<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Kai, LFalen et. al.<BR>
<BR>
LFalen wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"When I took political Science fron Dr. Robert Hosack many moons ago, he described the varying shades of political views as a circle. going from the main stream to the left is toward more colectivism: to the right is less big government. At 180 degrees from main stream is anarchism. this is where left and right meet at the extreme of ether side. The main steam has been shifting towards the left, which is where some republicans are under your definition of left leaning."<BR>
<BR>
This analysis does not explore what "right wing" means with precision, nor does it recognize that the strong meaning of "left wing" or "right wing" is often not "anarchism." Anarchism is a different theory of political and economic organization that I do not think should be described as just an extreme version of either "left" or "right." An extreme version of Left Wing can mean total control of all economic and personal life by a government. This is not "anarchism," and this simple example reveals that the outline you offered fails to account for the obvious possibilities in the political/economic organization of a society.<BR>
<BR>
When we consider the extreme versions of "right wing" organization, there are times it appears that left and right do meet. Consider this dictionary definition of "right wing:"<BR>
<B><BR>
right wing</B><BR>
<BR>
n : those who support political or social or economic conservatism; those who believe that things are better left unchanged [syn: <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right">right</A>]<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn">Source</A>: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University <BR>
<BR>
The form of society advocated by Doug Wilson/Doug Jones and company is "right wing" according to the above definition. Christ Church and their form of Presbyterian Trinitarianism advocated is an attempt to return to an earlier system of organizing society they feel is the truth. They oppose many of the changes being promoted by the Enlightenment and Progressivism. This is an almost classical form of "conservatism," yet there is a powerful element of "collectivism" (left wing?) in how they try to impose their order. <BR>
<BR>
Odd that Christ Church members who assert they are libertarians, such as Dale Courtney, are lending their support to extreme limitations on personal liberty, clearly an approach contradicting libertarian philosophy, with its staunch insistence on maximizing the liberty of the individual against externally imposed authority. So while Christ Church and Wilson are "conservatives," the collectivist impositions they impose on the members of their church are similar to what "big government" might enforce, but on a much much smaller scale: e. g. women are denied leadership roles and certain sexual orientations are banished: well, at least if they stand up in Christ Church and announce they are Gay, with no intention to change, they might be "exiled" from the church.<BR>
<BR>
I think Wilson/Jones's Christ Church can fall under the description of an extreme "right wing" ideology, yet they display elements of what an extreme 'left wing" government might try to impose to limit its citizens freedoms. They are therefore most definitely not libertarians.<BR>
<BR>
To return to the notion that left and right meet in anarchism, it is clear that Christ Church, while being classically extreme "right wing" and "conservative," and also "collectivist" in their impositions on personal freedom, they are most definitely not "anarchists," again an example where LFalen's suggestion that extreme left and right meet in anarchism breaks down.<BR>
<BR>
Given the complexity of possible and existent political/economic organization, a rethinking of the labels we employ for differing political/economic ideologies is useful. Consider that modern corporate capitalism features global economic entities that have the power of "governments" to impact the lives of human beings. Exxon/Mobil has more power globally than many of the nation states of our world today. So the question is not just more or less "big government." <BR>
<BR>
We need to at least ask the question, do you want big government or big corporations or neither controlling your life? It is possible to have a society with a weak government that features a small group of very powerful "capitalist free market" corporations controlling many of the dominant economic aspects of society, imposing their authority on individuals (third world tribal rights get trampled) do to their domination of economic options. This situation is not traditionally left wing, not right wing in the sense of "conservatism" (modern corporations are actually agents of radical change and reorganization of society), not libertarian (modern large scale corporations impose a lot of control over individual freedoms), nor anarchist. How about "multinational corporate capitalist collectivism?" This label, with its blatant contradictions, is just an attempt to break away from the stereotypes of political/economic ideology that appear to limit the perceptions of what is occurring in fact in our current political/economic globalized world.<BR>
<BR>
Given the complexities of political/economic organization perhaps we should abandon using "left" and "right" as though all systems fit somewhere inside the parameters of these terms. We could use an x/y grid to outline four different political/economic orientations of varying mixtures and extremes, based on regulation of economic activity and personal freedom. You can pick X or Y to represent either economic or personal freedom, but as X or Y goes positive there is more freedom, as they go negative there is less:<BR>
<BR>
Libertarian: Minimum regulation of economics and personal liberty. Here we see similarity <BR>
to anarchism in some respects, which might connect with LFalen's suggestion <BR>
that right and left meet in anarchism. But I think this is only true in a very <BR>
specially defined understanding of "right" and "left."<BR>
<BR>
Green Or Democratic Socialism: Much more regulation of economic activity, while <BR>
maintaining maximum possible personal freedoms, though the classic <BR>
response is that economic activity is a critical aspect of personal <BR>
freedoms, therefore this approach has a fundamental flaw.<BR>
<BR>
Modern<BR>
Republican: Less regulation of economic activity, more regulation of personal lives and civil <BR>
liberties, though the intersection of economic regulation and the restrictions <BR>
on personal liberty impact the economic sphere dramatically. For example,<BR>
legal and taxed cannabis would impact economics profoundly, yet <BR>
government insistence on restricting what many believe to be an issue of <BR>
personal liberty limits the legal economic options, in effect becoming a <BR>
dramatic limitation on economic freedom. Furthermore, large scale<BR>
economic entities in the marketplace can limit the success of small<BR>
scale economic opportunities, e. g. Wal-Mart, which leads us to <BR>
more theoretical complexity when regulation of economics can induce more <BR>
freedom for what some would consider positive forms of economic entities<BR>
that offer the individual more freedom of choice for work and lifestyle.<BR>
Government regulation of economics can limit too much control by gigantic <BR>
economics powers, leading to more freedom in the marketplace for some<BR>
kinds of economic entities, an argument a Green party member might make.<BR>
<BR>
Left Wing in the strong sense: <BR>
Big government control of economic activity and personal<BR>
freedom: the former Soviet Union or China, though China now is an odd<BR>
example of a mixture of Communist one party state control <BR>
& unbridled capitalism, a good example to demonstrate<BR>
political complexity breaking stereotypes.<BR>
<BR>
+<BR>
! Y: Economic Freedom<BR>
Modern !<BR>
Republican ! Libertarian<BR>
! X: Personal Freedom<BR>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +<BR>
!<BR>
Left Wing ! Green<BR>
Extreme ! <BR>
! <BR>
<BR>
No doubt there are many theoretical problems with the above scheme for positioning political/economic ideology. It is probably too simple. We might need to add another axis to accommodate another variable, perhaps, in a 3-D space, or pick different variables for the x/y or x/y/z space.<BR>
<BR>
And though we can find governments in our world that somewhat fit (reality never fits the procrustean bed of theoretical ideology in politics) left wing extreme (N. Korea), Green or Socialist Democracy (Canada), and Modern Republican (USA), what nation on earth truly represents Libertarian?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>