Beware Daniel Hannan MEP - the British Ron Paul

[The Idler]

Beware rising star Daniel Hannan MEP, He seems to be Britain's answer to Ron Paul. He is a keen anti-communist who sees Marxism everywhere and described the NHS as a mistake for the last 60 years. He praised Icelands unregulated economic miracle shortly before it crashed and burned. He also describes the BNP as "far left" (what then constitutes "far right" one wonders?). Is there a deliberate strategy by mainstream Conservative parties lately to co-opt a few right-radicals?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

and described the NHS as a mistake for the last 60 years.
So that's why he's in Brussels and not Westminster. Just about anyone can get elected to the European Parliament from the UK as long as they spout a sufficient amount of anti-EU rhetoric, but opposing the NHS makes you unelectable to the British Parliament.

[Demogorgon]

So that's why he's in Brussels and not Westminster. Just about anyone can get elected to the European Parliament from the UK as long as they spout a sufficient amount of anti-EU rhetoric, but opposing the NHS makes you unelectable to the British Parliament.
That's true. The system Britain uses to send members to the European Parliament is one of closed lists so we can't specify our preferred candidates within the lists (still better than the system used for Westminster mind you, but that's another story), as a result because he charms the Conservative selection committee in his area he gets to be first on the Conservative list and thereby makes his election a certainty.

It is interesting he is able to charm the selection committee though, the party leadership can't stand him and he in turn happily criticises them in public. If his profile continues to rise he could be a serious liability for the party before too long.

Also interesting was the election coverage last week when Nigel Farage (the leader of the far-right UKIP) openly predicted in a joint interview that Hannan would join UKIP and Hannan didn't contradict him, simply saying he preferred to be in the Conservatives for now so he can influence internal policy. I don't expect he will remain in the Conservative party much longer.

[Dr Mindbender]

He also describes the BNP as "far left"

:confused: Obvious nutcase.

[9]

Hannan-tards?
As for the BNP, according to political compass, they actually are slightly to the left in terms of economic policy, but so was Hitler. http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

[GPDP]

Hannan-tards?
As for the BNP, according to political compass, they actually are slightly to the left in terms of economic policy, but so was Hitler. http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

And that, kids, is why Political Compass fails.

[9]

And that, kids, is why Political Compass fails.

You'll have to back up your statement with some sort of evidence to the contrary. For instance, what kind of economic policies does the BNP advocate? That they are fascist hatemongers doesn't necessarily mean that they advocate right-wing economic policies... the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

You'll have to back up your statement with some sort of evidence to the contrary. For instance, what kind of economic policies does the BNP advocate? That they are fascist hatemongers doesn't necessarily mean that they advocate right-wing economic policies... the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

Nazis advocate class society and bourgeois rule. They stand for colonialism and exploiting nations based on "race." For those reasons, they can't be called left wing in any way, shape, or form.

[9]

Nazis advocate class society and bourgeois rule. They stand for colonialism and exploiting nations based on "race." For those reasons, they can't be called left wing in any way, shape, or form.

That is a very narrow interpretation of the term "left wing". "Colonialism and exploiting nations based on 'race'" doesn't have anything to do with a particular economic philosophy - it, in and of itself, is neither left nor right. Rather, it is authoritarian. And, as history demonstrates, authoritarianism isn't exclusively the product of right-wing regimes. I think it is inaccurate to assume that a society in which the means of production are owned by the State is immune from the sort of social authoritarianism that begets "colonialism and exploiting nations based on 'race'".
But, just to be clear, I never claimed the BNP was left-wing (which, to me, connotes far left economic ideology). I merely said they were to the left, as in slightly left of center.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You'll have to back up your statement with some sort of evidence to the contrary. For instance, what kind of economic policies does the BNP advocate? That they are fascist hatemongers doesn't necessarily mean that they advocate right-wing economic policies... the one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
The difference lies in the use of the words "left" and "right."

For the political compass, "left" = more state (or collective) control of the economy, and "right" = more private property rights and markets.

For us, "left" = more working class control of the economy and society, and "right" = more bourgeois (or aristocratic, or otherwise elitist) control of the economy and society.

I personally dislike the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing," and I wish people would stop using them. They can be defined to mean whatever you want them to mean, and, most importantly, there is no historical political movement that can claim the exclusive right to define those terms because it invented them. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" were extremely vague and open to interpretation from the very beginning, so you can't refer to their original intended meanings in the way you could do that with "socialism" for example.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Colonialism and exploiting nations based on 'race'" doesn't have anything to do with a particular economic philosophy
But why does the term "left-wing" have to refer to an economic philosophy?

Originally, "left-wing" meant the people who sat on the left of the National Assembly during the early stages of the French Revolution. Nothing more and nothing less. Because of that, you can define the term "left-wing" to mean whatever you want - an economic philosophy, a view about class struggle, a favourite colour - and your definition won't be any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Arguing about the true meaning of the word "left-wing" is like arguing about the true meaning of the word "zognalpuk."

The point is, the BNP are our sworn enemies, so whatever "wing" they're on, it's not our "wing."

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

That is a very narrow interpretation of the term "left wing". "Colonialism and exploiting nations based on 'race'" doesn't have anything to do with a particular economic philosophy - it, in and of itself, is neither left nor right. Rather, it is authoritarian. And, as history demonstrates, authoritarianism isn't exclusively the product of right-wing regimes. I think it is inaccurate to assume that a society in which the means of production are owned by the State is immune from the sort of social authoritarianism that begets "colonialism and exploiting nations based on 'race'".
But, just to be clear, I never claimed the BNP was left-wing (which, to me, connotes far left economic ideology). I merely said they were to the left, as in slightly left of center.

