Political compass
Posted by: bonzi
Political compass - 12/06/2003 10:48
This is a kind of lighthearted offshoot of several political threads we had here recently.
Take a
test here and find out how libereal or conservative are you. Results are given on two axes, economy and personal freedoms.
I am around (-6, -6), as you could guess from my posts...
Have fun and do disclose your results!
Posted by: peter
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:00
OK, that was quite fun. I'm at about (-4,-6), near the Dalai Lama.
Peter
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:02
I'm in the same direction as you, but not quite as far. -3.8, -3.7. Hanging around right next to Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, two dudes I never would really think I had much in common with.
Neat questionnaire.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:13
Nice test, and somewhat revealing. I'm 2.38, .05 which puts me almost smack in the middle. Perhaps maybe I'm not so "ultra" after all?
edit: I also thought I'd be farther right than W. Guess I was wrong, most likely only taking into account religious issues.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:31
I really didn't like some of those questions, but I suppose it's an okay test.
I got -3.5, -5.49. Also in Dalai Lama territory.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:34
Not ultra, but the only guy I know not in the third quadrant...
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:37
Well someone has to rock the boat . . . What fun would it be if no one ever argued with you!
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:40
You mean, besides those at home who argue with me all the time?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:50
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.72
Go figure. I thought I was trying to be a little conciliatory, even.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 11:54
Phew, so that means I am not
the resident left extremist
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:03
Where's yz33d to balance out all of us free-love hippies?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:08
Yeah, but I'm living in the increasingly fascist US. You, at least, are in Europe.
Posted by: mcomb
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:21
-5.0, -3.95. I knew there was a reason I don't like George W
-Mike
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:25
We do seem to be freakishly liberal. I wonder if that has anything to do with feeling okay spending $1000 or more on a car stereo?
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:28
Wow! My girlfriend got:
-5.75
-7.59
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:33
Guess I'm the local conservative freak:
Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 2.15
Gerhard Schröder
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:35
I'd say it has more to do with being nerds (I say as a self proclaiming nerd) and, to a lesser extent, musicians, especially ones who are into mp3s. Ever observe how little conservative SF material is out there?
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:42
Science Fiction is, by it's very nature, non-conservative. SF looks to the future -- to change. High Fantasy, on the other hand, is traditionally conservative -- it looks to the past where things remain the same.
This was explained to me better than I could ever repeat by one of my English professors, the Nebula-Award-winning
John Kessel
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:52
Science Fiction is, by it's very nature, non-conservative.
I won't argue this (as I think you're mostly right), but I'll bet most of us who did any reading growing up spent a great deal of time with SF, thus probably many if the ideas it typically embodies (liberal) have been installed in us.
For myself I appreciate the challenges of SF, even while I don't always agree with many of the authors' viewpoints. I've never gotten into Fantasy much (other than Tolkien), though I honestly can't tell you why. Also the more recent SF I've picked up I haven't cared for at all; perhaps this is just the limits my non-liberal mind can handle? The older stuff is more my speed: I love Asimov and (thanks to you) have read quite a bit of Phillip K. Dick too.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 12:54
the Nebula-Award-winning John Kessel
Interesting. Perhaps he can explain why his namesake "run" is competed on measurements of "parsecs" which is a distance rather than a time figure.
Jeez, you'd think that if Lucas was paying homage to Nebula winners in his scripts that perhaps he might have been well-read enough to know distance scales from time scales.
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 13:13
+2.25, -2.36 with a whole quadrant to myself
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 13:26
Kessel's first published ... fiction appeared in 1978
so I doubt that
Lucas was paying homage to Nebula winners
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 13:52
Perhaps maybe I'm not so "ultra" after all?
You are not "ultra".
Ultras refuse to examine their own beliefs. (edit: and would have stomped away in disgust from many of the discussions that you have engaged in)
*I'm* ultra!
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 13:57
Where's yz33d to balance out all of us free-love hippies?
I'll take it later when I have more time, but I think I would be way down in the bottom right.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 14:05
Oh, and:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.82
How'd I do?
I tried to answer honestly. Honest!
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 14:39
You are not "ultra".
