The Freedom Scale: An Introduction

There have been a lot of attempts to chart the political spectrum. Usually, the conventional
wisdom goes something like this:

Politics is on a continuum. The further left you go away from the center point, the
closer you get to communism. The further right you go, the closer you get to fascism.
communism

fascism
Some, with only slightly more sophistication, will describe it as a circle. They'll say that because
of the similarity between the aforementioned totalitarian systems, we should show them near
each other, so they make the line into a circle.

source: http://members.cox.net/jayc1832/The%20Political%20Circle.jpg

Both of these are false depictions.

In fact, Stalin and the international communist movement—and the useful idiots thereof—are
entirely responsible for this colossal falsehood. The whole thing was a political sleight of hand,
designed to demonize the fascists as "right-wing" because international socialism was under
threat of losing out to national socialism.

Both fascism and communism are flavors of the same ideological provenance. Both were
competing to fill the same role, in the same social "battlespace." In other words, both are
phenomena of the left.

Unfortunately, because the left in the west were so taken with international socialism—
especially after WWII had discredited fascism, for which many had previously also had a
fondness—they drank deep of this kool-aid. And once our professors, movies, and media
started telling us it was that fascism was "right-wing," we all started saying it.

Indeed, to say that the further right you go, the closer you get to fascism, is patently absurd.

The center-right favors smaller government, property rights, and individual sovereignty. How
could it possibly be, then, that the further you get to the extremes of those beliefs, the closer
you get to their opposite? Fascism is a collectivist ideology in which individual rights are
diminished and the state is expanded. It's not quite as far down the road as communism, in that
in fascist states there is still some private ownership of the means of production allowed . . .
though only if those owners play ball with the fascist government's program.

How does any of that have anything to do with smaller government, property rights, and
individual sovereignty?

It simply does not. The further right you move, the smaller government becomes. This takes you
through libertarianism, direct democracy, and eventually . . . anarchy. Not fascism.

Others have tried a yet more sophisticated approach, graphing political ideologies on a chart
wherein the Y axis ranges from totalitarian at one end and individualist on the other and the X
axis ranges from collective ownership (socialist) to private ownership (capitalist).

Totalitarianism
(–) personal freedom

Capitalism
Socialism

(–) economic freedom (+) economic freedom

(+) personal freedom

Individualism

This approach has more merit, to be sure, and it can be useful. However, in the end, it runs into
a problem, as can be seen in the following example:

source: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-images/spectrum/pol_matrix_pop.png

This version is, by and large, a not unreasonable assessment of many of the players listed
therein. We may quibble a bit here and there, but it has the virtue of not being like others charts
of its kind, which place George Bush just a jack-boot's length from Adolf Hitler, and depict Hitler
as being an ardent capitalist—both wildly inaccurate assessments.

However, even this version has a fundamental problem, not with its assessments, but with the
entire premise. Ignoring Karl Marx, for the moment, you will see dispersal along a more-or-less
s-curved column from upper-left to lower right, with very little activity in the lower left and upper
right. These "null spaces" are there for a pair of quite simple reasons:

1. Socialism and individual liberty don't mix.

It is very hard to be in favor of massive personal freedom and yet be a proponent of a command
economy. How do you nationalize all industry without taking away people's freedoms? If I do
not want my business nationalized, how can I still be free if it is taken from me against my will?

Thus, if we get closer to the socialist end of the scale, we must also get closer to the totalitarian.

2. Totalitarianism and economic liberty don't mix either.

Similarly, is it actually possible to be far to the totalitarian end of such a scale and also to be a
devoted capitalist? Once a government (or leader) becomes authoritarian enough, can a truly
free market system continue to flourish in that society?

At the far end of the scale, towards authoritarianism, capitalism becomes less possible.

Thus, we see null zones, as depicted in this simplified version:

Totalitarianism

null
(–) personal freedom

Capitalism
Socialism

(–) economic freedom (+) economic freedom

(+) personal freedom

null

Individualism

Briefly, back to Marx.

The author of Liberty Papers chart above probably put Marx where he did because in Marx'
conception, the state would eventually wither away after the destruction of capitalism. This, of
course, turned out to be Marx' Magical Journey Through Fantasy Land. In reality, where the rest
of us live, the states his ideology spawned were enormous and completely totalitarian.

In another version, however, we do see activity in the socialist + individualist corner:

source: http://emceelynx.circlealpha.com/graphics/politicalspectrum.jpg

Once again, we have this problem with the dichotomy between fantasy and reality. Adherents to
notions such as anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism may fancy their systems possible, but in
reality, human nature makes them difficult to maintain. In the end, as is the case with all
systems that try to control economic activity, that control must be enforced, thus limiting
individual freedom.

It also opens the door for the obvious joke: a guy walks into an Anarchist Party meeting. The
take roll and read the minutes of last meeting, then they join together in an anarchist salute,
followed by votes on officers and a new logo . . .

In other words, people who claim to be anarchists don't know the definition of the word, and
enforced anarchy isn't anarchy at all. And it certainly isn't freedom of any kind.

Similarly, the above chart places Nazi Germany and Fascist far too close to the capitalist end of
the spectrum. Both Mussolini and Hitler, while opportunistic, were primarily socialist in their
economic outlook, and capitalists and the bourgeoisie were, at best, useful engines to exploit.

The above chart at least has the virtue of being somewhat responsible and well-thought out. In
terms of other offerings on the political spectrum, it's all pretty much downhill from here—with
choices ranging from the somewhat silly to the profoundly absurd. Again and again, a web
search reveals self-serving spectra that depict philosophies of the left—philosophies that clearly
necessitate greater amounts of government force to impose—as somehow being closer to the
"individual liberty" end of the spectrum.

Why this incredibly low degree of self-awareness among so many thinkers on the left? Why
would so many believe their philosophy to be the greater supporter of individual liberty? In many
cases, probably for no other reason than that they would like to believe—and have convinced
themselves—that it is so.

So, if all of these other spectra fail, then what should the political continuum look like?

An X-Y graph that accepts or depicts these null spaces? A circle? A line? Something 3-D?

The conclusions discussed above about these null spaces should ring in our heads:

Total economic control is incompatible with personal freedom.

Total economic freedom is incompatible with a lack of personal freedom.

Freedom. Freedom is the common factor. It's the most basic human question.

We're trying to create scales depicting the degree to which an economy is free vs. the degree to
which a government allows personal freedom. But style of government and modes of
economics are just different expressions of one fundamental question:

How much individual freedom?

There is only one scale. There has always only been one scale. It is the Freedom Scale.

See Part 1: The Freedom Scale at www.modernconservative.com/videos/FreedomScale.pdf

Written and prepared by Christopher Cook

Copyright 2009 — Modern Conservative. All Rights Reserved.