Susan's Place Transgender Resources

To find out where you are politically - not just left or right.

Click here for a bit of info on it: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

Click here to take the test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)

Your sincerely

Goldy (left libertarian)

I stumbled on this thingee a few years ago. And I still fall out of the bottom left corner! ;D

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72

Good company though: Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama. ;D

~Simone.

:) Not a huge surprise, but I'm far more toward the left/anarchist corner than any of the examples they gave. Yes, moreso than Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama and quite a bit further toward the corner than Gandhi-ji.

I have to admit I supported Obama, but I would rather have had a president who would have probably tried to make greater changes than he is likely to do. Of course, getting elected in the USA means generally appealing to some aspects of the fascist/comfort group of traditionalists.

Thank goodness he didn't feel the need to go quite so far, at least in his rhetoric, as (Bill) Clinton went. And when it comes down to it, I loved the fact that Hillary was a woman, but her policies would probably have me sighing the same way Obama's election and proposed policies make me sigh.

Nichole

O, right. Actually quite to the left:

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79


I'm around the middle of the left-bottom (green) square. No surprise there. I don't think I agree with the "Libertarian" moniker though. Libertarians seem to have a "dog-eat-dog" view of economics I don't subscribe to.

"Mainstream" anarchists (if there is such a thing), have been trying for a while now to use the libertarian label instead in order to distance themselves from the connotations anarchism has acquired. As soldierjane points out though, most libertarians are a bit too into the whole social-darwinism thing for my tastes - basically anarcho-capitalists to a greater or lesser extent.

~Simone.

I absolutely agree about "libertarian," SJ and Simone. My initial take was: "They're trying to lump me with Bob Barr and "those" libertarians!!?" Puh-leez.

I think what you'll find, Emme, is that absolutely everyone who is actually interested in "the law" when they come to this is gonna be to the right or in the center for the most part. The interest certainly implies, if it doesn't mandate, a certain respect and compliance with "the way things are."

We anarcho-syndicalists still weep, three generations later, for the destruction of the Catalan communes in the late-1930s. :)

Nichole

Quote from: Emme on December 02, 2008, 09:02:41 AM
Wow, I'm way closer to the middle than anyone else so far.

If it makes you feel better, here what I got:

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

However, I thought several of those questions were slanted. For example, consider, "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

I agree: that is a significant advantage. I'm not sure how anyone could deny that. However, I also think a one-party state has disadvantages that far outweigh that advantage.

Or consider, "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." Duh! Does anyone deny that there aren't some career crooks who can't be rehabilitated? At least not by the time they're adults?

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

I do agree that some of the questions have a bias slant never really have been to big a fan of survey test like that they just don't allow enough possiblities

And the Marx quote is a big gotcha ;)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

Very close to Gandhi.
Does this mean I'm enlightened. :D

And the Marx quote is a big gotcha
Well it is one of old Karl's Greatest Hits, so people thinkin that they be gettin' all political and that, ought to know it.  And even though he is an old rather boring economic writer (ok, really, really boring, yeesh) I don't think that he was all that far off the mark with that remark, but hey, a broken watch is right twice a day, right?

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

Quote from: Nichole on December 02, 2008, 08:37:56 AM
:) Not a huge surprise, but I'm far more toward the left/anarchist corner than any of the examples they gave. Yes, moreso than Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama and quite a bit further toward the corner than Gandhi-ji.

Me too. I'm always dismayed how no leaders are way in the lower left corner to keep me company, and how many are clustered in the upper right quadrant. What's with that anyway?

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.90

Nichole, if they included Dennis Kucinich I bet he'd keep us company down there.

Quote from: soldierjane link=topic=50588.msg312475#msg312475I don't think I agree with the "Libertarian" moniker though. Libertarians seem to have a "dog-eat-dog" view of economics I don't subscribe to.

I believe here they are only using libertarian in the sense of social issues, like if you support pot-smoking gays getting married instead of wanting to throw them in jail.

