Which Political Group Are You?

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[Madame Adequate]

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

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.

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.

[Wuggly Blight]

Hurray im not the only monarchist.

[bipper]

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

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.)

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

[Traitorfish]

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.

And I don't understand your logic that "anyone who wants money can't be trusted". Explain?

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.

p.s. Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to try and explain my veiws a little better.

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:

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.

Just as a note, that is also known as corporatism.

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.

What about Labour Britain under the (Old) Labour Party?

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.

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.
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.

[bipper]

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?

[Teek]

Discussing politcal ideals is largely discussing make-believe. "There's never been a TRUE communist state!" "There is no current TRUE capitalist state!"

That isn't really discussing "make-believe". We're talking about an ideal government.

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.

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.

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.

Hurray im not the only monarchist.

I believe he was purposely being sarcastic to prove a point.

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.

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.

And there are laws in place to protect people from fraud.

[Traitorfish]

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?

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?

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.
And there are laws in place to protect people from fraud.

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.
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?

[Teek]

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[bipper]

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

[Traitorfish]

...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.

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.

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.

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.
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)).

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.

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!).

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.

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.

[Breine]

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?

[Cloud No.9]

well it appears on both tests that i am as far left and libertarian/liberal asd you get. no great suprise.

[Traitorfish]

I'm somewhere in between the liberals and the socialists

That means you're a Liberal Social Democrat. That's not a choice on the poll, because I though that was getting to fiddly.

[Teek]

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.

Uh, no. You lack self-esteem.

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.

Uh... you plan on killing these people? I think I'd prefer "Overlord Bush" to your murderous mob, thanks.

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)).

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.

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!).

It sounds like a critique, but I don't know what you're critiquing, here.

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.

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?