Where are you on the political Compass

[Smurf]

www.politicalcompass.org
click the "take the test" link at the bottom of the page and tell us where you are on the political compass!!

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

About the same spot as the Dalai Lama :rofl:

[PerennialII]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95

I'll just wait for the peace prize to appear on my doorstep :rofl: . Right there with the Dalai Lama & Nelson Mandela.

[Polly]

Hey Smurfee, that's a great test, having always wondered about my orientation myself.

Score: Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41.

I am a cross between the reverend Dalai Lama and Ghandi.

Yes Polly, well done!! :biggrin:

One worry though, we are all so liberal our cells bearly hold together!! :rofl:

[EL]

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Hmm, didn't know I was that much to the left...in Sweden I quite often agree with the right side...

[BobG]

Economic: -2.38
Social: 1.28

There's no international leaders that fall in the lower right quadrant? :confused:

[Shahil]

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

I'm further to the left than Madiba and the Dalai Lama. That's a good thing right??

[PerennialII]

I'm further to the left than Madiba and the Dalai Lama. That's a good thing right??

Hope so ... there are quite a lot of us here below -7 and so :biggrin: . We can start having chats where we read "Das Capital".

[Smurf]

Economic: -2.38
Social: 1.28

There's no international leaders that fall in the lower right quadrant? :confused:
err, maybe my graph reading skills are getting rough but isnt that score in the top left quadrant? You're just underneath Pope John Paul II

[kat]

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Right next to Mandela....

[Smurf]

I don't believe you. :biggrin:

[kat]

I don't believe you. :biggrin:
Lol, and I would have expected you to be up and to the left..right up there with Stalin and Mugabe...and so I say...so???

[Polly]

:tongue2: Cheating bad bad :biggrin:

[kat]

:tongue2: Cheating bad bad :biggrin:
wtf, is this aimed at me?
I'm right there with Cobb and Nader a well!

[selfAdjoint]

I took this about six months ago, and it's interesting that while I now remain is the lower left quadrant as before, I have moved a little toward the center horizontally. I think that's due to reading the excellent litttle book The Market System by Charles Lindblom; it made me see more constructive things in the free market than I had before (but it is by no means a right wing screed!).

For the record, my current scores are Economic, -2.00, Social Lib/Auth -3.74. I still favor legal marijuana and abortion, though I personally have never had either :biggrin: .

[wasteofo2]

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

Right near Nelson Mandella and Gandhi.

[motai]

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Hmm, didn't know I was that much to the left...in Sweden I quite often agree with the right side...

Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

I never knew I was that much to the left... and I live in the U.S.! I guess I should take it easy on the "Strongly Agree/Disagree" responses. Im way off on the chart.

[BobG]

err, maybe my graph reading skills are getting rough but isnt that score in the top left quadrant? You're just underneath Pope John Paul II
What makes you think there's any connection between my score and my questions? Just something to wonder about - no famous right wing libertarian leaders? Doesn't that combination work?

Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Right next to Mandela....
I don't believe you.


Well, I have to admit, I'm surprised, as well. You're directly opposite George Bush. How did you ever wind up supporting him?

For that matter, how did John Kerry wind up in the top right quadrant? I'm not even sure Kerry's views were closer to mine than Bush's. I supported Kerry more on my impression of the competency level of the two than anything else. I would never consider him a right wing candidate.

[kat]

Well, I have to admit, I'm surprised, as well. You're directly opposite George Bush. How did you ever wind up supporting him? It seems anyone in the left lower quandrant is the opposite of Bush...and Kerry. at any rate, if I didn't feel that Kerry was such a huge threat to our country and the Iraqi people (greater then Bush) I probably would have voted Cobb. I didn't vote for Bush the first run around, BTW.

