I think I can put every non-identity politic ideology that you can come up with on this chart. The identity politic ideologies (those that support the sole interest of the group that they support) are hypocrites and want double standards in their favor. It's like having an ideology that says I want to rule the world with an iron fist, but I don't want anyone else who I disagree with to rule. I don't consider these to be principles, they are simply the support of self interest, and therefore do not deserve to be put on a chart that goes by principles. I think that the principles behind what we consider conservatism are clear, as outlined by Locke, Smith, and Burke, and also that the principles behind contemporary liberalism are clear, outlined by people like Bentham, Owen, Dewey and the like. Principles are steadfast and do not change, or they would not be principles.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

Not at debate. My argument is that it would not be fully descriptive. It would be subject to only a one-dimensional attempt at quantitative analysis. It would only have meaning in one dimension and as a result various groups would actually have to be redefined to fit... and it would be impossible to compare it to other analyses where the various groups are redefined in different ways to fit a different typology.

I don't have a problem with your chart. I just do not see it as "more accurate" than the more conventional typologies.


All interest groups want things in their favor. Some just claim it to be over "principles".
I am a "principle" voter technically, but I don't see how it is any better than a person who votes simply for economic interest... particuarly since I still have to compromise principles if I wish to vote for anyone.
Different ideologies have different paradigms. The concept of "hypocrisy" is dependent on the groups looking at the policy through the same lens. The vocabulary of one side to describe "hypocrisy" will appear to the other side to be spin.
There are certainly people with double standards... often because they lack the cognitive ability to notice, sometimes, and more disturbingly, because they want something their way and have the power to push it...
But it seems to me a lot of alleged "double standards" occur when you have someone who is an absolutist on a subject looking at a person who is more pragmatic or consequentialist about the subject.
The very notion of taxes is considered a "double standard" by many... but the term "necessary evil" makes more sense and most people accept that. The difference between a "double standard" and a "necessary evil" almost always has to do with your perspective from where you stand on an issue.


That's not actually hypocritical. It's more of a hyper-cynical point of view.
If you believe something MUST be a certain way, then you will believe only those that will enforce that order can rule. Typical of theocrats, communists, and to some extent of those who believe in limiting who can vote.

Then I argue that principles are nothing but an illusion.
They do change... so they must not be principles.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Then I argue that principles are nothing but an illusion.
They do change... so they must not be principles.[/quote]

Principle does not change... False principle, such as that which the left trots out, such as 'necessity' and as the basis for every faux right, not the least of which is "the Right to Choose," they change with every presentation... as they must; in that if they do not change they succumb to reason which stands inherently at odds to them...

This friends is the deceit one expects from evil... Treat it as such.

"Get thee behind me..."