NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what I believe.

Conservative beliefs:
Anti-gun-control
1 year of mandatory military service
A flat-tax
Privatizing Social Security as a whole (no private accounts)
Privatized, but subsidized education
Moderately pro-life (5 abortion limit)
No minimum wage
Mandatory School uniforms
Armed guards in schools
Strongly oppose illegal immigration
Oppose affirmative-action
Legalize DDT
Oppose death-tax
Right to defend one's home with lethal force
Oppose further regulation of fuel emissions
Support substantial military spending (but only for traditional weaponry that WORKS)
Weaning public TV from the government (but still with enough to keep it afloat)
Oppose space programs
Mandatory, but confidential STD testing at age 18
Support nuclear energy

Liberal beliefs:
Substantial social welfare (everyone recieves a "living wage" from the govt.)
Substantial foreign aid, for non-military allies
Support Fair trade, oppose Free Trade
Universal healthcare
Legalizing marijuana
Legalize polygamy
Legalize prostitution
Legalizing gay marriage
Supporting alternative energy
Supporting arts and music (and public, artistic displays of nudity)
Oppose censorship
Support cloning of half-human hybrids
Oppose corporal punishment
Oppose creationism in schools
Oppose abstinence-only education
Oppose death-penalty
Raise the marriage tax, with free marital counseling
Subsidized drug-abuse counseling
Support subsidizing lumbering, promoting tree-planting
Oppose faith-based initiatives
Legalized flag-burning
Oppose limiting corporate and medical liability
Substantial public libraries funding
Subsidized treatment for STDs
Increased funding for free school counseling.

Check the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)

forget that.

Check the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428618 re: FAQ #1

i wish somone would sticky that...

Check the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)
I took that a while ago, but its fundamentally-flawed. I'd like to create a newer, better version of it. Because they ask questions which are impossible to answer because they could be interpreted in a number of ways, they don't ask enough questions, and political opinion should be measured in a 3-dimensional scale of: social policy, economic policy, and political policy, not two dimensional.

But it seems I've shifted substantially to the right, since the last time I took that test. Last time I took that test, I was almost exactly where Ghandi's at, in this picture.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

Look where I'm at now:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif

Apparently, I'm a Conservative Democrat.

I took that a while ago, but its fundamentally-flawed. I'd like to create a newer, better version of it. Because they ask questions which are impossible to answer because they could be interpreted in a number of ways, they don't ask enough questions, and political opinion should be measured in a 3-dimensional scale of: social policy, economic policy, and political policy, not two dimensional.

But it seems I've shifted substantially to the right, since the last time I took that test. Last time I took that test, I was almost exactly where Ghandi's at, in this picture.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

Look where I'm at now:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif

Apparently, I'm a Conservative Democrat.

That just shows what each axis represents. That's not your result.

You're completely messed up politically like me.

That just shows what each axis represents. That's not your result.
Oops, yeah, thanks. I took it again. And yep, I'm right near Ghandi, just like before. That makes no sense, though, because I've come to agree with various Conservative policies since last taking that test... which confirms my belief that it's flawed. I'm going to work on designing a newer, better political compass, because people quote that site like it's scientific, when it's fundamentally-flawed.

Legalize DDT? Do you know how it increases in concentration as it moves up the food chain?

People can defend their homnes with lethal force...yet you oppose capital punishment?

So...I can kill someone who's trying to murder my family, yet if they succeed, they can't be killed as a punishment for their crime?

Seems kinda strange to me to authorize preemptive force without authorizing postemptive force.

You think the government's only duty is to defend and support citizens. You don't care about the environment. You don't think the government should be tainted by religion, or vice versa. You think you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to do.

In my evaluation, you're a liberal, except weirder.

from some of your opinions id say youd have to be right-of-centre. Im a member of the Conservative Party and i'm further right than you so I'd say youd be sort of a liberal republican ..... too pleasant really.

Legalize DDT?

You do realize the dangerous effects of DDT? It is not biodegradable, which means when a small animal or insect dies from it, it can effect another animal, and it keeps moving up the food chain until it gets to humans...

And all this is coming from a far-right-winger! ;)

Why do you need to be branded either when you're obviously a mix of both?

yes ddt is very bad.

the thing about commercial pesticides today is that they can have up to 15% of their volume made up by 'contaminants'. so most commercial pesticides today are 15% DDT but do not list it as an ingredient.

People can defend their homnes with lethal force...yet you oppose capital punishment?

So...I can kill someone who's trying to murder my family, yet if they succeed, they can't be killed as a punishment for their crime?

Seems kinda strange to me to authorize preemptive force without authorizing postemptive force.

In my evaluation, you're a liberal, except weirder.
Heh, I disagree with capital punishment, but I reserve the right to kill people in self defence or the defence of others. There's no inherent contradiction here.
Capital punishment kills innocent people. Giving the state the right to kill isn't my idea of freedom & security. It's not even civilised in my opinion.

Maybe some weird liberal or something. I do not know. You seem to reject things from both sides of the scale and could be that your beliefs are centrist because of all of their oddness. Really though, I do not think that an interest in politics is for you, because your ideas do not lump together very easily and I doubt that there is a political party for you. I mean you could even be some weird libertarian but I think that some of your beliefs even reject that.

Legalize DDT?

You do realize the dangerous effects of DDT? It is not biodegradable, which means when a small animal or insect dies from it, it can effect another animal, and it keeps moving up the food chain until it gets to humans...

And all this is coming from a far-right-winger! ;)
No, I looked into it. I've read that the experiments involving DDT were highly flawed, future studies have proven them wrong, and even the effects they claimed were not severe enough to warrant a ban.

