[OT]Lines of definition and rings of exclusion. Was- Linking Ammo

3 posts ยท Jul 1 2002 to Jul 1 2002

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: [OT]Lines of definition and rings of exclusion. Was- Linking Ammo

> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Neither. Extreme right or left wing meet aren't

If one uses a logical scale of individual freedom with complete government
control as LEFT and no government (anarchy) as RIGHT, this allows for all
forms of
government to be included.   Any scale that runs
dictatorship to dictatorship does not leave much room for anything except
dictatorship with a different press agent

Bye for now,

From: Chen-Song Qin <cqin@e...>

Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 11:44:40 -0600

Subject: Re: [OT]Lines of definition and rings of exclusion. Was- Linking Ammo

Actually, I've always liked Jerry Pournelle's two dimensional map instead. It
had two axes, statism and rationalism, showing the views toward government and
"progress" respectively, of the political theory being mapped. For example,
communism would be high on statism and rationalism (all problems could be
scientifically solved, etc.), whereas fascism would be hight on statism but
low on rationalism (triumph of the will). Classical anarchists would be low on
statism and low on rationalism, where as "egotists" such as Ayn Rand would be
low on statism and high on rationalism. Most democracies would be somewhere in
the middle, leaning slightly to which ever direction. It gives an extra
dimension, so to speak:), to the political spectrum.

[quoted original message omitted]

From: John Leary <john_t_leary@y...>

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: [OT]Lines of definition and rings of exclusion. Was- Linking Ammo

> --- Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:

I agree.   I considered the move from ring to line
to be a large enough first action.

Bye for now,