Thank you Listo. I Just don't really care for those scales. Sure it does illustrate what he is writing about, but I don't see those as the issue as much.
I use the one from the Federalist society, which is what I described. It illustrates what the Framers were discussing and trying to do. Find a balance between too much govt and too little or none. So that linear scale can be bent into a U or circle.
The guy in your link is illustratiing morality, liberty and equality or individuals v the state but has society as the same as the state. I believe that to be an error of logic.
Although, I agree with this part of what he says:
Most traditional political diagrams show a horizontal line with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right. This is confusing, and somewhat misleading. The concept (and the terms used) came from the French Revolution, when the people who were for radical change sat on the left, and those that wanted to hold onto some traditions and allow change to occur gradually sat on the right. So today the terms seem out of place.
He's confused about what liberalism is or that it should be liberalism v conservatism. He's basing his scale off of popular arguments based on words being redefined to suit the agendas of some political types. Mine illustrates how much govt is necessary. Fascism is simply socialism while maintaining the facade of property being privately held. It need not have the racist element for fascism to exist. Today's liberals are not liberals in the classical sense.
Also, it was the aristocrats that sat on the right. It wasn't just holding onto traditions with them. They were connected to state power.