Certainly Allende *thought* that Pinochet was a fellow-traveler or else he wouldn’t have promoted him. But Pinochet’s guiding star was saving Chile. He was Left when he thought that was what worked, and then he went Right when he thought *that* was what worked.

(Just because Nixon preferred Pinochet to Allende does not meant that Pinochet was, in fact, to the Right of Allende at the time. Nixon preferred Pinochet because Pinochet was more *anti-Soviet* than Allende. Pinochet started his rule as a Latin Tito. It was several years later when Pinochet started to privatise stuff.)

Franco incidentally also started out a statist who turned into a capitalist. “Spanish miracle”.

All valid points on Jefferson, but it is undeniable that he was a confederalist strongly opposed to centralized power. I think that pretty much puts him somewhere in the blue section.

But yes, if we are to keep strictly to the definition given in the graph, you would probably be right. Which is why the definition given is incorrect.

“Humans can be property” v.s. “Human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value”.

Jefferson doesn’t fit in the blue unless you give each axis more sensible definitions than the ones that are printed on the graph.

Jefferson did believe that humans can be property but he did not believe that human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value.

I only know of one society that could be said to believe that human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value:

The Ik.

—————————————–
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi798.htm

The Ik were nomad hunters in Northern Uganda. The government made their hunting grounds into a national park and relocated them. They had to take up farming.

In 1972 anthropologist C.M. Turnbull wrote about the Ik in their new life. They laugh only at one another’s misfortunes. They teach their children to steal food from the old. They are solitary and ill-humored. “They breed without love,” says Thomas, and “they defecate on one another’s doorsteps.”

The social roles of the Ik have been unthreaded. And with that, they’ve lost all sense of community. Each Ik is now an isolated one-man tribe unto himself. Interdependency is gone; and the Ik no longer sing.

———————————————–

People may believe in something they call “individualism” and “freedom” I don’t think they mean it like that. There aren’t enough people who really believe that “Human freedom from the collective is the ultimate value” to make it worthy of an axis on the graph. Without the collective, where would you get your status points?

Hostility towards political structures is a defining characteristic of anarcho-capitalists specifically. It would be quite ridiculous for someone from that corner to attempt any serious political participation, not to mention that the moment he does so, he would simply no longer fit the definition.

And it’s not like that corner doesn’t have it’s due share of influential historical figures. A lot of Austrian Economists and classical liberals fit in there quite nicely. (and figures like Rothbard, Hoppe, etc. would even place at the very top) A lot of historical figures can fit there as well. Jefferson comes to mind immediately. (somewhere in the Confederalism part, which I find suprisingly empty)
And the argument that the blue part of the triangle is obsolete in modern political reality holds with equal force against the green part as well. (in fact the blue corner actually has had a lot more adherents in recent history)
To reduce the right to just monarchism is overly simplistic.

A crucial thing to remember about the difference between the three corners is their perspectives on power. Both the green and red corner support the idea of absolute political power (but of a radically opposite kind). The blue corner however, is extremely hostile to any such ideas (and this is why it is positioned at the exact opposite of totalitarian side of the triangle). It’s most fundamental tenet is that absolute power is always absolutely dangerous, therefore power has to be dispersed as much as possible. Power monopoly is bad (for everyone but the monopolist, of course) and probably the most dangerous thing you could have. Therefore the ideological radicalization of the blue corner goes something like this: (classical) liberalism>separatism>confederalism>anarcho-capitalism.
But of course, even if extremely hostile to the very idea of consolidated power, if faced with the choice between absolutism of the leftist kind (social-democratic cathedralism) and absolutism of the rightist kind (from fascism to monarchism), the anarcho-capitalist (Hoppe) does not hesitate – absolute monarchy it is!

” a) an ideological weapon to manipulate silly Anglos” This could actually make a lot of sense, but history suggests otherwise. Both Liberalism and Republicanism historically precede Democratism and the latter could in fact be considered a corruption of the former. The same way communist totalitarism of the stalinist kind can be seen as a corruption of absolute monarchism. (which is why it is so easy to see North Korea as a quasi-monarchy, which is precisely what the Cathedral does so often) Yet, we all agree that communist authoritarianism has nothing to do with monarchism.