Putting aside what is desirable for a moment, consider the possibility that strong government social authority and a firm economic hierarchy are inevitable- that they are a major and perhaps the final step in our political and cultural evolution. If you are familiar with the political compass, then you will have no difficulty in following my case. Let us consider libertarian leftism, which consists of less government authority and less economic inequality. That is what liberals and most socialists support. It is an impossibility. Humans, being so-often driven by selfishness and a fear of want, hoard what we consider to be ours and so we are all instinctively "right-wing" on economic issues. Some Marxists therefore support temporary social authority to guarantee economic equality. They would be in the authoritarian left quadrant. Their ideas are doomed to fail because with government social authority comes the power of the government to hoard wealth for itself. In that way, libertarian leftists who attempt to move up on the compass to defeat the right will end up supporting a government that is, in reality, in the authoritarian right quadrant (e.g. China). Then there is the libertarian right quadrant, which has no major world leaders in it at present. While it would appeal to our inherent economic selfishness and fear, it is not sustainable either because, just as people hoard wealth (a form of power) out of innate insecurity, they seek social authority in the same way, and strict division of economic classes is only one reflection of the societal struggle for power that leads to a strict hierarchy in all areas of our lives. Therefore, a libertarian right government would, in time, move up on the compass as well. This up and rightward movement is checked by the potential for extreme economic discontent and the anarchic backlash that results from extreme social authority. Therefore, a century from now, I see most governments, including ours, being center-right on economics but very authoritarian (though not to the point of fascism). I will not judge whether this is good or bad, but I think it is an unstoppable movement in governments around the world. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

I have seen no evidence to support this conclusion. So I feel confident in discarding this possibility.

The same political compass that defines me as a moderate?

No, this test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Ours is already there to some extent, is it not? Though maybe not as extreme in the quadrant as you might be predicting.

__________________
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.
~Bokonon

Yes, we are seeing the beginnings of it, in my opinion. I see our government in particular becoming more authoritarian and somewhat less right-wing. Bush appears to be something like 8 to the right and 5 authoritarian. I see our government moving to 5 or 6 right and 7 or 8 authoritarian in the next few decades.

My result: http://www.sadisticsavior.com/politicalcompass.gif

While technically in the commie/Nazi quadrant, it is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) close to the absolute center of the graph. This test is defining me as a moderate as well.

I think that what our corporate owned politicians have in mind for the future is a network of trade agreements and corporate friendly governments willing to overlook their nations' domestic needs in favor of big business. In that respect, government is just the facade for business interests. Multinational corporations like authoritarian governments; they need each other, particularly when they are leaving so many people in the economic dust, so I agree with you -that is the trend of the future. Things are not going as planned in S. America but I have little doubt than when/ if Bush and Co. have less to worry about in the Middle East, they will turn their attention to overthrowing or starving the latest crop of popularly elected populist leaders in Latin America.

I do not think that this trend would be inevitable if we publicly financed political campaigns and changed the laws concerning corporations. This incestuous relationship did not have to develop. It is tragic, really.

I've never been clear on this: What is public financing? I'm all for banning soft money, though, but I haven't seen a politician yet who is serious about it (for obvious reasons).

simply means that the tax payer provides a certain amount of money for ea candidate's campaign. As far as I know, that is how it works in Britain. Here in Maine, we have public financing on the state level. My sence is that Maine has one of the least corrupt state governments. At the root of the Delay scandal is the fact that he was raising gobs of cash in illegal ways to try to get a majority of Repubs in the state house so that the Repubs would gerrymander the districts and then achieve an added 5 (I think) safe Repub districts to send reps to Washington. Voila! A safe Repub majority in the House. Money/ power/ corruption.

I.M.O., the root of many if not most of the world's woes is the rise of corporate power. Would income disparity be so wide if corporations were guided by the same restrictions that governed corporations in the 18th early 19th centuries? Would we now be fighting wars to facilitate corporate supremacy and secure stable corporate resources? Would C.E.O. salaries be so ridiculously high if corporate boards weren't stuffed with C.E.O.s cronies? Why should corporations have the rights and none of the responsibilities of "personhood"?

It strikes me that many of the debates on this forum set up a false dichotimy: Libertarian freedom vs. Socialism. I don't get it really. For example, why would someone say that having the government pay for health care restricts my freedom ("Nanny State") but having the (Nanny) corporation pay for it and tell me what H.M.O. I must join-why is that more "free"?

Who ever said that?

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.