Hey guys/Political Crowd Chart

[KC]

Hey guys. I'm new here but thanks to everyone who already welcomed me. I really enjoy political/philosophical debate and testing myself to make sure that there are no large wrinkles where I haven't thought my worldview through. I hope everyone here will test me, too. Since I'm new here I was curious whether anyone has made a political compass crowd chart for these forums. My experience on forums has always been that people don't like it when you put something on the wrong board, so if this isn't the appropriate place lemme know where to move it! Anyhow, if you'd like to participate, simply copy the address here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=k-code&newec=-3&newsoc=-7), add forum handle and your score, and post the new address in your reply. You can find out where to fall on this particular chart by taking the test. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)

[Carygrant]

Are you mentally challenged ? Just write what you believe and make sure you can defend your views sensibly .
But if you are responding to Americans just say , Yub id daya ding bong .
They love it .

[KC]

I'm not mentally challenged. If you aren't willing to refine your beliefs then you are not really looking for the greatest truths. Merely defending your ideology leads to close-mindedness and isn't very productive.

[Captain Obvious]

Welcome Kath, glad you're here.

I see you made some friends already.

[KC]

Thanks Cpt. And yes it seems I have, but a troll is a troll, whether it's a cranky old British guy or a pimply faced teenager in his mother's basement.

[Captain Obvious]

As long as you wear a cup and maintain a sense of humor you'll be fine, but I probably don't have to tell you that I'm guessing.

[Goldie Locks]

Thanks Cpt. And yes it seems I have, but a troll is a troll, whether it's a cranky old British guy or a pimply faced teenager in his mother's basement.

LOL...nail hit on head, In Cary's case it's both...old cranky and in his mother's basement...:rofl:

[URF8]

Hey guys. I'm new here but thanks to everyone who already welcomed me. I really enjoy political/philosophical debate and testing myself to make sure that there are no large wrinkles where I haven't thought my worldview through. I hope everyone here will test me, too. Since I'm new here I was curious whether anyone has made a political compass crowd chart for these forums. My experience on forums has always been that people don't like it when you put something on the wrong board, so if this isn't the appropriate place lemme know where to move it! Anyhow, if you'd like to participate, simply copy the address here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=k-code&newec=-3&newsoc=-7), add forum handle and your score, and post the new address in your reply. You can find out where to fall on this particular chart by taking the test. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)
If carygrant doesn't like you then you're ok in my book. WELCOME my friend. :)

[Goldie Locks]

Hey guys. I'm new here but thanks to everyone who already welcomed me. I really enjoy political/philosophical debate and testing myself to make sure that there are no large wrinkles where I haven't thought my worldview through. I hope everyone here will test me, too. Since I'm new here I was curious whether anyone has made a political compass crowd chart for these forums. My experience on forums has always been that people don't like it when you put something on the wrong board, so if this isn't the appropriate place lemme know where to move it! Anyhow, if you'd like to participate, simply copy the address here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=k-code&newec=-3&newsoc=-7), add forum handle and your score, and post the new address in your reply. You can find out where to fall on this particular chart by taking the test. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test)


Where do you fall?

[KC]

If you click the link I supplied to the crowd chart I've included my score already, which puts me at a social libertarian with slight left economic leanings. In short I'm a liberal I guess, although I have plenty of political beliefs that aren't liberal in the conventional American way.








And I don't vote Democrat.

[Goldie Locks]

If you click the link I supplied to the crowd chart I've included my score already, which puts me at a social libertarian with slight left economic leanings. In short I'm a liberal I guess, although I have plenty of political beliefs that aren't liberal in the conventional American way.








And I don't vote Democrat.

Oh, sorry missed it. Thanks!

[Goldie Locks]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

Did you see where Ubama is??? LMFAO!!!!!!!! He even lies when finding his politcal compass.

[Goldie Locks]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.12&soc=-0.67

Here's mine. Nothing I didn't know.

[Captain Obvious]

I think your real dot is off the page, that red dot is just a wake marker.

[Goldie Locks]

I think your real dot is off the page, that red dot is just a wake marker.

You could be right about that...pun intended...;)

[Goldie Locks]

Where is yours Captain???

[Captain Obvious]

Where is yours Captain???

I've taken those a couple times, it's generally in the center of the purple quadrant. Right/libertarian.

[Goldie Locks]

I did notice they have no one listed where I am on the International chart....strange.

[Goldie Locks]

I've taken those a couple times, it's generally in the center of the purple quadrant. Right/libertarian.

Really??? I find that hard to believe.

[Captain Obvious]

OK - I lied, this one has me on the left.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.25&soc=-3.59

Guess I'm a liberal whackjob.

[Goldie Locks]

OK - I lied, this one has me on the left.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.25&soc=-3.59

Guess I'm a liberal whackjob.

Yuuup that's where I figured you...although you are kind of fun. You are in with the Dalai Llama though

[Captain Obvious]

That's reassuring.

I have been tending to drift a bit politically but I consider myself still right leaning, on economic issues but even then I'm shifting. I distrust corporate America more nowadays and I'd argue that my concepts of true "free markets" are more right-leaning than this test suggests. We don't live in a free market, capitalistic society - not even close. That's the danger of these short tests, they take just a few rhetorical questions and produce a broad brushed outcome based on them.

I'm fairly socially liberal though, except for abortion and there were few abortion questions on that quiz - one I think, but lots of free sex questions at the end.

I would think that my real dot would be right in the center of l/r (considering my social liberalism) and about 3/4 of the way south toward libertarian.

[Goldie Locks]

That's reassuring.

I have been tending to drift a bit politically but I consider myself still right leaning, on economic issues but even then I'm shifting. I distrust corporate America more nowadays and I'd argue that my concepts of true "free markets" are more right-leaning than this test suggests. We don't live in a free market, capitalistic society - not even close. That's the danger of these short tests, they take just a few rhetorical questions and produce a broad brushed outcome based on them.

I'm fairly socially liberal though, except for abortion and there were few abortion questions on that quiz - one I think, but lots of free sex questions at the end.

I would think that my real dot would be right in the center of l/r (considering my social liberalism) and about 3/4 of the way south toward libertarian.

I agree with you about some of the questions.

[KC]

Ok so it won't let me edit my original post anymore. Disappointing but I added your scores:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&newname=Cpt.+Obvious&newec=-3.4&newsoc=-3.6

[KC]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

Did you see where Ubama is??? LMFAO!!!!!!!! He even lies when finding his politcal compass.

To be fair, the makers of this test argue that the political center in most western countries is to the right of their own political center. Based on this argument, the makers would probably that Obama is slightly right of center economically. I don't agree with this analysis, but it sheds light on their logic. I would argue that Obama is right of most American progressives, at least. He is certainly to my right.

[Goldie Locks]

To be fair, the makers of this test argue that the political center in most western countries is to the right of their own political center. Based on this argument, the makers would probably that Obama is slightly right of center economically. I don't agree with this analysis, but it sheds light on their logic. I would argue that Obama is right of most American progressives, at least. He is certainly to my right.


Would have to disagree, he is very far left IMHO. He was also voted the most liberal senator for his short term in the senate.

He's radical, but maybe like D'Souza says it's just anti-colonialism/mixed with communism, but I would say that is far radical left. He certainly is not where the chart says he is.

Would like to see other members participate in this, I need some more to join me in the purple zone. I feel so alone...;)

[KC]

Would have to disagree, he is very far left IMHO. He was also voted the most liberal senator for his short term in the senate.

He's radical, but maybe like D'Souza says it's just anti-colonialism/mixed with communism, but I would say that is far radical left. He certainly is not where the chart says he is.

Would like to see other members participate in this, I need some more to join me in the purple zone. I feel so alone...;)

First, I have great respect for D'souza. His writings on religion are fantastic, and that's coming from someone who has long thought himself agnostic.

My reasons for thinking Obama is on my right, at the very least, are many and wide ranging. First off, there's the Trans Pacific Partnership (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/leak-cracks-open-transpac_b_1594675.html), which may violate conservative ideas of sovereignty, but would be one of the most pro corporate treaties the US has entered. There's the essentially conservative, pro-business approach to health care reform (I would have preferred a Bismarck model (http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php)), which is to the right of most post industrial democracies. There's the appointment of several former lobbyists and corporate execs to key positions in his administration, not to mention the appointment of Monsanto Public Policy VP Michael Taylor.

He's much more authoritarian, as well. He's allowed the US to use target drones, bomb the crap out of countries we disagree with and he's increased troops for Afghanistan. None of these things strike me as liberal, except the "exit" of Iraq, which was actually promised to happen in 2011 during the Bush administration. He never did shut down Gitmo, and his record on civil liberties is bad (N-D-A-A).

I'm not trying to rustle any feathers here, but I've never understood the right's charge that this president is on the far left. TARP is the only thing this administration has accomplished that seems really liberal, and even that is essentially pro corporate. He's surely not fiscally conservative, but then, show me a president in recent times who was (Clinton allowed himself to be pushed to the right, and was smart to do so).

[Smartmouthwoman]

A little further right than I usually test... but pretty much on the money.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.88&soc=-0.31

yep, that would be me.

Welcome to the forum, kath. Hope you enjoy your stay. ;)

[KC]

I'm curious whether we'll have anyone in either of the top two quadrants. These forums strike me as right leaning, but I'm not sure whether it's the same way with social issues

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt.+Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&newname=smartmouthwoman&newec=2&newsoc=-.4

[Peter1469]

A little further right than I usually test... but pretty much on the money.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.88&soc=-0.31

yep, that would be me.

Welcome to the forum, kath. Hope you enjoy your stay. ;)

I am close to you. Just 3 boxes down.

[Peter1469]

I'm curious whether we'll have anyone in either of the top two quadrants. These forums strike me as right leaning, but I'm not sure whether it's the same way with social issues

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt.+Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&newname=smartmouthwoman&newec=2&newsoc=-.4

It isn't just social issues that will move you up on the Y axis. Any question where you agree more government is needed to solve whatever issue will push you up the Y axis.

[KC]

It isn't just social issues that will move you up on the Y axis. Any question where you agree more government is needed to solve whatever issue will push you up the Y axis.

Unless of course it's economics/whatever would require limitations on economic freedom.

[Peter1469]

Not sure what you mean. If there was a question about tariffs and you agreed with them you would move up on the Y axis. If you said you did not agree with them you would move down the Y axis.

[KC]

Doesn't the x axis deal with economic issues? for example, one who supports more regulation of businesses in order to protect the environment of consumers would fall on the left side of the chart.

[Chris]

I think the original Nolan Chart, from which the OP's link's derives, clarifies:

http://i.snag.gy/cZGg3.jpg

[Goldie Locks]

First, I have great respect for D'souza. His writings on religion are fantastic, and that's coming from someone who has long thought himself agnostic.

My reasons for thinking Obama is on my right, at the very least, are many and wide ranging. First off, there's the Trans Pacific Partnership (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/leak-cracks-open-transpac_b_1594675.html), which may violate conservative ideas of sovereignty, but would be one of the most pro corporate treaties the US has entered. There's the essentially conservative, pro-business approach to health care reform (I would have preferred a Bismarck model (http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php)), which is to the right of most post industrial democracies. There's the appointment of several former lobbyists and corporate execs to key positions in his administration, not to mention the appointment of Monsanto Public Policy VP Michael Taylor.

He's much more authoritarian, as well. He's allowed the US to use target drones, bomb the crap out of countries we disagree with and he's increased troops for Afghanistan. None of these things strike me as liberal, except the "exit" of Iraq, which was actually promised to happen in 2011 during the Bush administration. He never did shut down Gitmo, and his record on civil liberties is bad (N-D-A-A).

I'm not trying to rustle any feathers here, but I've never understood the right's charge that this president is on the far left. TARP is the only thing this administration has accomplished that seems really liberal, and even that is essentially pro corporate. He's surely not fiscally conservative, but then, show me a president in recent times who was (Clinton allowed himself to be pushed to the right, and was smart to do so).


Guess I'm in right field by myself as a Constitutional conservative I don't see anything you mentioned as being to the right. I often wonder if most of the left has actually read the Constitution...not read it through the eyes of liberal talking points but actually sat down and read it. It reads exactly as it should mean. There is no secret code. There are 18 enumerated powers that the federal government should do, we are so far away from that I don't think we'll ever get back.

You're right about the Authoritarian though, that I would agree with, he'd love to be dictator of America instead of President.

[Goldie Locks]

I still find it hard to believe anyone would vote for Ubama...someone please tell me after 4 years of this fiasco why you would vote for him again? Also, why you would not vote for Romney.

