NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always called myself an extreme moderate, but I really dont know what I am. Can someone help me think?

I am:
Pro-capitalism
Pro-war(in a real polotik fashion)
Against gun control
Pro-choice
Anti-censorship
Pro-federal power
Pro-totalitarianism
Democracy is second place
Militantly atheist
Joining the military
For the iraq war(though against pretty much all given reasons, including humanitarianism)
Pro-UN
Against trying to force nations to get rid of WMD
Pro-kerry
Anti-bush
Anti-nader
anti-affirmative action
anti-death penalty

pro-totalitarianism? Are your mad, as you do not seem that ideologically driven. Then again I could find myself agreeing with you you might be a radical centrist.

pro-totalitarianism? Are your mad, as you do not seem that ideologically driven. Then again I could find myself agreeing with you you might be a radical centrist.

Perhaps I should have said pro-dictator. A leader who has the power to veto or pass anything he wishes. This leader would be elected in terms(possibly 2, or 4) with no term limits. This would get things passed much more quickly, and easily. Obviously, there is the possibility of corruption, but I am optimistic.

Hmmm...

You are difficult to classify, my friend. Have you taken the Political Compass (www.politicalcompass.org) test? I would advise you do so, your results will help us get a general idea of where you stand.
I would like to know, just because I'm curious, your reasons for supporting the Iraq war. If you oppose the humanitarian motive, are a totalitarian, and oppose forced disarmament of nations, why support the war?

but I am optimistic.
No, that's being naive.

You're a Fascist mate.

You're a Fascist mate.
I wouldn't say that.

You seem to be some sort of political chimera.

I wouldn't say that.

Well, not perfectly lined up with the historic basis but still...

Hmmm...

You are difficult to classify, my friend. Have you taken the Political Compass (www.politicalcompass.org) test? I would advise you do so, your results will help us get a general idea of where you stand.
I would like to know, just because I'm curious, your reasons for supporting the Iraq war. If you oppose the humanitarian motive, are a totalitarian, and oppose forced disarmament of nations, why support the war?

I have taken it. I am very near the center, I think a tiny bit in the top-right(but not sure). Like one space to the right, and right on the x axis.

I support the Iraq war because it gives us control of strategic oil reserves, and we are killing off a number of people who are anti-american(even if we are spawning more, I believe the total number is slowly decreasing).

No, that's being naive.

Not really. Why does someone need to kill off millions, or such? Its because these kind of people try to gain power, not because normal people are turned this way. Im basically advocating an incredibly powerful leader elected by the people. If the people dont believe he will act in our best interests, they wont vote him in. If the people vote in somebody bad, then they have failed themselves.

You're a Fascist mate.

I've considered it, but isnt that a pretty broad definition?

Why don't you do some of the tests on those websites?
Then you'll know whether your left ideas outweigh your right ideas and whether Facism is really the politics for you!

http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php

That one is great!

You seem to be some sort of political chimera.

More of an Ouroboros (the snake that eats its own tail) I'd say. He's got one bit that destroys all the rest. Whatever else you believe, it all goes away once you have a dictator. Even an electable dictator. After all, he only needs to say that he's postponing the elections due to an emergency such as a war effort, or he's out of milk or something.

Hm.

Extreme Federalist Traditional Conservative or Royalist Traditional Conservative

I've always called myself an extreme moderate, but I really dont know what I am. Can someone help me think?

I am:
Pro-capitalism
Pro-war(in a real polotik fashion)
Against gun control
Pro-choice
Anti-censorship
Pro-federal power
Pro-totalitarianism
Democracy is second place
Militantly atheist
Joining the military
For the iraq war(though against pretty much all given reasons, including humanitarianism)
Pro-UN
Against trying to force nations to get rid of WMD
Pro-kerry
Anti-bush
Anti-nader
anti-affirmative action
anti-death penalty

Ah, but you see, if you elect a dictator, your political views will not matter. A dictator is unlikely to care about public opinion or approval ratings. It's not the mark of a dictator to care what the people think.

Perhaps I should have said pro-dictator. A leader who has the power to veto or pass anything he wishes. This leader would be elected in terms(possibly 2, or 4) with no term limits. This would get things passed much more quickly, and easily. Obviously, there is the possibility of corruption, but I am optimistic.

I have considered the idea of an elected dictator...someone who has no legislature or courts to answer to, but is bound by elections. The one thing they cannot unilaterally change is the political process; they cannot declare themselves Emperor. (A vote of the people, or some elected body of some sort that has no other real power, might serve to amend that, but any civil or economic law would be in the hands of the dictator.) Part of me says it would be too difficult to pull off. Part of me says that someone with that much power would have to be re-elected every two years, not every four or six, and that a term limit of some sort would have to be established (even if it means they just have to skip a term and run again later, a la the governor's position in Ohio.)

