True Liberalism is of the right and not the left end of the political spectrum.

Craig Biddle of The awesome Objective Standard wrote an amazing article pointing out why the left is not liberal in anyway shape or form. That "the left" is an anti-liberal and anti-freedom political point of view and always has been. That "the left" is an immoral and anti-reason mindset that has always been anti-freedom. Which is simply a fact.

The Eugenics movement which took numerous lives and involuntarily sterilized whole demographics of people was "of the left." Hitler and Nazis are "the left." Mussolini and his fascist views were a variant of socialism and thus "of the left." It was the "left Democrats" in the early American Independence that supported slavery and fought against the "anti-Slavery Republicans" on "the right."

It was the "the right-wing" H.L Menken whom also called himself a "liberal," and a "libertarian" whom pushed to end the prohibition of alcohol. It was the "leftist," including the first feminists whom were pro-prohibition of alcohol. Women's groups went around with slogans like "lips that taste liquor will never taste ours." It was the right-libertarian and "liberal-right" heritage where you will find all of the pushes for extended liberty to all. It is the "left wing" at it's most radical and thus it's root that you find every extension of state overreach and power.

The term right should not be shed, but, instead shown proudly by rightists. The right is the true liberal and the true liberal's home is on the right. He or she is a person on the right end of the spectrum and not the left. A consistent liberal is a capitalist and a consistent capitalist is a right-liberal. Really, all labels such as right-wing libertarian, Constitutional Republican, Objectivist, Laissez-Faire Capitalist are really just other labels for classical liberal. Or a consistent liberal or a member of the broader right.

Rightism is the views of the right and the views supporting of protection of individual rights. Of views like those mentioned above and it does not include those whom would use states to push their values on others with force. Rightism supports protection of freedom, liberty and individual rights for all. It is views that support the notion of the Non-Initiation of Coercion on ones neighbor. That this is an imperative and must be protected. That it is the only moral framework for a society of civilized people and that retaliatory force in self defense is a moral good.

Rightism is also rational and reasonable. The more you tip your toes into irrational politics the more leftist you are becoming. It is truth vs fantasy running the world. Rightism is the moral and practically right approach to economics and politics.

In conclusion we need self-love, compassion and respect that our views are correct. They are in accordance with facts of reality and we can have pride in our intellectual rigor. Do not let the leftist sympathizers get you down. The regressive-left is not liberal and never has been liberal. You and I have been the True Liberals all along and always will be! Let the haters hate just do not initiate coercion on them. Let them stew in their delusional nonsense and reality will let them reap what they have sewn.

Coming out as an Objectivist

This evening during and after my meeting I left clues to my philosophy in my meeting no details can be given. I also spoke with someone else there and told them I was an Objectivist after the meeting. I am slowly coming out to the people in my group as having the views I have. I am not sure if I will just come out and say it in one of these meetings. We will see, but, I always found coming out as on the political Right to be something that can get some pretty bad results. I could be whatever orientation, but, politically rightism was frowned upon. We shall see what happens as time goes on.

Yaron Brook Lectures: Ayn Rand's Influence On the Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal & Free-Market Movements

This lecture is the 6th installation of The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America series delivered to the cadets at the Citadel. Yaron Brook's lecture is included in Mallory Factor's book "Big Tent: The Story of the Conservative Revolution — As Told by the Thinkers and Doers Who Made It Happen" (book available on Amazon). In this lecture, Yaron discusses religion, conservatism and communism. This lecture was recorded on February 22, 2012 at the Citadel in Charleston, SC. Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Bob Metz is Just Wrong when it comes to The Essentialized Political Spectrum

Last night I was listening to archived episodes of Just Right Radio when I came across his episode on The Objective Standard's essentials based political spectrum. I have done an article on this previously in which I pointed out the episode was a misinterpretation of the essay attached to the spectrum. However, this time I realized I had missed the most important thing about this episode. The fact that nowhere in the episode does he even mention the essay/article which explained the spectrum he was looking at.

Instead of reading one of the many, many articles on The Objective Standard which explained the views of the periodical on left vs right Bob acted like a stubborn mule. He simply evaded/ignored any explanation given in great detail by Craig Biddle on the subject. This was very wrong on his part and he did not even bother to investigate and/or present anything from Craig's marvelous essays/articles on the subject of the left-right spectrum. I wish to address some of his biggest mistakes below.


