-
I get that. But what does the 0 axis represent?
In simple terms say if I think that:
- The state should prohibit people being able to pay for education.
- The state should prohibit business from making certain types of cars
Am I a libitarian who should be way below the axis, or somewhere at least around 0 to a bit above?
Imo on that survey it is likely if you answer that you think should should be able to have an abortion and the state shouldn't control your sex life then you = libitarian. Which is a ridiculous benchmark.
- The state should prohibit people being able to pay for education.
hugo7-
Imo on that survey it is likely if you answer that you think should should be able to have an abortion and the state shouldn't control your sex life then you = libitarian. Which is a ridiculous benchmark.
Totally agree with you there. There's a lot of nuance missing when you drop economic issues and focus on purely social ones, and it doesn't help that the axis is labelled 'libertarian', which we think of as anarcho-capitalist rather than just liberals with relatively normal ideas about distribution of power, positive/negative freedoms in conflict, and distrust of both the state and of private economic power.
As for your examples:
Prohibiting private education: depends on your view of authority since it represents private privilege for a small cohort. I'd be tempted to say it's very left but pretty central, if a little up on the scale. Removing the VAT exemption and charitable status is perfectly fine as a liberal policy though.
Prohibiting certain types of cars: This falls into the zero-sum category what with space constraints and environmental cost. I think this is perfectly fine to be considered liberal because it's in conflict with the mobility and lives of others.
Liberalism isn't just individual "do what you want whenever you want", it's subject to the collective freedom of others too, hence weird shit like early liberals designing the panopticon
slippers
I think there's a misunderstanding there about what authoritarianism is, and how it relates to various forms of freedom. It's more about centralisation of power, erosion of democratic standards, and control by force without heed to the popular vote, rather than taxes (economic things broadly go on the other axis) or land use (which is naturally zero-sum and so has hard limits to individual choice anyway).
If you're arguing for greater public transport provision, the liberal/authoritarian question is whether or not you involve others in decision making and generally if the use of space is equitable. The notion of 'removing individual choice' here doesn't really make sense because there's always limited choice in a constrained space. Equally if you're pro-car in urban environments, you're right wing (unequal access) but not necessarily authoritarian.
For taxes, the liberal/authoritarian question is if it's a measure designed to limit hierarchy and control (just in the private sector this time), and whether it has popular buy-in. And while taxes obviously do require enforcement, like all government programmes, that will have to be balanced with the freedom gained elsewhere.
I don't really like the political spectrum axes to be honest, because it does get a bit muddy (economic power is a thing, so which axis is that?). And like I say, I do think it's a bit off.
Edit: I guess the tl;dr is that individuals can have policy preferences either way and that’s liberal, it’s just about an individual's power to enact their preference. Which is why the left is concerned with collective power.