From my libertarian perspective, the primary political issue isn’t taxes and spending, but control.
Less taxes are an instance of less control, but not the only one, and it’s probably a tenth as important as the harm done by the aggregate of controls. Money is a means to fulfill wants. Taxing away some of my money still allows me to prioritize my wants, and spend my money on my greatest wants. Making something illegal entirely takes away the option, imposing a much greater cost than taking away some percentage of my income.
Even in purely financial terms, controls set in place by the collaboration of rent seekers and central planners probably amount to a hidden tax which almost matches the aggregate level of taxation.
Redistribution involves control as well, and for me, basic principles of property. What if I’m against all the perverse incentives of the usual centrally planned redistributionist welfare state, but actually want more direct redistribution in the form of a guaranteed income? What if someone else is against the crony capitalist redistribution of central planning, but wants more social welfare redistribution?
Also, the socially permissive versus traditional values really doesn’t tell me much about a person’s politics. Probably some decent correlation, but it doesn’t tell me what they wish to empower the government to do.
That’s the relevant and specific question for politics.
What do you wish to empower the government to do?
Libertarians - Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce property rights.
Conservatives—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce existing property rights. Enforce greater social good.
Liberals—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce property rights. Enforce greater material equality. Enforce greater social good. Enforce greater individual good.
Social Democrats—Like liberals, only more so.
Communists—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce greater material equality. Enforce greater social good. Enforce greater individual good.
Everyone wants some basic personal rights to be protected, such as the right to life. The further rights enforced sometimes conflict with the previous, and override them.
Maybe an anarchist can find a way to rejigger this so that they can fit as well, but except for complete pacifists, I find anarchism incoherent, and can’t do it myself.
EDIT: Really? Downvoted into oblivion? The OP asks for comments and critique. I critique the framing of the political question based on the inadequacies of the conceptual schema used, identify what I consider the relevant question for politics, and provide a consistent schema to categorize the different answers to that question given by different political outlooks.
What do you wish to empower the government to do? … Enforce rights against [X]
To answer this question meaningfully, people had to agree what constitutes a (particular category of) right. Both Libertarians and Communists want to enforce property rights—they would just disagree about their extent.
Also, you put it as if things Conservatives want to enforce is a proper subset of things Liberals want to enforce. This is not true, as “greater social good” would mean a different thing for each group.
Both Libertarians and Communists want to enforce property rights—they would just disagree about their extent.
I should have specified “private property rights”.
To answer this question meaningfully, people had to agree what constitutes a (particular category of) right.
Actually, not. As you point out, Conservatives and Liberals have different versions of “social good”, but both can recognize the other’s version as “social good” according to someone, and that they both have a version they wish to enforce. That distinguishes them from libertarians, and it does so in a way that they can all agree on.
I’m trying to get answers to my question quoted above that someone taking the poll would agree on from their own perspective—that they feel is an accurate characterization of their views. And if possible, have people agree with the characterization of other people’s views as well.
For which categories do you think I have failed in those respects, if any?
I should have specified “private property rights”.
In all historical Communist states (barring Pol Pot’s Cambodia where I’m not sure) people were allowed to have some (often quite significant) private property. Most extensive property restriction I have heard about was in Albania where citizens were prohibited from owning cars. Perhaps some theorists of Communism have suggested that private property should be further curtailed, but even they would hardly oppose people’s right to own personal belongings such as clothes or a toothbrush. Ordinary Communists happily recognise your right to own a house, for example.
I’m trying to get answers to my question quoted above that someone taking the poll would agree on from their own perspective—that they feel is an accurate characterization of their views. And if possible, have people agree with the characterization of other people’s views as well.
Fair enough, if you don’t expect the question understood equally by everybody, it is probably a good question.
Still, I feel that your characterisations are too much based on the assumption that the proponents of all main political ideologies build their opinions around their preferences pertaining to government enforced rights. Granted, almost everybody wants some rights protected by the government, but it seems to me that a e.g. a typical European social democrat gives less attention to whether something is a right or whether it is the government who enforces it, than a typical American libertarian (not sure whether it’s the continent of origin or the political ideology which makes the difference). Perhaps it’s mainly a matter of vocabulary—the more to the left you stand the more you use “solidarity” and “justice” and the less you use “rights” and “enforce”; but saying “the government should enforce rights against encroachment by others, greater material equality, greater social good and greater individual good” sound somehow wrong as a self-described creed of a Communist. A Communist would talk about a harmonic society without exploitation and inequality as a natural state of affairs, not something the government should “enforce”.