[Peter1469]

Doesn't the x axis deal with economic issues? for example, one who supports more regulation of businesses in order to protect the environment of consumers would fall on the left side of the chart.

Yes, sorry, I was getting my models mixed up.

[Smartmouthwoman]

I am close to you. Just 3 boxes down.


I could tell you were a smart guy. *wink*

Wonder if Cigar will fall off the left side? Hope his wife lets him take the test... should be interesting. ;)

[Goldie Locks]

I could tell you were a smart guy. *wink*

Wonder if Cigar will fall off the left side? Hope his wife lets him take the test... should be interesting. ;)


He prolly wouldn't understand the questions unless they were all "Vote for Ubama". ;)

[Smartmouthwoman]

He prolly wouldn't understand the questions unless they were all "Vote for Ubama". ;)

Did you post your chart? I didn't see it...

[Goldie Locks]

Did you post your chart? I didn't see it...

Yes, and nobody is with me...boo hoo

[Peter1469]

I could tell you were a smart guy. *wink*

Wonder if Cigar will fall off the left side? Hope his wife lets him take the test... should be interesting. ;)

He will be up pretty high on the Y axis.

[Smartmouthwoman]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=5.12&soc=-0.67

Here's mine. Nothing I didn't know.

Ahhh, found it. Yep, looks about right to me. We're only a few squares off. Well, OK... about half a line. LOL

Yer OK in my book, GL. Just the kinda gal I want in my corner! ;)

[Awryly]

Are you mentally challenged ? Just write what you believe and make sure you can defend your views sensibly .
But if you are responding to Americans just say , Yub id daya ding bong .
They love it .

That's Hebrew, is it?

[Chris]

That's Hebrew, is it?

It's the language Cary often speaks, Gibberish.

[Awryly]

It's the language Cary often speaks, Gibberish.

Don't you mean Yiddish?

[KC]

Guess I'm in right field by myself as a Constitutional conservative I don't see anything you mentioned as being to the right. I often wonder if most of the left has actually read the Constitution...not read it through the eyes of liberal talking points but actually sat down and read it. It reads exactly as it should mean. There is no secret code. There are 18 enumerated powers that the federal government should do, we are so far away from that I don't think we'll ever get back.

You're right about the Authoritarian though, that I would agree with, he'd love to be dictator of America instead of President.

Since the nineteenth century the left has taken on more of a populism. Certainly those things aren't conservative in the American constitutional sense, since nearly all of them ought to be handled by the states, which all of them are able to do as long as it doesn't violate their constitutions. If you think of the left as being more pro government, as an ideology that promotes government power in order to reign in on undesirable business practices, it becomes difficult to see how Obama is left. The effects of certain things Obama has done, such as the TPP, will even accomplish the conservative goal of deregulation. According to leaked documents, the TPP will establish an international court where corporations can take legal action against government regulations they don't like (similar to the Multilateral Agreement Initiative, which was proposed as part of the WTO). This comes at the cost of the conservative goal of national sovereignty, but I still don't see how it can be characterized as left.

I don't ever see us getting back either, but the least we could do for some of the tasks of the federal government is to make specific amendments. I don't want to live in a world like the one before TR, when the meat you bought with your own money wasn't safe for consumption.

[KC]

I still find it hard to believe anyone would vote for Ubama...someone please tell me after 4 years of this fiasco why you would vote for him again? Also, why you would not vote for Romney.

I think cause a lot of us see them as being too similar. I don't think Romney will be much less authoritarian, especially as Bush set a bad precedent with the Patriot act and Obama continued in his legacy with the National Defense Authorization act of 2011. Since these two presidents the office has become far more powerful. We really need a Ron Paul or a libertarian to shrink federal power.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

[Chris]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

The similarities between Obama and Romey are right there. If Bush were included he'd be right in there with them. Practically clones of one another.

[Conley]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

The similarities between Obama and Romey are right there. If Bush were included he'd be right in there with them. Practically clones of one another.

Bingo! It's so obvious.

[IMPress Polly]

I don't know how to post this directly, so I guess I'll have to link to my score.
(http://politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=Polly&newec=-10.00&newsoc=-6.31)
As you can see, I'm all the way on the left of the economic spectrum (which actually may not be totally accurate, though I do consider myself a democratic socialist) and generally pretty liberal on social issues.

As with all political tests one finds online, I would caution one to take this one with a grain of salt. There is no such thing as an unbiased political test. This one was clearly written mainly by European socialist anarchists, to judge by the presentation and by the way they rank a lot of the people. For example, other graphs they provide show Obama almost as far to the right as Romney. Likewise Hugo Chavez is considered to be well up on the authoritarian side of social issues. These are questionable analyses of the respective people's views, at best. I'd consider my result pretty accurate though. Bottom line, I wouldn't rely TOO much on their observations concerning others unless the said others actually took the test themselves.

[KC]

356

Here's what we got so far. If more people join in it will be easier to spot trends, but as of now all we can say is that among test takers social conservatism/authoritarianism isn't very strong.

Also, if you wanna add, here's the link:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&newname=Chris&newec=6.75&newsoc=-4.00 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&newname=Polly&newec=-10&newsoc=-6.3)

[Chris]

Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

Not surprising. Theoretically I'm an anarchist, anarchocapitalist, which would put me at bottom-most, right-most, but practically I'm a minarchist.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris:

Can I ask a question about that? When you differentiate between what you consider your position "theoretically" versus "practically", do you mean to imply that you support a stagist approach to getting from here to an 'anarchist capitalist' future? Or do mean to suggest something else?

[Chris]

Chris:

Can I ask a question about that? When you differentiate between what you consider your position "theoretically" versus "practically", do you mean to imply that you support a stagist approach to getting from here to an 'anarchist capitalist' future? Or do mean to suggest something else?

Good question! I've always been a minarchist--as famously stated, that government which governs least governs best. But if that is true, logically then no government must be best. That is what Rothbard discovered too, that all arguments for minimal government lead to none, theoretically. But, you have to work with what you got, and right now that's big government, so you, that is, I, feel in practice you work to minimize it (again). And the conservative side of me says change things prudently, gradually, try things and see what results, stagist I suppose. You can't fight city hall, but you can change it.

Hope that clarifies.

BTW, I think the quiz pinpointed your political philosophy quite well as what i'd call an anarchosocialist. In your arguments you tend to resist authoritarian central planning for more democratic planning. Now while I can't for the life of me see how that could possibly work, at least we have a theoretical common ground in anarchism.

(For those who think anarchism implies chaos, forget it.)

[Goldie Locks]

I think cause a lot of us see them as being too similar. I don't think Romney will be much less authoritarian, especially as Bush set a bad precedent with the Patriot act and Obama continued in his legacy with the National Defense Authorization act of 2011. Since these two presidents the office has become far more powerful. We really need a Ron Paul or a libertarian to shrink federal power.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Well Ron Paul or Gary Johnson ain't gonna get it. We have Romney who we're really not sure what he will do or we have Ubama who we know what he will do...raise taxes, increase spending, weaken the border and the military and continue to sell America down the river to the lowest bidder.

[KC]

Well Ron Paul or Gary Johnson ain't gonna get it. We have Romney who we're really not sure what he will do or we have Ubama who we know what he will do...raise taxes, increase spending, weaken the border and the military and continue to sell America down the river to the lowest bidder.

Good point. I'm pessimistic though. I don't have any hope. Whether Goldman Sachs white version or Goldman Sachs black version rules the country, I think we're screwed. I'd rather support the people I think really want to do good, even though I know they will never get to.

[Goldie Locks]

Good point. I'm pessimistic though. I don't have any hope. Whether Goldman Sachs white version or Goldman Sachs black version rules the country, I think we're screwed. I'd rather support the people I think really want to do good, even though I know they will never get to.

Just on the rule of law I would vote for Romney. Just last week once again Ubama ran around or bypassed congress once again and appropriated drought money for farmers and while that may be a good thing, this is not the way things are done under our constitution.

[Chris]

We have Romney who we're really not sure what he will do...

How do you vote for someone like that? But we do know from his record as governor, and from the plans he's put forth. Then again I hear he's going to remake himself again at convention.

[KC]

Just on the rule of law I would vote for Romney. Just last week once again Ubama ran around or bypassed congress once again and appropriated drought money for farmers and while that may be a good thing, this is not the way things are done under our constitution.

You don't need to convince me about Obama being a bad president. The thing is, Obama's primary motivator is the want of power. The same can be said for most politicians, but Obama's record shows that he isn't going to be stopped by rule of law. Helping out farmers will help him carry rural states, where he's in trouble. Romney's record shows a politician driven by the want of power as well. If he's running for governor of Massachusets, he's a progressive Republican who supports abortion and health care reform. If he's running for president, suddenly now he's against abortion and will overturn Obamacare. I think Mitt Romney would just as likely bypass the constitution if he thinks it will win him his second turn.

[Goldie Locks]

How do you vote for someone like that? But we do know from his record as governor, and from the plans he's put forth. Then again I hear he's going to remake himself again at convention.


All I can say is anyone but Ubama and a vote for anyone else if for Ubama. Sorry, that's the truth.

[Goldie Locks]

You don't need to convince me about Obama being a bad president. The thing is, Obama's primary motivator is the want of power. The same can be said for most politicians, but Obama's record shows that he isn't going to be stopped by rule of law. Helping out farmers will help him carry rural states, where he's in trouble. Romney's record shows a politician driven by the want of power as well. If he's running for governor of Massachusets, he's a progressive Republican who supports abortion and health care reform. If he's running for president, suddenly now he's against abortion and will overturn Obamacare. I think Mitt Romney would just as likely bypass the constitution if he thinks it will win him his second turn.

Look, you may not like Romney any better than Ubama, but Romney is prolly the most squeaky clean politician to run in a long time. There is little or no dirt on Romney at all unless you want to look at stupid shit that don't amount to a hill of beans or the lies that the Ubama team is putting out.. Look what we know now about Ubama that no one knew in 2008?

[Chris]

All I can say is anyone but Ubama and a vote for anyone else if for Ubama. Sorry, that's the truth.

I'll vote on principle. And, no, a vote for someone else is not a vote for Obama.

I think if Republicans were interested in winning over libertarian votes they should have modified their platform and let Ron Paul speak freely.

[KC]

All I can say is anyone but Ubama and a vote for anyone else if for Ubama. Sorry, that's the truth.

If this is so then I will be proxy voting for him through Stein or Johnson. Fine with me.

[Captain Obvious]

This is the slippery slope that is the third party. As long as there are two dominating parties, voting 3rd party will always be a conundrum until those 3rd parties gain material popularity.

Doubt Romney wins PA, but I don't find myself writing in a 3rd party candidate. I don't want BO in office that much to the extent that I don't want to waste a vote "against" him if for some reason there is lightning in a bottle, the stars align and Romney wins PA. Yeah, I know - that defeats the cause of attracting viable 3rd parties.

And I'm not voting Romney because I like the guy as a candidate. I'm with many other GOPers voting against BO.

[Goldie Locks]

I'll vote on principle. And, no, a vote for someone else is not a vote for Obama.

I think if Republicans were interested in winning over libertarian votes they should have modified their platform and let Ron Paul speak freely.


You can vote for whoever you want, but your vote will be wasted. You can stand on principle all you want, but that won't change the end result. It may make you feel good at the time, but when Ubama gets in for a second term and completely destroys America, I hope that is enough consolation for ya.

[Chris]

As long as there are two dominating parties, voting 3rd party will always be a conundrum until those 3rd parties gain material popularity.

Agree, and see this election as another opportunity to lend popularity and reduce the conundrum.

[Chris]

You can vote for whoever you want, but your vote will be wasted. You can stand on principle all you want, but that won't change the end result. It may make you feel good at the time, but when Ubama gets in for a second term and completely destroys America, I hope that is enough consolation for ya.

Sorry, but those to me aren't reasons to for for someone.

Republicans should be focused on taking the Senate.

[Goldie Locks]

Agree, and see this election as another opportunity to lend popularity and reduce the conundrum.

Ain't happenin' this election.

[Captain Obvious]

Agree, and see this election as another opportunity to lend popularity and reduce the conundrum.

If wild Bill were running for office, hypothetically speaking then yeah, I'd agree.

We cannot tolerate 4 more years of BO's disastrous economic and socially corrupting strategies.

[Goldie Locks]

Sorry, but those to me aren't reasons to for for someone.

Republicans should be focused on taking the Senate.

That too.

[Captain Obvious]

Sorry, but those to me aren't reasons to for for someone.

Republicans should be focused on taking the Senate.

