News Where are you on the political Compass

[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 realize 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 realize 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.

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 ) 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 category, 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 pursue 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: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html 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 referring 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.