Printable View
Which political group would you class yourself as?
If you're not sure, try the Politics test on OKCupid. (I do not endorse on-line dating. It's dumb. But I do endorse online quizzes. They're dumb. But in a good way).
Argue, critisce, but mostly just tell me how dumb I am!!!
I think communism is cool.
You don't have "Conservative" on there.
I consider myself a conservative, but that doesn't mean in any way that I support the Republican party. Whatever it is that the Republican party has done is not what conservatism is. I put myself at mildly conservative, because I do support some liberal policies, especially right now, because spending like a liberal with taxes like a conservative just doesn't work, plus I am for the most part anti-war.
However, I believe in low government interference, traditional values, free-market solutions, and I'm pro-life.
Yeah, I missed that out because it doesn't really mean much. Conservative is really a relative term (although, so are liberal and centrist, so I apologise for that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
You could choose capitalist. Or fascist, if you really want to beat yourself up.
Communists forever man!!!!!!
Someone who tries not to give a generalizing name to himself but will go along with some democrats and fits best under maybe green party.
Edit: And cause my schools called 'Commonwealth' I generally call myself a commie.
since the parties at comrads, we're calling it a communist party:D
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by v.e.n.o.m.
I don't like to stick myself into these groups, since none of them seem to fully support what I believe. I think I need to start my own poltical party.
Center-left, left...so either liberal or centerist...
This sounds like a quizilla test xD
Liberal all the way.
Ditto what nik said. Though I most consistantly fall in with libertarian beliefs.
I put myself down as Capitalist. I'm Conservative in that I prefer smaller government with as little bureaucracy as possible, and I think Republicans have the right idea in terms of taxes and financial matters. I'm liberal on things like abortion, and other human rights issues. My general philosophy is that conservatives are financially minded and liberals are humanitarian minded, and I try to follow each on their forte. Of course, I'm generalizing, but so is any attempt at putting a label on these things. The reason I clicked Capitalist is because money concerns me more on a day to day basis than human rights issues. The things I think liberally on are generally things that happen to "everyone else" and not me. The size of my bank account is a daily concern. Even if money can't buy happiness, it can buy pretty convincing substitutes.
Missed off Monarchists, thats me!
I took the liberty of adding conservative since conservative is generally not all over the board as liberal can be, and if you have liberal you really should have conservative as an option.
That said I chose "other". I am told I tend libertarian, but really I tend to feel there need be a balance of multiple elements, so I'm a bit of everything.
Where the smurf is libertarian?
I'm more libertarian than anything on that list.
I suppose we are 'other'. At least we weren't rejected in favor of ecologists or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I added libertarian, although real libertarians are anarchists.
No, extreme libertarians are anarchists.
That's like saying all Muslims are jihadists.
well, Raistlin sounds like an anarchist when he talks about politics.
Hey, where is this so-called test located?
I'm a liberal. I would say socialist, but I believe pretty heavily in free enterprise.
I'm pro-choice, pro-science, anti-war, pro-legalization of marijuana, and I have nothing but contempt for traditional values.
I also support one world (secular) government led by a legislature of participating nations.
I also believe in graduated income tax, as well as social programs for the poor and destitute. In most respects I'm an FDR...ist.
I believe government should help those that need help most, and government should see to it that certain base standards of life are met.
Conservative with economic and Liberal with social policies. Probably more of a isolationist when it comes to dealing with foriegn policy overall.
Anarchy is almost as different from libertarianism as communism/fascism. Though I'm not exactly well-read on libertarianism, I'm assuming it follows similar ideals as on their website (if it doesn't, I blame Teek).Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
What's the difference between libertarian and capitalist, though?
And I sound like an anarchist, eh? No, I sound like a liberal after the Patriot Act was passed - only consistently, on every infraction of individual rights.
It's not possible to vote for all of them...
So I'm going with None.
Similar to Schlup and NiK, I don't believe, individually, they satisfy my beliefs.
However, if it were possible to take the most productive and feasible qualities of each then you might have something.
Though I did vote for the Liberals in the last election, and damn well regret it.. but I'd regret any choice, just by voting I know have the right to bitch about it. Woo.
I'm just some guy that has differing opinions on a wide range of topics.
It could be worst, you could have voted for Harper...I disagree with many of the things he stands for, so I am very snide about it. Really look at the polls-post scandel and Martin still had support. That is scary considering that if the conservatives had some other leader then most likely Martin would have had less supporters...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
I can't wait to vote...The election should be in a few months once the Gomery report is done...Though I rather vote at home, cuz I came to learn my vote would have more of an impact due to the misrepresentation that is caused by our voting system...
Anyways that it for my rant...
I would think that the difference is that the label of libertarianism comes with an implied set of economic and social beliefs, while the label of capitalism only comes with an implied set of economic beliefs. As far as I know there is no capitalist view on gay marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Technically the "pure" capitalist view on gay marriage would be "give me money then go for it". True capitalism is really all about money and doesn't really cover the social aspects. I probably would have omitted it from this poll, but as we've already seen there are a million ways to go about this poll and nobody would ever agree with how it is done, much less with each other.
That's what I just said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Nice to see that we have a pretty left-leaning group here. I don't know why 'Libertarian' was added. Is that different than liberal? Is it an American thing, or something?
As for 'Monarchist', I don't think it makes sense to add that. Although it does have implications that you would follow a conservative, capitalist or even fascist way of thinking, it's too vauge, and does not really mean musch.
And why so many votes for 'Other'?
Libertarians are NOT liberals, at least not in the modern sense of liberalism. We are similar to liberals on social issues (Though we're with the conservatives on gun issues.), but we're fiercely pro-capitalist on economic issues, which liberals most certainly aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
A monarchist has a fairly plain implication to me - the belief that a family should have absolute power over a nation and pass said power on through hereditary.Quote:
As for 'Monarchist', I don't think it makes sense to add that. Although it does have implications that you would follow a conservative, capitalist or even fascist way of thinking, it's too vauge, and does not really mean musch.
And why so many votes for 'Other'?
You missed "nihilism". Yeah, believing in nothing.
I voted "Anarchism". I think I could be considered such thing. My social critiques are done from the view of anarchism, my thought is focused under the schemes of anarchy, my ideal is also anarchism. However, like Miguel de Unamuno, I believe in such ideas more as a man than as a politician, or to speak in other terms, anarchy is- for now- impossible.
Political groups suck and are dumb. I'm not any of them and never will be.
Socially, I'm liberal.
Oh, right. Libertarians are like middle of the road, moderates. Not quite liberal, but not quite conservative, but not centralist either. Confusing!Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Besides, that's essentially capitalism.
Not really plain- it carries no implications about civil rights or economic freedoms, just a few vauge ideas about who holds power. Besides, your definition sounds a lot more like fascism. No offense meant, of course.Quote:
A monarchist has a fairly plain implication to me - the belief that a family should have absolute power over a nation and pass said power on through hereditary.
