Introducing the Political Spectrum

[Kyran]

Greetings ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to present you the results of my latest development in political science. Some of you may be familiar with the five-division chart located on various political websites (www.ontheissues.org, www.lp.org, etc.) The new chart is more accurate, and you will be the first online community to see it.

Pardon my crude ASCII, if you want the actual image you can email me.

|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|___Libertarian___|____Fusionist____|___Conservative__|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|____Radical____|____Moderate____|___Traditionalist___|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|_____Liberal____|____Socialist____|_____Populist____|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|

The top row of this chart represents the Economic Freedom Bracket; those who value capitalism. The bottom row represents the Economic Equality Bracket; those who value socialism. The middle row includes those who see just as much good and evil in both capitalism and socialism.

The left-hand column is the Personal Freedom Bracket. The right-hand column is the Personal Equality Bracket.

Political Affiliations:
--GOP: Traditionalists with a minority of conservatives and populists
--DNC: Liberals with a minority of socialists and populists
--LP: Libertarians and radicals
--GP: Radicals and liberals
--CP: Conservatives and traditionalists

Aliases:
--Radicals: Libertarian-socialists
--Populists: Authoritarians, Communists, Fascist, Nazi
--Traditionalists: Authoritarian-conservatives, Neocons, Compassionate Conservatives
--Conservative: Paleo-conservative

So how do we utilize this chart?

First determine the (X,Y) of an issue. Issues have one or two aspects: Personal and Economic. Abortion in the personal aspect includes the pregnant while abortion in the economic aspect includes the doctor. Taxes are an Economic issue, while Gay Marriage is a Personal issue.

Count up the total Economic or Personal Equality and Freedom an individual believes in. The more issues the better. This is useful for recruiting into political parties, debate, and verifying a politician's honesty. Remarkably, alignments also tend to reflect religious beliefs; but do not necessarily define whether a person is religious or not. Liberal episcopalians contrast with traditional catholics & baptists on homosexuality among other issues and doctrine.

Why did you make this post?

To even the scales. I can anticipate responses due to my understanding of human nature. This chart gives you a portion of my perception. One cannot guess blindly how another will respond to their arguments and expect to win. Debate is a chess game of concepts. Always know your opponent, the pieces he uses, and his strategy.

Isn't that a bit arrogant to say?

It would be if I played only to win. I like losing just as much; that way I get to tell which one of my pieces to drop. This forum will be very useful in test-driving my concepts; and I am not afraid of losing any.

First up is this chart. Let's see if any brainiacs out there can punch a hole in it.

Good luck

[RebelWithanAK]

I hate to tell you, but your spectrum sucks. Take a political science class or something.

[percivale]

This is a great link to "World's Smallest Political Quiz."

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

It is suprisingly accurate.

percivale

[foadi]

Here's mine:

|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|_ Those who want people to be controlled_|__Those who have no such desire__|
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|


The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

[Edge]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Greetings ladies and gentlemen,

Political Affiliations:
--GOP: Traditionalists with a minority of conservatives and populists
--DNC: Liberals with a minority of socialists and populists
--LP: Libertarians and radicals
--GP: Radicals and liberals
--CP: Conservatives and traditionalists

<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

A few things,

First. Congratulations on recognizing that traditionalists, not conservatives, are the core of the Republican party.

Second. Moderate does not exist as a political philosophy.

Third. Conservatives and Libertarians are not on the same rung of the economic liberty scale. The test a previous post linked would make this apparent.

Fourth. Currently, the politicians who compose the DNC are predominantly socialists, not liberals. Ditto for the Greens.

Other than that. I thought the art was cute and not a bad start, but I don't think that a simple 2D matrix is going to do it. A 3d might get closer, but I think the basic problem is that even within the different social/economic categories you will have different scores, just like the libertarians and conservatives that you have on the same level. Ditto for the socialists and liberals.

Good Luck.
Edge.

