NationStates Jolt Archive

Post your new score here.

What?

To see if anybody's score changed.

is it just me or is the political compass site down? :confused:

Well, I've apparently had a massive swing to the left.

>sig>

where is it? I wanna try!

To see if anybody's score changed.I'm glad you cleared that up in the first post instead of typing in something that doesn't make any sense.

Since that's down, I'll post my results from "The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)":

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=10&e=10

Suprise! :D

Ye gods, I've never seen a more politically biased quiz in my life.

Ye gods, I've never seen a more politically biased quiz in my life.
Have an alternative I could tear to shreds? Oh, and lemme guess where you stand, far left?
God, this is easy pickins'!

Have an alternative I could tear to shreds? Oh, and lemme guess where you stand, far left?
God, this is easy pickins'!

I love you libertarians. Mindless aggression mixed with oversimplification of issues. Lovely personality traits.

I love you libertarians. Mindless aggression mixed with oversimplification of issues. Lovely personality traits.
At 83 posts, don't claim to know me or any other Libertarian here. You're a nameless n00b, so I can't retort with generalizations about you.

Well, I can compliment you on being able to dance around every question I asked you, in lieu of an honest answer. Good job at helping me guess where you stand, since you're so ashamed to post it.

At 83 posts, don't claim to know me or any other Libertarian here. You're a nameless n00b, so I can't retort with generalizations about you.

Well, I can compliment you on being able to dance around every question I asked you, in lieu of an honest answer. Good job at helping me guess where you stand, since you're so ashamed to post it.

You seem like an Arrogant Asshole. Wow he only has 83 posts what he says dosnt count!

You seem like an Arrogant Asshole. Wow he only has 83 posts what he says dosnt count!
Erm, I am an arrogant asshole! :p

Ok that makes sense, btw my compass has not changed rather. :edit:

Yeah, I recently changed to the dark side.

>sig

At 83 posts, don't claim to know me or any other Libertarian here. You're a nameless n00b, so I can't retort with generalizations about you.

Well, I can compliment you on being able to dance around every question I asked you, in lieu of an honest answer. Good job at helping me guess where you stand, since you're so ashamed to post it.

And your 2k+ posts entitle you to make comments about my levels of knowledge. There is a life outside the NS boards, there is a distinct possibility that I have met and interacted with enough libertarians in meatspace to have an informed opinion of libertarian ideology. Though, since I don't even come close to having as big a post count as you, it's understandable that you'd find my comments easy to dismiss.

Yeah, I recently changed to the dark side.

>sig*In Rick James voice*
Hey everybody, it's The Darkness!

And your 2k+ posts entitle you to make comments about my levels of knowledge. There is a life outside the NS boards, there is a distinct possibility that I have met and interacted with enough libertarians in meatspace to have an informed opinion of libertarian ideology. Though, since I don't even come close to having as big a post count as you, it's understandable that you'd find my comments easy to dismiss.

I think it was the sweeping generalisation about libertarians which entitled him to make comments about your level of knowledge.

In my experience, political views tend to be discussed in much more depth on this forum than in real life. Believe me, if you just sit back and read a few debates, you'll learn a lot.

*In Rick James voice*
Hey everybody, it's The Darkness!
Feck them. Listen to Thin Lizzy.

I think it was the sweeping generalisation about libertarians which entitled him to make comments about your level of knowledge.

In my experience, political views tend to be discussed in much more depth on this forum than in real life. Believe me, if you just sit back and read a few debates, you'll learn a lot.

I have read a lot of the political debates in these forums. I have also had a great deal of in depth discussions with libertarian ideologes in real life. I'm sick to death of what libertarians call 'debate' and refuse to engage with them on political, social, environmental, scientific, philosophical or economic issues. The reason being is the reflexive mindless aggression typically displayed by neo-cons of any stripe.

This whole strand of discussion started after I observed the patently biased nature of the 'survey' Eichen linked to earlier. His immeidiate response was to to assume my political orientation and then, in a condescending manner to dare me to produce a counter example for him to 'tear to shreds'

If Eichen had actually asked my why I felt the survey to be biased there would have been a possibility for a reasoned debate on the objectivity of the push poll masquerading as a survey. Instead, he responded in the typical pit bull like manner common to Libertarians.

I don't remember my exact results, but my government class had me taking the quiz for the bizillionth time, and I think I was about -5 economic, -8.5 social.

Afghregestan, why do you think it's biased?

i got a joyous -6.5 -7.5 ish score. hurray for me, very liberal socialist that i am!

why when you say libertarians do you all talk of neocons? are you all americans? surely theres a libertarian left over their, isnt their? such as the anarchists/primitivists/syndicalists/etc? course, i may have just misunderstood you all, in which case i apologise. curséd skim reading...

damn neocons.... stealing our name and twisting it for theor own evil ends.... :mad:

Feck them. Listen to Thin Lizzy.
Aww shit, I guess you don't get Chapelle in Dublin...

Promise me you'll watch one of the funniest things I've ever seen (http://www.narphonax.com/phptrak/clicks_counter.php?http://www.narphonax.com/images2/rickjames.wmv)... then you'll get the joke.

:D

Yeah, I recently changed to the dark side.

>sig

Are you gonna update your NS Political Compass anytime soon?

The reason being is the reflexive mindless aggression typically displayed by neo-cons of any stripe.

If Eichmann had actually asked my why I felt the survey to be biased there would have been a possibility for a reasoned debate on the objectivity of the push poll masquerading as a survey. Instead, he responded in the typical pit bull like manner common to Libertarians.
Libertarians are not neocons. They are almost the opposite of neocons.

And his name is Eichen not Eichmann, and you know it.

Are you gonna update your NS Political Compass anytime soon?
Yes

I have read a lot of the political debates in these forums. I have also had a great deal of in depth discussions with libertarian ideologes in real life. I'm sick to death of what libertarians call 'debate' and refuse to engage with them on political, social, environmental, scientific, philosophical or economic issues. The reason being is the reflexive mindless aggression typically displayed by neo-cons of any stripe.
Your ignorance is showing here. Libertarians are not neo-cons. I would agree with you about neo-cons, but as a libertarian, I have to defend that the identification of that group with a libertarian point of view is an insult to me, and presumably to my ideological colleagues.

This whole strand of discussion started after I observed the patently biased nature of the 'survey' Eichen linked to earlier. His immeidiate response was to to assume my political orientation and then, in a condescending manner to dare me to produce a counter example for him to 'tear to shreds'
You did not "observe" in any reasoned way, what you considewred to be the bias of the Worlds Smallest Political survey, you simply posted "Ye gods, I've never seen a more politically biased quiz in my life." This is supposed to provoke intelligent discussion. I think not. Do not provoke and then complain when you get bitten.

If Eichmann had actually asked my why I felt the survey to be biased there would have been a possibility for a reasoned debate on the objectivity of the push poll masquerading as a survey. Instead, he responded in the typical pit bull like manner common to Libertarians.
Firstly, you could retract the insult in the second word of this paragraph. The poster's name is Eichen. If you had posted why you thought the survey was biased, then you would have obtained a reasoned and reasonable reply. (Unless Eichen is too out of it at the moment :p ) However, you could not do that, but now you see fit to complain that he responded in the same maner as your post. Short, sharp and aggresive.

Libertarians are not neocons. They are almost the opposite of neocons.

And his name is Eichen not Eichmann, and you know it.
I've put him on temporary ignore, but did he just make a nazi innuendo based on my last name?
Temp-to-permanent. :rolleyes:

Yes

I shall be waiting!

I've put him on temporary ignore, but did he just make a nazi innuendo based on my last name?
Temp-to-permanent. :rolleyes:
Yes, Eichmann was one of the cheif architects of the holocaust. I think comparing ANYONE in modern western world politics to Nazis is a big no-no.

Updated. I've moved a little to the right, and have become a little less libertarian, compared to last time. (Old results in sig for now. I will probably average them with the new.)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

Averages E 3.94
S -4.59

This puts me in the same box as Superpower07.

I have read a lot of the political debates in these forums. I have also had a great deal of in depth discussions with libertarian ideologes in real life. I'm sick to death of what libertarians call 'debate' and refuse to engage with them on political, social, environmental, scientific, philosophical or economic issues. The reason being is the reflexive mindless aggression typically displayed by neo-cons of any stripe.

So, tell me a little about libertarian ideologies. I know nothing about them whatsoever, I really want a seasoned debator such as yourself to explain them to me. :)

EDIT: damn, he's offline...

So, tell me a little about libertarian ideologies. I know nothing about them whatsoever, I really want a seasoned debator such as yourself to explain them to me. :)

EDIT: damn, he's offline...

It would either have been amusing, or cut and paste. Probably the latter.

*gasp*

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44

i used to be -9 on both counts.

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
Oh dear god, I'm Badnarik!

Economic Left -7.13
Social Libertarian -7.64

Hmmm... I imagine it would change a little from day to day based on my mood. Some days I feel more strongly about everything and would come close to {-9, -9}. Other days, {-5, -5}.

Right, I'll address the quiz first.

Oversimplification The most telling problem with the quiz is the blatant oversimplification of the issues. What's more they are presented through the use emotionally loaded terms.
Case 1) Censorship: 'Censorship' is an emotionally loaded term, the question asking whether governments should not be allowed to sensor speech etc. would provoke a very different response if the question were "Should the production and dissemination of child pornography be made illegal?" The point is that words can be chosen that will drive responses to your questions in a specific direction.
Case 2) International Free Trade question: This wildly oversimplifies the issue. Free trade comes in many different strains and permutations. I think few if any people would disagree with allowing the Third World access to Industrialized nations medicine, food, technology etc. etc. but many would disagree with industrialized nations maintaining control of these technologies and goods and not permitting TWN to control their application and rate of uptake. This question also ignores the option of asymetric free trade where TWN's are allowed to maintain tariffs and barriers while industrialized nations have to drop barriers, which, while I'm at it is precisely the opposite of current applications of 'Free Trade'
Case 3) Economic Issues: This section of the quiz doesn't even present the option of social spending within a government, no issue of universal health care, education, civil rights, racism, sexism etc. etc. This alone biases the quiz in the favour of a laissez-faire capitalist corporatist model by minimizing these issues importance.
Case 4a) Labelling of the Axis: First off, Liberal and Conservative are inappropriate labels especially when these terms are so closely aligned with the Republican and Democratic parties. After taking the test a few times you can see that issues that are antithetical to each party can still drop you firmly within their zone. Lib and Con are especially loaded in a day and age when they can be applied to Kerry and Bu$h respectively.
Case 4b) Conflating Statist with Big Government: They aren't the same. Statist refers to the division of power within a society, Big Government is an emotionally loaded term used to imply waste of tax dollars.
Case 5) The Maybe option: False option, it could be argued that the Maybe option allows a person with a nuanced view of the issues presented but since the issues presented are so emotionally loaded it's pretty hard for anyone with a genuinely centrist viewpoint to pick them.
Case 6) The corporate welfare question: Again, lack of nuance. "Should the government stop financing and insuring high tech research through the use of military contracts?" and "Should the government devote tax dollars for medical research enabling the efficient delivery of health services?" Are two very different questions that fall under the loaded term 'corporate welfare'

This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the quiz. Merely my first impressions on taking it. Debate is welcome but please, for the love of God can we drop the semantics, if you need clarity ask.

So, tell me a little about libertarian ideologies. I know nothing about them whatsoever, I really want a seasoned debator such as yourself to explain them to me.

Spare me the sarcasm.

I know its not accurate, it merely gives you a [very] vague idea.
On a side note you did generalize about libertarians.

I know its not accurate, it merely gives you a [very] vague idea.
On a side note you did generalize about libertarians.

You're right, I did generalise, however it's based on repeated past experience. There was a lot more I could have said, but watch the debate, I think you'll see what I base my opinion on.

And on my own side note, I'm deeply curious as to how libertarians see themselves different from neo cons.

And oh, I editted the Eichmann out.

You're right, I did generalise, however it's based on repeated past experience. There was a lot more I could have said, but watch the debate, I think you'll see what I base my opinion on.

And on my own side note, I'm deeply curious as to how libertarians see themselves different from neo cons.

And oh, I editted the Eichmann out.

For one, neo-conservatives: aggressive foreign policy, restrictive socially (anti-gay, anti-drugs, anti-prostitution, pro-censorship), pro-corporate welfare. Big government.

Libertarians: non-intervention, socially free (pro-gays, pro-drug legalization, pro-prostitution legalization, fervently anti-censorship), anti-corporate welfare. Small government.

For one, neo-conservatives: aggressive foreign policy, restrictive socially (anti-gay, anti-drugs, anti-prostitution, pro-censorship), pro-corporate welfare. Big government.

Libertarians: non-intervention, socially free (pro-gays, pro-drug legalization, pro-prostitution legalization, fervently anti-censorship), anti-corporate welfare. Small government.