I voted for 'other' because there was no conservative on the poll when I voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Plus 95 percent of people have their own political philosophy, and thus don't fit into any category.
Yes, but I left the options pretty vauge. For example, you will see 'Communism' rather than Neo-Post-Castro-Marx-Leninism, or 'Capitalism' rather than 'The Bush Theory of Steal Everyone's Cash'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
Or 'Other' instead of 'Self-righteous ravings of a demented horse-person who is also high, drunk and upside down'. Although, that last one is really far too specific anyway...
Nihilism is also a political group!Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Of course, but you are closer to one point than to another.Quote:
Plus 95 percent of people have their own political philosophy, and thus don't fit into any category.
Not really, we just happen to agree with one well-established political ideology on certain points and with their traditional rivals on other points. And yes, we espouse very pro-capitalist ideas, but capitlism is only an economic idea, not a social one and only partly a political one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Well, that's really up to the individual monarch who presides over the nation at the time. King Henry VIII didn't rule in the same way as Queen Victoria. And yes, monarchies are fascist states, so no offense taken.Quote:
Not really plain- it carries no implications about civil rights or economic freedoms, just a few vauge ideas about who holds power. Besides, your definition sounds a lot more like fascism. No offense meant, of course.
Libertarians I've seen in politics recently have been very rightwing, imo way, way to much so but that's a very small sample size.
I also consider within America centrist's to be republican because of how the political media works (to be able to talk with a lot of the republican administration you have to be reasonably rightwing and support conservative policies making centrists seem frequently, though definitely not always republican. Most people seem to consider me very, very liberal (not totally relevant but my school last year had the first openly gay teacher in the US- at least that's what they told us.
Well, technically, yes, but any economic system is bound to have effects on the social and political organisation of a nation. Capitalist nations inevitably oppress independent thought and action, and attempt to concentrate the control of a nation into the hands of a powerful minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Sorry, this isn't a proper post in the thread, just pointing out that you typed 'capitalist' where you meant 'socialist'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Sorry, just pointing out that you type 'socialist' when you meant 'fascist'.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Socialism is all about freedom. Hence the Guevara sig. Would you say El Che was anti-freedom?
Capitalism does not have any interest in disallowing independence. Indeed, competition usually works better for everyone concerned. Moreover a properly capitalist system allows anyone with the resources to start their own businesses, allowing more diverse industries and thus increasing the choice individuals have. Socialist measures such as those in Britain are forcing many small business out of business and entirely dissuading countless entrepreneurs. Thereby those are reducing individuality and freedom. So you see the fallacy in your claim, I presume.
'War is wrong. Unless you're a socialist guerilla.' That's pretty accurate when it comes to El Che, yes?
Socialism reduces the freedom of the individual, for the better of society as a whole (like, taxing higher, limiting how much money a person can make\have, to strengthen the weak and poor, etc), while Capitalism focuses on the advancement of the individual, sometimes and often at the expense of society as a whole, or rather, the weaker, poorer members of society.Quote:
Socialism is all about freedom.
That's the general idea. Neither Communism nor Socialism hold personal freedom at a high regard - they want equality more. They oppress the individuality (to a limit, it's not meant to be facsism) of people, to prevent them from exploiting each other.
Capitalism thinks that by letting everyone advance, and having as much freedom as possible, the strong and rich members of society will make it advance.
In the end, neither one is good. Socialism creates a system that enforces mediocrity, making it very difficult for the stronger members of a group to grow beyond conventionality, while Capitalism makes a lot of people unhappy, and weakens society by creating large gaps between the rich and the poor, among other things.
Anyway, as for the poll.... it looks rather American-aligned, and as a result, I don't really fit in with any of those options.
spoken like a true non communist:(Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Uh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
YEAH JUST KINDA
You'd love Cloud No. 9. He's a [wonderful human being], as well.
im a commie (jk)
Good to know i'm not the only Communist here.
How is the anti freedom? Everyone makes a good salary that they can live a good life with. Unlike Capitalism where you need a diploma and alot of luck to get a job that you might not get.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Thats bad, how is that in anyway good? What if it was you that was exploted? I loved to see what you would say if you were working in a Taiwanese sweat shop :rolleyes2 .Quote:
, while Capitalism focuses on the advancement of the individual, sometimes and often at the expense of society as a whole, or rather, the weaker, poorer members of society.
You obviouslly dont know how Communism works i'd recommend you read Communist Manifeasco or even better yet for people who still dont understand Communism for dummies :tongue: .Quote:
That's the general idea. Neither Communism nor Socialism hold personal freedom at a high regard - they want equality more. They oppress the individuality (to a limit, it's not meant to be facsism) of people, to prevent them from exploiting each other.
And thats why it sucks. Only a small percentage advance at the cost of everyone else.Quote:
Capitalism thinks that by letting everyone advance, and having as much freedom as possible, the strong and rich members of society will make it advance.
Why should the "stronger" get more then what they need?Quote:
In the end, neither one is good. Socialism creates a system that enforces mediocrity, making it very difficult for the stronger members of a group to grow beyond conventionality, while Capitalism makes a lot of people unhappy, and weakens society by creating large gaps between the rich and the poor, among other things.
They don't get to choose what to do with their income. That is the polar opposite of economic freedom. You can debate whether people should have that freedom or not, but there's no way to deny that said action is a breach of freedom. And are you saying that in communism you'd be able to go into a job without the necessary skills?Quote:
Originally Posted by FFGuevara
I'd say I'm glad of a job where I make more money than almost everyone else in the land.Quote:
Thats bad, how is that in anyway good? What if it was you that was exploted? I loved to see what you would say if you were working in a Taiwanese sweat shop :rolleyes2 .
How communism works? Evidence so far suggests it works like 'Revolution -> new government -> dictatorship'. Come back when every attempt at the system hasn't led to cataclysmic failure and we'll talk.Quote:
You obviouslly dont know how Communism works i'd recommend you read Communist Manifeasco or even better yet for people who still dont understand Communism for dummies :tongue: .
Most of the people I see in Britain and America are very well off. They've a house, a car or two, a tv or three, some videogame systems, a PC, clothes, food, yadda yadda yadda. The same is true of Australia, Japan, and Europe (Though socialist measures are putting us on course to be a second-world entity within two decades.). If you measure wealth only as a comparison against the wealthiest, of course it will look bad. If you're talking on an international level, well the fact is that not everyone started capitalism at the same time. See how India and China a decade ago were all about the sweatshops? Now they are among the fastest-growing economies on Earth. Why? Because you can't just click your fingers and solve your poblems, it takes work. They've put the work in; now they're up a level, able to talk about jobs better than manufacturing and resource harvesting.Quote:
And thats why it sucks. Only a small percentage advance at the cost of everyone else.
Edit: And it's largely socialist measures (such as protectionism) which are causing the harm to the third world anyway.
Why should the weaker benefit from the work of the stronger?Quote:
Why should the "stronger" get more then what they need?
