re: #209 ThomasLite

If one thinks more along the lines of overall political philosophy, the circle paradigm makes more sense than if it is discussed in terms of one’s views on specific issues. Thus, a “radical pacifist” refers only to a person’s view on a single group of issues, related to the use of force by nations, but says nothing about that person’s overall view on the role of state vs. individual, the structure of a political entity or laissez-faire capitalism vs. centrally planned economies. In other words, such a person may be a monarchist or communist; he or she simply does not believe in war as a solution to any problem. The political philosophies of the extreme right or extreme left, however, are very nearly identical in terms of their elevation of the central authority over the individual and their fundamental rejection of any opposition to the central power. The circle paradigm is not a way of understanding the concept of radical vs. non-radical, but of overall political philosophies that we facilely refer to as “right” and “left”. (On a related note, as my political philosophy professor once pointed out, when viewed in historical context, what we generally call a “conservative” is actually a philosophical liberal, but not nearly as liberal as what we call a “liberal”).