Okay, fair enough. Here's where some of my previous experience hops in. (non intervention) Every Libertarian who's discussed the invasion of Iraq with if deeply in favour of the whole adventure. The other issues that causes confusion is that while Libertarians say they're against big government none have stated any desire to restrict the powers of corporations i.e. limitting of patent rights, ability to externalize costs.

I've moved further into the good corner. My new scores are in my sig. :)

Edit:Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

I think it may have something to do with me reading up about anarchism and liking it.

Okay, fair enough. Here's where some of my previous experience hops in. (non intervention) Every Libertarian who's discussed the invasion of Iraq with if deeply in favour of the whole adventure. The other issues that causes confusion is that while Libertarians say they're against big government none have stated any desire to restrict the powers of corporations i.e. limitting of patent rights, ability to externalize costs.
Corporations are not the government. I am against the war and I would like to meet these libertarians you speak of.

Corporations are not the government. I am against the war and I would like to meet these libertarians you speak of.

Corporations are unaccountable institutions of centralized power. Arguably the dominant institutions of our society. So, while they aren't governments per se, they have been taking on responsibilities and social functions that were formally controlled by the government. Pardon my earlier lack of precision. So, as a Libertarian, do you feel these institutions of centralised power should be limitted in there abilty to invervene in our lives?

eh, my scores in my sig. Very socialist, significantly liberal (would that be called libertarian as far as social issues go?)

Right, I'll address the quiz first.

Oversimplification The most telling problem with the quiz is the blatant oversimplification of the issues. What's more they are presented through the use emotionally loaded terms.
Case 1) Censorship: 'Censorship' is an emotionally loaded term, the question asking whether governments should not be allowed to sensor speech etc. would provoke a very different response if the question were "Should the production and dissemination of child pornography be made illegal?" The point is that words can be chosen that will drive responses to your questions in a specific direction.
So let us look at the wording on the quiz:
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet T
The only possible bias here is that the question is phrased "should not" rather than "should". It is not detailed, but the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz, does not claim to be detailed.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs
There should be no National ID card
End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business


Case 2) International Free Trade question: This wildly oversimplifies the issue. Free trade comes in many different strains and permutations. I think few if any people would disagree with allowing the Third World access to Industrialized nations medicine, food, technology etc. etc. but many would disagree with industrialized nations maintaining control of these technologies and goods and not permitting TWN to control their application and rate of uptake. This question also ignores the option of asymetric free trade where TWN's are allowed to maintain tariffs and barriers while industrialized nations have to drop barriers, which, while I'm at it is precisely the opposite of current applications of 'Free Trade'
The question asked is:
End government barriers to international free trade
The maybe option does apply here, despite your later criticism of it. No quiz, of any type can be as detailed as you would like it to be. However, your original comment, was that this quiz was biased. In what way is this question biased. Again, the complaint you are giving here is one of it not providing a fine enough resolution for your taste. (I think it will be accepted that this quiz is very crude in this respect).

Case 3) Economic Issues: This section of the quiz doesn't even present the option of social spending within a government, no issue of universal health care, education, civil rights, racism, sexism etc. etc. This alone biases the quiz in the favour of a laissez-faire capitalist corporatist model by minimizing these issues importance.
Once more, going back to the quiz:
Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security
Replace government welfare with private charity
Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more

These are the remaining questions on economics. They do address the subjects you mention, but lumped together. Again it is more a question of detail than of bias. You can disagree with cutting welfare, it is not biased in favour of doing so. You can disagree with social security reform, you can opt for retaining the tax levels and spending. The one obvious bias, I can see here is that it does not provide for increasing the taxation and spending. SO, of the points so far, one position only has been excluded. That I will accept is wrong, but no such quiz is perfect.

Case 4a) Labelling of the Axis: First off, Liberal and Conservative are inappropriate labels especially when these terms are so closely aligned with the Republican and Democratic parties. After taking the test a few times you can see that issues that are antithetical to each party can still drop you firmly within their zone. Lib and Con are especially loaded in a day and age when they can be applied to Kerry and Bu$h respectively.
Complaining of bias and using a $ in place of the s in Bush's is rather self defeating. No bias shown there, whatsoever I suppose.
However:
The axes are labeled, and these labels are explained. They are not just terms left floating in a miasma of uncertainty of meaning.
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy.

and
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values"
to give just the opening sentence in each description. The terms are not so clearly tied to USA political parties. The world is a lot larger than the USA, and there are many more political parties in it than just the Republicans and the Democrats.
Case 4b) Conflating Statist with Big Government: They aren't the same. Statist refers to the division of power within a society, Big Government is an emotionally loaded term used to imply waste of tax dollars.
Again, let us see what they say:
Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.
To them, statist means something different to what it means to you. If you can provide support for your point of view, then this is a valid criticism. It is not however a bias in the quiz. It is just an opinion that may be wrong in evaluating the results.

Case 5) The Maybe option: False option, it could be argued that the Maybe option allows a person with a nuanced view of the issues presented but since the issues presented are so emotionally loaded it's pretty hard for anyone with a genuinely centrist viewpoint to pick them.
If you are a genuine centrist, you may will pick maybe all the way through. As you are obviously not a centrist, you are not qualified to deny that they will. I, also not being a centrist, can not assert that they will, I can just see no reason why they should not. You choose according to your opinons and beliefs. For me it would be hard to pick "disagree" for anything there, but I bet that you can pick at least some "disagrees", if not all, with no difficulty. There is no bias against the centrist in the quiz. There may be one in your mind.

Case 6) The corporate welfare question: Again, lack of nuance. "Should the government stop financing and insuring high tech research through the use of military contracts?" and "Should the government devote tax dollars for medical research enabling the efficient delivery of health services?" Are two very different questions that fall under the loaded term 'corporate welfare
Once again, the criticism is of detail rather than of bias. It is the worlds smallest political quiz, it is not a survey being carried out for a doctorate in political science.

This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the quiz. Merely my first impressions on taking it. Debate is welcome but please, for the love of God can we drop the semantics, if you need clarity ask.

I hope you can see that your complaints against the quiz, are not based on the quiz itself having any major bias. Of course, a word here, or a phrase there will indicate the thinking of the author/creator. This is unavoidable. However there is no deliberate bias built in, with the possible exception of the exclusion of a true communist.

I think he is talking about the Libertarian Party of America which I think are neo-cons.

I've moved further into the good corner. My new scores are in my sig. :)

Edit:Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

I think it may have something to do with me reading up about anarchism and liking it.

Now that's more like it, damnit!

The people have more control over the market than they do over government. They do not control people's lives as the state does. I think you may be connecting libertarian to anarchist there.

I hope you can see that your complaints against the quiz, are not based on the quiz itself having any major bias. Of course, a word here, or a phrase there will indicate the thinking of the author/creator. This is unavoidable. However there is no deliberate bias built in, with the possible exception of the exclusion of a true communist.

Just a quick response: Commies and anarchists are excluded. More to come.

Okay, fair enough. Here's where some of my previous experience hops in. (non intervention) Every Libertarian who's discussed the invasion of Iraq with if deeply in favour of the whole adventure. The other issues that causes confusion is that while Libertarians say they're against big government none have stated any desire to restrict the powers of corporations i.e. limitting of patent rights, ability to externalize costs.

You have not discussed with libertarians then. I, like other libertarians here am opposed tio the war in Iraq. There are aspects of the war that could draw support from libertarin thinking, in the reduction in the government control that will eventualy result from the war. However the interference of one government in the internal affairs of another state is wrong, from my position of minimal governent.

Corporations are not, as I have no doubrt it has already been stated, government, nor do they perform the role of government. I can chose if I buy a pepsi or a coke or neither (I actually choose neither) I can not choose if I pay tax, or who to pay it to without severely changing my life (This is something I have done in the past, but I would prefer not to have to emmigrate too often). Libertarianism, for me is about having the liberty to choose for myself. About not having decisions taken on my behalf by people and organisations that do not know me, nor my desires and interests. Building in regulation to all aspects of life restricts that choice. Regulating businesses simply makes them less efficient, and I end up with less freedom than I would have had if they had not been regulated. There would be no patent rights to be limited. To succeed you would either have to keep something secret, or produce the product or provide the service at better value than the others. Why should costs not be externalised?

Just a quick response: Commies and anarchists are excluded. More to come.

Anarchy is not a political position, as the term politics is used nowadays. It is an apolitical position. It is not going to be included even in the most detailed of political evaluation quizzes.

Okay, I took the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz.
Surprise! I'm a liberal.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 30%.
_______________________________________
I also took this one, it was fun.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Test&choice=Long

Your Score

Your scored -6.5 on the Moral Order axis and 2.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Socialism
Variation: Moral Socialism
Ideologies: Activism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (84.38%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (93.01%), John Kerry (74.81%), George W. Bush (39.32%)
Statistics

Of the 64891 people who took the test:

2.4% had the same score as you.
11.7% were above you on the chart.
75.9% were below you on the chart.
89.9% were to your right on the chart.
1.5% were to your left on the chart.
_________________________________________
The political compass test.

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.59



I'm so surprised I'm a liberal/socialist. *sarcasm*

Anarchy is not a political position, as the term politics is used nowadays. It is an apolitical position.

You need to read some anarchist theory then. Anarchy is extremely political. Here you go!! (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

It is not going to be included even in the most detailed of political evaluation quizzes.

It's position is quite nicely fulfilled in the political spectrum quiz Here (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Test&choice=Long) That's popular here abouts.

However, it's completely excluded from the worlds smallest political quiz. A fine detail that I didn't think was worthwhile pursuing.

Bitchkitchen I got the same as you on that test! :fluffle:

Wow kitten sorry :D

I had no trouble getting to the political compass quiz this way:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.php

I get a slightly different score each time, depending on my mood. The time before I got ECO -8.88 and SOC -7.54

Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56

...it doesn't get much more centrist than this.


Other important stats:
Shoe size: 10
News magazine: TIME
41.255' N by 73.212' W
Salsa: Mrs. Renfros black bean

Your Score

Your scored -5 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Liberalism
Variation: Extreme Liberalism
Ideologies: Progressivism, Progressive NeoLiberalism
US Parties: Libertarian Party
Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson (84.38%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (78.24%), Ralph Nader (66.56%), George W. Bush (55.31%)
Statistics

Of the 64925 people who took the test:

0% had the same score as you.
83% were above you on the chart.
4.1% were below you on the chart.
85.3% were to your right on the chart.
10.1% were to your left on the chart.

it's all in the sig.

political compass and moral axises (axes? axesis? what the hell is the plural of 'axis'?)

Surprise, surprise, I got social libertarian again, though I shut the window w/out copying.

*sniff* I have no political parties or representation.

Though apparently I have a 79% overlap with Jimmy Carter. WTF is that?

You need to read some anarchist theory then. Anarchy is extremely political. Here you go!! (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html)

www.infoshop.org not found, is what I get at the moment, so I'll look again later. However they may be a terminolgy problem here. My background is in philosophy and therefore anarchy means the absence of politics, the absence of government or social control. If you are arguing for collectivism, this, to me and many others is not what we understand as anarchy. Communitarian, collectivist I agree are no more represented than communist. Anarchist, as I understand it can not be represented on a political scale. It would be like asking what category of music to put the colour yellow in.


It's position is quite nicely fulfilled in the political spectrum quiz (damn you dead link!!) That's popular here abouts.

However, it's completely excluded from the worlds smallest political quiz. A fine detail that I didn't think was worthwhile pursuing.

You, I presume are referring to the political compass. If so, this actually uses the same axes as the WSPQ, just the questions are more detailed.

My main argument with you was the offhand dismissal of the WSPQ, and the aggresive reaction when your offhand attitude was emulated. My intention here is not to try and convert someone to my views, but simply to be able to present alternatives to the undecided. This is best done by presenting the positive ideas, rather than by being abruptly negative about others. I hope that you have seen that not all libertarians are thoughtless neo-cons (I still would like a recognition that these are not the same) nor are we heartless uncaring people. It is just that our views about how to make the best of the world for the greatest number, including us in that number, is to minimise the overheads of corruption and bureaucracy that are concomitant with government.

Your scored -2.5 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

1. System: Liberalism
2. Variation: Economic Liberalism
3. Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Bill Clinton (86.56%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (79.99%), George W. Bush (66.20%), Ralph Nader (63.42%)

Statistics

Of the 64981 people who took the test:

1. 4.1% had the same score as you.
2. 83.1% were above you on the chart.
3. 4.1% were below you on the chart.
4. 47.2% were to your right on the chart.
5. 29.2% were to your left on the chart.

Your Score

Your scored -2.5 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Liberalism
Variation: Economic Liberalism
Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Bill Clinton (86.56%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (79.99%), George W. Bush (66.20%), Ralph Nader (63.42%)
Statistics

Of the 64992 people who took the test:

4.1% had the same score as you.
83.1% were above you on the chart.
4.1% were below you on the chart.
47.2% were to your right on the chart.
29.2% were to your left on the chart.




