Slashdot Mirror

You're confusing the authoritarian line with the economic line. Fun facts, anarchists have traditionally been leftists and libertarianism started out as a leftist philosophy. Generally rightist, at least the successful ones, are authoritarian, sometimes they want small government so the government doesn't interfere with their authoritarianism, think of the mafia or the Mexican drug cartels, both right wing business types who want less government interference in their businesses.
Take a look at the political compass, http://www.politicalcompass.or... and perhaps take their test. Here's their take on the 2012 US election, http://www.politicalcompass.or... Here's an article on libertarian socialism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actually Harper is so far right that he is actually to the right of Obama. Slightly more authoritarian too. See the political compass. http://www.politicalcompass.or... http://www.politicalcompass.or...

Actually Harper is so far right that he is actually to the right of Obama. Slightly more authoritarian too. See the political compass. http://www.politicalcompass.or... http://www.politicalcompass.or...

For reasons I don't fully understand (electoral college mumble mumble) it seems US candidates cannot ever be independent, they have to pick a side. So that's going to cause issues right there.

The reason is big money, and that is THE issue in my opinion. As a fan of the political compass, it drives me nuts. Democrats and Republicans were not traditionally homogeneous groups, but it is being forced upon them now (toe the line or you're finished).

This is why in all truth BOTH sides are against campaign finance reform.

Left leaning candidates will happily ruin the nation, because the worse things are, the more justifications for radical policies. Who wants to open the borders wide and let the entire world into America, with voting rights the moment they set foot on our soil? The left. Are you saying that Bernie is going to expel the foreigners and thereby create several million new jobs for Americans? Jeez that's some serious Nazi shit right there.

Why don't you ask people who used to live in hard left regimes how they feel about the kind of government you advocate? What do you think they would say?

You speak of AUTHORITARIAN LIBERALS, however Senator Sanders is a LIBERTARIAN LIBERAL.

Authoritarians of ALL stripes are usually pretty terrible, not that libertarian liberals or libertarian conservatives can't do bad work either.

Political compass explains libertarians and authoritarians better.

No, the Democratic party isn't a left-wing party because overall they aren't really socialist at all, despite what Fox News repeats ad nauseum. Most Democratic politicians like to claim that they are so that they can get some votes, but their actions rarely match their words.

Keep in mind that authoritarianism is an orthogonal concept; you can have right-wing authoritarians (e.g. most current Republican politicians), and you can have left-wing authoritarians (usually what most people think Communism is, such as the USSR). As always, I point people to Political Compass.

In Canada, even the Democrats would be seen as too right-wing.

The problem with that statement is that it is so non-descriptive that it is just meaningless.

Take me for example, I'm a huge mishmash of opposing spectrum:

I'm in favor of legalizing almost anything drug related, gambling related, and sex related (including legalizing prostitution) and I'm also very much atheist. Many will describe that as being very left wing.

However I'm also very pro-second amendment, pro-capitalism, and very supportive of freedom of association (including allowing religious establishments to refuse to provide contraception, allowing people to smoke in places open to the public, allowing private businesses to refuse service to anybody for *any* reason.) Many will describe that as being very right wing.

Yet neither description seems to work in my case.

Narrowing political viewpoints into a one dimensional spectrum is likewise dumb. When I hear somebody say x is right or left of y, my first thought is: On what subject?

I mean shit, if you look at this political compass (which is at least two dimensional, but still a very bad way to label political viewpoints as IMO there are easily hundreds of different dimensions) Adolph Hitler is pegged pretty damn close to being a centrist on the left/right scale, yet Milton Friedman is pegged as far right:

http://www.politicalcompass.or...

Like I said, meaningless.

And before somebody says I'm an anarcho-libertarian on that two dimensional compass, that is also false. I very much support the rule of law and prefer a government to establish order so that everybody can have a common set of enforced rules that permit commerce (capitalism just isn't possible without the rule of law and/or a set of guidelines to make sure that transactions occur in a fair and just manner in addition to having a robust system for dispute resolution -- something that anarchy cannot have.)

There is no real left or right paradigm; it is an illusion, like in the book Flat Land or the film The Matrix. It's at least 2 dimensional: up/down and left/right. The "far left" today doesn't even get press coverage - the Democratic party doesn't represent them; just tries to sucker them for votes. see http://politicalcompass.org/

Characterizing the correct answer as left/right is ignoring the whole problem and debating empty propaganda.

