# Danger, Will Robinson!



## ataraxia (Oct 26, 2005)

Now that I have your attention, I'll tell you that the danger is because this post contains *politics*.

When I posted my long essay which talked about Discordia, I was very surprised at the amount and nature of the response I got. I had always thought of this community as a rather conservative one, but that thread did not support the theory. At this point I really don't know what to expect for this crowd.

So, what I thought I'd do, is ask you to take the test over at Political Compass and report back with your scores. This isn't very long (it takes at most 10 minutes or so). Some of the questions _are_ deliberately loaded - the intention of that is to see if you answer the same way to an "impartial" question as to an "emotional" one.

Hopefully this isn't _too_ off-topic. And in penance, I'll go first:

I'm in the wacko quadrant, bottom right, where none of the example world leaders are. I'm either a genius, horribly mislead, or just an idiot.

Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15


----------



## Sandie S-R (Oct 26, 2005)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15 

I'm in the lower left quadrant, exactly between the Dali Lama and Nelson Mandella. Sounds like me.

I'm very social and politically liberal in my thinking, and want the Goverment out of my business. Guess that about says it all.


----------



## Jeannie (Oct 26, 2005)

That was kind of fun. Thanks for sharing it. I like the OT stuff!

I'm bottom left.

Your political compass...

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28


----------



## seavixen (Oct 26, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67


----------



## Tad (Oct 26, 2005)

...of course even a two variable test will come up with some odd positionings, but here is what it said about me:

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69


----------



## Jack Skellington (Oct 26, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59


----------



## wistful (Oct 26, 2005)

I've taken a couple of different versions of this sort of test and i always try to take new ones when they pop up..thanks for posting this!!


Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31


----------



## Totmacher (Oct 26, 2005)

Gee, I guess this makes me the rightist of the group..
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97


----------



## ataraxia (Oct 26, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> Gee, I guess this makes me the rightist of the group..
> Economic Left/Right: -1.75
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97


No, that's me. Notice that mine had a _positive_ 1.50 in economics.

Note that "right" on this test particularly means "keep gov't away from money".


----------



## AnnMarie (Oct 26, 2005)

Just a word of caution to keep this on quiz results and not start a political issues discussion, as those are not allowed. 

Carry on!


----------



## Tina (Oct 26, 2005)

Politics are not allowed on the main board? I don't remember reading that; is it in some new rules post or something? I do remember that on the old board, people were told to take it to the main board, thought that really never happened.


----------



## Ash (Oct 26, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74 

Just a little bit farther to the libertarian end than Gandhi. Hmm..I believe it.


----------



## AnnMarie (Oct 26, 2005)

And now my results!

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92 

I'm almost smack dab in the middle of the Left/Libertarian quadrant, if that helps.


----------



## AnnMarie (Oct 26, 2005)

Tina said:


> Politics are not allowed on the main board? I don't remember reading that; is it in some new rules post or something? I do remember that on the old board, people were told to take it to the main board, thought that really never happened.



Ah, that may be my mistake... I know Conrad was completely fed up with politics on the site, but perhaps he doesn't care on the main board. I'll double check. 

I don't think this thread would be an issue anyway, I was just trying to stay ahead of it.. LOL


----------



## Tina (Oct 26, 2005)

Thanks, AnnMarie.  I think it would be a drag to have them barred from discussion here at all, though I've always been able to completely understand barring them from the WB.

It's been a while since I've taken this. I find that the last five years seem to have made me even more of a lefty.  Mine:

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56


----------



## Durin (Oct 26, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

I guess I am the capitalist pig among you. There's always one in every crowd.


----------



## Seth Warren (Oct 26, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15


----------



## Zoe (Oct 27, 2005)

My results:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 27, 2005)

My results: 

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 27, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05 


Just skirting along the edge of being a right wing nut job.


----------



## ConnieLynn (Oct 27, 2005)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51


----------



## Jay West Coast (Oct 27, 2005)

That seems about right...Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Jay West Coast, and the Dalai Lama...I'm sure we're grouped together all the time! Hahaha....

Actually, looks like I'm a bit of a moderate for the Dimensions lot....


Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13


----------



## TallFatSue (Oct 27, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> Ah, that may be my mistake... I know Conrad was completely fed up with politics on the site, but perhaps he doesn't care on the main board. I'll double check.
> 
> I don't think this thread would be an issue anyway, I was just trying to stay ahead of it.. LOL


Speaking only for myself as a moderate, I tend to keep my political views to myself. Political discussions often get out of hand, polarize people and take the fun out of conversations. That's the main reason I wandered away from Dimensions many moons ago. Besides, our resident conservative and liberal theorists bring more than enough political discussions to my workplace. As an office manager, I need to minimize it in order to keep everyone working as a team. I'm here mostly to chew the fat about fat-related issues. We can talk about other stuff too, but I sure hope it doesn't veer too far afield.