Alien Born... this is just getting spooky! There's just no way that's possible. :D

Alien Born... this is just getting spooky! There's just no way that's possible. :D

It just shows that we are pretty constant in our views. Me with your's and you with mine. :p

www.infoshop.org not found, is what I get at the moment, so I'll look again later. However they may be a terminolgy problem here. My background is in philosophy and therefore anarchy means the absence of politics, the absence of government or social control. If you are arguing for collectivism, this, to me and many others is not what we understand as anarchy. Communitarian, collectivist I agree are no more represented than communist. Anarchist, as I understand it can not be represented on a political scale. It would be like asking what category of music to put the colour yellow in. .

From Wikipedia:
Anarchy (New Latin anarchia) is a term that has a number of different but related usages. Specific meanings include-Absence of any form of political authority and/or social hierarchy.

I"m not sure how this would be apolitical, there will still be competing interests, and collectives will form, necessitating negotiation.



You, I presume are referring to the political compass. If so, this actually uses the same axes as the WSPQ, just the questions are more detailed. .

I bet to differ, variance from the libertarian archetype (all yeses) drives ones ideology towards a statist evaluation, the political compass allows for anarchist leanings... Social libertarian if you prefer.

My main argument with you was the offhand dismissal of the WSPQ, and the aggresive reaction when your offhand attitude was emulated.

Again, the WSPQ is still biased, yes allowances can be made for the fact that it is short but I don't think that excuses it's shortcoming. It's my position that it's simply a tool to normalize libertarian ideology and thus act as a recruitment tool.

My intention here is not to try and convert someone to my views, but simply to be able to present alternatives to the undecided. This is best done by presenting the positive ideas, rather than by being abruptly negative about others. I hope that you have seen that not all libertarians are thoughtless neo-cons (I still would like a recognition that these are not the same) nor are we heartless uncaring people. It is just that our views about how to make the best of the world for the greatest number, including us in that number, is to minimise the overheads of corruption and bureaucracy that are concomitant with government.

The biggest issue for me as far as politics are concerned is the popular controls of centralized power. While political stances on social freedoms (gender, sexuality etc) are laudable, I find it laughable to hear the assertion that corporations are more responsive to popular will than government.

Addressing the power issue then, any differences between parties that disagree between dividing power between corporations or governments is purely cosmetic.

P.S. I checked the link, it seems to be working now. Alternately, just google anarchy faq.

It just shows that we are pretty constant in our views. Me with your's and you with mine. :p
I hear ya. I'm pretty set in my views, until someone convinces me otherwise.
That's why I didn't retake the political compass. I don't change political philosophies, day to day. It's not subject to fluctuations in my "mental weather".

I found the results of this test to be pretty rediculous though. At least the info they provided with it (Bill Clinton? NeoLiberal? :p )

I think he is talking about the Libertarian Party of America which I think are neo-cons.

Neoconservatism in the United States is described as a political movement characterized by "..aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29 )

The American Libertarian Party, on the other hand, rejects American military interventionism in foreign affairs:

"We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#milipoli

The American Libertarian Party is very socially liberal:

"Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs. Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions. Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#warondru

"We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#sexurigh

The American Libertarian Party is all about minimal government:

"Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#sop

And the American Libertarian Party rejects the concept of the welfare state:

"The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. No worker should be legally penalized for lack of certification, and no consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.
...We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish. We call for the abolition of all federal, state and local government agencies that restrict entry into any profession, such as education and law, or regulate its practice. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects and 'aid to the poor' programs."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#preswarp

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform, the Libertarian Party is certainly not neoconservative in nature. If anything, they most closely match neoliberalism, with their focus on the restriction of government to the bare minimum with widespread support for free market principles. One area where the Libertarian Party would disagree with other neoliberals, however, is in regard to international economic agreements and treaties like the GATT and NAFTA. Where neoliberal ideology might consider such things useful tools, the Libertarian Party rejects them:

"Individuals trading with individuals in other nations, voluntarily, should be the sole source of regulation of international free markets. All trade barriers are unnecessary and burdensome constraints. ...We advocate a complete and unilateral withdrawal of the United States from all international trade agreements, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)."
-- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#tradbarr

"Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi-governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. True free trade[,] the kind that fosters peace[,] does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them. Managed trade[,] the kind that fosters resentment and poverty[,] is all that these organizations have so far delivered."
-- Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Party candidate ( http://www.badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php )

I hear ya. I'm pretty set in my views, until someone convinces me otherwise.
That's why I didn't retake the political compass. I don't change political philosophies, day to day. It's not subject to fluctuations in my "mental weather".

I found the results of this test to be pretty rediculous though. At least the info they provided with it (Bill Clinton? NeoLiberal? :p )


Maybe you're just not aware of who represents your interests best. Just a thought. I think the categories are a little different from what most of us have in mind when we use those terms.

The biggest issue for me as far as politics are concerned is the popular controls of centralized power. While political stances on social freedoms (gender, sexuality etc) are laudable, I find it laughable to hear the assertion that corporations are more responsive to popular will than government.

Addressing the power issue then, any differences between parties that disagree between dividing power between corporations or governments is purely cosmetic.

P.S. I checked the link, it seems to be working now. Alternately, just google anarchy faq.

Putting aside the WSPQ for now as being a distraction that really is rather unimportant in the end I think we could move on to this disagreement about the similarity between government and corporations.

First point, one I think you will agree with, is that from the inside, a government and a large corporation look alike. (I've worked for the UK government, and for BET, one big industrial services company, as well as for universities which sort of fall in between the two.) If you consider them as institutons, and place the emphasis on their structure, then they can be highly topographically equivalent. However if you consider them as processes as activities, then all equivalencve disappears. They have different goals, different methods, different strategies, and different effects.

What is the purpose of a government? This is one of the central questions of any political debate, but it appears that supporters of all positions argue that government is to serve the people. What is the purpose of a corporation. To make money. Very different purposes. One is not financially motivated, efficiency is not a concern. The other is financially motivated, to succeed it should be efficient.

What are their methods. The government does things by decree. By imposing upon the people the will of that people. (If it really were the will of the people then it would not need to be imposed). This will apparently includes collection of assets, provision of services, going to war, imposition of trading restraints, closure of markets, definition of what children shall learn, etc. etc. If the government is not representative then simply substitute the word people for person. Corporations have a different modus operandi. They set out to persuade individuals or other corporations, or even the government, that they, the corporation provides the best value widgets, or eckythump consultancy or watever it is that the corporation does. There is no imposing here. The customer can take advantage of the corporations product or not. There is marketing and advertising and at times it can be difficult to not buy something, but it is not imposed.

Strategies. A government, in a democracy, is always considering how to win the next election. There is no long term planning, the goal is no more than four years away (in the USA, five in the UK). The favourite strategy is to rob Peter to pay Paul. If there is a crisis of confidence in the government either give tax breaks that are impossible to suport with the bureaucracy level, or go to war. It happens over and over again. Corporations have to have long term planning (or they had to until recently, when this appears to have been substituted by creative accounting) if they are going to survive. They have to provide what the customer actually wants, or persuade the customer that he wants what they provide. They can not give a price reduction one year and then have guaranteed sales for the following four. No robbing of Peter to pay Paul is possible here.

Effects. What effect does a government have on the society. Firstly it costs money and produces nothing. It is a weight on the economy. Secondly it causes individuals or groups of individuals to look outside of themselves for the means to success, and is a convenient excuse for those who will not make the necessary effort to be successful. Thirdly it restricts the activities and freedoms of individuals by taking resources away to provide services that the individual could have obtained much more efficiently for themself. Corporations, have different effects. Some are bad, they abuse workers and the environment, they take the value added to a product and pass some of this to the owner for nothing more than being the owner. Others are good. They provide goods and services that would not otherwise be available. They provide employment for individuals, or custom for other corporations. They stimulate communications between different regions of the country or the world, they reduce discrimination by reducing distance.

Corporations =/= Government
Institution =/= Bad

It all depends on how you view it, structurally or functionally. The functions are indisputably different. The structures may be the same.

I'm not doing the Political Compass again, but I liked the www.moral-politics.com test. :)

Your Score

Your scored -7 on the Moral Order axis and 3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Activism, Libertarian Socialism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (81.25%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (90.12%), John Kerry (71.70%), George W. Bush (36.26%)

Statistics

Of the 65010 people who took the test:

1. 0.2% had the same score as you.
2. 7.6% were above you on the chart.
3. 88.3% were below you on the chart.
4. 98.4% were to your right on the chart.
5. 0.3% were to your left on the chart.

Seems I'm feeling a skosh more authoritarian tonight.

Old Political Compass score:
Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

New Political Compass score
Economic Left/Right: 8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

For what it's worth, I think that we would agree on a great many issues. For instance, government (until we get rid of it) should not subsidize and insure high tech research through military contracts. People should be free to do what they choose with their bodies so long as it doesn't infringe on another person freedom. And so on...

Some concepts that I think would piss you off are: a) There is never has been and never will be such a thing as free trade. The immiediate effect of any type of centralised power is to distort the market in it's favour.
b) Collective needs cannot be expressed or solved through a market system.
c) Land ownership (as well as interest charged) is antithetical to personnal freedom. (this is frequently extended to artifacts that provide collective goods)
d) Humans are basically creative social creatures, political systems of authority/subordination distort this by rewarding and reinforcing anti social behavior as anti social traits are required to succeed in systems of domination and submission.

Your scored -4 on the Moral Order axis and -0.5 on the Moral Rules axis.
Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Liberalism
* Variation: Moderate Liberalism, Moral Liberalism
* Ideologies: Capital Democratism
* US Parties: Democratic Party
* Presidents: Jimmy Carter (97.79%)
* 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (92.03%), Ralph Nader (88.95%), George W. Bush (55.53%)
Statistics
Of the 65011 people who took the test:
* 1.4% had the same score as you.
* 31.4% were above you on the chart.
* 56.8% were below you on the chart.
* 78.8% were to your right on the chart.
* 14.8% were to your left on the chart.


I wonder how i got Capital Democratism as an ideology... I'm communist!

Your scored -7 on the Moral Order axis and 3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Activism, Libertarian Socialism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (81.25%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (90.12%), John Kerry (71.70%), George W. Bush (36.26%)


Hey, we're pretty close.
Damn socialist. :D

And I decided to take Moral Politics quiz for gits and shiggles. I may actually bother to look up what this all means tomorrow. :shrugs:
___________________
Your Score

Your scored -0.5 on the Moral Order axis and -6 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Liberalism
Variation: Economic Liberalism
Ideologies: Progressive NeoLiberalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Ronald Reagan (88.95%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (79.15%), George W. Bush (75.29%), Ralph Nader (60.66%)
Statistics

Of the 65012 people who took the test:

0.8% had the same score as you.
83.1% were above you on the chart.
4.1% were below you on the chart.
27.7% were to your right on the chart.
60.4% were to your left on the chart.

Regarding Anarchy as not being or being political. I have accessed the Anarchy FAQ (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part1) which starts by addressing the question of what anarchy is.

The initial response is:

Anarchism is defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary as "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished." Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold.

Now we can agree on this. It then comes down to an understanding of what politics is, rather than anarchy, if we disagree as to whether anarchy is a political position or not. So, off to the on line dictionary we go:

Main Entry: pol·i·tics
Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2 : political actions, practices, or policies
3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics>

For me politics is definition no. 1. It is the art or science of government. This is probably due to having a philosophical background and being strongly influenced by the ideas of Aristotle, but it may not be. Definitions 2 through to 4 al depend upon definition 1. So we are left with definition 5. as being the definition used to make anarchy political. In this limited sense, I can see that it may be so described. I would prefer to describe it as a social ideal, not a political one. This way it avoids my having to have two meanings for politics.

Hey, we're pretty close.
Damn socialist. :D

:D

I wonder what you have to do to get into the extreme top end. :p You should start a new thread on this one :D

(And check out the responses sorted by country. I wanna go to Europe :()

I hear ya. I'm pretty set in my views, until someone convinces me otherwise.
That's why I didn't retake the political compass. I don't change political philosophies, day to day. It's not subject to fluctuations in my "mental weather".

I found the results of this test to be pretty rediculous though. At least the info they provided with it (Bill Clinton? NeoLiberal? :p )

The terminology is always going to depend upon the perspective of the person writing the thing. To me, as a European, NeoLiberal is fine, it is pretty much libertarian as far as us lefty socialists are concerned..

