The Spherical Method of Understanding Politics, Part 2

As we have seen in my previous post on this subject, political philosophy is best understood with the spherical method rather than the commonly used linear method. As the nature of the planet earth cannot be properly grasped by a linear map on a wall but by a globe, so it is that political ideology is best comprehended by envisioning a sphere, rather than a line running from left to right.

The reason for this is very clear. Just as when you travel far enough west you wind up in the east since the earth is a sphere, so it is that when you go as far as you can leftward in politics you wind up on the far right, and visa versa.

This is precisely the reason why in practice Nazi dictatorships are eerily similar to communist governments. The government is viewed as the ultimate power that controls individual choice, economics, industry, etc. It really makes no difference in practice if these totalitarian policies are carried out by a single dictator or a ruling class, i.e., the Communist Party, at the top, the result is still the same. There is very little personal freedom, no private property, no private enterprise, no free markets.

In the midst of this paradigm is a sector within the sphere that I refer to as 'the liberty sector' or 'the liberty sphere,' being a sphere within a sphere, in which human freedom is paramount and government control is resisted. Libertarianism as a philosophy, not the party, is the ultimate expression of this realm. Thomas Jefferson was the ultimate spokesman for this point of view.

Some may well question this understanding of political ideology by pointing out that those who fall within this sector of liberty are properly referred to as 'centrists' or 'moderates,' since they lie somewhere between the left and right within the sphere. This would be an erroneous observation. The way the term 'centrist' or 'moderate' is understood today assumes that its adherents have one foot in the collectivism of socialism, communism, or other totalitarian systems, and the other foot in the conservative system. While that may be true given the commonly accepted definition of terms used by most who describe these things, this analogy does not work within the spherical method. The term 'centrist' only works in the linear method of understanding politics. If you can envision a straight line and a person standing dead-center, exactly the same distance from both the left end and the right end, then you can identify the so-called 'moderate' or 'centrist.' Within the spherical method, however, this is for all practical purposes impossible to do.

The reason is clear. Both liberals and conservatives push for government control. It is the AREA of control that makes the difference. Liberals and conservatives disagree as to which area of life should fall under government control, but they both advocate for government control nonetheless. The liberal may want to outlaw any expression of racial or ethnic bigotry, but the conservative may want to outlaw any expression of sexually explicit language in movies or novels. The liberal may want to place price controls on American enterprise, but the conservative may want to outlaw a woman's right to an abortion. Both, it is to be noted, want government control over our lives to some degree.

It is clear from these examples that the rightwing actually advocates for as much government interference with out lives as liberals. This is precisely why acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who served as one of President Reagan's economic advisors, refused to accept the designation of 'conservative.' Friedman was adamant that his views were not 'conservative' but libertarian. There is a vast difference.

Today we have the most curious phenomenon of having to deal with the so-called 'socialist libertarians' and 'conservative libertarians.' This is a ghastly development within the libertarian movement for the simple reason that it dilutes and obfuscates the true nature of the term 'libertarian.' The terms 'socialist' and 'libertarian' are mutually exclusive terms. The terms 'conservative' and 'libertarian' are also mutually exclusive. In fact, I will go so far as to say that libertarian purists such as myself view these newfangled terms as heretical.

A socialist by his very nature is anti-liberty. The push for government to own the means of production, thus gradually replacing free enterprise with government programs that perform that service with tax revenues, is not congruent with the principles of liberty. The ultra-conservative who wishes to squelch free speech in the name of national security or moral concerns is every bit as anti-freedom as the socialist.

Within the liberty sector freedom is the ultimate ideal and government is its biggest enemy. This is why the Founders of this Republic insisted that government remain small. They saw the growth of big government as the ultimate threat to individual and economic liberty in the world. History has proved them correct.

From Thomas Payne, to Thomas Jefferson, to Barry Goldwater, to Ayn Rand, to Ronald Reagan, the message has been the same--human liberty is best served by small government, low taxes, private enterprise, free markets, and private property. These concepts are not 'conservative.' They are libertarian.