The PPPC

[Dauphin]

All main political positions can then be found in different segments of the diamond that is created by the 2-dimensional heterogeneity.

Its almost the same as this. But as the difference is that each edge of the triangle acts as a dimension marker, (economic, social, "radicalism" or whatever) it allows the 3-D data set to be viewed in 2-D, allowing for 4 dimension markers on a tetrahedron.

I find it easier to view 2-D maps than 3-D maps and definitely easier to view 3-D than 4-D maps!

Hope that makes sense.

[DrSpike]

Hmm, yeah I don't like it. You can't represent different areas of the triangle as differing belief systems very well, since for any level of fascism a 1 unit change to the left constitutes a different relative movement towards democracy.

The beauty of the diamond is that it creates 4 neat areas, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism and authoritarian say. What is more authoritarian to the left of the centre line represents communist beliefs (if the left side of the diamond represents personal freedom, and the right economic freedom) and to the right of the centre line it represents fascism.

So this setup is more flexible than you might think. And it is free of the criticism I levelled at the triangle.

[DrSpike]

I've just realised the guy that started the thread wanted to do this for the SMAC universe.......I read it quickly and thought he wanted to use the SMAC social engineering stuff to construct the political compass for Apolytoners generally. Oops.

[moomin]

Dr Spike, did you think of something along these lines? I posted it in OT long ago, to clarify a distinction I was trying to make between US/EU liberals.

It elicited a lot of comment very much like that which ol' Snappy saw fit to bestow on you ideas earlier in this thread, mostly from parties who were upset over having their pet excuses for collectivist envy clumped together in the third quadrant.

I still find it hilarious that people get so upset by simple ideologic positioning on two relevant axes... self-denial runs deep in some places.

As for the original post, I'd be an interesting exercise to try to place the SMAC/X factions in this scheme. Some candidates are easy, some require quite some thought.

[DrSpike]

That is exactly what I had in mind. I cannot see why this structure is too limiting.....you can discuss much within it, and you could, with effort, arrange the SMAC factions.

I'm sure you could come up with more intricate devices, especially with another dimension added, but I don't see the point. Perhaps 'Snappy' (who cares for my opinions on university funding as much as he cares for my opinions on this topic ) will elucidate.

[War4ever]

i am lost ......can you enlighten me DrSpike

[Buck Birdseed]

How I'd do it, described using a silly diagram.

The three axes, each going from both of the other corners, represent ideological emphasis on the following types of freedom:

(a) Negative Freedom, "freedom from", ie. Liberty. The ideal would be no government interference in people's lives at all.

(b) Positive Freedom, "freedom to", the enablement of as large a part of the population as possible to enjoy a prosperous, fulfilled life according to their own specifications.

(c) Republican freedom, freedom of self-rule, the enablement of all individuals and social groups to get a fair share of the power in society.

Libertarians solely emphasise aspect (a) of freedom. They see everything else as government interference. Communists are at the opposite end of the liberty scale, and strive equally for the increase in power of "weak" social groups and for society as a whole to become more congealed and work together.

Fascists emphasise solely aspect (b), not caring about whether they crush individual freedoms or minorities in their wake. Extreme US liberals or Democratic Socialists would be at the opposite end of this scale, emphasising both purely liberal individual freedom and the increased power of weak social groups.

There's an increasing group of people*, me among them, that see (c) as the ultimate goal: to get as many groups and people as possible participating in the deicisions of society, and therefore be free, to give diverse groups a voice and a say in the way society is run. On the opposite end of this scale would be a US conservative, believing in communitarian values and liberty but not caring about non-strong social groups.

The only aspect I'm worried about is the place of the US liberals, who I believe do emphasise social cohesion and communitarianism occasionally. It obviously needs loads of fine-tuning, not least in terms of finding an acceptable term for my kind of feminist new pluralist civic republican, but I think it's a workable system and creating questions that would draw people to each corner wouldn't be too tricky. Almost every issue has one aspect that would benefit the weaker party, one that would benefit the already strong party and one that would commit to neither to allow for liberty. Take, for instance, Prostitution: Do you make prostitution illegal (less power to weak group), legal but with buying sex or pimping illegal (more power to weak group), or make it fully legal (liberty)?

*Litterature to read: "Democracy and Difference" by Anne Phillips, "Arguments for a New Left", Hillary Wainwright, "Parliamentary Democracy and its limits", Paul Hirst

[Provost Harrison]

My view on your scale moomin

[DrSpike]

Interesting Buck......and I see you get around my earlier criticism since all major positions are arranged on the exterior of the triangle.

Now where would you arrange the SMAC factions?

[Buck Birdseed]

Good question!

I'm going to have to 'em up somewhere, I haven't played this game in ages.

Ah, I see.

To be honest, a lot of them seem to conflagate in the bottom-left corner. They're not very nice people these faction leaders are they?

[Pandemoniak]

Heres what we have for the moment :
First dimension would be
Political ideology :Police State against Democracy, using axis Z

Second dimension would be
Humanistic ideology:Eudaimonia is opposed to Thought Control, using axis Y

Third dimension would be
Education policy : Fundamentalism is opposed to Knowledge, that would be on Axis X

Fourth Dimension would be
Economic ideology: Free Market is opposed to Planned, represented by the colour of the dot in the cube, from dark red to bright red when in favour of planned, from bright blue to dark blue when in favour of Free Market.
I thought about making it only red/blue, with no "interference" with the white for center, but thought that would be more easily readable with the white.

Fifth Dimension would be
Sovereignty Policy Power is opposed to Wealth (taking wealth as internal prosperity, and power as aggressive behavior). This fifth dimension would be using a number varying from -100 to +100, for example, added on the dot.

-----------
Thanx for suggestions and keep going, though I think its useless to use too much real life political compass (especially the term "communist" sounds wierd to me, since it doesnt mean anything ( is it maoism ? trotskysm ? stalinism ? planned economy ? ).

This try to separate clearly the political compass in several areas, making it moire complex and therefore more precise, I hope.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My view on your scale moomin

What a marvellous contribution.

[Pandemoniak]

You guys really can t behave...

[Buck Birdseed]

My suggestin wasn't really for this, more of a digression since someone asked for it. I'm going to try to do mine by myself over christmas, although suggestions are appreciated.

(A little background on the triangle idea: Last year I tried to do a single-axis political compass based purely on the "power to the weak vs. power to the strong" idea, with questions phrased precisely so that no libertarian answers could be given. It didn't work, because libertarians ended up all over the place, some far "left", some far "right". Stefu approached me during the summer with the suggestion of making it a Liberty vs. power to the weak axis (with a personal liberty one tacked on, to make a 2d graph), but I quite liked the original axis so I thought a triangle would be appropriate as it would also include the classic C19th conservative to liberal scale.)

[moomin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My view on your scale moomin

I seem to recall you managed to grace Poly with this... comment... of yours way back when I fist posted the chart? Well, nevermind, a good point is never lost. Let me just state my pleasure at seeing you eloquence - or is it pictoquence? - employed by the other camp.