Clinton, however is another matter. He has to have cheated when they tested him :D

labeling political opinions in board groups like that is gay - specailly when you guys on this forum agruing like "you libertarins all think like this...." - thats extra retarded -

and now we are agruing about anarchists? - those people are even more retarded - the people who always say they are anarchists are people who need the government the most - maybe if they made it through grade 12 they would have realized this - they're all either on welfare or living in their parents basement

:D

I wonder what you have to do to get into the extreme top end. :p You should start a new thread on this one :D

(And check out the responses sorted by country. I wanna go to Europe :()

I tried taking it answering the questions the way people who scare me probably would. My results: Your Score

Your scored 8 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Fundamentalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: George W. Bush (85.18%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (85.18%), John Kerry (47.48%), Ralph Nader (29.81%)

I tried taking it answering the questions the way people who scare me probably would. My results: Your Score

Your scored 8 on the Moral Order axis and -6.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Fundamentalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: George W. Bush (85.18%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (85.18%), John Kerry (47.48%), Ralph Nader (29.81%)

Heh! I got the same score when I tried doing that. :p

No matter what I do though, I can't get an extreme negative "Moral Order" score. Guess i'm not commie enough, heh.

and now we are agruing about anarchists? - those people are even more retarded - the people who always say they are anarchists are people who need the government the most - maybe if they made it through grade 12 they would have realized this - they're all either on welfare or living in their parents basement

Whatever. Do me a favour and go educate yourself.

what you dont live in your parents basement? - so sorry

what you dont live in your parents basement? - so sorry

Now, i'm not going to report you, but be aware that trolling and flaming are not permitted on this forum. You've done both. If you want to be treated with respect you should do likewise to others.

im not flaming... but i dont respect anarchists -and everyone i've ever met had not yet finished high school - or the ones that did lived in there parents basement - or off the government - and where always mouching food of people - and i've met more then a couple - oh yeah.. and they always had hygiene problems - i stand by my post

I find it very telling that when I answered tha questions as scarily as I could, George W. Bush ended up as my political match.

im not flaming... but i dont respect anarchists -and everyone i've ever met had not yet finished high school - or the ones that did lived in there parents basement - or off the government - and where always mouching food of people - and i've met more then a couple - oh yeah.. and they always had hygiene problems - i stand by my post

You are flaming. You referred to me as uneducated because of my political beliefs. And you just indirectly referred to me as all the above. I'd like you to take that back.

You also trolled when you referred to all anarchists as retarded. I think you should take that back too.

im not flaming... but i dont respect anarchists -and everyone i've ever met had not yet finished high school - or the ones that did lived in there parents basement - or off the government - and where always mouching food of people - and i've met more then a couple - oh yeah.. and they always had hygiene problems - i stand by my post

Please try expanding your horizons then. I've found my preconcieved notions of the opposition sometimes don't work. I've found my time on Nation States very enlightening. And I'm a forty year old who hasn't lived with her parents for 21 years.

EDIT: Though I'm not an anarchist.

why not reply stating your difference of opinion and why - prove me wrong or atleast try to - instead of crying about it - but nope - im reported after this post

Putting aside the WSPQ for now as being a distraction that really is rather unimportant in the end I think we could move on to this disagreement about the similarity between government and corporations.
I'd be happy to ditch the WSPQ, incidentally it's worth a good laugh to see how this discussion has evolved from the first couple of posts. :)

First point, one I think you will agree with, is that from the inside, a government and a large corporation look alike. (I've worked for the UK government, and for BET, one big industrial services company, as well as for universities which sort of fall in between the two.) If you consider them as institutons, and place the emphasis on their structure, then they can be highly topographically equivalent. However if you consider them as processes as activities, then all equivalencve disappears. They have different goals, different methods, different strategies, and different effects.

From this perspective the differences do indeed disappear, however, what is the aggregate effect of these two entities, the government and the corporation? My thesis is that they form a symbiotic relationship whose effect is the perpetuation of strict social heirarchy of domination and submission. Naturally this is not as restrictive as some caste system, it's necessary that the upper echelons are able to accept new members - so long as those members share the same dominant framework of beliefs. So, each institution may have different methods and functions but they both contribute in their own ways. The government reinforces the power of private wealth while the corporation provides technical expertise and funding to ensure the status quo is maintained, both proceeding in lockstep. Aspects of this interlock will be presented.

What is the purpose of a government? This is one of the central questions of any political debate, but it appears that supporters of all positions argue that government is to serve the people. What is the purpose of a corporation. To make money. Very different purposes. One is not financially motivated, efficiency is not a concern. The other is financially motivated, to succeed it should be efficient.

Ah, efficiency. There are many ways of achieving or even ways of defining efficiency. (sidenote: i'm an engineer, optimising multivariable systems is hellishly stimulating) In this context it's profit. How to maximise profit? Well, technological innovation is one method, this include machining techniques, simulation software to expedite the design process, improvements to supply chains to reduce inventory and warehousing overhead etc. etc. etc. This is the method most commonly discussed in the corporate media. What's another method? How about making Someone Else Pay? (SEP) The SEP principle has many applications most of which are rapidly profitable at least in the short term, if a production technique is labour intensive one can a) repress your domestic population by denying them collective bargaining rights or b) repress a foreign population -with the support of your local government- and outsource the labour to that country.
SEP can also be used to reduce environmental costs related to production, i.e. Your industrial hog farm produces too much waste for you to safely dispose of? SEP have the government relax restrictions and destroy a couple of streams as well as the communities at a lower elevation... R&D too expensive? SEP, find a military justification and make the public pay for the research, though the corp will still own the technology. There are a multitude of examples of the SEP principle at work, both currently and historically. Many of which, if the corporation were held responsible and forced to pay the true cost instead of SEP would make many industries unprofitable.

What are their methods. The government does things by decree. By imposing upon the people the will of that people. (If it really were the will of the people then it would not need to be imposed). This will apparently includes collection of assets, provision of services, going to war, imposition of trading restraints, closure of markets, definition of what children shall learn, etc. etc. If the government is not representative then simply substitute the word people for person. Corporations have a different modus operandi. They set out to persuade individuals or other corporations, or even the government, that they, the corporation provides the best value widgets, or eckythump consultancy or watever it is that the corporation does. There is no imposing here. The customer can take advantage of the corporations product or not. There is marketing and advertising and at times it can be difficult to not buy something, but it is not imposed.

Truth in advertising? I beg to differ. Advertising seeks to subvert market freedom by encouraging people to shop based on non-rational decision making processes. True persuasion would be a rational description of the inherent advantages and disadvantages of a product, along with the price. Corporate persuasion involves "If you buy this, you'll be popular/sexy/secure/a good parent" Advertising suppresses information. It's process is similar to that of the public relations events popularly called elections in Western democracies.

Strategies. A government, in a democracy, is always considering how to win the next election. There is no long term planning, the goal is no more than four years away (in the USA, five in the UK). The favourite strategy is to rob Peter to pay Paul. If there is a crisis of confidence in the government either give tax breaks that are impossible to suport with the bureaucracy level, or go to war. It happens over and over again. Corporations have to have long term planning (or they had to until recently, when this appears to have been substituted by creative accounting) if they are going to survive. They have to provide what the customer actually wants, or persuade the customer that he wants what they provide. They can not give a price reduction one year and then have guaranteed sales for the following four. No robbing of Peter to pay Paul is possible here.

Yes, corporations have long term goals, the establishment of monopoly's and the limitting of consumer choice and the market's ability to set prices. Walmart leaps to mind. The cattle and poultry industry do as well, in thier case it involve driving out the competition of family farming through SEP measures by relaxing environmental restrictions through their agents in the government.

Effects. What effect does a government have on the society. Firstly it costs money and produces nothing. It is a weight on the economy. Secondly it causes individuals or groups of individuals to look outside of themselves for the means to success, and is a convenient excuse for those who will not make the necessary effort to be successful. Thirdly it restricts the activities and freedoms of individuals by taking resources away to provide services that the individual could have obtained much more efficiently for themself. Corporations, have different effects. Some are bad, they abuse workers and the environment, they take the value added to a product and pass some of this to the owner for nothing more than being the owner. Others are good. They provide goods and services that would not otherwise be available. They provide employment for individuals, or custom for other corporations. They stimulate communications between different regions of the country or the world, they reduce discrimination by reducing distance.

Corporations also force people to look outside themselves, to advance in a corporation you have to adopt and internalise whole series of beliefs: the validity of SEP, subordination to corporate control over your time, social relationships, hell even your clothes. All corporations behave badly if only for the fact that they pay owners for being owners and frequently these owners don't even contribute, they inheritted the ownership and then outsourced the management to docile professionals, who in turn interact with the government to enforce SEP.

I think it's worth noting that the worst abuses of private power have been ameliorated through broad based social movements (worker safety, universal suffrage, the rights of future generations (environment) etc. etc.) and it's in those cases that governments were forced to respond. I agree with you that governments are wasteful and generally unresponsive however it is possible to force them into action.

So, yes, there are superficial differences between corporations and governments however they both serve to reinforce the current model based on subordination/domination and proceed in lockstep with each other in order to perpetuate the aforementioned system.

Hoped you found my SEP acronym amusing.

... so if i have an opinion like communism fundamentally cannot work - or people who call themselves anarcists dont know what they are talking about (and smell) - im automatically wrong -... i have to think possitively - like yes - cause thats being open minded

why not reply stating your difference of opinion and why - prove me wrong or atleast try to - instead of crying about it - but nope - im reported after this post

I said I wasn't going to report you.

And okay. I am a second year university student. My parents don't have a basement, but I do live with them- I earn anywhere between $60 and $250 a week so renting a place is financial suicide if not outright impossible. I don't need to mouche food off people. And I bathe regularly.

I know what else you're thinking, and no, I'm not a vegetarian and nor do I have a poncho. ;)

And now, would you like to tackle your concerns about the actual theory rather than me? :p

are you an anarchists?

are you an anarchists?
Yes, an anarcho-communist, or "libertarian communist" as some prefer.

For me politics is definition no. 1. It is the art or science of government. This is probably due to having a philosophical background and being strongly influenced by the ideas of Aristotle, but it may not be. Definitions 2 through to 4 al depend upon definition 1. So we are left with definition 5. as being the definition used to make anarchy political. In this limited sense, I can see that it may be so described. I would prefer to describe it as a social ideal, not a political one. This way it avoids my having to have two meanings for politics.

Or you could assume that 1 is just a subset of 5. All politics are local, man.
Naw, I'm just being a prick, but I can see where our misunderstanding on anarchy's apoliticalness (is that a word? if not yaaaaay I just invented a word! who needs a liberal education!! -sorry) came from.

For me it's 1 AND 5, I'm good at cognitive dissonance, rather like journalist.

well thumbs up for bathing - but i have no idea what an anarcho-communist - but anarchy is no government so that terms already screwed - and communism is screwed - so explain how you think you'd like the world to work

Yes, an anarcho-communist, or "libertarian communist" as some prefer.

Statist bastard!! Just kidding. Unless there's some hair-fine distinction between anarcho-communism and social libertarian that I'm ignorant of, we're reading off the same page.

Read any PJ Proudhon lately?

There seem to be two tests going around that people are responding to. the mini-quiz and the political compass. Both seem to contain biased questions. Im not sure they are biased to any particular side on purpose, they just contain biased questions that probably werent thought out very well.

For example the quiz uses the highly charged censorship rather than more neutral terms. However, being that the quiz is so short that most people can tell its just for fun and has no real significance, its not that bad.

As for the compass, it has questions like:
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

any intelligent person will be able to tell you that this is true of most races, they have some superior qualities and some inferior, but the test probably interprets your answer to mean that because of that fact you believe your race is superior to other races. Also, it is heavily culturally biased.

errrr - races dont have any superior qualities over another.....

Here's what I got on the Moral Politics Test...

Your Score

Your scored -8 on the Moral Order axis and 1.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Libertarian Socialism
4. US Parties: No match.
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (81.12%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (90.89%), John Kerry (73.03%), George W. Bush (35.77%)

Statistics

Of the 65065 people who took the test:

1. 0% had the same score as you.
2. 24.1% were above you on the chart.
3. 68.6% were below you on the chart.
4. 99.7% were to your right on the chart.
5. 0% were to your left on the chart.

My current Political Compass standings are in my signature.

errrr - races dont have any superior qualities over another.....

sure they do. Blacks are genetically predisposed to be physically stronger for example. It may not be politically correct to admit it, but it is scientifically accurate.

"rolls eyes" see! thats trolling... or whatever

I agree with Inebri-Nation. Race is an artificial construct, there's really no such thing. Some cultures may have advantages.

well thumbs up for bathing - but i have no idea what an anarcho-communist - but anarchy is no government so that terms already screwed - and communism is screwed - so explain how you think you'd like the world to work

As I thought. That's a common argument.

Anarcho-communism is actually "true" communism, as separate from state-socialism. left-anarchism varies from anarcho-syndicalism, where the means of production are organised democratically by trade unions (rather than individuals), and not necessarily ruling out private profit, to anarcho-communism which believes that money can be dispensed with altogether, and the organisation is done on an individual level. Anarchists differ from traditional Marxists in that they believe that the transitionary "dictatorship" is unnecessary and the government can be disposed of immediately.

Wikipedia will have more detailed information for you.