----------



## Tina (Oct 27, 2005)

Personally, I think that on a general board we should be able to talk about anything. With this board format, it's easy to step away from political disucssions, and one should do so if it's upsetting. But as adults, I feel we should be able to discuss what we like, and be able to have our opinions, political or otherwise, as long as we're not tearing each other a new one. Politicians? I think they're fair game, but each other, that, to me, is a different story.

I'm in favor of letting adults be adults, particularly given the ability on this board to steer clear of discussions we don't want to see.


----------



## Tina (Oct 27, 2005)

I do have to add that I post on a board that has a very supportive, tranquil feel. We have never once had dischord in all the time we've posted together. We also don't discuss politics. I'm not sure that that is the reason, because it was supportive and friendly from the get-go, but I can also understand if Conrad doesn't want to do it.


----------



## moonvine (Oct 27, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49 

Just me and Ghandi and the Dalai Lama over here!


----------



## BBW Betty (Oct 27, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.36 


Well, I used to tell people I was socially liberal and morally conservative. I guess this kind of fits, although it bothers me to be in the same quadrant as Stalin, however marginally. There is also Pope Benedict XVI, which I don't think is a bad thing. Thank goodness for a variety of influences in our lives, huh? I love living in a country where you can be an individual.


----------



## loves2laugh (Oct 27, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.21 

ok so what does this mean?


----------



## Les Toil (Oct 27, 2005)

My my my my my! How scandelous! I'm sharing my portion of the political chart with three commy anarchists! Shameful of me!


----------



## Tina (Oct 28, 2005)

Heh. I'm right about where Jesus Christ is. Well, he's a *bit* more liberal than I.


----------



## BBW Betty (Oct 28, 2005)

loves2laugh said:


> Economic Left/Right: -5.50
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.21
> 
> ok so what does this mean?




It means, if you look at where you are on the grid, that you (and I--check out my stats, just a post before yours):

economically would like to see everyone succeed and be able to support themselves, but not without putting in some effort on their own 

and

are balanced on the line between the guarantee of personal freedoms and obeying authority.


----------



## loves2laugh (Oct 28, 2005)

thanks betty that helps a lot!


----------



## Zandoz (Oct 28, 2005)

For what ever it's worth (any scale of measurment is skewed by the definer of the scale), mine is:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Oct 29, 2005)

I scored -4.00 and -6.31. Right about where the Dalai Lama is. He's one of the few people I really admire, but I'm pretty sure he's much more of a pacifist than I am.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Oct 29, 2005)

Sorry - that was Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian Authoritarian: -6.31


----------



## fatlane (Oct 29, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: 7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

I'm having drinks with Milton Friedman tomorrow...

Free markets, free minds, free people. Get the government out of everything and we'll all do a damn sight better. Most of what's wrong in the world is the wealthy leveraging their government connections...

(mutters on like a typical senior member who's irritated and sleepy...)


----------



## ataraxia (Oct 29, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Economic Left/Right: 7.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
> 
> I'm having drinks with Milton Friedman tomorrow...
> ...


Wow, you're really off in "right" field, eh?  

Where have you been lately, anyway?


----------



## fatlane (Oct 29, 2005)

Working hard... doing an ad campaign...


----------



## Seth Warren (Oct 30, 2005)

ataraxia said:


> Wow, you're really off in "right" field, eh?
> 
> Where have you been lately, anyway?



As far to the right as I am to the left...

...and with both headed in opposite directions, somewhere they end up meeting on the coordinate plane.


----------



## Egbert Souse (Oct 30, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> Ah, that may be my mistake... I know Conrad was completely fed up with politics on the site, but perhaps he doesn't care on the main board. I'll double check.
> 
> I don't think this thread would be an issue anyway, I was just trying to stay ahead of it.. LOL



Get back to us on this, wouldja?


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 30, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.63
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.79

One of these libertarian liberal types. Say yes to less government in certain areas. :nods: A nice central sort of outlook. :nods again:


----------



## fatlane (Oct 30, 2005)

Meanwhile, I'm planning to celebrate Thomas Paine's birthday instead of Washington's or Lincoln's...


----------



## MissToodles (Oct 30, 2005)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Weeee, that was fun!


----------



## fatlane (Oct 30, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> Your political compass
> 
> Economic Left/Right: -8.50
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23
> ...



Remind me not to invite you to a discussion about dismantling welfare programs...


----------



## MissToodles (Oct 30, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Remind me not to invite you to a discussion about dismantling welfare programs...



I don't even consider myself socialist but the questiosn were very either/or.