So I see. The reason I branded myself thus was because someone had used the term here to refer to George W. Deeming myself to be farther right than he, I assumed that I would be "ultra" too. However, what I was considering "more conservative" was in "more conservative religiously", not “more conservative economically”. If the test had focused on more religious-centric questions, I’d probably have come out farther to the right. Even at that, while I’ll dogmatically state that I think my religious beliefs are true, I’d never stomp away in disgust from any discussion. I can’t force anyone to adopt my views, no matter how much I think that they’re true.
*I'm* ultra!
Well I haven’t seen any stomping! (Though what you do in your own home . . .)
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 14:46
However, what I was considering "more conservative" was in "more conservative religiously", not “more conservative economically”. If the test had focused on more religious-centric questions, I’d probably have come out farther to the right.
Notably, at least in the US, the government ``shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' So religious questions are not relevant.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 16:16
So religious questions are not relevant.
Well yes, but a lot of my "moral code" which drives which laws I support comes from my faith, so that makes it relevant indirectly.
Edit: actually upon thinking about this some more I realize that I spoke to soon and without thinking, you are entirely correct. How I've come to my "moral code" doesn't matter for this discusion. So I've removed most of my origional post. The truth is, because the source of my political beliefs are derived from my faith, sometimes I lump the two together, thus my origional mistake of thinking that I was farther to right than I really was.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 17:04
Ah, Jim, you beat my girlfriend! You are even more of a crazy liberal than she is! That's okay, I like you people (obviously)
On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone here get as close to the center as one of my best friends (I posted this on my own message board).
He got:
-0.25, -0.15
What exactly does that make him? I certainly wouldn't call this guy a moderate, but that's where the "compass" puts him
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 19:39
I really didn't like some of those questions
Likewise. F'rinstance, the one about "the most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline". I don't agree with that -- I think the most important thing for children to learn is to accept responsibility for their actions, which is a much larger issue that just accepting discipline. But since the latter is a part of the former, I ended up saying I agree. There are a number of questions that I want to answer "depends" on, and a number of questions that I want to answer "ambivalent" on, too.
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.15
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 19:48
Even so, you thought that accepting discipline was important. That in itself at least implies the fact that you think subservience is important (to some extent). The question wasn't ``dealing with discipline'', but ``accepting discipline''.
I think that everything should be questioned. The reasoned answer may not be different from what happened, but simple acceptance implies a bent towards authoritarianism.
Of course, people tend to think too much about questions on such tests, so that one may not have ended up being valid for you. But that's why they have so many questions.
Oh, and I thought that most of the questions that I was ambivalent on were worded in such a way as to make ``disagree'' a fairly ambivalent answer.
Posted by: bootsy
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 20:16
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.54
Interesting... assuming this test is in any way accurate, I wonder what the rest of the USA would score. I've always been confused at how my personal beliefs seem to be at odds with the majority of the powers that be. Most "liberal" press seem to think that the ruling powers are completely out of touch, but I wonder...
...are we the ones who are out of touch with the rest (majority) of the world?
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 20:26
Even so, you thought that accepting discipline was important. That in itself at least implies the fact that you think subservience is important (to some extent). The question wasn't ``dealing with discipline'', but ``accepting discipline''.
I think that everything should be questioned. The reasoned answer may not be different from what happened, but simple acceptance implies a bent towards authoritarianism.
Ah, that's an interpretation of my answer that I hadn't considered. I think the main difference is that I didn't read that question as "simple acceptance". To my mind, "accepting discipline" is part of "dealing with discipline". I completely agree discipline should be questioned, but if it turns out that the discipline is warranted, then one needs to be able to deal with, and accept it. I think there are, perhaps, too many people who question the discipline, then refuse (or are unable) to accept it, even if warranted.
I definately wasn't thinking of subservience -- I was thinking of examples such as getting caught pinching money from your friend's wallet. My concept of "discipline" also, I think, went beyond what might be considered "formal" discipline, such as when you get punched by your friend for stealing his money.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 21:18
That's not really what I meant. I meant that some of the questions implied, in my mind, no positive outcome.