I agree with Inebri-Nation. Race is an artificial construct, there's really no such thing. Some cultures may have advantages.

Regardless of whether you choose to believe the scientific evidence showing differences between the races or not, my point is that answering that question with "I agree" does not infer that you feel your race is the best. Yet that is most likely what the political compass interprets when you say "I agree" because it phrased the question very badly. It should have stated something like:

I believe my race is superior to other races because it contains many superior qualities

I would answer no to that question, which asks what they actually wanted to know. But I have to answer yes to the other question because it is scientifically accurate that races have certain biological advantages over other (although this doesnt mean that there is one that is the best since they all have disadvantages as well). I wasnt trying to bring up a race issue, just pointing out that the test is badly written

and even with cultures i would say that they have advantages in certain environments - environments their actual physical environment and/or there current political/social environment

Statist bastard!! Just kidding. Unless there's some hair-fine distinction between anarcho-communism and social libertarian that I'm ignorant of, we're reading off the same page.

Read any PJ Proudhon lately?

Haven't read any Proudhon yet, i'm afraid! I've been meaning to, but last time I visited the university library, all of it was on loan. So i'll have to wait a bit. :)

"rolls eyes" see! thats trolling... or whatever

While I disagree with him, he didn't go and label anyone who disagrees with him as an uneducated retard. ;)

checked Wikipedia - what if the lazy anarchist kid still exsists! - sitting at home while hes suppost to be making my good?! - sure... he doesnt get mine... so its in his best interest to make his and blah blah blah.... great if he doesnt then hes screwed.... but im screwed too!... i needs my porn!

checked Wikipedia - what if the lazy anarchist kid still exsists! - sitting at home while hes suppost to be making my good?! - sure... he doesnt get mine... so its in his best interest to make his and blah blah blah.... great if he doesnt then hes screwed.... but im screwed too!... i needs my porn!

O.O

...

You like watching porno's featuring young anarchist males?

Well, that's a commodity I can live without.

I agree that many of the questions are open to interpretation. I had my roommate take the morals test twice. Once without my input, once with me telling him what I thought the question meant. He scored significantly different on the second test.

As far as race, there are more similiarities between the races than differences. There can be more variance between two people of the same race than between two of different races. Race is too general a term to be useful.

You could be more exact by seperating humanity into groups of those who tend to be lactose intolerant and those that don't. In that case Bushmen and Apache would be in one group, and Scandinavians and Mongols in another. That wouldn't make less sense.

Alright here's my results from all three tests. I answered all of them truthfully, without cheating. I believe this is way everyone hates me. (Besides me being a Satanist.) What you see may shock you.

You have been warned!

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: +9.94 (New) ---------- [+8.87 (Old)]
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +10.00 (New) ---------- [+9.88 (Old)]

Political Map (World's Smallest Political Quiz)
PERSONAL issues Score is 0%.
ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%.
Right (Conservative) Republican 100.00%

Moral Politics
Your Score
Your scored 8 on the Moral Order axis and -7.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Conservatism
Variation: Extreme Conservatism
Ideologies: Fundamentalism, Ultra Capitalism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: George W. Bush (82.74%)
2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (82.74%), John Kerry (45.65%), Ralph Nader (27.62%)

Statistics
Of the 65039 people who took the test:
0.1% had the same score as you.
95.9% were above you on the chart.
1% were below you on the chart.
0% were to your right on the chart.
99.6% were to your left on the chart.

Political Views
Member of the Republican Party of America and I am a pround Authoritarian Conservative.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

yeah yeah.. smelly ones too... but seriously... how do you explain that... these people still exist... also im confussed about like... the amount of goods i recieve... i get some beer... but not as much as i'd like... and i'd get way more of another product then i would want - .. what happens then... i try to trade or something?... but then would we all get frustrated with bartering and just make currency - i dont get it and seriously wanna know what you'd say.... that.. and what about art- how would you figure out who makes it?.. and how much its valued... how much art... are they required to produce?

checked Wikipedia - what if the lazy anarchist kid still exsists! - sitting at home while hes suppost to be making my good?! - sure... he doesnt get mine... so its in his best interest to make his and blah blah blah.... great if he doesnt then hes screwed.... but im screwed too!... i needs my porn!

^ :confused:

Somebody please translate.

Alright here's my results from all three tests. I answered all of them truthfully, without cheating. I believe this is way everyone hates me. (Besides me being a Satanist.) What you see may shock you.

I thought Satanists were supposed to believe that each human should live completely up to their own potential and shouldn't have any moral restrictions whatsoever...

yeah yeah.. smelly ones too... but seriously... how do you explain that... these people still exist... also im confussed about like... the amount of goods i recieve... i get some beer... but not as much as i'd like... and i'd get way more of another product then i would want - .. what happens then... i try to trade or something?... but then would we all get frustrated with bartering and just make currency - i dont get it and seriously wanna know what you'd say.... that.. and what about art- how would you figure out who makes it?.. and how much its valued... how much art... are they required to produce?

What the fuck?

whats hard to understand if you've been keeping up with our previous discussion?

@ Potaria- Do something about the colors on the bottom of your sig. I can't read the last line.

I thought Satanists were supposed to believe that each human should live completely up to their own potential and shouldn't have any moral restrictions whatsoever...

Part true. We also believe in "Responsibility to the responsible" which means the strong shall live and the weak die. We don't need to help others at all, unless you want to.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

@ Potaria- Do something about the colors on the bottom of your sig. I can't read the last line.

I've been meaning to do something about that. Is it better now?

I've been meaning to do something about that. Is it better now?
Mucho better. What's the use of having a sig if people don't know what it says?

yeah yeah.. smelly ones too... but seriously... how do you explain that... these people still exist... also im confussed about like... the amount of goods i recieve... i get some beer... but not as much as i'd like... and i'd get way more of another product then i would want - .. what happens then... i try to trade or something?... but then would we all get frustrated with bartering and just make currency - i dont get it and seriously wanna know what you'd say.... that.. and what about art- how would you figure out who makes it?.. and how much its valued... how much art... are they required to produce?

Well, say you lived on an anarchist commune. If you really liked beer, you could try brewing your own, and give it to your commune, that would share the product equally and trade the surplus with other communes. In return, you are receiving an equal share of whatever everyone else produces. Production isn't necessarily manual labour, either, of course someone must keep track of the goods produced and trade them with other communes. (And there is nothing to say that modern technology such as the internet won't be around either.) If everyone puts in to the best of their ability, they are rewarded equally.

As for art, the same thing applies. If you like art, you paint. Then you can hang your painting up for everyone else to enjoy, or give it as a gift to another commune. :)

The problem with currency is that it will require a government to print and set the value of the money. I can't see that happening on a purely communistic basis. Perhaps electronic currency with a set value might be a viable alternative.

Mucho better. What's the use of having a sig if people don't know what it says?

I wanted people to really look at it, and wonder "what the fuck does that say, damnit?". Looks like it worked... On one person.

Part true. We also believe in "Responsibility to the responsible" which means the strong shall live and the weak die. We don't need to help others at all, unless you want to.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I understand your economic outlook then, but why the opposition to social liberalism such as, for example, gay marriage and legalised abortion? Surely that is of no real concern to you?

I forgot to add a important thing to my last post.

We do have moral rules. It's a long list. Do you want to see them here or should I just post a link?

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I forgot to add a important thing to my last post.

We do have moral rules. It's a long list. Do you want to see them here or should I just post a link?

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Either way.

see its still money - even if its not physically in my hand - in our life time we will might be living with out physical money - and too with art thats still doesnt make sence how do you figure out whos good... and whos not - i doubt people would be able to have time to develope there skills in such a system - seems like currency still exists - or would develope on day 2 - and i guess secert police would take out anyone too lazy or disabled to work - but yeah... sounds like regular communism now

I wanted people to really look at it, and wonder "what the fuck does that say, damnit?". Looks like it worked... On one person.
Kiss my firm Texas behind. :p

Kiss my firm Texas behind. :p

No.

Haven't read any Proudhon yet, i'm afraid! I've been meaning to, but last time I visited the university library, all of it was on loan. So i'll have to wait a bit. :)


Libraries? Who needs libraries? It's a freakin' anarchist essay! Of course a free version is online (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=ProProp.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all).

No.

Whadda ya mean "No"? You should be honored. :D

I understand your economic outlook then, but why the opposition to social liberalism such as, for example, gay marriage and legalised abortion? Surely that is of no real concern to you?

There wasn't many questions about sex out of the three tests, but I shall tell you why I answered those questions like I did.

1. The Satanic point of view over gay marriage is: We don't give a damn, just as long as you keep it in your bedroom and you don't shove your views about it down everyone's throat. My personal view is I disagree with the gay life style just because it's aganist the law of nature, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing personal against it at all, just as long as they keep it in the bedroom.

2. The Satanic point of view over abortion is: We need it! There are way too many idiots on the planet already. There are too many kids getting born into this world that are dying from starvation. We believe that if you don't have enough money to raise a child, you shouldn't have a baby then. My personal view is: I agree.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

see its still money - even if its not physically in my hand - in our life time we will might be living with out physical money - and too with art thats still doesnt make sence how do you figure out whos good... and whos not - i doubt people would be able to have time to develope there skills in such a system - seems like currency still exists - or would develope on day 2 - and i guess secert police would take out anyone too lazy or disabled to work - but yeah... sounds like regular communism now

Well, art of all forms should be done out of the love for it, not for solely financial motivation. You determine who is good by your own opinion. I don't see where secret police come into it though- disabled people are looked after by the community, and lazy people get nothing beyond what is necessary for survival. The money isn't a necessary component of the society.

(Don't forget, we had cities before we had currency)


Libraries? Who needs libraries? It's a freakin' anarchist essay! Of course a free version is online.

Well, if all else fails. Though I have an aversion to reading big texts on a computer screen. Give me a book any day :p

There wasn't many questions about sex out of the three tests, but I shall tell you why I answered those questions like I did.

1. The Satanic point of view over gay marriage is: We don't give a damn, just as long as you keep it in your bedroom and you don't shove your views about it down everyone's throat. My personal view is I disagree with the gay life style just because it's aganist the law of nature, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. I have nothing personal against it at all, just as long as they keep it in the bedroom.

2. The Satanic point of view over abortion is: We need it! There are way too many idiots on the planet already. There are too many kids getting born into this world that are dying from starvation. We believe that if you don't have enough money to raise a child, you shouldn't have a baby then. My personal view is: I agree.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Then i'm confused as to how you got a Social Score of +10.00 on political compass...

yeah all art should be done out of love - love doesnt put food on the table is my point - so they need a day job too i guess - but... how much art am i entitled to for doing whatever it is i do - and i know that we would take care of our elders and friends when they couldnt work anymore - but still seems like all the more reason to be lazy for some people - k i gotta get some sleep to im gonna say this

- all people who think communism or anarchy could work need to move away from home go to university or college - not to take intro to poly-sci - to live in a house with roommates - who bring stoners home at 4:20am the morning before you have an exam - stoners who make a mess and dont clean up after themselves (and are probably anarchist) - roommates who end up paying the bills late and owning you 140$ (asshole - you know who you are) -
- you'll quickly understand why communism doesnt work

Then i'm confused as to how you got a Social Score of +10.00 on political compass...

Most likely because I believe everyone should be drafted in the military and support your country. Also I believe that every crime should be punishable by death!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Well, if all else fails. Though I have an aversion to reading big texts on a computer screen. Give me a book any day :p

True, books are much better to read from, no glare, more portable and you can take them into the washroom.

Then again, you do stare at these screens for hours on end. You're probably now immune to the radiation, have superbladder and such a debased posture you don't even notice the discomfort anymore.... Like me!

Most likely because I believe everyone should be drafted in the military and support your country. Also I believe that every crime should be punishable by death!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

You "believe", eh? You sound like one hell of a poser to me.

I'm not sorry if I'm "wrong", and much offense is intended.

Since that's down, I'll post my results from "The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)":

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=10&e=10

Suprise! :D

Actually, the idea of tilting the square so it becomes a diamond isn't half bad, even though the questions are a bit lame. The tilt would rectify the common misunderstanding of Political Compass results, because most people commonly classified as "Left" are actually lower left on PC, and the "Right" is in the upper right quarters. On a diamond, "Left" and "Right" would regain their most common meaning.

That said, I'm a commie myself. The numbers should be in the sig.

You "believe", eh? You sound like one hell of a poser to me.

I'm not sorry if I'm "wrong", and much offense is intended.

What? I'm sorry I didn't say "Satanic point of view" again for you. As I said "responsibility to the responsible". In the Satanic point of view about punishment is: If anyone breaks the law, they should get the highest punishment!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I'm apparently a Centerist....

