Topic: About the Chart
Nolan Chart: Constructive Suggestions Despite any minor flaws, it's still better than most commentary sites or, God help us, blogs.by Logical Premise
(statist)
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
In an article here, I raised the question of balance of Nolan Chart columnists. The owner suggested he had not heard a great deal of constructive suggestions on how to fix the percieved problem of over 80% of the site being Libertarian, and so I decided to try to provide some.
There are two catagories in which we might define the problem:
1. There isn't a problem! -- Unlike some authors who dislike Libertarian thought and practice, I hope I am not a troll. I may find Libertarian ideals unappealing, but that makes me both biased and possibly irrelevant in discussing any aspect of a problem with balance. If the site started , was founded, and was initially discussed only within Libertarian circles, and it continues to grow in readership, then other authors and readers will come along in time. In that instance, constructive solutions to hasten the process might include:
Suggesting you link to popular columns whenever you can in messages, blogs, comments etc elsewhere.
Incorporate the site address into your signature in message boards, personal emails, and the like
Use social networking sites (mySpace, Facebook) to indicate your status as a columnist or reader
Discuss it in your own blog (if you have one).
Suggest the site to your friends who *aren't* Libertarians / Conservatives / Liberals / Centrists / Statists as a way to see other perspectives without that MSM taint.
2. The problem is the site is too far slanted to Libertarians, and we'll only get a few others who want to bash Libertarians to post here! -- To be honest, I think that's an unfair assessment, but it may be true in some regards. Certainly, the atmosphere is not exactly welcoming. If you aren't a Libertarian, responders seem to feel as if they can reply however you like, from dismissive to harsh to acidic, but if you respond in kind then you are being disruptive or are a nimwit/MSN slave/whatever. Not many people are going to bother to put up with that. Possible ways to curb this tendency, IF it is actually seen as a problem:
Suggest a rule that "if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all". That's not to say you can't disagree, but rather that if you want to post to say "I think your positions are stupid and you will belive whatever Fox tells you", you aren't contributing ANYTHING of value to the site or the column and there isn't much point posting that.
Disable commenting and start a forum system (phpBB) for discussions linked to each column or whatever. Moves the problem into a different arena away from the column page, letting readers focus on the article and not the vitriol.
Tell columnists to avoid incidinary topics such as "Paultards get owned again" or "Statists are drooling mental cases, here's why". Neither of these really contribute to the site either, and there are a few people who seemingly make columns simply to rile supporters of Dr. Paul.
Add a thumbs down indicator with a rule that NO negative comments can be said. I know the owner doesn't like those, but it would fix people's frustrations.
Either way, it is not that the site is bad, or that the articles are. I think , however, there might need to be some level of peer reviewing. A few articles are nothing more than link collections, and others are hardly more than retreads of an article found elsewhere.
Whatever course is taken, it should be with the realization that America's Nolan Chart is NOT proportioned the same way that this site is. There are huge wings of Conservatives and Liberals, a massive block of Centrists, and fringes of Libertarians and Statists. All Libertarians are not wild-eyed nuts ranting about freedom and with a musket in hand and dressed like a flood victim, just as all Statists are not jackbooted IRS accountants with snarling dogs here to eminiant domain your land while forcing you to watch AFA-approved pornographic art. (Although...) Whatever changes are made should be with the realization that as long as there is discussion it's good, and it's only when no one who isn't Libertarian feels they cannot say what they like that the site becomes dead.
Comments are welcome! Tell this jackbooted IRS accounant thug why he's wrong!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I don't exactly see that as constructive. A lot of these posters and columnists are clearly very frustrated at living in what is basically a semi-statist society. To suggest that a site that was a) founded by a Libertarian b) initially written for by Libertarians c) made to succeed through Libertarians and d) is read mostly by Libertarians should not have what you dismiss as Ron Paul worship is not being very realistic.
Rather than that, I would simply say that everyone should respect everyone's beliefs. I'd rather have people fired up about government and Ron Paul (even if they're more wrong than Lamarkian Evolution) than apathy.
I totally understand. To be honest. I was surprised to find myself as a libertarian here. I've always found my political compass to be more centrist. And at the Political Compass website I found my results to be almost exactly dead center. The Nolan Chart questions seem to be are you a statist or a libertarian with no middle ground. Or as I see it, between total anarchy and total authoritarianism.
I'm not really for either one. I have little problem with some government regulation. I find that some human behavior will get completly out of hand if there is no one to rein it in. Whether it be a monopoly or a riot. I just think the rules should be local so the power and the people are within shouting distance and can understand and influence each other equally. Why should someone thousands of miles away determine what is right in my hometown? Or even my state? If local politics sickens me, I should have the option of moving without having to change my citizenship or buy a space suit. As far as Ron Paul, the best he could do as President is to bring the country back to the center. There is no way, short of a new Revolutionary War, to reset the country back to it's founding.
And Statist, I've read your comments on a few articles and you do seem to love authoritarianism, I'll give you that. If it doesn't agree with you, or you're sick of hearing it, it's worthless and should be abolished. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be your message.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-01-30 00:44:08
Logical Premise,
Thanks for writing. I agree that we need writers here that see the world from different points of view in order for the site to have a long term standing after this election cycle.
Here are a few things to consider:
A lot of RP supporters aren't dyed in the wool libertarians, so after November 4th, they won't have much to write about if he doesn't win the general election. Which is possible for reasons I won't get into here but will continue to write about.
