Everyone here presumably understands the corners marked Stalinism, libertarianism, anarchism, but the upper right quadrant isn’t as obvious. It corresponds, roughly, to medieval feudalism, with corrupt dictatorships being the closest modern example. Mencius Moldbug’s ideology is probably the purest expression; the king owns the country, so he gets to rule it and control the people who live there.
The notion of dictatorship as a property right suggests a useful third axis: concern for political equality. This seems to weakly correlate with opposition to state coercion, although not entirely.
Not surprising. David Brin deliberately used the “Nolan Chart” as inspiration, and the link was a speech given to a meeting of the Libertarian party...
The fact that a sizeable minority of libertarians are anarchists should cast doubt on a model that places them on opposite ends of a spectrum. Also, I think your suggestion that the top right is represents feudalism (if true) would actually make the model even worse, since feudalism is horribly misunderstood by the general public (even more so than fascism, in my opinion).
I’ll just quote a paragraph from the original article...
Stalin believed nobody should own anything, but that he could and should feel free to torture his opponents to death. Therefore, he is placed in the upper left corner as both coercive and anti-property. Ferdinand Marcos, Anastasio Somoza and Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, ran their nations as personal fiefdoms, enforcing programs of inherited family wealth and power to benefit their oligarchic supporters. They were classic coercive aristocrats of the kind that dominated nearly all human cultures since agriculture and metallurgy came along, feudalists who believed they could by right both torture and own people. That puts them at the upper right.
Maybe North Korea is a better example than medieval feudalism...
There seems to be an almost deliberate political mind killing when one has a graph where Stalin and Hilter are on the opposite side of anarchism and libertarianism.
I’m not sure. But I’m also not sure putting figures there is at all necessary. Putting figures in only some parts of the graph and not in others seems unhelpful to start with.
I would say that the bottom left quadrant (limited state control/ pro-individual freedom/ some suspicion of property) is mostly the domain of modern liberalism, although that would more be in the center of the square then in the extreme.
I like David Brin’s two dimensional ideological model.
Everyone here presumably understands the corners marked Stalinism, libertarianism, anarchism, but the upper right quadrant isn’t as obvious. It corresponds, roughly, to medieval feudalism, with corrupt dictatorships being the closest modern example. Mencius Moldbug’s ideology is probably the purest expression; the king owns the country, so he gets to rule it and control the people who live there.
This is, by the way, largely equivalent to the “Political Compass”, and bears a certain resemblance to the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” or “Nolan chart” of libertarian propaganda.
The notion of dictatorship as a property right suggests a useful third axis: concern for political equality. This seems to weakly correlate with opposition to state coercion, although not entirely.
Not surprising. David Brin deliberately used the “Nolan Chart” as inspiration, and the link was a speech given to a meeting of the Libertarian party...
The fact that a sizeable minority of libertarians are anarchists should cast doubt on a model that places them on opposite ends of a spectrum. Also, I think your suggestion that the top right is represents feudalism (if true) would actually make the model even worse, since feudalism is horribly misunderstood by the general public (even more so than fascism, in my opinion).
Brin is probably using “anarchist” to mean the movement that goes by that name, and not merely the adjective meaning “anti-state”.
But some right-libertarians also call themselves anarchists (though left-anarchists take objection to that).
I’ll just quote a paragraph from the original article...
Maybe North Korea is a better example than medieval feudalism...
There seems to be an almost deliberate political mind killing when one has a graph where Stalin and Hilter are on the opposite side of anarchism and libertarianism.
Perhaps you’re unaware of the poor reputations that anarchism and libertarianism have for many people in the center.
I’m aware. I don’t see how that justifies making a graph that implicitly says “yeah, we’re the opposite of the baddies”.
What figures would you put at those corners? Lenin and Louis IV, maybe?
I’m not sure. But I’m also not sure putting figures there is at all necessary. Putting figures in only some parts of the graph and not in others seems unhelpful to start with.
I would say that the bottom left quadrant (limited state control/ pro-individual freedom/ some suspicion of property) is mostly the domain of modern liberalism, although that would more be in the center of the square then in the extreme.