Your Score

Your scored -1 on the Moral Order axis and -1.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Liberalism
Variation: Moderate Liberalism
Ideologies: Capital Democratism
US Parties: Democratic Party
Presidents: Gerald Ford (92.03%)
2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (90.89%), Ralph Nader (75.29%), George W. Bush (69.30%)
Statistics

Of the 65088 people who took the test:

1.1% had the same score as you.
43.2% were above you on the chart.
49.7% were below you on the chart.
39.6% were to your right on the chart.
52.9% were to your left on the chart.

True, books are much better to read from, no glare, more portable and you can take them into the washroom.

Then again, you do stare at these screens for hours on end. You're probably now immune to the radiation, have superbladder and such a debased posture you don't even notice the discomfort anymore.... Like me!

<.<

>.>

Out of my head you! :D

I took the test again.

Looks like i've changed.

Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

I'd be happy to ditch the WSPQ, incidentally it's worth a good laugh to see how this discussion has evolved from the first couple of posts. :)
Unlike most forums, if you actualy make some points, or arguments here, normally someone will take up the intellectual challenge and turn it into a debate, rather than a flamming match. :)

From this perspective (internal) the differences do indeed disappear, however, what is the aggregate effect of these two entities, the government and the corporation? My thesis is that they form a symbiotic relationship whose effect is the perpetuation of strict social heirarchy of domination and submission. Naturally this is not as restrictive as some caste system, it's necessary that the upper echelons are able to accept new members - so long as those members share the same dominant framework of beliefs. So, each institution may have different methods and functions but they both contribute in their own ways. The government reinforces the power of private wealth while the corporation provides technical expertise and funding to ensure the status quo is maintained, both proceeding in lockstep. Aspects of this interlock will be presented.
That there is a social heirarchy, whether you chose to characterise it emotionally with the terms "domination and submission", or less emotionally by using the terms successful and unsuccessful, is an inevitable result of living in groups larger than one. As soon as you place two individuals in association they will start to compare their situations, and as individuals are not equal, in ability, luck, support or anything else, then they will find differences. It seems to me, however, that you are not really complaining about this heirarchy when it is individual compared to individual. It only becomes a problem when it becomes group compared to group, or in more classical terms class compared to class. You refer to the upper echelon as having the same belief framework, which is one way of categorising a class (I do not regard social class as being a purely financial category). So extrapolating from this, you are identifying government with corporations because both underpin and support the current class structure of our society. Is this analysis of your position correct?

Ah, efficiency. There are many ways of achieving or even ways of defining efficiency. (sidenote: i'm an engineer, optimising multivariable systems is hellishly stimulating) In this context it's profit. How to maximise profit? Well, technological innovation is one method, this include machining techniques, simulation software to expedite the design process, improvements to supply chains to reduce inventory and warehousing overhead etc. etc. etc. This is the method most commonly discussed in the corporate media. What's another method? How about making Someone Else Pay? (SEP) The SEP principle has many applications most of which are rapidly profitable at least in the short term, if a production technique is labour intensive one can a) repress your domestic population by denying them collective bargaining rights or b) repress a foreign population -with the support of your local government- and outsource the labour to that country.
SEP can also be used to reduce environmental costs related to production, i.e. Your industrial hog farm produces too much waste for you to safely dispose of? SEP have the government relax restrictions and destroy a couple of streams as well as the communities at a lower elevation... R&D too expensive? SEP, find a military justification and make the public pay for the research, though the corp will still own the technology. There are a multitude of examples of the SEP principle at work, both currently and historically. Many of which, if the corporation were held responsible and forced to pay the true cost instead of SEP would make many industries unprofitable.
The key to our disagreement here is in your sidenote at the start. Efficiency is not the same thing in business as effectiveness, where as it is in engineering. SEP is effective (and replying to your p.s. post, yes I do like the SEP acronym) but it is not efficient. This is one of the two basic problems that I, as a libertarian, have with government. Let us look at the case that is the most difficult for the libertarian: R&D costs. Historically, governments have not done much R&D, however as they have entered this field in the last century, it has become assumed that R&D would not exist were it not for the SEP factor. Look, however, at what hapened before the war motivated government funding started. In the 18th and 19th and at the start of the 20th centuries there was an outbreak of invention, of research. This was done by individuals, by groups of intelectuals, by entrepreneurs. Examples are easy to find: Edison, Bell, Fox, Dunlop, Marconi, etc. Just think of the big, successful companies that exist today, and behinfd the majority of them is R&D. There is an impression that this has stopped, that the only R&D being done is military sponsored. This is far from true. R&D is one of the pillars of corporative strategy, without it the long term money making potential of the corporation is gone. To maintain sales a corporation has to either innovate or exclude any new competition. While commerce was local, the second option was often used as it was cheaper and easier to force out the competition. While there is extensive government regulation the second option is also viable, as lobbying is often cheaper than R&D. If, however, there is global rather than local commerce, and minimal government interference, then the only option available to maintain sales in the long run is R&D.
The arguments concerning the repression of the population by corporations depend upon the corporations being supported by the government in their actions. The removal of government from commerce does not remove unionisation or collective bargaining, it would in fact strengthen this. Well run corporations, by this I mean those that would survive without government assistance, tend not to have labour disputes as their management recognise that good conditions and good pay are, in the long term, more profitable than abuse of the human resources.
Efficiency, in commerce is measured in financial terms. It is the total return for your investment. It is not the return this week for your investment last week. That would be maximised by forward leveraging of debts and other such dubious practices that actualy reduce the return, often converting it into a loss, in the long term (see Enron, Worldcom etc.) Efficiency in engineering is measured in terms of waste (effort, force, material, time) but not in terms of financial waste. SEP is financially inefficient for the culture as a whole. Remove the government, and SEP does not work any more, except through the piracy of ideas, which is always going to happen, and is the rdriving force behind continued R&D.

Truth in advertising? I beg to differ. Advertising seeks to subvert market freedom by encouraging people to shop based on non-rational decision making processes. True persuasion would be a rational description of the inherent advantages and disadvantages of a product, along with the price. Corporate persuasion involves "If you buy this, you'll be popular/sexy/secure/a good parent" Advertising suppresses information. It's process is similar to that of the public relations events popularly called elections in Western democracies.
Did I ever mention truth? *goes and looks* No. I said that companies set out to persuade.
One source of disagreement here is rationality. I do not believe that people are rational in their behaviour. I know, for a fact, that I am not. Now whatever system we use has to be apropriate for the members of the system. If people are not rational, then why should we require the system to be. Yes, advertising is the same as electioneering. There is one big difference though in the outcomes of advertising and electioneering. If I buy something, you don't have to. If the majority buy something, I don't have to. In electioneering I can choose to buy one thing, but when the delivery arrives I may find that I have something else, because others have decided that I should.
How does advertising suppress information? It is selective in its presentation of information, but it does not remove the other information from the public domain. There are misleading unrepresentatrive advertisements, but yu don't have to buy. It is your choice. The second pillar of libertarianism. Choice and efficiency.


Yes, corporations have long term goals, the establishment of monopoly's and the limitting of consumer choice and the market's ability to set prices. Walmart leaps to mind. The cattle and poultry industry do as well, in thier case it involve driving out the competition of family farming through SEP measures by relaxing environmental restrictions through their agents in the government.
Monopoly has been covered above. It depends on government protection in a global market. SEP also depends on extensive government. Nothing more to argue here. Retail monopolies depend upon the behaviour of the consumer, the choices made by the consumer. If you don't like Walmart, don't use Walmart. If ther is only Walmart then either they are highly efficient (in an unregulated market) or there is an opportunity for competition to apear. In the first case, what is there to dislike: being opposed to a monopoly just because it is one is not a good argument. In the second case, go open a store.

Corporations also force people to look outside themselves, to advance in a corporation you have to adopt and internalise whole series of beliefs: the validity of SEP, subordination to corporate control over your time, social relationships, hell even your clothes. All corporations behave badly if only for the fact that they pay owners for being owners and frequently these owners don't even contribute, they inheritted the ownership and then outsourced the management to docile professionals, who in turn interact with the government to enforce SEP.
You do have to adopt the culture of the corporation, as you have to adopt the culture of the country you live in. The culture though, is defined by the people. There is no validity to SEP without extensive government, so forget that one. Social relations are culturally defined anyway. It is a non sequitor to have a non cultural social relation. as is your clothing. The only way to avoid these kinds of impositions of the culture, be it corporate or not, is to live as a hermit.
I recognised that the parasitic relationship of non participating owners to a corporation was a bad thing. It is just one of the few prices that has to be paid to obtain the greatest possible benefit to the society. The owner will spend the money (particularly if they inheritted) and thus benefit the community indirectly. No system is perfect. I just prefer one that has less deadweight than any other that I know of.

I think it's worth noting that the worst abuses of private power have been ameliorated through broad based social movements (worker safety, universal suffrage, the rights of future generations (environment) etc. etc.) and it's in those cases that governments were forced to respond. I agree with you that governments are wasteful and generally unresponsive however it is possible to force them into action.
I do not agree thet the amelioration of the worst abuses of private powr has come about through governments. Governments tend to proliferate these abuses rather than restrict them. The checks on the abuse of private power have arisen through unionisation and through the success of ethical business practices. Since the days of Titus Salt and Joseph Cadbury in England, it has been recognised by intelligent businessmen that the most important part of any corporation is its people. To protect its own interests a corporation has to protect its staff. This means being environmentally conscious, providing safe and salubrious working conditions etc. Universal sufferage has nothing to do with private power, it has to do with the apparatus of control, i.e government.

So, yes, there are superficial differences between corporations and governments however they both serve to reinforce the current model based on subordination/domination and proceed in lockstep with each other in order to perpetuate the aforementioned system.

Where government is extensive and pervasive, then there are opportunities for corporations to take advantage of this. That is indisputable. What I am arguing is that if the government is minimal and non regulatory, this possibility of abuse is removed and the linkage between corporations and government is broken. The appaatus of control lies entirely within the government, if the government is involved in comerce, this extends this apparatus into the corporate sphere. To stop this happening, keep government out of business.

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

OMG, I've become more authoritarian since the last time I took the test! From -6.71 to -6.00 ... :p

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

OMG, I've become more authoritarian since the last time I took the test! From -6.71 to -6.00 ... :p

Commie traitor! :p

I didn't even post my results last time...
Well I did it again...

Economic: -4.50
Social: -6.10

Economic: -5.5
Social: -2.51

Just about the same spot as Ghandi!

Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Would help if I could remember my last results....

Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Would help if I could remember my last results....

Looking at the NS Political Compass (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg) you appear to have been about Econ -4.25 Soc -5.0

Looking at the NS Political Compass (http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc2.jpg) you appear to have been about Econ -4.25 Soc -5.0

Thanks :) Didn't know where the NS Political Compass was.

No, I will not be on your little map. I will not be filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. I'm outta here.

I was dubbed a centrist..
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=6&e=7
Is it even humanly possible to be a right-wing libertarian??? :eek:

I was dubbed a centrist..
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=6&e=7
Is it even humanly possible to be a right-wing libertarian??? :eek:

Yes. See sig (the only remaining question is whether I am human?)

I was dubbed a centrist..
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=6&e=7
Is it even humanly possible to be a right-wing libertarian??? :eek:
Of course it is.

I just took the test again, here are my results:

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

WHOO-HOO! :D

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54

Economic Left/Right: 9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I'm a rightwing libertarian.

Economic Left/Right: 9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I'm a rightwing libertarian.

Which beats being an overwrought librarian anyday... :D

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian : -5.28


w00t for communism!

Economic = -2.63
Social = -5.28


w00t for communism!

Just having a "score" to the left doesn't mean your Communist. It means your Socialist, which is actually quite different.

Just having a "score" to the left doesn't mean your Communist. It means your Socialist, which is actually quite different.
*sharpens sword*
I said I'm communist, any arguments? No? Good.
*sheaths sword and bows, then leaves*

Economic Left/Right: 6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.72

The key to our disagreement here is in your sidenote at the start. Efficiency is not the same thing in business as effectiveness, where as it is in engineering.

WHOA!! Let me clear something up. Any engineering job must optimisize for cost effectiveness. ANY job. This includes complete redesigns of prototypes that reduce effectiveness and utility but improve production cost, it's a hell of a lot more cost effective for a corp to pay me an extra $2k to re-engineer
suboptimal widgets that to produce 2k optimal widgets that cost $10 more. Now, on the issue of sub-optimality, the only situation where an engineer in Canada can legally refuse to comply with a contract is where the public safety is at risk. So, built in obcelescense (sp?) -an extraordinarily wasteful practice- is legitimate and a common practice though profitable. Efficiently profitable, inefficient with respect to society and finite resources.

