Talk:Nolan Chart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] (No Prior Heading)

"The essential premise of the diagram is for many an oversimplified generalization; economic freedom and personal freedom are often inextricable, and both left-wing (Bakunin) and right-wing philosophers draw the same connection."

So if "economic freedom and personal freedom are often inextricable", doesn't that support what the Nolan Chart implies? So how does that support the side of the critics?

The article also looks a little awkward now, now that part of the information on criticism is at the beginning of the article, and part of the information on criticism is at the end of the article. Wiwaxia 06:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think Mihnea's recent edit is generally good, but, Mihnea, in the second paragraph: "some critics have argued"? Unles you cite someone, this is just sneaky POV. -- Jmabel 18:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Mike Huben, for one, makes this argument on his rather extensive website, Critiques of Libertarianism ( http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html ). But I don't mind rephrasing the "some critics have argued" part if you wish.
- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Could you cite a particular Huben web page, since just citing his general site isn't much use? -- Jmabel 20:07, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'll go look for the specific page once I'm finished here. But in any case, you're always free to remove the phrase "some critics have argued" and replace it with something you deem to be more NPOV (although I don't really see how it's POV in the first place... can you explain your objections in more detail?).
- Mihnea Tudoreanu

In other news, I see one of the paragraphs I removed a few days ago has been put back by an anonymous user. The problem with that paragraph, in my opinion, is that it's hopelessly POV. I removed it without further ado because I could not think of any way to rephrase it and extract some useful information from it that hadn't already been mentioned earlier in the article. But maybe someone else can think of a way. Here's the paragraph (with my objections below):

Proponents, on the other hand, point out that if anything is pseudoscientific, oversimplified and demonstrably misleading, it is the ancient "left-right" political spectrum which has been around for centuries and is still in use almost everywhere today. The problem with that old linear spectrum, they say, is that it is used so often to put one type of authoritarianism, communism, on the left, and another type of authoritarianism, fascism, on the right, and imply that freedom is in the middle, as though it were some kind of compromise between, or combination of, the two allegedly "opposite" totalitarian extremes. This, they say, is absurd on its face and essentially leaves freedom and limited-government advocacy actually out of the picture and out of consideration. Thus the "left-right" spectrum is deeply flawed, woefully inadequate, and thereby useless, except to authoritarians and advocates of government-enforced altruism who advance their agendas by sowing confusion. So the Nolan chart was developed primarily to fix these problems.

1. "Proponents point out..." = POV; it should say "proponents argue".

2. "...if anything is pseudoscientific, oversimplified and demonstrably misleading..." = POV; maybe we could somehow squeeze in the first two adjectives as claims made by libertarians, but "demonstrably" misleading? That's not just POV, it's an ouright lie; the Left/Right scale may have its faults, but it is still a very good instrument for judging politics. The vast majority of political parties and ideologies do fit in the traditional Left or the traditional Right.

3. "...one type of authoritarianism, communism, on the left, and another type of authoritarianism, fascism, on the right..." = POV; I'd say the problem with libertarians is their absurd inability to distinguish between their enemies, and their insistence that the whole world should revolve around them (i.e. they define all ideologies based on their relationship with libertarianism, and scream that such a classification is the only correct one). "You're either with us or you're some sort of authoritarian-statist-collectivist-thingy, and all these authoritarian-statist-collectivist-thingies are the same." ... As a wise man once put it, throwing communism and fascism together into some hodgepodge "authoritarian" category is like throwing birds and bats together and calling them just "flying creatures". At any rate, my point is that the statement I quoted is highly POV.

4. "...and imply that freedom is in the middle..." - no one is implying any such thing.

5. "...as though it were some kind of..." - going off into a fully biased rant.

6. "...deeply flawed, woefully inadequate, and thereby useless, except to authoritarians and advocates of government-enforced altruism who advance their agendas by sowing confusion." - Is any comment really needed? The POV should be obvious, and so should the insanity of this statement. Every political idea invented and used in government over the past 200 years (except the ones with the libertarian stamp of approval) was part of an evil scheme by the "authoritarians" to advance their dark agenda... riiiiight...


I could go on, but you get the point. I don't see how anything could be made out of that paragraph, but you're welcome to try if you really want to.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu


I have a bit of a problem with the following argument being attributed to Chomsky: "One such argument is that freedom from government intervention does not assure individual freedom within the private sector, and that government may preserve individual freedom against non-governmental powers."

It is true that Chomsky believe that freedom from government intervention in itself does not assure individual freedom, but I find this attribution problematic. First, he does not lay out this argument as it is stated here in either of the two articles cited, so there is a good deal of interpretation going on here. The first isn't by him, and only includes a brief quote in which he talks about the interests corporations have in reducing the ability of a democracy to obstruct them. But nothing is said about the ability of a government to preserve individual freedom. The second, again not one of his own articles (there is no reason to resort to interpretive accounts of his lectures when there is so much of his own writing available on the subject, not to mention direct transcripts), doesn't really touch on this argument at all. In fact the closest thing he says involving this particular subject appears to be, "Private power - the government lives off it and is controlled by it", which is (not surprisingly) a much better synopsis of his views that the argument in this article suggests. I don't believe it is appropriate to say that Chomsky is making the case that a state can preserve individual freedom, for while it may be true that he believes this in a small number of tactical issues, his broader scope has always been the rejection of government as yet another institution of hierarchy and oppression. Again, as he says in the second article, "There are always various forms of hierarchy and oppression, but they gradually get perceived and then overcome, and then new ones are perceived. But this is progress."

