Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Kamiko Hautala on 21 Apr 2010, 18:21
-
Here's hoping we can remain civil about this, but I know we can. After all, we're roleplayers. Also, I know there are a variety of political beliefs (communism, socialism, fascism, anarchy), so in order to pinpoint what you're political standing is, take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test and show us your answers on your post. Maybe you can explain why, and we can have some healthy discussion. No flaming, please.
My political beliefs are a mix of social democracy and left-wing economic policies; regulations mixed with a large amount of social freedoms (though I support very strict gun control; there's a reason for our police officers and military):
(http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv205/iSteve2010/PoliticalSpectrum.png)
-
No flaming, please.
Bears repeating. Politics and religion have a high potential for interesting discussion, but even higher potential for horrible arguments; let's all try to stick to interesting discussion!
That said, wishing the thread well and taking the lil' test now (I expect I'll come out center-right but we'll see)!
-
On that chart, last I took it, I sat absolutely dead center of the left/right chain (which is fitting, I'm a moderate), and on the Authoritarian/Libertarian (which I think Libertarian is a poor term to use), I was halfway up towards Authoritarian.
It's been a while since I took it though, it may have changed.
Lemme take the little testy thing and see. . .
-
Some of the questions are very polarizing as usual, but it's a decent test. I know I've taken it several times before. Not surprised at all with the results, though perhaps a bit further left would have been expected. :P
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=-6.97)
-
The test had some flaws, like any test, and I wish there was a "neutral" or "don't know" in a few places. But overall, I found it useful and decently accurate (if imprecise, for the reasons I just stated).
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.00&soc=-4.31)
My economic views have moved steadily left, though perhaps not quite in all things. Various events in the US (not necessarily the ones you might think) have changed my views, and I call myself a "rabid civil libertarian" to distinguish myself from self-professed "libertarians" focused on economics rather than civil rights.
Essentially, and here I'm going to mix religion AND politics, if you read what the Sermon on the Mount actually says (not necessarily what today's religious leaders claim about it), then that's pretty much my views on things. Help your fellow man as much as you can, and do the best you can to take care of your family, but worry about your own morality rather than anyone else's.
-
Unsurprised by the results :)
I agree with Misan about the questions being polarizing and about that being the norm for questionnaires like this; entertaining all the same.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.75&soc=-3.95)
-
I thought the one question that asked if the painter was more important than the corporate worker needed a neutral, because I'm artistically inclined and a major patron of the arts, yet businessmen and businesswomen are important as well. Without culture, there is no inspiration to do greater, and vice versa.
-
As I am taking it some of these questions have changed. And I frankly don't like them.
Therefore I'm going to stop taking it and just stick with where I used to be before they changed it. These questions are loaded beyond belief. Also too many of them are forcing too much black and white thinking in order to typify people falsely.
:)
So just go with where I was, because it's fitting. Constitutional Monarchy 4tw.
-
Unsurprising (and quite in tune with mainstream Norway), though maybe a little bit further left than I had expected.
Also, there are questions they didn't ask which would have placed me considerably higher on the authoritarian scale. For example, I believe firmly in the banning of so-called "alternative medicine", and I also believe that theology is too important to be left entirely to religious people, and that secular governments should withhold monetary support for organized religion as well as refuse them the right to perform certain functions that have implications for how people are affected by secular law (namely, marriage ceremonies) unless said religious groups agree to certain theological "minimum standards".
I also believe that kids should be taught more discipline than they apparently are, but not that it's the most important thing for them to learn. Children must learn both to listen to and to challenge their teachers in order to progress.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=-3.69)
-
The question about public broadcasting bothered me, because I'm a huge supporter of NPR and associated public radio stations in the US, which already get <10% of their funding from the government. I'd like to eliminate that last bit just so my friends on the right will quit griping. Subscriber-funded "public" radio >> commercial broadcasting, for sure.
Not to mention the death of old media, but that's definitely a different thread.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.38&soc=-6.92)
I'd like to put myself even further down and further to the right. Also made one for Akikio:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=6.38&soc=3.23)
As you can see Aki is quite opposite of me :) But over time she's definitly moved closer to my RL views. In 10 years they might meet in the lower right corner :lol:
-
We'll just have to wait and see once I rule the world, won't we?
-
The poll has too few options! (and if you would like to talk politics, I suggest a new forum section, we have one on the CVA forums that is soon going to eclipse any other single section).
The RL me:
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.75&soc=0.21)
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.12&soc=0.77)
Did the questions in a half sick stupor, but I think it's pretty accurate.
-
Woop.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-0.51)
-
B8....b8 *squints* Aw, crap, you sunk my battleship!
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.25&soc=-3.59)
Personally I feel that businessmen are the cancer that is destroying the human race.
Just the concept of Profit magically appearing without actually exploiting someone else seems delightfully ignorant to me.
Don't get me started on economics.
-
It's not really exploitation if it is willfully entered into by the exploitee.
-
That doesn't really make sense, Lillith. If you agree to something that is an exploitation, then obviously you wouldn't know it's an exploit. That's the point of exploitation: Using someone for a purpose.
I'm just glad there isn't a fascist here, hah.
-
/me looks around wildly for Tibus Heth
-
Maximum profit. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kevin_bales_how_to_combat_modern_slavery.html)
-
Maximum profit. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kevin_bales_how_to_combat_modern_slavery.html)
Yes, I've seen Mr. Bales' talk. However the thing about that is that it's not so much a business issue as it is a rule of law issue. It is also a horrendous issue that we need to get off our butts and do something about. It isn't just businessmen taking advantage of that, it's everyone in any sort of place of power.
That doesn't really make sense, Lillith. If you agree to something that is an exploitation, then obviously you wouldn't know it's an exploit. That's the point of exploitation: Using someone for a purpose.
The point I was making is that oftentimes "exploitation" is misappropriated by people - obviously not in the situation of third world and second world slavery, but let's take for instance Prostitution. Pornography. Etc. Though some of these situations are exploitive situations, not all are, many people willfully step into these situations.
I was mostly speaking to the point that the word isn't always properly used.
I'm just glad there isn't a fascist here, hah.
...that depends on what one considers "fascist". . .
-
Image will break the forum, so linking:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/
Aaand, a handy visual aid to illustrate some of the things I can get annoyed at on demand:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/
:D
Finally, liberal leftie reporting in :) I'm with Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. \o/
(http://www.wanoah.co.uk/images/pcgraphpng.php.png)
-
Image will break the forum, so linking:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/
If there was ever a good explanation of why I find the "left / right" dichotomy insufficient... :lol:
-
Given what people consider "Communist", it is hardly a left wing ideal.
-
I find the lack of respect for authority in this thread worrying! :lol:
-
Hmmmm
So I'm like Mamoud Abbas and Pope Benedict XVI??? Something got screwed up there...
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b98/Shamsara/pcgraphpngphp.png)
-
I don't like that "quiz", so I'm not going to bother.
I'm what's probably best described as a pro-life libertarian.
I believe that there is a "hard cap" on the amount of social justice that can be achieved through government efforts, due to the selfishness of man, and that that boundary is a lot lower than most people think. The greatest increases in the standards of living come through technology, and the system that most rapidly advances technology is capitalism. Capitalism is also the most resilient economic system.
I don't envy successful businessmen, or think that they are "exploiting" me. I want to be like them, and I work hard to make myself successful. It's going to be a long journey if I am successful, but even if I am not, I chose this for myself, and I'd rather fail honestly than steal and succeed.
I inform myself about the products I need and about the dangers of certain activities. I don't expect others to provide for me, and I refuse any government assistance, though at my current economic status, I'm definitely eligible for it. This isn't to say that I despise all government, but I hate with a passion the notion that it should have a major presence in my financial affairs, or any other affairs of mine, for that matter.
I personally despise the idea that others should be taxed to provide for me, or that I should be taxed to provide for others, unless they are physically incapable of providing for themselves. To me, money is equivalent to a person's time, which is precious, as we are only allotted so much time in our lives. To take someone's money without their agreement is to steal a bit of their life.
I'd rather have freedom than security, opportunity than equality, and liberty rather than safety.
-
/me starts to cry.
Vikarion I think... I think... I love you.
We should both become Caldari, I think... oh wait... we are.
Edit: the trouble with the test is that some of the questions are plainly contradictory. For some of the questions it's hard to be socially liberal on some issues, and yet very free-market in others.
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4359/pcgraphpngs.png)
-
Out of curiosity: how many of you feel that your location on the map would have changed significantly over the years?
Certainly, at one time, I would have been more or less with Dex, perhaps even a little higher up ('north'). But my outlook has changed over the years, and I don't doubt it will continue to do so as life experiences inform what passes for 'wisdom' in my head.
Do any of you feel like that's already happened to you?
-
I've been pretty much dead center of the X axis for most of my adult life. I have however been steadily creeping up the Y axis as I get older.
-
Out of curiosity: how many of you feel that your location on the map would have changed significantly over the years?
I have most definitely been moving up and to the right. When I was in Uni/late high school I would've been in the lower left quadrant.
These day I'd say I'm a utilitarian who doesn't believe in individual rights, but who believes in market outcomes. Individuals acting selfishly (in a market) won't bring about the absolute best outcome, but it will (in my opinion) bring about the best realistically attainable outcome.
-
/me sighs wistfully.
It's hard to believe a thread like this could get to page three with no problems.
I love you guys.
<3
-
/me sighs wistfully.
It's hard to believe a thread like this could get to page three with no problems.
I love you guys.
<3
...if you want I could give some of my opinions on politics to mix it up for you instead of just minor overviews. I'm sure that would get at least someone's panties in a wad.
Would that help?
-
1. I started this thread, do I get a free Raven?
2. Lillith, my spidey sense of text-based psychology makes me guess your age in the late 30s, or early 40s.
-
What would make you come to that assessment?
-
I think politics are silly and they should just make me complete and master overlord of this pathetic rock of a planet.
With a large spikey tower + lava moat. Mmmm. :E
-
I think politics are silly and they should just make me complete and master overlord of this pathetic rock of a planet.
With a large spikey tower + lava moat. Mmmm. :E
Suddenly this picture becomes strangely relevant and even funnier. :lol:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/BrotherAnimosus/EVE/1271557256546.jpg)
-
I'm unlikely to get too worked up here. I live in Dallas, Texas, where we have a lot of the Tea Partiers whom I generally oppose (and not just on policy grounds). But we manage to all, you know, not shoot each other. And in Texas, that's something :(
-
/me starts to cry.
Vikarion I think... I think... I love you.
We should both become Caldari, I think... oh wait... we are.
Edit: the trouble with the test is that some of the questions are plainly contradictory. For some of the questions it's hard to be socially liberal on some issues, and yet very free-market in others.
It's a pity one of us isn't a hot chick, right?
Anyway, I've always been fairly right of center (ok, well, not always, but since I was old enough to vote), but I've become much more libertarian in recent years, partially because the deepening of my religious faith (Christianity) has lead me to believe that making others follow morality is pointless - it's their choice to do it that matters, and you cannot have that under an authoritarian system.
That is also, interestingly, why I believe in private charity over government assistance: charity is meaningless unless it is by choice, in my opinion.
-
I've stayed more or less the same, I suppose. Left or center left on the economic slide, and on the libertarian side of the other. I have become more libertarian in some matters, but considerably more authoritarian in others, particularly concerning religion. Unlike some of my friends who are also vocally atheist, I strongly support the union of state and church we have here in Norway, because what it has resulted in is the secular state utterly castrating the church and forcing it to adjust its theology to accommodate every secular law that is passed, thereby making it into something which most of its nominal adherents pay lip service towards at best. This is a brilliant system which we should never scrap, but instead do our best to impose on other faiths than our by now watered-down Lutheran Christianity, too. The Muslims in particular are a prime choice for next target.
I'm also a strong believer in a solid welfare state, not so much because I believe it is morally right as because I believe that it's more economically sound than having a weak one or not having one at all would be. My belief that it also creates more security and safety helps too.
The trend to me seems to be that having insufficient welfare policies generates increased levels of crime. Sure, some people will feel pressured to work harder or look for work more ardently, but a lot of people are going to opt for the "easy" way out of their economical difficulties, and turn to crime. This will in turn victimize a number of presumably innocent people and businesses, costing society money. A bigger police force will need to be hired, costing society money. As the criminals are caught (those of them who are), they will have the right to a fair trial. Lawyers, judges and other court staff will have to be maintained in sufficiently high numbers and paid wages, costing society money. The inevitable retrials will cost society even more money. Then the criminals go to prison, maybe for years. They'll have to be housed, fed and clothed, costing society money. Prison guards will have to be trained and paid, costing society money. The prison itself will have to be maintained, costing society money. As the very frosting on the cake, there'll be a priest attending to the fictional spiritual needs of the prisoners, and he costs society money, too! And when the prisoners are finally released after however long they've been spending behind walls, chances are that the only thing they've actually learned is how to become more efficient criminals, and so the entire circle starts again. And all the money sustaining this process comes out of the regular taxpayer's pocket. And it all costs more in the end than maintaining a decent welfare state would have done.