Now that concept I'd agree. I've been on record stating that I'd rather have a conservative majority Congress and a whack liberal POTUS then vice versa, but what is the likelihood that conservatives gain majority in the Senate?

[Goldie Locks]

Sorry, but those to me aren't reasons to for for someone.

Republicans should be focused on taking the Senate.


The destruction of America isn't enough??? Wow!!!

[Chris]

Ain't happenin' this election.

No, not until more people do likewise, stop taking the slop the two parties feed us, and voting for the less disgusting dish. Give us more palatable candidates.

[Chris]

The destruction of America isn't enough??? Wow!!!

I believe that will happen under Romney. Not enough for you to vote otherwise?

Obama or Romney? Markets don’t care (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-or-romney-markets-dont-care-2012-08-24):
It doesn’t matter who gets elected.

Of course, whoever wins in November will shape the country’s economic future, addressing the fiscal crisis, health care and much more. Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s differing policies are worth arguing, but their impact on the direction of the stock market: not so much.

People want to believe that their political party is the one that drives the market. It’s not true.

You can play with numbers and time frames to make a case, but drop the gamesmanship and look for historical proof that the market performs better or worse depending on which party controls the White House, and you won’t find it.

What about the idea that markets do better under a divided government?...

[Goldie Locks]

I believe that will happen under Romney. Not enough for you to vote otherwise?

Obama or Romney? Markets don’t care (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-or-romney-markets-dont-care-2012-08-24):


Of course the markets don't care, it's the federal reserve that has been propping up the market anyway.

[Goldie Locks]

No, not until more people do likewise, stop taking the slop the two parties feed us, and voting for the less disgusting dish. Give us more palatable candidates.

It appears the majority of folks wanted Romney and not your candidate.

[Peter1469]

It is time to break the two party system. The two major parties are just two sides of the same coin.

[KC]

Well part of the problem is that it is difficult to have multiple viable political parties in majoritarian system like ours. If we structured our government in a completely different way (like proportional representation), there may be a chance for viable third parties, but clearly we aren't going to see a constitutional convention, and even if we did it probably isn't a good idea to let moderns re write the Constitution.

[Chris]

It appears the majority of folks wanted Romney and not your candidate.

Then he will win. Either way it's not good for America far as I'm concerned.

Right now I don't have a candidate.

[Goldie Locks]

Then he will win. Either way it's not good for America far as I'm concerned.

Right now I don't have a candidate.

What I meant was the nomination not the presidency. Every vote is needed to stop Ubama.

[Captain Obvious]

It is time to break the two party system. The two major parties are just two sides of the same coin.

My concern is, without significant campaign reform and other measures, we will ultimately have a 3 or more sided coin.

I have little doubt of it, they will all eventually be dissuaded into playing the game - because that's how you succeed in politics.

The voting populace is too collectively stupid and passive for anything other rational outcome.

[Awryly]

It is time to break the two party system. The two major parties are just two sides of the same coin.

There is an argument that it is a one-party system, controlled by a small oily(sic)garchy.

Unlike here, where we have 7 parties that successfully oppose one another and finally achieve some sort of consensus.

[Captain Obvious]

And then do what? Restructure grazing rights?

[Awryly]

And then do what? Restructure grazing rights?

Jeez. You're right.

Why do we need a democratic government at all? It's just a waste of everyone's time and effort.

[Captain Obvious]

Jeez. You're right.

Why do we need a democratic government at all? It's just a waste of everyone's time and effort.

Now you're finally starting to make sense.

Which is why you're on this forum and I'm not on one hosted in New Zealand.

[Awryly]

Now you're finally starting to make sense.

Which is why you're on this forum and I'm not on one hosted in New Zealand.

It is just so difficult to slum it locally.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Good question! I've always been a minarchist--as famously stated, that government which governs least governs best. But if that is true, logically then no government must be best. That is what Rothbard discovered too, that all arguments for minimal government lead to none, theoretically. But, you have to work with what you got, and right now that's big government, so you, that is, I, feel in practice you work to minimize it (again). And the conservative side of me says change things prudently, gradually, try things and see what results, stagist I suppose. You can't fight city hall, but you can change it.

Hope that clarifies.

BTW, I think the quiz pinpointed your political philosophy quite well as what i'd call an anarchosocialist. In your arguments you tend to resist authoritarian central planning for more democratic planning. Now while I can't for the life of me see how that could possibly work, at least we have a theoretical common ground in anarchism.

(For those who think anarchism implies chaos, forget it.)

Yep, that clarifies! (Well enough anyway.)

However, I'd disagree with the contention that I'm an anarchist. Terribly authoritarian I am not, but that's not at all the same thing as being opposed to government as such. Indeed, although I describe myself as a Marxist in the generic sense, I'm not even sure that I'm still a Marxist communist these days. The communist believes that it is possible to eventually abolish national borders, money, and the state, among other things. I'm not sure about the possibility of those things anymore, including the possibility of abolishing the state either now or in the future. Increasingly I feel that that's just a naive objective. I believe that spontaneous oppressions are just as real and problematic as state-imposed ones and I'm not sure there are ways of dealing with those outside of passing and enforcing laws.

Further, while I consider myself basically an individualist (i.e. multi-culturalist) when it comes to social questions broadly, that doesn't preclude support for a certain amount of social engineering. For example, I may be against laws that prohibit people from possessing drugs, but that's really just because I'm opposed to punishing those I see as victims of an industry. I am against the industry and believe that drug dealing should remain illegal. Same thing with lots of other 'vices' like prostitution. I don't think we should stigmatize and punish the women who find themselves in that business (I know what it's like), but I do feel that it's an exploitative business and accordingly believe that it shouldn't be legal for people to actually pimp off or buy the services of prostitutes. Going further, I'm not even against some government intervention in the area of more victimless lifestyle choices, like eating habits. For example, looking at the example of Denmark, we can see that imposing consumption taxes on unhealthy foods does, in fact, change people's eating habits along healthier lines, which in turn makes people happier with themselves. We have a serious, and increasingly serious, obesity problem in this country. I'd be all for stuff like that here.

Then again, there are certain areas on which my views are absolute. I am completely opposed to the Patriot Act and to concentration camps (like Guantanamo Bay), to torture (liberally defined) and indeed even spontaneous corporal punishment (including spanking of children), to any war that violates international law (which is any war that we start, like the Iraq War), and I am completely pro-choice and 100% supportive equal rights (up to and including marriage rights) for gay people, and also support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and, of course, the complete separation of church and state. But I don't think that's the same thing as being an anarchist.

[Chris]

Yep, that clarifies! (Well enough anyway.)

However, I'd disagree with the contention that I'm an anarchist. Terribly authoritarian I am not, but that's not at all the same thing as being opposed to government as such. Indeed, although I describe myself as a Marxist in the generic sense, I'm not even sure that I'm still a Marxist communist these days. The communist believes that it is possible to eventually abolish national borders, money, and the state, among other things. I'm not sure about the possibility of those things anymore, including the possibility of abolishing the state either now or in the future. Increasingly I feel that that's just a naive objective. I believe that spontaneous oppressions are just as real and problematic as state-imposed ones and I'm not sure there are ways of dealing with those outside of passing and enforcing laws.

Further, while I consider myself basically an individualist (i.e. multi-culturalist) when it comes to social questions broadly, that doesn't preclude support for a certain amount of social engineering. For example, I may be against laws that prohibit people from possessing drugs, but that's really just because I'm opposed to punishing those I see as victims of an industry. I am against the industry and believe that drug dealing should remain illegal. Same thing with lots of other 'vices' like prostitution. I don't think we should stigmatize and punish the women who find themselves in that business (I know what it's like), but I do feel that it's an exploitative business and accordingly believe that it shouldn't be legal for people to actually pimp off or buy the services of prostitutes. Going further, I'm not even against some government intervention in the area of more victimless lifestyle choices, like eating habits. For example, looking at the example of Denmark, we can see that imposing consumption taxes on unhealthy foods does, in fact, change people's eating habits along healthier lines, which in turn makes people happier with themselves. We have a serious, and increasingly serious, obesity problem in this country. I'd be all for stuff like that here.

Then again, there are certain areas on which my views are absolute. I am completely opposed to the Patriot Act and to concentration camps (like Guantanamo Bay), to torture (liberally defined) and indeed even spontaneous corporal punishment (including spanking of children), to any war that violates international law (which is any war that we start, like the Iraq War), and I am completely pro-choice and 100% supportive equal rights (up to and including marriage rights) for gay people, and also support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and, of course, the complete separation of church and state. But I don't think that's the same thing as being an anarchist.

Got to run so a brief response.

While Russia proclaimed global Communism it was more a nationalist movement.

Anarchy means governance without government. Doesn't mean there wouldn't be laws and such.

As an individualist, don't you believe in individual responsibility?

[KC]

@Polly: What Marx have you read? I read the famous Manifesto and wasn't IMPressed, but my several professors told me I really ought to read some of his other writing.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Got to run so a brief response.

While Russia proclaimed global Communism it was more a nationalist movement.

Yes and no. Depended on what section of the Bolshevik/Communist Party one was talking about. Lenin, for example, was a revolutionary defeatist. He very much hoped that his own country would lose World War 1 on the grounds that a disaster like that would better foment an upsurge in radical politics. Frankly, I think Lenin was a shill for Germany in general. Gorbachev wasn't all that nationalistic either. I'd characterize Gorbachev as a general internationalist at least as much as he was a patriot, if not more so. Now Stalin and Brezhnev on the other hand, yeah they were solid patriots. Not that any of this really matters to me, being that I don't really see any fundamental conflict between patriotism and internationalism. I consider that a false dichotomy. You CAN have one at the expense of the other, but that's not the way I approach politics.


Anarchy means governance without government. Doesn't mean there wouldn't be laws and such.

In the Marxist understanding of a post-state future, it is specifically the enforcement arm of the state -- police, armies, prison systems, courts -- that ultimately "withers away". Legislatures and popularly-enforced social rules would remain, but just not the institutionalized enforcement bodies. Is that the general idea of anarchy that you're attempting to suggest? OR were you instead proposing the abolition of democracy, as in the abolition of government itself? I know there are some anarchist capitalists who believe in the latter idea wherein the entire society is privatized, including the courts and prison systems, where private armies replace official ones, and where private police agencies replace public ones...and wherein legislatures and so forth are just simply done away with therefore, being deemed an "inefficient" form of "central planning", i.e. not individualist enough.


As an individualist, don't you believe in individual responsibility?

Of course not! What are you thinking?? :wink:

Seriously though, yes to an extent, but I also have moral convictions about it being wrong to tolerate things like poverty, exploitation, and general unfairness.

I consider myself both an individualist and a collectivist. I mostly just separate those two things in specific areas of life. For example, when it comes to economics, I consider myself essentially collectivist. By contrast, when it comes to cultural matters, I consider myself basically individualist. The two things help balance each other out and make for the most contented type of society, I believe. Balancing the polar aspects of life is very important to the Daoist component of my life philosophy. I believe that there needs to be both a cooperative and a competitive aspect to human nature and that, accordingly, the best policy results are achieved when those things are held in a more or less even balance. For example, I'm in favor of economic planning, but favor a kind of planning in which decision-making is highly democratic, such as to foster that competition of ideas which yields initiative and dynamism. However, that's a long-term objective. In the shorter run, I think people are going to continue to require material incentives for a long time. So I think a cooperative-based economy would be a sort of first-stage socialism that I'd aim for before getting extensively into economic planning.


kathaariancode wrote:
@Polly: What Marx have you read? I read the famous Manifesto and wasn't IMPressed, but my several professors told me I really ought to read some of his other writing.

What did I do to deserve such PUNishment? (Oldest joke in the book, I know. Sorry. Not feeling very creative with the comebacks today.)

To answer your question...all of it. :laugh: Okay, slight exaggeration, but it seems like I've just about everything of note that Marx ever wrote. Certainly all the material that's considered classic in Marxist circles several times over.

Yeah, the Communist Manifesto is definitely showing its age. But it was actually a pretty good analysis of the time in which it was written (minus the "inevitable" semi-utopian future stuff and general one-sided determinism, that is). Some of the formulations therein are still pertinent today, IMO. Although capitalism has developed in a much more complex way than Marx could have envisioned, the basic workers-versus-capitalists divide remains a relevant one within that overall framework even now, even though there is some overlap and some workers being rich...and the reality that not all value is created by directly productive human labor (much is created via exploitation of animals, use of machines, etc.) and whatnot. Likewise, I tend to agree with Marx's essential thesis on dialectics.

Are you looking for a list of most recommended works or something?

