The True Political “Spectrum”


This pic is not the true political spectrum.

“If you go too far toward liberty, it results in anarchy… mob rule! etc.”

This is the implication one can easily draw from this image, as they have thrown “mob rule” in the same general direction as “liberty” and “anarchy.”

The “political spectrum” as it is commonly understood is false. Politics is fundamentally a dichotomy of “statism/government” and “anarchy/no government.”

Sure, “mob rule” might take place “in anarchy,” but how would it be any different than democracy, or some “totalitarian state” just taking over, i.e. “Government” ?

It just goes to show that this “political spectrum” – which is pretty standard, or at least very closely based on what is generally the standard, makes very little if any sense.

As mentioned, a true schematic of “political philosophies” would be a dichotomy split between “A State” and “No State,” or “authoritarianism” and “liberty” – the two do not “intermingle” or cross-over, they are fundamentally opposed.

It’s not a gradient, these are the only two actually opposing, base positions.

Everything to the “left” of anarchy on this image are fundamentally the same in that the philosophy advocates there be a State.

The purported differences on the “statist” or “authoritarian” side are merely variances in propaganda and state intrusion; all states intrude in “the market” by nature/definition, so all “cross overs” into that realm (statism) are fundamentally the same in that they advocate a violent monopoly forcing itself on everyone else. The other side, “Libertarianism,” (or “Anarchy”), etc., theoretically includes no violent monopolists in “society,”  i.e., no State.

And on top of all (literally, in a graphical/hierarchical sense) of it, would be “Anarchy” – since we always exist in anarchy. This graph actually inadvertently implies that by allocating “mob rule” under “anarchy” – when “mob rule” is the same thing as “democracy,” i.e., “Government.”

We never really “leave” anarchy – states are just a product of superstition: a violent monopolist whose alleged purpose is to prevent at least violence, sometimes also monopoly. They violate anarchist principles, but they do not, in fact, “stop anarchy.” That is, they do not “control society,” there is no telling what people might do.

I also find the placement of the U.S. flag interesting. The U.S. is moderate? Meaning what? Moderate overlord?

Apparently “Moderate” means “half way to totalitarianism!”

It doesn’t make any sense.

Redblood Blackflag

P.S. It would be interesting to me to find out if the person who drew this up was a “libertarian” or “minarchist.” I’d be willing to bet they were, due to their general understanding that “fascism” and “communism” are fundamentally the same. This would make the allocation of “mob rule” in the direction of “liberty” that much more peculiar, since one could assume they had a predilection for liberty.

A few other observations: I find it interesting that even within this pic, the dichotomy I speak of seems to exist, if we assume “libertarian” means there is a so called “limited government,” which I did because of the seemingly negative connation of “mob rule.” I imagine the creator meant this to be the case, and viewed this to be bad. My assumptions may be mistaken, but this has been articulated in debate before.

I would like to note, however, that sometimes “the mob” is right (though never when they are the ones initiating force).

If mob rule has negative connotations, the creator, alongside implying total freedom would mean “bad mob rule,” implies “total freedom” would be bad. Again, my assumptions may be wrong, but this has also been articulate by statists before.

Save as PDFPrint

Written by 

Eliott Travis is dedicated to drawing light to the self-contradictory and violent nature of the belief in “Government,” as well as contributing analysis of current events.