Having a strong welfare state means I need to worry less for my own and my property's safety from random desperadoes. Having to worry less makes me able to concentrate more on other things, and spend less money on private security measures. It keeps the streets more or less free of annoying strangers who pester random passersby for pocket change, and the ones I do meet, I can snub with a clear conscience, knowing that unless they pretty much actively resist getting their basic needs covered, it will happen. And all this for less money than the alternative would cost me.
-
Out of curiosity: how many of you feel that your location on the map would have changed significantly over the years?
Certainly, at one time, I would have been more or less with Dex, perhaps even a little higher up ('north'). But my outlook has changed over the years, and I don't doubt it will continue to do so as life experiences inform what passes for 'wisdom' in my head.
Do any of you feel like that's already happened to you?
Less authoritarian (used to be +2, now +0.2), Slightly more lefty (used to be bang on centre, now -2)
-
I think politics are silly and they should just make me complete and master overlord of this pathetic rock of a planet.
With a large spikey tower + lava moat. Mmmm. :E
Suddenly this picture becomes strangely relevant and even funnier. :lol:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/BrotherAnimosus/EVE/1271557256546.jpg)
My Master Sauron the great bids thee welcome!
-
I'm also a strong believer in a solid welfare state, not so much because I believe it is morally right as because I believe that it's more economically sound than having a weak one or not having one at all would be. My belief that it also creates more security and safety helps too.
I semi-agree. I feel that welfare should be around, but FDR had a good thing going where it wasn't just "What? You're poor? Have some money." He gave you work to do and gave you a sub-minimum wage payout (depending on work and level of risk, some made a solid wage), and you got paid for working. The way we have it in the US is completely broken, not because we're not helping the people who need it, but because we're giving them no incentive to return to the workforce as a citizen actually giving to society. This breeds a dependancy on the State by not really giving them any reason to not be on Welfare.
-
I'm also a strong believer in a solid welfare state, not so much because I believe it is morally right as because I believe that it's more economically sound than having a weak one or not having one at all would be. My belief that it also creates more security and safety helps too.
I semi-agree. I feel that welfare should be around, but FDR had a good thing going where it wasn't just "What? You're poor? Have some money." He gave you work to do and gave you a sub-minimum wage payout (depending on work and level of risk, some made a solid wage), and you got paid for working. The way we have it in the US is completely broken, not because we're not helping the people who need it, but because we're giving them no incentive to return to the workforce as a citizen actually giving to society. This breeds a dependancy on the State by not really giving them any reason to not be on Welfare.
Yeah, this is a common pitfall and I don't think there are any easy answers. Here in the UK, it's not uncommon to find people for whom it is economically unviable to work because they would get less money by doing so. This isn't usually in the form of actual cash, but the hidden stuff like no/low-cost housing and not having to pay local taxes. It's the sort of thing that people get on their high horse about, of course, but the truth is that the money spent is a drop in the ocean when you look at the nation's other expenditure. Personally, I'd rather give money to lazy job-shy benefits scroungers than to bankers. It represents better value. :P
-
I don't believe in corporate bailouts or subsidies or any of that rot either. GM should have filed bankruptcy, same with AIG.
-
I don't believe in corporate bailouts or subsidies or any of that rot either. GM should have filed bankruptcy, same with AIG.
I agree with this, certainly. Just as I admire good businessmen and businesses, I think incompetently managed ones should be allowed to fail.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.25&soc=-7.64)
Which shouldn't surprise anyone I hope. :D
In any case, as an Anarchist I stand unbeaten yet!
-
I don't believe in corporate bailouts or subsidies or any of that rot either. GM should have filed bankruptcy, same with AIG.
I agree with this, certainly. Just as I admire good businessmen and businesses, I think incompetently managed ones should be allowed to fail.
It's a lose-lose situation: If you give large corporations bailouts, it makes the taxpayer angry, and if you let the company fail, thousands of jobs are lost and the economy is weaker. If Microsoft was doing horrible, and they just failed completely, the global economy would be significantly weaker, and managers would have to acquire new technology to keep their businesses working.
-
I don't believe in corporate bailouts or subsidies or any of that rot either. GM should have filed bankruptcy, same with AIG.
I agree with this, certainly. Just as I admire good businessmen and businesses, I think incompetently managed ones should be allowed to fail.
It's a lose-lose situation: If you give large corporations bailouts, it makes the taxpayer angry, and if you let the company fail, thousands of jobs are lost and the economy is weaker. If Microsoft was doing horrible, and they just failed completely, the global economy would be significantly weaker, and managers would have to acquire new technology to keep their businesses working.
The economy weakened anyway, also if they filed for bankruptcy it wouldn't have hit them as badly as they and their interests let on. Their debtors would have taken a hit for it, but they wouldn't have. That's sort of the point of Chapter 11 protection.
To give an example, one of the local hospitals here filed bankruptcy three years ago, and as of last month they had just made a fifth equipment order, paid off their remaining unsecured debt, and are making two expansions due to the rather sizeable amount of profit they're making due to it.
Bankruptcy protection for businesses doesn't work quite the way it does for people.
-
I consider myself socialist. I know full well that humans are greedy, selfish prigs and pure-form socialism will never work; however, I see no reason not to hold it as an ideal.
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.00&soc=-5.74)
-
Hm. I would have thought of a socialist further up in the reddish (magenta?) area.
-
Alas, the grid really ought to be a 3-dimensional cube to work properly. As it is, there are questions which, while I don't agree with the sentiment, I understand the necessity for it, which skews the results. Call me moderate; I find the Libertarian label offensive because most people don't actually know what it means :p
-
Could I request that the OP kindly take the time to compile the various results into the first post, to make the thread easier to read/compare? Would be greatly appreciated 8)
-
Could I request that the OP kindly take the time to compile the various results into the first post, to make the thread easier to read/compare? Would be greatly appreciated 8)
Do you mean making different lists of names and grouping them with political groups? I do have a poll that people should answer, so if you could be a bit more specific please. :D
-
Could I request that the OP kindly take the time to compile the various results into the first post, to make the thread easier to read/compare? Would be greatly appreciated 8)
Do you mean making different lists of names and grouping them with political groups? I do have a poll that people should answer, so if you could be a bit more specific please. :D
I haven't answered the poll, but the political compass results (the grids) are a bit broader in my opinion. What I mean is, could you put the names of the respondents to the political compass quiz in a list, with their corresponding 'grid' coordinates placed adjacently? You can ascertain the coordinates by quoting the post and observing the numbers in the image.
-
I hate this quizz, a mix of 'Big L' Libertarian propaganda, and old fashionned 'nazi detection' tests from the 50's...
Biased questions, biased interpretation and too simple and caricatured axes; On the other hand, it is a very good opening line to catch new young, unemployed and passionate campaign helpers to paste libertarian stickers everywhere :D
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.00&soc=-0.97)
I'm a self described paleolibertarian, mostly Rothbardian (1) but with the knowledge that methodological individualism is basically a flawed moral tool, even if it's the best we have.
Like with every political idealist not blinded by ego, age has both honed and deepened my conviction... and cured me of any innocence about the purity of simple solutions and revolutionary fervor.
(1) The 'end of career' Rothbard, not the 'let's get cosy with pinkos hippies, after all they hate the war too !' Rothbard...
-
I am a Goddamned transhumanist.
I shit you not.
When I grow up I want to be of use to the Lifeboat Foundation. My goals in terms of altering the human condition through political means taper with theirs insofar as they can be called such.
Aside from that I'm liberal in a lot of areas, and progressive in a lot of areas. I guess I do the technocrat thing once in a while? That means I'm a bit of a socialist, maybe.
-
I am a Goddamned transhumanist
See, I have never understood that. Well, no that's not true. I understand it, I just find myself curious how trans- or post- humanists come to the conclusion that we will be anything other than human simply because we have cybernetically or genetically altered out physical forms.
I don't see that that would separate us from the Human Condition, and even if it were to do so, it wouldn't so much separate us from it as it would alter what the Human Condition was.
-
I am a Goddamned transhumanist
See, I have never understood that. Well, no that's not true. I understand it, I just find myself curious how trans- or post- humanists come to the conclusion that we will be anything other than human simply because we have cybernetically or genetically altered out physical forms.
That's the word-fuckery aspect of the thing (you know, what someone else might call semantics), and I generally say that while there'll be significant additions to how we function in the next couple of decades, your humanity will largely be intact.
The goals of a political transhumanist as I see them include things like getting ethical law where it needs to be to legalize sane life-extension research, create a legal framework for the possibilities of artificial life (they keep pegging the advanced general intelligence maturation point at somewhere just this side of twenty years from now), creating another such framework for the possibility of nanotech (ditto on the maturation point thing), and working to research a way to shield the populace from the negative effects of either one going awry (no, it won't likely be like anything Hollywood churns out, go look up the Lifeboat Foundation).
There's also the PR game people like Michael Anissimov play to bring as realistic a view of transhumanist aims and efforts to the wider world as possible while making sure everyone gets the really nice bits through their heads (google him if you like, I don't want to post a link). They do things like saying 'we're not here to play up your fear of death or read science fiction to you, we're here to underscore that a lot of people like the idea of living longer because more life is good. And yes, there are significant risks in perusing these new technologies, but between the lack of feasibility of relinquishment of this whole march of progress thing - I mean, YOU convince everyone to stop researching ANYTHING - and the attempts on our part to set up safeguards, we feel we're making a half-decent choice.'
Which leads me to mention that there's also efforts to cobble together ideas for whatever economic structures need to arise to enable more people to live longer with a higher standard of sustainability (as well as a higher standard of living).
The rest, I really can't speak to.
I don't see that that would separate us from the Human Condition, and even if it were to do so, it wouldn't so much separate us from it as it would alter what the Human Condition was.
Hence my own use of the word 'alter.' There's nothing wrong with your reasoning there.
-
I love you Ashar. That is exactly what I believe should be done for the future. I don't want anything extreme, like my bones being replaced by synthetic aluminum, but there is so much research being done into this that can be increased tenfold if we had political laws that supported this kind of work.
Ray Kurzweil's early dreams for humanity can happen. Just pretend it's EVE Online and we'll have clones in no time.
-
(http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii3/Pilot_MoonDog/Compass.jpg)
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38
This is more or less what I expected.
-
I'm in solid agreement with Ashar.
-
My only response, Ashar, is I don't really consider that any different from a humanist aim.
-
Except that humanist thinking originated centuries ago, and this is a bit more modern?
Except that the finer points of the platform are something I cannot even begin to express and have not read all the in-depth material on that I'd like to?
:P
-
So the two differences between your standing and actual humanism are "but it's new!! \o/" and "I don't really understand it... /o\" ?
;) :P
-
My statements above are roughly meant to convey that something modern in the same vein as something ancient does not an equivalent make, and that I am not qualified to articulate the sum total of the import of the platform and as such will go with what the framers and intellectual forerunners have been going with, trusting that there's either sufficient reason or little point. After all, we're squabbling over a single syllable. A neologism may inspire hatred for being a neologism, but in the end the vernacular's just that.
But, on the former of those...Explaining the core concepts of modern macroengineering to a roman engineer would provide different results than explaining them to the engineering students of today, and similarly, the thought processes of humanists at the time humanism was founded are not congruent to those of transhumanists anymore than the neo-conservatives in the US are the same as conservatives, or the democrats of today are the same as dixiecrats.
Shit changes.
-
...yet the more they change, the more they stay the same.
-
Specific manners of articulating humanism and applying it to particular problems may change, of course, but the core principles and thoughts underlying humanism shouldn't. If they do, then the whole thing needs a good hard look.
Then again, I'm one of those Christians who think that Jesus of Nazareth came pretty close to humanism, back two thousand years ago.
-
Jesus disappeared for 20 years "to the east" and came back preaching a version of Judaism that taught brotherly love, humility, and civil disobedience.
....dude came back a Buddhist.
-
Then again, I'm one of those Christians who think that Jesus of Nazareth came pretty close to humanism, back two thousand years ago.
He seems to have been a nice guy, granted. If only he hadn't insisted on dragging a god into his philosophy. Gods are always bad news.
-
Oh I'm sorry, religion is THAT way. Politics is right here. :bear:
-
For many of us, the two are inseparably intertwined.
Note, though, that my Christianity means that I specifically SHOULDN'T foist my personal morality on others. I feel real shame that others who use the same label as I do seem to have the opinion that they should get the government to enforce their personal views on everyone else.
TL;DR: In my personal life, I subscribe to quite a bit of the conservative views, but I'm liberal in that I don't think the government gets that privilege.
-
...yet the more they change, the more they stay the same.
I think I just found out why some folks believe in justified homicide :P
-
...yet the more they change, the more they stay the same.
I think I just found out why some folks believe in justified homicide :P
8)
PS: I think "Because (s)he was stupid as shit, your honor" should be valid justification if you can prove it.
-
...yet the more they change, the more they stay the same.