For instance:
Our race has many superior qualities
The way I see the possibly answers to that question, if you say agree it means you're a racist who thinks their race is better than everyone else's. But I also think that saying disagree (or perhaps "strongly disagree") could mean that you think your race is inferior to others. It's probably just a technicality and probably one that exists only in my mind, but my real answer to that was "all races are equal", so I just chose "disagree."
So for me, there were several questions like that. I never like any quiz that only has three or four of the same answers for every single question on it.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 12/06/2003 21:25
h, Jim, you beat my girlfriend! You are even more of a crazy liberal than she is!
I confess! I voted for George McGovern!!
Funny, With respect to some of the questions that perhaps you and CanuckinLA disliked, I think I disliked them initially, but then started to think that they were rather clever. Their lack of a "no opinion" option is deliberate as, I think, are the "no good answer" questions that pose something like "the most important thing is...." Those force uncomfortable value/priority judgement.
Just for fun, I retook the test and gamed it to eliminate any "middles" .I changed everything to "strongly" in the direction of my original answers (which certainly made some of the answers look like *really* stereotypical liberal/left answers -- "I strongly agree that all children have a right to learn macarme!!" Anyhow, that exercise gave me:
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -9.18
Obviously, if "perfect" is 10, I am still getting some of the answers wrong!
The compass is an interesting exercise, and I don't have a negative reaction to it in the way I do to some of those personality tests, but I have the feeling that is something is missing -- that there's a third axis that they haven't found yet.
The Authoritarian/Libertarian axis puzzles me a bit, at least with respect to my initial, ungamed score. Sure, I consider myself a "small L" libertarian, but my score aside, I *hardly* consider myself an anarchist, and I am really a pretty strong Federalist and anti (big L) Libertarian. (I confess! I used to work for the health department! And, yes, I'd probably round up all those poxed prairie dogs and shoot 'em!), so I'm not sure I get the libertarian/authoritarian scale entirely.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 00:42
Economic Left/Right: 5.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.56
Posted by: ricin
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 01:26
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -0.72
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 01:38
That's interesting -- on that question, I chose strongly disagree. I didn't think that such an answer could imply that I might think my race to be inferior. My first thought was like yours -- races are equal (more, or less -- there are biological differences aside from skin colour, such as genetic pre-dispositions towards certain diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but they don't affect capability or intelligence). From that, I took the root idea of the question as "some races are better than others", which, to me, is a such a repugnant attitude that I didn't feel I could do anything but choose strongly disagree. I think that's how I answered a lot of the questions -- I may not have had a strong opinion to the wording of the question, but on some level I could agree or disagree with the basic philosophy underlying the question.
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 01:50
Well, I knew I was in good company here
Posted by: BryanR
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 02:17
Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.51
It seems that this board is one on which the negatives do out number the positives...
Posted by: frog51
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 05:28
-1, -2.51
Puzzles me a little - reckoned I'd be much closer to the Dalai Lama. I blame the questions. About a quarter of them had no answer I could reasonably accept so had to pick ones using various arbitrary criteria.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 06:41
Who granted several audiences to, and received a donation of more than $1 million from Shoko Asahara, leader of the Supreme Truth cult of Japan, and spreader of sarin gas in the Tokyo subway?
The Dalai Lama
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 06:50
So you take it into your mind to cast aspersions on someone simply because their political beliefs were vaguely mentioned as a reference point? You're an inappropriate fucking asshole.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:30
Way to throw gasoline onto the lit match, Bitt.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:36
I just can't stand the asshole. He twists everything to suit whatever ``ideal'' he wants to espouse without any sort of continuity. If we'd been talking about the Dalai Lama or Buddhism or even religion, that'd be one thing, but this is an out-of-the-blue non sequitur attack for no reason.
In one way, he's an excellent troll, but he lacks subtlety, grace, and nuance. That lack of elegance really pisses me off. If that was there, I could at least respect him for that.
Of course, the fact that I feel like I'm going to puke on my keyboard at any minute doesn't help.
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:41
I have to keep reminding myself: He's just a kid, and I was an asshole when I was his age, too.
Wait a minute... I'm still an asshole...