----------



## Jes (Oct 30, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Economic Left/Right: 7.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
> 
> I'm having drinks with Milton Friedman tomorrow...




Hmm. Certainly conceptually interesting to see if he picks up the check.


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 30, 2005)

To be honest I think such broad and generalised terms such as "right", "left", "center" et all are misleading by todays political standards, for in many cases, ones views cannot be soley classified by this general terms, and often personal response to policy is not typified by the singular term of "right", "left".


----------



## Obesus (Oct 30, 2005)

Right next to Mahatma Gandhi??? He was a grouchy and cantankerous old guy....even when he was young! LOL Ooooooooohhhhhhhh...you mean that I am also a grouchy, cantankerous, crochety and curmudgeonly person, as well as being left-libertarian (which is exactly what I am: the test seems very accurate)....say it ain't so!!!


----------



## BBW Betty (Oct 30, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> To be honest I think such broad and generalised terms such as "right", "left", "center" et all are misleading by todays political standards, for in many cases, ones views cannot be soley classified by this general terms, and often personal response to policy is not typified by the singular term of "right", "left".



Way too true. And even if any of us agreed with the theory / ideals behind some of those questions, the problems usually arise in the implementation of said ideals. "Power corrupts... and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't recall who said that, but it applies not only to the government, but also to the workplace and / or the family.

I also think that many of the notable people shown on that compass were not necessarily in the correct area. But that is MY subjectivity, based on my studying of these people under different conditions. You know, each of them was dealing with a unique set of circumstances. Put them in any of our places, and I bet their answers (which, by the way, they didn't actually give) would be different. 

Don't get me wrong. I love stuff like this to get discussions going. And it's fun to compare answers. Maybe we can all learn something from each other, too. (Can you tell my degree is in Social Studies education?)


----------



## fatlane (Oct 30, 2005)

I prefer placing people on the "authoritarian" or "libertarian" continuum. Most of the US' leaders are "authoritarian" in that they seek a government solution to a personal problem, and I hold that contrary to the ideals of liberty expressed by my favorite 18th Century thinkers...

For example, I don't believe in gun control at all. I don't own a gun, but I'll fight to keep your right to own personal arms as best I can. I understand I won't fight so well without the gun, but, well, the feeling's there. My objection to gun control stems from research I did a while back on murder rates, suicide rates, and levels of access to firearms. Gun control doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What European nations lack in murder rates, they make up in suicide rates. Then there are places like South Africa where the non-firearm murder rate is WAY more than the US' firearm fatality rate.

Not that this is a gun control discussion, but that this is a private and personal rights discussion. I believe the state should not have so much power so as to compel me in any way other than making sure I respect the lives, liberties, and proerty ownership rights of others and that mine, as well, are respected.

Ooooh, that was such a rant. I'll shut up for a few hours, now. Maybe.


----------



## ataraxia (Oct 30, 2005)

fatlane said:


> I prefer placing people on the "authoritarian" or "libertarian" continuum. Most of the US' leaders are "authoritarian" in that they seek a government solution to a personal problem, and I hold that contrary to the ideals of liberty expressed by my favorite 18th Century thinkers...
> 
> I believe the state should not have so much power so as to compel me in any way other than making sure I respect the lives, liberties, and proerty ownership rights of others and that mine, as well, are respected.


I agree. I'm much more interested in this portion of the spectrum. I don't have strong feelings on the right/left scale but somebody who's more than a teeny bit authoritarian sets off a red flag for me.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Oct 31, 2005)

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62 

That makes me slightly more libertarian and slightly more liberal than Ghandi. Which explains why I don't get along with some of my more conservative co-workers in Colorado Springs.......


----------



## BBW Betty (Oct 31, 2005)

fatlane said:


> I believe the state should not have so much power so as to compel me in any way other than making sure I respect the lives, liberties, and proerty ownership rights of others and that mine, as well, are respected.
> 
> Ooooh, that was such a rant. I'll shut up for a few hours, now. Maybe.



But an important rant. I used to work in a residential treatment center with kids who'd been in legal trouble, most recently sex offenders. They all knew their rights, but some could not figure out that meant OTHERS have those same rights--to be protected from predators like them. 

This is where government with some authority to enforce laws becomes necessary. I think it would be fantastic if people could and would respect others' lives and rights without it, but I just don't see the internal control. Therefore, there must be some external control.


----------



## Rosie (Oct 31, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

I'm not sure I completely understand what it means, tho.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Oct 31, 2005)

Fatlane said,

"For example, I don't believe in gun control at all. I don't own a gun, but I'll fight to keep your right to own personal arms as best I can. I understand I won't fight so well without the gun, but, well, the feeling's there. My objection to gun control stems from research I did a while back on murder rates, suicide rates, and levels of access to firearms. Gun control doesn't make a whole lot of difference. What European nations lack in murder rates, they make up in suicide rates. Then there are places like South Africa where the non-firearm murder rate is WAY more than the US' firearm fatality rate."