I think I just found out why some folks believe in justified homicide :P
8)
PS: I think "Because (s)he was stupid as shit, your honor" should be valid justification if you can prove it.
Or s/he was talking during the movie...
-
(http://www.midmotion.com/album/unsorted/Political%20Compass.png)
I actually did this about a year or so ago and it's been on my FTP since. I suspect I haven't changed in at least a few years.
The interesting thing I notice is that most all respondents here lean socially libertarian. That's cool, because what irks me more than anything politically is the up-down battle, not the left-right battle. It really grinds my nerves when people describe Obama as a socialist, or any Republican other than Ron Paul a libertarian.
So then we're all uber-intelligent, dirty hippies?
-
So then we're all uber-intelligent, dirty hippies?
I am.
-
Hippies! Where's Eric Cartman when you need him!? :p
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.12&soc=-3.08)
Yay purplez \o/
-
I think that's pretty much where most Americans say they are. (Whether they actually are remains open to debate, of course.)
-
I think that's pretty much where most Americans say they are. (Whether they actually are remains open to debate, of course.)
Where Kesh showed his compass result? I don't think that most Americans claim to be like that, just based on party alignment; there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans, but philosophy wise I would say that a very large majority are socially libertarian in some way. There are also a lot of centrists and independents.
-
I mean, you hear a LOT of people say, "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal". Many folks don't quite adhere to at least one of those, depending on the person. Sometimes neither of those.
-
I'm not going to take the compass test, but recently I've begun to think I am more in line with the non-extremist wings of the BNP...and the strangest thing about this is that I am not ethnically British. You might see a pic of me on the RL pic thread; I'm south Asian looking (though I'm half-white)...
Yeah...wierd that.
-
The BNP has non-extremist wings?
-
I thought the UKIP was the somewhat less extremist wing of the BNP. :D
-
The BNP is pretty much all psycho. I won't debate anyone on that, it's a bunch of angry white Englishmen who think the immigration is so out of control that they'll look down upon anyone that wasn't there when the country was founded.
I consider the UKIP to be somewhat like the Tea Party movement.
-
Here's just what I notice in my travels:
In America the conservatives lean authoritarian because of a long military tradition. I won't go so far as labeling them 'imperialist' but they certainly tend to view America as necessary for the security of democracy and free trade. The "defense of liberty" is their main concern, and the military tends to be the biggest government institution they support, along with law enforcement and finally public education systems. The liberals here lean libertarian, which in this context tends to mean more government oversight of the economy and spending on domestic problems, infrastructure, welfare, and leaving other countries to do their own thing. The liberals tend to be centrist on the global stage, and by no means socialist, although many support some mild form of socialized medicine.
I like to think that many Americans are center-right, and a lot more libertarian than the politicians we vote into the legislature. That is, citizens want our government to start dealing with the problems at home, and less abroad, or at least that's the trend.
Unfortunately, typically credible grassroots movements tend to get hijacked by our two-party system. The Republicans are hijacking the much more libertarian and fiscally conservative Tea Party Movement right now. In reality, both parties spend enormous sums, and the only difference is their budget priority.
Because of the 60 votes in the Senate necessary to pass any non-fiscal legislation, and excessive lobbying of corporations, there is little room for a third and fourth party, which in my opinion is unfortunate.
Interestingly in the UK it seems to be the case of authoritarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. A classic case would be net neutrality and the DMCA bill that just passed over there.
Also, the BNP is just whack.
-
Here's just what I notice in my travels:
In America the conservatives lean authoritarian because of a long military tradition. I won't go so far as labeling them 'imperialist' but they certainly tend to view America as necessary for the security of democracy and free trade. The "defense of liberty" is their main concern, and the military tends to be the biggest government institution they support, along with law enforcement and finally public education systems. The liberals here lean libertarian, which in this context tends to mean more government oversight of the economy and spending on domestic problems, infrastructure, welfare, and leaving other countries to do their own thing. The liberals tend to be centrist on the global stage, and by no means socialist, although many support some mild form of socialized medicine.
I like to think that many Americans are center-right, and a lot more libertarian than the politicians we vote into the legislature. That is, citizens want our government to start dealing with the problems at home, and less abroad, or at least that's the trend.
Unfortunately, typically credible grassroots movements tend to get hijacked by our two-party system. The Republicans are hijacking the much more libertarian and fiscally conservative Tea Party Movement right now. In reality, both parties spend enormous sums, and the only difference is their budget priority.
Because of the 60 votes in the Senate necessary to pass any non-fiscal legislation, and excessive lobbying of corporations, there is little room for a third and fourth party, which in my opinion is unfortunate.
Interestingly in the UK it seems to be the case of authoritarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. A classic case would be net neutrality and the DMCA bill that just passed over there.
Also, the BNP is just whack.
By authoritarian liberals I assume you mean New Labour. I know the Lib Dems support a weaker government when it comes to enforcing laws that jeopardize civil liberties, and they want the majority of CCTVs gone. In my opinion, the Tories in the UK are just in it for the money banks give them.
-
So then we're all uber-intelligent, dirty hippies?
I would suggest half of that is debatable. ;)
-
Well, I'm not dirty.
Mostly.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.75&soc=-1.18)
-
oh god, I'm the same as vlad. :bash:
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.00&soc=-5.23)
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.50&soc=-6.10)
Not surprised. Neither am I surprised by the number of posters who match my views. If I wanted to be special, I'd read up on Maoism.
-
Huh. Interesting. Am I the only person who tends towards authoritative? (I realize I didn't post a graphic of my results here because I didn't finish it, but I know where I sit on the chart).
-
Mmm, I don't think any classification of "dirty hippy" would apply to my lifestyle.
-
Huh. Interesting. Am I the only person who tends towards authoritative? (I realize I didn't post a graphic of my results here because I didn't finish it, but I know where I sit on the chart).
What do you consider about yourself that puts you towards the "authoritative" end of the spectrum?
-
Huh. Interesting. Am I the only person who tends towards authoritative? (I realize I didn't post a graphic of my results here because I didn't finish it, but I know where I sit on the chart).
The issues I have strong authoritative leanings in regards to were not included in the questionnaire. ;)
I doubt it would be enough to tip me over the line though, all things considered.
-
Huh. Interesting. Am I the only person who tends towards authoritative? (I realize I didn't post a graphic of my results here because I didn't finish it, but I know where I sit on the chart).
What do you consider about yourself that puts you towards the "authoritative" end of the spectrum?
I tend towards consolidated power. The larger the organization, the less benefit there is to letting the masses make decisions as it tends to increase bureaucratic overhead and reduce progress, plus tends to cause more infighting.
Also I tend to be incredibly Machiavellian.
-
...also I'm one of the few Americans that still believes in the Electoral College based on the fact that the vast majority of people are too uneducated (about politics, not necessarily in relation to academia) to be able to effectively govern themselves.
...there's a lot of reasons that I consider myself further towards Authoritative. ;) As I said the last time I took the test all the way through I was at 0 on the X axis and about a quarter-to-half way up the Y axis towards authoritative.
-
Huh. Interesting. Am I the only person who tends towards authoritative? (I realize I didn't post a graphic of my results here because I didn't finish it, but I know where I sit on the chart).
I think I was 0.23 towards authoritarian inclination, iirc.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=7.12&soc=-3.95)
Where I expected. Hi Dex, hi Vik :lol:
@ Kyoko: interesting analysis, can't say I agree with it, but interesting.
The idea that American "conservatism" stems from a martial tradition, seems to ignore other influences such as religion, race, region, and other historical influences.
Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist, which means the modern Federal government, regardless of party, walks all over the things I care about and has for about 150 years.
-
One thing I notice that is different about UK politics and American politics (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the UK, politicians and issues seem to revolve around improving government programs and making policies come faster. Here in America, there is a more extreme need of political changes. Generally speaking, from the left, government programs that help the lower-class advance and the middle-class live, health care with a public option, and a government that benefits society rather than individual "survival of the fittest" types. From the right, lower taxes across the board, state-focused governments and a lesser government, and free market corporate movements. Extreme issues that ultimately should not be pursued, but instead should have both parties working together to strengthen the things that are good in this nation. Somehow, the government is seen as bad by the right, or "corrupt" even. Pretty large generalization, don't you think? Instead of trying to compromise, the right wants to revolutionize. And from what I'm seeing, they want to add some pretty large changes that hasn't been seen in almost a century.
What's happening in Arizona, for example, is something that is extreme.
-
What's happening in Arizona, for example, is something that is extreme.
Arizona's law isn't extreme in the slightest bit. They pretty much rewrote federal immigration law and stamped the Arizona seal on it. The only real change it makes is it encourages the police and state troopers to contact the feds more often when dealing with a possible illegal resident. And these officers can't just walk up to anyone and demand them to verify their status; "lawful contact" must be going on, which means the officers must have some reason for bothering that person in the first place.
The uproar surrounding this bill is entirely ill-conceived.
-
Yeah... honestly, the fact that so many people are so upset about Arizona enacting State-level laws to enforce Federal-level laws that up to this point nobody's had State-level laws for but which the federal government was barely enforcing (but which were already federal laws) is kinda...
:wtf:
But whatever, once a bit of time passes and the rest of the states see whether it's been good or bad for Arizona, other states will either follow suit or they won't. vOv
-
The outrage is worthy. The police are going to question anyone that looks the slighest suspicious, and it'll add a boost to their ticketing quotas, so expect Nazi Germany conditions. Also, the fact that you have to carry your proof of citizenship everywhere? The last time people had to do that were the Jews. This goes against all civil liberties granted by the country, and there needs to be a less privacy-infringing law to go into effect nationally.
-
The outrage is worthy. The police are going to question anyone that looks the slighest suspicious, and it'll add a boost to their ticketing quotas, so expect Nazi Germany conditions. Also, the fact that you have to carry your proof of citizenship everywhere? The last time people had to do that were the Jews. This goes against all civil liberties granted by the country, and there needs to be a less privacy-infringing law to go into effect nationally.
In order:
1. Not really.
2. They already could, the laws are in the books that allow it for a long time coming, if they haven't before what makes you think they'll suddenly up and start?
3. Wow, 8 pages before Godwin's Law is evoked.
4. You already have to carry proof of identity everywhere, in many cases that proof of identity already traces back to citizenship (your citizenship status can be pulled up by running your driver's license)
5. Godwin's x2! Bad form! BAD FORM!
6. No it doesn't. This is already necessary in many ways. You can't get behind the wheel of your car without indirectly carrying proof of citizenship and identity. You can't go to another country without it, and if you do you can't come back without it. To be entirely technical, a legal immigrant is required to carry their VISA with them at all times, just like we have to carry a license.
This is a molehill, not a mountain.
-
the government is seen as bad by the right
Talking from the bottom right of the graph.
Because it is, or rather interference/involvement from the government is bad.
I think most of us can agree that the government dictating what you can and can't say, where you can and can't go, etc are all bad things. These represent government interference.
Now, going to government programs. Whenever a government (or anyone) provides funds there are strings attached to those funds. For example, Federally mandated speed limits in the US were tied to highway funds. Montana, forgoing said funds, did not have to set a Federally mandated speed limit.
Concerning government programs, those on the "right" are against something for nothing programs. Does a citizen who is not taxed and on the public option beholden to anything?
To compromise, I have a simple response to those who want a national health care system.
National Service program.
4 years of service in any of the armed services, local fire/police departments, teaching in public schools, various other societal volunteer services gets you into the National Health Care system (convert the VA). Children of those who served are covered so long as they are student and younger than 24.
And it should be written in plain English, not gods-damned legalese!
-
the government is seen as bad by the right
Talking from the bottom right of the graph.
Because it is, or rather interference/involvement from the government is bad.
I think most of us can agree that the government dictating what you can and can't say, where you can and can't go, etc are all bad things. These represent government interference.
Now, going to government programs. Whenever a government (or anyone) provides funds there are strings attached to those funds. For example, Federally mandated speed limits in the US were tied to highway funds. Montana, forgoing said funds, did not have to set a Federally mandated speed limit.
Concerning government programs, those on the "right" are against something for nothing programs. Does a citizen who is not taxed and on the public option beholden to anything?
To compromise, I have a simple response to those who want a national health care system.
National Service program.
4 years of service in any of the armed services, local fire/police departments, teaching in public schools, various other societal volunteer services gets you into the National Health Care system (convert the VA). Children of those who served are covered so long as they are student and younger than 24.
And it should be written in plain English, not gods-damned legalese!
If you're familiar with Starship Troopers, you must serve time with the military or any government program in order to become a Citizen. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't vote, and you're called a Civilian. Sounds like some elements of fascism. The problem with that is that of the 300 million people in the United States, not everyone will be on the same level of ability. The citizen who is not taxed may have a disability that cannot be cured, and may need government assistance to support any visits to the doctor. By focusing on one particular idealogy of "survival of the fittest", you're putting individual willpower over society's needs. There needs to be a government that assists with keeping everything together.