Posted by: Ezekiel
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:48
And members of drug cartels have given to the Catholic Church. You have no point.
-Zeke
Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.95
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:51
Posted by: genixia
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 08:52
Who granted several audiences to, and received a donation of more than $1 million from Shoko Asahara, leader of the Supreme Truth cult of Japan, and spreader of sarin gas in the Tokyo subway?
The Dalai Lama
Ok, if you want to go down that path;
The Dalai Lama received a $1m donation from someone who later used a nerve agent to murder 12 people, and injure up to a thousand more. There is no way that The Dalai Lama can be implicated in that act - he didn't sell the nerve agent in question, and could not have know that the cult was intending to use a nerve agent to kill people.
The US Government under the command of George Bush Sr. received God-Knows-How-Many millions of $ in 'donations' from Saddam Hussein, and gave him nerve agents in return that he then used to kill _thousands_.
From
http://www.shelbycountyliberalpress.org/iraq.htm;
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia.
Come down from that high horse before the fall kills you.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 09:07
In addition to which, Aum Shinrikyo appeared to be a (slightly odd) sect of Buddhism, before it became apparent that it was really a cult of personality.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 09:36
Don't take it so personally. I wasn't implying anything about anyone here, just the facts about the Dalai Lama. Nobody has any problem saying Bush is a lying murderous oil stealer, which is based more on uninformed speculation and suspected alterior motives/conspiracy theories. My post came
straight from the political compass website
Posted by: tfabris
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 09:45
My post came straight from the political compass website
Ah. So you were actually trying to make the same point that Bitt was trying to make... That associating yourself with someone because you share their political compass means nothing.
You just didn't make it clear enough and he thought you were being an as
shole for implying that the Dali Lama supported murdering people with poison gas.
Posted by: Daria
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 09:51
humans eat other races so we must be superior.
Oh. Not that sort of race
Posted by: Daria
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 09:53
The Dali Lama was a work of a famous artist, right? I guess that would be Dali's Llama.
I got -3.12, -2.97, incidentally.
Posted by: ashmoore
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 11:04
Hmmm
-1
-5.74
Which would explain my feelings towards Tony Blair and George W
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 11:08
Yes, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone here would gas a subway based on a political quiz. I wasn't trying to spit on the Lama either.
By the way, I agree that some of those questions are hard to answer. Such as "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity." I reckon your answer to that will either classify you as "authoritarian" (agree) or "libertarian" (disagree). I do agree with the statement, but that doesn't mean I don't desagree with some of the things the government does. For example, I don't think it's right that the BATF won't allow me to put a bayonet or a collapsible stock on my rifle, but I'm not about to go burn down the BATF headquarters. So I guess I'm at peace with the establishment and I'll try to change things I don't like through peaceful ways such as voting. Does that make me an authoritarian? The test isn't perfect.
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 17:54
What I find most amusing is that, while the whole point of the Political Compass is to prove that you really need two dimensions to explain politics, there is a very high correlation between the two axes they use. In particular, based on the 21 posted scores (granted a somewhat biased sample), there is a .83 correlation between the left/right and libertarian/authoritarian axes. In fact, a single combined factor explains over 90% of the variance in the scores.
If you look at their graph of world leaders and restrict it to politicians in democratic countries it appears that the same fact holds. In fact, the second dimension really only comes into play with such democratic luminaries as Saddam, Stalin, Mugabe, Arafat, and the pope.
I should note that I actually believe that two or more dimensions are required to explain things, but their test is clearly not well suited to describing politics in modern democracies.
--John
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Political compass - 13/06/2003 20:46
My post came straight from the political compass website
FWIW, there are some out here who recognized that as such -- you weren't the only one to have looked at other parts of the website. IMHO, someone owes you an apology...
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 15/06/2003 23:47
I should note that I actually believe that two or more dimensions are required to explain things, but their test is clearly not well suited to describing politics in modern democracies.
FWIW, I have been told that members of the Unofficial Phatbox BBS line up very neatly along a 215/135 degree axis, so, as always, the sample is they key, eh?
OK, more seriously, what kind of model do you have in your political skunkworks? How many dimensions *will* do the trick?