My response:
My own scores put me right about where the Dalai Lama was, but I agree with you completely on this issue. A recent exhaustive study by John Lott, Jr., a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, revealed that crime consistently dropped in states that enacted "will issue" concealed carry permit laws. (Those are laws requiring state agencies to issue concealed weapons carry permits to most adult citizens without criminal records, upon proper application.) This makes sense, when you think about it: as a criminal, would you rather work in a state that prohibits concealed weapons or a state where you're not sure whether or not you'll be shot by the citizen you're attempting to rob/rape/murder? 

People have no right to harm others except in self-defense, but they have every right to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves and other innocent parties. No one who thinks about it can believe the government has the capacity or the will to protect him/her from a random attack. Either you fight back, or you submit and take your chances. Personally, I'd rather fight back, and using a weapon greatly improves your chances (conventional "wisdom" to the contrary).

And now I will step off the soap-box and put on my flame-proof suit.


----------



## Elfcat (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm pretty hunkered down in the left-anarchist corner, not too surprising.


----------



## AnnMarie (Oct 31, 2005)

Egbert Souse said:


> Get back to us on this, wouldja?



With the new setup, Conrad feels things are going smoothly, and topics will be allowed to flow and we'll just see how it goes.


----------



## Egbert Souse (Oct 31, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> With the new setup, Conrad feels things are going smoothly, and topics will be allowed to flow and we'll just see how it goes.



Great to hear. Thanks!
(still not sure whether i wanta take the test, though)


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm all for a much personal freedom and liberty as the next liberal lad, but to much liberty and freedom leads to anarachy. Same with economics, in that I disagree with the "righist" proponents within the free market system, but that certain things like Health, public transport, communications infrastructre and the railways and other key public interests should be maintained by the State (either the state as in the national government or the state as in the federal sense of the word).


----------



## MissToodles (Oct 31, 2005)

What, no primitivists discussions?


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 31, 2005)

As in


> Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. Primitivists argue that the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. They advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of technology. There are however numerous other non-anarchist forms of primitivism, and not all primitivists point to the same phenomenon as the source of modern, civilized problems. Some, like Theodore Kaczynski, see only the Industrial Revolution as the problem, others point to various developments in history such as monotheism, writing, patriarchy, the use of metal tools, etc.
> 
> Many traditional anarchists reject such critique of civilization while some endorse it but do not consider themselves primitivists (eg. Wolfi Landstreicher). Anarcho-primitivists are often distinguished by their focus on the praxis of achieving a feral state through "rewilding". They may also promote a return to full naturism, as in clothing optional.


 - Wiki.


----------



## fatlane (Oct 31, 2005)

Rosie said:


> Economic Left/Right: -1.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87
> 
> I'm not sure I completely understand what it means, tho.




Maybe you skipped some questions, or never answered on the extremes for anything. In which case, and I'm resorting to name-calling here, you're a CENTRIST.

Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that...


----------



## Tragdor (Nov 1, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Economic Left/Right: 7.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
> 
> I'm having drinks with Milton Friedman tomorrow...
> ...




pfft Milton Friedman *turns into a cranky Ludwig von Mises* "your all a bunch of socialiats". 

The Tragdor is also of the American Libertarian viewpoint. He sees the current economic system as one of government created and subsizied cartels. The Tragdor has also decided that he will refer to himself in 3rd person from now on.


----------



## DDP (Nov 1, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

Govern'ment stay outta my hair! Freedom requires personal responsibility, which the both are slowly fading away. 

Now if only the Libertarians had a "BBW Women of Liberty" Calendar things might be cool to be one (they have a "Women of Liberty " calendar with models)... well maybe.
Nice thread!
DDP


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 1, 2005)

Centerist? Sounds awfully dangerous.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 1, 2005)

AnnMarie said:


> With the new setup, Conrad feels things are going smoothly, and topics will be allowed to flow and we'll just see how it goes.



Just curious, but if enough of us want one, would conard open a separate board for those who want to talk politics, or is there a concern that it will just spill over to the other boards?


----------



## TallFatSue (Nov 1, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Just curious, but if enough of us want one, would conard open a separate board for those who want to talk politics, or is there a concern that it will just spill over to the other boards?


