Comparing Political Types

Because libertarians value both economic and personal freedom highly, they think governments should be limited or eliminated entirely. Government, after all, has a monopoly on the initiation of violence in a jurisdiction. Libertarians view this monopoly power with skepticism and as a potential source of injustice.

Because government authorities use the threat of violence to privilege or oppress certain persons or groups, libertarians tend to support the rule of law and equality before the law. While the most consistent libertarians are anarchists, all libertarians think there should be rules and laws. The difference is, libertarian anarchists think any system of rules should be based on consent rather than compulsion.

Libertarian anarchists should therefore not be confused with self-styled "anarchists" who stir mob violence.
Because libertarians believe governance should be based on consent, some libertarians are willing to accept rules and restrictions on their behavior so long as they consent in advance and retain a right of exit. (See, for example, homeowners associations.)

Because conservatives value law and order, they also tend to support broader police powers. While some conservatives are uncomfortable with showy displays of wealth, they support individuals working hard and amassing wealth for themselves and their families. (In more recent times, some conservatives have come to embrace protectionist measures, which moves them in the direction of populism. See, for example, Trumpism.)

Conservatives also tend to embrace some form of religion or at least a shared moral system that they believe holds the social order together. Such includes family, tradition, honesty, and hard work. Indeed, most emphasize family as the basic ordering unit of society.

Most progressives are committed to the administrative ordering of society along economic lines. Because progressives view themselves as advocates for those they consider dispossessed or disenfranchised, progressives favor wealth redistribution. Such redistributive policies include high taxes and revenues to fund centralized social programs or welfare schemes.

In recent decades, many progressives have moved away from supporting civil liberties such as free speech, and legal doctrines such as equal treatment under the law. Instead, more progressives think that social justice requires abandoning civil rights in favor of "equity," which means equality of outcome. More contemporary progressives are willing to curtail the freedoms of certain groups — such as the wealthy — whom they view as oppressors operating in an unfair system.

Other forces shape moderates' views, so they are, in many ways, the most difficult type to understand. For example, political moderates sometimes support centrist views not on any principle but on the grounds of political expediency. Instead of asking What does my ideal society look like? They might instead ask What can we possibly get done here? In this way, it's no wonder that moderates sometimes have a populist streak.

Moderates can also be difficult to type because they can have extreme views on one issue but not on another. So while some moderates just don't have strong views about anything, other moderates have strong feelings on this issue or that, which seems inconsistent to those with more comprehensive ideological views. In any case, the core of being a moderate is sometimes simply to view a given matter with greater circumspection and less extremism.

To the extent authoritarians do tolerate private enterprise, it's because some believe companies can be forced into serving their ends. In other words, it behooves authorities to direct companies to serve the good of society as a whole. Such a system is referred to as corporatism or fascism. By contrast, authoritarians who tolerate no private enterprise believe the state should control all means of production. This authoritarian form is referred to as socialism. Thus, both fascism and socialism are authoritarian forms.

With regard to personal liberties, authoritarians think autonomous individuals are a threat to the overall order. Ideal societies have to be planned. As such, society's planners cannot tolerate excessive diversity of opinion or any expression that challenges or questions its authority or expertise. People have an urge to control or to submit to control in times of crisis. Authoritarians understand this dynamic well and are willing to use it to realize their conception of the good, even if such requires the threat of state violence.