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 16/06/2003 01:27
FWIW, I have been told that members of the Unofficial Phatbox BBS line up very neatly along a 215/135 degree axis, so, as always, the sample is they key, eh?
Did you mean 215/35? If so, that's consistent with here--I computed the angle as 36 degrees.
OK, more seriously, what kind of model do you have in your political skunkworks? How many dimensions *will* do the trick?
I'm not really sure. I've long wanted to get my hands on raw data from one of the broad issue polls so I could do a principal components analysis and see what comes out.
I think two dimensions, one for economic and one for social issues is a good start. But I wouldn't be surprised to see some other major factors pop up.
I also read an article a while back where the authors had studied the voting record in Congress from roughly 1946-1996 and tried to determine the dimensionality there. Their conclusion was that it was mainly one-dimensional except during the 60's when a second dimension came into play on civil rights. They also noted that the explanatory power of the primary dimension (i.e. the degree of partisanship) was highest at the end of the survey period.
--John
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 07:31
It seems we don't have any 'real libertarian' (right-wing anarchist) nuts (4th quadrant) nor Stalinist-style 'communists' (2nd quadrant) here. I know people who fit those profiles...
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 07:34
'real libertarian' (right-wing anarchist)
Heh. You make libertarians sound like the Montana Militia, which I don't think is terribly accurate. Funny, though.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 08:39
Heh. You make libertarians sound like the Montana Militia,
When bonzi says "real" libertarians, I'm going to guess he means nutty folks like the national Libertarian Party (platform
here). These purists I call "Big L" Libertarians, not "small l" libertarians like me (you?). I think of myself as not being essentially anti-government, but with libertarian political tendencies toward things like privacy, war on drugs, separation of church/state, morals/victimless crimes, etc. So, "small l".
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 08:52
I know. I just thought his quick definition was funny.
I hate to use the term libertarian to refer to myself, as almost all I've seen are nutty. Plus, that usually means fiscal conservatism, too, at least with your big-L'ers, which I'm not about. But I'm certainly on the bandwagon with the social libertarians (ignoring fiscal policies altogether). Then again, I've got some issues here and there where I differ. (In particular, some libertarians go so far as to ignore the impact of being free to do what you want on other's abilities to do what they want.)
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 10:19
Actually we had a couple in the 4th quadrant: I was at (2.25,-2.36) and Ezekiel slipped in at (0.12,-3.95). Also, FerretBoy was right on the boundary at (2.38,0.05). No Stalinists, though.
--John
right-wing anarchist nut
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 10:21
right-wing anarchist nut
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 11:33
I consider myself libertarian. I'm not nutty.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 11:41
And when the revolution comes as a result of the government attempting to disarm the public, I'll be on the right side when lead starts flying. Fuck the BATF. The only way they'll get their hands on my "assault rifle" is to pry it from my cold dead hands.
The South will rise again....
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 12:08
National Libertarian Party (platform here)
Some of this is almost touchingly naive. I do agree, of course, with most of personal-liberties stuff...
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 12:11
John, right-wing anarchist nut (2.25,-2.36)
Just a hint of nuttiness...
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 12:27
In reply to:
Some of this is almost touchingly naive. I do agree, of course, with most of personal-liberties stuff...
Would you care to elaborate? I would love to hear different opinions on libertarians, socialism, etc.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 12:58
Well, I have to say I agree with a lot of the “problems” they identify. Unfortunately, saying things like “the government has too much control and is horribly inefficient” isn’t enough to make their case. Most people know this already, the problem is it’s hard to trust anyone to fix the problems by putting them in power: “Just put me in charge, then when I’m king I promise I’ll give away my powers so we can all be equal”. Right.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 16:05
Just call me the Dali Lama's kid brother. -4/-4
Cheers
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 17:00
Some of this is almost touchingly naive.
That's what comes of reading
Atlas Shrugged 58 times!!
I do agree, of course, with most of personal-liberties stuff...
Yes....too bad it is mixed up with so much other bad juju!