Also, speed limit concerns? Really? If we didn't have a government telling us what the basics are, there would be more murders and accidental deaths in this country than any other industrialized country. What I find hypocritical is that these anti-government "hands off my freedoms" types complain about the government watching them, yet when their house burns down or they are mugged, they beg for the firefighters or police officers, both government programs, to assist them.
My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.
-
RE: the Arizona law.
Honestly, I've never understood why government should be able to compel one to pay taxes for services one doesn't want, require community service for a diploma, regulate business out of existence, but not verify the citizenship status of a person.
Anyway, that aside, illegal aliens are a serious problem in the south-western states, and Arizona is simply trying to find a way to deal with it. As far as this law goes, you apparently already have to be breaking the law, or very close to doing so in order to be questioned. Police won't be stopping people randomly on the street - they don't have the right to do so unless you are acting suspiciously. And there have been cases about that, and so forth, but the bottom line is that harassing people will get them sued out of existence.
In all honesty, we're talking about traffic stops here. And on the road, if you don't have ID, in the form of a drivers license, you are in a fair amount of trouble in any case.
Will some Hispanic persons be unfairly inconvenienced? Yes. But the reality of the situation is that most illegal immigrants are Hispanic. It will be impossible to ensure that some profiling does not end up being used, even unconsciously.
But that's not an excuse to avoid arresting people. Blacks are a disproportionately large segment of our prison population. Does that mean we shouldn't arrest a black person, or convict them of a crime, just to keep things fair? No.
The reality is that something has to be done about the problem. Border security needs to be enforced, actual citizens need protection, and we can't afford the cost drain of this continuing problem. Our system isn't designed to support an influx of undocumented immigrants this large.
-
...so expect Nazi Germany conditions.
Just for the sake of digression, the efficiency of the Gestapo has been severely overrated in popular culture. They were brutal and wore scary (though stylish) uniforms, sure - but they were also severely understaffed, largely corrupt and forced to rely on local informants to a very large degree.
For a truly salivation-triggering law enforcement agency, a better example would be their latter counterparts in the DDR - the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (nicknamed Stasi). They were good. Oh yes, they were. Mmmmm.
-
RE: Government
I think it's fair to say that I view government, on the whole, as an entity that is dangerous in the extreme. That's not to say that I see it as unnecessary, but I believe that government should be primarily regulatory in nature.
For example, I support such things as a fire department, a police department, and national defense. Government tends to do these things fairly well, and the private sector does not. What government does not tend to do well is function as a provider of goods and services on the whole. There are multiple proofs of this, and I shan't go into them now.
But my view of government as an entity hostile to its citizenry is one backed up by thousands of years of history. By and large, governments working for the people tend to become government serving themselves or a leader. In the twentieth century alone, millions died at the hands of governments.
Not corporations, not citizens with guns, not criminals, but governments.
Power corrupts. No, that's not correct - people are corrupt, and power amplifies that. You cannot protect against that corruption save my minimizing the amount of power persons may exercise over others.
I fear government because the government that provides free health care today decides who deserves it tomorrow, even if the people who planned the program had no such intention. The government that gains the capability to coerce will eventually use it - perhaps not in the near term, but eventually. Institutions inevitably grow corrupt, and governments are not subject to the creative destruction of the marketplace.
The conservative/libertarian objection to governmental controls and interference is not borne ultimately out of an irrational dislike of government, but of a very real understanding of its capabilities of destruction, tyranny, and oppression. The hand that caresses the populace today is merely an iron hand in a velvet glove that may well crush them tomorrow.
-
I had this whole big post written up.. but then Lilith posted before me.
-
If you're familiar with Starship Troopers, you must serve time with the military or any government program in order to become a Citizen. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't vote, and you're called a Civilian. Sounds like some elements of fascism. The problem with that is that of the 300 million people in the United States, not everyone will be on the same level of ability. The citizen who is not taxed may have a disability that cannot be cured, and may need government assistance to support any visits to the doctor. By focusing on one particular idealogy of "survival of the fittest", you're putting individual willpower over society's needs. There needs to be a government that assists with keeping everything together.
I am very familiar with Starship Troopers and its system, it is a very authoritarian system. I am of the opinion that if the government is going to provide universal services, it can demand more than just taxes from its citizens.
Your example places the needs of an individual before society's needs. If the person is disabled such that they cannot contribute to society in anyway, why should the government save them? Because they are a human being?
I am not saying that other societal structures cannot care for those individuals, their family or philanthropic organizations. Both of these likely are better at then any bureaucratic system anyway.
Also, speed limit concerns? Really? If we didn't have a government telling us what the basics are, there would be more murders and accidental deaths in this country than any other industrialized country.
So, individuals are idiots and big government is smart? :lol:
It was an example of how the Federal government ties control to funds. Why can Montana's State government not determine what is "safe" on the highways it pays to build? Why are Washington bureaucrats who have never been to Big Sky country smarter about what is "safe" there than the locals?
What I find hypocritical is that these anti-government "hands off my freedoms" types complain about the government watching them, yet when their house burns down or they are mugged, they beg for the firefighters or police officers, both government programs, to assist them.
If the person pays taxes that fund those services it is not hypocritical. One could hire private security and their own private fire fighters, but that is inefficient if I am already paying for the government ones via taxes.
In an anarcho-capitalist society (oh no!), coalitions of insurance companies likely will establish contracts with local security and fire prevention companies to protect their customers property & persons. The companies will even put out the fires of those not covered by insurance in order to prevent the fire from spreading and destroying customer property.
This gets interesting when you begin to look at how war occurs.
My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.
You will have to explain your last sentence more. I think the Constitution as written is a very flexible document and if it had been followed would have prevented the expansion of American power abroad and avoided many of the snafu's of the early 20th and 21st century. Population has little to do with State's rights and the checks and balances.
As an example, if the government had actually followed the Constitution, Afghanistan would be a declared war and Congress would have actually had to put its butt on the line for Iraq. Instead, like the Gulf War & Vietnam, Congress ceded its Constitutional duty to the office of the President.
-
My last point is that times have changed from the beginning of the United States to today's United States. We cannot vehemently follow the Constitution when the planned population at that time was much lower than expected, and society's values and habits shifted. I'm not saying the Constitution is false, but strict following of it jeopardizes the current programs that have been made to support every unique type of person living in America.
Umm... This is why I don't like these circular threads. Too much ideology, not enough US Civics 101. The Constitution is a living document. It can be modified at any time, so long as the voting criteria are met. That's why it has amendments. Prohibition is the example of both addition and subtraction happening to it.
It's not a straightjacket; it's a protection, our social contract between government and people written down. Suffrage rights regardless of sex, race, religion, or creed? It's written down to show it cannot be taken away. (Note it doesn't protect against voting be taken away from felons.) The ever-argued right to bear arms? It's written down to show we have it. The argument is not if we have it but to what degree is best. (And, again, it doesn't protect against felons losing that right.) It's vague on purpose; it gives room for shifting social values without the need to make amendments every decade.
Just as an example: legalized drugs are not a matter for the Constitution one way or the other; at least not to me, but it can be amended. (It's why Prohibition got yoinked.) In fact, the government avoids wading into that mess with a neat trick. Illegal drugs aren't illegal because they're bad - at least, not on paper. They're illegal because of taxation and permits, the same method that finally got Al Capone convicted. Research and medical reasons are the only time these permits are given, however. These legal sales are taxed. Street dealers don't have permits, so their sales aren't taxed. Tax evasion. Kapow. You might say, "That's sneaky and underhanded." You can't say, "It's unconstitutional and against my rights!" At least, you can't unless and until it gets amended in there.
The US Supreme Court has the job of deciding if any law violates these protections. It's not some junta; if the protections are changed by public demand, the decisions they make on cases will change. And, so, it will not decide on my drug example, because unless that permit and taxation system violates something in the Constitution, it's outside of its domain to decide.
Now, it's time to flee from all these soapboxes! .../o/
-
I would like to suggest something to those who argue for "big government". People who are arguing against "big government" aren't always arguing against government having control of things. What they're arguing against is the federal government having control over things.
I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:
The worst thing that ever happened to this country is the South losing the Civil War.
Discuss.
(Hint: It wasn't about slaves.)
-
I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:
The worst thing that ever happened to this country is the South losing the Civil War.
Discuss.
(Hint: It wasn't about slaves.)
If you're referring to the fact that the South had lucrative export crops (cotton, tobacco) and the North had lucrative export... eh... less stuff?
Well, things would be very different. Slavery would eventually have been abolished as the world continued to modernize and the Confederacy would've had to follow suit to be taken seriously on the world stage, so in the context of your discussion exercise it really is irrelevant as you said. I've never read the Confederacy's constitution, so I can't comment on that at all. What I will comment on is that it seems at least somewhat likely that "welfare state" concepts would have gone on to be much less popular than they are currently.
-
If you're referring to the fact that the South had lucrative export crops (cotton, tobacco) and the North had lucrative export... eh... less stuff?
No, I am not. The Civil War was about a fundamental basis of our entire country.
What I will comment on is that it seems at least somewhat likely that "welfare state" concepts would have gone on to be much less popular than they are currently.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. The "welfare state" concept is a bastardization of the New Deal, which was an excellent practice for its purpose, however it has since been horribly, irrevocably dissected into its constituent parts into something utterly reprehensible.
-
No, I am not. The Civil War was about a fundamental basis of our entire country.
It was about money.
-
I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:
The worst thing that ever happened to (these United States) was the CSA losing the Civil War.
Some edits. Also pre-emptive :bash:
The simple response is that it established the Federal government as superseding the State and local governments and made an original function of the 2nd Amendment mute.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The CSA's military was in essence raised from militia forces, commanded by US Army Officers.
Militias act as the core response to a tyrannical central government (especially from the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers).
Since then the concept of militias has fallen out of favor. The National Guards, while drawing on Militia roots, are not the same thing. They are funded by the Federal government and tied into the Federal military structure.
It would be interesting for a State government to fund upgrades to its National Guard outside of the Federal process. Expensive but interesting.
-
It was about money.
No, actually, it wasn't. For a brief history lesson; the root cause of the Civil War was that the largest voting bloc and the main population base (that was allowed to vote) was in the North, and the North was steadily moving to consolidate the power to the Federal Government, leveraging their greater voting power to push things through the South did not want to see go through. The Secession from the Union was not about Slavery (though that was the final straw), it was not about money, it was about States having their power. They were in fact working off Jefferson's statements in the Kentucky Resolutions that he claimed that States should not be submissive to the Government, and should be able to secede if they feel their rights are being unfairly infringed.
I often toss out the following line just to see how people will react to it, and I will do so here as well:
The worst thing that ever happened to (these United States) was the CSA losing the Civil War.
Some edits. Also pre-emptive :bash:
The edits are unnecessary, as "these United States" is the United States. The South lost the Civil War, making the CSA unimportant, because this is the US.
However:
The simple response is that it established the Federal government as superseding the State and local governments and made an original function of the 2nd Amendment mute.
The 2nd Amendment can't talk! (Moot is the word! Hehe) ;) But you're on the right track, however it's not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about this clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
And whether or not that meant that States had to kowtow, which many leaders of the time felt they shouldn't, and that a State should have the right to leave the Union if they did not like the Union's direction -- which most of the South did not due to the fact that their population was considerably smaller than the North's (that could vote, of course), and so many things they disagreed with would go through without them having much say.
Militias act as the core response to a tyrannical central government (especially from the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers).
Since then the concept of militias has fallen out of favor. The National Guards, while drawing on Militia roots, are not the same thing. They are funded by the Federal government and tied into the Federal military structure.
Militias have fallen out of favor because standing, professional armies are far more effective, and now due to the way of munitions regulation, even if there was a citizen's militia, and they did opt to rise up, they would be so out-equipped, out-trained, and out-gunned, it would be a slaughter. I don't care how many AR-15s you have, you're not going to beat the 1st Armored Division.
-
It was about money.
No, actually, it wasn't. For a brief history lesson; the root cause of the Civil War was that the largest voting bloc and the main population base (that was allowed to vote) was in the North, and the North was steadily moving to consolidate the power to the Federal Government, leveraging their greater voting power to push things through the South did not want to see go through. The Secession from the Union was not about Slavery (though that was the final straw), it was not about money, it was about States having their power. They were in fact working off Jefferson's statements in the Kentucky Resolutions that he claimed that States should not be submissive to the Government, and should be able to secede if they feel their rights are being unfairly infringed.
And the North took to shooting over the Confederate states' exercising their right to secede because the Union couldn't afford to lose the trade income provided by the South's cash crops. The Secession was about State rights. The Civil War was about money.
-
I don't have time to make an in-depth argument, but I'll just pipe in to say that as far as I'm concerned, anyone claiming the Secession of the South and the American Civil War was about one thing only and not about anything else are making themselves guilty of gross oversimplification.
In general, "magic arrow" arguments regarding historical events which emphasize one contributing factor to the exclusion of all others rarely give an accurate view of said event.
-
That implies, Katla, that there is not a primary factor of things. There are contributing factors, there are catalysts, and there is a primary factor involved. Discussing the primary factor as the factor does not paint a generalized brush. With the South's secession, the "other factors" that pushed it to make that decision to seperate from the Union all continued to boil into state's rights issues. Slavery, lack of representation, etc.