[KC]

What did I do to deserve such PUNishment? (Oldest joke in the book, I know. Sorry. Not feeling very creative with the comebacks today.)

To answer your question...all of it. :laugh: Okay, slight exaggeration, but it seems like I've just about everything of note that Marx ever wrote. Certainly all the material that's considered classic in Marxist circles several times over.

Yeah, the Communist Manifesto is definitely showing its age. But it was actually a pretty good analysis of the time in which it was written (minus the "inevitable" semi-utopian future stuff and general one-sided determinism, that is). Some of the formulations therein are still pertinent today, IMO. Although capitalism has developed in a much more complex way than Marx could have envisioned, the basic workers-versus-capitalists divide remains a relevant one within that overall framework even now, even though there is some overlap and some workers being rich...and the reality that not all value is created by directly productive human labor (much is created via exploitation of animals, use of machines, etc.) and whatnot. Likewise, I tend to agree with Marx's essential thesis on dialectics.

Are you looking for a list of most recommended works or something?

I think Marx accounted for the fact that some workers will inevitably benefit from capitalism. In the Manifesto Marx praised capitalism for ending the chains of feudalism and argued that it some would join the new bourgeois class.

If there is something he's written that really blew you away I'm definitely open to trying some more of his works.

[Chris]

In the Marxist understanding of a post-state future, it is specifically the enforcement arm of the state -- police, armies, prison systems, courts -- that ultimately "withers away".

Yes, in THEORY. In practice that theory of its very Utopian nature must fail and leave man with such failed socialist atrocities as Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Juche (N Korea) etc.


OR were you instead proposing the abolition of democracy, as in the abolition of government itself?

No, simply defining anarchy as governance without government, as opposed to the populist definition of chaos.


I know there are some anarchist capitalists who believe in the latter idea wherein the entire society is privatized, including the courts and prison systems, where private armies replace official ones, and where private police agencies replace public ones...and wherein legislatures and so forth are just simply done away with therefore, being deemed an "inefficient" form of "central planning", i.e. not individualist enough.

See Robert P. Murphy's Chaos Theory available free on line @ http://mises.org/document/3088/Chaos-Theory. (Note, the title is sarcastic.)


Seriously though, yes to an extent [I believe in individual responsibility], but I also have moral convictions about it being wrong to tolerate things like poverty, exploitation, and general unfairness.

I think most people do, just that some believe they should assume voluntary personal responsibility for those moral convictions while other believe they they can let government coerce that. But coercion, whether the enforcer or the enforced, cannot be moral because it allows for no moral choice.


Balancing the polar aspects of life is very important to the Daoist component of my life philosophy.

A libertarian philosophy!


I consider myself both an individualist and a collectivist. I mostly just separate those two things in specific areas of life.

Isn't the goal of Doaism oneness?

[Deadwood]

You don't need to convince me about Obama being a bad president. The thing is, Obama's primary motivator is the want of power. The same can be said for most politicians, but Obama's record shows that he isn't going to be stopped by rule of law. Helping out farmers will help him carry rural states, where he's in trouble. Romney's record shows a politician driven by the want of power as well. If he's running for governor of Massachusets, he's a progressive Republican who supports abortion and health care reform. If he's running for president, suddenly now he's against abortion and will overturn Obamacare. I think Mitt Romney would just as likely bypass the constitution if he thinks it will win him his second turn.

The bold is mine. It seems you have forgotten the libertarian side of things and gone even further left if you are condoning this. But, my respect for the United States Constitution says that that is reason enough to not only not vote for him, but impeach his ass.

The rule of law is sacrosanct, it has to be in a Democracy.

As far as not knowing what Romney will do? One, he has no record of neglecting the constitution, two he is a right leaning populist so we know how he will lean.

But, he has one great, great advantage, he has shown he can work with congress while governor and it looks like its going to be Republican in at least the House.

[Deadwood]

My concern is, without significant campaign reform and other measures, we will ultimately have a 3 or more sided coin.

I have little doubt of it, they will all eventually be dissuaded into playing the game - because that's how you succeed in politics.

The voting populace is too collectively stupid and passive for anything other rational outcome.

That's because the US Political system has devolved into being all about power as opposed to doing what's right for the nation. Experiments with a third presidential option have been a disaster, partly because it was presidential. What is needed is a third, or independent option at the congressional and state levels to break the machine of the establishment parties.
One independent in Congress is pretty much a nobody. But a handful who can be the deciding factor in a vote is now kind of in the driver's seat.
But, not only would there have to be funding reform, but better voter registration laws and so forth.
It ain't gonna happen though. The old guard of both parties have been feeding at the public trough for too long. The winners like they way they won and are never going to change it...

[Awryly]

That's because the US Political system has devolved into being all about power as opposed to doing what's right for the nation. Experiments with a third presidential option have been a disaster, partly because it was presidential. What is needed is a third, or independent option at the congressional and state levels to break the machine of the establishment parties.

One independent in Congress is pretty much a nobody. But a handful who can be the deciding factor in a vote is now kind of in the driver's seat.
But, not only would there have to be funding reform, but better voter registration laws and so forth.
It ain't gonna happen though. The old guard of both parties have been feeding at the public trough for too long. The winners like they way they won and are never going to change it...


Ralph Nader tried. But the Dem establishment scuttled him.

Now all you have are mickey mouse National Conventions congratulating one another on how clever they are in picking foregone conclusions.

[KC]

The Presidential system isn't very conducive of third parties. Since everyone who doesn't win is wasting their vote, voting from two options increases voters' odds. Selecting a head of government through a parliament with multiple member districts is the only way to ensure votes aren't wasted as far as I can tell, and therefore the only one where people will frequently choose between several options.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
I think most people do, just that some believe they should assume voluntary personal responsibility for those moral convictions while other believe they they can let government coerce that. But coercion, whether the enforcer or the enforced, cannot be moral because it allows for no moral choice.

Yes well some people spontaneously make the choice to exploit others, artificially creating things like poverty and so forth. Preventing that from happening means barring people from making choices like that. Total freedom in my view is an illusion. The aim of society should be to maximize it, as well the general happiness, for the largest number of people possible, not to grant the 1% total liberty to use and abuse others as they wish just because they're the 1%.


Isn't the goal of Doaism oneness?

Mm hmm. Which is expressed in the form of achieving harmony with the universe, i.e. inner peace. That's something achieved through a perfect marriage of opposites. You expressed the view that it is a libertarian philosophy. I believe that simply concentrates the fact that people interpret it how they want to.

ON ELECTION/DEMOCRACY REFORM:

Since we're on the subject, I have a number of proposals that I believe would, especially if taken together, substantially improve the democratic quality of our political system:

1) Public campaign financing. Get money out of politics. A more democratic, less plutocratic, system would not be driven by huge (mostly corporate/zillionaire) donations.

2) Proportional representation. That's right. No more of this winner-take-all crap. Proportional representation would give third parties and independent candidates much more of a chance in a number of areas.

3) Runoff voting. I rather like the example of France. French presidential elections afford one the opportunity to cast a vote for whomever they want, then choose between the top two candidates who get the most votes in a second election. That kind of system would give people the opportunity to 'vote their hearts' the first time without running the risk of effectively electing someone they hate. I could vote for the Green or Socialist Party candidate in the first election and, if they lost to the Republican and Democratic candidates, for the Democratic candidate in the second election. You see what I mean?

4) The national initiative. Yep, I believe that popular initiatives should be an option at the federal level, not just the state and local levels. The masses themselves should be able to craft and directly vote on at least some of the laws that the federal government makes, IMO. I think we should have national referendums on some issues each election cycle, just like how states tend to have referendums.

5) Ban lobbying. Stop the legalized buying of votes in Congress, in other words. This is also part of getting money out of politics.

[Chris]

Yes well some people spontaneously make the choice to exploit others, artificially creating things like poverty and so forth. Preventing that from happening means barring people from making choices like that.

It's my contention that happens mainly through government corruption and crony capitalism.


The aim of society should be to maximize it, as well the general happiness, for the largest number of people possible

Maximize liberty which includes the pursuit of happiness--not the provision of happiness. Your utilitarian function is too abstract to calculate.


not to grant the 1% total liberty to use and abuse others as they wish just because they're the 1%.

It's my contention that happens mainly through government corruption and crony capitalism.


That's something achieved through a perfect marriage of opposites.

Individualism and collectivism cannot be married. Collectivism rejects individualism.

[Peter1469]

2) Proportional representation. That's right. No more of this winner-take-all crap. Proportional representation would give third parties and independent candidates much more of a chance in a number of areas.

Does anyone have insist as to why our Founders rejected proportional representation?

[Mister D]

Does anyone have insist as to why our Founders rejected proportional representation?

I'd imagine it was a consequence of their distrust of political parties and fear of factionalism.

[Chris]

Madison proposed proportional representation for the Senate but it was voted down as, I think, granting bigger states too much power over smaller. It is used however in the House.

[KC]

Madison proposed proportional representation for the Senate but it was voted down as, I think, granting bigger states too much power over smaller. It is used however in the House.

I think you're mixing up proportional representation as referenced in US Politics (Representation of each state in proportion to the state's population) with the electoral system of proportional representation. In a theoretical voting district with ten member seats, let's say 40% vote conservative, 40% vote liberal, 10% votes green, and the remaining 10% votes communist. 4 Seats would be apportioned for the conservative party (and usually given to the members who have received the most votes) 4 to the liberal party, 1 to the green party and 1 to the communist party. That's the system Polly was referring to.

[Chris]

I think you're mixing up proportional representation as referenced in US Politics (Representation of each state in proportion to the state's population) with the electoral system of proportional representation. In a theoretical voting district with ten member seats, let's say 40% vote conservative, 40% vote liberal, 10% votes green, and the remaining 10% votes communist. 4 Seats would be apportioned for the conservative party (and usually given to the members who have received the most votes) 4 to the liberal party, 1 to the green party and 1 to the communist party. That's the system Polly was referring to.

Ah, I see, yes, I was wondering was I off on what she meant. Thanks!

[Awryly]

I'd imagine it was a consequence of their distrust of political parties and fear of factionalism.

Wow! Did they get that right.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Does anyone have insist as to why our Founders rejected proportional representation?

The founders were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats who rejected the right of most of the population to vote at all. Women, slaves, the unpropertied, etc. How strictly do we really need to adhere to their clearly unlimited wisdom on this subject?

[Chris]

The founders were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats who rejected the right of most of the population to vote at all. Women, slaves, the unpropertied, etc. How strictly do we really need to adhere to their clearly unlimited wisdom on this subject?

That's the way the world was back then. Consider, though, the Founders set principled foundations for the liberty of all. Something elite central planners are now eroding.

[Goldie Locks]

The founders were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats who rejected the right of most of the population to vote at all. Women, slaves, the unpropertied, etc. How strictly do we really need to adhere to their clearly unlimited wisdom on this subject?


We've grown as a country to right some of the wrongs of a new nation. Things needed to be experimented with and tweaked, that's what we did with the amendment process. Central planning creates no liberty, freedom or individualism.

[Mister D]

The founders were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats who rejected the right of most of the population to vote at all. Women, slaves, the unpropertied, etc. How strictly do we really need to adhere to their clearly unlimited wisdom on this subject?

Sounds good to me.

[Peter1469]

The founders were a bunch of wealthy aristocrats who rejected the right of most of the population to vote at all. Women, slaves, the unpropertied, etc. How strictly do we really need to adhere to their clearly unlimited wisdom on this subject?

Yes, we know that the US is a republic, not a democracy. That is a good thing. What about how representatives are assigned?

[KC]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/b/b9/Bump_hippo.jpg

For new members/others who would like to be included on the political crowd chart.


The chart right now:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=356&d=1346014470

[Chris]

Are you mentally challenged ? Just write what you believe and make sure you can defend your views sensibly .
But if you are responding to Americans just say , Yub id daya ding bong .
They love it .

08-24-2012 beginning of this thread you bitched about pointing people to the Political Compass, today you pointed people to the Political Compass i this thread you started (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/6199-Who-are-the-Fascists-here).

Consistency isn't your forte is it.

[Deadwood]

I have to say I've enjoyed our exchanges. And you have tested me and did so in a respectful and honorable way. I enjoy your insight and especially appreciated our exchange on justifications for reactions to religious attacks.

In that case it was unfortunate that a childish troll deliberately steered the thread off topic, but as you say, trolls will be trolls.

[KC]

.