And I think it is inaccurate to assume that a society in which the means of production are owned by the state is left wing. Considering the state as an instrument of class rule, fascists use the state to reinforce capitalist rule. Parties like the BNP want to use the power of the state for racist objectives, like stopping immigration, etc. that don't help anyone except capitalists.


But why does the term "left-wing" have to refer to an economic philosophy?

Originally, "left-wing" meant the people who sat on the left of the National Assembly during the early stages of the French Revolution. Nothing more and nothing less. Because of that, you can define the term "left-wing" to mean whatever you want - an economic philosophy, a view about class struggle, a favourite colour - and your definition won't be any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Arguing about the true meaning of the word "left-wing" is like arguing about the true meaning of the word "zognalpuk."

The point is, the BNP are our sworn enemies, so whatever "wing" they're on, it's not our "wing."

It's about rightists trying to spread misinformation and confuse people by associating communists with fascists. "Left-wing" is a basic political notion and the people who try to spread misinformation usually have a reason for it and they should be corrected. The Political Compass is stupid, but this is about stopping ridiculous misinformation that's designed to lead people on to "libertarian" capitalist bullshit.

[9]

But why does the term "left-wing" have to refer to an economic philosophy?

Originally, "left-wing" meant the people who sat on the left of the National Assembly during the early stages of the French Revolution. Nothing more and nothing less. Because of that, you can define the term "left-wing" to mean whatever you want - an economic philosophy, a view about class struggle, a favourite colour - and your definition won't be any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Arguing about the true meaning of the word "left-wing" is like arguing about the true meaning of the word "zognalpuk."

The point is, the BNP are our sworn enemies, so whatever "wing" they're on, it's not our "wing."

It is true that the origin of the terms "left" and "right" were quite different (essentially pro-establishment and anti-establishment) then they are today. However, many words have different connotations then they did three-hundred years ago, but that doesn't render them completely subjective. As far as I see it, the terms "left" and "right" are very explicit in modern context - the "left" supporting public/State control of the means of production and the "right" supporting private control of the means of production. Regardless of who is and is not "our" "sworn enemy", I think it is irrational to obfuscate or abandon these terms, as they are important in distinguishing fundamental economic differences.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is true that the origin of the terms "left" and "right" were quite different (essentially pro-establishment and anti-establishment) then they are today. However, many words have different connotations then they did three-hundred years ago, but that doesn't render them completely subjective.
That is true, in a general sense. However, in the specific case of the terms "left" and "right", I can't think of any point in history when they were not completely subjective. Neither the "left" nor the "right" were ever united in a single political movement. No person or group was ever able to speak in the name of the entire "left" or the entire "right". No documents, principles, political views or systems were ever supported by the whole "left" or the whole "right".


As far as I see it, the terms "left" and "right" are very explicit in modern context - the "left" supporting public/State control of the means of production and the "right" supporting private control of the means of production.
But that is not how most self-described left-wingers define the term "left-wing" (or how most self-described right-wingers define the term "right-wing," for that matter).

I think it is wrong to insist on a definition of a political term that is rejected by a majority of the people who use that term to describe themselves. Most left-wingers do not see the essence of the left as being public/State control of the means of production.

On this forum, for example, most of us tend to see the essence of the left as being class struggle. It is true that we also support public/State control of the means of production, but only under certain conditions. You will not find anyone here - and I doubt you can find anyone anywhere - who will support public/State control of the means of production unconditionally, without regard for the precise kind of state or public involved.

[9]

That is true, in a general sense. However, in the specific case of the terms "left" and "right", I can't think of any point in history when they were not completely subjective. Neither the "left" nor the "right" were ever united in a single political movement. No person or group was ever able to speak in the name of the entire "left" or the entire "right". No documents, principles, political views or systems were ever supported by the whole "left" or the whole "right". I don't see why a term is only relevant if a single person/group can speak in the name of everyone who applies the term to themselves. I suspect you'd be equally hard-pressed to find a single person/group that can speak for all anarchists or all socialists, or find any historical case in which all anarchists or all socialists were united in a single political movement.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't see why a term is only relevant if a single person/group can speak in the name of everyone who applies the term to themselves. I suspect you'd be equally hard-pressed to find a single person/group that can speak for all anarchists or all socialists, or find any historical case in which all anarchists or all socialists were united in a single political movement.
I don't know about anarchists, but socialists were united in a single political movement during the time of the Second International, 1889-1914. That was also the period when the term "socialism" acquired its classical definition.

And the person who could speak for all socialists (or at least, the person who was considered to have spoken for all socialists during the period I mentioned, even though he was dead) was, of course, Karl Marx. Friedrich Engels came pretty close too, and he was still alive in 1889.

Socialism had one original stem from which various branches later diverged. "Leftism" never had any such stem.

[The Idler]

While I don't share the criticisms of the 2 axis political compass (or even the most common 1 axis left to right political spectrum), the point is the likes of Daniel Hannan (and Sean Hannity and Glen Beck) lump the BNP with the SWP, CPGB, CPB, AWL, SPGB etc. Surely we can all agree this is nonsensical?

Would he really join UKIP? I doubt it. He strikes me more as a neoliberal than protectionist.

[Trystan]

Daniel Hannan is a harmless fool who will only be remembered as the Poet Laureate political point scoring.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I actually follow his blog, shames me to admit it but his posts can be interesting. Though that's about all you can say for them.

[krazy kaju]

Technically speaking, the BNP is a left-wing party. Many right-wingers are pro-Israel, the BNP is not; many right-wingers favor capitalism, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor free trade and relatively open borders, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor gun rights, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor limited government, the BNP does not.

