and to take solace in the fact that so many people have awoken to its dangers.

Keep fighting the good fight, Ms. Timpf.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Reason: Socialism fails every time

Published

on

By

Reason Socialism fails every time

If Socialism Actually Worked, the Left wouldn’t have to Lie about it.

John Stossel has a new video featuring Gloria Álvarez who knows the truth about Socialism. She passionately decimates all of the Left’s lies about what is truly organised evil.

Socialism has become cool in America, under the nice name “democratic socialism”.

Gloria Álvarez knows better, because she’s from Latin America and studied socialism there. She says: watch out! Socialism has a clear track record of wrecking every country that implements it.

Cuba tried socialism. Things got so bad that tens of thousands fled the island on dangerous, makeshift rafts. Others paid lots of money to be allowed to leave.

After Cuba, the next Latin American country to get totally immersed in socialism was Venezuela. For a while, things seemed to work okay thanks to the country’s oil wealth; Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and used to be the richest country in Latin America.

Celebrities like Michael Moore and Sean Penn visited Hugo Chavez and praised his socialism.

Venezuelans were happy, too. A former mayor in Venezuela’s capital city told Álvarez: “People were clapping so hard. They were like, ‘Oh, finally there is somebody here making social justice.'”

But eventually socialism led to a mismanagement of the economy that was so bad that money started to run out. The government just printed more, so much more that it led to million-percent inflation.

But some still defend socialism, saying that what happened there “isn’t real socialism.” Bernie Sanders says: “when I talk about Socialism I am not looking at Venezuela, I’m not looking at Cuba. I’m looking at countries like Denmark, like Sweden.”

But Denmark’s prime minister says that’s a mistake: “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” he clarified.

In Scandinavian countries, government regulates business less than America’s government does. Scandinavian countries don’t even have a minimum wage.

Real socialism looks more like Cuba and Venezuela.

Álvarez hopes people look at socialism’s track record before implementing it anywhere else.

If the stakes weren’t so deadly serious, the Left’s absurd contradictions on this subject would be quite amusing. The video had several celebrities trying to claim that normal government functions are somehow ‘socialism’, without explaining how this is the case. Other Leftists will claim that certain socialist regimes weren’t actually socialist, but were really ‘Right-Wing’, again without explaining how this is the case. However, those supposedly non-socialist, ‘Right-Wing’ regimes had normal government functions – road, liberties etc. So by the lights of the first contention, wouldn’t they be socialist?

But let us put this as succinctly as possible:

If Socialism Actually worked:

The Left wouldn’t have to falsely claim that normal government functions are ‘socialism’.
The Left wouldn’t have to Lie about the definition of the word.
The Left wouldn’t have to pretend that Scandinavian countries are socialist.
The Left wouldn’t have to lie, claiming that totalitarian Socialist regimes are supposedly ‘rightwing’.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need ‘revolutionary terror’.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need Tanquetas’ or ‘Ballenas’ to keep the people in line.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need secret police and torture to suppress dissent.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need barbed wire or mine fields to keep people from leaving.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need concentration camps, gulags or ‘re-education’ camps.
If Socialism Actually worked, they wouldn’t need firing squads or as ‘Che Guevara’ put it, the ‘pedagogy of the wall’.

The Takeaway.

If the organised evil that is socialism [Or it’s 40+ alternative labels] didn’t defy basic human nature, being a functional system, there would be no reason for the nation’s Socialist-Left to Lie about it. If it had actually accomplished something useful – aside from 100+ Million dead – it’s proponents could simply sell it without all of the falsehoods and outright lies. Those who advocate for that collectivist system – while claiming they aren’t it’s advocates – could simply be honest about what they want to impose on the rest of us.

Compare this to the entirely workable – but never claiming to be perfect – system of economic Liberty.
Those of us who are advocates for freedom have no need to pretend that systems of economic Liberty are something else. We have no need to make false claims or pretend it something that it is not. We only need to sell it on it’s great achievements, something the advocates of socialism can never do.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report