A separate board might be a good idea if it comes to that. As a moderate, I really have no interest in talking politics. I'm strong-willed and opinionated about life in general, but I keep my political opinions to myself. Unfortunately people at each end of the political spectrum think I belong to "the other side", so I am neither fish nor fowl. My concern is that when political discussions get going, generally the left and the right fire salvos at each other, and we moderates get caught in the crossfire, so I run for cover.

One of the travel boards I frequent is getting heated up over the latest political scandals, which takes a lot of fun out of the nominal topics (like planning our winter vacation). I try to skip over those political topics, but many posters insert their political zingers within the bodies of their regular posts, which gets tiresome. Let's hope that won't spill over here.

Sue


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 1, 2005)

A question to the libertarians: Do you really think unfettered capitalism is the answer? Isn't libertarianism anarchy only with capitalism thrown in? I never met a libertarian in my life, so that's why I'm asking these questions.

A separate political board may be good.


----------



## mango (Nov 1, 2005)

*Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59


This puts me in the "libertarian right" even though over here in Australia, we don't really use the term 'libertarian' much at all. I always considered myself 'centre-right' and remember trying this exact test afew years ago for pretty much the same result.

I'm not sure who Milton Friedman is (??) but he's the only 'celebrity' placed in the quadrant I'm in, even though his position is much further to the right.

Looking though others results, it appears the majority here are in the "libertarian left" quadrant (two negative results) which was also the most popular quadrant at the last forum I saw the political compass at afew years ago.

 *


----------



## moonvine (Nov 1, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Just curious, but if enough of us want one, would conard open a separate board for those who want to talk politics, or is there a concern that it will just spill over to the other boards?



I personally would not like to see such a board here. I've never seen such discussions add anything positive, and a lot of the time they become quite heated and nasty. Just my opinion


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 1, 2005)

moonvine said:


> I personally would not like to see such a board here. I've never seen such discussions add anything positive, and a lot of the time they become quite heated and nasty. Just my opinion



I'd have to agree. It might be intriguing short-term, but I doubt if many people could stay civil over the long term. I've met few people who can agree to disagree when an issue is close to their heart.


----------



## Jane (Nov 1, 2005)

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28 

Need I even say more?


----------



## Rosie (Nov 1, 2005)

I don't consider that an insult at all - in fact, I do consider myself middle of the road. Conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative lol.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 1, 2005)

Jane said:


> Economic Left/Right: -7.13
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
> 
> Need I even say more?



I'd also be interested. (Hopefully, we could rule out insulting one another.)


----------



## Tragdor (Nov 1, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> A question to the libertarians: Do you really think unfettered capitalism is the answer? Isn't libertarianism anarchy only with capitalism thrown in? I never met a libertarian in my life, so that's why I'm asking these questions.
> 
> A separate political board may be good.



well anarcho-capitalism is anarchy with capitalism thrown in. Libertarians could also support a minmial state were the state provides certain 'public goods' that are possbily cheaper and more practical in certain cases. It all depends on how extreme of a libertarian you are. Some anarcho-capitalists belive that voulntary socialism can live side by side with voulntary capitalism, I am generally of this mindset. Also your first question is very broad, to find out what "the answer" is I need to also know the question.


----------



## adam (Nov 1, 2005)

Economic L/R= -2.63
Social L/A= -0.31

just about all by myself...I like it like that...don't think I saw anybody closer to the center than I...does that really mean anything?

Rosie has me beat I guess.


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 1, 2005)

Tragdor said:


> well anarcho-capitalism is anarchy with capitalism thrown in. Libertarians could also support a minmial state were the state provides certain 'public goods' that are possbily cheaper and more practical in certain cases. It all depends on how extreme of a libertarian you are. Some anarcho-capitalists belive that voulntary socialism can live side by side with voulntary capitalism, I am generally of this mindset. Also your first question is very broad, to find out what "the answer" is I need to also know the question.



Yes it was a very broad, nebulous question. I'll just have to disagree with you as I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye.


----------



## Seth Warren (Nov 1, 2005)

Rosie said:


> I don't consider that an insult at all - in fact, I do consider myself middle of the road. Conservatives call me liberal and liberals call me conservative lol.



You're like an agnostic - you get the joy of annoying both camps! It's the most fun place to be if you work it right.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 1, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> A question to the libertarians: Do you really think unfettered capitalism is the answer? Isn't libertarianism anarchy only with capitalism thrown in? I never met a libertarian in my life, so that's why I'm asking these questions.



It depends really, I think livertarianism is a jolly good thing, however having a fully free market economy is worse. In other words a balance must be kept between government regulation and interference in economic matters as well. Certain things like Health, public transport, communications infrastructre and the railways and other key public interests should be maintained by the State. It all depends how extreme you go.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 1, 2005)

True dat, Aussie Lord. 

Unfettered capitalism = The Godfather with more guns.