So my beef is that A) I don't think his argument is being properly represented (or perhaps that attributing him to this argument in particular is appropriate) and B) the two sources being cited are at best tangentially related to both the argument being presented and his own argument on the subject. Kev 11:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) Sorry that I accidentally deleted another change of yours, just a screwup, didn't mean to. 2) Those may not be the best citations on Chomsky's view on this. He's talked and written about it a lot. To be honest, I got lazy and did a quick web search for "private tyranny", which is the catchphrase he always uses when talking about it. I've several times heard him invoke this in talking about where he differs from libertarians and that he believes that between government power and corporate power, the latter is currently the greater danger, because it lacks even the modicum of accountability that government has. The primary criticism I've heard him make of the libertarians is their exclusive focus on decreasing government power, leaving in place even less accountable sources of power, namely those deriving from wealth. Obviously, in the ideal, Chomsky wishes to see both abolished, but for a self-declared anarchist, he's tended to be rather a pragmatist. 3) I guess it wouldn't hurt to remove this, but I think it would be better for someone who knows Chomsky's written work better than I to weigh in with a better citation (I'm pretty sure it's out there) or to let me know that I've got this wrong one way or another. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


I don't think that you have this wrong, your take on his argument in 2) seems accurate, but the implication as it is currently written in the article is slightly different. It is very easy to take arguments by someone like Chomsky and unknowingly misrepresent them because it is so hard to create a one or two line synopsis of his views. What would be good is a nice citation and direct quote to avoid any misunderstandings. I will try to dig something up, or perhaps someone else will produce a good quote. You might want to check out Zmag if you are interested in looking. Kev 00:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I assume you mean their web site... I'll try to get to that, but I have a lot else on my plate right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:06, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

This article seems hopelessly biased, probably due to whatever POV the various writer(s) adhere to. The amount of critism makes this especially obvious. Jeez...it's just a chart illustrating the political spectrum!! More importantly, it makes sense...especially the variations that have fine tuned it over time, which no one has bothered to include. The variation used by the Advocates for Self-Government should be included, especially, since they've probably educated more people using this chart than Nolan himself.

[edit] 4th Qudrant

A situation needs to be resolved. The fourth quadrant, opposite of libertarianism, is referred to by a dozen names throughout wikipedia. Fascism/communism/authoritarianism are all used in this article, populism and communitarianism are used elsewhere. A discussion has been going on at the talk page for Political Spectrum. I will sum it up the arguments I made here; others can fill their side in:

Arguments Against Authoritarian

  • As a preface, Nolan never used the term authoritarian. It's only historical usage has been among libertarian sites.
  • Defined by Wikipedia as espousing "strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population". This could apply to leftists or conservatives as well; why single out 4th quaadrant?
  • Government labeled authoritarian are radical. On the other hand, the three other quadrants have moderate labels. This quadrant's label should only be as socially conservative ("low personal freedom") as conservatives, only as economic as liberals. I could see a compelling argument for the title authoritarian if the other quadrants were communism, anarchism, and theocracy . However, as it is now, it is unbalanced in libertarianism's favor.
  • Not surprisingly, many who fall in that quadrant are not authoritarians by anyone's standards. Certainly not communist/fascists. Furthermore, that would make leftisst and conservatives each half authoritarian

Arguments Against Populist

  • It has a commonly used, unrelated meaning. If populism was chosen here too, usage of the term would thus be weakened, as which type would have to be specified, which would not happen in the media. Confusion would ensue.
  • Historical meanings also unrelated, notably the 19th century movement in America.
  • Recent people cited as populists include Howard Dean and Arnold Swartzenegger, both who lean towards libertarianism. Should populist be used to describe people at both ends of the spectrum?

Arguments for Communitarian

  • Neutral, moderate name.
  • Name only shared with an obscure philosophy. Anyone who would have heard of it is not likely to be confused. Thus, it has a distinct meaning.
  • Focuses on how we, and in their areas leftists and conservtaives, see it, as community, rather than as the libertarians see it, about government oppression.

-- (that was Juan, unsigned)

In most contexts, I would favor "Communitarian" but here the obvious question is: what, if anything did Nolan call it? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:53, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, jmabel, I keep forgetting to sign. Nolan called it populist. However, the idea is expressed in articles that don't mention the Nolan Chart at all. For example, Conservatism states refers to this quadrant as "statist movements [such] as fascism, communism, and socialism." Populist should be mentioned here, of course. However, a more correct term should be used elsewhere. To be consistent with both aims, I would propose having both here. For example, the chart could say 'populist" with 'communitarian' below it in parenthesis. The article could explain the difference in terms, from populist, authoritarian, and communitarian. This should be done anyway; it mentions criticism that the term authoritarian is meant to cast libertarianism in a good light, but doesn't mention that Nolan had no part in this, labeling it populist, and why the term communitarian has begun to be used. I could do this myself, but the chart has to be changed first, and I'd like to give the original author the opportunity before replacing it. Juan Ponderas 15:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It must be populist, since thats what Nolan called it! We can't very well go around changing peoples theories to suit ourselves. If thats going to be the policy, I'd like to make a few changes over at the marxism article, since he seems to have been in error on some particulars ;) Seriously tho, Communitarianism and poulism are not identical, and the broadness of Populism makes it superior to either authoritarianism, or communitarianism (whic is outrageously obscure, btw). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


It must be populist when referring to the chart, which he made. But if he was wrong, then it shouldn't be used in referring to the reality of the situation. And you don't need to cite me samples; I have enough that I would change ;-). I think you mean that populism's commonly held meaning is different from the communitarian philosophical movement. True, but if both are used to describe that quadrant, they are the same, in that regards. Communitarian is broad enough to include that quadrant; populism is broad enough, it seems, to encompass anything. Why don't we name some more movements populist? Or maybe it's not; it has a distinct, commonly used definition that has nothing to do with this. Juan Ponderas 07:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nolan was American, so he probably used "populist" with the United States Populist Party in mind, which was rather communitarian. Yes, this article must use "populist", but in political spectrum we need to talk about these issues and point out the variety of possibilities. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, then lets do it. All I'm saying is that A) Whatever we pick should be at least mentioned, or else confusion will abound. B) Primary usage on this page should be immediately changed from authoritarian to populist. Juan Ponderas 03:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right. I made the new chart and uploaded it. Now I'll go through the article and change references accordingly. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I've wondered, though, about the second paragraph. Nolan created the chart with the term populism, which is, by definition actually, not an unpopular ideology. Therefore, I don't believe he created this chart to popularize libertarianism as the opposite of populism. This could be true of later renditions using terms such as fascism, but Nolan was not responsible for that. Juan Ponderas 02:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I changed that, putting the comment after the mention of later renditions using the term auhtoritarianism. Juan Ponderas 02:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a good call, but keep in mind that Nolan himself used the terms "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" to label his axes, arguing that his own ideology "maximizes freedom". That gives the Nolan Chart a clearly propagandistic tinge. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Assuming one is pro-freedom. Many arn't. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On the other hand, many are. And many of those find the views of the libertarians repulsive. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That would appear to be false. I don't have any reason to believe that anyone who favors freedom finds the views of libertarians "repulsive". I would suggest that only those who oppose freedom to one extent or another could possibly be possessed of such vitrol in regards to classical liberalism. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism

