The free will argument means pretty much a different thing to everyone who claims to believe there is a free will. While non believers in the concept as well as compatibalists will opt to simply define the concept as “that feeling of free will we seem to all have”.
The religious will usually come with a cop out of the “self” not being limited to the experiencing conscious self, but rather a dialog between that self and a soul – a homunculus “atomic” controlling entity – to which we are “slaves”. This does about the same thing to the actual argument as inserting quantum randomness or an invisible puppet master. It only detracts from the self but adds nothing new that can be included in what we can understand as a self.
I would of course like to know if there are any aspects I did not cover in this graph. So let me know and I will incorporate it and expand the graph accordingly.
This is the political compass as I can see it to the best of my knowledge. A bigger insight into some parties might of course make me want to move them around, but I suspect not by very much.
I find that the vertical column overshadows the horisontal in all meaningful issues. And though I can see the appeal of authoritarianism it can’t change my own liberal principles.
I also find that my location on the horisontal plane is very dependent on what issue is being discussed. And it seems like neither progressivism or conservativism are good principles as the outcome must be more important than the choice of politics.
Main stream media as well as normal conversations only consider the left-right paradigm that in real life is shaped like a horse shoe on the compass plane. The left would like the top center to be the natural “extension” of the right side of the horse shoe, while the right will sometimes claim the opposite. In reality, fascism, communism or national socialism were not very different in practice even though they had different principles for implementing their collectivist systems.