I also think that such a political figure would be far too busy to pass all kinds of laws micromanaging the economy and social policy; in the end, everything would be done by committee anyway and many decisions, in fact just about all of them, would be made by people that no one voted for. At least now, Congress is elected by someone.

Instead of focusing on the dictator part, you guys could focus on the others. I simply believe a benevolent dictator is the best type of government, and that certain people can be trusted with such jobs.

I have considered the idea of an elected dictator...someone who has no legislature or courts to answer to, but is bound by elections. The one thing they cannot unilaterally change is the political process; they cannot declare themselves Emperor. (A vote of the people, or some elected body of some sort that has no other real power, might serve to amend that, but any civil or economic law would be in the hands of the dictator.) Part of me says it would be too difficult to pull off. Part of me says that someone with that much power would have to be re-elected every two years, not every four or six, and that a term limit of some sort would have to be established (even if it means they just have to skip a term and run again later, a la the governor's position in Ohio.)

I also think that such a political figure would be far too busy to pass all kinds of laws micromanaging the economy and social policy; in the end, everything would be done by committee anyway and many decisions, in fact just about all of them, would be made by people that no one voted for. At least now, Congress is elected by someone.

I believe in a parliament to supplement the dictator, it simply has less authority than him. They can pass things, but the dictator has to approve it all. There would be government down to the personal level, just systems of authority. Not that different than what america has now, honestly.

I'd say your a ****ing fascist.
Don't worry about the hate on my end. I'm a paleo-conservative/classical liberal/American Revolutionary Patriot.

I wonder how many people would have said fascist, if I hadnt put totalitarianism...

Why don't you do some of the tests on those websites?
Then you'll know whether your left ideas outweigh your right ideas and whether Facism is really the politics for you!

http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php

That one is great!

It's a good test, but a little difficult to boil down into two or even three figures a la the NationStates political diagram. I suppose I can list my scores, though, and maybe add them to my signature if people want to do that.

Individual vs. Social: 54
Theist vs. Materialist: 86
Big Gov't vs. Small Gov't: 68
Nat'list vs. Internat'list: 73
Protectionism vs. Free Trade: 59
Absolute vs. Non-Absolute: 70
Controlled vs. Liberal Market: 40
Marxist vs. Non-Marxist: 49

Remember, if the number is closer to zero, I am closer to the first item listed, and if it is closer to 100, I am closer to the second item. So with my score of 86 in Theist vs. Materialist, I am very much a Materialist.

I believe in a parliament to supplement the dictator, it simply has less authority than him. They can pass things, but the dictator has to approve it all. There would be government down to the personal level, just systems of authority. Not that different than what america has now, honestly.

It does sound an awful lot like the American system...the President has to approve legislature, but the key difference is this: If Congress is willing to pass legislature with a 2/3 majority, they can override the President. It strikes me that you are more in favor of an absolute veto for the President; correct me if I am wrong.

It does sound an awful lot like the American system...the President has to approve legislature, but the key difference is this: If Congress is willing to pass legislature with a 2/3 majority, they can override the President. It strikes me that you are more in favor of an absolute veto for the President; correct me if I am wrong.

Indeed, that and the president can pass laws if he wishes.

Indeed, that and the president can pass laws if he wishes.

Of course, if the president can pass AND veto laws, remind me again what good a parliament is? They strike me as a mere glorified debating society if they have no real power.

Of course, if the president can pass AND veto laws, remind me again what good a parliament is? They strike me as a mere glorified debating society if they have no real power.

A president cant pass all laws. Having 500 or so people working toward the goal of passing the nessecary laws, with the president deciding whether the laws are right or not. He can also pass the laws he feels is nessecary, but he certainly wont pass them all, though he might edit some or many.

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, free-trade, non-absolutist, kind of person.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of fascist or nationalist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Platonism & Dictatorship area.

I suppose so.

According to this test, you are...

Santa Barbara (85%)

Your common sense and strong idealism earn you few friends, but make you a force to be feared. You're famous for your suave hairstyle and ability to kill people using ordinary household objects. You'll die at age 58, probably in the middle of masturbation, not that there's anything wrong with that.

According to this test, you are...

Santa Barbara (85%)

Your common sense and strong idealism earn you few friends, but make you a force to be feared. You're famous for your suave hairstyle and ability to kill people using ordinary household objects. You'll die at age 58, probably in the middle of masturbation, not that there's anything wrong with that.

This is either really funny, or really off-topic.

This is either really funny, or really off-topic.

...neither!

