I'm reading an interesting book titled "
the science of liberty".
In an early chapter, the author describes the political compass as divided between classical liberals, conservatives and progressives. Thus, the political spectrum is a triangle.
Conservatives: Would use government to force the preservation of traditional institutions.
Liberals: Those who place the highest emphasis on individual liberty.
Progressives: Those who place a high value on equality, even if legislated equality of outcome comes at the expense of equality of opportunity.
What are your thoughts about this? It seems to me that this would explain most of the ideological arguments here. The philosophical spectrum *here* seems to be between those who disagree between the appropriate emphasis placed on the virtues of equality and liberty.
We see "liberal" and "progressive" as the same thing, but the author of this book argues that they're not.
The main flaw I see with this philosophy is that government doesn't have a monopoly on coercive power. Corporations and those among whom wealth is concentrated wield very illiberal power against the have nots. A classically liberal government would and should constrain the activities of the powerful in the interest of maintaining maximum liberty for the population in general. Thus, FDR's "four freedoms" argues for an active government working to maximize liberty.
The author's view explains why DU'ers have broad agreement about abortion rights and gay marriage - because opposing either is both illiberal and unequal, while disagreeing about a great many other things (e.g. prostitution, drugs, porn).