I just watched the interview with Kate Wand. The difficult road of getting people “en masse” rejecting the administrative state might be slightly opened. The less effective it is, the less trust people will have in it. For example, I had a very bad experience recently with employment insurance in Canada: they stopped my insurance benefits after 9 weeks. They took 9 months to render a decision, then I started to receive my benefits, and a little more that 2 months later, the benefits stopped, because it had been one year that my claim was activated, and a claim ceases to be active after one year. I was really upset, but at the same time, I was thinking: “The more they screw up, the more people will want to push them away. And this the ultimate goal right now.”
So great interview. I will translate it in French and overlay voices. I want people in Quebec to access this kind of thinking.
I would be interested in knowing the percentages of the population that fit either of these categories. My guess would be that those at the top of the horseshoe would be a very small number as social media is so polarizing.
Social media is a mirror. I think natural proclivities towards bona fide individualism/classical liberalism are more rare than a tendency towards collectivism.
Carl Jung spoke about this tendency towards collectivism as man being out of touch with his soul. So he tries to fill the inner void with belonging to a greater purpose defined by a group.
And it is not a coincidence how the far left and far right ends of the spectrum approach each other.
I've yet to find any functional difference between classical liberal and libertarian. Minor dogmatic difference but functionally similar. I'm not sure how I ended up being a classic liberal given I was raised in a very liberal household in a very liberal region. Perhaps a bit of milquetoast rebellion?
This is an interesting and useful perspective especially today when the old definitions of left and right clearly make no sense. The real political alignment is with those who prioritize freedom, persona liberty and peace. It is mind boggling to see the left supporting the Bushes and the neo cons!
My only quibble is that being a classical liberal or libertarian does not mean that one regards community or belonging to a group or identifying with a community or group as unimportant.
Perhaps it is the prioritizing of social or non statist groups and the voluntary nature of our association with such groups or community that it important. One can see this in Edmund Burke or in a modern libertarian like Tom Woods. The Amish is a community which has strict codes of behaviour and a strong community, but which is voluntary.
Errr... useful graphic. But conservatives IMO are not collectivists, they are communitarians (just as there are lefties who are not progressives but communitarians). They value cohesive community, as well as individual rights and free speech. I happen to be one.
A collectivist thinks that individuals should be subservient to the collective.
Communitarians don't. I, for example, think that we evolved for our entire history as a species (some 200 000 years) in small cohesive communities, and thrive in that sort of environment. Bands and tribes where people know each other, have a history, and the ability to spot the bad apples. Typical serious conflicts were resolved by the bands splitting up, each group to go their own way, at least for a time.
Can you explain the so-called conservatives (who care about the collective) drifting to isolationism? Jeffery Sachs-type appeasement? Can you also explain their strongman love? It seems like the politics of resentment; Putin pisses trans people off, so I like him; Trump sticks the finger in the eye also, so thumbs up. But the resentment is not always unwarranted; we have elitism, and we have an elite (usually white males) who crow on about identity politics; it's like penance for them) People resent that; they also resent the way that many think a word is a bundled argument and that you should just shut up, and if you speak, you should go to jail. You talk a lot about free speech, but my understanding is it is not enshrined in law, and there are so many exceptions and caveats that it is not free. Canadian discourse often has an unwritten expectation to align with the dominant values of inclusivity, diversity, and equity. I think free speech is not in the culture of Gen Z, and polling reflects this. I was shocked how many students thought that me calling Hamas Nazis should get me fired if it hurt feelings; they said it with no conviction, like saying if you don't wear a coat in winter, you get cold.
This is what I have been thinking about! I was brought up to believe in the communal good, leaning towards 'socialism' ,but there is no 'socialism lite' as my family discovered when we were excluded from society and employment and threatened with more restriction (health care, driver's license?) Now I see the dangers all too well. Can we include anarchy with the individualists?
Can we include anarchists with the individualists? The short answer is yes - they are the most individualistic of all, given that they believe in having no state. But this horseshoe model is effectively a model of the political philosophies in the context of having some kind of state. The anarchists are off the diagram, if you like, up there with the classical liberals and libertarians, but not on the circle. In a comment above, David Jensen describes a linear model that travels not from left to right but from all state to no state, and on that model the anarchists are at one pole.
Came across this video this weekend and shared it with my subscribers! Very well done!
I just watched the interview with Kate Wand. The difficult road of getting people “en masse” rejecting the administrative state might be slightly opened. The less effective it is, the less trust people will have in it. For example, I had a very bad experience recently with employment insurance in Canada: they stopped my insurance benefits after 9 weeks. They took 9 months to render a decision, then I started to receive my benefits, and a little more that 2 months later, the benefits stopped, because it had been one year that my claim was activated, and a claim ceases to be active after one year. I was really upset, but at the same time, I was thinking: “The more they screw up, the more people will want to push them away. And this the ultimate goal right now.”