Of course, I'm using the typically American definition of "right wing," where advocates of smaller, limited government are considered "right wing" and advocates of larger government are considered "left wing." The definition typically varies from person to person, but this is how Daniel Hannan thinks.

[ZeroNowhere]

Tch, the original wasn't especially fearsome, I'm not expecting much better/worse of whoever this is.


He is a keen anti-communist who sees Marxism everywhereIf he sees Marxism everywhere, he's obviously not an especially keen anti-communist. Has he attacked the SPGB yet?

[Demogorgon]

Many right-wingers are pro-Israel, the BNP is not;Here we have a particularly nasty pro-Israel site praising the BNP for being pro-israel http://www.think-israel.org/locke.bnp.html


many right-wingers favor capitalism, the BNP does not; Where do you get that idea? Certainly they have a problem with modern capitalism, but offer them nineteenth century capitalism-or at least their romanticised view of it-and they will be very happy indeed. Something you have in common I think.


many right-wingers favor free trade and relatively open borders, the BNP does not; Find me a single mainstream right wing party in Europe or North America that favours even "relatively" open borders and I will be impressed. Find me more than one and I will be downright astonished.


many right-wingers favor gun rights, the BNP does not;The BNP has a policy of encouraging virtually all households to possess firearms.


many right-wingers favor limited government, the BNP does not.
And what do you mean by "limited government"? You say you are a moderator on Mises.org? I have seen what people there think it means. While it certainly means less Government spending and lower taxes (supported by the BNP) it often doesn't extend to things like removing the power of life and death over people from Government organs like courts. Again the BNP fit in quite well there.

but this is how Daniel Hannan thinks.
What he thinks is that they are an embarrassment to his political outlook and wants to slot them in with "the other side". It will be interesting to see how he comes to rationalise it when he finds he virtually always votes the same way as them in the European Parliament.

Take their word for it if you won't take mine though. They never identify with the left. Doesn't that tell you something?

You can try measuring them up to the left's priorities as well: anti-racism, open borders, anti-military, pro-civil liberties, pro-gay rights, pro-internationalism and so on. How do they measure up there?

[MikeSC]

Technically speaking, the BNP is a left-wing party. Many right-wingers are pro-Israel, the BNP is not; many right-wingers favor capitalism, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor free trade and relatively open borders, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor gun rights, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor limited government, the BNP does not.

Of course, I'm using the typically American definition of "right wing," where advocates of smaller, limited government are considered "right wing" and advocates of larger government are considered "left wing." The definition typically varies from person to person, but this is how Daniel Hannan thinks.

"Many right-wingers"- none of those things are what define the right wing. They may not be the kind of capitalists that you wish they were, but they are capitalists. Many left-wingers are pro-Israel, Albert Einstein notably (whether he still would be considering how unsocialist it has ended up, who knows?). The far left, who you'll find here, are typically advocates of less of a state than yourself, considering private property is an act of government, and so on.

Racism is wound up with the right-wing, and racism is what makes the BNP the organisation it is. Civil rights have always been movements of the left, it has always been the right that fights tooth and nail against civil rights.

Technically speaking, the BNP is not left-wing, because you twist what "Left-wing" means according to your own views- no one unrestricted here would agree with your definitions- and then cherry pick undefining policies of the BNP that could fit the definition you've made up. They are racist capitalists. Not extremist laissez-faire, but still supporters of the capitalist system.

Like I said in another thread, the BNP are no different from how the Tory party used to be (and how many Tories still are). They are Powellites, really.

[Ultra_Cheese]

And that, kids, is why Political Compass fails.
I think it fails more for this statement: "The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)"

[GracchusBabeuf]

Beware rising star Daniel Hannan MEPUnless you are a Labour supporter, I don't see any reason to be worried more about this nutcase than about Gordon Brown. Does Gordon Brown kowtow to the demands of the working class any more than any right-wing conservative would?

[RebelDog]

Beware rising star Daniel Hannan MEP, He seems to be Britain's answer to Ron Paul. He is a keen anti-communist who sees Marxism everywhere and described the NHS as a mistake for the last 60 years. He praised Icelands unregulated economic miracle shortly before it crashed and burned. He also describes the BNP as "far left" (what then constitutes "far right" one wonders?). Is there a deliberate strategy by mainstream Conservative parties lately to co-opt a few right-radicals?

He sounds like anti-social scum. Can an ASBO be served on him?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Unless you are a Labour supporter, I don't see any reason to be worried more about this nutcase than about Gordon Brown. Does Gordon Brown kowtow to the demands of the working class any more than any right-wing conservative would?
If anything, you commies should love Hannan because he's so anti-EU.

But to answer your question, he is much more pro-privatization and anti-welfare spending than Brown or Labour.

[ZeroNowhere]

For us, "left" = more working class control of the economy and society, and "right" = more bourgeois (or aristocratic, or otherwise elitist) control of the economy and society.Which is fairly useless, as it would chuck pretty much every supporter of capitalism at around the exact same place. The political compass is centred around capitalism, and, as such, uses a spectrum only encompassing forms of capitalism. Socialism would be a separate bubble.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Technically speaking, the BNP is a left-wing party. Many right-wingers are pro-Israel, the BNP is not; many right-wingers favor capitalism, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor free trade and relatively open borders, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor gun rights, the BNP does not; many right-wingers favor limited government, the BNP does not.
That argument is utterly fallacious. If we are trying to decide whether object X belongs in category A, it is irrelevant that objects Y and Z, also in category A, are different in some ways from X. The question is, what defines category A, and does object X fit that definition? It may be possible for X, Y and Z to be different in some respects but still share the essential characteristics that define category A.