That, of course, depends on your views regarding "freedom", and whether or not freedom is compatible with private property. As the largest and best known example, anarchists (and libertarian socialists in particular) are defenders of freedom who find classical liberalism repulsive. As a non-anarchist example, look no further than the man talking to you right now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anarco-capitalists are essentially identical with libertarians. Many other "anarchists" are essentially Communists or revolutionaries. Your love for freedom is difficult to quantify. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anarco-capitalist are essentially not anarchists in any reasonably historical sense of the term. Which is to say that they are "anarchists" only in the sense that Bismarck was a socialist: they share certain views in common, but come out of an entirely different tradition. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:07, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I find it difficult to believe that one who makes as many edits on political topics as you do fails to understand the basic notions of anarchism (I mean proper anarchism, in its anti-state and anti-property form). It is even more amazing that you consider anarchists to be "essentially Communists or revolutionaries", given the immense numbers of anarchists who criticized communism and communists who criticized anarchism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everybody criticizes communism, even you do that. I was speaking of the people who call themselves anarchists, which envision something very different from the normal conception of anarchy. "Anarcho-communism" or whatever they like to call it,its not anarchy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If one goes back to the 19th century, both anarchism and communism arose within the context of the workers' movement. Different blends of the two are possible and may still fall within the general ambit of left politics. Anarcho-capitalism is another matter entirely. Yes, it borrows some ideas from anarchism, but all ideologies are lending libraries of ideas. They do not have strong common histories. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:10, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Basically, Sam, "anarcho-communism" is anarchism. The fathers of anarchism were Mikhail Bakunin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (who is famous for his remark that "property is theft"). Read the anarchist FAQ and take a look over Infoshop.org.

No thanks, I'm not interested in mindbending propoganda. For me, anarchism either = anarchy, or communism. When its actually communism, its mislabeled, this chart illustrates that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This chart is a polemical statement of a libertarian point of view. It is not a definitive statement about the political spectrum. It is muddiest precisely where it gets farthest from Nolan's own libertarian politics. His main point was that libertarianism blended what he saw as the liberty-loving side of the two main the U.S. political movements of his time; that is, they advocated both the American Liberal tradition of concern for individual civil liberties and the American Conservative tradition of concern for free enterprise. The farther one gets away from that aspect of the chart, the murkier it gets. He was certainly not trying to disentangle the strands of the politics deriving in various ways from mid-19th-century socialism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The roots of the philosophy are not the issue here, nor even separating anarchists from communists (easy enough, anarchists oppose the state and favor liberty, and state communists are totalitarians). Rather it is separating Libertarians from anarchists that seems to be in question. This harkens back to the old anarcho-capitalist vrs. anarcho-communist debate.

IMO the deciding factor is what happens when I shoot the people trying to steal my stuff. Do my neighbors cheer, or so they inform the secret police and have me sent to siberia? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ... and the "right-wing" would be centrist