For that matter, how did John Kerry wind up in the top right quadrant? I'm not even sure Kerry's views were closer to mine than Bush's. I supported Kerry more on my impression of the competency level of the two than anything else. I would never consider him a right wing candidate.I think the test is deeply flawed, great fun..but deeply flawed. A lot of questions I answered "agree" when that agreement would have been conditional or given with deep reservation.

[Kerrie]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92


This was fun! :smile:

[kawikdx225]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.10

Guess I'm in the middle!

[loseyourname]

Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Am I the only person on the right side of the economic scale? Is this forum really that socialist?

[Smurf]

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The problem with politics today is political terms are being so degraded by the media that no one knows what they mean anymore, just because someone is left-wing doesn't mean they're a socialist. I am not a socialist.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

[Townsend]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

[loseyourname]

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a [B]centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


That's the one. I said no to just about every government control over the economy. Apparently not too many agree.

[Kerrie]

That's the one. I said no to just about every government control over the economy. Apparently not too many agree.

probably due to the fact that corporate profits are the main incentive for the current war in iraq.

[loseyourname]

probably due to the fact that corporate profits are the main incentive for the current war in iraq.

Note that corporations don't go to war. If you didn't give the government so much power, we likely wouldn't have as many wars.

[PerennialII]

Economic Left/Right: 6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Am I the only person on the right side of the economic scale? Is this forum really that socialist?

I would have thought this would be going seriously the other way around, biased to the right ... the fact that many Europeans get to the left in a test like this isn't that much of a surprise, but other than that an interesting result (sure this ain't too accurate or anything but nonetheless). Makes think how well does this represents the composition of the board.

[Kerrie]

Note that corporations don't go to war. If you didn't give the government so much power, we likely wouldn't have as many wars.

the corporations give those in power lots of incentives for voting in laws that help their profits.

anyway, maybe we can continue this in another thread? i can always have more to say regarding this topic.

[russ_watters]

I'm 0.50/-0.51. I'll have to look around for an older thread about this site, because I think it (me and the site) changed a little. I think last time I was a little more to the lower right.

loseyourname, I'm pretty much in the middle, but thats partly because I don't like answering "strongly agree" or "stronly disagree" because I think the questions are too vage/loaded. But yeah, the people on this site lean strongly left.

[russ_watters]

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Hmm, didn't know I was that much to the left...in Sweden I quite often agree with the right side... Lol, I think in Sweden, the right is still to the left! Sweeden's the most left-leaning country in Europe.

edit: thinking about that a little more, how do they place the axes? Is it based on the US's political leanings? The US certainly leans a little to the right of Europe. Or is it supposed to be an absolute scale?

[Gokul43201]

Eco : -2.38
Soc : -3.13

Closer to the center than most here. I could hardly 'strongly agree/disagree' with any of the questions. And I simply wanted to skip any question that said "always" or "never". Some questions are just poorly written...and I felt forced to answer differently from what I felt about the idea as a whole, because of the specific wording of the question.

[Aquamarine]

I got to the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." In this case, I think the interest of humanity and corporations are pretty much aligned. But the question assumes that they are strongly opposed, making the question and test impossible for me to answer.

[EL]

Lol, I think in Sweden, the right is still to the left!

Well, that's an overstatement.

Sweeden's the most left-leaning country in Europe.


Not sure it's the most, but certainly more left than the average.


Just to make things clear: Sweden is definitely NOT socialistic!
What makes people think we are so much to the left is that we pay pretty high taxes (especially the rich persons). Otherwise we are like most other western countries.
In particular I don't like the socialistic system in any way (how can anyone?).
I consider myself as quite liberal in that I like the free market and the individualism, although I think the government should make sure that there is a nice healthcare and education for everyone, includning the poorest, and also counteract monopolies.

Anyway I think the result is very much affected of how you interpret the questions, like Aquamarine said:

I got to the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." In this case, I think the interest of humanity and corporations are pretty much aligned. But the question assumes that they are strongly opposed, making the question and test impossible for me to answer.

