Saturday, April 4, 2015

More on the Nolan Chart

My last post on the utility of the Nolan Chart sparked the following exchange on Facebook. I think you can go HERE for the full exchange, because I've edited it down for posting here.

ME: Some things work as propaganda tools, but not as actual teaching tools. One such thing is the Nolan Chart.

MATT BAILEY: These days people of Rightish bent mostly wants to avoid people with behaviors they don't like, while the Leftists want to use government to fucking force themselves on Rightists. Hmmm...   The Nolan chart works fine. There are people who want to government to enforce their entire view of life, and those who don't. Sorry, but that distinction IS the most important at the end of the day.

ME: Yes. As a Zen enlightenment tool. For explaining the actual difference between leftists and rightists, not so much 

MATT BAILEY: But many people on the Left and Right share the same authoritarian tendencies, they just differ on the specific focus of these tendencies. So you see, Right and Left doesn't define anything very well without further explanation. For instance, I think Alcohol/Drug Prohibition is clear, arrant jackassery for the same reason that the Civil Rights (anti-property rights) Act is clear arrant jackassery, they both violate individual rights. I do not fit neatly anywhere on conventional definitions of "Left" and "Right"

ANOTHER GUY (A): The Nolan chart is great, within its limits. After, it's only two dimensions and reality requires a couple more. Compared to the single axis model that is all most folks seem to work with ...

YET ANOTHER GUY (B): There is no real difference between "rightists" and "leftists"- in fact, the distinction is a silly one. There are those who want to violate others and those who don't. The excuses they use to justify violating others matters not a bit in the end- only the violation does. "Right" and "left" are clearly the "violate others" part of the map- the opposite of me.

MATT BAILEY: Ah, but Rightists do not pathologically hate every aspect of traditional Western culture and wish to destroy those aspects. John Locke and the Bill of Rights are parts of traditional Western Culture. The sin of the Right is being rigidly opposed to expanding freedom, the sin of the Left is being fanatically opposed to the very idea of individual rights. One sin IS clearly greater than the other.

ME: All that you say is true, my only point being the point of the post, which is, left and right have different _intentions_, and by and large, the intentions of the right are healthier than those of the left. The right wants to do what it can to _prevent_ drug addiction, and is willing to use gvt power to do it. The left wants the same power, to make sure drug addicts aren't discriminated against and don't have to listen to 'hate speech' shaming them. As I wrote, those opposed to drug addiction can often be persuaded that freedom is the best guard against such addiction. But they left can't be persuaded that freedom will get the goodies and freebies for drug addicts that THEY want. And they're right. So the rightist mindset can lead to freedom, but the leftist definitely leads elsewhere.

YET ANOTHER GUY (B): Eh. Only statists worry about the flavors of statism. It's all feces soup to me.

MATT BAILEY: I do not want to prevent drug addiction, since I do not believe in such a thing as that phenomenon. I believe there are personalities who are weak and fuckups, and screw them, you're not restricting my rights because their epic fail status.  I firmly belief in the sentiment expressed in this image. I'm not sure most of the "Right" would agree. Of course, since Western culture more or less tolerated prostitution for most of its history, I may be the *true* traditionalist in my attitude.

I believe in this sentiment firmly, as did my father did before me. "Leave the bastard alone!" It's the closest thing I have to religion.

You can see why I quote Matt Bailey a lot. He may be more of a Darwinist than I am. Nobody's ever going to talk him into making exceptions to libertarian principles for politically correct reasons. The prostitution thing is very significant. Almost everybody on the right is prepared to tolerate prostitution, as he says. The rightist position is usually to restrict it and keep it out of everybody's face. Not a perfect libertarian position. But the leftist position is usually to encourage it rather than simply tolerate it, while making sure that everybody is taught that it's 'morally neutral,' in their crusade to wipe out all systems of morality other than their own.

Quibcag: The girl is from Jungre De Ikou. The quibcag itself is an assignment from Vulture of Critique.


  1. There are several quibcags to be drawn from Mr. Bailey's comments, not least of which is:

    "I do not want to prevent drug addiction, since I do not believe in such a thing as that phenomenon. I believe there are personalities who are weak and fuckups, and screw them, you're not restricting my rights because their epic fail status."

  2. I have always found it amusing that many women who'd slap my face hard if I offered them a couple of hundred dollars to go to bed with me would be quite willing if, instead, I had a spare ticket and backstage pass to a concert they really, really wanted to see.

    And I think that a lot of the "bad effect" prostitution is said to have comes from a combination of the fact that most women treat prostitutes like sh*t, and the sad fact that some prostitutes really are ill-suited to the profession and unhappy in it.