-
Prior to 1860, the federation of states between Mexico and Canada was referred to as these United States. It was considered in the plural as each State was internally independent. Following the American Civil War, the United States became standard, removing the plurality.
The issue of Slavery was the contemporary catalyst for the question of State's rights versus those of the Federal government.
-
/me smirks evilly as the group continues to speak.
-
/me smirks evilly as the group continues to speak.
I'm just glad I haven't had to click a report button in all of this politics stuff ('cause I obviously couldn't mod the thread myself now :p). You guys are all pretty chill :)
-
EVE players are in a specialized class of awesomeness. This ain't no WoW dungeon tips forum, yo.
On a side note, I'm glad we have a lot of diversity. Although we all don't agree on things, we at least have a majority of players here who are interested in discussing politics.
-
For some reason I am starting to lean towards anarchism because of the fact that all the other political directions seem to discard the value of an individual into the bin 'for the greater good'.
-
I think most of us can agree that the government dictating what you can and can't say, where you can and can't go, etc are all bad things. These represent government interference.
Err .. In fact, I do disagree that these are universally bad things.
I come from a country where my freedom to walk down the street hand-in-hand with my girlfriend without having abuse yelled at me overrides the freedom of speech of homophobes to scream 'fucking dyke bitch' out of their car windows as they pass (hate-speech legislation) - and I like it.
I come from a country where inciting violence against a person or group of people because of their race, gender, ethnicity or religion is a criminal offence - and I like it.
I come from a country where you can get a court order preventing a newspaper publishing lies about you before seven million people see your picture on the front page of a scandal-rag - and I like it.
I come from a country where every citizen is required to enroll to vote at the age of 18 and to attend the polling place for every state and federal election - and I like it.
I come from a country where it's illegal to discriminate against someone in employment because of their gender, marital status, race, religion, sexual preference, or ethnic identity - and I like it.
I come from a country where the government says, for example, you can't walk into a live power sub-station or onto a train-track - and I like it.
-
Just for the sake of digression, the efficiency of the Gestapo has been severely overrated in popular culture. They were brutal and wore scary (though stylish) uniforms, sure - but they were also severely understaffed, largely corrupt and forced to rely on local informants to a very large degree.
I had a friend at uni who went on to do a PhD proving that Mussolini did not, in fact, make the trains run on time.
-
For some reason I am starting to lean towards anarchism because of the fact that all the other political directions seem to discard the value of an individual into the bin 'for the greater good'.
Good luck with finding a home, water, food, a job, a car, places to walk and have fun at, and socialize without having to resort to having a gun to protect yourself from the lawless society.
-
I come from a country where every citizen is required to enroll to vote at the age of 18 and to attend the polling place for every state and federal election - and I like it.
Exactly what country is this? I know it can't be the US, because you're not required to do any of those things, only encouraged. If you were required to do so, elections would end up a lot differently, because huge numbers of people -- mostly moderates -- don't vote.
For some reason I am starting to lean towards anarchism because of the fact that all the other political directions seem to discard the value of an individual into the bin 'for the greater good'.
Anarchy will always give rise to Dictatorship or Oligarchy. Always.
-
I come from a country where every citizen is required to enroll to vote at the age of 18 and to attend the polling place for every state and federal election - and I like it.
Exactly what country is this? I know it can't be the US, because you're not required to do any of those things, only encouraged. If you were required to do so, elections would end up a lot differently, because huge numbers of people -- mostly moderates -- don't vote.
Australia. (http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/voting/enrolling_to_vote/)
-
Hm. Interesting. It's compulsory?
-
As the link says ... although of course, it can't be compulsory to actually vote in a secret ballot. But you will be fined if you don't go to the polling place and collect your ballot paper and put it in the box. You can write 'Screw all of you' on it if you want, and every election a very small proportion of people do, but you must make a decision to not express a preference for who governs you, rather than simply not bother to turn up.
We also have what is called in some countries 'instant run-off' and in Australia 'preferential voting': you number the candidates in order of your preference for them, and if no candidate gets 50% + 1 vote in the first round, the second preferences of the candidates with the smallest number of votes is counted, until you have a result that shows which candidate is the 'preferred' candidate.
-
I live in a country where the largest religious institution has to act the way the government tells it to - and I like it.
I live in a country where begging for money on the street is no longer a crime - I don't like that.
I live in a country where you, by registering on a list, make it illegal for telemarketers to call you - and I like it.
I live in a country where political campaign ads in media broadcasts are banned - and I like it.
I live in a country where tobacco and alcohol commercials are banned - and even though I enjoy wine, I quite like that too.
I live in a country where the government owns the oil which forms the backbone of our economy and saves the vast majority of the income thereof until rainy days appear, which has allowed us to pretty much shrug off the entire recession and emerge from it wealthier than ever before - and I fucking love it.
I live in a country where whales are food. And even though that has nothing to do with restrictions of personal liberties or the general encroachment of government per se, I still like it. In fact, whale steak is delicious. I pity the rest of the world.
-
I've never understood whale hippies. I have no taste for whale but so long as they're not endangered, why not marvel at AND eat them?
-
I love the fact whenever you mention Anarchy people go with the definition that goes with the post apocalyptic visions of Hollywood.
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
-"No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
-"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
-"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
-"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
-"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." [5]
Personally I would go with the middle one and anyone who does not have their mind clouded with prejudices and preconceptions could have deduced that from what I posted.
Before you get on a soapbox and go:'Grrrr... socialists!' the word in the definition is 'social', not 'socialist'.
so·cial [soh-shuhl]
–adjective
1. pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club.
2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event.
4. living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation: People are social beings.
5. of or pertaining to human society, esp. as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.
6. involved in many social activities: We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7. of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community: social problems.
8. noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.
9. pertaining to or advocating socialism.
10. Zoology. living habitually together in communities, as bees or ants.Compare solitary (def. 8).
11. Botany. growing in patches or clumps.
12. Rare. occurring or taking place between allies or confederates.
–noun
13. a social gathering or party, esp. of or as given by an organized group: a church social.
Only the bolded one has any negative connotations, and even those because of being linked to the fearsome idea that it would be a good idea for the resources of a nation to be divided evenly among the community of the nation instead of having all the resources at the hands of the old power structures that has been around since the feudal ages.
We are still living in the post-feudal and post-Imperialistic era.
The wealth of nations has been generated by mostly their past, take Netherlands for example, its a little speck of a country with minimal resources, yet it has economical clout far above any of the Eastern block nations (except Russia.)
The banking system is based on old merchant families in the Dark Ages that figured out that making money by loaning it to the leadership of the nations was a brilliant idea, they have been at it for 800 years or so, competing with something like that is a bit challenging.
I could go on and on giving examples of how the old power structures make it pretty much impossible to act out any change in the current system.
Therefore for me the best thing to do economically and politically would be to stop the world for one year. Take count of all the resources, take count of all the political systems, get a bunch of really smart people together and then they make up a plan for the next 1000 years and next 1000 years we work on completing that plan.
Fuck being a wage slave for a banking system that is completely and utterly corrupt.
Fuck the corrupt politicians that just line their pockets with money as fast as they can.
Fuck the economic system that is based on scarcity of resources.
All I want to be is happy without worrying about shit like that.
-
I had a friend at uni who went on to do a PhD proving that Mussolini did not, in fact, make the trains run on time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amn-1nJWe-g&NR=1 8)
-
I love the fact whenever you mention Anarchy people go with the definition that goes with the post apocalyptic visions of Hollywood.
I love the fact that when someone mentions Anarchy they automatically assume that people are going to go with a definition that goes with post apocalyptic visions from Hollywood.
Personally I would go with the middle one and anyone who does not have their mind clouded with prejudices and preconceptions could have deduced that from what I posted.
And here you are poisoning the well. "Anyone that doesn't agree with this is prejudiced!" That doesn't even take into account that some of us who disagreed with you knew exactly what you meant. However that does not change my statement any, so I will repeat it since instead of replying to it you opted to divert the topic:
Anarchy will always give rise to Dictatorship or Oligarchy. Always.
Only the bolded one has any negative connotations, and even those because of being linked to the fearsome idea that it would be a good idea for the resources of a nation to be divided evenly among the community of the nation instead of having all the resources at the hands of the old power structures that has been around since the feudal ages.
Except the problem with that is that there are always those that want what you have, and there are always those that have greater need for greater power, and they will go ahead and take it. And in the absence of a power structure for them to focus their needs in it, they will create one.
For the record this sort of thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) has also already been done, and oddly fell apart to Oligarchies and Dictatorships.
We are still living in the post-feudal and post-Imperialistic era.
We will always be living in that era, we can't really divorce ourself from it. The true problem comes down to limited resources, human nature, and a slew of other interesting facets of the human condition. The fact that all you need is one person with just a teensy bit of megalomania and a "good idea" as to how to run things and a little charisma, and the next thing you know he's got 50 to 100 people with firearms that have decided "I have a better way to do things."
And low and behold: Things change abruptly.
The wealth of nations has been generated by mostly their past, take Netherlands for example, its a little speck of a country with minimal resources, yet it has economical clout far above any of the Eastern block nations (except Russia.)
The banking system is based on old merchant families in the Dark Ages that figured out that making money by loaning it to the leadership of the nations was a brilliant idea, they have been at it for 800 years or so, competing with something like that is a bit challenging.
I could go on and on giving examples of how the old power structures make it pretty much impossible to act out any change in the current system.
Except people have acted out those changes in various areas throughout the world, with varying degrees of lack of success. Competing with things like that are challenging not because they're simply "ingrained", but because of the fact that they function. Are they optimal function? Not in an idealistic situation, of course not. However in the current model and current situation they're the best we've got of the things we've tried.
Which is kinda sad, but what can you do? When life hands you shit. . .
Therefore for me the best thing to do economically and politically would be to stop the world for one year. Take count of all the resources, take count of all the political systems, get a bunch of really smart people together and then they make up a plan for the next 1000 years and next 1000 years we work on completing that plan.
Good luck with that, people are not that cool.
Fuck being a wage slave for a banking system that is completely and utterly corrupt.
Fuck the corrupt politicians that just line their pockets with money as fast as they can.
Fuck the economic system that is based on scarcity of resources.
Until there are unlimited resources, our economic systems will always be based on scarcity of resources. There's really know way around it. Once we get transporters so that we can build replicators, though. . . then things will be different!
All I want to be is happy without worrying about shit like that.
Which is pretty easy to accomplish really. ;)
-
Which is kinda sad, but what can you do? When life hands you shit. . .
...smear it all over the walls!
-
I live in a country where the largest religious institution has to act the way the government tells it to - and I like it.
I live in a country where begging for money on the street is no longer a crime - I don't like that.
I live in a country where you, by registering on a list, make it illegal for telemarketers to call you - and I like it.
I live in a country where political campaign ads in media broadcasts are banned - and I like it.
I live in a country where tobacco and alcohol commercials are banned - and even though I enjoy wine, I quite like that too.
I live in a country where the government owns the oil which forms the backbone of our economy and saves the vast majority of the income thereof until rainy days appear, which has allowed us to pretty much shrug off the entire recession and emerge from it wealthier than ever before - and I fucking love it.
I live in a country where whales are food. And even though that has nothing to do with restrictions of personal liberties or the general encroachment of government per se, I still like it. In fact, whale steak is delicious. I pity the rest of the world.
Do you mind if I ask which country this is? I would not like to live there, myself. I assume there must be substantial nuance to the reality behind some of those statements, because some of them sound like human rights violations to me. :)
(Not that my country of birth is anything like innocent of human rights violations, for certain.)
-
...what exactly about any of that sounds like a human rights violation?
-
Do you mind if I ask which country this is? I would not like to live there, myself. I assume there must be substantial nuance to the reality behind some of those statements, because some of them sound like human rights violations to me. :)
(Not that my country of birth is anything like innocent of human rights violations, for certain.)
The country is Norway. And I don't believe any of the things I mentioned constitute a violation of human rights. Under American law some of them would violate parts of the Constitution, certainly, in particular certain portions of the First Amendment. But human rights - no. Norway is exceedingly strict about observing those, even to the point of prohibiting oil fund investments into businesses and enterprises that are ethically questionable.
We do have one policy that mildly conflicts with human rights (according to Amnesty International), and that is the year of compulsory military or civil service required of young men. But by now, you can pretty much manage to wriggle out of that just by whining a bit to the military psychologists or priests (and that's literally all it takes). A pretty pathetic thing to do for those who aren't genuinely unfit for service, in my opinion, but at least it demonstrates that the system is far from draconian.
-
Having a government that tells a religion what to do sounds ripe for abuse, and perhaps I misunderstand the statement about political speech via broadcast media. And compulsory military service strikes me very very negatively, though I'd assume that Norway has some sort of national service equivalent that can be substituted for young men with philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious qualms about serving in the military.