Keystone helps sell shale oil cheaper. You just buy into the defeatist propaganda of the corporations to stand to gain (along with your so called "right" who were purchased and some "left" also who were purchased. The real reason lawyers make good politicians is they argue whatever position their boss wants like they believe it themselves.)

Higher costs for shale will delay it; hopefully, long enough to address demand with cheaper alternatives or enough sanity to ban it... Asbestos is cheap and we stopped using that! Assuming that oil is going to burn is as foolish as keeping the asbestos mines open in the middle of that debate (which was settled in science years before politics caught up; thank the vested interest lobby...) The cynical and wise strategic move is to STALL it out as long as possible so they don't invest in more expensive alternative routes - making it even less cost effective when keystone is stopped. That strategy does the most to stop them. (note: I'm not saying Obama's clever. It is a really clever plan and he just happens to be doing the same thing, so far.)

Extremists are never happy; don't know why you think giving each something they want is going to change anything!

As a statistician, I am seriously annoyed with the usual Left-Right dichotomy we see in most press articles. While I like the Political Compass I am a bit nervous of their clustering algorithm, and the questions they use to feed the analytics. Even more interesting is Johathan Haidt who has achieved some TEDTalk fame describing a five-dimensional feature space (though he does try to reduce to two clusters - liberals and conservatives). So I pose a two part question, (1) do you think the public discourse is hampered by the popular press always reducing politicians and voters to "liberals" and "conservatives"? And if you are concerned, (2) what can we do to push back against such simplifications, especially here on Slashdot?

Something like this? http://www.politicalcompass.or...

Looking at the whole field there, Obama & Romney were pretty darn close to each other. Certainly the wider parties include more diverse viewpoints, but the overall ideological narrative of each party are pretty similar, all things considered.

(For what it's worth, I threw my vote away for Jill Stein.)

MighyYar's right, and this is coming from a bleeding heart California liberal that is not happy the GOP is going to get rewarded for its antics with increased power in DC, and is also really not happy that Silicon Valley (also known as where I work and live) is starting to tilt to the right.

The current difference between the two parties right now is pretty solely on wedge issues. They have the same monetary policy, the same foreign policy, neither party is realistic about tax policy on the middle class (it needs to be higher, along with the high earners), neither party wants to bust the cap on Social Security and Medicare (while I appreciate the extra bucks at the end of the year, I think those programs need it more than me), etc.

For all the hype about the "core differences" in the 2012 election, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama were so close on the political compass that it was a John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson situation.

I happen to feel that the social issues are important enough for the Democratic party to be the clear choice, but to get back to MightyYar's point -- Silicon Valley is very business-driven, and CA law would preserve nearly all protections that the Republicans could take away at the federal level (barring the PPACA) as far social politics are concerned. From a Silicon Valley business perspective, both parties are roughly the same when considering the direct effect they'd have, and even more so when you realize that FWD.US and other H1-B visa supporters are realizing that they only way they'll get those increased H1-Bs they want is to get some sort of immigration reform done, even if that means supporting an odious Republican policy rather than a Democratic solution that isn't showing any signs of life.

Not to mention that most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered Democrats down in Bakersfield or Orange County.

or somewhere where people know what they are talking about go look at political compass and tell me I am wrong
http://www.politicalcompass.or...

Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President? We see again that our Republican rulers do not treat us fairly.

Republican rulers?

Why should she not be simply because she is friends with the President?

Republican - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I don't know, I've often joked that Obama is one of the better Republican presidents we've had in recent memory. And not to disparage Republicans or even Obama. [1] If he had any actual socialist tendencies he would have pushed for a single payer option instead of the insurance company windfall that was passed. You know the political system is screwed up when you miss Richard Nixon.

The political compass summarizes the absurdity of the left-right divide in US politics: http://www.politicalcompass.or...

[1] I say it for shock value. I don't think that the Republicans represent my interests. Neither does Obama. Nor the other Democrats.

If this kind of thing isn't fixed soon, America is marching into becoming a facist state, while pretending to still be defenders of freedom and justice. And people are applauding this as it goes along.

Um... both the Democrat and Republican parties are firmly authoritarian. Most governments are firmly authoritarian. Authoritarian is the nice word for the fascist end of the social spectrum (the other side is libertarian/anarchist).

Take a look at The Political Compass. Take their test (or another, and/or do your own research) and figure out which third party best represents you. Then actually support them. So long as you vote for someone without a (D) or an (R) next to their name, I'll be proud of you. Just watch out for fake "independents", who are usually just self-identified Democrats or Republicans who flunked out of their own primaries for whatever reason.