[Deadwood]

I think you're mixing up proportional representation as referenced in US Politics (Representation of each state in proportion to the state's population) with the electoral system of proportional representation. In a theoretical voting district with ten member seats, let's say 40% vote conservative, 40% vote liberal, 10% votes green, and the remaining 10% votes communist. 4 Seats would be apportioned for the conservative party (and usually given to the members who have received the most votes) 4 to the liberal party, 1 to the green party and 1 to the communist party. That's the system Polly was referring to.


You are correct. Several years ago British Columbia created a "citizen's council" to study the issue of the problem of first-past-the-post within the parliamentary system. As in the US, when a president gets less votes but more electoral votes, a similar problem happens in a parliamentary system. It often occurs that because of 'fringe' parties the Liberals, say, will win the majority of seats while the NDP will have more of the popular vote but the Liberals will form government with a majority in parliament.

The CC studied and debated for about a year and came up with proportional representation. A binding vote was held and the concept was rejected two top one. Most of the reason being that people did not want their vote transferred without their permission.

Pop rep, as it is fondly called, has been tried several places and as far as I know only remains in effect in Malta.

It is confusing, unpopular and ripe for error if not outright fraud.

[Deadwood]

You're a little too quick for me. I realized my error and edited to delete the question.

[KC]

You are correct. Several years ago British Columbia created a "citizen's council" to study the issue of the problem of first-past-the-post within the parliamentary system. As in the US, when a president gets less votes but more electoral votes, a similar problem happens in a parliamentary system. It often occurs that because of 'fringe' parties the Liberals, say, will win the majority of seats while the NDP will have more of the popular vote but the Liberals will form government with a majority in parliament.

The CC studied and debated for about a year and came up with proportional representation. A binding vote was held and the concept was rejected two top one. Most of the reason being that people did not want their vote transferred without their permission.

Pop rep, as it is fondly called, has been tried several places and as far as I know only remains in effect in Malta.

It is confusing, unpopular and ripe for error if not outright fraud.

I'm confused, F&L. What is Pop Rep? Surely you don't mean Proportional Representation, which remains the most common means of forming governments among Liberal Democracies.

[Deadwood]

Now this was a surprise.....I seem to be mellowing

http://politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=1.25&soc=-2.26

[Deadwood]

I'm confused, F&L. What is Pop Rep? Surely you don't mean Proportional Representation, which remains the most common means of forming governments among Liberal Democracies.

????

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Pop Rep as we considered and rejected has failed.

[KC]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5<div style=

updated link:
[/URL][url]http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&newname=Awryly&newec=-6&newsoc=-3.5 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&newname=Chris&newec=7&newsoc=-4)

[KC]

????

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Pop Rep as we considered and rejected has failed.

I'm not sure we are either. A google search simply confused me more, as when I searched for "Pop Rep Canada," the results all showed something called "Rep by Pop," a system from the nineteenth century.

Is that what you were referring to?

[Awryly]

No surprises there. I'm not surprised.http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.12&soc=-3.59

[Chris]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&chris=7.0%2C-4.0<div style=

updated link:
[/URL][url]http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&newname=Chris&newec=7&newsoc=-4 (http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&newname=F%26L&newec=1&newsoc=-2)

Question to ponder, even given our small sampling here, if everyone is in the lower half of the chart favoring let us say liberty, why do we elect an ever increasingly authoritarian government?

[Captain Obvious]

Great observation.

[KC]

The electoral system is broke. It does not attempt to serve the wishes of the people, only the interests of whatever institutions allow politicians to be reelected.

[Awryly]

Question to ponder, even given our small sampling here, if everyone is in the lower half of the chart favoring let us say liberty, why do we elect an ever increasingly authoritarian government?


Sheeesh.

Could it be you have a crap political system?

But then 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

[Goldie Locks]

Prolly because peeps on political forums are extremely informed and those who are not, are well.....not. Or, it is not We the People who run the country anymore.

[Awryly]

Prolly because peeps on political forums are extremely informed and those who are not, are well.....not. Or, it is not We the People who run the country anymore.

"We the people" would not know how to run a lemonade stand.

That's why we design political systems.

Some very badly.

[Goldie Locks]

"We the people" would not know how to run a lemonade stand.

That's why we design political systems.

Some very badly.


It's Ubama who could not run a lemonade stand.

[Awryly]

It's Ubama who could not run a lemonade stand.


You say that because you are not a lemonade aficionado.

He is running the American lemonade stand as well as the other fruits allow.

[Chris]

Sheeesh.

Could it be you have a crap political system?

But then 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

Hmm, what exactly is the political meaning of crap, awryly?

[sparty]

Thank you for that link. Now I don't feel so bad about myself. :)

[Chris]

No problem. I don't think the quiz accurate, especially if you're any sort of independent thinker.

[GrumpyDog]

Hello. GrumpyDog has died. I am a spirit from the underworld, who has now inhabited his body. He and I are one now. I am a Romney supporter and look forward to ending this Obama nightmare before it is too late. Hope I can be of some assistance in fighting back against the MSM. We need to take our country back at the polls on Nov.7, 2012. Lets show these condescending Liberals just what pricks they really are.

[GrumpyDog]

Greetings.

What happened?

Have vague memories of having been here before.

Lets see, last time I remember, I was at JFK history forum, reading about CIA mind control projects, of which Lee Harvey Oswald might have been..

THATS IT!

[Conley]

Hello. GrumpyDog has died. I am a spirit from the underworld, who has now inhabited his body. He and I are one now. I am a Romney supporter and look forward to ending this Obama nightmare before it is too late. Hope I can be of some assistance in fighting back against the MSM. We need to take our country back at the polls on Nov.7, 2012. Lets show these condescending Liberals just what pricks they really are.

:( I liked the old Grumpydog. Maybe I can find him with a oujia board.

[Smartmouthwoman]

Hello. GrumpyDog has died. I am a spirit from the underworld, who has now inhabited his body. He and I are one now. I am a Romney supporter and look forward to ending this Obama nightmare before it is too late. Hope I can be of some assistance in fighting back against the MSM. We need to take our country back at the polls on Nov.7, 2012. Lets show these condescending Liberals just what pricks they really are.

Interesting. I guessed who the old GrumpyDog was... let's see if the new GrumpyDog changes my mind. :toothy12:

[Goldie Locks]

:( I liked the old Grumpydog. Maybe I can find him with a oujia board.

Maybe Nancy Reagan can hep you...;)

[KC]

Hello. GrumpyDog has died. I am a spirit from the underworld, who has now inhabited his body. He and I are one now. I am a Romney supporter and look forward to ending this Obama nightmare before it is too late. Hope I can be of some assistance in fighting back against the MSM. We need to take our country back at the polls on Nov.7, 2012. Lets show these condescending Liberals just what pricks they really are.

Baffling derail of the year award.

[KC]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/000/106/132/Manatee-Face-bump.gif?1300194316
http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2<div style=


http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&newname=Adelaide&newec=-9&newsoc=-7.2

[Adelaide]

Here are my results... not very surprised.

796

[Peter1469]

It is amazing that many on the left defend the current democrat party- which is up to the top of the Y axis- authoritarians. Yes, our leftists are all on the libertarian end with the conservatives here. But we don't agree on much.

That is what makes me suspect this 3D model. I still like my 2D model.

R=anarchy
L=totalitarianism

start with the right and add government as you move to the left. Simple. Easy to discuss. And it seems to fit with the posters here in their responses to this and other threads.

[KC]

It is amazing that many on the left defend the current democrat party- which is up to the top of the Y axis- authoritarians. Yes, our leftists are all on the libertarian end with the conservatives here. But we don't agree on much.

That is what makes me suspect this 3D model. I still like my 2D model.

R=anarchy
L=totalitarianism

start with the right and add government as you move to the left. Simple. Easy to discuss. And it seems to fit with the posters here in their responses to this and other threads.

I think the leftists here are in agreement a lot with conservatives here. I haven't noted much support for the Patriot Act, NDAA, the current scale of drugs wars or attacks on free speech. There seems to be a lot more support on the right (of these forums) for legalization of marijuana.

I like the 3D model because it shows trends in support for social and economic issues, and it also allows you to get a general sense of where you trend on both. You can't do that with a simple left/right scale.

[Peter1469]

But the 3D model does not seem to work here. The leftists seem to be aligned largely with the conservatives here, but you wouldn't know that by their posts.

[KC]

But the 3D model does not seem to work here. The leftists seem to be aligned largely with the conservatives here, but you wouldn't know that by their posts.

That may be because the issues where the two line up aren't the same ones that you see a stark contrast in. If we leftists on this chart tend to disagree a lot with the right on this chart about economics but less on social issues, then the chart actually works rather nicely.

[IMPress Polly]

KC wrote:
I think the leftists here are in agreement a lot with conservatives here. I haven't noted much support for the Patriot Act, NDAA, the current scale of drugs wars or attacks on free speech. There seems to be a lot more support on the right (of these forums) for legalization of marijuana.

I like the 3D model because it shows trends in support for social and economic issues, and it also allows you to get a general sense of where you trend on both. You can't do that with a simple left/right scale.

I tend to separate economics from social issues like the graph does. I consider myself a non-authoritarian socialist. You're right in that I do, in fact, oppose the NDAA, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, war in general (with exceptions), and don't consider any form of domestic violence (including spanking) acceptable. I am for animal rights too. As for drugs, I count myself kinda sorta prohibitionist (I DO care about society's basic well-being!), but, being opposed to punishing those I see as victims (addicts), I don't think we should criminalize or even punish possession and consumption, but rather simply sale (which should be criminal, IMO). Concerning sexuality, I'm for gay rights and sex education. I don't support the sex industry. And I am pro-choice and an atheist. Those are my cultural positions. But cultural issues to me are generally secondary to economic issues.

[KC]

I tend to separate economics from social issues like the graph does. I consider myself a non-authoritarian socialist. You're right in that I do, in fact, oppose the NDAA, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, war in general (with exceptions), and don't consider any form of domestic violence (including spanking) acceptable. I am for animal rights too. As for drugs, I count myself kinda sorta prohibitionist (I DO care about society's basic well-being!), but, being opposed to punishing those I see as victims (addicts), I don't think we should criminalize or even punish possession and consumption, but rather simply sale (which should be criminal, IMO). Concerning sexuality, I'm for gay rights and sex education. I don't support the sex industry. And I am pro-choice and an atheist. Those are my cultural positions. But cultural issues to me are generally secondary to economic issues.

Exactly. That description matches up rather well with your position on the chart. The chart shows you on the far left with Economics, where you favor more control, and at the very bottom with social issues, where you favor less control.

The chart works ok for me too, but since it measures economic attitudes rather than policy positions, it puts me further to the left than I really am. For example, questions about bottled water being a sad reflection on our society. I do think bottled water being a consumer product is wasteful, but I think that the market should be free to provide whatever people are willing to buy.

I think in short it gives you a good general sense of people's social and economic attitudes. Not scientific or super accurate but just a superficial overview.

[Mister D]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.25&soc=1.33

[truthmatters]

I always score right next to Ghandi on those things

[garyo]

Don't feed the squirrel

[KC]

I always score right next to Ghandi on those things

Care to post your results or PM me with your coordinates (rough or exact)?

[Deadwood]

I tend to separate economics from social issues like the graph does. I consider myself a non-authoritarian socialist. You're right in that I do, in fact, oppose the NDAA, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, war in general (with exceptions), and don't consider any form of domestic violence (including spanking) acceptable. I am for animal rights too. As for drugs, I count myself kinda sorta prohibitionist (I DO care about society's basic well-being!), but, being opposed to punishing those I see as victims (addicts), I don't think we should criminalize or even punish possession and consumption, but rather simply sale (which should be criminal, IMO). Concerning sexuality, I'm for gay rights and sex education. I don't support the sex industry. And I am pro-choice and an atheist. Those are my cultural positions. But cultural issues to me are generally secondary to economic issues.

Wow...

We are so close on social issues.

I agree that domestic violence is unacceptable but have a problem with the state interfering with such things as an anti-spanking law.

I am pro legalization on marijuana but say we should stop using the criminal code to control the more addictive substances. Use agriculture laws to control illegal [non-licensed] pot growers and manufacturing and pharmaceutical laws to control the rest. Heavy heavy fines oin manufacturers and traffickers will take the profit out of it. Jailing users is completely stupid as addiction is a medical issue.

As a single male I have no say in abortion.

I only support war when it is to stop the kind of shit going in Africa where civilians are being enslaved. I am totally against the Patriot act and Canada's version of it. The existing laws are good enough. at least in Canada the cops need judicial supervision..

I do not favor laws about animal rights. People's rights come first. Although we should have better control of some farming techniques..

I am for non-interference in sexual issues with the exception of sexual slavery - forced prostitution. Against beastiality but otherwise believe the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

I am against most morality laws, but draw a line with sex in public places.

