Pinochet, Stalin or Ghandi?

[emad]

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

 

[FoolKiller]

Ann Coulter thinks you're an idiot.

You know that person that is on your side of the debate but every time they talk you just wish they would shut up because they make you look worse? That's Ann Coulter.

So, I think the feeling's mutual.

 

[blargonator]

You know that person that is on your side of the debate but every time they talk you just wish they would shut up because they make you look worse? That's Ann Coulter.

So, I think the feeling's mutual.

anyways......
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

i know this is way off topic, but have any of you guys ever read Ernesto Guevara's Motorcycle Diaries? its not really chocked full of political ideas but i like it

 

[Danoff]

Most people on this thread seem to lie in the III quadrant of the chart (double negatives on the score). That tells me that most people who have contributed here are democrats - with an inconsistent view of liberty.

A double negative score means that you're all about social freedom, but that economic freedom is not something your a big supporter of.

I find that inconsistent, but that's me...

 

[Carl.]

Most people on this thread seem to lie in the III quadrant of the chart (double negatives on the score). That tells me that most people who have contributed here are democrats - with an inconsistent view of liberty.

A double negative score means that you're all about social freedom, but that economic freedom is not something your a big supporter of.

I find that inconsistent, but that's me...

That may have to do with the fact that today's most succesful democraties, where most of us are living, are based on a *gasp* compromise between economical freedom and fullfilling social needs that have benefits for every one.

I don't see what's inconsistent in being supporter of such a system, that actually has a proven track record, as opposed to Libertopia.

 

[Danoff]

That may have to do with the fact that today's most succesful democraties, where most of us are living, are based on a *gasp* compromise between economical freedom and fullfilling social needs that have benefits for every one.

Benefit everyone huh? What compromise is that? How can it be a compromise if it benefits everyone?

I don't see what's inconsistent in being supporter of such a system, that actually has a proven track record, as opposed to Libertopia.

It's philosphically inconsistent. Forget for a moment about political parties or government structures and think about one concept.... freedom. Now why would you choose to be in favor of some freedom but not other freedom. That's the inconsistency I speak of, philosophical inconsistency.

 

[Carl.]

Benefit everyone huh? What compromise is that? How can it be a compromise if it benefits everyone?

It's a compromise since not everyone pays the same amount in taxes, yet everyone benefits from the same services. Before such measures were voted, those who couldn't afford enjoyed the freedom to, well, get screwed.

It's philosphically inconsistent. Forget for a moment about political parties or government structures and think about one concept.... freedom. Now why would you choose to be in favor of some freedom but not other freedom. That's the inconsistency I speak of, philosophical inconsistency.

Absolute freedom, as we've experienced in the past has led to abuse and gross inequalities which were way more harmful than the small freedom we've given away to address those issues. That's not a matter of rhetorical philosophy, that's a matter of practicality.

Wouldn't you advocate to let people be freed from their obligation to pay for the DOD? If not, i"d find that to be inconsistent, from a philosophical point of view.

 

[Danoff]

It's a compromise since not everyone pays the same amount in taxes, yet everyone benefits from the same services. Before such measures were voted, those who couldn't afford enjoyed the freedom to, well, get screwed.

I see, so EVERYONE benefits from welfare, not just the poor. Not that "everyone gets to use it" is justification to say "everyone must pay".

Absolute freedom, as we've experienced in the past has led to abuse and gross inequalities which were way more harmful than the small freedom we've given away to address those issues. That's not a matter of rhetorical philosophy, that's a matter of practicality.

Ah, you speak of the difference between anarchy and socialism. But people are less free in anarchy than they are with a military, police, and rights.

Wouldn't you advocate to let people be freed from their obligation to pay for the DOD? If not, i"d find that to be inconsistent, from a philosophical point of view.

I wouldn't and it isn't inconsistent. The military is a necessary government function, without it we'd all be much less free. There is no freedom without a military.

So let's take a social freedom that you would stand up for. Let's say the freedom to choose who you work for. Now if we took that freedom away you'd probably say "hey, you shouldn't force him to do that, he should be free to make his own choices."

But now let's look at the freedom to choose what charities to support. You could make the same statement "hey, you shouldn't force him to donate, he should be free to make his own choices." But you don't stand up there. That's not something you mind forcing others to do.

I find it inconsistent.

The use of force in one instance is ok but not in the other. Forcing people to do something against their will should be minimized. That would be the philosphy behind quadrant IV.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I see, so EVERYONE benefits from welfare, not just the poor. Not that "everyone gets to use it" is justification to say "everyone must pay".

Corporations get welfare too so I don't know where that came from.

Ah, you speak of the difference between anarchy and socialism. But people are less free in anarchy than they are with a military, police, and rights.

Not necessarily. True anarchists (not the so-called "anarcho"-capitialists) are against all forms of leadership. In that sense, they're free to do whatever they want.

I wouldn't and it isn't inconsistent. The military is a necessary government function, without it we'd all be much less free. There is no freedom without a military.

Is that why Chile increased it's military spending while drastically cutting social programs?

That would be the philosphy behind quadrant IV.

I agree!

However, any policies originating from quadrant IV are designed to reduce government regulation and end up benefiting the wealthy, and hurting the poor.

 

[FoolKiller]

...stuff...

...stuff arguing Danoff's stuff...

Oh no.
New thread, same arguments.