Political stance -> Pointless Arguments -> Time Wasted
No Political Stance = Time Saved
I guess I win.
I agree. I don't really have a political stance at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy
Best group there ever was!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by MAS82587
I'd say you lose. Not having a political stance equals not knowing what's going on, or at least not caring much - and letting those who do vote for the government\prime-minister\president for YOU. Would you really put your fate in the hands of people you've never met?Quote:
I guess I win.
Open your eyes, make up your mind, and make a difference. That's what I say.
I think what he was saying was that this thread is pretty clearly (I think, at least to the people posting) not changing people's minds on anything and by not taking part in a debate that won't go anywhere he wins... somewhat a joke is how I took it (though I think it is worth argueing this kind of debate) but meh, that's just me.
Edit: I think it's worth being in a debate if you're not gonna change your mind and neither are they for the purpose of understanding and thinking out your own opinion.
Not really. I see what's going on, but I realise that I can't make a difference, and no matter what or who I vote for, the same things will happen anyway. Why bother if nothing changes if you do anything, and if you don't, nothing changes either.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
As far as I know, the whole idea of government IS putting your fate in the hands of people you've never met. I doubt you've met everyone who governs you, have you?
My eyes are open and I've made up my mind, in fact I think I've thought this through more than any thoughts I've had over politics, and what I've decided is that there's no point to any of it any more.
But yeah, this thread, like every other politics thread, turns into an argument between liberals and conservatives, capitalists and socialists, and nothing ever changes like that either.
The best we can do is just give up.
Yes, Defeatism should be on that poll. :)Quote:
The best we can do is just give up.
I haven't been "defeated", I've just given up on politics so I can concentrate on more important things in life.
Like, you know, living it, instead of whining about how other people should.
Well, maybe it's different where you live. Here, politics comes down to matters of life and death very quickly.. so, naturally, everyone feels the need to influence.
Shows how much you know about communism :rolleyes2 you can have what you desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah right with 10 cents a hour, in horrible conditions, 14 hours a day without any rest. Yeah i'm sure you'll LOVE your job when you experience it.Quote:
I'd say I'm glad of a job where I make more money than almost everyone else in the land.
Have you ever been to Cuba? Their living conditions are great, everyone has jobs, excellent education, and free health care. But you'll never hear and see that since your Goverment doesnt permit you to go there.Quote:
How communism works? Evidence so far suggests it works like 'Revolution -> new government -> dictatorship'. Come back when every attempt at the system hasn't led to cataclysmic failure and we'll talk.
At the cost of other countries . Those countries stole from Latin America , South East Asia and africa what would you expect? They gotta do something to make their people feel great and not result into a Revolution.Quote:
Most of the people I see in Britain and America are very well off. They've a house, a car or two, a tv or three, some videogame systems, a PC, clothes, food, yadda yadda yadda.
Who the US? Your kidding right? You guys are becoming Fascist http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=7556Quote:
The same is true of Australia, Japan, and Europe (Though socialist measures are putting us on course to be a second-world entity within two decades.).
It would look even worse compare the US to some country like Western Sahara or Congo.Quote:
If you measure wealth only as a comparison against the wealthiest, of course it will look bad. If you're talking on an international level,
They still are full of sweatshops genius thats how they became the fastest-growing economies in the world.Quote:
well the fact is that not everyone started capitalism at the same time. See how India and China a decade ago were all about the sweatshops? Now they are among the fastest-growing economies on Earth.
Their in the same position they were in 10 years ago nothing has improved. All that money goes into the pockets of the Goverment and the Elites.Quote:
Why? Because you can't just click your fingers and solve your poblems, it takes work. They've put the work in; now they're up a level, able to talk about jobs better than manufacturing and resource harvesting.
Yeah like how unemployment in Venezuela has decreased by 2% in just one year and 40% more kids are in school ever since Hugo Chavez stepped in as president.Quote:
Edit: And it's largely socialist measures (such as protectionism) which are causing the harm to the third world anyway.
Why not?Quote:
Why should the weaker benefit from the work of the stronger?
[img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy
I say we take all Communists, let them live by their beliefs, make them work their arses off for no money, give them a minute percentage back, and have ourselves live well off with a glass of Matini in one hand and a book by Victor Hugo in the other. Wait, then we'd be like the rulers in every Communist regime the world has seen thus far.
It just doesn't work. Neither does Radical Capitalism (the Great Depression, anyone?). So stop throwing stupid slogans in the air, and start making some God-damned sense.
Thank you.
Make sense, you say? lol ironyQuote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
God your ignorent. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST REGIME!!! How many times does it take for it to go through your thick heads? There has never been any Communism in the world, ok? Stop using that lame excuse. If you wanna continue this debate lets continue it on the Communist vs Capitailist thread.
A "communist regime" can't occur because most people are smart enough to realize they don't want to be slaves to the state. And we'll stop with pointless things like that if you stop regulating capitalist free-socities with fascism, when they are clearly different.
I don't affiliate myself with any party. I'm a moderate conservative.
What state? Communism is a state-less society. Shows just how much you know about it. Try reading something from eagle's, marx or lenin before stating such bs. Now we can stop descussing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Engel.
And no, really, what you're describing has been described as "pure communism" or "anarcho-communism", which is not the same thing as applicable communism. It's basically an anarchist's jerk-off ideas about what communism should truly be about.
Trust me: I am fully aware of what I'm saying.
So... why do so many Cuban immigrants swim/row/ride/whatever to Florida every day, if the living conditions are as good as you asy they are?Quote:
Originally Posted by FFGuevara
He claims that they are from other socities, and they first go to Cuba and then attempt to go to the United States. However, in our bourgeois attempt at trying to destroy and tarnish the nature of communism/"extreme socialism", our government lies to us, telling us that they are all from Cuba. It sounds nice, but I had a few questions:
First off, if America is the bastion of evil and exploitation, why would anyone, anyone at all, want to go there?
Most importantly, what kind of information are you privy to that allows you to know what's really going on? And more specifically: how do you know that your government isn't lying to you?
What other choice do they have? If theres no job's , they live under a dictatorship and they always hear about the "American Dream". You'd be desperrate too, so its ether the border or the shores of Flordia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I learn, i listen to things that arnt funded and ordered by that Goverment. I actually started thinking for myself and give my own opinion's on thing's.Quote:
Most importantly, what kind of information are you privy to that allows you to know what's really going on? And more specifically: how do you know that your government isn't lying to you?
Don't people like you believe that our government funds absolutely everything? Can you point me to some conspirasy websites, based in "random guy's basement" in "Belgium/Poland", where they know all about the US Gov't's lies?
No i cant for you to realize this it takes alot of study and learning about what happened, then when you connect the dots it's clear. Thing's like 9-11 would be impossible to prove. But thing's like helping a Fascist Dictatorship in Brazil is easy. Like why did they just simply give you Trillion of dollars of are resources to you guys?