On this I picked "Strongly agree", although I agree with Aquamarine.
And there are plenty more questions like this in the test...

[wasteofo2]

Note that corporations don't go to war. If you didn't give the government so much power, we likely wouldn't have as many wars.
Computers don't go to war either. If only we took power from the government and gave it to computers instead...

[plover]

The results I got were
Economic: -7.50
Social: -7.28
(or, FWIW, if I give answers based on what I think the intent of the question is rather than using the literal wording: -7.50/-8.51)

Aquamarine's point is addressed in the FAQ on the site.

Also, according to the FAQ, the axes are intended as a more or less absolute scale.

Just to make things clear: Sweden is definitely NOT socialistic!
Are you identifying the term "socialist" with Soviet Union style "socialism"?

At least in America the term is usually given a broader meaning, and Sweden is called "socialist", for, just as you say, supporting the ideal that "the government should make sure that there is a nice healthcare and education for everyone, including the poorest, and also counteract monopolies", and considers high taxes an acceptable way of supporting this ideal. This is in no way equivalent to saying that the Swedish would ever consider a centralized, authoritarian command economy. My guess is that there is probably a difference between the use of the term "socialism" between Europe and America just as there is a difference in the use of the term "liberalism".

IMHO, one of the worst problems with the idea of the right/left spectrum is that it generally assumes there is a simple scale from the idea that everything should be structured as a free market to the idea that nothing should be. There have always been varying ideas about what human activities work well under a free market structure and which do not, and also about exactly what qualities are necessary for a market structure to be considered "free", i.e. while there are obviously many policies which would never be defined as supporting a "free market" system, many current political/economic debates are better described as questions of how the "freedom" of markets is to be defined, or of what mechanisms are necessary to ensure a market runs in a fashion that produces fair and just outcomes.

[Aquamarine]

Aquamarine's point is addressed in the FAQ on the site.

It says I am supporting "strongly disagree". Well, I speak for myself and I do not strongly disagree with that globalization should serve humanity. There is in fact no answer for my view. Which shows how slanted the test is. That they answer critics arguing for helping humanity by capitalism by saying they must answer that they are willingly against helping humanity speaks volumes.

[Smurf]

I got to the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." In this case, I think the interest of humanity and corporations are pretty much aligned. But the question assumes that they are strongly opposed, making the question and test impossible for me to answer.
I don't know how to explain it any clearer than you already did; the question implys that they are strongly imposed and if you don't agree with that.. then you disagree, or in your case strongly disagree.

[plover]

That they answer critics arguing for helping humanity by capitalism by saying they must answer that they are willingly against helping humanity speaks volumes.
Given that the authors say that the statements are designed to push buttons (and warn against viewing the statements as questions), and include statements that would offend almost any sensibility, basing any opinion of the authors on a reaction to one item seems precipitous.

That said, I think some of the propositions, including the one you mention, could definitely have been stated better.

[check]

Took the test a while ago.. about the same now.
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

Wow, if I were American I should have voted for Nader! (But then again, so should most of you) :rofl:

[russ_watters]

Given that the authors say that the statements are designed to push buttons (and warn against viewing the statements as questions), and include statements that would offend almost any sensibility, basing any opinion of the authors on a reaction to one item seems precipitous.

That said, I think some of the propositions, including the one you mention, could definitely have been stated better. As another (mild) conservative, I hypothesize that this still biases the test: conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals (perhaps thats because liberals use and accept it more...?).

If someone starts an argument with 'assume, for the sake of argument, that...', I'm likely to say "no, I won't."

[loseyourname]

Computers don't go to war either. If only we took power from the government and gave it to computers instead...

I know you say that in jest, but if we had good enough computers, that might actually be a feasible option. I wouldn't do it for ethical reasons, but still.

[Burnsys]

Originally Posted by loseyourname
Note that corporations don't go to war. If you didn't give the government so much power, we likely wouldn't have as many wars.