 

[amp88]

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

A few of the questions seemed totally ramdom/out of context (e.g. the conceptual art one)

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Oh no.
New thread, same arguments.

He started it!

A few of the questions seemed totally ramdom/out of context (e.g. the conceptual art one)

True.

 

[Grand Prix]

We're not free without a millitary? Explain.

Here's my compass, BTW:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/printablegraph.php?ec=-4.13&soc=-4.62

The last time I took this test though, I was near the exact center of both axises. I've turned to the left and down. Scary, eh?

 

[Crash]

Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libtertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

So I'm kinda like Gandhi...

 

[Anderton Prime]

Libertarian left, almost exactly on top of Ghandi.

 

[Dave A]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The last time I took this test though, I was near the exact center of both axises.

Same with me.

I've turned to the left and down. Scary, eh?

As did I. I've turned (extremely) to the left but not quite as down as you.

 

[Danoff]

Corporations get welfare too so I don't know where that came from.

Not everyone benefits from welfare, as Carl suggested.

We're not free without a millitary? Explain.

With no military we are at the mercy of whatever dictator wishes to control us. Without a police we are at the mercy of whoever has the most guns.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Rand

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

This is a pretty mixed forum imo , so theoretically we should be dispersed in all four quadrants if it were a true psychometric test . Instead over half the people voted to be in Gandhi's homie army & even more considering i lied to piss ann coulter off...

 

[FoolKiller]

This is a pretty mixed forum imo , so theoretically we should be dispersed in all four quadrants if it were a true psychometric test . Instead over half the people voted to be in Gandhi's homie army & even more considering i lied to piss ann coulter off...

Actually since societies that have a full-fledged authoritarian regime don't have access to open forums like this it does eliminate one square. No one is far into the upper left square. If they are it seems to be by less than one. No one is a true 100% fascist dictator here because most members have been raised in western civilizations or areas that are influenced by them. I have yet to see any North Korean or Chinese members.

 

[Grand Prix]

With no military we are at the mercy of whatever dictator wishes to control us. Without a police we are at the mercy of whoever has the most guns.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Rand

Well, Canada doesn't really have a millitary. It's a millitary, but it's very weak compared to other nations of our level of wealth. The United States protects us I guess, but they could take over our country very easily if they wanted too. But they never have for nearly 200 years, despite the resources and mineral wealth our country has compared to effort it would take to assimlate. They could even claim they did it to free Quebec.

 

[Danoff]

Well, Canada doesn't really have a millitary. It's a millitary, but it's very weak compared to other nations of our level of wealth. The United States protects us I guess, but they could take over our country very easily if they wanted too. But they never have for nearly 200 years, despite the resources and mineral wealth our country has compared to effort it would take to assimlate. They could even claim they did it to free Quebec.

Well, I guess if you have a nice powerful neighbor that you trust you can get away without it. But if Canada were located somewhere a little more volatile...

 

[Grand Prix]

Well, I guess if you have a nice powerful neighbor that you trust you can get away without it. But if Canada were located somewhere a little more volatile...

Then we'd be a different country with different government priorities, yeps. Either that or we'd be really stupid to not have an army in a volatile region. Point taken.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Actually since societies that have a full-fledged authoritarian regime don't have access to open forums like this it does eliminate one square. No one is far into the upper left square. If they are it seems to be by less than one. No one is a true 100% fascist dictator here because most members have been raised in western civilizations or areas that are influenced by them. I have yet to see any North Korean or Chinese members.

Agreed, the vast majority would have Thatcher over Stalin anyday , the only way people would be likely to plump for megadoses of authoritarian is if they could someways buy into it .Duh, whose freidman btw ?

 

[FoolKiller]

whose freidman btw ?

Milton Friedman bio

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Financial Advisor to Goldwater , Nixon & Reagan . So that's a Libertarian Economist , Hmmn .

 

[Danoff]

Financial Advisor to Goldwater , Nixon & Reagan . So that's a Libertarian Economist , Hmmn .

Yup. He's about as libertarian as it gets.

 

[sukerkin]

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

So that's Left Wing Economics and ever so slightly Authoritarian.

The economics axis is fairly accurate for me (laissez-faire belongs in the 19th Century, gentlemen, and unless you want your government to be the puppet of industry then you'd better rein in Big Business).

I'm a little surprised that I didn't come out more socially liberal but then again, I am middle-aged these days and not a dewy-eyed idealist anymore .

Ah yes, Milton Friedman, probably the most useless and destructive economist in the world, ever :rasp:! Thanks to his 'conversion' of Thatcher, the British economy was gutted and now we have almost nothing but financial institutions and fast-food outlets 👎.

 

[FoolKiller]

The economics axis is fairly accurate for me (laissez-faire belongs in the 19th Century, gentlemen, and unless you want your government to be the puppet of industry then you'd better rein in Big Business).

So we should all beware of the

?

I am going to duck out of Danoff's way so he can argue this. He is much better at it than I am.

 

[sukerkin]

I wouldn't bother trying to engage me in an argument on this one.

It's a professional opinion (I was an Economist/Trader by training at one time (my first degree was Economics)) that is too deeply entrenched to be swayed by internet chat.

I'd only get all technical and then all huffy 'cos you didn't agree with me ...

{cue out-of-control, almost insane screeching}"WHY CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, YOU GREED-CENTRIC ... woffle ... burble ... rant ... foam-at-mouth!!!!?{de-cue out-of-control, almost insane screeching}