Please refrain the question. I don't understand what you're asking.
What i said was, that for you to find these thing's out you'll have to study about what happened. Then connect that with something else and you'll see a connection. Such as the Chilian , Argentinaian and Brazilian Dictatorships of the 60's,70's and 80's.
Quote:
Have you ever been to Cuba? Their living conditions are great, everyone has jobs, excellent education, and free health care. But you'll never hear and see that since your Goverment doesnt permit you to go there.
...
Have YOU ever been to Cuba? Because I have, and for quite a time too, I have crossed it from extreme to extreme four times already, I have been with the Cubans, slept in their houses, ate in their tables, worked in their factories...and trust me, you shouldn't be so naive, because Cuba may have many good things, and it is certainly a beautiful place, but it's really far away from paradise. Yeah, you can blame US embargo on many things, but idealizing the Cuban goverment is a big mistake, very typical of the naive left. Right now, I have taken the "Gramma" newspaper- with "Juventud Rebelde", the only two newspapers in Cuba- from the last time I went there: 6th of September of 2005. Please, allow me to dfescribe it:
On large, big red letters, "FIDEL VISITA JAMAICA", and a long front page article on it, with a photograph of Fidel with tyhe first minister of Jamaica. The other two articles, "This evening, debate on the Cumbre de Petrocaribe and the presence of Fidel in Jamaica", "Tribute of the people to the heroes and martyrs of the 5th of September of 1957".
The next pages, on how Cuba is tighting relationships with India, how the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia visits Cuba, the biography of Henry Reeve, who fought for Cuba in the 19th century, and "Henry Reeve" is also the name of the brigade of doctors Fidel wanted to send to New Orleans, and Bush foolishly rejected. More thoughts of things that happened during the revolution, something about the Katrina wich seems the only objective information, and still leans slightly- just slightly, I admit- against the US goverment. Opinion columns, all friendly to Fidel, the sports and the last page on the development of schools in Cuba. This makes....EIGHT PAGES!!! Counting the front and backcover. Juventud Rebelde is not great either, it's basically more of the same, by different journalists (I have it here too).
So yes, this is the freedom of press you get in Cuba. Isn't that wonderful?
Yes! Who needs freedom of expression, freedom of possesion and all that crap, when you have so much weed, tobbaco and great food! Oh, and the booty of those girls... yum.Quote:
Isn't that wonderful?
Conservative Moderate Republican.
This poll seems more american aligned.
It probably is, but please take it as a more general rule.
No, no, you get jailed for like 20 years for having weed in Cuba. Yes, so much revolution and all, but weed is still illegal. The food aint great either, OK, so it's better than British food, but of course, anything is better than that: the food in Cuba, due to embargo, is basically...rice and black beans, in different variations.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
But yeah, the girls and the tobbaco are good :D And don't forget the coffee.
Actually, I'm British. [It's my poll]Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
---
I admit that Casto's regime is imperfect, but you have to consider he's been on the brink of war with the most powerful nation in the world for 45 years. Even then, I have to admit he goes a bit too far, but he's nowhere near as bad as Bush and his Freedom-Bombs. Castro never bombed a village and called it freedom, killed a child and called it juctice or armed a fascist dictatorship and called it democracy.
Oh, and Castro managed to save his country from a fuel crisis by turnign huge amounts of their industry to non-fossil-fuels based methods, so they use oxen instead of tractors, natural pesticides and so on. Do you the guys in the White House are gonna do that? Fat chance.
Hasta la victoria, siempre, as Castro would say.
Hasta la victoria siempre, yes, of course, but not with Castro, thanks. All you say is true, but I am not going to admit the "less worse" is the best. And thus, I won't support Castro. I may have a better opinion of him than I have of some other political leaders, including political leaders of supposedly democratic nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
What I must say about Castro is that he is an excellent speaker. He is a great orator, and all of his speeches are caerfully written. Well, but the fact he's charming dosen't erase the ugly truth.
I've actually agreed with all of those things (America's foreign policy is a joke and contradictory), but I don't think the government should run industry whatsoever, so I'm happy the "guys in the White House" aren't doing anything like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
government control of industry was taken during the world wars to ensure production and effeciency. when something needs to be done. the government takes over.
If something needs to be done, the greedy dollar-chasers would do it in spades because they believe in profit. And on the other hand: how is the government more certified to run industry than the industrials are?
profit does not mean efficieny. in the wars we needed the coal, trains, and industry dedicated to winning the war not making profit. building the best as fast and cheaply as possible. it was the best way to win the war.
Liberal. I took the test anyway just to be sure, and it seemed the suggest that I was without a doubt liberal.
Funding the war was profitable, and you're reavealing that you really don't understand the idea of "profit motive".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Profit does mean efficacy - if companies needed the most materials, then everyone profits. And that is the best way to win a war.
That quiz at ok cupid ranked me as follows:
You are a
Social Moderate
(56% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(21% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Democrat
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
I would Say that I am more of a libritarian to what these results display, and a bit more republican ;)
Well I took it as well.. just for fun.. and this is what I got.
You are a
Social Liberal
(71% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(23% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Strong Democrat
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
Not sure how well this portrays me.. but meh. All I know is that for the past couple elections I have leaned more democrat then Republican. Though I am big on spouting vote on what they stand for not the party.
You are a
Social Liberal
(85% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(78% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Libertarian
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
The goverment dosen't literary run the companies. I mean, it's not like the ministers and president decide to run the company themselves. The industrials you say will always run the industries: the difference lies in wether the company is private or goverment owned. One could say company CEOs would not worry so much about the public company if they are not getting any extra benefit. Of course, in theory socialism requires of people who actually believe in it. However, mantaining the means of production of capitalism in socialism is a contradiction: one could say the means of socialism are less effective, but more human. In theory, of course, always in theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You are a
Social Liberal
(86% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(10% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
Its a almost accurate description of me.
center>
You are a
Social Liberal
(61% permissive)
and an...
Economic Moderate
(55% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Centrist
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
That's me, basically. Extreme on any side seems stupid to me. For a society to prosper, it has to be balanced. However, equilibrium happens only after a few extreme occassions...
Extremes don't exist until you decide to draw a line or a chart like the one in the test.Quote:
Extreme on any side seems stupid to me.
By the way, I'd like to point out that chart is wrong. It places anarchism in total liberalism, including economic...and well, that's not traditional anarchism, that's anarcocapitalism. Or in other words, for those who have read V for Vendetta, the definition of anarchy in this test is chaos, not "the country of do-what-you-want". Also, the concept of "totalitarian" is absurd there, as fascism is totalitarian, and socialism can be totalitarian or liberal. Yeah, socialism dosen't make much sense...how do they define it? Because socialism dosen't need to be socially permissive.
Also, the concept of "Republican" is stupid there. The concept of Republic is not the same thing as Republican party. Neither is democracy limited to the Democrat party.