The dog-eat-dog economics espoused by the Libertarian Party would go in the lower right quadrant.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

I've always felt that in an ideal world the government should butt out as much as possible.  Unfortunately, in the real world, that would lead to anarchy and utter corruption.  The government should protect people from those who would put their own gain ahead of public good.  However, when it comes down to people's personal lives - who should marry whom, whether law abiding citizens can carry guns, whether someone should be able to smoke a doobie in their own livingroom - it's really none of the government's business.

Of course, then there are always the borderline cases.  Which is more important?  The individual's right to smoke, for example, or the public's right to breathe clean air?  If we allow gay marriage, should we also allow polygamy? (I say yes.) And if we do, how will that affect divorce laws, etc?  Unfortunately, there are never any cut and dried answers that will fit every situation.

What in the world does this one have to do with politics?

QuoteAstrology accurately explains many things.

???

Anyway... Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90  ^^

Quote from: Hypatia on December 07, 2008, 12:47:49 AM
Nichole, if they included Dennis Kucinich I bet he'd keep us company down there.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Fimages%2Fusprimaries_2008.png&hash=171f45607a833fa1d0204fa7fefdcd7bb59b4e1c)

Kucinich was my first choice. :)

Hmm, so Dennis isn't as lower-left as I'd imagined. Well, I guess Barack will do as a second-best. But something REALLY BOTHERS ME:

A majority of those who took this test (not just here, but at the Political Compass site itself) are in the lower left quadrant. All of our leaders in the USA, and most of the foreign leaders too, are clustered in the upper right. Hel-LO what's wrong with this picture? :icon_no:

exactly, all these people get up in arms about the differences between conservatives and liberals and then you realize they are just 2 factions of the same (capitalist) party.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

wow i am more lower left than the dali lama and nelson mandela

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79

the republicans back the rich and keep them rich, so they can remain in power.the democrates back the poor and keep them poor, so they can remain in power.

Quote from: Hypatia on December 07, 2008, 04:03:13 PM
A majority of those who took this test (not just here, but at the Political Compass site itself) are in the lower left quadrant. All of our leaders in the USA, and most of the foreign leaders too, are clustered in the upper right. Hel-LO what's wrong with this picture? :icon_no:

Leaders tend to be a certain type of person: Ambitious, greedy, quite selfish, often from a background of great personal or family wealth. Our systems - South Africa's too, kinda preclude people who aren't rich from getting to the top. What I've noticed about the very rich is that they live in a very different world from the rest of us, mentally. They are usually social Darwinists - survival of the fittest and strongest. And because these leaders know where their real support comes from - other rich people, they skew policy and stuff in that direction.

I think the rest of us though tend to be naturally more egalitarian and supportive of the idea of helping one another and of supporting each other's liberty.

I contend that humanity is actually a much more compassionate, socially-responsible bunch than they think - we're kept scrabbling around fighting each other artificially because of the social structures our leaders engineer.

~Simone.

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

You don't know the power of the Dark Side.  >:-)

EDIT: Well, it's actually the purple side.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-6.38%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-7.38&hash=254881d83f4bd1dbbd89c9942189287f3f130b37)

I'm in good company with Kucinich, Gandhi, Mandela, and the Dali Lama, but I'm down more and a little closer to the corner.

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-5.88%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-3.74&hash=5a818cd480e7210aa20f881e092e390f930bbf97)

Interesting.

Janet

My result :
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-8.88%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-7.44&hash=dd38bf902b5f82c154254afe8adf58fa525f769c)

Guess that's pretty much me ...  ;D ...

Laura x

Quote from: tekla on December 02, 2008, 07:54:16 PM
And the Marx quote is a big gotcha
Well it is one of old Karl's Greatest Hits, so people thinkin that they be gettin' all political and that, ought to know it.  And even though he is an old rather boring economic writer (ok, really, really boring, yeesh) I don't think that he was all that far off the mark with that remark, but hey, a broken watch is right twice a day, right?

Agree on the boring :) I actually quite agree with the quote as well, but I was wondering if in the context of the test me agreeing or disagreeing to it refers to the corpus of marxist theory as a whole, to the vague principle itself or to known implementations of it.