SEP is effective (and replying to your p.s. post, yes I do like the SEP acronym) but it is not efficient. This is one of the two basic problems that I, as a libertarian, have with government. Let us look at the case that is the most difficult for the libertarian: R&D costs. Historically, governments have not done much R&D, however as they have entered this field in the last century, it has become assumed that R&D would not exist were it not for the SEP factor. Look, however, at what hapened before the war motivated government funding started. In the 18th and 19th and at the start of the 20th centuries there was an outbreak of invention, of research. This was done by individuals, by groups of intelectuals, by entrepreneurs. Examples are easy to find: Edison, Bell, Fox, Dunlop, Marconi, etc. Just think of the big, successful companies that exist today, and behinfd the majority of them is R&D. There is an impression that this has stopped, that the only R&D being done is military sponsored. This is far from true. R&D is one of the pillars of corporative strategy, without it the long term money making potential of the corporation is gone. To maintain sales a corporation has to either innovate or exclude any new competition. While commerce was local, the second option was often used as it was cheaper and easier to force out the competition. While there is extensive government regulation the second option is also viable, as lobbying is often cheaper than R&D. If, however, there is global rather than local commerce, and minimal government interference, then the only option available to maintain sales in the long run is R&D.

I'll agree with you that Edison, Bell and Marconni were remarkable inventers, however, they too are using SEP. General Electric is one of the largest military contractors in the world, Bell Labs funding for the development of the transistor was military (improved gain,size,heat/noise characteristics and durability for communications equipment+radar) , hell the internet was a DARPA funded project. But I think I should stop talking about particular instances, more later.

The arguments concerning the repression of the population by corporations depend upon the corporations being supported by the government in their actions. The removal of government from commerce does not remove unionisation or collective bargaining, it would in fact strengthen this. Well run corporations, by this I mean those that would survive without government assistance, tend not to have labour disputes as their management recognise that good conditions and good pay are, in the long term, more profitable than abuse of the human resources.

The underlying assumptions here are that a) corporations are more concerned with long term sustainability than with short term generation of profit and b) this motivation leads to good employment practices. I'll leave a) alone for now. I agree with you that equitable pay and safe working conditions would reduce the need for collective bargaining, however, this neglects the effect of de-skilling of the production process (note I'm using an assembly line as an example here but the concept is transferable). To reduce productivity costs (and increase profits) all businesses seek to reduce the training and production time through reducing the skill required for production. Once this process has reached a sufficient level, the threat of foreign (this can be the next county over) unskilled labour becomes a bargaining lever for management to repress wages and worsen working conditions. Workers are now in the uncomfortable position of calling managements bluff which, in all probability, is not a bluff. This is a natural result of corporations seeking increased profit through discovering efficiencies in the manufacturing process. It's worth noting that this process is independant of government as de skilling occurs internally.

Efficiency, in commerce is measured in financial terms. It is the total return for your investment. It is not the return this week for your investment last week. That would be maximised by forward leveraging of debts and other such dubious practices that actualy reduce the return, often converting it into a loss, in the long term (see Enron, Worldcom etc.) Efficiency in engineering is measured in terms of waste (effort, force, material, time) but not in terms of financial waste. SEP is financially inefficient for the culture as a whole. Remove the government, and SEP does not work any more, except through the piracy of ideas, which is always going to happen, and is the rdriving force behind continued R&D.

Who lost out on the Enron scandal? Not the owners, and certainly not Governor Bush!! If you recall, the executives were able to unload their stock before the crash, so were many of the major stockholders. The majority of those who got nailed were the workers who found they were locked out of selling once the news of Enrons creative book keeping became public, that whole incident is one example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich, as was the dot-com bubble. Process is as follows: 1) IPO, those able to employ expert advice have advanced warning and marshall their capital to get in on the ground floor. 2) hype ensues, everyone starts buying in and stock skyrockets 3) those with expert advice have advance warning of 'poor fundamentals' and cash out while the hype machine is still going strong 4) stock crashes leaving those without expert advice on the hook. This process has occurred many, many times. In fact, for those able to marshall the capital neccesary for short selling, there is a hell of a lot more money to be made in the crash than in the original rise.

Did I ever mention truth? *goes and looks* No. I said that companies set out to persuade. One source of disagreement here is rationality. I do not believe that people are rational in their behaviour. I know, for a fact, that I am not. Now whatever system we use has to be apropriate for the members of the system. If people are not rational, then why should we require the system to be. Yes, advertising is the same as electioneering. There is one big difference though in the outcomes of advertising and electioneering. If I buy something, you don't have to. If the majority buy something, I don't have to. In electioneering I can choose to buy one thing, but when the delivery arrives I may find that I have something else, because others have decided that I should. How does advertising suppress information? It is selective in its presentation of information, but it does not remove the other information from the public domain. There are misleading unrepresentatrive advertisements, but yu don't have to buy. It is your choice. The second pillar of libertarianism. Choice and efficiency.

Okay, okay. You never mentioned truth, I'll give you that. As for suppression of information, well you said it yourself. The most obvious case of information suppression is a sheet of paper with words and lines redacted. A better system is the presentation of select information. One of the best (and this is how the press and mainstream political parties operate) is a very lively,contentious debate within a narrow ideological framework - for instance the debate on the tactics of invading and occupying Iraq which helpfully ignored the casus belli. Advertising suppresses information primarily through the second method, it presents only irrational criteria for evaluation of the buyer, it doesn't matter whether you, buy or not, somebody will perhaps many. Since all advertising works on this basis it begins to resemble the third tactic. Now, how is the market supposed to develop efficiencies and effectiveness when consumers base their purchasing criteria on fads, percieved status and emotional appeals? It will certainly develop efficiencies in emotional appeal, not in products. Furthermore it encourages irrationality on the part of the consumer, if for instance status is earned through a purchase.

Monopoly has been covered above. It depends on government protection in a global market. SEP also depends on extensive government. Nothing more to argue here. Retail monopolies depend upon the behaviour of the consumer, the choices made by the consumer. If you don't like Walmart, don't use Walmart. If ther is only Walmart then either they are highly efficient (in an unregulated market) or there is an opportunity for competition to apear. In the first case, what is there to dislike: being opposed to a monopoly just because it is one is not a good argument. In the second case, go open a store.

Au contraire, Lots to argue here. Walmarts usual business practice in a community is to a: marshall it's vast resources to open a location in a community utilizing cheap labour b: undercut the local competition driving them out of business c: slowly raise prices. Even if c does occur at a rapid rate Walmart is well nigh unassailable as any proprietor who opens up in competition can be driven out of business again by selectively dropping prices, since no one has the capital resources of Walmart they can continue their unfair labour practices with little or no check on their power.

You are absolutely correct that it is irrational to hate monopolies because they are monopolies. It is entirely appropriate to fear and loathe their power when the profit motive is considered in conjunction with a monopoly, especially if a monopoly supplies an indispensable product or service. Since this product is indispensable the corporation has no check whatsoever on the price that it can charge... 50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to sudden health emergencies. I'm going to mention water, sewerage, electricity, housing, food and medical expenses in relationship to their interlocking interests. Should private monopolies be established in each of these industries the only check a monopoly will have on the price it can charge will be the other monopolistic corporations completely removing the freedom of the individual from the pricing equation. Impossible scenario? Just look at corporate consolidation over the last three decades. O Brave New World! This process can occur irrespective of government.

You do have to adopt the culture of the corporation, as you have to adopt the culture of the country you live in. The culture though, is defined by the people. There is no validity to SEP without extensive government, so forget that one Social relations are culturally defined anyway. It is a non sequitor to have a non cultural social relation. as is your clothing. The only way to avoid these kinds of impositions of the culture, be it corporate or not, is to live as a hermit.

"There is no validity to SEP without extensive government, so forget that one." Again, I have to disagree with you. Government, (BTW it twists my gut to argue in favour of government) acts as the only check on SEP - no matter how unresponsive or inefficiently. Without government, corps are free to pollute, repress and lie with no restriction other than the fear of massive widespread revolt.


I recognised that the parasitic relationship of non participating owners to a corporation was a bad thing. It is just one of the few prices that has to be paid to obtain the greatest possible benefit to the society. The owner will spend the money (particularly if they inheritted) and thus benefit the community indirectly. No system is perfect. I just prefer one that has less deadweight than any other that I know of.

It's true, no system is perfect, and I think we are both in agreement that the current system of barely checked power is undesirable and in fact poisonous on many different levels for many different reasons. Truth be told, I think the psychological/sociological effects of our heirachical system is worse than any considerations of efficiency in that the psych/soc effects on individuals and society as a whole enable and perpetuate the current system, as well as disempowering individuals and filling them with feelings of futility and reducing all interpersonnal relationships to financial transactions subject to massive conformist social constraints.

I do not agree thet the amelioration of the worst abuses of private powr has come about through governments. Governments tend to proliferate these abuses rather than restrict them. The checks on the abuse of private power have arisen through unionisation and through the success of ethical business practices. Since the days of Titus Salt and Joseph Cadbury in England, it has been recognised by intelligent businessmen that the most important part of any corporation is its people. To protect its own interests a corporation has to protect its staff. This means being environmentally conscious, providing safe and salubrious working conditions etc. Universal sufferage has nothing to do with private power, it has to do with the apparatus of control, i.e government.

"I do not agree thet the amelioration of the worst abuses of private power has come about through governments" I agree with you completely. Pardon my error, it was late. The worst abuses of private power were ameliorated through the actions of broad based social movements, such as unions, womens movements and civil rights movements. Human rights arguments aside, it benefits me financially - a white male heterosexual -for women, gays and non-whites to have equal pay so that management can't use them as leverage when bargaining for my salary. So, emancipatory movements, while only affecting access to the apparatus of power on the surface, can now address pay disparity and thereby improves my bargainning position with respect to private power. (I've had to deal with suspicious feminists in the past, this argument - strangely- works. I say strangely because it's actually quite heartless)

Where government is extensive and pervasive, then there are opportunities for corporations to take advantage of this. That is indisputable. What I am arguing is that if the government is minimal and non regulatory, this possibility of abuse is removed and the linkage between corporations and government is broken. The appaatus of control lies entirely within the government, if the government is involved in comerce, this extends this apparatus into the corporate sphere. To stop this happening, keep government out of business.

I agree, with minimal government intervention several forms of SEP become impossible like government bailouts for failed investments, subsidisation of R&D, rediculously inflated private/public projects etc. etc. However (gag, gag) in the abscense of government, several other forms of SEP become readily available repression and environmental degredation leap to mind immiediately. With no one to hold them accountable (if only in a sloppy, inconsistent way) corporations are free to repress and control, we owe a massive debt for our lifestyles to previous generations of brave union workers who were willing to face down bullets and batons for their right to bargain collectively, while they were the motivators behind this the changes were institutionalized through government, that said it is now primarily government that has been rolling back these gains for the last three decades. While it wouldn't be prudent for a corporation to poison it's customers in a rapid, visible manner it would make economic sense to outsource these effects to economically disadvantaged populations who have little if any bargaining power. Long term pollution with low visibility can be safely pursued with no fear of severe punishment. For instance, DuPont is currently fending off lawsuits for the use of Flouro-something-or-other used in Teflon. Internal documents show that DuPont was aware that F-s-o-o doesn't break down in the environment, is biopersistent and appears to correlate with neurological development in children over 20 years ago. Who's going to police the corporations?

Now I realise it sounds like I'm in favour of big government, I'm not. Governments are in a symbiotic mutually reinforcing relationship with corporations. With the power of corporations ascendant in power struggle between the two institutions (yes, there is room for competition over the distribution of power without upsetting the overall dynamic) society is rapidly regressing towards a state that closely resembles fuedalism, only our leige lords operate behind a veil of legitimacy provided by supposedly democratic government. Further legitimising private power will only speed this process until human life begins to resemble something out of William Gibsons dystopian novels.

I believe that humans are creative social creatures with an inherent drive towards freedom from coercion togethor with an inherent disgust for doing harm to others, and that moreover it's possible to construct economic relationships based on mutual aid, and lack of heirarchy not competition. Solutions? That's a tough one, dissolving resilient power relations that have persisted throughout Western culture for several thousand years is a difficult uphill battle, however, inspiration can be drawn from the successes of social movements over the last several centuries, and I believe a good start is through broad based non-violent direct action social movements. If they can dislodge Milosovic and Ceacescu (sp?) there is some hope. Finally doing away with centralised institutions of power will take a little while but it's possible.

P.S. I've enjoyed this debate so far, and if you are indeed representative of Libertarians, I'll stop referring to Libertarians as neo-cons. Not a single straw man, hairsplit or put down yet!! ;)

P.P.S. I think a viable tactic for keeping the neo-cons out of the thread is to give it some innocuous title followed by about 20 posts of innocuous chatter and then settling into the real debate.

WHOA!! Let me clear something up. Any engineering job must optimisize for cost effectiveness. ANY job. This includes complete redesigns of prototypes that reduce effectiveness and utility but improve production cost, it's a hell of a lot more cost effective for a corp to pay me an extra $2k to re-engineer
suboptimal widgets that to produce 2k optimal widgets that cost $10 more. Now, on the issue of sub-optimality, the only situation where an engineer in Canada can legally refuse to comply with a contract is where the public safety is at risk. So, built in obcelescense (sp?) -an extraordinarily wasteful practice- is legitimate and a common practice though profitable. Efficiently profitable, inefficient with respect to society and finite resources.
Sorry, I was thinking a little idealistically. An engineer, in my naïve view, would first look to the efficiency in other terms, with costing only being a necessary evil (and god only knows how you spell obselescence without looking it up).