Err... I'm afraid I can't quite grasp your logic. That kind of thinking is what leads to the privatisation, not only of industry and transport, but healthcare and even education. "Why build schools? Some greedy ass-hat will undoubtedly start a private one!" Not a good way to run a country. Besides, anyone who's in it purely for the money can not, ever, under any circumstances, be trusted. That kind of system would lead to huge amounts of corruption. Just look at the oil companies...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
I agree that totalitarianism is used pretty vaugely there, but I think it means the sort of pure totalitarianism you get. Like 1984. Stalin or Mao, though claiming to be communist would fall here, for example, because there policies basically came down to 'Everyone do exactly what I say, when I say, all the time'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
You are a
Social Liberal
(88% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(100% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Anarchist
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
Probably fairly accurate. Though like Hachi I'm not entirely sure why libertarianism is a necessary precursor to anarchism. Although I suppose I would be more prone to anarchocapitalism if I actually thought it would work.
Some of those questions were very badly phrased though. Some, for example, asked whether you approved of something. Well there's plenty of things I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I go around judging people or saying my views should be law.
First off, I am for privatized healthcare and, yes, even education. And the quote is not my logic at all. And I don't understand your logic that "anyone who wants money can't be trusted". Explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
But Stalin and Mao were Socialists. Socialism is not marxism, socialism embraces marxism and many other theories, mainly economic. Socialism can be compared to capitalism, you can also get multiple ways of goverment under this economical system. Aproximative examples:Quote:
I agree that totalitarianism is used pretty vaugely there, but I think it means the sort of pure totalitarianism you get. Like 1984. Stalin or Mao, though claiming to be communist would fall here, for example, because there policies basically came down to 'Everyone do exactly what I say, when I say, all the time'.
Capitalism as economic order, one way of democracy (because there are also several ways of making democracy) as political = Most western countries
Capitalism as economic order, fascism as political = Spain during Franco.
Socialism as economic, democracy as political = Chile with Allende, Spain in the 1930s. Yes, I am aware they also skipped democratic laws, I am talking about theories.
Socialism as economic, totalitarism as political = Most so called "communist" countries, wich are a perfect excuse to badmouth Marx: Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba...Cuba being the lest totalitarist, but still far from democracy.
Capitalism as economic order, anarchism as political = What that test defines as "anarchism", which is not. It's anarcocapitalism. Like...Midgar in Final Fantasy VII. Also, calling this "anarchism" is somehow a contradiction, as a-kratos y lack of power, and anarcocapitalism would have people in power.
Socialism as economic, anarchism as political = Basically what Marx called "communism" or "the end of history".
Basically, the test is stupid. Very stupid.
And here is a more serious one:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I wont do it again, but the result I had was the bottom left corner, a lot to the left, a lot to the bottom.
Capitalism as an economic system, and a republic devoted to the protection of individual rights. You missed that one.
Edit: I took the political test, and I was right in the middle of the lower-right square, which is basically the same results as the other test. Which seems to imply I'm pretty firmly a central libertarian.
According to that test, I'm a liberal-leaning centrist. Who woulda thought.
Discussing politcal ideals is largely discussing make-believe. "There's never been a TRUE communist state!" "There is no current TRUE capitalist state!" (No True Scotsman)
I'll call myself a monarchist. There's never been a TRUE benevloent monarchy. Benevolent monarchy means the monarch is the wisest person in the land and enacts laws which benefit both individuals and society in the best way possible, at the expense of neither. His children inherit all of his wisdom along with all of his politcal power with each new generation. He has absolute power, so all laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible. Also add in the national pride of having a parent-figure as the leader of a country; there are not only practical benefits, but emotional well-being for all involved.
No ecnomic system takes into account the fact that the vast majority of the population will either actively try to abuse the system, or be too stupid to function correctly in the system, or just not feel like participating. The ideal economic system is one where no one works and everyone still gets everything they want.
Dr. Unne.. you know with our genectic enginerring and cloning ablilities... we may be able to make a long last Benovelent monarchy sometime in the near future. The problem is finding someone wise and benovelent like that, that won't get corrupted.
Jeez that test put me mirrored me to the other side... right on top of gandhi just about.
Another example of a retarded question in these quizzes. Of course it's an advantage, that is indisputable. The question isn't that, the question is whether or not this benefit is justifiable given what is lost.Quote:
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
I got a simiar result, but I was socially closer to the center. Again, many questions asked about approval and opinion, not objective reasoning. I would like if people acted in a certain way, but that doesn't mean I have any right to force them to.
Hurray im not the only monarchist.
So simply the wisest man in the land eh? Well, point him out. First, actually, define wisdom. Are we looking at IQ, abstract thought? Doubt it. Can a man have both an extreme logistical mind, and still adhere to raw sedimental issues (discluding skitzos ;)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
With that same thought, can one really serve two different ideals, with out forcing one of the holders to sacrifice thier stance. I see much of the same problems in religions. You can't always take middle ground. You have to take a side at times. That is just logically how it works. Which side the smartest man takes is not always the best, and which side the complete moron takes is not always the worst.
I know you will want to prolly stone me for this; but lets look at my religion (I know, j ust play along :) ) Christianity entails mainly a Monarchy. God has put in his book exactly how he sees people should live etc. There are punishments and such listed. I am sure (and I will assume) many of the connections of the implimentations of monarchy are obvious here. Well, to the point, not everyone is christain, or gets what they want per say. God's laws are set to protect the individual while instilling his direct belives on how we should live.
I really doubt that some child would really serve his father's ideals all teh way. Even if the child was a perfect clone, and a was raised similarily, I don't belive that thier thought process would be the same. If a true Benevolent Monarchy could exist, I would have to agree it would be ideal as far as logic is concerned. The people on the far spectrums of the sampled average would really not like this, and as I am sure, a use of force would be needed to subdue them, unless of course we get to the point where the government we are speaking of, has all the resources it needs, it would still be in a constant threat from invading parties and such. (IE: Jersulem. and that area was not known for being exactly.. a gem.)Quote:
His children inherit all of his wisdom along with all of his politcal power with each new generation. He has absolute power, so all laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible. Also add in the national pride of having a parent-figure as the leader of a country; there are not only practical benefits, but emotional well-being for all involved.
Subserviant faith is what is needed to make any form of government work. That is somthing that humans are not prone to having, as nearly any religion will tell you (the origional sin, Pandora, etc.)
As for my belief, I would say that seperation is our best chance at getting a government to work; as no single government will serve all porperly.
Bipper
I took the political compass test, and got this:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
I guess that means socialist.
Well, anyone who is involved in doing something purely for their own gain should not be trusted, as they will have no loyalty or dedication to the purpose of their task, and will act purely in self-interest, and has a good chance of being corrupt, e.g. a bbusinessman who cares more about money than ethics is very likely to be exploitative and corrupt, and may well commit fraud, or knowingly provide unsafe working conditions or cause pollution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
p.s. Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to try and explain my veiws a little better.