So great interview. I will translate it in French and overlay voices. I want people in Quebec to access this kind of thinking.
agree the political spectrum as is used in the MSM makes no sense.
there is a linear model that defines the left end of the spectrum as totalitarian and the right end of the spectrum as anarchists that also works.
communists and fascists find themselves together there at the left end of the spectrum.
I would be interested in knowing the percentages of the population that fit either of these categories. My guess would be that those at the top of the horseshoe would be a very small number as social media is so polarizing.
Social media is a mirror. I think natural proclivities towards bona fide individualism/classical liberalism are more rare than a tendency towards collectivism.
Carl Jung spoke about this tendency towards collectivism as man being out of touch with his soul. So he tries to fill the inner void with belonging to a greater purpose defined by a group.
I would guess that you are right.
I think we all stray a little depending on the issue as well. There are very few people who will ALWAYS be 100% in any of the three camps.
And it is not a coincidence how the far left and far right ends of the spectrum approach each other.
I've yet to find any functional difference between classical liberal and libertarian. Minor dogmatic difference but functionally similar. I'm not sure how I ended up being a classic liberal given I was raised in a very liberal household in a very liberal region. Perhaps a bit of milquetoast rebellion?
With all due respect, is it possible that you might be confusing the word "liberal" with "progressive"?
the term 'liberal' is as it was classically defined until the 1970s.
at that point, big government promoters started to define themselves as liberals.
"War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength."
This is an interesting and useful perspective especially today when the old definitions of left and right clearly make no sense. The real political alignment is with those who prioritize freedom, persona liberty and peace. It is mind boggling to see the left supporting the Bushes and the neo cons!
My only quibble is that being a classical liberal or libertarian does not mean that one regards community or belonging to a group or identifying with a community or group as unimportant.
Perhaps it is the prioritizing of social or non statist groups and the voluntary nature of our association with such groups or community that it important. One can see this in Edmund Burke or in a modern libertarian like Tom Woods. The Amish is a community which has strict codes of behaviour and a strong community, but which is voluntary.
Errr... useful graphic. But conservatives IMO are not collectivists, they are communitarians (just as there are lefties who are not progressives but communitarians). They value cohesive community, as well as individual rights and free speech. I happen to be one.
Please tell us what you believe the difference to be?
A collectivist thinks that individuals should be subservient to the collective.
Communitarians don't. I, for example, think that we evolved for our entire history as a species (some 200 000 years) in small cohesive communities, and thrive in that sort of environment. Bands and tribes where people know each other, have a history, and the ability to spot the bad apples. Typical serious conflicts were resolved by the bands splitting up, each group to go their own way, at least for a time.
Okay, but don't conservatives generally believe in laws that prohibit behaviour that they regard as detrimental to the collective good?
Those of us with a libertarian bent do not, with a few exceptions. :-)
My deep aversion is social-engineering. When you use the word “freedom”, I translate it with “no social-engineering.”
Can you explain the so-called conservatives (who care about the collective) drifting to isolationism? Jeffery Sachs-type appeasement? Can you also explain their strongman love? It seems like the politics of resentment; Putin pisses trans people off, so I like him; Trump sticks the finger in the eye also, so thumbs up. But the resentment is not always unwarranted; we have elitism, and we have an elite (usually white males) who crow on about identity politics; it's like penance for them) People resent that; they also resent the way that many think a word is a bundled argument and that you should just shut up, and if you speak, you should go to jail. You talk a lot about free speech, but my understanding is it is not enshrined in law, and there are so many exceptions and caveats that it is not free. Canadian discourse often has an unwritten expectation to align with the dominant values of inclusivity, diversity, and equity. I think free speech is not in the culture of Gen Z, and polling reflects this. I was shocked how many students thought that me calling Hamas Nazis should get me fired if it hurt feelings; they said it with no conviction, like saying if you don't wear a coat in winter, you get cold.
I'm a classic Liberal, I would say.
This is what I have been thinking about! I was brought up to believe in the communal good, leaning towards 'socialism' ,but there is no 'socialism lite' as my family discovered when we were excluded from society and employment and threatened with more restriction (health care, driver's license?) Now I see the dangers all too well. Can we include anarchy with the individualists?
Can we include anarchists with the individualists? The short answer is yes - they are the most individualistic of all, given that they believe in having no state. But this horseshoe model is effectively a model of the political philosophies in the context of having some kind of state. The anarchists are off the diagram, if you like, up there with the classical liberals and libertarians, but not on the circle. In a comment above, David Jensen describes a linear model that travels not from left to right but from all state to no state, and on that model the anarchists are at one pole.