I am for small government, an enabler, pro-nonprofit where applicable and am a Christian.

[KC]

Wow...

We are so close on social issues.

I agree that domestic violence is unacceptable but have a problem with the state interfering with such things as an anti-spanking law.

I am pro legalization on marijuana but say we should stop using the criminal code to control the more addictive substances. Use agriculture laws to control illegal [non-licensed] pot growers and manufacturing and pharmaceutical laws to control the rest. Heavy heavy fines oin manufacturers and traffickers will take the profit out of it. Jailing users is completely stupid as addiction is a medical issue.

As a single male I have no say in abortion.

I only support war when it is to stop the kind of shit going in Africa where civilians are being enslaved. I am totally against the Patriot act and Canada's version of it. The existing laws are good enough. at least in Canada the cops need judicial supervision..

I do not favor laws about animal rights. People's rights come first. Although we should have better control of some farming techniques..

I am for non-interference in sexual issues with the exception of sexual slavery - forced prostitution. Against beastiality but otherwise believe the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

I am against most morality laws, but draw a line with sex in public places.

I am for small government, an enabler, pro-nonprofit where applicable and am a Christian.

We're pretty similar as well, F&L. Only differences are that I'm not a Christian, don't consider spanking a bad thing as long as the parents are using good judgement and I extend my belief that I have no say in abortion to mean that the government also doesn't get to have a say.

[GrassrootsConservative]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.75&soc=-2.00

Spanking is a barbaric punishment. Any parent who can't be more effective should learn to live in the modern world.

[KC]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0%3Cdiv%20style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&newname=Grassroots&newec=4.8&newsoc=-2

[GrassrootsConservative]

I am surrounded by intelligent people and far from Polly.
:cool2:
Just kidding Polly. You can be intelligent and still be wrong.

[KC]

I am surrounded by intelligent people and far from Polly.
:cool2:
Just kidding Polly. You can be intelligent and still be wrong.

You can't be wrong, since what we're measuring is political opinions :tongue:

What we can be wrong about is effect of our opinion translated into law.

[roadmaster]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=4.75&soc=-2.00

Spanking is a barbaric punishment. Any parent who can't be more effective should learn to live in the modern world.

I can count on one hand how many times I spank my kids, not beat. But I don't think spanking should be outlawed. I too was spanked as a child and it didn't hurt me. Parents have to be parents first. When I said no, I did mean it.

[Chris]

I spanked my son one time, one good smack. Before that it was the threat of the unknown, after the known. My dad used a belt.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I can count on one hand how many times I spank my kids, not beat. But I don't think spanking should be outlawed. I too was spanked as a child and it didn't hurt me. Parents have to be parents first. When I said no, I did mean it.

I don't think it should be outlawed either, if it came across that way I am sorry.

[coolwalker]

We put crap everywhere. that's why we like it here. It's a great place for people who drink and Post because then they can stumble upon stuff without knowing they were even going there.

[KC]

We put crap everywhere. that's why we like it here. It's a great place for people who drink and Post because then they can stumble upon stuff without knowing they were even going there.

Who/what is this in response to, coolwalker?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Who/what is this in response to, coolwalker?

His desk full of empty bottles.
:biglaugh:

[IMPress Polly]

roadmaster wrote:
I can count on one hand how many times I spank my kids, not beat. But I don't think spanking should be outlawed. I too was spanked as a child and it didn't hurt me. Parents have to be parents first. When I said no, I did mean it.

I've was spanked, beaten, and raped by my parents. (Well, my dad (all three) and stepmom (the first two) anyway.) Sometimes it was punishment for something I did. Other times, my dad was drunk and had a bad day or something. Whatever the case was in a given instance, I definitely didn't learn anything from it except not to get caught doing whatever, if I even did anything wrong.

Study after study has found that children often learn violent behavior from their parents. Hitting your children teaches them that violence is a legitimate solution to problems. (That's especially true of boys apparently.) I'm normally a very self-controlled person. I'm often violent and controlling in sexual situations though. That may be because my first sexual experiences were violent and so that's my instinctive association with how it's supposed to be. Plus deep down I'm fairly angry and that's the avenue I typically express my anger through. Now I am not my parents. I would never treat anyone in a violent or coercive way without their consent. But I doubt that it's healthy to treat others that way at all. I probably need to find a way of getting myself past this state. But what I'm saying is that one often learns violent behavior from their upbringing and that I ought to know.


KC wrote:
Exactly. That description matches up rather well with your position on the chart. The chart shows you on the far left with Economics, where you favor more control, and at the very bottom with social issues, where you favor less control.

Well state control anyway. One of the things that inevitably makes these tests fallible is that they have to measure people's views against a common standard, like degrees of state control. In real life though, there are far more sources of social control than just the state. There are the degrees of control that the business corporation might exercise over its workers. There are the degrees of control that men might exercise over women (patriarchy). Etc. There are state-imposed oppressions and spontaneous oppressions. There are physical oppressions and cultural oppressions. Oppression can be coercive or consent-based (i.e. exploitation). Real life is much more complex than any political quiz or test can possibly account for. If we tried to account for all of this, it would be too subjective to measure people's views at all though. I am not necessarily opposed to state intervention in life obviously. I believe it generally necessary to counteract oppressions that get spontaneously imposed on society and the planet itself by the forces of commerce for example. I also believe that workers should own and manage their own workplaces and that key industries directly in the national interest should be owned by the state and administered by democratically elected oversight boards. I wouldn't consider that more authoritarian, but rather more liberating, than either laissez-faire capitalism or the status quo.

[KC]

Well state control anyway. One of the things that inevitably makes these tests fallible is that they have to measure people's views against a common standard, like degrees of state control. In real life though, there are far more sources of social control than just the state. There are the degrees of control that the business corporation might exercise over its workers. There are the degrees of control that men might exercise over women (patriarchy). Etc. There are state-imposed oppressions and spontaneous oppressions. There are physical oppressions and cultural oppressions. Oppression can be coercive or consent-based (i.e. exploitation). Real life is much more complex than any political quiz or test can possibly account for. If we tried to account for all of this, it would be too subjective to measure people's views at all though. I am not necessarily opposed to state intervention in life obviously. I believe it generally necessary to counteract oppressions that get spontaneously imposed on society and the planet itself by the forces of commerce for example. I also believe that workers should own and manage their own workplaces and that key industries directly in the national interest should be owned by the state and administered by democratically elected oversight boards. I wouldn't consider that more authoritarian, but rather more liberating, than either laissez-faire capitalism or the status quo.

Right. Well state control and lack there of is the main thing that you would measure when it comes to Politics, since Politics deal with the Polis and for every issue the question of the state intervening in the Polis arises (should this be legal/illegal? should that state leave this to social regulation? all political questions). If you want some issues left to social control as you say, that is indeed a political belief, but one that favors less state coercion, so we can note it as a "less government" issue. This is the most simple way of going about measuring politics, and even if it's imperfect it does provide us with a good superficial snapshot about views of the state.

[Kabuki Joe]

I've was spanked, beaten, and raped by my parents. (Well, my dad (all three) and stepmom (the first two) anyway.) Sometimes it was punishment for something I did. Other times, my dad was drunk and had a bad day or something. Whatever the case was in a given instance, I definitely didn't learn anything from it except not to get caught doing whatever, if I even did anything wrong.

Study after study has found that children often learn violent behavior from their parents. Hitting your children teaches them that violence is a legitimate solution to problems. (That's especially true of boys apparently.) I'm normally a very self-controlled person. I'm often violent and controlling in sexual situations though. That may be because my first sexual experiences were violent and so that's my instinctive association with how it's supposed to be. Plus deep down I'm fairly angry and that's the avenue I typically express my anger through. Now I am not my parents. I would never treat anyone in a violent or coercive way without their consent. But I doubt that it's healthy to treat others that way at all. I probably need to find a way of getting myself past this state. But what I'm saying is that one often learns violent behavior from their upbringing and that I ought to know.



Well state control anyway. One of the things that inevitably makes these tests fallible is that they have to measure people's views against a common standard, like degrees of state control. In real life though, there are far more sources of social control than just the state. There are the degrees of control that the business corporation might exercise over its workers. There are the degrees of control that men might exercise over women (patriarchy). Etc. There are state-imposed oppressions and spontaneous oppressions. There are physical oppressions and cultural oppressions. Oppression can be coercive or consent-based (i.e. exploitation). Real life is much more complex than any political quiz or test can possibly account for. If we tried to account for all of this, it would be too subjective to measure people's views at all though. I am not necessarily opposed to state intervention in life obviously. I believe it generally necessary to counteract oppressions that get spontaneously imposed on society and the planet itself by the forces of commerce for example. I also believe that workers should own and manage their own workplaces and that key industries directly in the national interest should be owned by the state and administered by democratically elected oversight boards. I wouldn't consider that more authoritarian, but rather more liberating, than either laissez-faire capitalism or the status quo.


...this is the problem with the liberal mind, because one person had the extreme done to them THEN ALL OF IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!...I feel bad for you but comparing your experience to a quick swat on the butt is what has gotten us in the position where kids now tell adults what to do...flat out some kids (not all) need a swat on the ass to be brought back to reality...


Kabuki Joe

[IMPress Polly]

KJ:

I was simply relaying some personal experience that I thought might be pertinent. However, the notion that spanking children doesn't help them isn't just my opinion. Lots of studies suggest that. Here's a recent example. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/spanking-kids-leads-adult-mental-illnesses/story?id=16695697#.UIqr88W8hac)

[Chris]

KJ:

I was simply relaying some personal experience that I thought might be pertinent. However, the notion that spanking children doesn't help them isn't just my opinion. Lots of studies suggest that. Here's a recent example. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/spanking-kids-leads-adult-mental-illnesses/story?id=16695697#.UIqr88W8hac)

And the article ends:
They cautioned that the study was cross-sectional, which precludes drawing any causal inferences. Moreover, they noted, the data was retrospective, which could introduce recall and reporting biases.

[KC]

And the article ends:
That's why I think spanking is way too broad a topic to say it's always bad or always good. My parents very occasionally spanked me. This was reserved for times when I was caught in a lie. For them, the idea was that if I was going to do wrong, the least I should do is fess up.

[Kabuki Joe]

That's why I think spanking is way too broad a topic to say it's always bad or always good. My parents very occasionally spanked me. This was reserved for times when I was caught in a lie. For them, the idea was that if I was going to do wrong, the least I should do is fess up.


...my daughter learned that I was far more understanding when she fessed up then when she lied...honesty got her punished but by far not as bad as lying...being raised in the presence of a heroine addicted "hustler" (con artist, not hooker) I can sniff out a "hustle" a mile away and I take great offence when someone tries to "hustle" me, it's like saying I'm stoopid...


Kabuki Joe

[KC]

...my daughter learned that I was far more understanding when she fessed up then when she lied...honesty got her punished but by far not as bad as lying...being raised in the presence of a heroine addicted "hustler" (con artist, not hooker) I can sniff out a "hustle" a mile away and I take great offence when someone tries to "hustle" me, it's like saying I'm stoopid...


Kabuki Joe

My dad sees it the same way. He always tells me that lying to him is no different than trying to insult him, so whenever I was punished as a kid, if I fessed up I would feel guilty, if I got caught lying I would not only feel guilt but shame for having been spanked.

This, I think, is one of the reasons the charts that show varying degrees of authoritarianism or libertariansim are useful. Even folks like my dad , an Atheist Social Democrat, sometimes take more authoritarian positions. Simply telling you that he is a Social Democrat and an Atheist, however, would give a completely different effect. It's all very important in learning that people and their ideologies are not in black and white, and it warns us against over generalizing.

[Kabuki Joe]

My dad sees it the same way. He always tells me that lying to him is no different than trying to insult him, so whenever I was punished as a kid, if I fessed up I would feel guilty, if I got caught lying I would not only feel guilt but shame for having been spanked.

This, I think, is one of the reasons the charts that show varying degrees of authoritarianism or libertariansim are useful. Even folks like my dad , an Atheist Social Democrat, sometimes take more authoritarian positions. Simply telling you that he is a Social Democrat and an Atheist, however, would give a completely different effect. It's all very important in learning that people and their ideologies are not in black and white, and it warns us against over generalizing.


...in a nutshell, it's about limits and bounderies...we have have laws (limits and bounderies) for a reason and if you break the law be prepared to suffer the consequences...I think we have become so "feminine" as a country that consequences aren't implemented as severly as they should, which kind of negates the whole factor of deterence...I mean "time out"?...so I can steal a cookie, eat it and enjoy it and then take a 10min breather afterwards?...so I get what I want with no real cost?...sounds like a win-win situation to me...