Actually Foreing corporations in irak are paying mercenaries to protect their interest..

[loseyourname]

Actually Foreing corporations in irak are paying mercenaries to protect their interest..

Protecting your property is not the same as going to war.

You know, that little comment was supposed to be a snide jab, nothing more. But if you want to get further into it, start a new thread and ask: Would a world unencumbered by political and religious ideologies that people feel the need to kill and die for be at war? Do employees pack guns and go overseas to do battle with international competition, or do they let the market work it out, maybe with some political lobbying on the side (note: something else that would not be possible if not for big government)? Do businessmen strap bombs to their chests and blow up schoolchildren because the mission statement of their company conflicts with the mission statement of another?

I know I'm being a little simplistic here, but capitalists use innovation and better business models the same way armies use violent force. Personally, I prefer innovation and better business models.

[BobG]

As another (mild) conservative, I hypothesize that this still biases the test: conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals (perhaps thats because liberals use and accept it more...?).

What in the world would make you hypothesize that? Obviously not McCarthy or the New Evangelical Right aiming to cash in their political capital. There are a lot on either side (or all four sides, in these latest) of the political spectrum that value ideology above all else. The only way to obtain the 'utopian' condition they desire is to push on through no matter how painful the cost in the short term.

I think the test needs another dimension. How do you differentiate between someone who has centrist ideals and someone who merely accepts pragmatic solutions that wind up scattered close to the middle. In other words, an extremely conservative person could have the attitude that if there's two reasonably comparable solutions, always choose the one that moves towards the conservative position, but, above all else, solve the problem at hand.

Of course, that means the test is probably going to be very, very long.

[EL]

Are you identifying the term "socialist" with Soviet Union style "socialism"?

Well I mean a system characterised by plan economy. (Is that the right term in english? I mean the opposite to market economy). And where corporations are mainly owned by the state. So I mean quite the same as communism. According to "socialism supporters" the Soviet Union was never "true" socialistic, just a failure on the way...(along with all other attempts done).

At least in America the term is usually given a broader meaning, and Sweden is called "socialist", for, just as you say, supporting the ideal that "the government should make sure that there is a nice healthcare and education for everyone, including the poorest, and also counteract monopolies", and considers high taxes an acceptable way of supporting this ideal. This is in no way equivalent to saying that the Swedish would ever consider a centralized, authoritarian command economy. My guess is that there is probably a difference between the use of the term "socialism" between Europe and America just as there is a difference in the use of the term "liberalism".

Yes you're probably right about that. However Sweden is for the moment governed by the Social Democrats, which do not in any way support what I here call "socialism". In fact Sweden is probably the European country who has privatised most government controlled companies over the last decades.

Anyway, as soon as someone says something about the favours of high taxes
it seems like the "Russian horror" gets in to the american's brains, and they scream "Communist"! So it seems there's definitely a difference of how we define "socialism"...

[plover]

Well I mean a system characterised by plan economy. (Is that the right term in english? I mean the opposite to market economy). And where corporations are mainly owned by the state. So I mean quite the same as communism.
This is what I thought you meant. (The term in English would be "planned economy" or "command economy".)
However Sweden is for the moment governed by the Social Democrats, which do not in any way support what I here call "socialism". In fact Sweden is probably the European country who has privatised most government controlled companies over the last decades.
What are the other main parties? What are the main differences between them? Are Swedes mostly satisfied with their government?

[russ_watters]

What in the world would make you hypothesize that? We have quite a few liberals here, some very extreme, and it seems only the conservatives have a problem with the tone of the test.

[EL]

What are the other main parties? What are the main differences between them?

On a traditional left-to-right scale we have (with the results in the 2002 election):

Vansterpartiet (v): 8.3%, "The left party", former known as "The communistic left party", although the name was changed around 1990.

Socialdemokraterna (s): 39.8%, "The social democrats", works under the moto "school, healthcare, care", and is the dominating party through the whole 20th century.

