How should political views be labelled or defined? Does politics belong on a spectrum? Or a compass? Or is it a Diamond? Is there anyplace on a traditional right-left political spectrum for people whom believe in a society of consent and voluntarism? Or are both the traditional right and left both forms of statism and liberty is up off the spectrum entirely? These are questions that plague people constantly within the broader liberty sphere. It sometimes in fact is the cause of intense infighting among people whom generally agree on the same political philosophies.
Some people will spend every chance they find to say to the masses that liberty and freedom are not on the right nor the left. It is not uncommon for people to push the Nolan Chart as the solution to the right or left question. The Nolan Chart is a chart that was created in 1969 by David Nolan with the creation of The Libertarian Party in the US. It places politics on a diamond with voluntarism on the north edge or North Wing essentially off the right or left side of the spectrum.
What caused the hostility of it being on the right was a want to distinguish liberty and voluntarism from conservative politics. This is a reasonable idea as liberty and freedom is not the same as enforcing socially conservative values. The view shown in The Nolan Chart is that of the right wing being fine with economic freedom, but, not personal freedom. Thus economically the right is moral or just politically, but, not in matters of personal freedom. The consistent support of all forms of liberty among those in the libertarian area thus makes them not on either side of the spectrum and off of it.
However, there is an issue with using this formation for political views. This comes from the fact that not many people officially recognize the Nolan Chart as a legitimate measure of politics. This is because of the opinion that it is flawed and designed to push people into identifying with libertarianism. I see no evidence that it pushes anything, but, that does not mean there is no flaws in this configuration of politics. That flaw comes from the fact that it is not officially recognized within actual mainstream politics by most people.
There is also the question of bias in that we have an entire configuration made for the sake of intentionally separating liberty from the right of the spectrum. Which means that even if liberty and voluntarism was on the right the creators intentionally altered the configuration to remove it from this area. If you take a Political Compass test liberty will fall not North Wing, but, on the lower far right hand side. Which indicates that other compasses are showing liberty as a form of the right. It distinguishes it, however, from authoritarian rightism which is what it calls more socially conservative values being imposed.
There is also the question that is not being asked by The Nolan Chart. That question being is there really spectrum of freedom and force at all? Is right and left even a spectrum? Or is it a binary right or left choice? One choice non-consent and coercion/force/fraud while the other choice consent and voluntarism? If consent is the good and coercion the bad then can there ever be actual degrees? Is a little reaping and raping OK as long as the end justifies the raping? Thus there being degrees of rape being OK? Or is consent needed consistently in all things to be just and proper? If so, we need to know which side of the political binary is the side consent lays on and which coercion lays on.
Where do you find individual rights being defended and which side do you find it infringed? Or is there no side and we are above sides? For what is a right or left distinction if not a way to define and essentialize philosophical differences. Not parties, but, underlying ideas and worldviews. In saying you are for individual human universal rights you are whether you like it or not taking a side. Even if you believe you are not agreeing with any parties or other views within the mainstream you still are taking a side. We need a proper term to use for describing what that stand is called in politics. One which is consistent with the overall views.
For this reason I think one would do well with reading the following articles from Craig Biddle over at The Objective Standard. While I disagree with his bashing libertarians for not being Objectivists I do agree emphatically with his view on the political compass and right/left distinction.
The political landscape is either non initiation of coercion or initiation of coercion on peaceful people. There is either the right which is no initiation of coercion and a consent based social system or degrees of non-consent and coercion as you move away from the right end of the landscape. It is both a spectrum of force and also a binary at the same time. The binary is there being consent culture or non-consent culture. The Spectrum aspect refers to the level of non-consent you are fine with in culture and within your political system. However, the Spectrum in the end is simply a specific level of expression of the same two binary prepositions of consent or non-consent and force.
For example; in the above graph you can see that both various shades of modern liberalism and modern conservatism show up as a muddled middle. This would be reserved for people whom are OK with freedom in one area or consent in certain areas of society, but, supportive of non-consent in others. People whom are not OK with consent at all are on the extreme force side and thus the furthest and purest left of the right/left binary/spectrum. For this reason all liberty based philosophies based in classical liberal values and various levels of voluntarism are on the right or right-wing.
Another famous libertarian also was onto this same truth when he called Libertarianism as we know it right-libertarianism. This libertarian would be Murray Rothbard; whom while he went nutso in his older age made this properly concise point in his article
"The Right and Left within Libertarianism."
Whatever their numerous differences, all "right-wing libertarians" agree on the central core of their thought, briefly, that every individual has the absolute moral right to "self-ownership," the ownership and control of his own body without aggressive interference by any other person or group. Secondly, libertarians believe that every individual has the right to claim the ownership of whatever goods he has created or found in a natural, unused state: this establishes an absolute property right, not only in his own person but also in the things that he finds or creates. Thirdly, if everyone has such an absolute right to private property, he therefore has the right to exchange such property titles for other titles to property: hence the right to give away such property to whomever he chooses (provided, of course, that the recipient is willing); hence the right of bequest — and the right of the recipient to inherit.
The emphasis on the rights of private property of course locates this libertarian creed as emphatically "right-wing," as does the right of free contract, implying absolute adherence to freedom of enterprise and the free-market economy. It also means, however, that the right-libertarian stands foursquare for the "civil liberty" of freedom of speech, press, and assembly. It means that he necessarily favors total freedom for abortion, pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others. And, above all, he regards conscription as slavery pure and simple.
This same point was made briefly by Ayn Rand as well as can be found within the
Ayn Rand Lexicon under rightist vs leftist.
Since, today, there are no clear definitions of political terms, I use the word “rightist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of individual freedom and capitalism—and the word “leftist” to denote the views of those who are predominantly in favor of government controls and socialism. As to the middle or “center,” I take it to mean “zero,” i.e., no dominant position, i.e., a pendulum swinging from side to side, moment by moment.
Voluntarism and libertarian/Objectivism proponents should not try to run from being on the right. Instead we should define our terms and own the right as belonging exclusively to people whom are on the side of furthering a consent based society backed by a ban on coercion. While every other view is either a confused muddy middle or a genuinely corrupt far/pure leftist crony. One should not back down instead one should calmly and rationally explain what the right is and what it stands for vs leftism. Then own and embrace/accept our rightness for what it is.