----------



## ataraxia (Nov 1, 2005)

I'm Libertarian now because it's underrepresented in society today. If the pendulum swings the other way someday I'll probably find myself in opposition again. I root for the underdog - in a way I'm a Centrist too, just an _active_ sort of one.

And I'm pleased and astonished that this thread is still going!


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 1, 2005)

The problem I have with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism that is seems to to appropriate radical thinking, to lure people in under the guise of anarchism. I realize that anarchisim has many branches so to speak and this may be my own interpetation. 
My problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't question capitalism but it encourages it perhaps in a gentler form. No political party is pure in motive but this is the disagreement I have with them.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 1, 2005)

The problem I have with Republicans and Democrats is that their party structures are corrupt and entirely co-opted by the American aristocracy and will lie as much as possible to cover up their welfare programs for the wealthy.

Libertarians are primarily against ending such cozy relationships.


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 1, 2005)

I've lost sympathy for the democratic party because of their centrist ways. Still, I don't think corporations will have an "a-ha" moment if corporate welfare would exist. Capitalism/globalization is expolatation of resources: our earth, people, animals, etc. I'm scared to see what happens if they were given free reign!


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 2, 2005)

Essentially if you consider yourself libertarian, you do not neccessarily believe totally in it, or believe in it to tthe strict defination of the word. Now I'm all for capitalism as much as the next guy, but it must have some limitations and be regulated to some extent, whilst essential services remain part of the state, a welfare system remain.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 2, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Now I'm all for capitalism as much as the next guy, but it must have some limitations and be regulated to some extent, whilst essential services remain part of the state, a welfare system remain.



And there we have it. Regulations of almost anything are needed to keep people honest, and hopefully incorporate some sense of justice. I refuse to label myself either Democrat or Republican, and often find myself voting "for the lesser of two evils." 

Both parties take a skewed sense of fairness and liberty. Republicans tax the average Joe to give tax breaks to the rich, and Democrats tax us to give money to many who don't want to work for it. (I do see a need for welfare programs, I just think they are abused by too many people.)

I generally believe in a hand up (which the Republicans don't like to do), but not a hand-out (which Democrats seem too willing to do).

There are a number of other issues, but I'll stop there, now that I've offended everyone on both sides....


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 2, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> And there we have it. Regulations of almost anything are needed to keep people honest, and hopefully incorporate some sense of justice. I refuse to label myself either Democrat or Republican, and often find myself voting "for the lesser of two evils."
> 
> Both parties take a skewed sense of fairness and liberty. Republicans tax the average Joe to give tax breaks to the rich, and Democrats tax us to give money to many who don't want to work for it. (I do see a need for welfare programs, I just think they are abused by too many people.)
> 
> ...



I, for one, am not offended. You and I probably differ on the degree of regulation needed (especially as to individual behavior), but in principle, I think you're right. 

I also agree with your "lesser of two evils" view of voting. I don't much like the Democrats, but the Republicans have become far worse, with their blatant corporate welfare, pandering to the rich and the religious right, and irresponsible spending beyond the country's means. I find myself leaning toward libertarianism more and more, primarily because the two-party system seems to have broken our government beyond repair.


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 2, 2005)

As I mentioned above, my dissatisfcation with the democrats. In fact, I registered to vote at my school last year and the guy was annoyed I chose the green party. The only way third parties will gain any momentum is the support of the people. 

I'm suprised how civil everyone is, it's such a relief.


----------



## Seth Warren (Nov 2, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> As I mentioned above, my dissatisfcation with the democrats. In fact, I registered to vote at my school last year and the guy was annoyed I chose the green party. The only way third parties will gain any momentum is the support of the people.



...which means that people have to push to end the two-party system. This means changing the voting process itself. In my opinion it is necessary to: 1.) standardize when and how elections are held, 2.) Eliminate the electoral college, as it is an archaic affront to true democracy and 3.) enable "Instant Run-off voting," in order that all candidates and parties have a chance to participate in the democratic process and "voting against the greater evil" becomes null.

I also believe that every single politician in the world needs to be punched in the face as a reminder that they signed up to be public servants, not self-serving partisan leeches.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 2, 2005)

That is why I think American politics as a whole is a little nutty. Its effectvly a two party system, in which there is no real alternative. You should try the Westminister System, and the Australian federal style, its even complusory to vote. *insert hollow laugh*.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 2, 2005)

(Works diligently at getting the Articles of Confederation back as the law of the land...)


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 2, 2005)

I'd like to see us try some sort of parliamentary system, perhaps similar to Great Britain's or Canada's but without involving the queen or houses of lords. (Sorry, Australian Lord. I just don't relate to "lord-hood." I won't even curtsy to the Duke of Earl.)