[Kyran]

Rebel, can't you argue your point of view without getting personal? How does my spectrum "suck" anywhere near as much as your ridiculous response? It's derived from the one in Percivale's link, so by your logic both charts suck? Also, in case you didn't notice, the point of submitting this is to verify it's accuracy. So if you really think you know better, let's hear it.

Percivale, there is a reason why that quiz is accurate. Their chart was the basis for my advancement. Radicals like Thom Hartmann do not fit into the Liberal or Libertarian bracket (http://www.thomhartmann.com/radicalmiddle.shtml). If you can see this, you'll understand the need for a better political spectrum.

Foadi, your comparison is binary. I want politicians to be controlled by the letter of the constitution. I want thieves to be controlled by a nice filthy state prison. Apparently, this doesn't suit you?

Those who commit force or fraud must face a system of justice. If people didn't lie, cheat, rape, steal, and murder then there wouldn't be a demand to control them. I'm guessing you are a liberal.

Cmon people, all it takes to blow my argument away is ONE person who doesn't fit into my chart.

[shonk]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

Cmon people, all it takes to blow my argument away is ONE person who doesn't fit into my chart.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Anarchists.

Oh, and foadi a liberal? That's a laugh.

[AnonT]

Well, anarchists typically want no rulers, therefore no government, therefore no politics. Wanting no politics kind of exempts you from placement on a political spectrum, although I suppose you could say they're just a little past Libertarianism.

Anyway, nice recap of the 2d political spectrum, but it's still basically the same as David Nolan's 2d political spectrum and a few other thinkers (some even before him) made similar spectrums.

Anyway, AK, as a political science major, while a 2d political spectrum may not be perfect it's a hell of a lot better than any linear (ie. left-right) political spectrum. A 3d spectrum might work better (options include militarism vs pacifism or interventionism vs isolationism, among others), but this is a step in the right direction that's easier to put down on paper. But, hey, since you chose to personally attack Kyran instead of just offering your disagreement, allow me to add a "go fuck yourself" to that. Sorry if that's considered flaming; I won't say it again if you'll refrain from personally attacking people, especially when you have no basis for your attack. Thanks.

As for "moderate" not being considered a political viewpoint, I kind of agree. Moderates aren't exactly a unified political or ideological voice, certainly nothing like True Neutrals in D&D are. It would be nice to see a system that differentiated between apathetic moderates and people who have an ideology that's relatively moderate. Perhaps that could be an option for a third dimension? Someone who cares about politics is obviously going to act differently than someone who has loose political beliefs, so apathy is definitely as important to explaining political behavior as political ideology.

[RebelWithanAK]

AnonT, as a political science major, I'm surprised giant warning klaxons didn't sound in your head when you saw what the guy chose as "synonyms" of political philosophy:</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kryan)
Aliases:
--Radicals: Libertarian-socialists
--Populists: Authoritarians, Communists, Fascist, Nazi
--Traditionalists: Authoritarian-conservatives, Neocons, Compassionate Conservatives
--Conservative: Paleo-conservative<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>1) Radical is not a political philosophy. Radicals are the opposite of Moderates, and Moderate is not a political philosophy. They are just markers to distinguish between distance from the status quo.
1a) Libertarian-Socialists are Anarchists. Spain had a movement in that. But as they are Radical, so are Fascists. Italy had a movement in that. But Fascism isn't Anarchism, is it?
2) Neo-Conservativism is not a political philosophy, but the title American Liberals have given the current administration, which is obviously not traditional Conversative.
2a) Compassionate Conservativism isn't a political philosophy, but a buzzword from the current White House administration.
3) If you think Communists and Fascists are one and the same, you really don't know what you're talking about.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kryan)
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|___Libertarian___|____Fusionist____|___Conservative__|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|____Radical____|____Moderate____|___Traditionalist___|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|
|_____Liberal____|____Socialist____|_____Populist____|
|-------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If the scale of economic freedom is top to bottom, and the scale of personal freedom is left to right, the thing would roughly look like this:

Anarchism | Republic | Fascism
Democracy | NSEGITC | Dictatorship
Socialism | Communism | Totalitarianism

Nothing Should Ever Go In The Center, as everything leans some way. Now, this is a tiny graph, just as yours was. If you want to have it really show what people fall under, you have to explode it - to fill out that Anarcho-Syndicalism, Social Democracies, Parliamentary Democracies, Democratic Socialism, Imperialism, all the styles of Republican models, various flavors of Despotism and Autocratic rule, and the like.

