A good reminder that the entire point of the original political compass was to emphasize the idea of the libertarian, a completely ahistorical ideology that has no natural backing except by teenagers or people who are easily influenced by propoganda.
the idea of the libertarian, a completely ahistorical ideology that has no natural backing
Okay, sure. I think this overstates the case, but I won't argue that the Von Mises brand of Libertarianism is a very Western 20th Century ideological invention.
except by teenagers or people who are easily influenced by propoganda
Literally everyone is easily influenced by propaganda. That's the whole reason why propaganda is effective.
There is a big difference between the level of sophistication of liberal propoganda, that encompasses the entire history, laws, and institutions of the U.S., and libertarian propoganda, which is pretty much just slapped together whenever billionaires want to push for deregulation.
And free-market libertarianism is a very recent ideology that only has the real backing of billionaires. Free-soil and other types of libertarianism existed prior, but the type that is specifically pushed by the political compass is a recent ideological addition.
I have to disagree. Particularly in the last half century, libertarian propaganda has enjoyed an enormous increase in sophistication and institutional support.
Free market ideology is as old as merchantilism. The ideals of colonialism are rooted in the pseudo-liberationist philosophy of white evangelical Protestantism.
Modern Libertarianism is the Western answer to Communist Anti-Colonialism, as it attempts to rephrase imperial expansion as liberal modernism. But the root ideas of markets as a mechanism of social organization (and control) are as old as currency itself.
Interesting, I'll have to look into that. That's not my read of the history, since currency itself was always a method of state social control, and thus deeply tied into controlled markets, but maybe the ideological propoganda has always been there.
Yeah, libertarians have been able to conquer most economics undergrads, but most masters and PhD work is still just going 'wait, what, it doesnt actually work that way?'.
That’s not my read of the history, since currency itself was always a method of state social control, and thus deeply tied into controlled markets
I mean, yes. But I'm coming at this rhetorically. Markets are "liberated" for trade and then debts are collected in the coin of the realm.
I get the sense we're both pulling from Graeber's Debt:5000 from different perspective, though.
Yeah, libertarians have been able to conquer most economics undergrads, but most masters and PhD work is still just going ‘wait, what, it doesnt actually work that way?’.
Everyone at the Chicago School coming out with PhDs will tell you it does work and exactly as intended.
More than a few Leftists will tell you its working as intended, as well. Although, others might note the unsustainable mounting contradictions.
But a guy like Richard Wolfe will note that a lot of econ academia is just the sales end of capitalist ideology.
I'm pulling abit from Graeber, but you can see this type of behavior in accounts from Xenophon as well, it's a well documented historical phenomenon. You can't just get the hill tribes to accept your currency no matter how 'economically fair and sound' it is. Subjugation by the state must come first, thus invalidating any natural occurrence of libertarian ideology, at least involving currency.
Sure, but that is one school out of thousands. There is a reason their PhDs get to directly tinker with national economies, but as you pointed out it's not because they're right, it's because they agreed and valorize the ideology of 'put the most money in the hands of those most capable to wield it, which is me and my buddies obviously'.
But even then, Chicago School guys are generally only ever put in control of privatizing economies that the system wants to see collapsed and rebuilt, rarely ever matured late-stage capitalist projects. Once the money is all in the hands of the most capable, they are fucked and growth still stagnates. Hell, the Chicago School guys who were with Liz Truss nearly completely tanked the British economy in three weeks. There are still alot of neo-Keynesian and classical economists that mostly dominate the positions of power.
Even Herbert Spencer saw states and governments as naturally justified through survival of the fittest.
You have to think, simultaneously, that the state is an illegitimate entity based entirely on coercion, that markets and money exist outside of the state, and that the hierarchy created by the market is natural and good.
The problem is that the state itself can't also somehow exist within a market otherwise that would justify it's existence.
This is just zoomed in on the top right corner of the political compass.
I really like the large number of respondents that are "as far left as can be" on the chart and maybe one on the right. Could it be that there is even more space over there for stances beyond 'liberal' that NYT doesn't want to let people think about? :thonk:
Thesis meets antithesis but it's just 2 dorks colliding trying to race to the copy machine
Bet you none of the questions they asked used the word "nationalize."
Question:
Do you think all minorities should be deported?
Answers:
Yes! I fantasize about this all the time!
Yeah, I’d prefer that
Some, but not all of them
Only a little bit
if the chart looks like this I think that's more of an indictment of the survey. they stuck a kitchen thermometer in a nuclear reactor.
Yeah, you can clearly see how many people just answered as left-wing as possible on any fiscal issues and how another group of people answered as right-wing as possible on any social issue. I wonder how much further outward both graphs could go with a different questionaire, but there's no way to tell what that means without actually knowing the questions asked.
Imagine growing up with all the shit going on in the American economy and not thinking that money itself isn't some sick joke.
Not so funny when you find out you can't redeem your Trump Bux for Infiniti Cash.
Conservatives often stumble onto the correct problems (corporate greed, forever wars, lack of healthcare) but then diagnose it as too much woke ideology or too many immigrants. They're incoherent.
Paternalist redistribution-ism makes way more sense than bottom-right "people should be free socially, but still controlled by the market and economic overlords." Top-left at least works out internally and semi-pragmatically.
If you want the bottom right corner to have more dots, you just need to move the center axis farther up and to the left. Move it far enough and you can conclude that aktuly everyone agrees with you.
It’s intensely funny that self-identified libertarians are distributed completely evenly across the grid. Truly a meaningless identifier.
The politicians we're offered occupy mostly the empty spaces.