1. The Essentialized Political Spectrum ignores the binary nature and polarity of left vs right.

Bob claims that Craig Biddle thinks that there is no binary within politics. That essentially left vs right contains no absolutes or does not define to opposite ideological views of the nature of government. However, this is not the case at all and if he did even 4 minutes of research via looking over the various articles available under the political spectrum tag he would know he was dead wrong on this matter.

When it comes to explaining the problem with the Nolan Chart used by some whom favor liberty Craig points to just this binary polarity.

"The Nolan chart treats the realm of politics as non-binary when, in fact, it is binary. 

Politics is about freedom and force. Freedom is the condition in which a person is free to act on his judgment. Force is the opposite: To the extent that force is used against a person, he cannot act on his judgment; he is forced to act against it. 

In terms of essentials, politics is either-or: Either you are (fully) free to speak your mind about controversial issues—even when doing so offends others—or you are not. Either you and your doctor are (fully) free to contract by mutual consent to mutual benefit—or you’re not. Either you and your lover are free to marry—or you’re not. Either you and a potential employer or employee are free to negotiate wages in accordance with your respective judgment—or you’re not. 

The Nolan chart presents the basic alternatives in politics as non-binary and “nuanced.” But the alternatives are in fact binary and, when presented properly, vivid. The Nolan chart does not clarify the basic alternatives; it obfuscates them."

Unlike what Bob Metz paints Craig Biddle as believing about ideological fundamentals he does understand left vs right correctly in their essentials.


2.  The existence of the middle is a myth and there is no such thing as mixed ideologies or "the center." 

Bob Metz claims that there is no middle in the political spectrum and that a center is in fact a myth. His reason for believing this is the binary nature of freedom vs force, but this is to deny reality. In reality most people are not far left and most people are not on the Right. Most mainstream voters are in fact mixed in their ideological precepts around politics. Most people are not on The Right AKA for Pure Lassiez-Faire as the essentials spectrum defines The Right.

Nor are most people on the actual far left or extreme left. They are not pure Capitalism proponents nor are they pure Socialism proponents. They are for a mixed economy of some sort they are for "a degree" of infringement of the initiation of non-consent principal. Most people are not consistent ideologically because they are not totally coherent philosophically. They are working on mixed premises which leads to being in the very real middle of the left-right political spectrum.

Which means that they are to some "degree" to the left and thus middle not on The Right. Due to not doing research on what the middle means Bob Metz makes it seem as though Craig Biddle, I, or anyone else that uses the essentials spectrum are the ones denying reality. When in fact, it is Bob and his ignorant stubbornness that is causing him to evade the reality of the mainstream being a mixed premises. This is why Capitalism proponents and liberty lovers can find support depending on the policy from people in various parties/think tanks around the Globe.

"Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you."

Bob Metz is a mule stubborn beyond compare and he needs to learn to admit when he makes mistakes. As much as he seems to think he is unable to be wrong in this case it is Craig Biddle that is Just Right.

The modern socialist embraces the best of the fruits of Capitalism well denouncing their cause.

The Penultimate defense of the proper left and right.

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as individual rights read Craig Biddle's recent essay in The Objective Standard. They are committing numerous fallacies by making it seem that saying rightist is freedom and individualism is incorrect or to be shunned. As Craig Biddle correctly points out it is the very nature of any political spectrum to have a rights side and an authoritarian side. We need to explain and provide proper definitions for the right Vs the left hand pole not pretend there is no left and right poles to a political spectrum.


As Craig Biddle points out so eloquently in his article;

One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11

This is 100% correct that there is not a single spectrum that exists that does not have two poles a left and a right pole of the spectrum. The idea that the Nolan Chart or multi-axis Charts are the answer is factually obliterated in Craig's other masterful work, "The Muddy Waters of The Nolan Chart."

We need to define the essentials objectively and properly; then make our home without shame on the side that is "right." Which is the Right of the spectrum on the side of individual rights and non-initiation of coercion or consent based societies. It is Capitalism the social system; the only moral social system; the Political Right on which classical liberals, constitutional republicans, Objectivists, Laissez-Fairest, et cetera reside. One needs to defend their rightness on the spectrum as well as in matters of facts. The political right represents the morally proper system of social interaction. As visualized and clarified on the below spectrum.