In this case, X = the BNP, category A = the right-wing, and Y and Z = other right-wingers, including yourself. Because of the huge diversity within both the "left" and the "right," you will always be able to say that there are many right-wingers who disagree with any given right-winger on a whole host of issues.

To use your reasoning, the BNP cannot be left-wing either. Many left-wingers support minority rights, the BNP does not; many left-wingers favor economic equality regardless of race or ethnicity, the BNP does not; many left-wingers favor relatively open borders and free immigration, the BNP does not; many left-wingers are vehemently opposed to racism, the BNP is racist.


Of course, I'm using the typically American definition of "right wing," where advocates of smaller, limited government are considered "right wing" and advocates of larger government are considered "left wing." The definition typically varies from person to person, but this is how Daniel Hannan thinks.
That's not the typically American definition of "right-wing" at all. The typically American definition of "right-wing" is "someone who advocates state enforcement of traditional morality, restrictions on immigration, unregulated gun ownership, an aggressive foreign policy, low taxes, reduced government spending on social services and increased government spending on the military."

Only a small part of that - the gun ownership, the low taxes and the reduced spending on social services - fits with your idea of "limited government."

And there is no left-winger here - or anywhere, I would guess - who defines herself as "an advocate of larger government". "Larger government" is not a goal. It is a means. The goal is always something else. You right-libertarians consider "small government" as a goal in and of itself, but no one in the world takes the precisely opposite view that "large government" is a goal in and of itself. Rather, the view is that "large government" is a useful method to achieve some other goals, X, Y or Z. And because those goals may be diametrically opposed to each other (for example, you could use government to increase equality or to enforce inequality), the advocates of "large government" do not all see each other as being on the same side.

[GPDP]

And there is no left-winger here - or anywhere, I would guess - who defines herself as "an advocate of larger government". "Larger government" is not a goal. It is a means. The goal is always something else. You right-libertarians consider "small government" as a goal in and of itself, but no one in the world takes the precisely opposite view that "large government" is a goal in and of itself. Rather, the view is that "large government" is a useful method to achieve some other goals, X, Y or Z. And because those goals may be diametrically opposed to each other (for example, you could use government to increase equality or to enforce inequality), the advocates of "large government" do not all see each other as being on the same side.

Not to mention that people are only painted as proponents of "larger government" by supposed "smaller government" advocates. It is a smear term that no one, even liberals (those most accused of being pro-"big government" in the US), accepts as an accurate representation of their beliefs.

You don't hear us communists calling you "libertarians" as being pro-starvation just because you don't believe in the government stepping in to make sure everyone is fed, right? We call you out because we believe the logical endpoint of your ideology will result in everyone but a wealthy minority becoming destitute, not because you necessarily advocate such a result.

[JammyDodger]

Hannan is a snake, no question about it.
The only attribute he has is the ability to speak well, which as we know from history is an ability that in a polititian can bless or curse us.

He is when all is said and done a Conservative and that is all that needs to be said, when I think of the next general election and the two parties we a likely to get the choice between nuts between two brick and a hot poker up the tradesmens springs to mind.

As bad as labour may be, I do hope they pull off a miracle win, sure we will be still neck deep but if Mrs T has a mystery child I reckon Dodgy Dave is it.

Back to Hannan I wandered off.
He is good at ripping into this labour governments shoddy record but other than that he has no good news about him.

[laminustacitus]

And there is no left-winger here - or anywhere, I would guess - who defines herself as "an advocate of larger government". "Larger government" is not a goal. It is a means. The goal is always something else. You right-libertarians consider "small government" as a goal in and of itself, but no one in the world takes the precisely opposite view that "large government" is a goal in and of itself. Rather, the view is that "large government" is a useful method to achieve some other goals, X, Y or Z. And because those goals may be diametrically opposed to each other (for example, you could use government to increase equality or to enforce inequality), the advocates of "large government" do not all see each other as being on the same side.

You advocate the means you use - you advocate a larger government, and that is all that matters.

[JammyDodger]

You advocate the means you use - you advocate a larger government, and that is all that matters.

I will take a larger government that serves the needs of all over a small government that serves only the needs of the rich and itself any day.

[RedArmyUK]

Classic,,,,,,,(I only say this as I hate the EU and its a shame we only have right wingers speaking up about it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You advocate the means you use - you advocate a larger government, and that is all that matters.
All that matters to you, you mean.

The point is that something that matters to you doesn't necessarily matter to everyone else. And we should not base the political spectrum on an issue that only matters to a single ideology. It would be like, say, building a left-right political spectrum based on one's attitude towards the public treatment of kittens. I'm sure that people who happen to care a lot about kittens would find such an axis appropriate. But the rest of us, not so much.

A political axis based on the "size of government" is inappropriate because most political ideologies don't care about the "size of government". You basically want to divide all politics into libertarians and anti-libertarians, and expect everyone to go along with it. Sorry to break this to you, but the world doesn't revolve around you or your abhorrent ideas.

[Demogorgon]

You advocate the means you use - you advocate a larger government, and that is all that matters.
Someone who digs a garden with a spade and someone who smashes another person's skull in with a spade have used the same means (or tool)-a spade.

Does that make them the same?

[krazy kaju]

The traditional conception of left-right politics makes no sense. Why are anti-Israel, anti-market, anti-tradition, anti-nonwhite, and pro-war Nazis lumped in with pro-Israel, pro-market, pro-tradition, indifferent to nonwhites, and anti-war Old Right conservatives and indifferent to Israel, pro-market, indifferent to tradition and nonwhites, and anti-war libertarians?