Miljopartiet (mp): 4.6%, "The environmnet party", is really floting along on the scale, is left in some questions (healthcare, social responsibility) and right in others (likes small companies) but mainly fights against pollutions.

Centerpartiet (c): 6.1%, "The centre party", on the border between the left and right side although has mostly coorporated with the right, traditionally the farmers party, works for a living countryside.

Folkpartiet (fp): 13.3%, "The people's party", liberal with social responsibility for the weakest, probably the most EU-friendly party.

Kristdemokraterna (kd): 9.1%, "The Christian democrates", conservative, Christian values.

Moderaterna (m): 15.2%, "The moderates", conservative and liberal, moto: lower taxes, probably closest to american values, historically the rich peoples party.

Are Swedes mostly satisfied with their government?

Well, we have a tradition to never like our governments. Almost whatever they are doing they will be critisised, but I think that's a healthy thing. We keep them under sight...
When it comes to elections it mostly seems though that the people are quite satisified since it most often ends up with the social democrats in power, although often just in minority (as now).

[the number 42]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

But that don't mean ahm gonna shave mah damn head and wear a robe.

[Lyuokdea]

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

I'll join the few and proud in the lower right hand corner.

[the number 42]

A rare species indeed:
"...neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues"
http://politicalcompass.org/

You sound like fun. Throwing any parties any time soon?

[Lyuokdea]

I tend to derive it from the fact that you have the right to do anything that doesn't directly harm others, and then, unlike those who liberally support this in a view of rights, extend the right to the right to make and earn money as well.

[the number 42]

I tend to derive it from the fact that you have the right to do anything that doesn't directly harm others, and then, unlike those who liberally support this in a view of rights, extend the right to the right to make and earn money as well.

Yep, sounds like a good party to me. No freeloaders hogging the champagne though, right?

[Gokul43201]

conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals

As a liberal, I reject this inflammatory generalization.

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>

[russ_watters]

As a liberal, I reject this inflammatory generalization.

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>That was a factual observation, not an inflammatory generalization....

[revelator]

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>

Think I read that line in the Hitchhiker's Guide.

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

[marlon]

Economic Left/Right : 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.44

I am probably the only guy from Europe that is far up in the right corner...

Apparently i am at quasi the same spot as Ariel Sharon...

regards
marlon

[vanesch]

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

I consider myself in good company :-)

EDIT:
when I say that, it is because I'm in the same ballpark as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. But I think it is an "American" economic scale, because I'd think myself much less economically "left" than the number suggests, and thought I had more a center-like position.

[vanesch]

I don't know how to explain it any clearer than you already did; the question implys that they are strongly imposed and if you don't agree with that.. then you disagree, or in your case strongly disagree.

Well, I arrive at the opposite conclusion. There are 2 statements:
A = "<...> should serve humanity"
B = "<...> should serve corporations"

The statement to agree with is one of intention:
"A should be preferred over B"

Now, believers in the capitalist dogma think that A and B are strongly correlated statements ; nevertheless, they think one should care for corporations, not for corporations' sake, but BECAUSE of the correlation with A, which is, even in a capitalist mind, the ultimate goal. I don't see how any reasonable person can take B as the *ultimate* goal. He can be convinced that B is a means to realise A, or he can think that B is uncorrelated (or even anticorrelated) with A. But any sane mind should take A as a goal (and, according to his belief in the correlation, or not, of A and B, considering B as a means, or NOT(B) as a means).

The only exception, so that one takes B as a goal, could be, say, anti-capitalist gorilla lovers, who think that, since favoring corporations damages the interests of humanity, humanity might even disappear, so this will give more chances for gorillas to survive and be happy.

So the statement of intention "A should be preferred over B" cannot be anything else but agreed with (except if you are a gorilla lover), no ?

[MiGUi]

It is very common to see how the left reclaims good people like Gandhi for him.