I cannot make any sense of what Silverback is claiming in this recently added phrase. Are you saying that the position Nolan calls "right-wing" would be typically called in, say Europe, Asia, and Africa a "centrist position"? If that is what you mean, this doesn't strike me as true at all. If that is not what you mean -- and I suspect it is not -- then you have not expressed yourself clearly. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am saying that the Eurpean spectrum does not have a place for American conservatives, which is not to say leftists there would not engage in perjorative name calling, and use the term "right wing". However, an American conservative traveling to Europe would have to self-identify as a centrist, since otherwise he'd be calling himself a communist or fascist. Their spectrum is even less useful than the U.S. spectrum.--Silverback 05:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback, you are not making sense. Are you saying that an American "conservative" would be closer to a European "centrist" than to a European "conservative"? Or that he/she would not be part of the "right" in European terms? Or something else?
Keep in mind that, in European terms, José Aznar is "center-right", Jacques Chirac either "right" or "center-right", Margaret Thatcher "right", Silvio Berlusconi "right". All of these people strike me as haveing politics that would fall well within what would usually be called "conservative" in the U.S. Certainly none of them would be terribly out of place in the U.S. Republican Party (except perhaps Chirac on Middle East policy, and the French policy there is probably more a matter of national interest than of principle: I suspect -- though of course this is completely unprovable -- that if Chirac were in the U.S. government he would have a very different view of the Middle East). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
It is the European spectrum that doesn't make sense. Isn't that what this page is about? The politicians you mention have to go someplace on the spectrum. If the European center is democratic/socialism, then they may be borrowing from the American spectrum when they position themselves a little to the right of center. There is a cross-fertilization between the two sides of the atlantic. Two dimensions, however much the oversimplification, is still better than one, rather like the Myers and Briggs 16 personality types still doesn't capture the diveristy of human personality. I think it is best to classify American conservatives as centrists, and let the europeans find out why they should expand to a two dimensional scale. They may want to call Bush a fascist, but they shouldn't get any help from us.--Silverback 06:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm only getting more confused as you try to explain yourself. Nolan is an American libertarian. This page is about the Nolan chart. The remark "in most other parts of the world, the Nolan Chart's "left-wing" would correspond to social democracy or socialism" is because he apparently said that (if I can trust this article -- I haven't read Nolan myself) "left-wing "liberalism" ... advocates only personal freedom". This use of "liberalism" to refer to left politics in general is almost incomprehensible outside of the U.S.: in much of Europe "liberalism" means support for free markets (less so these days in the UK, where the usage is becoming more like the U.S; and in France and Spain it mostly means anti-clericalism). U.S. "liberalism" is roughly equivalent to European "social democracy". I'm beginning to suspect that something that was in this paragraph before you got there was poorly worded in a way that confused you (and should be fixed), and that you compounded the confusion by editing in a context where you were confused. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Could be, I'm glad to hear the classical liberalism sense of liberalism is still alive in Europe, that is what American conservatives are. Where do Europeans put these liberals on their scale? There are many versions of the Nolan chart. The version here understates it, by having mere populism and socialism on the left. The full scale is two axis, social and economic, with the axes ranging from totalitarianism to anarchy. The extreme totalitarian on the economic scale would be more like communism, than like a socialism which has some private means of production and only a few industries nationalized, and even libertarians would fall short of the opposite extreme of anarchy on both scales, but just short of it. Bush would probably be about the middle both economically and socially at least according to libertarians, yes he is good on free trade, lower taxes, less regulation of business, but his social agenda spills over to the economic, he supports the FDA regulation of drugs and the war on the recreational drug trade, and federal funding and regulation of education, etc. Those are the areas that put him towards the center of the social agenda too, plus he favors the government licensing of marriage, oppresses polygamists, and hopes to ban gay marriage. Abortion is a more complicated issue, because of the way it is argued, that the fetus is a human with rights, so many libertarians are pro-life, and some even thing the government should be involved, since part of its residual function is the protection of individual life. I do think this article as I found it, got the liberal element wrong, I'd be interested in other suggestions for fixing it.--Silverback 08:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talking as a Euro (from UK specifically), for us left means high taxes/government, pro Union (generally), pro Nationalisation (historically), quite authoritarian and most specifically the Labour party and its policies (mostly before Tony Blair/New Labour which can be argued to be centre/centre right). Conversely right wing would be low tax, small government, anti Union, Privatisation, moderately authoritarian and specifically the Conservative party and its policies. Someone who is liberal would likely be advocating personal freedoms, also tolerance/multiculturism and this doesnt usually indicate a strong political party preference inherently, however taling about a Liberal generally relates to the Liberal Democratic party and its policies which are fairly centrist, reformist, fiscally somewhat left wing and generally quite liberal of course. Socialism/socialist would generally mean any policies/government that have high social security (unemployment benefits, disability payments, etc), and usually including some amount of nationalisation of things like health, rail, phone, mail etc. but it would not usually be considered to mean the Marxist/Leninist socialism where the state owns/runs the majority of business. 86.129.7.141 10:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to see if I can sort some of this out. It is very frustrating that the many people who worked on this seemed to be more interested in grinding their own axes than in answering questions like
  • When did Nolan create and publish the chart?
  • Where is a source for Nolan's original chart, as Nolan gave it, as against its many derivatives?
  • Has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version?
As a result of this shoddiness, I don't even know if the (uncited) use of "liberalism" attributed to Nolan in the first paragraph is actually Nolan's or someone's interpretation.

-- Jmabel | Talk 09:24, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Nolan's work isn't very original, or rather I should say, it is one of those obvious discoveries. I had invented it and been defending it myself, before I became aware of any of the various forms it takes. I assume others are also not derivitive of his work, but other original discoveries also. My interpretation of the use of liberal in the article was it was what someone's attempt, who was writing the article, to point out that European and American cenceptions of liberalism were different. The key is to understand the two axes concept and explain it. If I were to do the work, it would be in a separate article, because I'd never heard of his work before, I rather explain mine, I've got my own axe to grind, although, there doesn't appear to be much difference between his and mine, and the article is pretty good already.--Silverback 09:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I'll ask again

Does anyone know:

  • When did Nolan create and publish the chart?
  • Where is a source for Nolan's original chart, as Nolan gave it, as against its many derivatives?
  • Has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version?

-- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing, facts

Upshot of the preceding:

  • Someone else reverted Silverback's remark, which I think was the right thing to do.
  • I have now filled in the information on where and when Nolan first published the chart. Does anyone have access to this original article? Our chart, and our claims about any use of the word "liberal", should reflect Nolan's original use.
  • Also still unanswered: has Nolan endorsed any versions of the chart other than his own original version? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 4th Quadrant part II

Forget what I said earlier on the argument on what term should be used for the 4th quadrant; populism, communitarianism, or authoritarianism. I had said that authoritarianism was a radical form, at best, and that communitarianism should be used instead. I have come to a different conclusion. Communitarianism and authoritarianism both exist there- authoritarianism is sometimes no more radical sometimes in government action than communitarianism. There are differences, however, see Communitarianism versus authoritarianism. That it doesn't distinguish between them should, I believe, be listed as a criticism. Juan Ponderas 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edited out paragraph

I edited out the following paragraph:

In addition to these ideological objections, the "How People Have Scored" section gives results that do not seem to be representative of most Americans' political beliefs. Currently, 34.76% of test takers have scored Libertarian, compared to 30.26% who have scored Centrist. This overrepresentation of Libertarians could be a reflection of the sample of people viewing the website, however there were also more test takers who scored Statist (8.67%) than Conservative (7.64%).

Because:

