The Political-Economic Literacy Spectrum

Overview: Understanding the Spectrum

This spectrum maps political and economic positions based on adherence to The Non-aggression Principle and economic literacy. It is not the traditional left-right spectrum, which Rothbard correctly identified as obsolete and misleading.

The Core Framework

Following Hoppe's analysis in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism:

Capitalism = Pure protection of Private Property, free association, voluntary exchange. No exceptions. This is the institutionalized policy of non-aggression.

Socialism = All deviations from pure property protection. Any system that aggresses against property and contract. This includes everything from "democratic socialism" to full communism to "limited government" conservatism.

The NAP: The Line in the Sand

The Non-aggression Principle serves as the demarcation line:

ABOVE the line: Positions that reject all institutionalized aggression (anarcho-capitalism in its forms)

BELOW the line: Positions that permit aggression in varying degrees and for various justifications - minarchism, democracy, conservatism, progressivism, socialism, communism, etc.

As proven by Argumentation Ethics, the NAP is the only non-contradictory ethical position. Everything below this line is some form of Mixed Law - resolving conflicts by permitting aggression in arbitrary situations.

Why Traditional Left-Right is Useless

Rothbard showed that the original spectrum was:

Over time, state socialists claimed "the left" while free-market advocates were pushed right. This inversion obscures the real distinction: degree of state aggression versus voluntary cooperation.

How to Use This Spectrum

  1. Mapping individuals: Identify their positions on property rights, taxation, state power, NAP consistency
  2. Gauging populations: Estimate distribution percentages to predict national trajectories
  3. Understanding contradictions: Every position below NAP has logical contradictions
  4. Predicting outcomes: Higher concentration of economic literacy = prosperity; higher concentration of parasitism = collapse

Income Correlation Note

Income imperfectly correlates with position on this spectrum in relatively free markets. Why? Because income reflects value creation, which requires understanding cause-effect relationships that underpin economic literacy.

The correlation isn't perfect, but it's reliable enough to be diagnostic.

THE SPECTRUM: 12 Levels

TIER 1: NAP-COMPLIANT (Above the Line)

These are the only positions that consistently reject institutionalized aggression. They recognize that any state, by definition, violates property rights through Taxation and monopolistic violence.

Level 1: Rothbardian/Hoppean Anarcho-Capitalists

Definition: Pure anarcho-capitalism with zero tolerance for state aggression. Radical consistency with The Non-aggression Principle. All services currently provided by states - law, defense, dispute resolution - should be provided through voluntary market mechanisms.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Highest variance. Includes:

Contradictions:
None. This is the only logically consistent position. All criticisms of anarcho-capitalism ultimately rely on accepting aggression as legitimate in certain situations, which is precisely what Argumentation Ethics proves false.

Population %: <0.1% globally (perhaps 500,000 - 1,000,000 people who genuinely hold this position consistently)

Level 2: Pragmatic/Utilitarian Anarchists

Definition: Anarcho-capitalism arrived at through consequentialist reasoning rather than ethical axioms. They believe markets outperform states empirically, even if they're less committed to NAP as a moral absolute.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Generally high earners who've succeeded in markets:

Contradictions:
Utilitarianism itself is contradictory (Utilitarianism) - it attempts to convert ordinal preferences to cardinal measurements and requires prior value creation to redistribute. On edge cases, they may accept aggression "if consequences are better," which contradicts NAP and opens door to Mixed Law reasoning.

Population %: ~0.5% globally (perhaps 2-4 million people)

TIER 2: NAP-VIOLATORS - Minimal State

These positions accept the necessity of institutionalized aggression but want to "limit" it. They fail to grasp that you cannot limit an institution by granting it monopoly power (The Myth of Limited Government).

Level 3: Minarchists / Night-Watchman State Advocates

Definition: Belief in "limited government" restricted to courts, police, and military. Accept taxation as necessary evil to fund these "essential" services. Essentially NAP + one giant exception.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Upper-middle to high earners who've seen government inefficiency:

Contradictions:
Massive and fatal:

See: The Myth of Limited Government

Population %: ~1-2% in Western nations (perhaps 10-20 million globally)

Level 4: Classical Liberals

Definition: Support for free markets and limited government, but accept state intervention in "market failures," "public goods," and infrastructure. Hayekian/Friedmanite compromise positions.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Solidly upper-middle class, often in business or academia:

Contradictions:

Population %: ~3-5% in developed nations (perhaps 50-100 million globally)

TIER 3: NAP-VIOLATORS - Conservative Statism

These positions embrace free markets domestically but support massive state intervention in foreign policy, immigration, and "cultural" issues. Economics lite + nationalism.

Level 5: Fiscal Conservatives / Paleolibertarians

Definition: Generally pro-market economics combined with social conservatism, nationalism, and protectionism. Against domestic welfare but pro-military, pro-borders, pro-tariffs.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Wide range, mostly middle class:

Contradictions:
Glaring and numerous:

Population %: ~10-15% in USA, lower in Europe, varies by nation (perhaps 100-200 million globally)

Level 6: Neoconservatives / Establishment Right

Definition: Corporate statism mixed with military imperialism and selective moral policing. "Conservative" socialism - regulate culture, subsidize business, export democracy at gunpoint.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Upper-middle to wealthy, but income from state-adjacent sources:

Contradictions:
The entire ideology is contradictory:

Population %: ~10-15% in USA, less elsewhere (perhaps 150-250 million globally when including all flavors of right-wing statism)

TIER 4: THE ECONOMICALLY INCOHERENT

This tier has no consistent philosophy. Positions are contradictory, case-by-case, feelings-based. This is where most "politically moderate" people land.

