Many believe that the most striking divide in the West today is between the political left and the political right. The media devote much of their discussion to this confrontation, which is presented as decisive for the future of civilization.

So, to identify an individual's political leanings, we plot them on a simple horizontal line. We position ourselves at the extreme left, left, center, right and right of the line, according to the different tendencies.

Some lean towards those for whom order must be preserved and imposed at all costs, that's the right. Others lean towards those for whom equality must be applied at all costs, even if it means reforming everything - this is the left.

However, this categorization is often too simplistic and ineffective. Traditionally, for example, the left is seen as reformist, while the right is more conservative. But this has become questionable in our time, since the left now fights to preserve acquired advantages, which makes it, from that point of view, conservative.

Most individuals who fall between the two extremes are often referred to as centrists, but this label also simplifies their position.

Let's take an example: if someone is for economic freedom but also for the right to immigrate, where would you place them on a simple left-right line? A person's position on the political spectrum is not static, and often depends on the issue at hand.

Many people don't fit in, thinking that left or right, socialist or conservative, doesn't accurately describe their opinions.

Have you ever felt that it's not always enough to describe the nuance and complexity of political opinions? Many people don't find their place in it, and think that left or right, socialist or conservative don't accurately describe their opinions.

Although this positioning criterion remains useful for designating political sensibilities, it is not capable of conceptually accounting for the diversity of ideological debates and positions.

The problem with the left-right axis is that it leaves no room for classical liberal thinking, which cannot be lumped in with either the egalitarianism of the left or the nationalism of the right.

Indeed, where on the left-right spectrum do we place the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frédéric Bastiat, Ron Paul, Elon Musk, Javier Milei?

What about classical liberals and contemporary schools of thought such as libertarians? Sometimes they are falsely equated with the right, or even the far right. But more often than not, they don't exist in this frame of reference.

In his day, the economist and member of parliament Frédéric Bastiat said he sometimes voted with the left, sometimes with the right, depending on the bill under discussion.

This did not mean he was a centrist or a social democrat. Bastiat was firmly opposed to any form of statism, to any kind of government interventionism whatsoever. He favored a maximum of economic and personal freedoms compatible with respect for others, because he believed that social order could emerge from below, through private initiative, social cooperation and individual responsibility, with a minimum of laws.

Let's take another example: **Is Bitcoin right or left?

Undeniably, Bitcoin is a project that breaks with current monetary policy. So it's a political project. But it's hard to place Bitcoin on a simple linear axis running from the extreme left to the extreme right.

For a start, the very definition of right and left is complex and evolves over time, making strict classification difficult. But above all Bitcoin, as a decentralized technology, transcends traditional political divides, attracting supporters from various political backgrounds, from the left and the right, including anarchists and people who consider themselves apolitical.

In reality, the traditional dichotomy between right and left is inadequate, arbitrary, and ill-suited to properly situate Bitcoin, which is a public currency that anyone can adopt, regardless of their political leanings.

What's more, a simple linear axis running from left to right doesn't work well, as ideologies like fascism and communism have similarities (totalitarianism) that aren't apparent on such an axis.

What's more, although the right is undoubtedly more economically liberal than the left, both camps share a distrust of the free market, freedom of contract and private property, and an attraction to state interventionism. For those in power, whether on the right or the left, every problem is solved by a new regulation or tax, rather than by the self-regulation of individual interactions.

It's interesting to note that certain political positions can cut across traditional right/left divides. For example, protectionism, often defended by the left, can easily be reconciled with nationalism, a value traditionally associated with the right. Similarly, the peasantry, while attached to the land and family traditions - right-wing values - does not hesitate to demonstrate vehemently to demand state subsidies, an approach that is in line with socialist logic.

Finally, doesn't this partisan polarization mask a much deeper and more ancient divide: the one that has separated those who govern from those who are governed for centuries?

During the Covid pandemic, most Western states implemented totalitarian controls, and although many of these were lifted, the gap between the ruling class and the average citizen widened.

With government indebtedness and inflation, we're witnessing a modern form of enslavement through the loss of people's purchasing and saving power.

In fact, the fiat money system benefits the wealthiest people and the most powerful financial entities, notably governments, which are the biggest borrowers. By borrowing, they push the banks to print new money. The resulting inflation is a mechanism that insidiously devalues money, destroying people's savings.

Fiat currency is the cornerstone of this expansion of state power. It allows governments to finance unlimited spending, eliminating the budgetary constraints that existed under a gold standard. This modern slavery is maintained by an elite determined to preserve its privileges, while a weakened population, disarmed in the face of state expansion, gradually sees every sphere of its existence fall under control.

In this course, we'll see that the political landscape is far richer and more complex than just the two categories of left and right, thanks to a visual model that will help us better understand the different political families.

Before starting this course, I'd like to invite you to take a short quiz. Try to answer the following questions:

In all these questions, there's one central and decisive issue that emerges: the degree of government control you can tolerate, and therefore also the degree of funding you're more or less forced to participate in.

So the fundamental political question is: **Who should decide? ** To put it another way: Do you make the important decisions about your personal and social life, or does someone else make them for you?

In 1966, in Revolt on the Moon (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), novelist Robert Heinlein develops the idea that governments always end up accumulating power and controlling citizens, which he calls the inevitable disease of human beings.

He observes that mankind is divided politically between those who want to control the lives of others, and those who do not.

Nowadays, all political parties, whether left, center or right, defend the right of the state to govern people's lives and intervene in all matters through regulations and taxes. In the mainstream media, we find the same thing: the frame of reference is statist.

So, should the traditional left versus right political model be overcome? And if so, in favor of what other model?