Nice ad hominem rant. Really makes you look sophisticated and mature and totally not desperate or defensive at all.

The problem is that the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are inconsequential. Even when comparing the extremes of both parties, they're both still narrowly confined to the authoritarian right. Take another look at your list of issues where they differ: none of them actually matter. Of course, the issues themselves are serious and important, but the controversies are largely fabricated and polarized into talking points to raise campaign funds without anything actually being done until external trends force a concession. For all their rhetoric, when compared to any other third party in the US, the Democrats and Republicans are functionally interchangeable career politicians.

The easiest way I have found to introduce people to this concept is politicalcompass.org. It only takes 5-10 minutes to run through their test, and you may be surprised at the results (please do actually read the explanation page they provide). Then read through their page about the 2012 US Presidential election. Seriously, this is worth your time.

The next step would be to learn about the benefits of systems such as instant-runoff voting, and how both the Democrats and the Republicans actively conspire to exclude third party candidates out of debates and off of ballots.

Nice ad hominem rant. Really makes you look sophisticated and mature and totally not desperate or defensive at all.

The problem is that the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are inconsequential. Even when comparing the extremes of both parties, they're both still narrowly confined to the authoritarian right. Take another look at your list of issues where they differ: none of them actually matter. Of course, the issues themselves are serious and important, but the controversies are largely fabricated and polarized into talking points to raise campaign funds without anything actually being done until external trends force a concession. For all their rhetoric, when compared to any other third party in the US, the Democrats and Republicans are functionally interchangeable career politicians.

The easiest way I have found to introduce people to this concept is politicalcompass.org. It only takes 5-10 minutes to run through their test, and you may be surprised at the results (please do actually read the explanation page they provide). Then read through their page about the 2012 US Presidential election. Seriously, this is worth your time.

The next step would be to learn about the benefits of systems such as instant-runoff voting, and how both the Democrats and the Republicans actively conspire to exclude third party candidates out of debates and off of ballots.

Nice ad hominem rant. Really makes you look sophisticated and mature and totally not desperate or defensive at all.

The problem is that the differences between the Democrats and Republicans are inconsequential. Even when comparing the extremes of both parties, they're both still narrowly confined to the authoritarian right. Take another look at your list of issues where they differ: none of them actually matter. Of course, the issues themselves are serious and important, but the controversies are largely fabricated and polarized into talking points to raise campaign funds without anything actually being done until external trends force a concession. For all their rhetoric, when compared to any other third party in the US, the Democrats and Republicans are functionally interchangeable career politicians.

The easiest way I have found to introduce people to this concept is politicalcompass.org. It only takes 5-10 minutes to run through their test, and you may be surprised at the results (please do actually read the explanation page they provide). Then read through their page about the 2012 US Presidential election. Seriously, this is worth your time.

The next step would be to learn about the benefits of systems such as instant-runoff voting, and how both the Democrats and the Republicans actively conspire to exclude third party candidates out of debates and off of ballots.

Check the Political Compass.

The society is way more authoritarian than it was generations ago. Not that it ever was likely in the center.... except maybe at the beginning.

See http://politicalcompass.org/ for yourself. Now it could be the "ideal" is not in the middle or is a bit authoritarian but that is a side issue, the point is that the culture is authoritarian which is why the public is goosestepping along.

Our schools are raising kids to love the boot of authority... or at least to be used to it. Schools are more like prisons in many ways and the traditional amount of anarchy and chaos in school is being beaten down; even in the art,music,gym classrooms and for some schools the playground is even being put into "order" (if not completely eliminating recess all together which has been done where I am for elementary kids... then we wonder why so many are being called ADD and given drugs to keep them in their seats... while still giving them tons of sugar and caffeine...)

Look at peaceable assembly. That right is almost dead. We just think "order" is more important than our rights and even "peace" has alternate meanings now... You can't peacefully protest if you make noise or fill up public space (while still allowing others to transit that space) because that isn't "peaceful" enough! You have to be invisible and THEN it is ok... completely ineffective and even then 1st chance they have they will find an excuse to invoke "order" and do anything they wish to terrorize the population into never wanting to join in a protest again. Vote every few years (if you are white and not a college student) and shut up and lick boots in between. Only lobbyists should be getting attention between elections. etc.