  1. There is no evidence given for the notion that it is not representative of "most Americans' political beliefs." This may be true, but I don't find these percentages outside the realm of possibiliy. "Evidence, please" as my high school English teachers used to write.
  2. Also, this is a criticism of this particular website, not of the chart itself. As the article notes, there are many online sites that offer slightly different versions of this quiz. They probably all have radically different response rates and all web polls are unscientific. This has nothing to do with any inherent flaws in the chart itself. --Polynova 05:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Supposedly, these results are based on over 4 million submissions. I realize this wasn't administered systematically, but it seems like a sample that big would level off to a pretty close estimate of the results people get. This is just a guess, but I don't think there are more "Statists" taking this test than there are Conservatives. My guess for why there aren't more Conservatives is that the "Conservative" values are so extreme only a member of the John Birch Society would support them all ("Replace government welfare with private charity"). Compare this to the "Liberal" values that aren't even particularly Liberal. Since Libertarians probably have an easier time recruiting from the Right, it makes sense that they would do this. It isn't hard to tell why they changed the opposite pole from Populist to Statist/Authoritarian (the opposite of Populist is Elitist). This might sound cynical, but if an online IQ test says 90% of the test takers have IQ's above 100, would you think the test was biased or the sample? CPS 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main reason online polls are unscientific is selection bias. I.e., the number of people online is a biased population, the number of people who hear about his poll are even more biased, and the number of people who choose to take the poll is even more biased still. Don't expect any online poll result to conform to reality to any measurable degree.
Your other point gets to the labels used in the Nolan chart. Whatever labels are used will be inherently flawed because most political labels, like "conservative," "liberal," "statist," and esp. "populist" (perhaps the most meaningless political label out there), are extremely vague and mean different things to different people. Even "libertarian" can be pretty vague considering both Noam Chomsky and Margaret Thatcher have been called libertarian in different contexts. The article already notes this criticism about labels so I don't think any more is needed on this. Anyway, I think advocates of this chart would tell you that the whole point of the chart is to bring more precision to the political discourse by asking people how they think about specific political issues and then map them on a space. The labels you use to describe that space are secondary. --Polynova 07:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph needs to be removed. It appears to be more of an attack on the website that has the online poll that uses the Nolan chart as a template than NPOV information about the actual Nolan chart.Lokifer 07:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanatory version of chart

I just noticed a contemporary, or 'explanatory' version of the Nolan chart has been added. I understand 'populist' is a rather vague, but the terms 'communist' and 'fascist' do not apply to communitarians, who are in that quadrant too. I would propose instead having two terms, 'communitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', the latter of which includes fascist and communist regimes (unless they are totalitarian, but that is an extreme form, comparable to placing anarchy in the libertarian quadrant). On another note we should have a consistent look across both charts; the original and this were done by different authors, and the styling is slightly different, although close at thumb size. Juan Ponderas

[edit] One of the biggest problems with the Nolan chart hasn't been mentioned

Added a paragraph...

"A similar criticism of the chart is that the terms "authoritarianism" and "liberalism"...

I realise that these terms were not used by Nolan, but the criticism that I outline is one of the most important criticisms made against the chart in general. The terms used by Nolan do more or less match up with more modern usage of the terms "authoritarianism" and "liberalism" and as such I believe it is probably legit to criticise the chart on this basis. If it isn't, then the paragraph can be removed, but I would posit that something else needs to go in its place that makes a similar argument. Ross van der Linde

  • I think that what you've said in that added paragraph is basically accurate, so I will leave it alone, but it seems to me to be at least perilously close to original research. Do you have any citations for what you are saying? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Some discussion at Talk:Political spectrum occured as to whether political models should be capitalized, as if a title, or not, as if mentioning a chart by Nolan. The conventions seem with the former, and some models are strictly titles, such as the Vosem Chart (whereas Vosem was not the name of the creator). Therefore, this page should be Nolan Chart. Juan Ponderas

[edit] Criticism!

The criticism of Nolan's chart is excessive in this article! It should probably be summarized with the bulk being moved to a separate article. There is more criticism by volume than information on the chart itself.—Kbolino 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the criticism of political spectrums in general should be moved to Political spectrum. Juan Ponderas 03:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, there is by no means enough criticism to justify the creation of an entirely new article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which image?

I reverted the change in the chart utilized for two reasons. First, Nolan used the term "populist", and this is his chart we're talking about. Second, using "fascist" and "communist" as the terms is akin to using anarchism in the opposite region; you're giving an extremist form to compare against more moderate ones. Christian Democracy seems to fit that quadrant pretty well, and it is certainly not communist or fascist. Juan Ponderas 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is The Nolan Chart

Also, this is The Nolan Chart, not "The Left-Wing Wikipedians' Chart". Nolan did *not* draw the chart as shown in the figure, but as a square diamond, with the big-government corner on the bottom and the bound-government corner at the top. If the title of this article is deemed insufficient labelling, then concept that this is The Nolan Chart could be repeated next to the figure. Moreover he did *not* label the big-government corner "Populist", but rather "Authoritarian", which fits mob rule or dictatorship equally; tyranny of the majority in a democracy can be every bit as bad as an autocracy. If people are looking for a short phrase that gets the idea across, how about reporting Nolan's work correctly? Please support an accurate encyclopedia.

At this article by the founder of the World's Smallest Political Quiz. He says, "I've renamed the quadrant where Stalin, Hitler and Lyndon LaRouche would lie as "authoritarian." The word "populist" doesn't do justice to their policies". Originally, as discussed in the article, Nolan used populist. For the record, who exactly is a left-wing editor here? Juan Ponderas

[edit] An Objective Suggestion

I suggest "Government completely bound/total individual freedom" for the full individual economic and personal liberty corner and "Government completely unbound/zero individual freedom" for the opposite corner, as an objective criterion to which everybody can agree. When government is completely unbound and free and arbitrary, it doesn't matter whether the governing party is a monarch, dictator, an oligarchy, or mob rule: it can do whatever it likes. Contrariwise, when the government is completely bound, it is absolutely forbidden to, cannot or does not violate whatever mandate it has been given. Adding "total individual freedom" is a useful clarification. Calling the zero individual freedom corner "populism" ignores the other types of government which can have the same effect.

And calling that corner "Authoritarian" or "Fascist" ignores the other types of government there. While we're at it, calling the libertarian quadrant so ignores anarchism. Last time we debated terminology we decided to use Noaln's original terminology. This is the Nolan Chart. Juan Ponderas

[edit] Suggested Image

Suggested image: Image:WikipediaNolanChart-Cap j-edit01.jpg

I would also add that in the "Government free" situation, individuals have no rights except those granted by law; in the "Individuals free" situation, individuals have all rights except those given to government in their mandate to it. Cap j 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nolan Chart makes a lot of sense. "Making sense" is the latter half of correct epistemology, following sensory evidence. Think of how the traditional spectrum curves together at the ends -- the left end curves downward to meet the right end. There is little difference between Stalin and Hitler. Similarly it can also curve up -- it is today's small-c conservatives who are trying to preserve classical liberalism. Thus it is the up-down direction that is most important. What's "up"? Obviously individual liberty and bound government. What's "down"? Obviously government that is free (to do as it pleases) and individuals who are tied up. Cap j 23:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Nolan Chart

The history of the Nolan Chart can be found at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq03 According to the article, the chart was designed in 1969 and was a square, not a diamond. The familiar diamond chart was created by Marshall Fritz. The article does not give a date. Another author, Ferdinand V. Solara, in his book "Key Influences in the American Right" also used a diamond shaped political map in 1974.