At least some of the state Libertarian parties (like
the one here in Washington State ) disavow elements of the national party platform. Our state party, for example, doesn't say that state universities should be abolished. This is in a state, though, where the 2 big state universities (UW and WSU) are pretty popular, so it is my conclusion that the local Libs don't necessarily disagree with the national platform -- they just know that parts of it are unelectable here.
The purists are nuts, though. Granted, national and international organizations like the CDC and WHO are far from perfect, but if you ever want some cheap entertainment, ask a pure Libertarian at a party how things like SARS and the recent monkey pox outbreak in the US would be handled in their perfectly Rand world.
OK, I'm biased. I used to work for the health department... and, to the extent that we have any democracy left in this country, I believe that public libraries and public education form its foundation.
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 19:24
That's what comes of reading Atlas Shrugged 58 times!!
would you believe I had this exact same thought?
Posted by: genixia
Re: Political compass - 17/06/2003 19:58
but if you ever want some cheap entertainment, ask a pure Libertarian at a party how things like SARS and the recent monkey pox outbreak in the US would be handled in their perfectly Rand world.
That one is easy. In a Libertarian World, all taxes really are voluntary, so no one pays any. As a result, there are no roads. So when anyone gets ill with SARS or monkeypox, they die without any adequate medical attention because it's 5 days to the nearest hospital. Not that it really matters - since no one paid the taxes, there aren't any teachers. So that also means that no one graduated high school, or got into college. Or med. school. So there aren't any doctors anyway. Since this all means that no one ever gets diagnosed with any of these new-fangled diseases, they obviously don't exist.
Problem solved.
Posted by: Roger
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 00:06
new-fangled diseases, they obviously don't exist
...and even if they did, the lack of a viable transport infrastructure means that nobody ever travels more than 5 miles from home, so the disease would never reach epidemic proportions, because everybody in the first village would die before it could spread.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 08:10
Did you mean 215/35? If so, that's consistent with here--I computed the angle as 36 degrees.
Actually I just meant 215-135 degrees on a compass (Northwest to Southeast).
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 08:14
would you believe I had this exact same thought?
Why sure! That whole "Great minds" thing.
But if you tell me that you thought *exactly* 58, I may go all cosmic on you and start playing the Unsolved Mysteries theme song on my theramin!
Posted by: JeffS
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 08:15
But if you tell me that you thought *exactly* 58
Well, ok you got me. I was thinking more along the lines of 34
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 08:51
Actually I just meant 215-135 degrees on a compass (Northwest to Southeast).
I'm still confused. 215 is roughly southwest. 315-135?
--John
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 09:03
I'm still confused. 215 is roughly southwest. 315-135?
D'OH!
Mindless typo times two! Yeah, 315. Sorry!!
Posted by: rompel
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 09:14
In that case, I really ought to check out the Phatbox BBS. Could be entertaining
--John
Posted by: bonzi
Re: Political compass - 18/06/2003 13:17
Well, it is really naive to think that private ownership of everything automatically solves all problems. For example, they realize that some kind of solidarily financed social security, health care, wellfare, education, environmet protection
are necessary, and propose to 'encourage' people to finance them by tax deductions. But, what is that to be deduced from if they want to abolish almost all taxes?
These guys don't think that the statement that private ownership is efficient and rational, while public, cooperative or state ownership or control is automatically wasteful needs any proof. Yet, take the example of French (state-controlled) and British (private) railroads. Or government financed, universaly available health care in Costa Rica which costs ten times less par capita than in US and brings several years longer life expectancy. Or incredible waste going on in various private owned Enrons...
They are also not quite sure what they actually mean by 'private'. For example, in one place they say that private ownership of natural resources and wildlife is the solution to ecological problems, and yet complain that EPA, Forest Service etc cave in under pressure of 'corporate intersets' and allow unsustainable logging etc. Make up your mind, guys!
Also, their belief that US military presence around the world has the purpose of defending somebody other than American interests (whatever 'American' might mean in this context), and that bulk of 'foreign aid' ends up anywhere else than back in US economy is also incredibly detached from reality.
These guys should read some Dickens.
I think that Jim's, Genixia's and Roger's description of LP replacement of CDC and WHO is quite illuminating