Also, given his long standing support to Left wing causes, what exactly does he have against Stalin to call cellphones 'Stalin's dream'?

One can be a collectivist while opposing authoritarianism. See Political Compass.

Interesting times, as the Chinese say. My sincere condolences, but what do you mean by "neo-communist" - surely the Putin regime is north-north-east on the political compass, where Marx and Engels are due west?

Conservatism isn’t http://seegras.discordia.ch/Bl...

But I actually don't see why the party has anything to do with it, besides, the Democrats and the Republicans are both right-wing authoritarians. http://politicalcompass.org/us... So there's no difference anyway.

It is usually not worthwhile to think about political groupings on a 1 dimensional axis.

I agree, though I favour the Eysenck chart, which seems to be the uncredited basis of the Political Compass.

I more or less agree with your liberal/conservative definitions except what you call a liberal is what I would call a radical. Equality of opportunity is a radical idea which conservatives are not at all concerned with. Equality of outcome is a conservative bugbear, liberals and radicals hope to limit disparity, they don't expect to eliminate it. Elimination is an authoritarian idea :-)

All mainstream American politics is in the conservative/authoritarian quadrant. I am in the opposite radical/liberal quadrant, along with anarchists, democratic socialists, greens, Ghandi, Mandela, etc.

That said, the Republicans are in a civil war between the "statists" and the "liberals" (in the european sense of the word). The Dumbocrats (sp?) are similarly torn, but they are miraculously immune from questioning by the Media-ocratic press. Meanwhile, the rest of the planet (~6B not in Europe or US are basically killing themselves, us, and anything else as they squabble over whose imaginary friends are the most potent (sorta like a real-world extension of the Friday night fights between StarWars fanboys and Trekkies, but with real bullets and real bombs).

When I taught military strategy, I often asked mystudents if they thought rational societies could win out over irrational ones. The mathematics of mutual assured destruction (the context for my question) fail in the absence of a form of rationality on both sides. In the 60s and 70s there was a form of that rationality as required by the assumptions. I fear that in the present world there is no such bi-lateral rationality, at least not between the Western European styles of government and the theocratic forms we are confronting.

Good luck with all that. Myself, I don't live near a ground zero during these time. Welcome to World War IV.

We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.

First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before they can get an abortion? Who wants to force their religious values on others? Etc... The Republicans want just as big of a police state as the Democrats, they only have a couple of minor differences on what to enforce. The NSA has been with us for a long time, through multiple power shifts and no one has reigned it in.

In summary. The US does not have a party that is "left of center." Democrats suck. Republicans suck more.

We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.

First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before they can get an abortion? Who wants to force their religious values on others? Etc... The Republicans want just as big of a police state as the Democrats, they only have a couple of minor differences on what to enforce. The NSA has been with us for a long time, through multiple power shifts and no one has reigned it in.

In summary. The US does not have a party that is "left of center." Democrats suck. Republicans suck more.

Do you know that your own source demolishes your claim. You said that that Schumer is "one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate"; however, when you check all the Ds and Rs, Schumer is rated less authoritarian than EVERY R senator except Olympia Snowe, who is a moderate who already left the senate.

One of the grand ironies of Libertarianism, is that these days the right is increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. (Take the above website to see the hugely robust difference between R and D senators. Bear in mind that R senators tend to be more moderate than their house colleagues.)

I'm Libertarian myself, but am not a sucker for the right-wing entertainment complex. As such, the GOP has little to offer me, since it has turned into an apocalyptic cult. Fortunately, the wing-nuts in the left (and they are just as barking mad) do not control their political party.

From those who kill [liberty] in the name of defending it.

Schumer has no interest in liberty; he's one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate. Why these assholes don't have term limits is beyond my comprehension — Feinstein (with her spy-fetishist "oversight") is good example of how too much time in office results in power-madness and opportunities to become corrupt.

I'm not just picking on Democrats here; (I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein;) Ds and Rs are all right-authoritarians in my eyes. Amongst them, though, Schumer takes the cake when it comes to pissing on the Bill of Rights (and not just the Second Amendment). I remember some years back, he voted for a "Juvenile Justice" bill to prosecute more kids as adults in order to extend their sentences, yet with no provisions to grant kids greater liberty in exchange for this added responsibility.

You're making a fundamental error: you're assuming that the US Political Spectrum is the same as the rest of the planet.

That is far from the reality: the US spectrum is decidedly to the right of most other nations. What is considered Conservative in most countries is center-left at best in the US. . .