Level 7: Centrists / Moderates

Definition: No coherent political philosophy. Picks positions based on "what sounds reasonable" without checking for logical consistency. Both-sides-ism as ideology. Fence-sitting as virtue.

Core Philosophy:
There is no philosophy. That's the point. They believe:

Positions:
Totally incoherent. Examples of contradictory combinations:

Literally any combination is possible because there's no underlying framework.

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Entire middle class spectrum:

Contradictions:
EVERYTHING. The entire position is contradictory because there is no position.

Some specific contradictions:

Population %: ~20-30% in developed democracies (perhaps 500 million - 1 billion globally)

This is the most dangerous category per capita because they enable statism while thinking they're reasonable. They'll vote for parasitism while claiming to oppose it.

TIER 5: NAP-VIOLATORS - Leftist Parasitism

These positions explicitly embrace wealth redistribution and state control. They've abandoned any pretense of property rights and embrace Aggression as legitimate for "equality" or "justice."

Level 8: Social Democrats / Welfare State Supporters

Definition: Capitalism with heavy redistribution, regulation, and safety nets. "Compassionate" theft. Nordic model worship. Markets allowed to create wealth so state can redistribute it.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Bimodal distribution:

Contradictions:

Population %: ~15-20% in Western democracies, much lower elsewhere (perhaps 300-500 million globally)

Level 9: Progressives / Democratic Socialists

Definition: Aggressive wealth redistribution, extensive state control, identity politics, equality of outcome. Markets are suspect, state planning is virtue. "Eat the rich" mentality.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Heavily skewed to low earners + wealthy virtue signalers:

Contradictions:

Population %: ~10-15% in Western nations, varies widely elsewhere (200-400 million globally)

Level 10: Full Socialists

Definition: State ownership of means of production. Central planning. Private property in capital goods is exploitation. Markets are the problem. This is explicit rejection of economic reality.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Extreme bimodal:

The pattern: people who've never created value in markets

Contradictions:

Population %: ~3-8% in Western nations, higher in some developing nations (150-300 million globally)

Level 11: Communists / Marxist-Leninists

Definition: Complete abolition of private property. Dictatorship of the proletariat. From each according to ability, to each according to need. This is pure Parasitism - the consume-before-produce ethic that requires stealing from prior value creation.

Core Philosophy:

Positions:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Overwhelmingly low income:

Contradictions:
Every. Single. Thing.

Population %: ~1-3% in Western nations, higher in some nations with communist parties (75-150 million globally, mostly in China/former Soviet states as lingering ideology)

SPECIAL CATEGORY: THE IGNORANT MASSES

This isn't a political position. It's the absence of political thought. This is the majority.

Level 12: The Politically Unaware (NPCs)

Definition: No coherent political philosophy whatsoever. Pure reactionaries. Tax slaves who accept whatever the state does as "just how things are." They lack the will, determination, or cognitive capacity to question authority or understand economic cause-and-effect.

Core Philosophy:
There is no philosophy. There is no thought. There is only reaction to stimuli:

Positions:
None that are thought-through. They'll agree with:

Characteristics:

Example Persons/Types:

Income Correlation:
Primarily low-to-lower-middle income:

Why They Matter:
This is the largest category. 40-50% of any population falls here.

They're not actively parasitic. They're not ideologically committed to statism. They're just... not thinking. And that makes them:

In democracy, they're cannon fodder. Whoever can manipulate them controls policy. They'll vote to rob productive people because they don't understand that redistribution requires prior production. They'll support inflation because they don't grasp that printing money reduces purchasing power.

They're not evil. They're just... NPCs. And their massive numbers mean they determine electoral outcomes in democracies, which is why Democracy is garbage.

Population %: ~40-50% in developed nations, potentially higher in developing nations (3-4 billion people globally)

Contradictions:
They don't hold positions long enough to contradict themselves. They just... exist. Consume. Work. Repeat. No political thought at all.

Using This Spectrum

Mapping Individuals

Listen to someone's positions on:

  1. Taxation: Theft or necessary? For what purposes?
  2. Property rights: Absolute or conditional?
  3. State power: Should exist at all? For what?
  4. Economic intervention: Ever justified?
  5. Sound money: Do they understand why fiat is theft?

Their answers place them on the spectrum.

Gauging Populations

Estimate distribution percentages in a country/region:

Predicting Trajectories

Prosperity formula:

Collapse formula:

Examples:

United States (current):

Verdict: Declining but still has critical mass of producers. Trajectory downward unless reversed.

Western Europe:

Verdict: Terminal decline. Parasites outnumber producers. Collapse timeline: 20-40 years.

Venezuela:

Verdict: Already collapsed. Economic illiteracy reached terminal levels.

Conclusion

This spectrum reveals a brutal truth: Economic literacy is vanishingly rare, and that rarity determines national fate.

Most people are:

The ratio of producers to parasites, of economically literate to illiterate, of NAP-compliant to NAP-violating - this determines everything.

Use this spectrum to:

The future belongs to those who understand Argumentation Ethics, reject Aggression, grasp the Economic Calculation Problem, and recognize that Socialism is impossible.

Everyone else is building the collapse they'll eventually inhabit.