Just as a note, that is also known as corporatism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
What about Labour Britain under the (Old) Labour Party?Quote:
Socialism as economic, democracy as political = Chile with Allende, Spain in the 1930s. Yes, I am aware they also skipped democratic laws, I am talking about theories.
Actually, that isn't really fair- Jong Il, Stalin and Mao do not/ did not follow true socialist ideals, their systems simply resembled socialism because 1) They were socialist in name, as a way of oppressing the population and 2) Government control of the ecoomy is an efficient path for a dictatotship. The Nazis, for example, could be seen as following socialist policies when veiwed like this, but this was not actually the case (the term National Socialist was really just a tool to encourgae the working class to support them). Read 1984 by George Orwell- it explains a lot of what I'm saying.Quote:
Socialism as economic, totalitarism as political = Most so called "communist" countries, wich are a perfect excuse to badmouth Marx: Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba...Cuba being the lest totalitarist, but still far from democracy.
And, although you are quite correct that Castro's regime is totalitarian, you have to look at it fairly. The UK was under an almost totalitarian rule during WW2, bt that was nesseccary because the survival of the country as a whole took priority over certain individual freedoms. It's the same with Cuba- Castro has sufferred great hostility from the west, including a US backed invasion, and decades of US backed terrorism, so some extreme measures were nesseccary (although I do admit that Castro's regime is probably tooextreme).
Castro, unfortuanately, has the whole Oliver Cromwell thing going, as did Lenin and a few other people. He is caught in a difficult position, and discovers that hostility from conservative groups will not allow him to make the changes that are needed, so must, unfortuanately, become a dictator. Cromwell, for example, was forced to turn his parlimantarian government into a military dictatorship to fully remove the roylaists from England, although he actually failed their, possibly becaus ehis methods were too extreme and puritanical, and he actually went too far.
Probably, he, aswell as Castro and Lenin, should have relied more on the population. It's ironic that Castro is a dictator, as he is one of the world's foremost Marxist, and Marx quite definitely supported democratuc rule, by the people.
EDIT: And I agree with what Bipper said about Monarchy, though not about nationalism/provincialism.
May I ask what you didn't really agree with Traitorfish? The seperation of governments? Or just against my thinking that no government will really serve all people correctly?
That isn't really discussing "make-believe". We're talking about an ideal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I see your point, but I came to a different conclusion. It's precisely because people will attempt to "abuse a system" or (especially) where people will not want to participate that we nee a free economy; a system where one can participate if one wants to or not.Quote:
No ecnomic system takes into account the fact that the vast majority of the population will either actively try to abuse the system, or be too stupid to function correctly in the system, or just not feel like participating. The ideal economic system is one where no one works and everyone still gets everything they want.
Note: I understand that you were attempting to make a point and probably weren't looking for responses. However, I am firmly against the idea that throwing your hands in the air and saying, "Who cares?". It is never the right situation to take.I believe he was purposely being sarcastic to prove a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wuggly Blight
But I'm saying that if a person wants a profit ("self-interest") then they have to render the absolute best service to society as possible. If they're running an industry for thier own gain and want lots of money, you can be damn sure that we'll get the best damn industrialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
And there are laws in place to protect people from fraud.
The seperation. I am in favour of devolution, but the divison of nations seems counter productive, and could be a never ending process. Supposse every US state wanted independance? Then every county? Then every town?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Not true. People may often think that the best way to make a profit is to cut expenses, leading to exploitation and low-quality service. If what you say was true, then wouldn't the Bhopal mess have been cleared up by now? No, cos it was too expensive. Whats more, I don't wantpeople to be 'the best damned industrialist'. Industry should be run for the benefit of all, not to aim at some bizzarre goal of superiority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Besides, the fraud laws may exist, but that doesn't change the fact that 1) Fraud takes place 2) Much fraud goes under discovered, at least until the refects are partly or wholly irreversible 3) Morons like Bush pardon some of the worst fraudsters (I am not connecting you to Bush, although you may support them, I'm just saying that the current system is screwed up) 4) Some of these crimes cost many, many lives, and are punished by what are essentially slaps on the wrist. Why would a huge, multi-national corporation that is worth billions crae if you fined then a few hundred thousand dollars?
...then people won't take the service? Perhaps since we have been reared to just "accept" poor service, we see this as possible. But quite frankly you're complaining about people accepting bad service. If the people are willing to accept poor service, then they deserve what they get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
It's not a goal of superiority. It's a goal of achieving your personal best. I, personally, do want to be the best damned anything I can be, and I won't let the masses get in my way.Quote:
Whats more, I don't wantpeople to be 'the best damned industrialist'. Industry should be run for the benefit of all, not to aim at some bizzarre goal of superiority.
What you are complaining about I agree with in many instances; however, your solutions and mine are different. I say that that is a problem with the idiots advocating it, and that we need a society that rewards progress and innovation (laissez-faire capitalism with a government geared towards the protection of individual rights). You say that the people have to be coddled because things don't work out all the time.Quote:
Besides, the fraud laws may exist, but that doesn't change the fact that 1) Fraud takes place 2) Much fraud goes under discovered, at least until the refects are partly or wholly irreversible 3) Morons like Bush pardon some of the worst fraudsters (I am not connecting you to Bush, although you may support them, I'm just saying that the current system is screwed up) 4) Some of these crimes cost many, many lives, and are punished by what are essentially slaps on the wrist. Why would a huge, multi-national corporation that is worth billions crae if you fined then a few hundred thousand dollars?
Traitorfish - if you do not belive in seperation, you belive in a greater form of oppression. I do not belive that there is one government that will serve all people, or vice versa. I think, as long as people are loyal to thier governmential system, any damn system would work.
I was confused at your questionong because seperation would probally support nationalism. All these economic and govermnet systems have a great amount of beliefs involved. They do not break down to simple logic; therefore there is no difinative answer.
Some people believe in greed, while others belive in 'humanity'. I simply beleive in the individual, and in caring for that, I feel a community effort for the government to serve that individual to keep the happy and healthy is very important. This will obviously clash with many other beliefs; that is simply why I do not feel that any government will serve all purposes well.