Nihil novum sub sole.

[russ_watters]

Good explanation of the flaw, vanesch.

[selfAdjoint]

Well, I arrive at the opposite conclusion. There are 2 statements:
A = "<...> should serve humanity"
B = "<...> should serve corporations"

The statement to agree with is one of intention:
"A should be preferred over B"

Now, believers in the capitalist dogma think that A and B are strongly correlated statements ; nevertheless, they think one should care for corporations, not for corporations' sake, but BECAUSE of the correlation with A, which is, even in a capitalist mind, the ultimate goal. I don't see how any reasonable person can take B as the *ultimate* goal. He can be convinced that B is a means to realise A, or he can think that B is uncorrelated (or even anticorrelated) with A. But any sane mind should take A as a goal (and, according to his belief in the correlation, or not, of A and B, considering B as a means, or NOT(B) as a means).

The only exception, so that one takes B as a goal, could be, say, anti-capitalist gorilla lovers, who think that, since favoring corporations damages the interests of humanity, humanity might even disappear, so this will give more chances for gorillas to survive and be happy.

So the statement of intention "A should be preferred over B" cannot be anything else but agreed with (except if you are a gorilla lover), no ?

Patrick, my experience of corporate upper management types suggests that they try to convince themselves they believe in B for its own sake. To at least give lip service to this principle is necessary for promotion at the upper management level, because stockholders and boards of directors expect managers to serve THEM to the exclusion of the public.

But when you see those fellows very drunk, as I have once or twice, they confess that they are acting against their own "better angels" and are at some level miserable with their life choices.

[russ_watters]

Tunnel vision, SA: you do your job because its your job. No one (upper management or otherwise) does their job because of some abstract benefit to society. But we support the system that enables that company to exist because of the benefit to both ourselves and society.

[selfAdjoint]

Tunnel vision, SA: you do your job because its your job. No one (upper management or otherwise) does their job because of some abstract benefit to society. But we support the system that enables that company to exist because of the benefit to both ourselves and society.

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush.

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

[the number 42]

... a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

:confused: Somehow you make it sound like a bad thing.

[selfAdjoint]

Heh! Let me put it another way. Russ's "You do your job because it's your job" strikes me as expressing his alienation from his work, as predicted by Marx. Indeed I wonder if such people are so enthusiastic about corporations because if they saw corporations as what they really are, it would be unbearable for them. "All, all of a piece throughout, thy quest had a Beast in view; Thy wars brought nothing about, thy lovers were all untrue."

[russ_watters]

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush. Could I see a show of hands of people who don't work for or with big corporations? A show of hands of people who don't own a pair of Nikes, own any Ikea furnature, or a car built by a $10+ billion corporation? With the fervence of the objections seen here and at a WTO riot, there should be a lot more people living in tents in national parks than there are.

Whether you (general "you" - I'm actually not sure where you, specifically, work or what brand of shoe you wear :redface: ) like the system or not, you do support it with the most important support you can give: your labor and your money. As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang. Thats a crass way to characterize it, but I think we're quite explicit in saying exactly that (it was the first full sentence of my previous post). What's wrong with that?

It seems everything Americans do they do in a militant way: In other threads I've discussed militant isolationism (Monroe Doctrine: Stay the F- out of our hemisphere), militant pacifism (F-'n baby killer!): this is just militant capitalism (keep you're F'n hands off my money).

[Lyuokdea]

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

I'll put myself in that catagory, however, the wording is incorrect. I don't let everybody else hang, I allow them a choice to do whatever they want to without any interference from me. It is probable that somebody will take that opportunity to do much more with it than I was able, or willing, to do. It is also probable that someone will waste the opportunity and will not succeed in their quest, that is, to fulfill their existence. This is not my fault, there were choices made not by me, but by them, and they are the only person effected. I merely give them an opportunity to persue their ends, it is their decisions through which they may well "hang" themselves.