I am going to cut a huge chunk out here, simply because the argument is gretting to be too long for an internet forum, and more appropriate for some kind of political philosophy journal.
I am going to make brief points about some things that I consider critical, other points that I disagree with, I will let pass as my disagreement is a function of what I will say.

SEP (Someone Else Pays, for the lurkers who may have forgotten) depends almost entirely on government spending, if it is pay in financial terms. If it is pay in social terms, then we are entering the realm of real philosophical differences.

Deskilling is a function of good business practice, true. Society changes with time, people have to move with it. How many serf farmers do you know? The first world is no longer an industrial economy, it is a service economy with the industrial production being carried out by unskilled labour and machinery. I am supposed to feel sorry for unskilled labourers? Education and training is available, to those that want it. Those that don't have made their own beds.

I was critical of the Enron scandal, and I am recognizing that in the libertarian philosophy there is a risk of this type of abuse. This is a point on which deregulation has a problem, and I, along with many others I hope, am trying to find an acceptable response/solution to the problem. One solution is to not have a stock market, but that gets complicated.

There is an assumption on the criticism of an advertising driven market that people are stupid. Yes, some of them are, particularly the teenage fashion victims etc., but most of them are not. What is the best selling car in the USA? Is it the one with the best advertising? No. What about the most used airline? etc. When individuals make significant purchases, advertising has a much lesser role in their choices than in trivial purchases. It matters little if you buy a Pepsi or a Coke in the end. One other point on advertising is that most of it is done as it is tax deductable. Remove or significantly reduce the taxation, then cut the tax deductions on advertising, most of the noise and irritation goes away.

Information is power, but what system can possibly distribute all the information, and who could possibly use it? None that I know of, and no-one that I know of.

The argument against Walmart is valid, but irrelevant, in my view. If Walmart provides what the customer wants, then there is no problem. If it does not it will incur competition. If the competition makes walmart react to provide what the customer wants, then the competition has functioned. No-one requires that the competition is a long term success, just that it is possible for it to exist, and it is.

Monopolies: Here you place the focus on services, not manufacturing or retail. Curious. Essential services, those that are required for the security of the individual would still be under government control in libertarianism. It is small government but not anarchy. There is dispute as to what is essential for security. Are power and water essential? Is health care essential? Personally I do not want to see these being directly provided by the government. This places the politicians in the position of CEOs, something they just are not fit to be. What can be done is to have a small and efficient regulatory body for each essential service. This would be charged with preventing monopoly and ensuring minimum quality in these areas. Would that remove your worries. Health care should be privatre insurance based, but with competition and minimum coverage specifications (Pretty much what we have here in Left wing Brazil at the moment, and it works). Other services could be handled on the UK model of competition and limitation (or the US telecomms system, but that apears to have loopholes).

SEP always comes back to the government in my view, if it is financial. If it is environmental or such like then existing governments are not doing anything to stop that anyway. Repression of minority groups and deceit by corporations is rare. It happens as there are individuals that do this within the corporations, but they rarely stay in power very long. Deceit is self defeating. Goodwill is essential in the business world. Repression just closes off markets, not very intelligent. The businedss either stops, or goes out of business fairly quickly.


It's true, no system is perfect, and I think we are both in agreement that the current system of barely checked power is undesirable and in fact poisonous on many different levels for many different reasons. Truth be told, I think the psychological/sociological effects of our heirachical system is worse than any considerations of efficiency in that the psych/soc effects on individuals and society as a whole enable and perpetuate the current system, as well as disempowering individuals and filling them with feelings of futility and reducing all interpersonnal relationships to financial transactions subject to massive conformist social constraints.
Yes we agree that the current symbiosis is undesirable and dangerous. What we should do about it is the argument. I argue that we should cut out the government from the cancerous mass, you argue, it appears, that we should cut out the capitalism. This comes down to fundamental beliefs about people. You argue that our heirarchical system is alienating (to borrow a marxist term without placing onus on you) and reduces relationships to bottom line economics. I, on the other hand, believe that heirarchy is part of our basic nature, but servitude to the masses is not. I would rather risk being seen as an economic asset, than as a slave to the tyrrany of the majority, wheras you prefer the restriction of your choices and possiblities to not be "dehumanised". Risk vs Security. What is the song for this: "Me and Bobby McGee".

We agree on where the restraint on abuses of power comes from. It comes from the people. How this is to be done is a central point. You apear to awant it to be done through the ballot box. I prefer it to be done through the bank balance. Abusive corporations will suffer in the end, either way. I and the other libertarians simply prefer to keep our freedom and take our risks (Rawls was wrong about peoples nature)

P.S. I've enjoyed this debate so far, and if you are indeed representative of Libertarians, I'll stop referring to Libertarians as neo-cons. Not a single straw man, hairsplit or put down yet!! ;)
Thank you. I try to be fair and honest. I will also admit to having been pleasantly surprised. It is almost inevitable that we think of those that oppose our political views as shallow minded and uncritical in their thinking. It is always a pleasure, however, to encounter a worthy interlocator. It has been a pleasure.

In my opinion, I think the debate is about run. You have some strong points on your side, I believe I have some on mine. It does come dowwn to basic beliefs, and those are not really open to debate, they are part of your and my identities, they help define who we are.

P.P.S. I think a viable tactic for keeping the neo-cons out of the thread is to give it some innocuous title followed by about 20 posts of innocuous chatter and then settling into the real debate.
Nice idea, but how do you know which thread will be the real one, not the decoy? :)

Nice idea, but how do you know which thread will be the real one, not the decoy? :)
Simple, come with some sort of code. Bye the way, you expressed my views almost perfectly. Thank you on behalf of like-minded libertarians everywhere.
*explodes into oblivion*

Thank you. I try to be fair and honest. I will also admit to having been pleasantly surprised. It is almost inevitable that we think of those that oppose our political views as shallow minded and uncritical in their thinking. It is always a pleasure, however, to encounter a worthy interlocator. It has been a pleasure.


Awww shucks, you're gonna make me blush. Pleasure was all mine.

In my opinion, I think the debate is about run. You have some strong points on your side, I believe I have some on mine. It does come dowwn to basic beliefs, and those are not really open to debate, they are part of your and my identities, they help define who we are.

You're leaving? I thought we were supposed to argue until, out of sheer exhaustion one of us would give in and swear undying fealty to the beliefs of the other.

I'm sure we'll tangle again. It's been fun.

P.S. It is hard to write obsolescence without a dictionary. Now I'm going to check. ;)

Doesn't look like mine has changed much:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13

Moved very slightly right, and became slightly less authoritarian, if I recall my previous position correctly.

im not flaming... but i dont respect anarchists -and everyone i've ever met had not yet finished high school - or the ones that did lived in there parents basement - or off the government - and where always mouching food of people - and i've met more then a couple - oh yeah.. and they always had hygiene problems - i stand by my post

sorry to bring up things from yesterday, but i find this rather amusing. after all, a significant percentage of the vocal anarchists around here have at least some graduate school under their belts. this is just about the worst place to play up the "anarchists as stupid high school kids" stereotype. a better tactic would be to try calling us privileged posers or something. cause then we'd get to play a fun game of "prolier than thou!"

cause then we'd get to play a fun game of "prolier than thou!"

That would be fun! But i'd lose.

And then, Kropotkin was a prince. So i'm allowed to be middle-class. :D

That would be fun! But i'd lose.

And then, Kropotkin was a prince. So i'm allowed to be middle-class. :D

heh.

and some of the russian anarchists hold get togethers on the old bakunin estate

heh.

and some of the russian anarchists hold get togethers on the old bakunin estate

Why didn't they invite me? :mad:

:p

Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian : -5.28

w00t for communism!
Kanabia, aren't you proud of me? I'm commie now!:p

Kanabia, aren't you proud of me? I'm commie now!:p

You're learning. :)

You're learning. :)
*is proud of self*
I moved two points to the left economically, and three socially since last time! I r t3h c0mmun1st!

Economic: -5.00
Social: -3.84

Moved a bit further left on the economic scale, and haven't really changed on the social.

Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.21

I consider myself a moderate conservative. One that belives in the principles of small government and moral order, but who also has an open mind to "new ideas".

Most likely because I believe everyone should be drafted in the military and support your country.

Even those rich kids from the highest social classes? As conservative, would you not make special allowances for the rich?

I don't think that those privately educated toffs would like to have to mix in the military with people from a public housing estate.

Also I believe that every crime should be punishable by death!

If I was going to get the same punishment for petty theft as I would for murder, then I would kill every person who I stole from.

Your views interest me.

It's in the sig baby...
:D I've been gradually moving into the good corner. ;)
Here it is:
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

My scores have changed a bit:

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Economic: -9.88
Social: -8.62

Heh... just retook it
Economic: -5.5
Social: - 10.0

Heh... just retook it
Economic: -5.5
Social: - 10.0

Another in the -9+ Social corner?

*hurrah*

Looks like they havent fixed some of their more obviously biased questions. The political compass quiz continues to be an inaccurate toy useful only for entertainment purposes. Here are just a few of the questions that stand outt:

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

If you answer this affirmatively, it implies that you believe your race is better. The fact may be that you believe your race has superior qualities compared with other races and inferior qualities compared with other races and thus they mostly balance out. If that is your view and you answer the question they asked, the assumption they make is factually incorrect.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment

This question shouldnt be asked because the same person living in a different country could answer this question truthfully yet oppositely because of where he lives. Maybe if I live in the US and am exposed to things like fox news and msnbc I would answer this affirmatively, but if I lived in another country where the news is pretty good I would answer it negatively. Im still the same person with the same political views, I just live somewhere different, but the quiz wont give me the same political views because of where I happen to be living. This is an excellent example of why this quiz is inaccurate.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

wtf does that question have to do with your political views?

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Again, this is yet another regional issue. The same person could easily answer this question differently depending on where he is living at the moment. Living in the US, he may answer true, living in Australia he may answer false. Therefore its not a good measure of their political views unless the quiz is only meant to be accurate for those living in a certain country.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

This is a statement of fact. There is no room for opinion on this question. Perhaps they are mistakenly assuming that you like one party systems simply because you recognize the undeniable fact that they avoid most of the arguments that delay progress in a democratic system?

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
and
No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Is the quiz assuming that since you believe it is immoral you believe it should not be legal? If they are not assuming this, then why are they asking? This is supposed to find out your political views not your personal moral views.

It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.

Yet another regionally biased question. The same person could easily answer this question truthfully but oppositely depending on whether they live in the USA or Saudi Arabia. Besides being regionally biased it also suffers from the same problem as the two questions above, it mistakenly assumes that you believe the government needs to do things to curb this trend. This isnt supposed to be a quiz on your moral beliefs, its supposed to be about how you like the government to be run.


My new results are:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

Apparently, the political compass didnt get better, it has actually gotten worse as this no longer represents my communist ideals.

My Political Compass ~ Econo: -9.75 Socio: -8.15

I need to be more socially liberal. Fast. Any ideas? ;)

In my sig. It's changed a couple of times recently. I'm becoming less and less socialist, and more and more libertarian...

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

meh, i haven't changed much

Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

bit more libertarian, little less left (apparently). bah

To someday see 3D graph, which plot's one political compass to one's age...

One thing I've noticed getting older: in general, you get more conservative. Think I'm kidding? Go buy a house. Live in it for 5 years. Then go to a concert from a band you saw when you were 17...

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33


Right in the center of left field. Seems about right.

Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.59

In my sig. It's changed a couple of times recently. I'm becoming less and less socialist, and more and more libertarian..
Bwahahahaha - one of us, one of us.....:D

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.69

I think it's much easier to get a very low score as a liberal than a very high score as a conservative. ;)

Looks like they havent fixed some of their more obviously biased questions. The political compass quiz continues to be an inaccurate toy useful only for entertainment purposes. Here are just a few of the questions that stand outt:

I hear ya Hippies, and I agree with all your criticisms of the question. Well, except that communist bit at the end. ;) I think the moral compass is much better. My new scores are in my sig.

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.13

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.13

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Wow, just wow. I mean, at least the communists have warped ideology hammered into them by the “anti-society”, but that, that is just creepy.

Economic Left/Right: 7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Anarcho-Capitalist, sounds a lot like me!

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.13

I think that if it accurately represented fascism without you having to be a racist that I'd score in that range.

Political compass: Left/Right:-7.85 Authoritarian/Liberatarian:6.68

we need more stalinists around here.

EDIT: actually, we need everyone to be stalinists around here. no, we need everyone to be stalinists around everywhere.

"all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" hmm, i've taken to quoting mussolini allot recently.