I wouldn’t expect to be embraced to anyone’s bosom round these parts, by the way, but people who consider themselves liberal should beware of leftwingers and their manichean reductionism, where they are the good guys and everyone who disagrees are evil rightwingers, and anyone who dares bring up traditional liberal economic positions or quote someone from the 19th century is derided as a top-hat-wearing plutocrat or a lackey thereof.

I hope I was defending all knowledge against specific, fixed and final definitions as part of the evolution and continuous development of understanding, especially considering how things change with time. As an example of which I’m glad that you pulled me up on the confusion between astronomy and astrology to highlight this point.

It’s because of this that I find left-right-centre references unhelpful (they are relative) – I find they try to describe current topics, morphing arguments and creating artificial associations to suit the agendas of those using them, whereas liberalism is a set of diffuse principles that defy such demagogery.

For example the challenge to educate is at the core of any good liberal argument, yet the same could be said of opponents to liberalism, although we would characterise the practises of those tyrants as propaganda, indoctrination or re-education: we remain slaves to the medium of languages.

I’m sorry however that you took my comment a little too much to heart (it was late and some wine had been consumed..).

I have also seen a three-dimentional political map somehwere, but at least in that case the third dimention added was irrelevant for me.

I wonder if you are mixing up astrology and astronomy? Please read again what I actually wrote.

But if you actually understood what I wrote, I have as good right for my opinion about astrology than you. I told, that I don’t mind if somebody else wants to follow astrology. I’m also supporting freedom of religion, people have the right to believe in god(s) or not to believe. How about you? And which one of us two actually is small-minded?

And here I take issue with the ‘irrelevance’ of astro-sciences.

Even a cursory inspection of the mathematics that constrains the orbit of many spacial bodies provides lessons from which relevance can be drawn in any number of areas.

Just please don’t be so small-minded to assume that even primitive attempts at theoretical science and logic cannot provide the crossover from astral example to intellectual understanding and mechanical application (however obscure and complex it appears at first glance), as the limits of research are similarly unknown, and the results of examining the behaviour of particles at places like CERN wouldn’t have enabled the development of useful tools like our increasingly inescapable and ubiquitous internet-web thing-um-a-jig had this possibility been precuded.

It is a deception for the authors of such quizzes to force subsequential conclusions when the defining question is so badly framed by their own biases. So, is it any wonder that so many people grow to be frustrated and apathetic when they are ignored and discounted for their rejection of the available choices?

And the actual question was “Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.” You can answer “agree” to that even if you would support public funding for it anyway, or “disagree”, even if you oppose public funding for any arts.

And then there’s the question “Astrology accurately explains many things.” What is that supposed to measure, and what does it have to do with political views? I “strongly disagree”, but that doesn’t mean that I would want to forbid anybody making star charts, or following them in his or her daily life.

I agree that a two-dimentional graph is much better than a one-dimentional, but why buy the cheap copy, when you can get the original? See the tests I refered to, they all are based to a political map with two axes, and they all have only questions, which are somehow related to political views, which they are supposed to measure.

We’re liberals–half the writers on that site (as in people writing posts, not commenting) are people that should be in our party. That they’re not isn’t their problem, it’s ours. We need them if we’re going to make that breaktrhough, we need people like them even more.

So let’s take the opportunity and go grab them.

(also? Jennie and I sat here reading that thread and shouting at the screen, then scrolling down to find you’d posted what we just said? Very weird.)

A lot of effort has gone into getting others to accept and submit to this type of contextualisation of the world.

In the same way the left-right divide is a distraction from the real issues to get you to submit to pre-existing hierachies.

I mean – why vote LibDem when you are given between the lesser of two evils..? You can always emigrate!

Taking it seriously? Daft idea. But using it as a guide? Very useful.

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2007/11/08/against-equality-of-opportunity

I must say I am finding it a worthwhile experience in working out where my boundaries are.

Political Compass is actually a very cheap copy of the original two-dimensional political test, World’s Smallest Political Quiz, but Political Compass is made by people who aren’t actually understanging what they are measuring. Therefore they have also incorporated elements from The F Scale which is supposed to measure how authoritarian personality a person has, but which isn’t really scientific, either.

Beside the original World’s Smallest Political Quiz I could recommend two variations of it, World’s Enhanced Precision Political Quiz and Politopia Quiz. (Unfortunately all of these three tests are using American political vocabulary.)

@ Jeremy: It seems quite clearly designed to appeal to Labour supporters

Partially, which is why I like it–Chris Dillow is a Liberals liberal, and really should be read by pretty much anyone in our party, seeing him putting in an effort to convert more statist lefties into liberals, as opposed to his normal efforts of converting tories into being ‘left’ is refreshing, and I’ll read it just for him, let alone Justin, Donald, Sunny et al.

@ Rob. I agree, I suspect you knew that already but I still agree.

Basically, we’re fundamentally progressive: but that doesn’t mean that we should let ‘the Left’ always be inviting us to the Party.

My fuller thoughts are here: http://clickeral.blogspot.com/2007/11/left-right-forward.html

Might I suggest that, before any of you continue this argument, you take the Political Compass test (at http://www.politicalcompass.org).

- ‘the left’
- equality
- the importance of education
- collective bargaining at work
- transparency

but nowhere anything about liberalism.

It seems quite clearly designed to appeal to Labour supporters but while preserving their desire – as lots of Labour members do at the moment – not to be too closely associated with what the Labour government is actually doing.

Obviously semi-detached members of the Labour are perfectly entitled to set up a website for debate, and as we have seen many of the issues they’ll want to talk about will be of interest to Lib Dems too, and there can be some interesting overlaps.

But frankly the site seems to have no more to do with liberalism than it does with conservatism – and indeed it seems to me that the ‘conspiracy’ has more to do with wanting to think themselves radical, than any coherent strand of thought.

You’re using ‘left’ in a broadly economic sense, I’m clearly talking of the political reform sense instead, and harking back to the original definition of left wing.

I personally define myself as both liberal and left, but the liberal is more important (hence I have many friends who are avowed libertarians and liberal tories). But our party has always been ‘left’ by the definition of the time within British politics.

So, can you point me to a period when that hasn’t been the case?

I come from a more international perspective to political debate, and it strikes me that in Georgia I’m seen as obscenely right wing (minimise govt, rip through regulations, flat tax, etc), but in Estonia I’m far-left – I want to build up public services and invest heavily in education. In the UK I was “centre left” before Labour invested in public services and am now probably seen as centrist or even “right wing” because there are areas that I’d like to cut out and other areas that I’d like to beef up.

Equating “left wing” with “good”, “challenging priviledge”, etc is just playing with definitions.

Some of the time we’ll want to challenge the excesses and abuses of the state, other times we’ll want to strengthen its liberty-providing capabilities.

Some of the people naturally on our side would see “left-wing” as more of a threat than “right-wing”, others see either as a cop-out. I’d like to see us work with people who are “of the left”, “right-wing” or who just don’t care, so long as they’re liberal and they’re willing to help us make this a more liberal country. I can’t imagine that there’s a better political strategy out there.

Different type of left for sure, but we’ve always been in favour of reform and looking to the future, that’s the very definition of left wing, unless someone has decided to redefine it again.

Or maybe I’m thinking of the wrong tennis court.