Kabuki Joe

[KC]

...in a nutshell, it's about limits and bounderies...we have have laws (limits and bounderies) for a reason and if you break the law be prepared to suffer the consequences...I think we have become so "feminine" as a country that consequences aren't implemented as severly as they should, which kind of negates the whole factor of deterence...I mean "time out"?...so I can steal a cookie, eat it and enjoy it and then take a 10min breather afterwards?...so I get what I want with no real cost?...sounds like a win-win situation to me...


Kabuki Joe

I understand what you're saying, although I disagree with the use of the word feminine to describe it. I have known women who are strong disciplinarians and men who are much more permissive. Maybe what you mean is that we've become a much more permissive society, a trend that does seem to have something to do with gender roles, but I do think it also has a lot to do with changing cultural values.

[Kabuki Joe]

I understand what you're saying, although I disagree with the use of the word feminine to describe it. I have known women who are strong disciplinarians and men who are much more permissive. Maybe what you mean is that we've become a much more permissive society, a trend that does seem to have something to do with gender roles, but I do think it also has a lot to do with changing cultural values.

...look at my signature, female and woman are not the same...


Kabuki Joe

[KC]

...look at my signature, female and woman are not the same... Kabuki Joe Right. Female femininity is gender, which is socially constructed. Now, if we identify permissiveness with feminine gender roles, we are going to continue to identify women who fit in with their traditional gender role as being permissive. That's why I take issue with looking at permissiveness or passiveness as feminine.

Edit: Thanks D.

[Mister D]

As far as I understand, the term woman refers to a human female.

[Mister D]

I thionk we mean that gender and sex are not the same thing. Woman and female are.

[KC]

As far as I understand, the term woman refers to a human female.

Er yeah, that's right. My mistake as well as KJs. Femininity more accurately describes the cultural gender roles we were discussing.

[Mister D]

Er yeah, that's right. My mistake as well as KJs. Femininity more accurately describes the cultural gender roles we were discussing.

I agree that gender roles are not set in stone. They can and do change over time although I think biology plays a strong role in our perceptions.

[KC]

I agree that gender roles are not set in stone. They can and do change over time although I think biology plays a strong role in our perceptions.

The key here is perception. Biology does play a strong role in our perception, but the reality is that the biological fact of being a female does not always mean taking on traditional feminine gender roles. Same goes for males and masculinity.

[Mister D]

The key here is perception. Biology does play a strong role in our perception, but the reality is that the biological fact of being a female does not always mean taking on traditional feminine gender roles. Same goes for males and masculinity.

Agreed.

[IMPress Polly]

Biological chemistry is an insignificant factor in what women and men are capable of. Our biological differences are almost entirely of a sexual/reproductive nature. The rest is societal exaggeration. There is no good reason to confine people to socially prescribed gender ones (whatever terminology one uses to define them).

[Mister D]

Biological chemistry is an insignificant factor in what women and men are capable of. Our biological differences are almost entirely of a sexual/reproductive nature. The rest is societal exaggeration.

Nonsense. There is a reason why men and women generally do not compete together in athletics, for example. That's because males as a group have a tremendous biological advantage over females as a group. There is also a reason why sex is an significant factor in studying the effects of a medicine. Our bodies are different.

It's amazing how what everyone took for granted only 50 years ago is now a source of contention. :laugh:

[KC]

Biological chemistry is an insignificant factor in what women and men are capable of. Our biological differences are almost entirely of a sexual/reproductive nature. The rest is societal exaggeration. There is no good reason to confine people to socially prescribed gender ones (whatever terminology one uses to define them).

Exactly. Biological females should not be automatically prescribed the traditional gender roles they are often associated with. I don't think we will ever erase that though, but the least I think we can do is to acknowledge that in this day and age there are many different people and that gender varies between men and women.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Nonsense. There is a reason why men and women generally do not compete together in athletics, for example. That's because males as a group have a tremendous biological advantage over females as a group. There is also a reason why sex is an significant factor in studying the effects of a medicine. Our bodies are different.

It's amazing how what everyone took for granted only 50 years ago is now a source of contention. :laugh:

Though your point about medicines goes undisputed, it very much seems to me that you're trying to rationalize the social relations of the 1950s and '60s and imply that it's just unnatural for women to do much of anything in life aside from remain confined to the domestic scene because we're just oh so weak and fragile and helpless and blah blah blah blah blah. Am I right?

[KC]

Nonsense. There is a reason why men and women generally do not compete together in athletics, for example. That's because males as a group have a tremendous biological advantage over females as a group. There is also a reason why sex is an significant factor in studying the effects of a medicine. Our bodies are different.

It's amazing how what everyone took for granted only 50 years ago is now a source of contention. :laugh:

I don't think Polly is arguing with the biological differences, D. The social ones are entirely different. Where our biology affects performance, sure there are bound to be differences, such as in high contact sports or in medicine, as you mentioned. But that doesn't confine men or women to specific gender roles, only to biological limitations.

For example, men tend to be pretty bad at giving birth. That doesn't mean a man cannot be a loving caretaker or fit into the traditional role of a mother to a child, as my father did after we lost my mother.

[Mister D]

Though your point about medicines goes undisputed, it very much seems to me that you're trying to rationalize the social relations of the 1950s and '60s and imply that it's just unnatural for women to do much of anything in life aside from remain confined to the domestic scene because we're just oh so weak and fragile and helpless and blah blah blah blah blah. Am I right?

Neither of the points I made above are disputed because they are so obviously true that they could only be disputed in a Womens Studies class. No, you don't have that right but don't feel bad about it. Reality and radical feminism have yet to meet.

[Mister D]

I don't think Polly is arguing with the biological differences, D. The social ones are entirely different. Where our biology affects performance, sure there are bound to be differences, such as in high contact sports or in medicine, as you mentioned. But that doesn't confine men or women to specific gender roles, only to biological limitations.

I can only go by what she said and in light of her earlier feminist commentary I can only assume she means what she says.


Our biological differences are almost entirely of a sexual/reproductive nature.


No, they are not. The difference between a male and a female is not merely that one has a penis and the other a vagina. There are a myriad of differences.

[IMPress Polly]

You know what my point is, Mister D, and I noticed that you didn't respond to the point. You're very much nitpicking at what are minor (and yes occasionally debatable*) differences that don't affect questions like what jobs women and men respectively are qualified to hold.

*e.g. Women may be born with less muscle than men, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about what they can achieve physically. It doesn't imply limits. I'm not a professional athlete so I don't pretend to be truly qualified to address matters related to sports, but I do know that there's nothing in one's DNA that says women shouldn't be allowed to play professional sports.

[Deadwood]

You know what my point is, Mister D, and I noticed that you didn't respond to the point. You're very much nitpicking at what are minor (and yes occasionally debatable*) differences that don't affect questions like what jobs women and men respectively are qualified to hold.

*e.g. Women may be born with less muscle than men, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about what they can achieve physically. It doesn't imply limits. I'm not a professional athlete so I don't pretend to be truly qualified to address matters related to sports, but I do know that there's nothing in one's DNA that says women shouldn't be allowed to play professional sports.

Actually I've been over the thread several times and I have no idea what is your point.

[IMPress Polly]

My point is that, regardless of one's sex, there is nothing in one's DNA that should limit what they want to do with their lives. With his allusions to questionable 'certainties' dating to the 1960s, I have questioned whether Mister D believes the same.

[Deadwood]

My point is that, regardless of one's sex, there is nothing in one's DNA that should limit what they want to do with their lives. With his allusions to questionable 'certainties' dating to the 1960s, I have questioned whether Mister D believes the same.

That isn't even in the same library, let alone book of what you first said.

And it makes absolutely no sense. I don't see anywhere that anyone suggested what you are implying. And if I can see through the haze you're creating I suggest that DNA would make a difference in, say, a man wanting to be a professional surrogate mother.

There is a reason why women don't tend to be firefighters despite twenty years of trying.

[Chris]

My point is that, regardless of one's sex, there is nothing in one's DNA that should limit what they want to do with their lives. With his allusions to questionable 'certainties' dating to the 1960s, I have questioned whether Mister D believes the same.

People can't be rocks. :dang:

[Kabuki Joe]

Right. Female femininity is gender, which is socially constructed. Now, if we identify permissiveness with feminine gender roles, we are going to continue to identify women who fit in with their traditional gender role as being permissive. That's why I take issue with looking at permissiveness or passiveness as feminine.

Edit: Thanks D.

...but saying man and woman is obsolete in our present society...we have male "men" and we have female "men", just like we have male "women" and female "women"...you can't call a "flamboyant" male a man and you can't call a "butch dike" (sorry for the term but it's for arguement sake) a woman...it's way more complex in today's society...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

As far as I understand, the term woman refers to a human female.


...not anymore...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

Though your point about medicines goes undisputed, it very much seems to me that you're trying to rationalize the social relations of the 1950s and '60s and imply that it's just unnatural for women to do much of anything in life aside from remain confined to the domestic scene because we're just oh so weak and fragile and helpless and blah blah blah blah blah. Am I right?


...no one is saying that...what's being said is that physically males and females are different...it's science...emotionally they can be alike depending on their gender...also science...



Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

I can only go by what she said and in light of her earlier feminist commentary I can only assume she means what she says.



No, they are not. The difference between a male and a female is not merely that one has a penis and the other a vagina. There are a myriad of differences.


...hormone for example, male's make them aggressive and females nurturing...it's chemistry...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

You know what my point is, Mister D, and I noticed that you didn't respond to the point. You're very much nitpicking at what are minor (and yes occasionally debatable*) differences that don't affect questions like what jobs women and men respectively are qualified to hold.

*e.g. Women may be born with less muscle than men, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about what they can achieve physically. It doesn't imply limits. I'm not a professional athlete so I don't pretend to be truly qualified to address matters related to sports, but I do know that there's nothing in one's DNA that says women shouldn't be allowed to play professional sports.


...BS...I have never seen a male break down into tears at work because of stress...


Kabuki Joe

[Peter1469]

You know what my point is, Mister D, and I noticed that you didn't respond to the point. You're very much nitpicking at what are minor (and yes occasionally debatable*) differences that don't affect questions like what jobs women and men respectively are qualified to hold.

*e.g. Women may be born with less muscle than men, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about what they can achieve physically. It doesn't imply limits. I'm not a professional athlete so I don't pretend to be truly qualified to address matters related to sports, but I do know that there's nothing in one's DNA that says women shouldn't be allowed to play professional sports.

Men and women's potential in sports are different. That is why most sports are not coed at the professional level. Look at competitive body building. Men get down to 5% or less body fat. When women get below 10% they face serious health issues. Look at professional boxing. It would be criminal to put the best women boxer against mediocre male boxers.

You can also look at the injury rates of males and females in common sports like basketball and soccer . Women tend to suffer much higher rates of career ending knee injuries than men.

[Deadwood]

Men and women's potential in sports are different. That is why most sports are not coed at the professional level. Look at competitive body building. Men get down to 5% or less body fat. When women get below 10% they face serious health issues. Look at professional boxing. It would be criminal to put the best women boxer against mediocre male boxers.

You can also look at the injury rates of males and females in common sports like basketball and soccer . Women tend to suffer much higher rates of career ending knee injuries than men.



There was once a proposal to have a local men's pick up hockey team play a charity hockey game against the Olympic Gold medal winning Canadian women's team.

It was dumped after two doctor's weighed in saying the chances of injury to the women were far too great simply because of the men's musculature.

[Peter1469]

There was once a proposal to have a local men's pick up hockey team play a charity hockey game against the Olympic Gold medal winning Canadian women's team.

It was dumped after two doctor's weighed in saying the chances of injury to the women were far too great simply because of the men's musculature.

A wise move.

[Kabuki Joe]

There was once a proposal to have a local men's pick up hockey team play a charity hockey game against the Olympic Gold medal winning Canadian women's team.

It was dumped after two doctor's weighed in saying the chances of injury to the women were far too great simply because of the men's musculature.


...1 word, testosterone...


Kabuki Joe

[Peter1469]

...1 word, testosterone...


Kabuki Joe

Combined with muscle mass. When I was in the army (enlisted infantry time) we were playing "touch" football." I caught a pass and was hit by a guy who outweighed me by 50 pounds. Back then I was 10% body fat and I flew through the air and had my breath knocked out of me. A world class female athlete would likely have been crippled or killed.