There are big differences :)

Would you have preferred "The workers have nothing to lose but their chains"?  Or perhaps, "The other day I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas I'll never know."  Oh wait, that was Groucho Marx, the funnier Marx in so many ways.

A real Marxist (are there still such quaint things?  Kind of like flat earth or divine right of kings?) would never take a test like this I'm pretty sure.

Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2008, 08:06:18 AM
Would you have preferred "The workers have nothing to lose but their chains"?  Or perhaps, "The other day I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas I'll never know."  Oh wait, that was Groucho Marx, the funnier Marx in so many ways.

A real Marxist (are there still such quaint things?  Kind of like flat earth or divine right of kings?) would never take a test like this I'm pretty sure.

LOL good one. Indeed, what *is* a real Marxist? A Spartacist, a Maoist, a Leninist, a modern Socialist... a Tito communist? Look, it could be an Adam Smith quote and I'd still have the same issues. It's just too general :)

Indeed Groucho provides the funnier side of the Marx equation ;)

When I was just a little kitty kat, and looking for trouble and finding it one good place to look was down by the university in Berkeley California.  There were having an ongoing fight over a 'park' or a 'parking lot' (this stuff continues too) and so, being the early 70's one of those little gatherings turned a bit, well, violent and riot like and property destruction and all that fun stuff.

So, once we were all arrested they stuck us in a high school gym where all these college types proceeded to subdivide into groups, all of whom were harping on the other groups.  Oh the Mao lovers hated the Stalinists, and the Young Socialists hate them both, and on, and on.  Had we all got together I'm sure we could have all just up and walked out of there.  So it goes.  And its why the left never wins.  They have much to good a time arguing with each other then with any real opposition.

Quote from: soldierjane on December 08, 2008, 09:03:43 AM

Quote from: tekla on December 08, 2008, 08:06:18 AM
Would you have preferred "The workers have nothing to lose but their chains"?  Or perhaps, "The other day I shot an elephant in my pajamas, how he got in my pajamas I'll never know."  Oh wait, that was Groucho Marx, the funnier Marx in so many ways.

A real Marxist (are there still such quaint things?  Kind of like flat earth or divine right of kings?) would never take a test like this I'm pretty sure.

LOL good one. Indeed, what *is* a real Marxist? A Spartacist, a Maoist, a Leninist, a modern Socialist... a Tito communist? Look, it could be an Adam Smith quote and I'd still have the same issues. It's just too general :)

Indeed Groucho provides the funnier side of the Marx equation ;)

Q: What's a real Marxist?
A: A parent!

Think about it: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." And so forth.

Isn't that a perfect description of a family? If you get down to it, doesn't a family run under Marxist principles? I think old Karl simply took the concept of a family, with everyone working for the collective good, and scaled it up to a society.

Lovely idea, but unfortunately it doesn't scale up. Most people will bust their asses, or even sacrifice their lives, for their kids, their spouses or their parents. Probably for their siblings. Maybe for their close friends. Occasionally you see it in close-knit communities, like the Amish. But very few people extend that sort of loyalty to total strangers. And a lot of people won't do that even for their own families.

Lots of stuff in life is a question of scale.  So sure a family runs on those principals, so do tribes, and other human gatherings, hell, even Burning Man is that to a degree.  It's not like Marx invented that idea.  Matter of fact, it was pretty funny watching my nuns and priest try to attack the Commies back in the 60s, when, in fact, they were living in a de facto commune.

I know people who live like that as a general ethic, even my work is like that a lot, we do what we do best, lead or follow as needed, and at the end of the day its about all of us doing it, not a who did what or how much deal.

Quote from: MarySue on December 08, 2008, 10:26:40 AM

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

SPOOOOOOCK!!!!

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

:P

Quote from: soldierjane on December 08, 2008, 11:30:08 AM
SPOOOOOOCK!!!!

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

Hahahahaha! :P

~Simone.