To restate, I'm not claiming that the current situation in the US is any great example. This is an area where, in my estimation, even the most classically liberal Western democracies don't live up to our own standards.
-
The US is not really classically liberal. We're way to the Right of most of the western world.
-
"Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)" had a meaning long before its current usage, and I use it in that sense here.
-
I realize this, and was referring to that.
-
Having a government that tells a religion what to do sounds ripe for abuse, and perhaps I misunderstand the statement about political speech via broadcast media. And compulsory military service strikes me very very negatively, though I'd assume that Norway has some sort of national service equivalent that can be substituted for young men with philosophical, moral, ethical, or religious qualms about serving in the military.
To restate, I'm not claiming that the current situation in the US is any great example. This is an area where, in my estimation, even the most classically liberal Western democracies don't live up to our own standards.
Having a government that tells a religion what to do is unproblematic as long as the government is a democratically elected one and complying with international human rights - and as long as those who disagree with the policies enforced upon said religion are free to quit it and establish their own religious communities unmolestedly, if they can be arsed to do so. That's the case here, and it happens. They even get state funding if they manage to scratch out a big enough community - a policy I'm personally opposed to, as I'm principally against the government handing out subsidies without exerting influence.
Fortunately, most people are sufficiently apathetic about religion that they don't actually care one way or another, however. They'll typically go to church on Christmas Eve for the sake of tradition, and then not show their faces there again until the next Christmas comes around. For its part, Easter is not so much a religious holiday any longer as it is an excuse to go skiing in the mountains. It's thoroughly lovely.
As far as the ban on political ads in media broadcasts goes, it applies exclusively to purchased broadcast adverts - "political commercials", if that's clearer. Political representatives and challengers are perfectly free to express their views and policies in debates and interviews in any kind of media outlet, and are regularly invited to do so. The law is there to prevent any political party from gaining an advantage by buying themselves more media exposure than their opponents. It curbs excessive lobbyism, prevents crazy spending and puts the parties on even footing, ensuring that the decisive factor in elections is the political message, not the size of the war chest.
Parties are still allowed to pay for ads in paper and online media, and distribution of pamphlets is commonplace in elections. That kind of advertising is much more affordable, though, and doesn't make one party able to buy an advantage over its adversaries.
I think it's a sensible law, personally.
Regarding alternatives to military service on the basis of personal conscience/beliefs: Yes, there are. Hence why I wrote: "...year of compulsory military or civil service..." above. ;)
-
*SNIP*
[admin]Please do not attack other members. Or troll. Etc.-Havo[/admin]
On liberalism, conservatism, the left, the right, the estates general, and all that:
The sheer degree of agreement and common ground in these western thought-systems begins to necessitate another term, or at least the shearing apart of two synonyms at the root.
Liberality might suffice for this task. It might, if I am lucky, underline that the whole lot of it comes from some absolutist French king experimenting with autonomy or rights or freedoms or new taxes or opiums for the masses and that, largely, they differ only in what either tradition has used as an answer to the unifying question of 'how do we push on with this social contract we're playing around with?'
Everything else the public gets in an uproar about, more or less everything that highlights differences for the sheer sake of divisiveness, is crap.
---
On Arizona:
-The main problem is letting people not pay into the system and take money out of it, or capital flight.
-Capital flight could be best dealt with by having a five minute work visa granting process.
-The police brutality and misconduct problem is significant; you cannot account for it. Some officers already have said they will respect it, while I am told some officers have essentially said, 'yeah, we'll drum up a pretext if we can't check these people procedurally.' Whether they'll do this depends solely on how overwhelmed with work they will be. I don't think they'll be overwhelmed; they're a sheriff's office.
-The identification thing is a crock. We can have anything we want; we should be able to figure out easy DNA analysis in the space of minutes from a device that fits into a squad car when people do not carry their papers. Carrying your papers is some regressionist KGB-GRU-SS-gestapo shit. We should be able to phase it out, just like we should have an energy economy that runs off solar energy and all this other crap. But what can you do.
-Immigration reform needs to favor nation-building. The best nations don't turn away extra workers; they figure out ways to effectively incentivize both legal immigration and infrastructure expansion so you can hire more people more easily and tax them fairly.
-Don't goddamn tell me the immigrants are the core problem when it's the people that hire them illegaly to work under the table and screw over legal competition that hurt the system the most. This is like Vikarion and Lillith's AIG complaints - it's not the company; it's not the financial apparatus or the employees or the minority shareholders. It's the short-term golden-parachute fucks and their owner voting-bloc stockholder backers who set the competitive standard at a quarterly do or die.
-These are all signs of bad or insufficient regulation of the US free market.
Later, guyz.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.88&soc=-5.18)
So me, a left wing libertarian. A skeptic and a situationist. Exactly like my character.
One thing I think is interesting, is when I looked at the races in EVE, I read the descriptions and thought:
'Facist religious Empire that keeps slaves, not for me.'
'Corporate state.' /vomits
'Minmatar.... I don't even know what that is.'
'Liberal democracy.... where do I sign up?'
I think it's really interesting that all the Caldari guys seem to be centre-right libertarians and I think that demonstrates something about the Empires and how we are attracted to some more than others for political reasons.
-
I do not label myself with anything.
However, I am a massive British patriot, and thus support its cultural/political history, and a large part of that is down to pure 'what is sensible'. You will note that the three main parties in the UK are not that different from each other...each of them offer their own "sensible" solutions to various problems. None of which are routed in extreme ideology like you might find elsewhere.
As such there are things I am right-wing about, rooted in British conservative traditionalism, and some things I am liberal about, such as social democracy. Apart of this country is the high taxing of the rich to help the poor. If you don't like it, you can leave, it's been like that and is apart of their socio-political culture.
From our own traditional culture, marriage is an institution for a man and a woman, and it is also the business of the church, which the state shall have no business in. However, as a nation of equality, where the OTT political correctness has eliminated institutional discrimination against homosexuals, people of that orientation have the right to be wed legally in order to have the same rights as straight couples. Therefore, we have reserved civil unions for them, as marriage is the area of the church etc.
Unlike the US, which is a melting pot in its very essence, Britain as a civilization stretches back thousands of years, and thus should not be permitted to be subdued by foreign cultures. I am not ethnically British, but I identify as one, and my maternal family came here, learnt the language and did the whole "When in Rome..." thing. Even my old auntie sees ourselves as "guests", and that if you want to force your culture onto Britain, you can head back to your own country etc.
You can see the mix of left and right wing there, so I don't identify as either.
-
The larger meta issue of mixing responses preferred by various parties defines me as well. In many cases, a party adopts a stance on a particular issue, not because of some need for intellectual coherence, but because they want to appeal to a given demographic. As an individual, however, I don't engage in the same calculus and thus try to discern what is practical and right according to some superposition of my values over reality. Thus, in US politics, I agree with significant portions of the left regarding immigration policy but further to the right on abortion issues. And I take a decidedly unorthodox view on marriage: the government should only issue civil unions regardless of gender. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no legitimate state interest in such questions. Therefore, my wife and I can have a civil union from the government as can my sister in her same sex relationship, and my congregation can choose to separately recognize my marriage without being required to do so for my sister.
In today's highly polarized and radicalized politics, of course, I'm a heretic to any establishment ideologue. Not that I'm worried about it.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.88&soc=-5.18)
thats pretty much where I am, and while truth be told, I'd rather be slightly more conservative with government policy etc, I'm sort of forced be be liberal by virtue of the republicans being backed by people who want to deny me my rights.
-
Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-9.00&soc=0.77)
-
And I agree Seri, but more time.
Three years mandatory civil or armed forces service upon the 18th birthday or graduation from High School, whichever comes first.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.50&soc=-3.33)
That's the RL me according to this test. I'm sure it's fairly spot on, but personally I reject all political affiliations and doubt I fit in any neat classification.
Lots of similar leaning on this forum according to the test, btw.
-
I don't have any direct political affiliations... but I do feel strongly about one thing.
Nationalist Socialism... in a loose sense.
/me puts on FROG suit and waits for flames
-
Hmm, weird. I always thought you were a fiscally right-wing libertarian Alex. IDK, just guessed.
I have to commend everyone for keeping this thread from acting as the frontline of a flame war.
Also, how about we post what our characters would be like? Do the test as if you are your character.
Me -
(http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv205/iSteve2010/PoliticalSpectrum.png)
Benjamin Shepherd -
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.43&soc=-5.45)
-
Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist
Communists aren't authoritarian.
Oh wait, we're talking Soviet Communists and not, like, Communist Communists, huh?
-
Yeah...
Except this is kind of inaccurate. I'm more Nationalist Socialist than true communist
-
Well, apparently I'm a borderline communist
Communists aren't authoritarian.
Oh wait, we're talking Soviet Communists and not, like, Communist Communists, huh?
Perhaps it is more helpful to identify the theorist whose brand of communism you are making reference to instead, e.g. Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, etc..
-
Yeah...
Except this is kind of inaccurate. I'm more Nationalist Socialist than true communist
This chap will go far.
-
I like Marx towards the end, when he started incorporating more capitalistic ideas into things.
-
We just had an election here, with highly unusual results. We won't know for days who can form a government.
The Green party captured 12% of the popular vote, which is a lot, and they'll hold the balance of power in Parliament.
Very interesting times.
-
Ours is in two months and two weeks. It'll be interesting, what with this "Ground Zero Mosque" BS that Newt and Palin have been making a mountain out of an anthill about.
-
Oh gods Palin.
She scares the crap out of me.
Seriously, like, I'd probably attempt to flee the country if she became president.
-
She doesn't have what it takes to make it, so I would say it's a non-issue.
-
Sarah Palin won't accomplish anything (and I'll try to refrain from my anti-Palin rant) unless she focuses on the economy. Right now, she doesn't have a clue what to do with jobs, and is only relevant as a public speaker who wants to see social change in the US.
As for the mosque issue, wow. Just wow. I believe the media has helped blow this up into a ridiculous issue that has nothing to do with Americans. The politicians are using this for political gain to appeal to disenfranchised voters, and opponents of this mosque are subconsciously associating moderate Islam with terrorism; by not allowing freedom of religion to occur (on private property nonetheless), the country continues to split apart. And bad economic times + racial conflict = rise in racism.
-
The lack of responsibility or accountability within the media coupled with 24-hour news... and the idea that ratings > quality unbiased reporting... has caused a complete crash in our social structure in this country.
America is fucking failcascading... as soon as I have the money I'm moving.
-
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs373.snc4/45624_461326451718_786701718_6410943_3201071_n.jpg)
Yes. Closer to the Australian Labor and Greens then anything.
Which sounds just about right to me.
Tony Abbott. Do not want. ;)
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
-
I'll do Elizas later after i figure out wtf mine means
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.50&soc=0.87)
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
Damn Right it is.
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
I'm with Jianni, if Abbot ends up becoming Prime Minister, you might wanna think about somewhere else.
He doesn't like boat people. You'll probably end up interned in a camp in the desert or something.
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
I'm with Jianni, if Abbot ends up becoming Prime Minister, you might wanna think about somewhere else.
He doesn't like boat people. You'll probably end up interned in a camp in the desert or something.
Also, A-cup breasts are banned, the trees are full of dropbears and the nooks and crannys are filled with giant poisonous creatures.
Like the sydney funnel web spider *shudders*
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
I'm with Jianni, if Abbot ends up becoming Prime Minister, you might wanna think about somewhere else.
He doesn't like boat people. You'll probably end up interned in a camp in the desert or something.
... or in cheap motel accommodation.
However it is we're doing it this week.
... and yeah, the ISP filter is a bit :evil:, hell, thats why I don't mind the Sex Party. (That and it's fun to scream Sex Party at people and watch them react). Oh, and the policies.
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
I'm with Jianni, if Abbot ends up becoming Prime Minister, you might wanna think about somewhere else.
He doesn't like boat people. You'll probably end up interned in a camp in the desert or something.
... or in cheap motel accommodation.
However it is we're doing it this week.
... and yeah, the ISP filter is a bit :evil:, hell, thats why I don't mind the Sex Party. (That and it's fun to scream Sex Party at people and watch them react). Oh, and the policies.
Yeah those were the two biggest issues for my voting this time. No-one else really seemed to understand why I thought manditory internet filtering was such a big deal.
Maybe it's because I'm a gamer or something. Sigh.
-
Australia is at the top of my list of countries to move to
I'm with Jianni, if Abbot ends up becoming Prime Minister, you might wanna think about somewhere else.
He doesn't like boat people. You'll probably end up interned in a camp in the desert or something.
... or in cheap motel accommodation.
However it is we're doing it this week.
... and yeah, the ISP filter is a bit :evil:, hell, thats why I don't mind the Sex Party. (That and it's fun to scream Sex Party at people and watch them react). Oh, and the policies.
Yeah those were the two biggest issues for my voting this time. No-one else really seemed to understand why I thought manditory internet filtering was such a big deal.
Maybe it's because I'm a gamer or something. Sigh.
Yeah, I guess I'm not actually so concerned about the whole 'boat people' invasion - considering they make up a tiny percentage of illegal immigration. Net Filter, bad idea, yes.