However, we already have several models to do that already, and yours is more biased than most. If you really wanted to be progressive in this, you could add a third axis. The first axis was Liberal <-> Conservative, the two axes turned to be economic/personal freedom; perhaps the third would be economic/personal freedom plus representation. After all, policies on various social or economic liberties don't amount to diddley-squat without the right to vote/assembly.

Democracy, for instance, would then be placed dead center (ie: the status quo) for the first two axes, and far out towards full representation (within limits). Various forms of benevolent dictatorships could not be far from the center for the first two, but in the opposite direction for the third. Then we would really be able to battle more effectively on what goes where.

But your current one still sucks.

[Anarchist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
1a) Libertarian-Socialists are Anarchists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That's odd. I'm not a libertarian-socialist.

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shonk,)
Anarchists.

Oh, and foadi a liberal? That's a laugh.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Anyone wanting an end to all government would have to value all their freedoms; putting them off the deep end of libertarianism. That's old news though.

Rebel,

Radicalism means one sees just as much good and evil in capitalism and socialism while desiring personal freedom. Specifically pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-drug prohibition, and neutral to social programs.

Radicals are not the opposite of moderates. Radicals are the opposite of traditionalists...like Bush. Which is why they don't like anything about him.

An example of a moderate (neutral to all political issues) is a child who hasn't learned to read yet. Everyone is born a moderate

Liberals did not invent the term Neocon. Check (www.conservative.org) the ACU's website. Conservatives have been using it for quite some time. Trust me on this, if you verify it you'll see I'm right. Neocons honestly believe in creating and fixing social programs...which is absolutely opposed to conservatism.

I am delighted you added your two cents in. Your chart translation is very interesting, but I have just one problem with it. Fascism according to dictionary.com includes socioeconomic controls; so it's not a capitalism-lover. Perhaps you have another item that would fill it's place? Also, what precisely leads you to believe that socialism has more personal freedom than communism? I've never read anything that suggested such. But if you're right, I'd be glad to adjust my chart.

I tried to conceive of adding a third axis several times but didn't have the right variable. The desire for form of representation derives FROM one's beliefs in Personal and Economic freedom. It can't be the third axis. Forms of government derive from the 2d chart too; that's why you were able to overlay it so easily. Since these axes encompass political beliefs, perhaps any new axes would have to involve something entirely new. Well, what about it? How many different types of beliefs can we categorize in the human psyche?

[RebelWithanAK]

Radical: (n) One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.

Radicalism: (n) The political orientation of those who favor revolutionary change in government and society.

Radicals can go both ways. An Islamic fundamentalist is still a radical. Ask Iran.

Being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-prohibition does not make one a radical, it just makes one a social liberal. Libertarians, by their definition, take those issues to heart as they are examples of governmental control, yet Libertarians are by no stretch of the imagination radical.

And I still stand that a Moderate is not a political philosophy; it is the lack of a political philosophy. Just like Radicalism isn't a political philosophy, it just defines the existence of a fairly extreme political philosophy. Radical Socialism, for instance, is more "out there" than, say, Democratic Socialism. Babies may be moderates, but that's 'cause they don't know anything.

As for Fascism, Corporatism also invokes socio-economic controls (ask modern Japan, Germany), but the companies are still far freer than, say, State Socialism or Despotism. Fascism, I view, is a radical (see? radicalism) militaristic form of Imperialism, and Imperialism is all about an expansionist economy. Ask Bechtel and McDonnell Douglas.