No, actually I was gonna put smileys after each of your stances to indicate whether it matches my own or not, but Jolt didn't like that many smileys in one post. Mostly though, on the political side you and I are pretty alike.

But okay. Iraq. You are for the war, but what about the occupation? And what were your reasons if they were none of the ones mentioned?

It's a good test, but a little difficult to boil down into two or even three figures a la the NationStates political diagram. I suppose I can list my scores, though, and maybe add them to my signature if people want to do that.

Ooh, this one isn't bad.

Individual vs. Social: 77
Theist vs. Materialist: 86
Big Gov't vs. Small Gov't: 78
Nat'list vs. Internat'list: 80
Protectionism vs. Free Trade: 29
Absolute vs. Non-Absolute: 57
Controlled vs. Liberal Market: 10
Marxist vs. Non-Marxist: 18

It tells me "These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Communism area."

I just looked, and it looks like it's full of Stalinists. I don't think i'll be paying that a visit :p

I can see why fascist is tempting because you believe in a strong centralized government and are "pro-war", but you also value capitalism. The problem is that you also seem to value civil liberties and I am certain that that is incompatible with a fascist doctrine.

I would say that, with the exception of the dictator thing, you are an almost classic example of a U.S. moderate leaning on the democrat side.

Honestly though, I can't see how your opinions are in anyway intellectually consistant. But, meh, that's just me.

I can see why fascist is tempting because you believe in a strong centralized government and are "pro-war", but you also value capitalism. The problem is that you also seem to value civil liberties and I am certain that that is incompatible with a fascist doctrine.

Ah, of course, it's staring me in the face..."Libertarian Police State" :p

...neither!

No, actually I was gonna put smileys after each of your stances to indicate whether it matches my own or not, but Jolt didn't like that many smileys in one post. Mostly though, on the political side you and I are pretty alike.

But okay. Iraq. You are for the war, but what about the occupation? And what were your reasons if they were none of the ones mentioned?

The occupation is just to keep our new gains ours, such as the oil. Though I dont think we should waste so much time consolidating the country, but instead focus on controlling what we want to keep, as well as the capital, and a few other strategically important places(such as airports and cities with airports, etc). We shouldnt bother with places like fallujah and latifiyah(sp?), instead just using intelligence to find what could end up a problem for us, and bombing what is needed/artillerying.

Ah, of course, it's staring me in the face..."Libertarian Police State"

You know, that is a good way to put it. Let's see how that would work.


Freedom... :fluffle: but then! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

And the people: :confused:




/bow

Individual/Social: 30
Theist/Materialist: 80
Big Government/Small Government: 82
National/International: 90
Protection/Free Trade: 10
Absolutist/Non-Absolutist: 70
Controlled Market/Liberal Market: 8
Marxist/Non-Marxist: 34

"Individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, protectionist, non-absolutist, controlled-market."

Sounds accurate enough.

You know, that is a good way to put it. Let's see how that would work.

It's actually a NS UN Category :p

I can see why fascist is tempting because you believe in a strong centralized government and are "pro-war", but you also value capitalism. The problem is that you also seem to value civil liberties and I am certain that that is incompatible with a fascist doctrine.

I would say that, with the exception of the dictator thing, you are an almost classic example of a U.S. moderate leaning on the democrat side.

Honestly though, I can't see how your opinions are in anyway intellectually consistant. But, meh, that's just me.

Many people are indoctrinated with the idea that fascism = no civil liberties. This is false. These are results of dictators who come in through trickery, or other such methods, and are afraid of losing power. In a system that encourages such dictators, they wont need to go to such extremes to protect their power. In reality though, Im more supportive of a Meritocracy.

Chellis,

Although I disagree with you, that doesn't necessarily mean that I have been somehow indoctrinated. I haven't studied fascism too extensively; however, from what I know it isn't a system that is built to support civil liberties, it is build to support a ruling class/individual. Given that, any civil liberties that are granted are done so on the whim of the governing body and can be easily usurped at any time.

Now if you want to go on believing that you can have such a system, well then good luck to you though I doubt it can exist. I am eager to here how it is theoretically constructed.

Perhaps I should have said pro-dictator. A leader who has the power to veto or pass anything he wishes. This leader would be elected in terms(possibly 2, or 4) with no term limits. This would get things passed much more quickly, and easily. Obviously, there is the possibility of corruption, but I am optimistic.

That's not totalitarian but authoritarian. Totalitarian means where the government has control over every aspect of its people's lives. Authoritarian is a centralisation of power.

Chellis,

Although I disagree with you, that doesn't necessarily mean that I have been somehow indoctrinated. I haven't studied fascism too extensively; however, from what I know it isn't a system that is built to support civil liberties, it is build to support a ruling class/individual. Given that, any civil liberties that are granted are done so on the whim of the governing body and can be easily usurped at any time.