From my libertarian perspective, the primary political issue isn’t taxes and spending, but control.
Less taxes are an instance of less control, but not the only one, and it’s probably a tenth as important as the harm done by the aggregate of controls. Money is a means to fulfill wants. Taxing away some of my money still allows me to prioritize my wants, and spend my money on my greatest wants. Making something illegal entirely takes away the option, imposing a much greater cost than taking away some percentage of my income.
Even in purely financial terms, controls set in place by the collaboration of rent seekers and central planners probably amount to a hidden tax which almost matches the aggregate level of taxation.
Redistribution involves control as well, and for me, basic principles of property. What if I’m against all the perverse incentives of the usual centrally planned redistributionist welfare state, but actually want more direct redistribution in the form of a guaranteed income? What if someone else is against the crony capitalist redistribution of central planning, but wants more social welfare redistribution?
Also, the socially permissive versus traditional values really doesn’t tell me much about a person’s politics. Probably some decent correlation, but it doesn’t tell me what they wish to empower the government to do.
That’s the relevant and specific question for politics.
What do you wish to empower the government to do?
Libertarians - Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce property rights.
Conservatives—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce existing property rights. Enforce greater social good.
Liberals—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce property rights. Enforce greater material equality. Enforce greater social good. Enforce greater individual good.
Social Democrats—Like liberals, only more so.
Communists—Enforce rights against encroachment by others. Enforce greater material equality. Enforce greater social good. Enforce greater individual good.
Everyone wants some basic personal rights to be protected, such as the right to life. The further rights enforced sometimes conflict with the previous, and override them.
Maybe an anarchist can find a way to rejigger this so that they can fit as well, but except for complete pacifists, I find anarchism incoherent, and can’t do it myself.
EDIT: Really? Downvoted into oblivion? The OP asks for comments and critique. I critique the framing of the political question based on the inadequacies of the conceptual schema used, identify what I consider the relevant question for politics, and provide a consistent schema to categorize the different answers to that question given by different political outlooks.
To answer this question meaningfully, people had to agree what constitutes a (particular category of) right. Both Libertarians and Communists want to enforce property rights—they would just disagree about their extent.
Also, you put it as if things Conservatives want to enforce is a proper subset of things Liberals want to enforce. This is not true, as “greater social good” would mean a different thing for each group.
I should have specified “private property rights”.
Actually, not. As you point out, Conservatives and Liberals have different versions of “social good”, but both can recognize the other’s version as “social good” according to someone, and that they both have a version they wish to enforce. That distinguishes them from libertarians, and it does so in a way that they can all agree on.
I’m trying to get answers to my question quoted above that someone taking the poll would agree on from their own perspective—that they feel is an accurate characterization of their views. And if possible, have people agree with the characterization of other people’s views as well.
For which categories do you think I have failed in those respects, if any?
In all historical Communist states (barring Pol Pot’s Cambodia where I’m not sure) people were allowed to have some (often quite significant) private property. Most extensive property restriction I have heard about was in Albania where citizens were prohibited from owning cars. Perhaps some theorists of Communism have suggested that private property should be further curtailed, but even they would hardly oppose people’s right to own personal belongings such as clothes or a toothbrush. Ordinary Communists happily recognise your right to own a house, for example.
Fair enough, if you don’t expect the question understood equally by everybody, it is probably a good question.
Still, I feel that your characterisations are too much based on the assumption that the proponents of all main political ideologies build their opinions around their preferences pertaining to government enforced rights. Granted, almost everybody wants some rights protected by the government, but it seems to me that a e.g. a typical European social democrat gives less attention to whether something is a right or whether it is the government who enforces it, than a typical American libertarian (not sure whether it’s the continent of origin or the political ideology which makes the difference). Perhaps it’s mainly a matter of vocabulary—the more to the left you stand the more you use “solidarity” and “justice” and the less you use “rights” and “enforce”; but saying “the government should enforce rights against encroachment by others, greater material equality, greater social good and greater individual good” sound somehow wrong as a self-described creed of a Communist. A Communist would talk about a harmonic society without exploitation and inequality as a natural state of affairs, not something the government should “enforce”.