I have to say that if the nations were ever divided, the peoples bonds to thier land - thier home - may be to great. Religous value, memories, economically sacred land would have to be shared, and governmential borders would have to be lifted. This, I would say could be the start of a utopian government. This could breed from an anarchist government, if greed was not such a prominant human urge. This could dirive from a communist state, if people were subserviant. This could come from a Totalarian state, if the dirived powers were in check. This could even come from a true etheral monarchy - if the manarch was a smooth operator;)
Bipper
Well, aside from that being an over-simplistic veiw, you're incorrect- when there is nothing but low-quality service, what else is there? How can a chilean peasant worker choose the quality of his work-place? he is forced to take whatever work he can, or starve. He has no freedom. He is, in apractical sense, a slave. Now, this may just be me and Abe Lincoln, but that seems pretty screwed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Personal best, eh? What is that meant to mean, exactly? To me, it means 'Beat everyone else, or you're a failure!' It's that weird American mentality. That twisted inversion of the American Dream. As it's beleived that anyone can become successful and rich, anyone who isn't is a failure. Don't say 'Well ignore those who call you a failure' because the entire capitalist system is geared towards beleiving what your 'superiors' tell you.Quote:
It's not a goal of superiority. It's a goal of achieving your personal best. I, personally, do want to be the best damned anything I can be, and I won't let the masses get in my way. What you are complaining about I agree with in many instances; however, your solutions and mine are different. I say that that is a problem with the idiots advocating it, and that we need a society that rewards progress and innovation (laissez-faire capitalism with a government geared towards the protection of individual rights). You say that the people have to be coddled because things don't work out all the time.
I've nothing against rewarding innovation, but western society goes too far. For example, Bill Gates did a good job creating Microsoft, but does he deserve the huge amount of money he has? (As a Windows user, I can tell you the answer is most certainly no). Even though Gates is one of the better entrepeneurs (he shall be allowed to live after the revolution), he does lots of charity stuff, he's still hugely over-payed.
And innovation doesn't account for all these fat, lazy idiots who make it rich. Take Overlord Bush. His family has been rich for generations. how does the inginuity of his grandfather account for his wealth? (Incidentally, the family made it rich in the late 30s/early 40s when Grandpappy Bush directed a bank which was used by Nazi industrialists to invest money in the US, because some companies did not want to deal directly with the Third Reich (that was when the US still thought that fascism was bad)).
As long as multiple nations exist, there will be conflicts. As long as their is conflict, there will be war. Nuff said. But, you're right, without certain qualities, any government will fail. But not all will suceed. After all, feudalism carries ideas of loyalty from the ruler to his people, and last time I checked, we dumped that idea four hundred years ago (Go Cromwell Go!).Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
The problem is that, considering the earth has a population of over 5 billion, the individual is pretty insignificant compared to the population as a whole. That is not to say that individual rights should be surpressed, but that the good of the majority comes before that of any one individual.Quote:
I was confused at your questionong because seperation would probally support nationalism. All these economic and govermnet systems have a great amount of beliefs involved. They do not break down to simple logic; therefore there is no difinative answer.
Some people believe in greed, while others belive in 'humanity'. I simply beleive in the individual, and in caring for that, I feel a community effort for the government to serve that individual to keep the happy and healthy is very important. This will obviously clash with many other beliefs; that is simply why I do not feel that any government will serve all purposes well.
Hmm, I'm not really sure which political group I belong to, but I'm somewhere in between the liberals and the socialists, which are also the two biggest political parties in Denmark. The thing is that I agree with both parties on different things, and therefore it is hard for me to pick just one, so I voted "Centrist", which, at least in Denmark, is someone who is in the middle, of particularly the liberals (Venstre) and the socialists (Socialdemokraterne). We also have a bunch of smaller political parties in Denmark such as SF, Kristendemokraterne, De Radikale Venstre, and Enhedslisten etc.
Edit: I just took "The Politics Test" and it said that I am 66% Socialist and 22% Economic, and that I have strong and well-developed opinions on Right and Wrong and that I believe in Economic Fairness, which I think suits me well. The mix of my social and economic opinions makes me somewhat of a centrist in Denmark (but going towards the socialists just a bit), but maybe not in the US I guess?
well it appears on both tests that i am as far left and libertarian/liberal asd you get. no great suprise.
That means you're a Liberal Social Democrat. That's not a choice on the poll, because I though that was getting to fiddly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breine
Uh, no. You lack self-esteem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Uh... you plan on killing these people? I think I'd prefer "Overlord Bush" to your murderous mob, thanks.Quote:
I've nothing against rewarding innovation, but western society goes too far. For example, Bill Gates did a good job creating Microsoft, but does he deserve the huge amount of money he has? (As a Windows user, I can tell you the answer is most certainly no). Eventhough Gates is one of the better entrepeneurs (he shall be allowed to live after the revolution), he does lots of charity stuff, he's still hugely over-payed.
OK. What's your point? I'm for liberty and justice, not America's neo-fascist welfare-warfare state. One that reminds me too much of a socialist regime, actually.Quote:
And innovation doesn't account for all these fat, lazy idiots who make it rich. Take Overlord Bush. His family has been rich for generations. how does the inginuity of his grandfather account for his wealth? (Incidentally, the family made it rich in the late 30s/early 40s when Grandpappy Bush directed a bank which was used by Nazi industrialists to invest money in the US, because some companies did not want to deal directly with the Third Reich (that was when the US still thought that fascism was bad)).
It sounds like a critique, but I don't know what you're critiquing, here.Quote:
As long as multiple nations exist, there will be conflicts. As long as their is conflict, there will be war. Nuff said. But, you're right, without certain qualities, any government will fail. But not all will suceed. After all, feudalism carries ideas of loyalty from the ruler to his people, and last time I checked, we dumped that idea four hundred years ago (Go Cromwell Go!).
What is the good of the majority? What is the "masses" - but a collection of individuals? On what basis does your mob decide what the people down the street have to base their decisions on?Quote:
The problem is that, considering the earth has a population of over 5 billion, the individual is pretty insignificant compared to the population as a whole. That is not to say that individual rights should be surpressed, but that the good of the majority comes before that of any one individual.
[QUOTE=Hachifusa]Uh, no. You lack self-esteem.[/quote
No, I possess perspective.
No, zat vas a yoke. Besides, what's wrong with a revolution? Here's some that rocked:Quote:
Uh... you plan on killing these people? I think I'd prefer "Overlord Bush" to your murderous mob, thanks.
The English Peasant's RevoltThe Scottish Wars of Independance
The English Civil Wars
The American Wars of Independance
The Early French Revolution (i.e. pre-Reign of Terror)
The South American Wars of Independace (Simone Bolivar and such)
The Early Russian Revolution (Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin)
The Cuban Revolution
The Vietnamese Revolution
And so on...
Have you actually looked around you? What welfare? Where are you!?! Besides, fascism is pretty different than socialism, on any scale. (e.g. on the economic/social freedom scale Fascism is low social freedom, high economic freedom, socialism is the opposite). You're comment was either a bad attempt at being offensive, or a sign that you are politically ignorant.Quote:
OK. What's your point? I'm for liberty and justice, not America's neo-fascist welfare-warfare state. One that reminds me too much of a socialist regime, actually.
Besides, America doesn't know what it's doing. I subscibe to the Keir Hardie, Michael Moore, Social Democrat type of veiw.
How can individuality exist without a group to be individual from?Quote:
It sounds like a critique, but I don't know what you're critiquing, here.
What is the good of the majority? What is the "masses" - but a collection of individuals?
I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.
The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.