And Kyran, we in this Republic here - we do have the right to vote and a right to assembly, but we also have a very large history with radical Protestants and a huge taboo about sodomy. So, while we do have great political freedom, we do not have, say, the right for gays to marry, nor the right to public nudity, nor the right to smoke a joint. That's why I suggested as such. Of course, any other ideas would be fine...

[Vercingetorix]

You didn't really change anything with that chart, just gave more definition to what you see on a 2d chart and reversed it at y=x and a little more.

I've tried to think what you could do with a 3d chart; representation wouldn't be right, necessarily; generally if you favor personal and economic freedom, you will favor some form of democracy, whether pure or representational. Morals may work there, though; however, that would be kinda hard to place, as, again, if you favor legislating morals, it could be placed using authoritarianism/libertarianism as well.

[Comrade]

Rebel with AK, it seems to me you are a bit hung up on definitions.
You don't want to have a dictionary define how you think or how you use words.
In regards to "Radicals," while fundamentalism and such do comes to mind, radical in the political sense does not have to mean radical in the adjectory sense.
If you want an example of what I mean, have you ever met someone who insisted that, "Gay REALLY means happy, it says so in the dictionary (so you're using the word wrong)," when if people are using it to mean homosexual than happy is not what the word "really" means. Words are ideas, not the other way around.

A 3d chart is hard for me to imagine. It would need be more of a Venn(?) Diagram than a real chart.

[RebelWithanAK]

Comrade, when I say person X has radical views, I mean he has extreme views.

Sorry, but I speak English.

Your concept of Radicals in the Berkeley sense fails to realise that those 'Radicals' actually abide by (a considerable number of) political doctrines that already have defined titles and definitions. For the same reason that "American Indian" is not a nation, "Radical" is not a political doctrine.

By the by, Liberals did entitle the current wave of Conservatives "neo-cons," though their political doctrine isn't in any way new.

[AnonT]

Rebel:
You're probably right that radical is not a strict political philosophy, in the sense that libertarianism or fascism or democratic republicanism would be. However, the word is generally used to mean an extremely leftist philosophy, so Kyran's use isn't entirely off. It could probably be replaced by something better, though.
However, your attempt to replace it with "democratic" doesn't really fit. The reason that different forms of government don't fit well on that chart is that the same type of government can end up with extremely different policies. As one of the Greek philosophers (I think it was Aristotle, not entirely sure because it's 2am) explained, democracy generally ends up with the populace voting themselves money out of the public treasury. This means redistribution of wealth and high levels of economic control (even if it ends up being fairly sloppy economic control). So, a democracy under that situation would end up in the "controlled economy" row. However, a democracy made up of enlightened individuals (not likely, I admit) would intentionally avoid that scenario, and may end up in the "free market" row. That same democracy may be made up of mostly traditionalist voters who will outlaw sodomy, abortion, etc., putting it in the strict social control column, or it may be made up of free thinkers and social liberals and end up in the socially libertarian row.
Same thing goes for a republic. The people may vote in leaders who become oppressive, they may even really want to choose leaders who will outlaw a variety of things, control the economy, etc., or they may want to choose leaders who will give them free rein in a variety of areas. Heck, unless it's a constitutional republic, they may even want leaders who will oppress minorities.
If give any credit to the theory fo an enlightened monarchy, you could even end up with a dictatorship that runs a libertarian government. There have been many dictatorships in history that have basically given their people free reign to do anything but insult the dictator, and there have been others where a dictator has had almost total control over people's lives. The form a government takes has some influence over how policies are developed, but it's not a strict control over which policies develop.
You'd be better off using one spectrum to define policy, and another to define form of government.