~Lyuokdea

edit: reason: inability to use english

[loseyourname]

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush.

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

Others have spoken for themselves; let me speak for myself. Personally, I'm a relatively giving person when I have the means to give and I don't care all that much for having money beyond what I need to survive (I spend all of my time reading, writing, eating, or watching sports - what else do I need?). I do not consider corporatism and capitalism to be the same thing - corporations are legal entities that usually exist in collusion with the government; collusion that is anti-capitalistic. I do believe that the private sector does a better and more efficient job of providing goods and services than the government does in almost every case. This is not "take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang." It's "give to churches and charities rather than government bureaucracies." It's "give freely rather than compulsorily." It's "create jobs rather than subsidize poverty." And so on and so forth. If this system results in some people being selfish, so be it. A man should have the right to spend the money he earns as he sees fit. The utilitarian benefit that is correlated with capitalization is a fitting bonus.

[selfAdjoint]

If this system results in some people being selfish, so be it. A man should have the right to spend the money he earns as he sees fit.

Sorry but I read that as Devil Take the Hindmost, only randomly ameliorated by private charity. The ethics of 1890. Doesn't add up to a just society for me.

[russ_watters]

Sorry but I read that as Devil Take the Hindmost, only randomly ameliorated by private charity. The ethics of 1890. Doesn't add up to a just society for me. Your cynicism is disappointing. I don't see government mandated charity as being evidence of real goodwill - on the contrary, those who choose to give when they don't have to are the truly generous. All we capitalists want is choice - and the responsibility (on both sides of the coin - giver and receiver) that goes with it.

I'm very glad you brought up the ethics (and economics) of 1890 - I was about to, but its better that you did. How'd that all work out? In fact the so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800s, virtually without exception, gave vast quantities of their wealth to charity late in their lives. From the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, founded in 1913: "To promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world." http://www.rockfound.org/Documents/180/1913.html The RF is currently worth over $3 bilion. That's the legacy of a capitalist "robber baron."

[selfAdjoint]

Your cynicism is disappointing. I don't see government mandated charity as being evidence of real goodwill - on the contrary, those who choose to give when they don't have to are the truly generous. All we capitalists want is choice - and the responsibility (on both sides of the coin - giver and receiver) that goes with it.

I'm very glad you brought up the ethics (and economics) of 1890 - I was about to, but its better that you did. How'd that all work out? In fact the so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800s, virtually without exception, gave vast quantities of their wealth to charity late in their lives. From the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, founded in 1913: http://www.rockfound.org/Documents/180/1913.html The RF is currently worth over $3 bilion. That's the legacy of a capitalist "robber baron."

Yep some of them did. Carnegie was another. One of the fine libraries I frequented as a teenager was a Carnegie library. But of course others did not. Where is the Diamond Jim Brady foundation? And Ford gave millions to racist and antisemitic organizarions. Meanwhile Jane Addams and Jacob Riis were documenting the miserable lives of the poor to whom none of this largesse trickled down.

In the nature of things (perpetual scarcity) only a few can be Very Rich, and somewhere around a third won't be able to make enough to live on. Personally mandated charity is statistically invisible in this picture. Right libertarianism is a way for those who have enough to bear the situation without feeling guilty. The reason that R.L. has arisen since WWII is that calvinism, which used to supply that function, has declined.

[russ_watters]

Yep some of them did. Carnegie was another. One of the fine libraries I frequented as a teenager was a Carnegie library. But of course others did not. Where is the Diamond Jim Brady foundation? And Ford gave millions to racist and antisemitic organizarions. Meanwhile Jane Addams and Jacob Riis were documenting the miserable lives of the poor to whom none of this largesse trickled down. Well, I've never heard of Diamond Jim Brady, but fair enough - not all. In the nature of things (perpetual scarcity) only a few can be Very Rich, and somewhere around a third won't be able to make enough to live on.... Right libertarianism is a way for those who have enough to bear the situation without feeling guilty. The reason that R.L. has arisen since WWII is that calvinism, which used to supply that function, has declined. Well, there's that and the fact that us right-libertarians don't believe your opening premise: wealth is not a zero-sum game, and the US has full class-mobility. There is no reason, other than personal failure, why a third of the population should be in need. And yes, I know, there are those who are truly unlucky. But those are a small fraction compared to those who simply choose to be mediocre or below.