Libertarians by their very nature think that what they have to say is important and feel that they have a right to say it, so their voices are louder in a medium like the internet that fully allows that type of self-expression. Since their views are the most underrepresented elsewhere, you can expect to always hear our voices most loudly.
Centrists don't have much to say as they are content to wait and see what everyone else does.
Liberals and Conservatives have incredibly well paid journalists to write and speak for them.
But it would be fun to hear from some more "statists" such as yourself.
I do find your suggestions humorous in a sense. You seem intelligent. Do you have the self analytical ability to see that nearly all of your suggestions involve some type of "rule from the top to control the masses" theme? I may be wrong, but isn't this what statists see as the solution to nearly all of our problems? When you are dealing with a bunch of Libertarians, of course you are going to be attacked. We don't have a problem with being personally attacked because we like to stand up for ourselves, but I can see how someone who believes that the individual is fairly powerless and incapable of defending himself/herself would think such rules would be necessary.
That's the mentality from which these "hate speech" law ideas stem. While I may personally find anything that would be deemed as hate speech to be morally repugnant, I find it even more disturbing that someone wouldn't be allowed to say it. If the person who says it is willing to deal with the consequences (like being ostracized by fellow citizens) then let them say it.
What I could use your help with is exactly how a statist view works under the Constitution which is still the Contract which supposedly governs the relationship between me as an individual and my federal government. I'd love to learn about these issues. Maybe my little nolanchart star will go down some after reading your reasoned articles.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-01-30 12:29:59
REPUBLIC not Democracy/ Oligarchy/Plutarchy
Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Hitler, Mussolini, King George, Polpot, Castro all statist. OBTW all of them where at one time our common enemies.
Totalitarianism is the exact opposite of FREEDOM.
OUR REPUBLIC was formed on the ideals of individual FREEDOM from the oppressive chains of tyrannts (governments) So anything contrary to OUR views is contrary to OUR country/constitution and REPUBLIC. So if you come here expecting not to be attacked after attacking OUR COUNTRY/CONSTITUION and REPUBLIC then you get what you get.
LIBERT or DEATH
I stumbled across your site and - looking at the chart - wondered when "populist" became "statist"? Perhaps this question has been addressed previously; if so, pardon the interruption. Politically, I am a liberal, though there are issues where I could endorse either a populist or libertarian position. And - if you ask my friends - I am basically a conservative person.
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-06-02 15:33:54
'Tell this jackbooted IRS accounant thug why he's wrong!' -- Logical premise
1) The word 'thug' comes from India, a 'caste' system that was basically exterminated by the British Empire in their zeal to deal with criminal activities of some of that caste system. You, Mr. IRS accountant are not impoverished or oppressed like the 'thugs' , but more like the zealots of the British Empire.
2) I had major trouble with the IRS in 1973 and things have been getting worse since (like yearly)
3) Like the 'thugs' of India who were basically elliminated by hoodlums of the government, I've been effectively eliminated by the hoodlums of this government
4) I do not consider you or your government to be 'owed a living'.
In summary, I am basically the 'thug', not wanting to be condemed for the crimes of others, and you are the government hoodlum (or hoodlette), misusing terms from the British Empire, and collected taxes in an excedingly dishonest way. (Wear any type of shoes you want however. I don't care)
No that's plain wrong. All statists are government-lovers pointing a gun (through IRS, regulation...) to the heads of those who may disagree. Note that conservatives, liberals, centrists, and Bob-Barr-style Libertarians are statists. The reason why statists favor public education is because they want the violence of the law to be used to enforce their vision of education. They could think of creating a private school (but then they would realize that no government's involvement in education is a blessing). But no. They vote McBama and elect OBush. They laud the arrival of a secretary of education who is going to change things through... Who knows how this secretary is going to change anything. Actually we know that the guy will fail because it is already clear that in 2012, candidates will run on better education... The whole government's scam is so ridiculous.
So now, here we have another of those legal criminals who just cannot stand to have a website predominantly libertarian.
I like the part 1 of the article, but something tells me that is not the favorite path of action for statists... And that's why we are getting a part 2.
First idea to fix that? "Suggest a rule"! What a caricature of the authoritarian nature of statists. What about going somewhere else if you don't like the content here. Just leave! Go away! Find a website full of "opinion" affirmative action, with some kind of governement to define, by law of course, which proportion should be awared to which opinion. Maybe legitimize the whole scam by running elections. This is going to be beautifu! Best of all, anarcho-capitalist opinion will be gone.
Man of the year is Muntazer Al-Zaidi!
Authoritarian Premise, I am throwing my worn-out shoe at you!
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2009-06-10 06:22:29
Let me suggest that part of the issue is that the traditional Nolan Chart questions tend to tip people into the libertarian zone when they perhaps do not belong there.
If you can imagine renaming the quadrants as liberal, libertarian, traditional conservative, Limbaugh conservative and adjusitng some of the questions, you might get a more unifrm division.
I always thought I was a 'l'ibertarian leaning Conservative, but I've been branded 'extreme libertarian' here at Nolan Chart. I do think that intentional bias in the 'test' hurts the whole idea here.
The inability for some (a bunch?) to debate rationally the idea d' joir is sad. Alot can be learned by seeking the truth, as opposed to seeking the retorical win. It's overused, but we can learn a bunch from each other... if we'll listen.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