As Seth said, we also need to abolish the electoral college, which is a ridiculous anachronism. And I love the idea of regularly punching politicians. I'll volunteer to help with that any time.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 2, 2005)

Abolish the Senate and Presidency, while you're at it... (dark mutterings about how teensy tiny states have more representation than large states and kids all over America are made to swallow the lies that it's an equitable arrangement...)


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 2, 2005)

The benifits of the federal westminister system. You have three democratically elected branches of government (Local, State and Federal), you have a democratically elected head of state (we are talking about in general), or in the case of the royal commonwealth, a Monarch, represented in each nation by a governor general. I do not mind having a monarch as head of state (as long as they have no power), but an elected head of state with no power is just as nice. The house of Lords plays no role in Australia (thank god), and I think it should be abolished or made democratically accoutable. 

In other words, Australia is the most democratic nation on earth. 
Democracy at a local level in the councils. 
Democracy at a state level in the states (best thing ever).
Democracy at federal level, with a democratically elected House of Representitives and elected Senate. 
And its cumpulsory to vote, so it can be said that the elected government has a true mandate.


----------



## adam (Nov 3, 2005)

professional politians...no matter which party they're with...can't be trusted...it'll be time to start all over again within the next few decades when people finally get tired of this crap...it's time right now as far as I'm concerned...with U.S. government.


----------



## Tragdor (Nov 3, 2005)

fatlane said:


> (Works diligently at getting the Articles of Confederation back as the law of the land...)



tsk tsk as a libertarian you should know that the Articles give to much power to the states to regulate commerce. *branishes the holy "more libertarian then thou" stick*


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 3, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Abolish the Senate and Presidency, while you're at it... (dark mutterings about how teensy tiny states have more representation than large states and kids all over America are made to swallow the lies that it's an equitable arrangement...)



I think a parliamentary system might do that. However, the main advantage would be that the elected bodies would include representatives from minority parties, in proportion to the numbers of people who voted for them. That would go a long way toward breaking the stranglehold that the Democrats and Republicans (Dumb and Dumber, respectively) now hold over our government.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 3, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I think a parliamentary system might do that. However, the main advantage would be that the elected bodies would include representatives from minority parties, in proportion to the numbers of people who voted for them. That would go a long way toward breaking the stranglehold that the Democrats and Republicans (Dumb and Dumber, respectively) now hold over our government.



Well as long as you don't have the "first pass the post" system, we have here in Canada. In short this system is like the electoral college of the parliamentary system.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 3, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Well as long as you don't have the "first pass the post" system, we have here in Canada. In short this system is like the electoral college of the parliamentary system.



Here I have to admit my ignorance (yet again). It sounds like something to be avoided, whatever it might be. 

The best approach would be to take a hard look at all the existing democratic systems and incorporate the best aspects into our own version. Of course, nobody will ever do that.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 3, 2005)

> it's time right now as far as I'm concerned...with U.S. government.


Are you going to start a militia and live by the 'read constitution'? lol. 

No government will reform the system that put it in power, that you can be sure of.


----------



## adam (Nov 3, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Are you going to start a militia and live by the 'read constitution'? lol.
> 
> No government will reform the system that put it in power, that you can be sure of.



As a matter of fact...yes I think we need to get back to basics...as in the read constitution...which states a little thing about checks and balances and not tolerating a bunch of BS,
partaining to the declaration of independence which we as a nation have basicaly abandoned.
We seem to tolerate all the BS and do nothing about it, other than vote the next scumbag into office. Most don't bother to even do that. They, like I, know one scumbag isn't any better than another, so why bother.
We need to start over and get rid of the professional scumbag politians.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 3, 2005)

I think the federal government in a federal system should maintain control over these areas only: 1) Foreign Policy, 2) Defence, 3)Some taxes to pay for 1 and 2. Everything else should be a state affair, under the states mandate.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 3, 2005)

Tragdor said:


> tsk tsk as a libertarian you should know that the Articles give to much power to the states to regulate commerce. *branishes the holy "more libertarian then thou" stick*



First, I must dismantle the federal power apparatus. THEN I go after the several states...


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 4, 2005)

But surely, that is a paradox of removing the federal powers, these would invariably lead to the powers being enshrined in the state, and you are in one way back to square 1.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 4, 2005)

Yes, but with only two square ones left at that point, instead of three.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 5, 2005)

But intrinsically, you still have a paradox, and would end up like the United Kingdom with two levels of government. Having said, to each our own.


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 5, 2005)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79 

Neat test. Don't know about the accuracy of it. 

Interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## eljay (Nov 5, 2005)

*Your political compass*

*Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79 *


----------



## fatlane (Nov 5, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> But intrinsically, you still have a paradox, and would end up like the United Kingdom with two levels of government. Having said, to each our own.