Quote from: lady amarant on December 08, 2008, 11:39:35 AM

Quote from: soldierjane on December 08, 2008, 11:30:08 AM
SPOOOOOOCK!!!!

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

Hahahahaha! :P

~Simone.

Sorry, I can't be trusted to keep serious for too long :P

Quote from: soldierjane on December 08, 2008, 11:50:36 AM
Sorry, I can't be trusted to keep serious for too long :P

Hence your signature  ;)

Jenn

I'm another one of these

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-4.88%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-4.77&hash=314fef2ff4500330752190632398a007171f78d4)

This test is not accurate. I, the ultimate liberal, seem to be economically moderate (zero) and socially normally liberal(four points down).

I was just annoyed that I lost my possibility to vote the  communist for second term in our city council. (He won the term despite of my missing vote)

Sadly, goingdown, here in the United States what's known as "liberal" is actually moderate at best, and what passes for "moderate" is actually quite conservative. Even Dennis Kucinich, who so many consider a dangerously out-there radical leftist, barely cracks the left side of the coordinates. We really don't have a left in this country at all, just shades of right...

Who's the other right-libertarian?  That "1" up there isn't me, because I voted left-lib by mistake.

Quote from: MarySue on December 08, 2008, 10:26:40 AM
Think about it: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." And so forth.

Isn't that a perfect description of a family? If you get down to it, doesn't a family run under Marxist principles? I think old Karl simply took the concept of a family, with everyone working for the collective good, and scaled it up to a society.

Lovely idea, but unfortunately it doesn't scale up.  Most people will bust their asses, or even sacrifice their lives, for their kids, their spouses or their parents. Probably for their siblings. Maybe for their close friends. Occasionally you see it in close-knit communities, like the Amish. But very few people extend that sort of loyalty to total strangers. And a lot of people won't do that even for their own families.

It looks like a basic fact of biology - we're all got an upper limit on the numbers of others that we can actually perceive and interact with as people.  The standard number is about 150, i.e. Dunbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number).

I voted left-libertarian. What is right-libertarian? Actually here in Europe at least there are no.

Social darwinism can be also part of ''left''-wing dictatorship/authotarian goverment. It is not simply an economic issue.

My favourite political joke is the  ''Compassionate conservativism''. Ideology with no compasion at all.

None of the above. I'm a leveler. I sit in the middle and move the opposite direction from the mass of the population in the hopes of keeping the boat from capsizing.

Quote from: goingdown on December 09, 2008, 02:41:46 AM
I voted left-libertarian. What is right-libertarian? Actually here in Europe at least there are no.

They would be mostly traditional Republicans, the ones the Neo-Conservatives pushed out of the party over the last ten years. Right libertarians believe that government should be fiscally conservative and stay out of people's lives.

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 09, 2008, 07:02:31 AM
None of the above. I'm a leveler. I sit in the middle and move the opposite direction from the mass of the population in the hopes of keeping the boat from capsizing.

Quote from: goingdown on December 09, 2008, 02:41:46 AM
I voted left-libertarian. What is right-libertarian? Actually here in Europe at least there are no.

They would be mostly traditional Republicans, the ones the Neo-Conservatives pushed out of the party over the last ten years. Right libertarians believe that government should be fiscally conservative and stay out of people's lives.

I don't know, paleoconservatives don't seem as hostile to government as right wing libertarians, those have a nasty Randian bent.

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 09, 2008, 07:02:31 AMNone of the above. I'm a leveler. I sit in the middle and move the opposite direction from the mass of the population in the hopes of keeping the boat from capsizing.

Hmmm... You sound like this Chaotic Neutral level 7 Druid I used to know. :P

~Simone.

Quote from: lady amarant on December 09, 2008, 08:16:18 AM

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 09, 2008, 07:02:31 AMNone of the above. I'm a leveler. I sit in the middle and move the opposite direction from the mass of the population in the hopes of keeping the boat from capsizing.

Hmmm... You sound like this Chaotic Neutral level 7 Druid I used to know. :P

~Simone.

No, I'm Neutral Neutral. The balance of the universe is everything.