The Nolan Chart itself is an historic piece of work. Derivations on its work have been done and continue today, such as the Diamond Chart. Liberty4u 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to show the chart in its original form, as past versions of the page had it, with "Communist and fascist" in the bottom left corner, and then to show its evolution, rotated to diamond configuration, with "Authoritarian" in the bottom corner (that is how the copies of the chart, from 1996, that I still have in my pocket, look), and then to show its form today, with "Statist/Big government" in the bottom corner. i.e. another two diagrams would help. As I wrote above, we could add some explanation to the text saying that "freedom" on the chart goes two ways: one way is increased *government* freedom (economic and personal); and the other way is increased individual freedom. One could mentally picture arrows going both ways on the two axes of the chart, so labelled (although that might not be Nolan's expressed concept, it certainly is one way to think of it). Cap j 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Having people think about the concept of "government freedom" in our personal lives would be very useful. The pure truth is better than any propaganda.

Cap j 04:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism In Respect to Gun Control

"For example, proponents of strict gun control are generally social liberals, who see fewer guns on the streets as promoting individual safety and thus individual liberty. At the same time, opponents of gun control see restrictions on certain firearms as an infringement on their personal liberties. "

I believe whoever wrote this doesn't understand the issue very well. Anyone that favors gun control does so for authoritarian reasons, not for individual safety. When the right to bear arms is taken away from citizens, the intent is to promote the cause of government. Fewer guns = compliance with a more powerful government and its laws. It is true that an armed criminal population can present safety issues for individuals, but this is secondary to the threat guns pose to government, whether they are held by criminals or citizens offended by tyranny.

There are a fair number of social liberals that favor the right to bear arms. And there are a fair number of conservatives that don't (usually law enforcement types).

Confusion stems from trying to make this a left/right issue, because it is not purely an issue of personal freedom....economic freedom comes into play because gun control is also a form of economic regulation. It can deprive a segment of the population of their livelihood, i.e., gun manufacturers, gun shops, etc.. Conservatives also tend to favor the right to bear arms as a means to protect their life and property, thus securing their economic freedom.