And heaven knows the UK ain't perfect. Not even Switzerland is perfect, but I *do* like the way the Swiss spell out their rights in their latest constitution. It is FANTASTIC stuff, I tell you. I don't agree with it all, but it's all there in black and white, very specific. The US can learn from that and have another go at a constituion. Jefferson said we should get a new one with each generation to break up entrenched interests, and we're about 175 years overdue for a new one...


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 5, 2005)

That primarily because american society is rigidly divided into to spheres, like Ying and Yang, in that both spheres want to expand their influence, but are unable to change any major things because the other is to strong, hence a two party system. The Australian constitution garantees nothing, has a million holes in it, and brought about the downfall of a government.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 5, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> That primarily because american society is rigidly divided into to spheres, like Ying and Yang, in that both spheres want to expand their influence, but are unable to change any major things because the other is to strong, hence a two party system. The Australian constitution garantees nothing, has a million holes in it, and brought about the downfall of a government.



That last bit sounds pretty good to me. Maybe we should adopt the Australian model after all.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 5, 2005)

Well our system of government is essentially a pure mix of American federalism and British Westministerism.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 5, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Well our system of government is essentially a pure mix of American federalism and British Westministerism.



As a typical half-educated and impurely mixed American, I have a pretty good handle on American federalism. British Westministerism, not so much. However, if it could involve Monty Python, I'd be for it.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 6, 2005)

Well you'd be replacing one bunch of clowns with another, so six of one, half a dozen of an other.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 6, 2005)

Yes. We should only elect comedians. That's the solution to our woes. That's why I'm voting for Kinky Friedman.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 6, 2005)

I am a fervent believier in democracy, power to the people!


----------



## fatlane (Nov 6, 2005)

Time to have a post-in!


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 7, 2005)

It couldn't hurt.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 7, 2005)

Steal This Thread!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 7, 2005)

Here are my scores:

Economic Left/Right : -7.00

Social Libertarian?Authoritarian : -5.54


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 7, 2005)

The electoral college is unnecessary. Instead of creating a system of wise men who will chose the president, the institution has created a situation where the Democratic and Republican parties will take entire swaths of the country for granted and only give serious attention to voters living in certain states. These days, a disproportionate amount of attention seems to be placed on people in the midwest. 

Also, the electoral college ensures that people with minority points of view will not be represented. And the institution gives unfair advantages to culturally homogeneous states with low populations. 

The best way to ensure a fair election is for the people to directly elect the president. Get rid of the middleman!


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 7, 2005)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> The electoral college is unnecessary. Instead of creating a system of wise men who will chose the president, the institution has created a situation where the Democratic and Republican parties will take entire swaths of the country for granted and only give serious attention to voters living in certain states. These days, a disproportionate amount of attention seems to be placed on people in the midwest.
> 
> Also, the electoral college ensures that people with minority points of view will not be represented. And the institution gives unfair advantages to culturally homogeneous states with low populations.
> 
> The best way to ensure a fair election is for the people to directly elect the president. Get rid of the middleman!




How true! The electoral college had some merit when it was first implemented, but we are way beyond the limited communcation and education problems faced by the "founding fathers." The whole thing needs an overhaul.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 7, 2005)

It had ZERO merit when first implemented. It was intended to be another stopgap on preventing true power for the people and cemented further powers to the established aristocracy in America which, although bereft of titles, maintained its wealth, privilege, and class.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 7, 2005)

That is why we rejected the issue of becoming a republic in the referendum, was because not the idea of being a republic, but the system that was offered, in that parliament would choose the head of state, rather than I direct election if I recall correctly.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 7, 2005)

Tell me, does Australia have a single constitution, or does it have multiple constitutional documents?


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 8, 2005)

A single constitution which garantees nothing, not freedom of speech, not freedom to anything, except to hold elections every few years in which if you are of voting age, you have to vote. Its a shocking document to read.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 8, 2005)

(makes plans to be shocked... wipes up the odd puddle or two...)


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 8, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> A single constitution which garantees nothing, not freedom of speech, not freedom to anything, except to hold elections every few years in which if you are of voting age, you have to vote. Its a shocking document to read.



Yes, I heard that somewhere! Is it true, that they can arrest you and give you jail time, for not voting?


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 8, 2005)

If you are of voting age and a citizen (some commonwealth citizens, but are permanet residents of Australia can vote if they registered when they first came), if you do not register yourself on the electrol roll, and do not participate in any local, state or federal election you can be fined, arrested or jailed, but most of the time, its a fine. Also, if you are overseas, you are expected vote as well, alot of postal voting takes place.


----------