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 09, 2008, 09:59:48 AM
No, I'm Neutral Neutral. The balance of the universe is everything.

LOL. He was all for balance! Just had a scary way of achieving it! (Oh, this human settlement is really putting pressure on that forest and it's gnoll inhabitants over there ... let's destroy it with a magnified creeping doom spell.  >:-)

Quote
When you utter the spell of creeping doom, you call forth a mass of centipede swarms (one per two caster levels, to a maximum of ten swarms at 20th level), which need not appear adjacent to one another.

~Simone.

I scored quit moderate still in my homecountry my political opinions makes me a communist-hardliner. In central Europe I would be an open-minded centrist.

Economic 0
Socially -4

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85
Myles

Quote from: lady amarant on December 09, 2008, 10:18:50 AM

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 09, 2008, 09:59:48 AM
No, I'm Neutral Neutral. The balance of the universe is everything.

LOL. He was all for balance! Just had a scary way of achieving it! (Oh, this human settlement is really putting pressure on that forest and it's gnoll inhabitants over there ... let's destroy it with a magnified creeping doom spell.  >:-)

Quote
When you utter the spell of creeping doom, you call forth a mass of centipede swarms (one per two caster levels, to a maximum of ten swarms at 20th level), which need not appear adjacent to one another.

~Simone.

Sounds like it's own form of imbalance to me.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2F5nfVGJ02rINIFiZCqTyQKYmGb8P0Ls0-5p2A-V7jndo_%2Fchaoticgood.jpg&hash=1fe3220a7fa996d1cf13a1ffdbb49f9e735f9069)

In my homecountry this kind of statement makes you a communist.

Quote from: goingdown on December 14, 2008, 04:12:01 PM
In my homecountry this kind of statement makes you a communist.

Excellent.

I have been mocked as communist many times. It is not nice. I am a social liberal.

Quote from: goingdown on December 14, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
I have been mocked as communist many times. It is not nice. I am a social liberal.

I am a meat popsicle.

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 04:33:38 PM

Quote from: goingdown on December 14, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
I have been mocked as communist many times. It is not nice. I am a social liberal.

I am a meat popsicle.

Mocked as a communist?  Everyone I know IRL (in the US) seems to think that communism is this awesome utopian state that we're just too wicked to achieve, and that communists all have their hearts in the right place.  To these people, the idea that government should be afraid of them is not just right-wing, but actually reactionary.  America, by and large, has already conceded the arguments of the communists - without being willing to admit it.

Just as an example... the USA is talking about a gigantic "bailout" of its auto industry, which is really a de facto nationalization under socialist principles.  For some reason, nobody wants to call it that.  I mean, right or wrong, most people here don't want to admit to being socialists or even communists, but many of them are.

EDIT:  Maybe I should call them "armchair socialists".

Quote from: Lisbeth on December 14, 2008, 03:37:49 PMSounds like it's own form of imbalance to me.

LOL. Yeah. He wasn't the sanest soul around. ;)

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 05:25:29 PMEDIT:  Maybe I should call them "armchair socialists".

Haha! I like that!

~Simone.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 14, 2008, 05:25:29 PM

Quote from: Vexing on December 14, 2008, 04:33:38 PM

Quote from: goingdown on December 14, 2008, 04:29:08 PM
I have been mocked as communist many times. It is not nice. I am a social liberal.

I am a meat popsicle.

Mocked as a communist?  Everyone I know IRL (in the US) seems to think that communism is this awesome utopian state that we're just too wicked to achieve, and that communists all have their hearts in the right place. 

To be honest, I've found quite the contrary about communism in the US: people teeter from the "evil empire" view to it being an undesirable state of things. I've known some people that seem to think that perfect communism is a state which only highly structured insects could achieve though.
Domino theory is not in vogue anymore, but that hardly means that after almost 100 years of counter-propaganda and the crash and burn of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, that americans would think that Communism would be something acceptable.