Think of it as the Fahrenheit scale of Politics. . .

I disagree. Just because the dominant parties are both right-wing doesn't mean the people are. I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein, yet I've still voted for Democrats in the past (something that I've stopped doing,) when all of the other candidates were even further right.

Look at the candidates from the 2012 Presidential election; there were two left-of-center candidates, but many US liberals (and right-of-center "liberals") are led to believe that voting for a candidate that closely supports their views is "wasting their votes." Also note that Obama's 2008 campaign presented him as a left-libertarian, but he rules as a right-authoritarian.

"have their crayon promptly confiscated until they can be good little liberals."

But we have a liberal in power.
He talked a lot of shit about the previous administration only to be worse.

Obama — a "liberal?" Heh... no. He's a right-authoritarian.

As Cornel West observed, a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface."

Obama may have run on a somewhat leftist platform in 2008, but that's no "liberal" in the White House.

Funny how Liberals pretend to care about right and wrong, but will create a police state if you give them the chance.

Left and right governments around the world both create police states — what they have in common is authoritarianism, not liberalism (or conservatism).

at least Nick Griffin of the BNP for all his flaws had the courage of his convictions to admit what he was even if I think his views are sickening.

What's actually interesting is that economically the BNP are most definitely not a far right; they are further left than Labour, for example.

From that website : It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear. It's easy to see how the term national socialism came into being. The uncomfortable reality is that much of their support comes from former Labour voters.

Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Compare it to the previous elections and note Obama's drift:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And the trend for Canada:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

(the NDP is actually a centrist party nowadays)

Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Compare it to the previous elections and note Obama's drift:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And the trend for Canada:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

(the NDP is actually a centrist party nowadays)

Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Compare it to the previous elections and note Obama's drift:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And the trend for Canada:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

(the NDP is actually a centrist party nowadays)

Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Compare it to the previous elections and note Obama's drift:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And the trend for Canada:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

(the NDP is actually a centrist party nowadays)

Left wing politicians? I don't see them at all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Compare it to the previous elections and note Obama's drift:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

And the trend for Canada:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2005
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

(the NDP is actually a centrist party nowadays)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Tony (-6.00, -5.90)

Obama is a leftist, what part of that don't you get?

The part that makes him a leftist. Obama's definitely seems like a right of center politician.

Obama is a leftist, what part of that don't you get?

The part that makes him a leftist. Obama's definitely seems like a right of center politician.

What we need is other sides. That could go in different directions. Serious libertarians (Libertarians, Pirate Party) who champion civil liberties (if they at the same time renounced the government gift of corporate existence and the legal fiction of intellectual "property", I'd be on board). On the other hand, Greens and the like. And there's probably a third (or more) hand.

The Green Party is left libertarian; the Libertarian party is right-libertarian. The Democratic and Republican parties are right-authoritarian (no Wikipedia article on this political ideology, but you should already be familiar, as we're being subjected to it). These qualities are illustrated by this chart indicating the positions of 2012 US presidential candidates.

If what you mean by "need[ing] other sides" is that we need left and right anti-authoritarian parties (unseating Democrat/Republican rule), I agree. These parties already exist — now, if only people would quit wasting their votes on right-authoritarianism and more (slightly more extreme) right-authoritarianism...

Maybe if violations (such as the NSA) were criminalized. But then we'd need prosecutors with the spine to prosecute, and juries that weren't too brainwashed to convict.

The NSA's actions are already prohibited by the US Constitution.

I agree with your statement about prosecutors and juries, but it'll be a long wait until there are no defenseless/under-defended poor left to exploit via selective enforcement, nor private prisons with room for additional slave labor.

All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

Based on the link you provided, the Democrats are solidly in the authoritarian half of the plot. Besides highly emotionally charged issues like abortion, guns, and gays (which never have sweeping or long-lived changes because that would deplete their divisive usefulness), the policy of both parties is extremely similar. Especially from a libertarian view... both major parties are highly authoritarian. The Dems may be less batshit right now, but they're still up to their necks in it.

All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

Based on the link you provided, the Democrats are solidly in the authoritarian half of the plot. Besides highly emotionally charged issues like abortion, guns, and gays (which never have sweeping or long-lived changes because that would deplete their divisive usefulness), the policy of both parties is extremely similar. Especially from a libertarian view... both major parties are highly authoritarian. The Dems may be less batshit right now, but they're still up to their necks in it.

