Fall_Child42 wrote:How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?
Otohiko wrote:Fall_Child42 wrote:How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?
What does the bottom left corner have to do with social programs?
To simplify and extremize, bottom left corner is hippie utopia where no government or authority exists at all, but everybody lives in agreement with each other while respecting everybody else's uniqueness.
(Of course, consider the other 4 corners too, top left being a permanent "dictatorship of the proletariat", top right being cyberpunk-esque corporate hell, bottom right being Mad Max. They're supposed to be unrealistic and extreme, and noone is actually supposed to end up in absolute corners on the compass.)
Fall_Child42 wrote:Also, how come in your extreme simplifications, the bottom left one was the only one you portrayed positively?
two of the others you described incredibly negatively, and the third just neutrally. I see your tricky language games.
Fall_Child42 wrote:I have a question about this political compass.
How does this bottom left corner even make any sense?
How can somebody be against government involvement but pro social programs?
A strong government influence is needed in order to have social programs at all. Somebody with libertarian ideals should not be willing to accept anything like healthcare, having roads built for them, or free education. So in order to be left economically you would have to lean at least somewhat authoritarian.
Sukunai, Real Canadian Hero wrote:Note to any Muslims present. Abuse a female in my presence, and you are being sent to a hospital emergency ward with life threatening injuries. And no human law will make me change my mind.
inthesto wrote:The Y-axis isn't very well labeled, since "libertarian" already has another definition that is described by the second quadrant of the graph. What the Y-axis describes is the government's role in social policy, as opposed to economic policy. The positive end of the axis would be for government restricting personal freedoms whereas the negative is about the government allowing them. I don't know what the Canadian issues in question would be, but in the USA it's typically abortion, drug laws, and gay rights.
Furthermore, in spite of what capital L libertarian philosophy argues, I'd argue that it is possible for a government to legislate in favor of of freedoms. The easy examples would be Roe vs Wade, where the US federal government enforced a woman's right to choose to have an abortion regardless of where she lived, and the Civil Rights Act, where the government enforced an individual's right to not be denied service based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. It's really not difficult to imagine personal rights that would otherwise be squashed if there were no governmental body to protect them.
Sukunai, Real Canadian Libertarian Hero wrote:Note to any Muslims present. Abuse a female in my presence, and you are being sent to a hospital emergency ward with life threatening injuries. And no human law will make me change my mind.
EvaFan wrote:I read your post, and my opinion came after. Why would I change it after reading it again? Also, I don't care to argue, I was just stating it.
I think green energy has alot of possibilities but its way too early to do anything other than fund research for it right now IMO.
Users browsing this forum: pacotacoshell and 1 guest