As for the original "mocked as a communist" quote, if you mean that you have been called a communist when you are not, you can explain to them how it has nothing to do with it. Or you can hang a hammer-and-sickle banner, call them comrade and speak dreamily of world revolution and the days of the Comintern; which is what I would do even though I'm hardly a communist either. If they don't get the joke, they are not worth your time.

Quote
To these people, the idea that government should be afraid of them is not just right-wing, but actually reactionary

. 

I've never heard of any state that espoused that view, as it would be regarded as downright terrorism. Or any American president for that matter (other than the Founding Fathers, who got to power through that route and were awash in anti-establishment fervor).

Personally, I think people should remember that we have the guaranteed right to stand up to tyranny. Sadly, some people think that taxes are tyranny so while a nice ideal, it presents pragmatic inconveniences. There's also the issue of being swamped by propaganda 24/7. Makes people dumb.

Quote
America, by and large, has already conceded the arguments of the communists - without being willing to admit it.

Umm... politics and government, like a lot of things in life are fluid deals: they have to change a bit or else they will crumble and fall. This is probably the reason the US stayed afloat when most communist states died in paralysis. The way you phrase it, one would think the days of McCarthy, Roy Cohn and James Jesus Angleton are back.

If you have this huge block of your economy that's terminal (like the credit industry), and you've let it become so important to the well-being of your entire nation, then a concerted effort to avoid it spreading like wildfire seems sensible. I think that after this we need more regulation for this not to happen again, but I'm sure we'll agree to disagree ;)

I always thought that the only people in the US that were commies were college lit and econ professors and screenwriters.  "What's that Senator McCarthey?  250 in the State Department, you have a list?  OK."  And some in the State department too I guess.  Even the union guys hated them. 

I've actually got a different result every time I've done that test lol.

But I am only 18, so while I do have priciples, beliefs and opinions, arguably, having a political ideology that is set in stone would be a bad thing anyway...

Quote from: tekla on December 15, 2008, 09:37:01 AM
I always thought that the only people in the US that were commies were college lit and econ professors and screenwriters.  "What's that Senator McCarthey?  250 in the State Department, you have a list?  OK."  And some in the State department too I guess.  Even the union guys hated them. 

As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

The Republicans want to forge us into one heroic Christian collective - faceless interchangeable workers united behind God's Chosen President.

The Democrats want to take stuff away from those who have more then them, regardless of how they got it.  They don't care about justice, only numeric equality.  The concern is for the quota, not the victim.

EDIT: I mean to say that these are the overall effects of their policies.  Whatever individual politicians and party members might believe, this is how the aggregate acts.

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 16, 2008, 12:43:13 AM
As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

Not always. Sometimes they start wars.  :'(

Well, when there is a crisis that will have impact on a whole lot of people, a common effort is not exactly socialist, except that it is social, we are humans, and banding together is one of our traits.

But the bailouts are not really socialism, more like grand (on a scale undreamed of before) theft.

Quote from: MarySue on December 16, 2008, 10:07:12 AM

Quote from: Kaitlyn on December 16, 2008, 12:43:13 AM
As I see it, every time there's a crisis in the US, all our politicians, Republican and Democrat, scramble for a socialist (or at least collectivist) solution.

Not always. Sometimes they start wars.  :'(

I'd say that most of America's wars have been pretty collectivistic, especially the GWoT, but that's just me.

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Well, when there is a crisis that will have impact on a whole lot of people, a common effort is not exactly socialist.

No, it certainly isn't.  However, there's a difference between a common effort and a state-mandated effort.  If something really is a common effort, the state's involvement is superfluous, isn't it?

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
But the bailouts are not really socialism, more like grand (on a scale undreamed of before) theft.

How are they not socialism?  We're talking about a nationalization of practically an entire industry, done to protect the "working class" and grant the state more control over the means of production.  Look at how every politician in Congress has been drafting plans for how he or she wants to operate the auto industry after they take it over.  That's what makes it socialism.  The only thing more blatant would have been an armed takeover.

They lack the key component of being able to control the buying of cars, which is impossible to control.  It's doomed to failure, if that's what it is.