Now if you want to go on believing that you can have such a system, well then good luck to you though I doubt it can exist. I am eager to here how it is theoretically constructed.

You say this with no proof or even evidence. Nobody sane would get rid of civil liberties without a reason, and those put into power would be the ones who are seen as the most intelligent. The system only works if everyone, including the top, participates. I would like to think that everyone would participate toward progress. Yes, there are greed and benefits to being greedy, the object is to lower those, and to make altruism more enticing. But back on civil liberties, you need reasons to get rid of them. In such a system as I have laid out(especially a meritocracy), the leaders wouldnt have a reason to do so.

Ooh, this one isn't bad.

Individual vs. Social: 77
Theist vs. Materialist: 86
Big Gov't vs. Small Gov't: 78
Nat'list vs. Internat'list: 80
Protectionism vs. Free Trade: 29
Absolute vs. Non-Absolute: 57
Controlled vs. Liberal Market: 10
Marxist vs. Non-Marxist: 18

It tells me "These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Communism area."

I just looked, and it looks like it's full of Stalinists. I don't think i'll be paying that a visit :p

I am an individually-orientated, small-government, free-trade, non-absolutist, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist. Or... Libertarian.

a populist maybe

You're a Fascist mate.

I concur, as a political scientist/PT theorist, that seems to fit based on the stances stated, the real tell would be stance on Private property, should the government abolish private property? should the government allow private property but dictate how it is used? should the government abolish private property and parcel out land as it sees fit?

Individual/Social: 78
Theist/Materialist: 37
Big Government/Small Government: 47
National/International: 86
Protection/Free Trade: 22
Absolutist/Non-Absolutist: 31
Controlled Market/Liberal Market: 5
Marxist/Non-Marxist: 11

socially-orientated, theist, internationalist, protectionist, absolutist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.

I don't think you fully understand some of the terms you've used in listed what you're for and against up there. Some of them are contradictorym making you look as though you are a chimaera of ideologies. Best thing for you to do is open up www.politicalcompass.org and take the test there. Take it carefully, and make sure you understand what each thing it asks you means, and remember not everything is Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree.

At the moment you're some sort of Democratic Fascist :D

Hm.

Extreme Federalist Traditional Conservative or Royalist Traditional Conservative

I have to agree. Actually, a better description might be "Royalist/Nationalist", the Royalist part being his support of a "Supreme Leader" type, while the Nationalist portions would be derived from his foreign-policy and Military positions.

In Classical Terms, he seems like an Enlightenment Totalitarian in the Austrian (Late 1700's style Austrian) mold.

his support for Democratic politicians is in line with the Royalist fantasy as well-both Kerry, and Gore, come from an arm of the party that tends to focus on accumulation of power over multiple aspects of life, and a tendency to want to impose centralized authority in Economic matters.

In modern terms, Chellis, you're like most REAL WORLD voters-you can't be easily boxed up using terms from the modern lexicon of politics.

Instead of focusing on the dictator part, you guys could focus on the others. I simply believe a benevolent dictator is the best type of government, and that certain people can be trusted with such jobs.

I think this is impossible. Too much power messes with your mind.

So, i´m a materialist, small-government, internationalist, controlled-market kind of person.

Borderline internationalist?

Is that a political stance?

Chellis,

Proof?

I can offer historical evidence by way of Nazi Germany, they did not have a good track record for respecting civil liberties. The only other fascist regime I am aware of in history, Mussolini Italy, I don't know too much about so I can't offer it as proof, though I would wager it didn't have guaranteed civil liberties.

Reason?

Fascism is an authoritarian style government. The justification and construction of the state is so that an elite group, or individual, maintain absolute political power by way of force. When an individual has absolute political power, civil liberties are not guaranteed to the public. They may exist, but only on the whim of the ruling elite/individual.

The system only works if everyone, including the top, participates.

The system can also work if all the "participants" are coerced by way of force to obey the ruling body.

I would like to think that everyone would participate toward progress.

I would like to think that also, but you haven't shown me why this must be the case in an authoritarian government whose sole purpose is to keep a certain group/person in power.

But back on civil liberties, you need reasons to get rid of them.

Sure. "Hey you, you no longer have civil liberties. Why? Well look at all these pretty guns I have and all the sour looking fellows pointing them at you."

In such a system as I have laid out...

Other than stating a benevolent dictator will allow people to have civil liberties according to merit (which doesn't refute my point by the way), you haven't set up a system. Do so if you like, I am certainly eager to hear about it.

A facist with no moral standards.