It makes more sense to classify the political spectrum via the means. Do people support a more expansive role for government (the institution which legitimately may initiate aggression), a steady role, or smaller role for government? Only such a classification can have any hope of organizing the left-right spectrum rationally.

However, as I've said elsewhere on the forum, I prefer the box/diamond political spectrum which ranks one on social and economic conservatism and liberalism.

[IcarusAngel]

The left-right line makes perfect sense. The reason why totalitarian nazis and right-wing libertarian fascists are lumped into together is because both of them support hierarchical systems.

Right-Wing Libertarians may not be as war hungry as the nazis, but their system is just as totalitarian and just as corporatist as the system the Nazis had, perhaps even more totalitarian.

Both of them support the old order, and both 'conservatives' and fascists have a lot other stuff in common, such as the death penalty, abortion, civil rights, and a whole host of other social issues, in addition to their support for property.

The left, on the other hand, the anarchists, socialists, and communists, are placed together because they all prevent unnecessary hierarchies from ever being established, and believe power should be placed into the hands of the people, not corporations and instituions protected by elitist and hierarchical rule, like property rights.

This is near the classification aristotle used, where all supporters of democracy are on one side and all supporters of oligarchic systems (fascism, capitalism, monarchism, etc.) would be placed on the right.

The Nolan scale is idiotic Libertarian nonsense, like Misian economics, and thus no one takes it seriously.

[IcarusAngel]

I will take a larger government that serves the needs of all over a small government that serves only the needs of the rich and itself any day.


There really is no distinction between small government and large governemnt.

The economic, laissez-faire system required one of the most powerful governments in history to maintain here in the US and the industrial revolution also used all kinds of government intervention to stablize the system. This included brute force numerous times against people who were against 'property rights'. They may not even have been against property rights, they were, like Adam Smith, just against too few hands controlling the resources.

"Economic Liberty" is a scale that is also made up and is not used by political scientists in their classifications either. Economic liberty simply means Liberty for the corporate owners to do what they want. It's like speaking of liberty for the colonial slave holders (interestingly, slavery didn't even take as big of government as modern capitalism).

Hence, the definition of leftist given in political science is this



Left-wing, leftist General descriptive terms for any of several otherwise quite varied political ideologies (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ideology) (socialism (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/socialism), communism (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/communism), social democracy, welfare statism (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/welfare_state), contemporary American liberalism (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/liberalism), some versions of anarchism (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/anarchism), etc.) that join in denouncing the extent of economic and social inequality (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/egalitarianism) in the present order of society and advocate the adoption of vigorous public policies to reduce or eliminate these inequalities, usually through some combination of the following:

Reduction or elimination of legal protections for private property rights
Greater regulation (or complete expropriation) of private economic activity
Stringent limitations on the right to inherit wealth
Higher tax burdens on the rich and the middle-class, and/or the provision of more tax-supported government services and money payments to the poor.

(Note that the leftist wants to reduce inequalities. That is when he uses "government" or in the case of the anarchist he just simply prevents hierarchies from establishing by definition.)
http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/left-wing

Here is the definition of rightist:



A general descriptive term for any of several otherwise rather different, conservative (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/conservatism), reactionary or fascist (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/fascism) political ideologies (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/ideology), the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order). Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who “knows his place” responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors. In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in Europe.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/right-wing

(Note that the rightist, the Libertarian-Fascist or the corporate Fascist, or the conservative uses the government to uphold social order so that the citizen "knows his place" and the government protects the inequalities or guarantees inequalities exist. Thus the workers can never truly hold the means of production in a capitalist (or rightist) system because of the nature of the laws and the government.


Notice also that it has nothing to do with individualism vs. anti-individualism.

If anything, the "right" Libertarian is more anti-individual because individuals ultimately have far less power than collective entities like the government and the corporations and the judicial system in a capitalist society, and the individuals is forced to sell his labor to the capitalist as the capitalist owns the means of production. Marx pointed all this out as did many of the early anarchists.)

[krazy kaju]

The left-right line makes perfect sense. The reason why totalitarian nazis and right-wing libertarian fascists are lumped into together is because both of them support hierarchical systems.

So you propose we organize the left-right spectrum based on hierarchy? Wouldn't that put racist pro-equality, pro-racial segregationists like those at nazi.org on the left? Wouldn't that put national syndicalists and Strasserists on the left as well?


Right-Wing Libertarians may not be as war hungry as the nazis, but their system is just as totalitarian and just as corporatist as the system the Nazis had, perhaps even more totalitarian.

Not at all. Libertarians don't support state subsidies of big businesses or any collusion between government and private interests. Libertarians are against totalitarianism - they believe that any initiation of aggression is immoral. That is the absolute opposite of totalitarianism: leave people free to do as they wish.


Both of them support the old order, and both 'conservatives' and fascists have a lot other stuff in common, such as the death penalty, abortion, civil rights, and a whole host of other social issues, in addition to their support for property.

On most of these issues, conservatives and fascists disagree. For example, many fascists are for forcefully restricting the civil rights of other races and/or nationalities; many conservatives are for the freedom of association, meaning that the government does not have the right to force anyone to associate or not associate with anyone else. Likewise, many fascists support abortion for specific "undesirables" whilst many conservatives don't believe in abortion at all (or the concept of "undesirables"); fascists advocate the complete control of private property for the good of the state while conservatives advocate more freedom for private property owners; and many conservatives oppose the death penalty on religious grounds (e.g. Roman Catholics).