IMO, gun control is more of an up/down issue vs left/right (using the Nolan chart developed by the Advocates for Self Government) --24.247.180.224 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone that favors gun control does so for authoritarian reasons, not for individual safety."
Greens and other liberals who favor gun control want to save lives, not strengthen the government. As it is, the same people in America favoring gun control are the ones calling for "regime change". In any case, nobody other than libertarians believes that compliance to government rule in liberal democracies is affected by the guns present. Absent a total rebellion, guns neither scare the government nor prevent government arrests. Never have, never will. And somehow, I find myself more worried that my family will get shot then I do about my government falling. Individual safety is not a "secondary" concern; it is the only.
This is precisely one problem of the Nolan Chart; the libertarians may base their positions on the notion of liberty, but nobody else does, at least not those on the opposite side of issues. Leftist positions are taken generally for humanitarian reasons, conservatives for moral reasons, communitarians a bit of each, etc... At the very least, the 98% of Americans who are not libertarians do not look at policy referendums and think, "Which policy best oppresses the people?" I believe a better political spectrum would be one with axes representing the ideals one bases their positions on, as opposed to the relationship their issues have to libertarian ideals... Juan Ponderas 05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll stand by my argument that the people favoring gun control do so for authoritarian reasons. Whether or not they are currently in power is irrelevant. The thinking behind gun control is that those who would implement it would have greater power over others. Their stated reasons for wanting to exert such power may be for their personal safety or the safety of others, but in the end it remains an authoritarian issue. Jeez...gun control? The name itself suggests that its intent is authoritarian.
It is a very rash generalization to say that lefists take positions for humanitarian reasons, or that conservatives take positions for moral reasons. Are you actually suggesting that conservatives are inhumane or that leftists are immoral? Leftists and conservatives take positions for both reasons. In respect to any given issue, it is only in the form of regulation or deregulation that they tend to disagree....or put another way, one side will favor more government and the other less. In that respect, the Nolan chart reflects the diversity of opinions accurately.
The Nolan chart does not relate to libertarian ideals. It relates to 2 forms of freedom that are common to all political agendas. You might find that simplistic, but that doesn't make the chart inaccurate. You could pick any issue, and I believe the issue will have some relation to the 2 types of freedom plotted on the chart. You seem to be implying that just because the person that developed it is libertarian, it is somehow flawed. I don't think so.--24.247.180.224 12:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"The thinking behind gun control is that those who would implement it would have greater power over others."
Not my thinking behind gun control, unless you mean to accuse me of lying. Why do you claim to know the thinking behind millions of people and claim that they are lying about it? I could claim with as much rationale that libertarians only oppose gun control because they want more deaths, so as to fight population growth.
Gun control demonstrates the two determining factors in any position. One is moral; what should the government seek to accomplish? According to libertarian philosophy, it should seek to maximize freedom. According to utilitarian philosophy, it should maximize human wellbeing. The other question is practical; how can the government accomplish its goal? Libertarians almost always believe freedom can be maximized through government deregulation of guns; utilitarians generally believe that human wellbeing can be maximized by a degree of firearm regulation. The opposite approach could be taken; many conservatives argue that gun control causes more deaths. And I have met libertarians who say they would allow gun control if they thought it prevented deaths. What conclusion can you draw from their position, other than that human life may provide motivation for taking a stance for gun control?
What makes something an x issue? Is gay marriage an authoritarian issue, a religious issue, a humanitarian issue, or an economic issue? If we are going by underlying ideals, it depends on who you ask. If we are going by consequences, it is all of them. What exactly do you mean by "authoritarian issue"?
"In respect to any given issue, it is only in the form of regulation or deregulation that they tend to disagree....or put another way, one side will favor more government and the other less"
Fascists and communists both maintain complete government control over the economy, whereas anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists both advocate none. On the Nolan Chart, they occupy identical positions, even though they propose radically different economies. Some issues have little or nothing to do with government authority, such as the death penalty and abortion.
Let me list some abberrations in the Nolan Chart:
  • Conservatives, supposedly favoring economic freedom, are the biggest supporters of the War in Iraq.
  • Socialist France, supposedly a nation of high personal freedom, banned students from wearing religious symbols in public schools.
  • Leftists in America, again supposedly the side of personal freedom, are the ones proposing that we restrict hate speech, censor violence in video games, and place extra taxes on tobacco usage.
  • Neolibertarians, libertarian-socialists, and radical centrists have no obvious place.
I believe an ideal political model follow the ideals people base their decisions on, which often does not include the level of personal or social freedom. Once upon a time, I proposed a model here, but while I believe it works better than the Nolan Chart, it is still an oversimplication.
Everyone has different ideas of morality, but they also have different ideas of freedom. I do not believe morality depends on religion, as I am a utilitarian. As for the self-interest bit, are you suggesting subconscious psychological egoism or merely falsification on a massive scale? And on what grounds? Juan Ponderas 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"According to libertarian philosophy, it should seek to maximize freedom."
Yes...but not at the expense of someone else's. If your freedom is at the expense of my life, liberty, or property; you should expect that I'd fight you. Guns are not moral or immoral...they just are. However, their USE may be moral or immoral. Which makes that the primary issue in respect to what should be controlled, not the mere possession of them. At best, controling possession just shifts the means by which you may be murdered or robbed to another form that is illegal or unregulated, i.e., guns are illegal, so the offender uses an illegal gun, a sword, or whatever.
If you control manufacture and possession, your economic freedom (i.e., your life and property) may be secured, but at the expense of your personal freedom and you'd be removing a means to defend your economic freedom. Given that people will possess firearms whether they are legal or not, I believe you'd be making a very dumb argument for controlling possession. What is gained from this?
If there is a flaw in the Nolan Chart, it is this...when faced with an issue that encompasses a mixture of freedoms, who's decision is supreme, the individual or government's? Charting a person's position in that manner, whether they are generally more in favor of economic freedoms or personal freedoms, the type of government they seek becomes much more obvious. On this issue, gun control advocates are in the lower half of the Nolan Chart (in rhomboid) and others are in the upper half.
The abberations you list aren't abberations at all...they are all issues where the party or individual is seeking authoritarian control of an issue despite consequences to their freedom...whther that freedom is personal or economic.
Pew just did a survey that made use of the Nolan Chart. In Search of Ideologues in America--24.247.180.224 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to side with our anonymous friend and disagree with you. Whether liberals want to admit it or not, gun control is authoritarian by its nature. Adding more laws and restrictions on what people do is authoritarian. Removing laws and restrictions is libertarian. The thing is, greens and liberals are typically willing to get in bed with authoritarian ideas (usually while steadily mouthing libertarian platitudes) in order to achieve certain goals. They put the goal of preventing firearm deaths over the goal of ensuring personal liberties. There's no basis for treating firearms as a "special" issue where you can call for more restrictive laws without being pro-authority. That's what gun laws are, after all. Gun laws are authoritarian by nature and by effect. They have the effect of reducing citizen power and increasing state power, which has an anti-democratic effect in the long run, since all power derives from force or the threat of force.
Your other mistake is in your statements on humanitarian and moral "reasons". Everyone has different opinions on what humanitarianism and morality are, and both liberals and conservatives care deeply about both. I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the current batch of American conservatives running the show, who happen to be in bed with would-be theocrats, have led you to believe that religion-based morality is the driving force behind American conservative voters. First off, the greatest lie religion has ever told is that it is the only source of morality. It is not. One can be non-religious while being highly moral and ethical. The only difference is in who determines the standards. Secondly, I believe that the true motivations of ALL voters in ALL parties is self-interest - it is merely cleverly masked behind various slogans, and wrapped in the trappings of pseudo-religious fervor or humanitarian spirit. Furthermore, what are called liberals and conservatives in America bear little or no resemblance to the groups using those names in other countries, so it's difficult to even know what you're talking about unless you stop using limiting vocabulary. A better description of a group would be the position their proposed policies occupy on the Nolan Chart. -Kasreyn 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Juan, I don't really speak for 24.247.180.224, but I feel I should point out that it's not really important what the motives of gun-control advocates are. The effects are what are important, and the effects are what are opposed by opponents of gun-control. Whatever the motive of gun-control advocates, whatever they think about their actions, the effect of their actions is to further state power at the expense of individual power, because that is the effect of gun-control. If that is not their goal, then they're failing to comprehend the consequences of their own actions. I'm not saying that someone who *wants* that is somehow bad or wrong. I've met many people who have a reasoned and whole-hearted belief that only the state should be entrusted with that power. (I happen to disagree, but I always respect a belief held without self-delusion.) What saddens me are people who politically oppose centralization of power in all its other forms, but do not see the centralization inherent in gun-control. Kasreyn 02:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
In the real world, conseqences are what is important. But with political spectrums, I believe something different is going on. The article says:
"The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's view(s) on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others"
If based on consequences, political spectrums will be nothing more than rough generalizations. Only by looking at underlying ideas can the most accurate spectrum be created. Maybe we must balance accuracy against utility, but I am not willing to go far in that direction. Still, I can see why others would... Juan Ponderas
I think Juan's point was that people who favour gun control don't normally do it in order to increase the states power. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. Gun control proponents (normally) favour using the state's power to achieve gun control, rather than using gun control to achieve power for the state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.

