Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
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 illustrating 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:
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.
Yeah, his design doesn't sit perfectly with me either. In every scale or spectrum I've seen there is a bias for showing that the other guys are just a few steps away from every evil leader that ever lived. I've seen a horseshoe shaped one as well, but I think there may just be inherent flaws in the concept of a political "scale" itself when attempting to show a link between multiple variables.