Republicans are not libertarians.

In common usage, yes they sure as hell are ;) this is measurable...

However I agree that using proper definitions, yes Libertarian ideas are wholly independent (and in conflict with) most of what Republicans do.

I always liked the Political Compass

It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)

Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...

I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...

Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do

All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***

policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two

I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...

I think he was trying to say that the fascists this time are the conservative types, and they'll loose their wrath on the "lefty" bastions.

But as San Fransisco and (especially) New York demonstrate, "liberal" doesn't mean not overtly authoritarian. The whole country, left and right alike, are swinging very hard toward powerful and oppressive government. This isn't a left vs right thing, it's an up vs down thing.

It appears you really have no idea what left and right mean in a political spectrum. They're not political parties with tightly controlled platforms. As for austerity, you must have somehow missed the media obsession about the 'fiscal cliff' in the U.S..

I'm sure there is a polisci professor at a nearby college that can help you out with it. Note that he or she will probably use the terms left and right and even be able to show you where various governments fall on the scale. if you prefer online help, check out politicalcompass.org

http://politicalcompass.org/

Look up anarcho-syndicalism.

Governments are not necessary for a socialist system. All you need is the agreement of the majority of the workers. Not an easy thing, certainly, which is why it hasn't happened yet. But it's certainly possible. The same way we've moved political power from oligarchy to democracy (and perhaps back again) we can move economic power as well.

FYI, people holding these views tend to refer to themselves either as anarcho-syndicalist or, more broadly, as "Leftist". Never "liberal" and CERTAINLY not "Democrat". There's a reason for that. When it comes to oppression, both parties are on the same side -- they're both the Authoritarian party. Actually they're both the Authoritarian-Capitalist party...we could use any sort of Libertarian-* or *-Socialist.

Our major-party 'choices' really aren't

On the face of it he did the right thing, but he didn't finish the job. He's holding out on us.

You're referring to Snowden's unreleased documents and his cautiousness in regard to "harming US interests," versus supplying us with the facts we need to accurately identify other crimes and the full extent of those we've learned about? (Assuming I've gotten your meaning,) I agree to a certain extent; as long as the hypocrites in government — and the governed who buy their bullshit — are throwing around labels such as "traitor" and "criminal," perhaps he should go ahead with a complete disclosure of all documents.

On the other hand, a lot of Snowden supports (particularly, prominent public figures) would likely withdraw their support or turn against him for doing so, as the caution he's exercised is frequently brought up in his defense. I don't know how important that support is to Snowden, or how it might affect his ability to remain free/safe/alive. Also, I can't speculate on the gravity of the undisclosed information; that is, if the abuses are serious enough (in contrast to what we've learned so far) to turn the public's attention away from the messenger and back to the message. I have a hard time criticizing his methods, considering what he's already sacrificed (e.g., his home, personal relationships, etc.) and what he has at stake (i.e., his life).

One last thing I'd like to add regarding Snowden's (and Glen Greenwald's) methods: I think the way the leaks have been trickled have been superb, for two reasons: 1) They've helped keep these violations in the consciousness of a public with a very short attention span, and 2) they've given us some opportunities to catch government officials lying in regard to the extent of their abuses.

Yet another tiresome game of charades. It's beginning to sound like another honeypot, like Manning's, or a ploy by mass media for higher ratings and ad rates.

Could you please elaborate (particularly in regard to honeypot(s))? Are you suggesting that Manning's (and possibly Snowden's) leaks are part of a planned disinformation campaign? I'd like to discuss this further if you could please clarify (either here or your journal).

I sure don't expect any change in future elections. All these scandals since Nixon, and republicans and democrats are still running the show for their corporate masters.

I won't argue with you there, but I'll continue to do what I've been doing for most of my life: Voting third-party, donating to ACLU, talking to friends and family, and refuting government/corporate propaganda when and where I see it repeated. What else can I do? My resources are extremely limited, and while the fight I help give may be weak and destined to fail, I can't just roll over and do nothing — the least I can do is not help them, ya know?

Well...in a sense they're all everything because Left/Right is a TERRIBLE way to explain political ideology.

They're all Authoritarian/Right when using a 2-coordinate system.
http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
(FWIW, this thing uses a -10 to +10 scale, and I'm personally around (-8,-8) way off in the Libertarian/Left corner...so fuck 'em all.)

Being up on the social freedom axis means you support the government staying out of your bedroom.

Actually, that's usually 'down' on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/