The left, on the other hand, the anarchists, socialists, and communists, are placed together because they all prevent unnecessary hierarchies from ever being established

Capitalist hierarchies are unnecessary if surviving is unnecessary. The other option is starvation due to the complete lack of a rational distribution system in communism and a complete lack of an incentive to work.


and believe power should be placed into the hands of the people, not corporations and instituions protected by elitist and hierarchical rule, like property rights.

This is what libertarians believe. That's why they oppose any initiation of aggression, which is the same thing as rule.


This is near the classification aristotle used, where all supporters of democracy are on one side and all supporters of oligarchic systems (fascism, capitalism, monarchism, etc.) would be placed on the right.

Which is ignoring the fact that democracy and capitalism coexist side by side in many cases, but okay...


The Nolan scale is idiotic Libertarian nonsense, like Misian economics, and thus no one takes it seriously.

What, exactly, is Misian economics? I've never heard of anything like that.

Oh... wait... is that you trying to critique Misesian economics? That's right, you don't have a slightest clue about economics, especially the Austrian school. You don't even know who Mises was and you don't know anything about what he believed.

And I'm sure you're correct that no one takes it seriously. I mean, besides a former House Majority Leader like Dick Armey, two Nobel-laureates in economics like Hayek and Buchanan, and a former Presidential candidate who changed the minds of thousands of people like Ron Paul.

[laminustacitus]

I will take a larger government that serves the needs of all over a small government that serves only the needs of the rich and itself any day.

And who gets to decide what are the "needs of all"?

[MikeSC]

racist pro-equality, pro-racial segregationistsStupid, stupid, stupid. Racism is a perfect example of a hierarchical system. You cannot be racist or pro-segregationist and pro-equality at the same time. How could you type that without burning up with embarassment?


Not at all. Libertarians don't support state subsidies of big businesses or any collusion between government and private interests. Libertarians are against totalitarianism - they believe that any initiation of aggression is immoral. That is the absolute opposite of totalitarianism: leave people free to do as they wish.Private property is a subsidy. Private property is only private property because natural materials have been siezed and distributed by the state in the past. You deify the original seizure, the original subsidy.

If property seizure is immoral enough, shouldn't you be all in favour or returning resources to the general public? All primitive society originally held land in common, they had no concept of ownership. Your man Locke was completely wrong about the history of property you know, it turns out the Enlightenment method of thinking really hard is less effective than judging the evidence- who knew?

If you don't mind the state seizure that made natural resources private, isn't it completely hypocritcal to deny a re-seizure? Or to allow governments to privatise publicly owned assets if even one member of the public is against it?


On most of these issues, conservatives and fascists disagree. For example, many fascists are for forcefully restricting the civil rights of other races and/or nationalities; many conservatives are for the freedom of association, meaning that the government does not have the right to force anyone to associate or not associate with anyone else. Likewise, many fascists support abortion for specific "undesirables" whilst many conservatives don't believe in abortion at all (or the concept of "undesirables"); fascists advocate the complete control of private property for the good of the state while conservatives advocate more freedom for private property owners; and many conservatives oppose the death penalty on religious grounds (e.g. Roman Catholics).Here we go again, "many fascists," "many conservatives." The defining characteristics of fascism are characteristics traditionally seen on the right. The racism, the nationalism, the protectionist form of capitalism.


Capitalist hierarchies are unnecessary if surviving is unnecessary. The other option is starvation due to the complete lack of a rational distribution system in communism and a complete lack of an incentive to work.Guys, turns out we don't exist :( All those pre-capitalist societies were impossible, no one survived them, it's all a dream!

Come on, people will say the same thing about whatever their current economic system is- primitive communism, slave-despotisms and feudalistic systems all survived for far longer than capitalism has so far.


This is what libertarians believe. That's why they oppose any initiation of aggression, which is the same thing as rule.
So I assume all property holders will be returning them to the public as a whole? Considering property, in form and as a concept, is the result of state aggression?


Which is ignoring the fact that democracy and capitalism coexist side by side in many cases, but okay...It's called democracy, but it isn't. The way society uses natural resources is aristrocratically decided in a system of private ownership.


And who gets to decide what are the "needs of all"?All people, democratically, equally, at all levels- rather than at the consumption level only (and even then at a vastly unequal level).

[IcarusAngel]

So you propose we organize the left-right spectrum based on hierarchy? Wouldn't that put racist pro-equality, pro-racial segregationists like those at nazi.org on the left?

Racial segregation is automatically anti-equality. Anything that works to divide people up into groups and disenfranchise them is inequality.

It's also hilarious you'd use a website that clearly mocking politics as a basis for your arguments. Of course, this is what we'd expect from anybody ridiculous enough to support Misian economics.


Wouldn't that put national syndicalists and Strasserists on the left as well?

There is no such thing as "national syndicalists." Syndicalists seek to overthrow all nations. The nation-state is one of the most anti-syndicalist creations in history, responsible for more deaths than any other type of structure in International Relations.

It's no surprise then that capitalism exists under the auspices of the nation-state.

This is why capitalists are so supportive of the nation-state and national sovereignty - racist fascists like Ron Paul for example. Because if it fails capitalism would go with it. At least he's smart enough to recognize that.

I'm guessing "national syndicalist" is also some kind of a joke.


Not at all. Libertarians don't support state subsidies of big businesses or any collusion between government and private interests.

Government protection of private property rights is automatically a subsidy to "big business" as big business has more input on the government and the government has to provide more protection to the big business than the small business.


Libertarians are against totalitarianism - they believe that any initiation of aggression is immoral. That is the absolute opposite of totalitarianism: leave people free to do as they wish.

Libertarians are hierarchical and totalitarian because they believe that corporations can own property and the way corporations come to own property is hierarchical and anti-freedom.