When I was enlisted in the Navy, I lived with some of the poorest of the poor. And most of them choose to go into the Navy because they didn't figure they'd have any other way to make it. That's fine - the Navy is a great place to start from absolute zero and succeed (see: Colin Powell). But most of these kids did nothing but screw-off and waste the opportunity they had. It almost takes effort not to get promoted, and these kids did a very good job of it. These are the types of people I am against helping and opposed to being forced to help.

But besides that, there's the general fact that the strength of the US economy has improved the living conditions for all Americans. So you really can't have it both ways: you can't prevent a Jim Brady from existing without also knocking down the income of everyone including that lowest-fifth.

edit: A little reality check: HERE (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html) are the income limits of each 5th of the population. The 2003 upper limit for the bottom fifth was $17,984. HERE (http://www.dfas.mil/money/milpay/pay/paytable2005.pdf) is the military pay chart. If you're a real screw-up who has done everything but get arrested, you should be an E-4 by the end of 4 years (just treading water, you should be an E-5, and if you're a good sailor, you should be waiting on the results of the E-6 test), by which time you are 21. At $1,957 a month, not including a housing allowance, which starts at about $600 if you live in a poor area and are not married (or other special pay like sea pay), you're already well-into the second fifth. All it takes is keeping the multiple screw-ups relatively minor.

Case-in point: one of my co-workers was, iirc, 32-years-old when I left. He'd just passed his E-6 exam, having gone up and down the ranks several times to that point (he was arrested several times). By age 28 or so, he had settled-down a little. At $2,888 a month, not including his housing allowance or sea pay, he's cracked the 3rd fifth.

I utterly reject the contention that America is not "the land of opportunity."

[Gokul43201]

That was a factual observation, not an inflammatory generalization....

Factual observation ?

Unless you plan to quote from a scientific poll, pray tell me how you intend to support your claim.

[Gokul43201]

Not with this, I hope.
We have quite a few liberals here, some very extreme, and it seems only the conservatives have a problem with the tone of the test.

Among those that showed an objection to the wording of this test were at least 3 liberals : vanesh, kat and I.

Aquamarine made a strong objection, and you supported it. That's 2 conservatives (even though we don't really know that aqua's conservative).

Even if you don't call kat a liberal (though others here were surprised by her scores, she only defended them), I can't see what your assertion is based on.

[chound]

Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08
Am i leaning 2 usa or communists

[selfAdjoint]

Negative economic combined with positive authoritarian is leaning toward stalinism.

[russ_watters]

Not with this, I hope.


Among those that showed an objection to the wording of this test were at least 3 liberals : vanesh, kat and I.

Aquamarine made a strong objection, and you supported it. That's 2 conservatives (even though we don't really know that aqua's conservative).

Even if you don't call kat a liberal (though others here were surprised by her scores, she only defended them), I can't see what your assertion is based on. Aquamarine refused to take the test. I considered that as well. I didn't see an indication from the others that they considered the tone of the test to be a big enough deal to invalidate the test and make it not worth doing.Factual observation ?

Unless you plan to quote from a scientific poll, pray tell me how you intend to support your claim. Scientific poll? Please, this is a message board: my statement was a factual observation regarding statements made on this board.

[Gokul43201]

Okay, so when you said
conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals
you were only refering to the liberals in this forum ? That, I'll agree with.

The statement, as you made it, sure sounded like you were talking about conservatives and liberals in general.