[edit] Economic freedom

Seems to me that at least somewhere in this article we should quote someone who questions the equation of "economic freedom" with the rights of private property. Isaiah Berlin's "freedom for the wolves is death to the lambs" is somewhat apropos, but not quite on the mark, and overly metaphorical (obviously, if my freedom causes your death, it does not enhance your freedom, but that is a bit roundabout). Does someone have something more to the point, probably either from a left-liberal, social democratic, or anarchist viewpoint? - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can nature be regulated in such a manner that wolves become lambs? I suspect not. The only way these two species can coexist is for lambs to recognize and accept the wolves' role in their lives. And if doing so is unacceptable to lambs, the alternatives are to cage all wolves or kill them. Even in nature, wolves benefit lambs by eating the weaker members of the flock.
Obviously, Berlin's statement is significant to the extent that lambs are presumably unwilling dinners for wolves. But who is the wolf and who is dinner? Is someone that succeeds in the economic sphere a wolf if he has complied with very basic moral expectations, i.e., the person has not made their gains by engaging in theft or fraud? Or might the less successful be considered wolves if they tax such a person for his success, or otherwise expect that person to provide for them?
Are you trying to find an excuse for using force? Are you suggesting that any freedom which allows some people to be more successful than others is somehow immoral? I'm a little puzzled by what you're after here.--24.247.180.224 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with attempts to do away with private property as a social construct is that the idea of ownership is too deeply ingrained into people. I suspect it's literally instinctual. Some governments have tried, and all that has happened was a consolidating of all property in the hands of a very few, typically corrupt "public servants". As Kurt Vonnegut said, "Should the nation’s wealth be redistributed? It has been, and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful." ("Timequake")
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. We are attempting to live out behavior patterns which evolved for low-density hunter-gatherer troop life, only we've transplanted those behavior patterns to a high-density specialized-production hive existence. The mismatch is fundamental and irrepairable. In the social situation in which we originated, it wasn't *possible* for a "wolf" to own a great deal more than a "sheep", because you only owned what you could carry with you when the troop moved on to new hunting grounds. Today, CEO's make several hundred times what their lowest-paid employees make. The system of intangible, socially constructed value - money - has been fantastically good at increasing raw quantity of humans and food in the world, but has also allowed greed and corruption to spiral to unimaginable levels, often quite opaquely. The solution? I don't really think there is one. We'll either live long enough (several hundred thousand more years at least) to evolve behavior patterns more fitting to our planetary dominance, or we'll die off.
One way or another, the issue will become moot. Economics as we know it is a temporary coping-measure our species has deployed, a stopgap solution for distributing the world's goods until we have time to "grow into" our brand-new ecological niche and adapt new instinctual behaviors. When that happens, most of the areas of human activity that we think of as intellectualism and scholarly pursuits will be discarded without a backwards glance. Culture is a scab over the wound of our rapid evolution, and we're already picking at it. -Kasreyn 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
'The system of intangible, socially constructed value - money'
Banning all forms of currency would definitely make for a more level playing field. I'm just not sure how well we'd live under that condition...or how long.--24.247.180.224 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not advocating that we do so. The problem is the desire to own, and that's not going to go away any time soon. Money is just a way of measuring who owns how much. Any society that "did away" with it would simply shift it to another form, which they would have to hypocritically pretend wasn't "money". I'm not proposing a course of action, just describing the situation as I see it: the coping mechanism of a species that has out-evolved its instinctive behaviors. Kasreyn 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, I wasn't asking for people's individual opinions. I was merely remarking that there is a literature out there that is critical of the point of view that gives this definition of "economic freedom" and suggesting that this article might be improved by recognizing the existence of that literature and citing it. I'd do the search myself, but I'm swamped right now. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except most of the criticism in this article is nothing more than opinion. Yours is just one more. This article would be greatly improved by citing facts vs opinions.--24.247.180.224 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable. If it is not clear from the paragraph that started this section of the discussion, I have no intention of putting my own uncited opinion into the article. I was specifically asking if someone had a good citation with reference to the point in question. For what it's worth, I would gladly remove the many uncited opinions from the article, but I suspect that all I'd accomplish by doing so unilaterally is to start an edit war. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to criticism, we should not remove uncited opinions against the chart while allowing uncited opinions for the chart. This whole topic is pretty obscure, but for NPOV we should not be selective in our standards. Of course, with the press coverage of the Nolan Chart this may not be an issue. Juan Ponderas

[edit] The most biased

Congratulations, this is the single most biased article I've come across in the Wikipedia. You spend easily twice as much time citing every single criticism that anyone ever came up with, from significant to petty, such that the criticism is double the size of the actual article. It's almost like you throw the thing up as a straw man just so you can criticise it. Other articles I've seen on far more controversial topics give far more balance. I am not a regular Wikipedia guy, I don't involve myself in your wars, just a "customer", if you will, writing in to complain about your product. --Rich Yampell, rich@yay.tim.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.246.200 (talk • contribs) 6 JAN 2006.

[edit] Biased links

I propose that the link (in the links section) to the page "Two kinds of selfishness" be removed as it is an extreme right-wing opinion piece - or maybe at least it should be labelled as such. The neutrality of the other links may also be a concern? --Greenwoodtree 10:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Polituical Opinions

It seems that a lot of the article, not to mention this talk page, is just giving various political opinions, rather than analysing the chart, its methodolgy etc. Most of the comments on the talk page are not even really about the chart, let alone the article - they're debates about politics, freedom etc. The 'criticisms' section of the chart also seems to just be a collection of paragraphs, each listing a particular political angel and why they would oppose the chart, or assumptions behind the chart, rather than an examination of the chart from a sociological/ political science perspective. For instance, point out the various ideological assumtions behind the chart - like ranking on the basis of "freedom", a horribly inexact word, and what it means is something which itself is dependant on ones political view, and thus not something that can be use to categorize different political views - rather than giving alternative ideological assumtions, like a 'socialist view of freedom', and in essence arguing about whether a particular conception of freedom (like the US 'right-wing' Libertarian one) is wrong. - Matthew238 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/l/Talk%7ENolan_Chart_9b2a.html"