As for the form of government spectrum, the best way I can think of is to have one column for the level of control the people have over their leaders, and another for the level of control the leaders have over their people. So:
Anarchy | Democracy
Tribalism | Constitutional Republic
Dictatorship | Republic
Under anarchy, the people have no control over their leaders and the leaders have no control over their people because there are no leaders.
Under democracy, the people have total control, with no real organized leadership to control them.
Under dictatorship, the ruler(s) has total control over his people, the people have no control.
Under a republic, the people choose their leaders and can replace them, and the leaders control the people's lives.
Constitutional republicanism would fall somewhere between a democracy and a republic, as it limits the leaders' control over the people without limiting the people's control over their leaders.
Under tribalism, the people generally have no choice over who their leader will be, and hte leader has some control, but not usually total control as there isn't enough of a power structure to exercise more than minimal authority.

Feel free to criticise that (contructively, please), as it's more of a rough draft than anything. That, and I couldn't think of a middle column.

Anyway, as for the policy spectrum, I think the best way of classifying areas of the 2d spectrum that I've seen basically follows Nolan's chart, but without the moderate section in the middle (basically, start by dividing it into fourths). Then, in each quarter, there's an "extreme" and a "moderate" category. So, in the libertarian corner, the more extreme half is libertarian and the less extreme half is usually classified as entrepreneurial (wanting plenty of freedom with some protection for those who try new things). In the authoritarian corner, the more extreme half is totalitarian, the less extreme half is authoritarian (it can also be broken left-right, with the leftist side being communist or extreme marxist and the right side being fascist). I forget how the left and right corners were divided, but I think the right corner was divided between fundamentalists and traditionalists. Left corner could probably be socialist vs democratic socialist, but I'm not sure I really like that division.

Oh, and fascists did use economic control. They nationalized many industries, had government run labor camps, price controls, etc. Their controls weren't of as socialistic a nature as Communist economic controls were, but they still had control.

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Radicalism: (n) The political orientation of those who favor revolutionary change in government and society.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If it were in the dictionary as I have described it, then I wouldn't be purporting anything new.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-prohibition does not make one a radical<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I didn't say that...those are not the primary factors. The fundamental difference between libertarians and radicals is their position on capitalism (economic freedom) and socialism (economic equality.) Both still have to value personal freedom.

My lead singer is radical. He's an old friend dating back to my high school years; who I haven't talked to since those days. We discussed news for about 10 minutes then I told him what he thought about capitalism and personal freedom. I was 100% accurate. It works for me...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And I still stand that a Moderate is not a political philosophy; it is the lack of a political philosophy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I know, but that's not how moderates see it. They see it as "I don't care about politics." It seems biased to me to be exclusive of them.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Babies may be moderates, but that's 'cause they don't know anything. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

See, it DOES work doesn't it? =) Moderates don't tend to know too much about politics either...regardless of the interval in space-time wherein their parents conceived them.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As for Fascism, Corporatism also invokes socio-economic controls (ask modern Japan, Germany), but the companies are still far freer than, say, State Socialism or Despotism. Fascism, I view, is a radical (see? radicalism) militaristic form of Imperialism, and Imperialism is all about an expansionist economy. Ask Bechtel and McDonnell Douglas. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Imperialism DOES sound like it would fit. Now you're cookin! Classic conservatives and trade embargos...perfect. I'm sold.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And Kyran, we in this Republic here - we do have the right to vote and a right to assembly, but we also have a very large history with radical Protestants and a huge taboo about sodomy. So, while we do have great political freedom, we do not have, say, the right for gays to marry, nor the right to public nudity, nor the right to smoke a joint. That's why I suggested as such. Of course, any other ideas would be fine...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I understand what you're saying. My perspective is that our Rights are inherent within ourselves; being that we must choose to surrender them or fight for them.

Just because there is no institution decreeing the doctrine doesn't mean the beliefs aren't real. Radicals don't perceive their own shared beliefs as anything but rebellion against the norm. Sure you can say Radical and mean Extreme. No problem. But since you don't have a better word for this, it's going to stick.

Also note that radicals can go liberal or libertarian...it's a fork in the road. How do I know that? Neutrality to economic freedom/equality precedes decision. Simple isn't it?