Libertarians reject self-determination and true self-government because in such a system the people would be in charge of what laws are implemented, not a bunch of idiots promoting a discredited theory of economics.

This is a pointless argument though - I believe in freedom and you don't. We won't come to agreement here.


On most of these issues, conservatives and fascists disagree. For example, many fascists are for forcefully restricting the civil rights of other races and/or nationalities; many conservatives are for the freedom of association, meaning that the government does not have the right to force anyone to associate or not associate with anyone else.

Jesse Helms, David Duke, and a whole host of other southern conservatives supported segregation laws and other separation laws. Most conservatives also support racist and nationalist crap when it comes to the borders and so on.

There is little difference between neo-nazi rhetoric and conservative rhetoric when it comes to racial issues.


Likewise, many fascists support abortion for specific "undesirables" whilst many conservatives don't believe in abortion at all (or the concept of "undesirables");

Hitler despised abortion and wrote so in Mein Kampf. And if conservatives are such supporters of racial injustice and "life" you'd think they'd be doing more to end the high infant mortality rates in third world countries and the severe economic problems that minorities in the US face (tantamount to racism) instead of continuing polices that make them worse and generally blaming the victims' themselves.


fascists advocate the complete control of private property for the good of the state while conservatives advocate more freedom for private property owners; and many conservatives oppose the death penalty on religious grounds (e.g. Roman Catholics).

Fascists support private property for the same reason conservatives do: Because they think it is the most efficient means of governing a country. Both conservatives and fascists have favored high government intervention for the protection of property rights.

At least conservatives and fascists though support the idea of recognizing problems and dealing with them, if a bunch of "elites" are put in charge of dealing with them.

Libertarians just want the market to take care of everything, which it never does and never has.


Capitalist hierarchies are unnecessary if surviving is unnecessary. The other option is starvation due to the complete lack of a rational distribution system in communism and a complete lack of an incentive to work.

Early human systems were nothing like "capitalism" and they survived just fine. Capitalism is a relatively recent development in history so to claim that anything anti-capitalist is "unnatural" is ridiculous and contradictory to history.


What, exactly, is Misian economics? I've never heard of anything like that.

Oh... wait... is that you trying to critique Misesian economics? That's right, you don't have a slightest clue about economics, especially the Austrian school. You don't even know who Mises was and you don't know anything about what he believed.

Mises is pronounced "Meece -ees" (rhyming appropriately with feces), so I call it Misean economics or Misean politics. It's what political scientists call "anti-politics," i.e., there is no rational basis to it.

Misean economics doesn't exist because it has been thoroughly discredited, that's true. There are only one or two Universities left who have economics' departments that based on the Mises school of thought.

Mises economics is simple to follow and understand, and it is overly simplistic. It treats economics like a religion, not as the social science that attempts to determine the outcomes of buying and trading. It starts off with numerous false axioms, which is why no one takes it seriously anymore.

This is why there are no real intellectuals who ever supported Mises.


And I'm sure you're correct that no one takes it seriously. I mean, besides a former House Majority Leader like Dick Armey, two Nobel-laureates in economics like Hayek and Buchanan, and a former Presidential candidate who changed the minds of thousands of people like Ron Paul.

Dick Armey is a corrupt politician as is Ron Paul. The contract with America was a disaster that further increased the gap between the rich and the poor while continuing the policies of supporting the rich, such as corporate welfare. And I doubt Paul changed "thousands of minds," there has always been a large group of black helicoptter conspiracy theorist type Libertarians in the US long before Paul become their icon on the national scene. He fared about as well as other nut cases like Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. In fact, he even did worse.

Paul's total failure on the national scene proves that not even Americans are dumb enough to support the pseudo-science of Austrian economics.

He only got the support of Stormfront, Mises forums, and a bunch of idiot Americians. This is your example of a movement. Are you freaking kidding me?????

Finally, a nobel prize in economics can be given for discredited theories or to people who belonged to outdated schools of thoughts. This has happened numerous times, not just with loons from the Austrian school.

Obviously, there are tons of senators, all Republican, who still believe in creationism.

What I meant by "no one takes it seriously" is "no [intelligent person] takes it seriously." I obviously didn't mean you and your troll friends at Ron Paul forums and Mises forums, who won't even allow debate from the opposition.

Furthering the creationism example, there are still tons of Americans who believe in the Bible literally, far more than there are Americans who believe in discredited economics.

But they, like Republicans in general, are on their way down at the moment and once they start to lose their grip they won't be coming back if the patterns of Western European countries are any indication.

Pretty soon even creationism will be about on the level of Holocaust denial, UFO nutters, and, yes, Misean economics.

Socialists believe in the power of people to ultimately accept the known truths and facts of the world - it just unfortunately takes people far too long to accept basic truisms like that capitalism and religion are failures.

Socialists believe human nature is malleable, and this is another truism easily supported by history and psychology.

[IcarusAngel]

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Racism is a perfect example of a hierarchical system. You cannot be racist or pro-segregationist and pro-equality at the same time. How could you type that without burning up with embarassment?

Yes, that claim was bizarre even for a Misean to be making - that racism is "equality" or non-hierarchical.

Once the Misean has run out of quotes to lift from Human Action - like that Socialism involves an impossible form of economic calculation, for example - they are left coming up with their own arguments, and they are generally pretty bad, although as I said usually not even that bad.

That website is filled with idiot trolls. It's funny that they lambast revleft for restricting the Mises supporters that have flooded this site, even though BAN members for even questioning the institution of private property and you're also banned if you question the wisdom of the great pseudo-intellectual Ludwig von Mises. So they're hypocrites as well as cowards - questioning private property and the role it plays in society has been a factor of politics for centuries.