Just replying because we STILL don't have an elected leader. ;)
-
Correction.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/07/3005028.htm
New Govt.
-
I was going to post something similar, but you beat me.
Interesting times ahead.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.75&soc=-6.15)
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
Not sure I really like some questions (yes, faith is an issue but really, asking about astrology factors into politics? Come on, Ronny Reagan had one of those) but hey, it falls where I'd expect it to for me and was a fun way to spend some time. Honestly I do dislike how there seems to be no distinction between socialism and communism, though, I think the only thing keeping me from being full hog commie according to this chart is I believe land can be owned :ugh:
-
I'm still waiting for our hardcore fascist; that is, someone who scores +10,+10.
-
I'm still waiting for our hardcore fascist; that is, someone who scores +10,+10.
I haven't filled it out in a long time (I hate the questions and refuse to fill it out again because I'm a PITA like that), but I'm probably the closest you get a +1, +7 (x, y).
<--- inhouse Fascist.
Also the X position matters little when you're looking at Fascism as it goes.
-
Dangerous thread. Kudos for having the balls to start it.
I don't really get to fit in to the left and right categories.
I believe in flat out anarcho-capitalism, but if I had to "fit in" I would say libertarian.
I don't believe in social programs of any sort unless they are directed at children or the elderly, but thats a sliding scale nobody can agree on.
My family is FAR below the US poverty line and none of us believe in entitlements.
As far as gun control and things like that, if I am a law abiding citizen I see no reason why I shouldn't have a fully loaded F15 parked in my driveway.
All I care about is individual liberty. The rest can suck it.
-
I'm genuinely curious, Boma: how do you feel about surveillance, police discretion, racial profiling, and immigration?
-
In response to Boma, I feel that social programs are necessary for such a large population, we're almost at the 350 million mark in the United States, and not letting the government assist the public is almost negligent.
My father worked for two of the largest law firms in the world, and was screwed over not by lack of work ethic, but by management perks that higher ups wanted to keep. Long story short, corporations don't have oversight; the government does, that's their job, and it's been their job.
I would promote a more limited government when there was an extremely small number of citizens, but no major nation wouldn't have social programs designed to help with issues other than children.
-
I'm still waiting for our hardcore fascist; that is, someone who scores +10,+10.
I haven't filled it out in a long time (I hate the questions and refuse to fill it out again because I'm a PITA like that), but I'm probably the closest you get a +1, +7 (x, y).
<--- inhouse Fascist.
Also the X position matters little when you're looking at Fascism as it goes.
The assertion here that fascism is concerned primarily with authority isn't really relevant to the discussion, sadly, because more or less everyone here isn't fond of restrictions on self-expression.
This is evident because of their willingness to take advantage of a lack of such restrictions and post on this fucking forum.
In the context of this discussion, fascism can only be sensibly involved in relation to its economic policies and value systems and the spectrum of extents to which it has or hasn't restricted individual liberties for the sake of a conception of a nation rather than the extent to which these liberties are curtailed for the sake of the rights of one's fellows.
The difference between a government's justified restriction of your actions for the safety of others and its restrictions of your actions for the safety of the government and its associated institutions (the 'establishment' of a given nation) is a significant one that's been danced around plenty in this thread. Think on it.
-
On a side note, Ashar is of course the one to bring up old as hell posts. wtg.
-
The assertion here that fascism is concerned primarily with authority isn't really relevant to the discussion, sadly, because more or less everyone here isn't fond of restrictions on self-expression.
This is evident because of their willingness to take advantage of a lack of such restrictions and post on this fucking forum.
If that were true, I don't think there'd be as much support for the moderation as there is.
-
(http://knowyourmeme.com/i/28432/original/ThreadNecro.gif?1259372448)
-
I'm genuinely curious, Boma: how do you feel about surveillance, police discretion, racial profiling, and immigration?
Surveillance? I have a right to be secure in my home and my papers. As soon as I leave said home, mail said papers, transmit something over a network, leave my house, make a cellular or traditional phone call, all bets are off and it is my responsibility to ensure my own security. When it leaves the walls of my domain all bets are off and I do not have a right to privacy.
Police discretion? Tough one. I have some previous law enforcement experience and chose not to continue it due to the fact that I was not able to apply discretion due to possible litigation. A good example: Call at state park about suspicious vehicle. I HAVE to confirm if I am responding. I respond. It is two puppy love teenagers smooching and smoking some pot and enjoying the night in the wilderness.
What do I do? Well, I cite or arrest, because even though I think it is totally harmless and want them to have a totally awesome night, if I don't though, and there is a car accident or any other number of situations that could come into play, I lose my job, I get sued, my life is over, because I responded, did not detain or arrest for posession, intent, and driving under the influence.
Sans the litigation threat, I think law enforcement should have the ability to make a call in the field. LEO's for the most fart are very fair people if treated with the respect they deserve.
Racial profiling? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....well lets just say that I will oppose racial profiling the day that white kids can start a caucasian club at a college and affirmative action becomes noinexistant.
-
LEO's for the most fart are very fair people if treated with the respect they deserve.
Hah, you said fart.
Fart. Hah.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.00&soc=-5.23)
Economic: -8.00
Social: -5.23
Heh. Fun! ... and pretty accurate, as far as it goes. I am indeed suspicious of both corporate and governmental power, but much more of the corporate.
-
LEO's for the most fart are very fair people if treated with the respect they deserve.
Hah, you said fart.
Fart. Hah.
LOL. But... How the fuck did I even manage that typo? Those keys are nowhere near each other. Awesome.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.00&soc=-1.54)
I figured I'd be a couple more points to the right.
-
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.88&soc=-4.21)
I generally avoid thinking or talking about politics much, but that's where the thing put me.
-
(http://knowyourmeme.com/i/28432/original/ThreadNecro.gif?1259372448)
On a side note, Ashar is of course the one to bring up old as hell posts. wtg.
Necroing is allowed on backstage.
I was involved in the discussions that birthed both the forums and this policy. It has not yet changed, and likely won't because the old community forums would wield the no-necroing attitude or whatnot like a bludgeon and this resulted in less than stellar interaction with new users.
So deal with it.
-
I was being sarcastic. Perhaps /this/ is better for sarcastic remarks.
Anyway, any Canadians here? Would like to discuss what's going on there.
-
I'm suprised Havo's and mine came out so similar considering we would debate politics and disagree.
Never sure what else to say really.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Where the hell is Istvann's? I must know for the lulz.
-
Where the hell is Istvann's? I must know for the lulz.
-
Kamiko, about your gun control views (and I DON'T want to pen that can of worms thank you, just a simple question will do), how do you feel about the US Supreme Court ruling that the police are not responsible for the safety of US citizens?
-
Kamiko, about your gun control views (and I DON'T want to pen that can of worms thank you, just a simple question will do), how do you feel about the US Supreme Court ruling that the police are not responsible for the safety of US citizens?
Kamiko = Me
I feel that the ruling does not represent the 300 million people in this country. Unfortunately for right-wing libertarians, not everyone wants to have such an extreme limited government that doesn't protect its citizens, and as a public service, the police shouldn't even think twice about protecting someone.
I do not believe in banning all firearms, but I don't think it's necessary to have an armory's worth of shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, what have you. In my opinion, I feel that there should be adequate yearly psychological testing, further proficiency tests conducted by police officers, and a national gun registry list. As I said before, for such a large country, we cannot just resort to firearms for protection; if someone openly carries a firearm, that person is more likely to take unnecessary lethal action against a perceived criminal, on the basis that the firearm is easy access.
In Greek, polissoos means "guarding a city". And that's all I have to say about that, sorry for the long answer. Also, thank you Wikipedia for word histories.
EDIT: I'm not saying that officers should be personal bodyguards to private citizens, I'm just commenting that what you're saying should not justify a lack of firearm regulations.
-
Kamiko, about your gun control views (and I DON'T want to pen that can of worms thank you, just a simple question will do), how do you feel about the US Supreme Court ruling that the police are not responsible for the safety of US citizens?
Kamiko = Me
I feel that the ruling does not represent the 300 million people in this country. Unfortunately for right-wing libertarians, not everyone wants to have such an extreme limited government that doesn't protect its citizens, and as a public service, the police shouldn't even think twice about protecting someone.
I do not believe in banning all firearms, but I don't think it's necessary to have an armory's worth of shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, what have you. In my opinion, I feel that there should be adequate yearly psychological testing, further proficiency tests conducted by police officers, and a national gun registry list. As I said before, for such a large country, we cannot just resort to firearms for protection; if someone openly carries a firearm, that person is more likely to take unnecessary lethal action against a perceived criminal, on the basis that the firearm is easy access.
In Greek, polissoos means "guarding a city". And that's all I have to say about that, sorry for the long answer. Also, thank you Wikipedia for word histories.
EDIT: I'm not saying that officers should be personal bodyguards to private citizens, I'm just commenting that what you're saying should not justify a lack of firearm regulations.
I *REALLY* like how you laid this one out Benjamin. A few counterpoints though since the question wasn't really answered, at least in my mind.
The ruling was that the police was there to enforce the law, and bring justice to those who do harm to others. If we don't have personal bodyguards when it comes to law enforcement, what are we supposed to do?
You also mentioned "such a large country" which also comes back to the fact that it would be quite literally impossible for the police to even come close to protecting people. So what are we supposed to do?
I REALLY liked your comment about open-carry. I despise it. I despise the people who do it. I can't stand it. Which is why I only carry concealed. Guns are VERY offensive to a large demographic and these dickbuckets aren't helping their cause at all. I hope they all die in a fire.
*BUT*
I have a very serious argument about certain things. You are attacking ownership, not carry, with the idea of bans, psychological testing, a registry, and range qualification by police officers. I see this often, and would love to get some insight. So let us start small with bullet points, no pun intended.
What does banning any sort of firearm achieve in your opinion?
Concealed carry permits already check local, state, and federal databases for a variety of crimes and psych issues, so why the need?
A firearms registry. What does it actually do?
Now I have to be a total jerk, because I swear I will fly you out to Seattle for dinner, take you to a badass nudie bar on my dime, and set you up in the best hotel in the city for two days with five grand in spending cash if you can find me a police officer that can shoot anywhere near as good as my range club. I know 14 year olds that make most LEO marksman look like idiots.
I need to reiterate here, I really like how you are presenting your case, you seem to know the subject, you seem to have common sense and genuine concern. But I have to ask you this one question.
We already have highly restrictive firearms regulations in the US, in many circles even the liberals agree that we have gone overboard in some respects. We have had them since an act in the 30's, and an act in the 60's, and another in 1986, another in 1984, and the harder we crack down, the more gun violence we see.
I would be very pleased to see your opinion on this (rather upsetting to a gun enthusiast) trend.
-
And herein lies the dilemma.
It's a catch-22: Ban the guns, the criminals still have them. Extend police control, personal liberties are taken away.
Which is why I don't take any drastic views on gun control. As someone who hunts for small game every few months or so, I appreciate the intelligent views one must have to operate and understand the ethics and consideration of owning a firearm. So, questions:
What we are supposed to do for not having "personal bodyguards" is improve awareness of crime via advocacy groups, improved street lighting, and public funding of defensive assets for stores (more panic buttons, etc). Guns meeting guns = more violence, more problems.
What we are supposed to do for the lack of police in certain jurisdictions is expand laws that help with local law enforcement budgets. This can be done by moving local government money around, so the costs wouldn't jump skyhigh. It's late, so I won't go into detail.
Open-carry firearm owners are the douchebag tools of America, but I also feel that concealed is a problem. I'm not sure what Washington's state laws are about gun ownership, but compared to someplace like Georgia, I'm sure they're not as lax.
Banning weapons? Simple: Are semi-automatic rifles even necessary? I mean, Jesus. You're not going into a group of twelve soldiers about to Rambo their asses.
A gun registry enables the states to see who has weapons, and who doesn't. This can help with combating violence, by looking at statistics, who owns what, and focusing on specifics, so that criminals can be targeted. Again, not going into detail because it's late.
Aside from that, I've no problem. I'm just not that into firearms. They're a tool to kill, nothing else.
-
Incidentally, I'm in my neighborhood watch, and they don't shut up about this shit, ever.
What do the two of you have to say about Switzerland? Treat it as a prompt, if you're willing to humor me.
-
Incidentally, I'm in my neighborhood watch, and they don't shut up about this shit, ever.
What do the two of you have to say about Switzerland? Treat it as a prompt, if you're willing to humor me.
You mean besides the fact that their politicians look like a bunch of happy serial killers?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2008_Teil_2.JPG/718px-Bundesrat_der_Schweiz_2008_Teil_2.JPG)
The only place where true direct democracy is practiced, and I love it. I don't like that they banned those Islamic veils, but my atheism says "Yesssss." My egalitarianism says "Nooooo." But it's a chill place, one of the highest quality of life countries, and 4 languages means lots of cultural exchange.
