Just woke, went into OoL first and saw this:
I am sure, among the millions of people who voted for Brexit, there was a variety of reasons to go.…
Variety of reasons, yes, variety of opinions. Look at this little chart:
To conclude from that that I’m moderate centre-right would be a mistake – not on all things. I think jihadis should be deported right now, this involves force, this surely puts me to the authoritarian edge. I also think cannabis should be like alcohol – regulated for minors but freely available for adults. That puts me on the druggy libertarian edge.
Truth is that were we to scatter our answers to the questionnaire across that board, they would spray all over the place and what comes out as a red dot is an averaging. I’d like to see the chart with the original answers scattered in light grey dots as well.
Which is why I have three views as a result of that:
1. The notion of political parties in parliament and congress is stupid, let alone having just two parties, a red and a blue. The shades of opinion are so varied on so many issues it’s a wonder they can agree on anything.
And they don’t. This is why they have coercive “whips”, to make an MP vote against his/her conscience/belief. I am opposed to political parties.
Were you to scatter people’s opinions [not MPs as they’re not freely chosen] over that chart, they’d intermingle – my position on cruelty to animals might be way to the traditional left of most readers here on most other issues, which do see us align. But I average out where I am on the chart.
And were you to allow direct democracy, where registered voters who have passed a factual test on the nation [and it can be written and thrashed out] can push a button on their device at home, put in all the validation codes and encryption and vote on any matter, then that would direct the executive to do as the people say.
2. I’ve been told many times that the traditional left-right labelling is invalid, that it is now Statist-freedom or Neocon globalist-nationalist or whatever. The critical issue in this is not the scattering of beliefs, it is the labelling.
Let’s say that that chart is a sandbox, with all our beliefs scattered – then along comes someone and places a screen over that box, in coloured cellophane – a lovely light pink, blue, purple and green quadrant screen and now we are divided and labelled – you see I’m in the authoritarian right quadrant, according to them.
But you’d also realize, if you’d see the scattering, that I’d zero into the centre on average. So like stats, this chart is highly misleading – my views are far more libertarian than that.
3. Having written the above on the scattering of views, not all questions are multi-coloured, most questions today are black and white, on-off, go or stay, theist or atheist, bomb or stay out of it. This last one is what is splitting the Deplorables right now.
Plus if you took most people’s views on most things, they do tend to a grouping, in a way that a rifle shooter’s grouping of shots fall on the target in a rough pattern. And if a whole group of shooters tended to centre their shots, say, lower right of the target, then they could be loosely grouped as Lower Righters.
There is a Metro lady named Parveen on my Twitter timeline and she seems a London based labour supporter, but I might be quite wrong about that:
How many of those would you agree/disagree with? Would it surprise regular readers that I half-agree with two of those?
And a second question – how can you be sure that her views on everything are fairly represented – after all, I went in and selected six, did I not?
Drawing this thing to a close
1. Beliefs are scattered and ungroupable overall
2. There are groupings of beliefs which allow you to group
3. Many issues today are black and white, do or don’t
4. Two variables not mentioned above – fanatically coercive and moderate non-coercive.
People can be moderate on many things and fanatical on one. For example, I have a moderate belief in the Trinity, it seems fair enough to me but I’m being attacked by fanatical atheists using intemperate language, not unlike the way the Christians are being dealt with in the middle-east right now.
On the other hand, I think jihadis should be deported immediately for the demonstrable harm and/or threat they represent to our society. Who’s the fanatic? Who’s the moderate?