My 'mob' has as much basis as your 'mob', so don't try to undermine the whole foundation of politcis unless you're arguing as an arachist.Quote:
On what basis does your mob decide what the people down the street have to base their decisions on?
In this type of discussion I am thinking of using masses and individual the way I see it as being. Meaning the dictionary defs may not hold 100% to it. Just listen to my logic.
Individual and masses are two entities of the same being. Without one the other would not exist. Individual means apart or seperated from the masses in some way(a unique trait is one example). Masses is a group of individuals. Without one the other would not exist. They both have EQUAL importance. Becoming a part of a mass does not mean that you are no longer an individual rather you are both, just like you were before(anyone living on earth is part of a mass). It just means you as well as some others need/desire the same thing. And when weighing such decisions you must determine what helps the most with minimal sacrifice. If you hurt the masses you hurt the individual and vice versa. There is a balance that must be maintained. The question is how much can each side sacrifice without becoming unbalanced. It can not all be one way. It must equal out. The masses are not the slaves of the individual nor is the individual the slave of the masses. You see what I mean?
Thus I am for properly implemented public education. Why? Uneducated masses can actualy harm the rich individual(we are coming to the day and age where education is needed for many jobs). And the masses once educated will contribute, aiding the individual and the like. Also take note that this works like a loan. The masses that are educated took the loan to pay for thier education. And as they grow they pay that loan back in the same way they got it. As long as the government doesn't meddle too much once it is setup it is fine. The problem with private education is that in more rural areas there would only be one choice.. and thus the masses could be easily forsaken. And you can't forsake one or else the other recieves harm.
The argument for capitalism is that people realize this and thus to avoid harming themselves they will not harm the masses in such a way. The fact is though that many of the buisnessmen that are successful are so for a reason. They don't care if they have to screw someone over to get to the top, as long as they are the ones on top. So unless it would topple them they do not care. And one can damage the massses alot before it causes enough damage to topple the individual. Thus for fairness, and to be equal, you should supply a common baseline and then allow other extra services to be added. Thus a public school systems that also allows private schools is good. It means that the public has some competition and that the private schools will have competition in all areas, even rural. This is in fact in line with some capitalistic ideals. The problem is A) we don't have a properly implemented public education system B)The public education doesn't get enough competition from the private and C) the government really just keeps messing it up more. There are of course more problems. Such as money holes in some school systems, the fact that throwing more money doesn't help... etc.
oh boy... I don't even know what I wrote now... the writing had just taken a life of its own. Meh, it seems to make enough sense that I will just leave it as is, just remember that the second paragraph is the one I meant to write.. the rest just sort of flowed so it may have more holes then a truckload of swiss cheese.
I agree with most of what you said, but I am against the principle of private education. I beleive it causes class distinctions to appear, or if they already exist, it props them up. Education is a basic human right, so all people deserve the same level, and allowing some to get a better level of education is unfair. [The exception to this is specialty schools, such as dance or acting schools, although I dislike them because they seem to be a tool for sad parents to live through their children.]
Don't forget the Glorious Revolution. That was actually pulled off without bloodshed. (Hence the "Glorious")Quote:
No, zat vas a yoke. Besides, what's wrong with a revolution? Here's some that rocked:
The English Peasant's RevoltThe Scottish Wars of Independance
The English Civil Wars
The American Wars of Independance
The Early French Revolution (i.e. pre-Reign of Terror)
The South American Wars of Independace (Simone Bolivar and such)
The Early Russian Revolution (Lenin and Trotsky, not Stalin)
The Cuban Revolution
The Vietnamese Revolution
And so on...
Nothing is wrong with a revolution, if its needed and for the right reasons. A giant communist group over here at my campus is doing some "Drive out the Bush Regime" thing on November 2nd. I'm all for getting rid of Bush, but not to allow the mob to take control and run an American Dictatorship of the Proletariat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
I'm referring to our social programs that yield no good but take our money. We have free education, grants, what not, but it doesn't seem to be doing so much good. I mean, smurf, look at our Social Security problems. I understand that you're a socialist so it must be offensive to hear that America has bad socialism, but understand that as a libertarian I rather hate that America has bad, well, liberty.Quote:
Have you actually looked around you? What welfare? Where are you!?!
It wasn't so much offensive, as much as I was implying that America tries to be everything at once and fails. It's the ultimate "mixed economy". It's why people don't understand the ramifications of capitalism - they think that America is capitalist (it is, to the same extent that it's social democracy).Quote:
Besides, fascism is pretty different than socialism, on any scale. (e.g. on the economic/social freedom scale Fascism is low social freedom, high economic freedom, socialism is the opposite). You're comment was either a bad attempt at being offensive, or a sign that you are politically ignorant.
America doesn't know what it's doing, but I prefer the "freeom" sort of view. Michael Moore is hardly in that realm.Quote:
Besides, America doesn't know what it's doing. I subscibe to the Keir Hardie, Michael Moore, Social Democrat type of veiw.
I dislike sociology, but more than that, I think that's what America was supposedly based on. And it's the only way to really run a nation.Quote:
How can individuality exist without a group to be individual from?
I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.
At the expense of the minority. That's not good for anyone.Quote:
The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.
I'm not, but as someone who supports civil and economic freedoms, you'll hear from the people that hate me that I virutally am, haha.Quote:
My 'mob' has as much basis as your 'mob', so don't try to undermine the whole foundation of politcis unless you're arguing as an arachist.
Individuality can only exist in the complete absence of external influences. As that also tends to drive people insane, the best one can do is try to ignore most social/media ideas and decide things for oneself. Individuals who consider their individuality based on the actions or opinions of others are not individuals at all. The group is the antithesis of the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitorfish
Not so. The only just way to run a nation is to consider each and every person within it of exactly equal value, entitled to exactly the same*, and with exactly the same rights. (Ideally, to also extend those same beliefs to every Human on Earth.) Groups exist because of like-minded individuals, nothing more. They simply gain more power than they should have because many are lazy or submit to peer pressure.Quote:
I'm 100% for individuality, but when you're talking about nations, indiviudality becomes fairly different. How can you run a nation like that? You have to think of people as groups. Any sociologist will tell you that.
* If you're wondering, I actually do think everyone is entitled to exactly the same thing - that which their labor earns them.
The only consideration should be 'What is best for the individual?'. The answer is simple; freedom. Freedom requires a lack of social controls, a lack of legal controls, and a lack of economic controls. Because not everyone can be trusted to act appropriately, it is acceptable to create a governmental organization to ensure those controls are avoided, even though said government by definition counters both the second and third tenets there. The government's sole purpose in existence is the preserve the freedoms of the individuals within the boundaries of a national border. Anything further is unacceptable and undeniably contrary to the most essential driving force of Mankind - sentience.Quote:
The good of the majority is fairly self-explanitary. It means 'things which are good for the majority', such as nationalised indurty and healthcare, rather than good for the minority, such as privatised industry.
Am I an individual? I think so....;)
im a whig