-
...Yes. In the context of their policies and laws regarding guns, their crime rates, and the comparative amount of violence there, and justifications for it.
I must remember that there aren't any telepaths up in this bitch.
-
I feel that the ruling does not represent the 300 million people in this country. Unfortunately for right-wing libertarians, not everyone wants to have such an extreme limited government that doesn't protect its citizens, and as a public service, the police shouldn't even think twice about protecting someone.
Not to derail, but there aren't actually a lot of places left for right-wing libertarians to go, while there are plenty of countries with more leftist-authoritarian policies.
-
Not to derail, but there aren't actually a lot of places left for right-wing libertarians to go, while there are plenty of countries with more leftist-authoritarian policies.
The trouble with that kind of comparison is that it's always relative.
The beauty part Vik, is that we economically liberal people are taking over. WE'RE WINNING!! These days, there are so many presumptions AGAINST government intervention, and economic theory is so prevalent in policy making (even post GFC), that interventionist approaches are the exception rather than the norm.
I think if you look around there world, governments are moving more and more to our way of thinking (read: the RIGHT way of thinking ;) ). China is becoming more and more economically liberal (relative to where it was). Countries are increasingly liberalising trade policies and reducing regulations on business (again, in general, but not in all cases).
PS: Re police forces. I am a hard-core (really, really hard core) economic libertarian. Minimum gov't for me, please. But even I advocate a role for government provision in the case of police forces. Services like the police force give what are called 'public goods': they produce something that everyone can enjoy simultaneously, without being able to exclude anyone. What they produce is a safer society, on average. Maintain property rights. Reduce crime and the (edit for clarity: increase the) sense of well-being. It's fine - and efficient - for the government to pay for this through taxation.
-
I feel that social programs are necessary for such a large population, we're almost at the 350 million mark in the United States, and not letting the government assist the public is almost negligent.
I feel that because of that number the United States government should not be involved in social programs. This does not mean that the Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, etc or New York City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, etc governments cannot do so; I think they should if their constituents are willing to pay the local taxes to fund said programs.
My father worked for two of the largest law firms in the world, and was screwed over not by lack of work ethic, but by management perks that higher ups wanted to keep. Long story short, corporations don't have oversight; the government does, that's their job, and it's been their job.
This very much depends on how the corporation/company is owned. A publicly traded entity is answerable to its shareholders. All entities are dependent on its employees willingness to continue to work for them and the customers willingness to buy their product over a competitors. Not enough employees left they were being screwed over by the management to strike out on their own and form their own company in competition with their former employer.
I would promote a more limited government when there was an extremely small number of citizens, but no major nation wouldn't have social programs designed to help with issues other than children.
I disagree entirely. I want to push responsibility for running and funding programs down to the lowest levels possible.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, I am going to say something very, very important.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed such that the people can rise up against a tyrannical government.
It can be argued that it is legal under the United States Constitution for the private citizens of the United States to own and practice the operation of not only automatic rifles, but also armored vehicles and combat capable aircraft.
The act of registering weapons on a national scale can be construed as hindering this goal.
All of this being said, US policy has evolved since the framers produced the document. The Civil War demonstrated the policy of the US Federal government to enforce its will on the States through force of arms and its victory began the decline of State forces
Also, the US Army and US Air Force are unconstitutional entities. The two entities should be downsized and their roles taken over by the States (see National Guard & militias).
Anarcho-capitalism
In such a system, I think local communities will form basic governments. Overtime these communities will ally and partner with neighbors to achieve larger scale goals and gain efficiencies in their pursuit of their common interest. Government, control, and power should spring from the local level up.
The role of large scale governments, like the United States or European Union, should not be to control their component parts nor act as a means to spread the wealth of its component parts around. Instead, these governments should focus on projects that the component parts simply cannot do on their own.
-
That's too extreme. You're essentially calling for a hardcore form of libertarianism. I find that not having a unified federal government leads to each state acting as its own little "empire", with confusing differences between each state's laws.
Also, no, citizens do not have the right to operate their own military vehicles. This strict constitutionalist approach is unrealistic, and cannot be operated by today's standards.
-
Interesting. Benjamin likes the idea of Switzerland. Well Ben, you do realize that you will be REQUIRED to own a machine gun there (assault rifles are not fully automatic) right?
-
Oh and on the topic of social programs, I support them as long as we get the 50% of US citizens who get back in refunds more than they pay actually have to pay taxes.
I am one of those people, and it is frustrating as fuck that I do not contribute. Which is one of the reasons that I refuse 100% of the social programs that I am eligible for.
-
Also, no, citizens do not have the right to operate their own military vehicles. This strict constitutionalist approach is unrealistic, and cannot be operated by today's standards.
Do citizens of a nation have a right to overthrow a government they find to by tyrannical?
It is a foundational question in regards to the United States.
I disagree, a strict constitutional interpretation can operate in the modern world.
If we operated more strictly in line with the constitution, Congress may actually have to take on responsibility for national actions, such as declarations of war. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples of Congress not following its constitutional responsibility and instead passing the responsibility to the executive branch.
Another the example I have already provided. The United States Army and United States Air Forces as they are currently established are unconstitutional.
For the sack of this discussion, the Air Force will be rolled into the Army (my fellow Blue suits can pound sand). The constitution grants Congress the right to maintain a Navy and raise an Army. The Navy is to act as an expeditionary force and protect US interest abroad, while an Army is raised in defense of the nation or for very large scale conflicts.
As a check against the abuse of Congress granting the President excessive powers, the majority of the nation's military was intended to be controlled at the State level. In order to raise sufficient forces for a prolonged war in a foreign land, the national government would be required to get not only the buy-in of Congress, but also all the State's such that they release their forces to the national government.
That's too extreme. You're essentially calling for a hardcore form of libertarianism. I find that not having a unified federal government leads to each state acting as its own little "empire", with confusing differences between each state's laws.
I am calling for governance to be pushed down to the lowest level practical.
A Federal Senator from Massachusetts does not understand the educational, transportation, or medical needs of a resident of Mobile, Alabama. The resident and his neighbors understand their needs and what they are willing to pay to have those needs met.
Citizens in Montana, Nebraska, Delaware, and Hawaii do not have a need or desire to pay for local route 565 repairs in west Texas, nor do the roads in west Texas need to be repaired on the same schedule as those in Montana, Nebraska, Delaware, and Hawaii. Or, famously, a bridge in Alaska for maybe a few hundred people was paid for by 350 million.
There are excellent examples of a good federal program and these tend to be constitutional. Both the Postal System and Interstate System can be found in the Constitution (Congress shall have the right to establish post offices and post roads).
Most importantly the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or the people any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States or prohibit the states from exercising.
There is nothing to stop towns, cities, counties, or states from setting for themselves a standard "higher" than that established by the Federal government.
For the Europeans, consider how the EU is growing and look at the United States today, 200 years after a group of 13 States united in common cause. The demands of the Union, of Paris or Berlin, may cause other member states to find themselves unable to fulfill obligations to its citizens.
-
Oh and on the topic of social programs, I support them as long as we get the 50% of US citizens who get back in refunds more than they pay actually have to pay taxes.
I am one of those people, and it is frustrating as fuck that I do not contribute. Which is one of the reasons that I refuse 100% of the social programs that I am eligible for.
I can agree with this in a certain sense. Using the tax code to conduct social policy is profoundly inefficient. But, it works in the United States because everybody loooooves tax cuts. Hell, it's the reason most of those much-derided pages are in there.
-
Where the hell is Istvann's? I must know for the lulz.
I took this test a few times before. It comes up with pretty wildly different results each time. This is probably because I have values all over the place. I guess you could call me social lib/fiscal con, but that doesn't really fit the bill either.
To give an example of my views, I'll go with American presidents, since our Canadian politicians are all boring doughboys. Bush II was widely considered to be a titanic sputtering idiot, and I violently disagreed with his position on stem cell research and attempts to blur the line between church and state... but I felt that his foreign policy and response to 9/11 was absolutely inspired. Simultaneously, while I like Obama, I am growing more and more frustrated with his limp-wristed approach to DADT and Gitmo. He rolled into office riding the biggest wave of popular support I've ever seen, and largely pissed it away squabbling.
I voted conservative in the last major Canadian elections, because I wanted to see the long gun registry scrapped. Since the party failed in this task, I'll be giving the liberals my next vote. I basically don't have an entrenched loyalty either way, and vote for whomever seems most likely to get good things done.
-
Slowly Istvaan opens up, and slowly we wait until the strike.
You should start the Cheap Suits Party. Do whatever you can to find cheap suits. /failhumorisfail
-
Kind sir, there is a great difference between cheap suits, and suits bought cheap. My suits are bought cheap, but unless Zegna, Baumler and Armani have become tacky in the last decade, they are most definitely not cheap suits!
-
/me chuckles to himself
It's interesting to note the IC demographics of people taking certain lines of argument in this thread :lol:
-
Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent the discussion is helpful, because it largely stems from irreconcilable political differences.
I, for the most part, am in agreeance with Ben on most issues here, but my disagreement with others on social liberatarianism, gun control and economic interventionism comes from a differing worldview from Dex and Boma, among others.
For example, I agree with Dex that economic liberatarianism is becoming the dominant ideal in western democracy, but I argue that lack of governmental control over mortgage lenders largely caused the GFC and that countries that are more stronigly regulated suffered less, but there is little doubt that Dex will disagree and interpret the economic data differently.
My point is, while I think it's interesting to discuss our differences, we will never agree on the finer points.
I also, like Dex, think it's hilarious how much our character's beliefs mirror our own. Mammal, philosophically and politically, is very much myself. Personality wise, not as much.
-
[mod]No personal attacks on other members, no flaming.[/mod]
-
Edited.
Libertarians would be wise to consider the human propensity for positing that someone is always forcing people to make false choices (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/the_legend_of_steven_colbert.html).
agreeance
Don't.
Oh and on the topic of social programs, I support them as long as we get the 50% of US citizens who get back in refunds more than they pay actually have to pay taxes.
I am one of those people, and it is frustrating as fuck that I do not contribute. Which is one of the reasons that I refuse 100% of the social programs that I am eligible for.
Do your kids go to school? Will they ever?
The benefits aren't for you, guy. They're for the rest of us so you don't stand as strong a chance of becoming a disease carrier or raising unstable kids, which households under the poverty line and with less capacity to access essential services, maintain amenities, and enjoy a better quality of life are known to do more often; being unable to afford these things financially isn't the only way to get them, and definitely isn't the flagship indicator of responsibility. Anyone at a level of income below the poverty line has a goddamn duty to their country to try to use the available resources to contribute, and not carrying tuberculosis is a contribution. So is raising new citizens less likely to.
Claiming you wish to contribute to society and recognizing that you can do so in non-economic ways on the one hand (for example, by participating in a dialectic that aims to improve society) while maintaining that the only thing worth mentioning as a contribution that earns you a benefit proffered by that society to you on moral grounds on the other hand is a double standard, a categorical error, a cake both had and eaten. The coast guard goes out in a hurricane to rescue idiots that don't follow evacuation orders not just because they have a moral obligation to save the lives of citizens (or human beings for that matter) - they go out for the arguably weightier and quite humanitarian reason of preventing your bloated corpse from poisoning whatever well it gets lodged in and your kids from being a burden on the foster care system. We have social programs to protect not only the tax base a modern nation is built on, but also the people that government serves.
Think more dynastically. You'll help society plenty if you do it while maintaining a moral core.
-
This post still suffers from previously mentioned issues.
-
And...what? You're free to reply to whatever you feel it addresses that isn't troubling for you and ignore the rest - or ignore all of it.
-
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to respond to. You're not making an argument.
To me, anyway. The response to Boma I didn't read.
/shrugs.
-
Libertarians would be wise to consider the human propensity for positing that someone is always forcing people to make false choices (http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/the_legend_of_steven_colbert.html).
I might just be stupid, but I'm not sure I follow the point here. Could we have a tldr in plain English? The "libertarians would be wise to consider..." seems a bit passive aggressive to me. And a random link to some person's ".com" website isn't a persuasive argument.
I'm libertarian. The basis of my libertarian political stance (to bring it back to topic) is that I believe in utility maximisation - maximising the aggregate utility of everyone in society. Sure, there are some winners and some losers, but I prefer lots of winners and a few losers to a few winners and lots of losers.
But that's not to say that I oppose all sorts of policies that can be imposed on people. If the net benefits of a policy exceed the expected costs, then it's a utility maximiser, and a Good ThingTM.
-
I have to laugh at "technocratic-liberal". In American politics, that phrase is an oxymoron.
-
The tl;dr reads like this: I was talking mainly to orange with that first bit, who does not rhyme. I find his views have a certain slant to them that requires some bashing in of the sorts of barriers that enable groupthink.
-
Incidentally. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNdIBZWhzO8)
-
Hehehe... saw this political compass on many forums.
-
I have had the pleasure of sitting down and listening to Ashar's politalks, and myself not being very politically saavy, I still enjoyed the entire discussion.
This message is brought to you by the Ashar Kor-Azor promo camp.