They even banned a youtube anarchist merely for making videos supporting anarchism. :laugh:

[AnthArmo]

The political spectrum hey....

I typically put Libertarians and Anarcho-caps as part of the "New Right". With Libertarians alongside conservatives and Anarcho-caps alongside Fascists.

Hey, works with me.

[JammyDodger]

And who gets to decide what are the "needs of all"?

It will be democratic within your commune for many things and for the case of staples of life its a simple maths deal.

Needs of all, covers a lot of ground,

[The Idler]

More from Britain's answer to Ron Paul.
This Daniel Hannan imbecile is getting more Fox News fawning over the Obamacare issue. His bonkers views on the NHS are being made public, with hopefully little approval. The most galling comment is his self-description as an elected representative (albeit on a closed list system!) who must consider his constituents views. British Conservatives have distanced themselves from him but not dismissed him in a worrying trend. If popular conservatives opinion goes dramatically libertarian Hannan is the back-up plan to keep the Tories flexible and in power.en8oUi1n4tg1wcWlHTRcTE7isYEXrxpYQ

[h0m0revolutionary]

Worth saying, that it's not just Daniel Hannan who wants a private healthcare system, tory MP Michael Gove is a co-author of a book, Direct Democracy, which says the NHS "fails to meet public expectations" and is "no longer relevant in the 21st century". Others listed as co-authors in the book, published shortly after the 2005 general election, include shadow cabinet members Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt and frontbencher Robert Goodwill.

Tories commitment to "investing in and expanding [the NHS]" seem stupid now huh :D
Stupid rich tories.

Mess with our NHS, and we'll mess with you :D

[nikolaou]

Ron Paul is a asshole.

he was on CNN the other day explaining how Healthcare in not a basic human right, nor is food or water, however, freedom of speech is.

"if health care was a human right that would mean the majority could vote against the minority and in a free society such as this we have too protect the minority from the majority" -ron paul

im not makin this shit up

[Demogorgon]

Hannan is in big trouble for this back home. He will be thrown out of the Conservative Party if he keeps this up, I expect. Which is what he wants I'm sure. He would like to enter UKIP with as much fanfare and publicity as possible.

Incidentally the Glenn Beck thing is extremely disingenuous given Hannan actually supports a healthcare system probably more Universal than that which Obama is pushing for.

[The Idler]

Hannan is in big trouble for this back home. He will be thrown out of the Conservative Party if he keeps this up, I expect. Which is what he wants I'm sure. He would like to enter UKIP with as much fanfare and publicity as possible.

Incidentally the Glenn Beck thing is extremely disingenuous given Hannan actually supports a healthcare system probably more Universal than that which Obama is pushing for.I bet he won't be thrown out of the Tory Party as it suits the interests of Cameron to have a maverick lodestone to attract the nutter vote, and I highly doubt Hannan wants to join protectionist UKIP.
Perhaps you can explain how Hannancare is more universal than Obamacare?

[danyboy27]

Beware rising star Daniel Hannan MEP, He seems to be Britain's answer to Ron Paul. He is a keen anti-communist who sees Marxism everywhere and described the NHS as a mistake for the last 60 years. He praised Icelands unregulated economic miracle shortly before it crashed and burned. He also describes the BNP as "far left" (what then constitutes "far right" one wonders?). Is there a deliberate strategy by mainstream Conservative parties lately to co-opt a few right-radicals?

i LOLed hard when i heard conservative member telling how wrong this guy was on the bbc.

seriously, wtf this guy is thinking! if i remember the NHS is supported by everyone, even the fucking bmp(i might be wrong on this one).

that basicly the same thing in canada, one day a smartass in my province spoke about privatisation of healthcare and he got beat so hard at the election it was painful to watch. note that this guy was considering privatizing our electricity company to a fews big shot in order to get more money.

tanks god he failed

[Demogorgon]

I bet he won't be thrown out of the Tory Party as it suits the interests of Cameron to have a maverick lodestone to attract the nutter vote, and I highly doubt Hannan wants to join protectionist UKIP.
Perhaps you can explain how Hannancare is more universal than Obamacare?
Hannan and Nigel Farage (leader of UKIP) did an interview together a couple of months ago where Farage said he expected Hannan to join the party within a few years and Hannan did not contradict him and simply replied that he thought he could get more done in the Conservative Party for the time being. Mark my words, he will defect. Not to mention the fact that when, as is likely, Cameron becomes Prime Minister, he will raise taxes, make concessions to the Scottish Government, become friends with Sarkozy and do a whole lot of other things that will stick heavily in Hannan's throat and he won't be able to resist commenting on it. Constantly. That will be enough to either get him expelled or simply quit of his own accord.

As for his health proposals, he favours a Singapore style system where people pay a percentage of their income into a compulsory insurance scheme subsidised by the Government and then use this to pay for care, either at private hospitals or at Government run ones. Those below a certain income level get free health care at the public hospitals.

Bare in mind of course, that he only supports this, as a compromise. He doesn't just want rid of the NHS, he wants rid of Universal Healthcare in general, but because such a position is so outlandish in Britain as to be outwith even the fringe of political debate, he pays lip service to Universality by going for a halfway house.

[The Idler]

Has anyone seen this pic of Hannan before? I think he's explaining his healthcare proposals.
http://ericlightborn.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/dr_evil_laser.jpg
He also seems to be using a model of the earth where all state environmental regulations have been abolished.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I kind of wish he would gain abit of influence so people stopped indulging in the Nannie state culture but that said the NHS is one of the best things in this country and trying to fuck with it is disgusting.