Commie, go get Yumi; we'll see if his english holds up to par.

Vercing,

Precisely, that's the point: to get into specifics better. If one values freedom at all they'll desire democratic or republic forms of government. The 2d chart includes people who do NOT value freedom as well. There is no 3rd axis because this includes everybody.

The challenge before us is calculating the exact paths from moderate to hardcore one can take to get into each philosophy. Hahaha, I should say the challenge before YOU; I've already started.

Feel free to suggest ideas folks. There's only one of me, and this requires a lot of brainpower.

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT)
You're probably right that radical is not a strict political philosophy, in the sense that libertarianism or fascism or democratic republicanism would be. However, the word is generally used to mean an extremely leftist philosophy, so Kyran's use isn't entirely off. It could probably be replaced by something better, though.
However, your attempt to replace it with "democratic" doesn't really fit.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>1) I already said that the 'Radical' title in the Berkeley sense is a title given them by outsiders, and that they themselves have a plethora of different and competing (yet fairly extreme) political philosophies. Thus, you're lumping a bunch of scattershot doctrines with a word that doesn't accurately define them. 2) I'm not attempting to replace "radical" with "democratic," I just suggested something for a third axis, so as to differentiate Kyran's spectrum from the ones already out in a way other than his bias.</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT)
Oh, and fascists did use economic control. They nationalized many industries, had government run labor camps, price controls, etc. Their controls weren't of as socialistic a nature as Communist economic controls were, but they still had control.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>In war, our Republic nationalized industries and controlled prices, too. That's a mark of pragmatism more than anything else. But the evolution of Fascism as a political doctrine is economically-driven. Fascists are militaristic expansionists, using draconian controls and propoganda to tie down the population as they set loose the war machine. In that sense, they're very much less free than Imperialism when it comes to social freedom (since usually the control's based on fear of X, X being any number of things: Foreigners, racial minorities, etc) but they are essentially fulfilling the Imperialistic doctrine with the gloves off.

Kyran, you can't really use "Moderate" because, as the lack of a political designation, you can't really pin down a definition of the people's views on the issues pertinent to your scale.

[Edge]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)

Same thing goes for a republic. The people may vote in leaders who become oppressive, they may even really want to choose leaders who will outlaw a variety of things, control the economy, etc., or they may want to choose leaders who will give them free rein in a variety of areas. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I believe that what you are describing is a representative democracy, not a republic.

Pure Democracy: everybody who wants votes on everything.
Rep Democracy: everybody who wants votes for representatives who vote for them.
Republic: representatives from smaller, relatively autonomous units vote in the interests of that unit as part of a larger entity. The smaller units could be democratic, republican, communes, or any number of other governmental types.
Federation: formed by a compact between political units that surrender their individual sovereignty to a central authority but retain limited residuary powers of government

The intial form of government of United States was a constitutional representative democratic republic. You may recall seeing a copy of the Unanimous Declaration of the several united States of America, also known as the Declaration of Independance. You may also recall that the capitalization emphasized the States and not the united portion of the text. Recent, and not so recent, decisions by judicial activists, and the questionable passage of the 16th ammendment have pretty much moved the balance of power to that of a representative democratic federation. The beauty of the original was that it provided for states that competed for people and proposerity, while providing the protection and influence of being a part of the larger political entity. States competed on the basis of taxes, freedom, patriotism (to the state ie: Virginia, Texas, etc.) and religion (most of the original 13 states had an official state Christian denomination). That competition has dulled by the rising powers of the federal government.

Now that states cannot compete on significant issues, the whole of the country is largely held captive to the tyrany to the votes of the majority, and the judicial activism of the minority. Each a danger to liberty in itself.

[Comrade]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran)

Commie, go get Yumi; we'll see if his english holds up to par.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

=)


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

You may also recall that the capitalization emphasized the States and not the united portion of the text. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is something that has always bothered me, the arguement that, "This is how the Founding Fathers ORIGINALLY planned it."

Almost wishey-washey.