Quote from: tekla on December 16, 2008, 06:13:06 PM
They lack the key component of being able to control the buying of cars, which is impossible to control.  It's doomed to failure, if that's what it is.

True dat.

I'm glad to see that nobody who has responded yet is an authoritarian, but I'm wondering about how left libertarians outnumber right libertarians by 9 to 1 or so.  I think it's because free-market economics are frequently tethered to a social conservatism that is completely intolerable to the members of this community.  There is no reason, however, why this must be so.  They are separate ideas, and should be evaluated separately.

Anyway, I'm really glad that our community seems to be so strongly libertarian.  I frequently feel like so many people are focused on a left-right tug of war that they don't take time to think about the dangers of authoritarianism, which is not a left or right phenomenon.

Quote from: IHPUN on December 22, 2008, 03:31:41 AM
I'm glad to see that nobody who has responded yet is an authoritarian, but I'm wondering about how left libertarians outnumber right libertarians by 9 to 1 or so.  I think it's because free-market economics are frequently tethered to a social conservatism that is completely intolerable to the members of this community.  There is no reason, however, why this must be so.  They are separate ideas, and should be evaluated separately.

I think it's not really about the associations with social conservatism (at least not with intelligent folk) but about how left & right "libertarians" can't agree on how their their respective philosophies have worked out in real life.  Both sides want roughly the same thing, but differ on how to get there.

For example, I oppose minimum wage laws because I think their net effect is detrimental, both in theory and in historical practice - it looks to me like proponents of a minimum wage aren't getting what they say they want, a guaranteed minimum standard of living for everyone.

Of course, supporters of the minimum wage think just the opposite about my belief - and unfortunately we can both point to our favorite studies & theories to show how misguided the other side is :P

EDIT:  The overarching distinction seems like a disagreement on the safest places to locate the power centers in a society.  The left usually favors locating that power in the state, on the grounds that it's mission is to be responsible for society's welfare, and to act in the best interests of the citizenry.  The right (the libertarian right) favors extreme decentralization of power structures, with lots of responsibility moved into the private sector.  They think it would actually reduce the number of monolithic corporate power structures from what we have now.

The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 10:01:00 AM
The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

The Libertarian Right is much more anarchistic than authoritarian really. Think ferocious Randian individualism as more of a source.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 10:01:00 AM
The reason is simply. Really there are not such a thing as Libertarian Right.
There could be libertarian left, center-left and center.  But Libertarian Right is a joke and many ''libertarian''-right wingers can be exposed to pro-Authotarian thinkers. So freedon is in left and center not in right.

So my opposition the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the militarization of the police force, the suppression of free speech, state support of religion, violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the denial of habeas corpus, giveaways of money & privilege to corporations, eminent domain, the War on Drugs, NSA surveillance, CIA machinations, institutionalized discrimination, torture, imperialism, militarism, nationalism, etc. - I oppose all these and I'm somehow an authoritarian?

That's just insulting.

Quote from: soldierjane on December 23, 2008, 10:06:44 AM
The Libertarian Right is much more anarchistic than authoritarian really. Think ferocious Randian individualism as more of a source.

Yeah... although lots of us think Rand was a cruel bitch in her personal life and her total philosophy of Objectivism was a bit... problematic, to say the least.  Her "solution" to Hume's is-ought problem is the finest example of question-begging I've ever read.  :D

Sorry. I did not mean to offend. Perhaps you should think have your views and political right wing very much common. I am not saying that you are an Authotarian. I might be saying that you are not right-winger.

Quote from: goingdown on December 23, 2008, 02:39:47 PM
Sorry. I did not mean to offend. Perhaps you should think have your views and political right wing very much common. I am not saying that you are an Authotarian. I might be saying that you are not right-winger.

I don't think of myself as a right-winger - I'm basically an Agorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism) - but since just about everyone classifies me as right wing (including the political compass test), I assumed you were talking about people like me.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.   :)

I do wonder, though... if I'm not right wing, where do people like me fit into the whole "left/right libertarian/authoritarian" thing?  Are we doomed to be political exiles?