[Adelaide]

Combined with muscle mass. When I was in the army (enlisted infantry time) we were playing "touch" football." I caught a pass and was hit by a guy who outweighed me by 50 pounds. Back then I was 10% body fat and I flew through the air and had my breath knocked out of me. A world class female athlete would likely have been crippled or killed.

I've played contact sports with males - rugby and hockey, both pick-up and in sanctioned practice drills. I wouldn't say that is normal, and parents did definitely complain that their daughters were playing full-on, contact rugby against the older male team. The coaches told the males to show no mercy for our size/strength and the females to show no fear about their size/strength. Interesting lesson, and it improved both teams. In the case of rugby, we ended up playing non-official pick-up games with the men once they knew we weren't going to fall apart if they tackled us hard or scrum at full strength. Honestly, there are women in rugby that are terrifying machines and can hit as hard as a man - it's very rare, but you do encounter it and you need to be prepared to have the wind knocked out of you.

[Peter1469]

I've played contact sports with males - rugby and hockey, both pick-up and in sanctioned practice drills. I wouldn't say that is normal, and parents did definitely complain that their daughters were playing full-on, contact rugby against the older male team. The coaches told the males to show no mercy for our size/strength and the females to show no fear about their size/strength. Interesting lesson, and it improved both teams. In the case of rugby, we ended up playing non-official pick-up games with the men once they knew we weren't going to fall apart if they tackled us hard or scrum at full strength. Honestly, there are women in rugby that are terrifying machines and can hit as hard as a man - it's very rare, but you do encounter it and you need to be prepared to have the wind knocked out of you.

Agreed, it is very rare. I am of course only speaking in generalities.

In a jujitsu dojo a 95 pound woman threw me pretty far. But then jujitsu is an art that eliminates size and strength differences. Football and rugby not so much.

[Deadwood]

Combined with muscle mass. When I was in the army (enlisted infantry time) we were playing "touch" football." I caught a pass and was hit by a guy who outweighed me by 50 pounds. Back then I was 10% body fat and I flew through the air and had my breath knocked out of me. A world class female athlete would likely have been crippled or killed.


Very early in my hockey career I made the mistake of coming from behind the net with my head down. I kid at least 20 lbs lighter than me came out of nowhere with momentum and knocked me 15 feet into the boards it took the wind out of me. I am 63 and and still have legs that are the envy of competitive body builders and then they were as strong if not stronger, A woman of the same age in that situation would have been injured for sure.

Hockey is three to four times as fast as anyone can run and the velocity that can be built up is tremendous. I have seen football played with men and women but it is nothing compared to full contact hockey.

The point is, as this subject was introduced, is the difference between men and women....and in some things that difference is tremendous.

I repeat, there is a reason why women do not make it as firefighters. As a newsman I have been through firefighting exercises.....and I know I would not make the grade...

[KC]

Yo @Kizzume (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=515) ! I was jealous that you put your chart in that other thread instead of this one, so I added your score to this crowd chart anyway.

We've got a pretty sizable group here now :smiley:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&newname=Kizzume&newec=-6.25&newsoc=-5.2

[GrumpyDog]

Yo @Kizzume (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=515) ! I was jealous that you put your chart in that other thread instead of this one, so I added your score to this crowd chart anyway.

We've got a pretty sizable group here now :smiley:


.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&newname=Kizzume&newec=-6.25&newsoc=-5.2

Everyone (except 1) is below the line separating Authoritarian from Libertarian.

So all of you are really Liberals, just some of you are Classical Liberals, while others are Progressive Liberals

[KC]

The average (right now) would be right here if I've done my math correctly.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Average=-1.4%2C-3.4<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&K-code=-3.0%2C-7.0&K-code=on&Goldie=5.0%2C-1.0&Goldie=on&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Cpt++Obvious=on&Smartmouthwoman=2.0%2C-0.4&Smartmouthwoman=on&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Peter=on&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&Polly=on&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&F%26l=on&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Chris=on&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Awryly=on&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Adelaide=on&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Mister+D=on&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Grassroots=on&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&Kizzume=on&Average=-1.4%2C-3.4&newname=&newec=&newsoc=

[KC]

Everyone (except 1) is below the line separating Authoritarian from Libertarian.

So all of you are really Liberals, just some of you are Classical Liberals, while others are Progressive Liberals

Pretty significant difference between those, but towards the right we probably do have some classical liberals. I don't think the chart's methodology is accurate enough to classify something like that.

[Peter1469]

Yet those who claim to be on the "left" are voting for a totalitarian. Why is that?

[KC]

Yet those who claim to be on the "left" are voting for a totalitarian. Why is that?

Probably because they are afraid to waste their vote on a non-totalitarian. Romney is a bit less totalitarian than Obama, but his economics just aren't attractive to the left.

I'll vote for the only Johnson that isn't going to screw us.

[Peter1469]

So people value the Y axis more than the X axis?

[KC]

So people value the Y axis more than the X axis?

What I mean is the opposite. The X axis, which on this model describes economic positions, is more important for most than the Y axis.

"It's the economy, stupid" isn't just really good campaign strategy.

[Peter1469]

But that isn't evidenced by the choice of candidates.

[KC]

But that isn't evidenced by the choice of candidates.

It isn't?

[Peter1469]

All democratic candidates since FDR have been slightly to moderate left economically and highly authoritarian. Yet all of our lefitsts here identify as much more libertarian, and perhaps further left on the economics axis. That is the point that I have been trying to make. They must strongly identify with the economics axis and less so with the authoritarian axis. Or the model doesn't pan out.

[Chris]

The model is a standard Nolan Chart, the site, questions, evaluations are by Pace News Ltd (http://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/115591) out of New Zealand, and if I remember correctly originally out of England.

[Mister D]

Well, I've haven't exactly been shy about my authoritarian leanings. :grin:

[KC]

All democratic candidates since FDR have been slightly to moderate left economically and highly authoritarian. Yet all of our lefitsts here identify as much more libertarian, and perhaps further left on the economics axis. That is the point that I have been trying to make. They must strongly identify with the economics axis and less so with the authoritarian axis. Or the model doesn't pan out.

:f_doh: But we're in agreement. I'm pretty confused here, but when you said people value the Y more than X axis, I thought you meant they put social issues first. If they're left and voting democrat yet they are Libertarian on social issues, they must values economics more.

[Peter1469]

:f_doh: But we're in agreement. I'm pretty confused here, but when you said people value the Y more than X axis, I thought you meant they put social issues first. If they're left and voting democrat yet they are Libertarian on social issues, they must values economics more.

Or the model is a failure.

[Kabuki Joe]

I've played contact sports with males - rugby and hockey, both pick-up and in sanctioned practice drills. I wouldn't say that is normal, and parents did definitely complain that their daughters were playing full-on, contact rugby against the older male team. The coaches told the males to show no mercy for our size/strength and the females to show no fear about their size/strength. Interesting lesson, and it improved both teams. In the case of rugby, we ended up playing non-official pick-up games with the men once they knew we weren't going to fall apart if they tackled us hard or scrum at full strength. Honestly, there are women in rugby that are terrifying machines and can hit as hard as a man - it's very rare, but you do encounter it and you need to be prepared to have the wind knocked out of you.

...you can't genaralize on extremes...do you actually think the Williams sisters can compete against the best males in tennis?...
I mean the one is freaky looking like a man but can she compete with the best males?...I don't think so, otherwise it would simple be tennis instead of man's or woman's tennis...


Kabuki Joe

[Kabuki Joe]

Agreed, it is very rare. I am of course only speaking in generalities.

In a jujitsu dojo a 95 pound woman threw me pretty far. But then jujitsu is an art that eliminates size and strength differences. Football and rugby not so much.


...Ronda Rousey is bad ass but really can she handle Urijah Faber?...or the guys that have beaten him senseless?...nope...


Kabuki Joe

[Captain Obvious]

Maybe this should be moved to the politics in general forum - at least the discussion part.

[KC]

Updating old thread. I took the test again and changed my score, plus I got rid of two of the names of members who haven't been here for a very long time, and I think may have been banned.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&k+code=-0.1%2C-5.1<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&newname=k+code&newec=-0.12&newsoc=-5.08+

Any one else wanting to take the test can take it here (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test). If you want your member name and score on the chart, send me your coordinates or post your chart. :smiley:

[Mister D]

I stand out!

[Chris]

Maybe some more can take the quiz...

[KC]

I stand out!

If a researcher was trying to grind some axe by collecting this data set, you'd be the outlier they'd throw out :grin:

You're probably the only person who's taken the test here and submitted his score who isn't socially more liberal/libertarian. I'd really like to see if there are more around.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Users I would like to see test results from:

@Awryly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=287) @Carygrant (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=341) @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @Trinnity (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=235) @RightWingExtremist (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=622) @Morningstar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=517)

[Mister D]

If a researcher was trying to grind some axe by collecting this data set, you'd be the outlier they'd throw out :grin:

You're probably the only person who's taken the test here and submitted his score who isn't socially more liberal/libertarian. I'd really like to see if there are more around.

Social liberalism seems to be the zeitgeist

[Chloe]

Ill take it in a little bit I promise

[Chloe]

1474

Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

[Chloe]

Users I would like to see test results from:

@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565)

There you go GrassrootsConservative

[GrassrootsConservative]

Thanks :wink:

[Chloe]

I guess it's where I kind of thought it would be although some of the questions were worded weird in my opinion.

[Peter1469]

You almost fell of the left side!

[Chloe]

You almost fell of the left side!

Yeah I was kind of hoping that I would be somewhat in the middle so that I wouldn't stand out but that didn't happen

[Dr. Who]

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
1475

[KC]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&K_Code=-0.1%2C-5.1&Chloe=-9.1%2C-3.7&dr.+who=-6.1%2C-3.0<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&K+Code=-0.1%2C-5.1&Chloe=-9.1%2C-3.7&newname=Dr.+Who&newec=-6.12&newsoc=-2.97+

Added in Chloe's and Dr. Who's results :smiley:

@GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478): Awryly did submit results, she's right there in between Chloe and Captain Obvious.
@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565): I agree, there are some problems with the wording of some of the questions. For example:


Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Society is a broad term and is not limited to the government. Does this question address private or public welfare? Both?

This quiz is good for creating a snapshot and giving a general sense of political attitudes and leanings. It's not exhaustive or scientific, but I think it's a lot of fun to see where everyone is.

[Peter1469]

Yeah I was kind of hoping that I would be somewhat in the middle so that I wouldn't stand out but that didn't happen

At least you are on the libertarian side.

[Peter1469]

It would be interesting to add in major historical political figures- for context.

[Chloe]

At least you are on the libertarian side.

True! People here seem to them i'm a little dictator so at least that shows that I'm not :)

[KC]

It would be interesting to add in major historical political figures- for context.
Peter1469
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9knelh8psMA/Tevy7RI_Y2I/AAAAAAAAAD4/sYLz-Nm1bQU/s1600/political_compass.png

[KC]

That historical figures chart may have some accuracies but I think it betrays too much bias in the creator.

[Peter1469]

It does.

I would be more interested in modern political figures. I think most would be way up towards the top.

[Chris]

Just think, Chloe, if the political spectrum was circular, the chart cylindrical, if you, Adelaide and polly moved left just a smidgen you'd be right. I'll keep working on you all.

[Dr. Who]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Cpt__Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister_D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&K_Code=-0.1%2C-5.1&chloe=-9.1%2C-3.7<div style=

http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Cpt++Obvious=-3.4%2C-3.6&Peter=2.0%2C-3.4&Polly=-10.0%2C-6.3&F%26l=1.0%2C-2.0&Chris=7.0%2C-4.0&Awryly=-6.0%2C-3.5&Adelaide=-9.0%2C-7.2&Mister+D=-2.2%2C1.2&Grassroots=4.8%2C-2.0&Kizzume=-6.3%2C-5.2&K+Code=-0.1%2C-5.1&Chloe=-9.1%2C-3.7&newname=Dr.+Who&newec=-6.12&newsoc=-2.97+

Added in Chloe's and Dr. Who's results :smiley:

@GrassrootsConservative (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=478): Awryly did submit results, she's right there in between Chloe and Captain Obvious.
@Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565): I agree, there are some problems with the wording of some of the questions. For example:



Society is a broad term and is not limited to the government. Does this question address private or public welfare? Both?

This quiz is good for creating a snapshot and giving a general sense of political attitudes and leanings. It's not exhaustive or scientific, but I think it's a lot of fun to see where everyone is.

Help.... I'm invisible....

[KC]

Help.... I'm invisible....

Whoops! I updated the link but forgot to update the chart! Take another look.

[Dr. Who]

Whoops! I updated the link but forgot to update the chart! Take another look.

Still invisible. Am I looking in the wrong place?