Maybe some weird liberal or something. I do not know. You seem to reject things from both sides of the scale and could be that your beliefs are centrist because of all of their oddness. Really though, I do not think that an interest in politics is for you, because your ideas do not lump together very easily and I doubt that there is a political party for you. I mean you could even be some weird libertarian but I think that some of your beliefs even reject that.
I don't identify with any of the current NS parties, which is I'm planning on starting a party called the "Techno Social Anarchist Reform Party", for all the intelligent people, especially centrists and moderates, who have political opinions but don't identify with the current parties.

I'm working on my own ideology advocating Technocracy in the future, but currently, Socialism, and in the far distant future (under the control of a computer), an Anarchist utopia. As well as plenty of Perot-like and Nader-like reform, to stop government corruption.

What I find odd is that I've thought of myself as a Liberal for my entire life. And before researching politics, I literally pretty much was a card-carrying liberal. But in this poll, there wasn't really a majority in ANY category, but more people (right now anyway) called me a far-right winger than any other category... Haha.

So, keep voting. Because I don't believe the political compass is correct (it didn't ask about plenty of the issues listed). And I want to know why you've all got completely contradictory opinions of where I am, politically. I want to know what the majority believes.

Well, the confusion comes in because some of your policies are big government, others are small government, some are for personal liberty and others are against certain personal liberties. Pretty much you are a mix of right, left, and everything in between. Your beliefs are too mixed to be defined with ease. I do not think very much in terms of the NS parties however.

My opinion: you're a freak. Kidding. No, actually you're probably much further to the left than you think, as most of your conservative beliefs aren't as large-scale and important as most of your liberal beliefs... your conservative ones are more minor, if that makes any sense. If you want a half-ass political test, I liked this one (http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php); someone posted it on these forums awhile back. It's long, and looks at a bunch of different parts of your political views. The only part I found to be off was the absolutist part, but other than that, it was a pretty good indicator.

anarchism isnt far right. its far left until you specify it as anarcho-capitalism, or individualist anarchism.

anarchism isnt far right. its far left until you specify it as anarcho-capitalism, or individualist anarchism.

Exactly. Anarchism has a whole left-right-center scale to itself which can get very complicated at times. I am a right wing anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, but I classify myself as out of mainstream anarchist thought.

[QUOTE=President Shrub] in the far distant future (under the control of a computer), an Anarchist utopia. [QUOTE]

thats not an anarchist utopia, as if your controlled by a computer, presumably it has to be an AI, or it wouldnt be able to cope properly, its the same as being controlled by a human, only if the computer wanted you dead it wouldnt have to struggle with emotional or psychological problems, on account of having neither.

edit: i neither have the know how, nor patience, to fix my mistake with the quote box above. sorry.

Exactly. Anarchism has a whole left-right-center scale to itself which can get very complicated at times. I am a right wing anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, but I classify myself as out of mainstream anarchist thought.

well, its nice to have someone agree fnally with a single part of a point ive made. even if they are an anarcho capitalist. :)

I voted liberal democrat.

I've seen too many of your Bush conspiracy theories to know that you are nowhere near the right.

Shrub, you are like me, in the extreme centre, a.k.a. the radical middle.

Maybe some weird liberal or something. I do not know. You seem to reject things from both sides of the scale and could be that your beliefs are centrist because of all of their oddness. Really though, I do not think that an interest in politics is for you, because your ideas do not lump together very easily and I doubt that there is a political party for you. I mean you could even be some weird libertarian but I think that some of your beliefs even reject that.
Just because his beliefs don't mesh into a few talking points, doesn't mean that they cannot work.

I voted liberal democrat.

I've seen too many of your Bush conspiracy theories to know that you are nowhere near the right.
Not liking Bush doesn't prove anything except that he doesn't like Bush.

Remember Roach-Busters? Was he "nowhere near the right"?

Am I Liberal or Conservative?!

Yes.

Why do you support a five abortion limit? What is the purpose of that?

Here's what I believe.
*snip*

Er, how to label you. I don't think liberal or conservative suffiices.

How about: Schizophrenic? Multi-personality disorder? ;) :D

But, in all seriousness: (1) why do you care about a label? and (2) you do realize some of your stated views are flating contradictory -- e.g., privatizing schools but increasing public school spending?

You're a Commu-Con.

Why do you support a five abortion limit? What is the purpose of that?
Maybe he has ideas about protecting women's bodies from themselves. It's also so unnecessary. Seriously, who the hell has five abortions?

Shrub, you are like me, in the extreme centre, a.k.a. the radical middle.

explain this concept of extreme centralism to me, please. do you mean in a third way sense (a la mussolini or blair), or people who support the idea of a secret police (obeying, enforcing and respecting civil liberties, of course) to make intolerant people vanish in the night, to the tolerance camps from south park? extreme centralism just sounds like dark white, or loud silence.

explain this concept of extreme centralism to me, please. do you mean in a third way sense (a la mussolini or blair), or people who support the idea of a secret police (obeying, enforcing and respecting civil liberties, of course) to make intolerant people vanish in the night, to the tolerance camps from south park? extreme centralism just sounds like dark white, or loud silence.

Sounds my kind of thing. is that what you call it? Radical centralism?

Sounds my kind of thing. is that what you call it? Radical centralism?

i dunno. im questioning how the centre can be radical, or extreme. it doesnt make sense to me. hence the dark white and loud silence comments. i just dont understand how you can radically reach a compromise...

i hope you werent refering to mussolinis (or for that matter blairs) system being your kinda thing...

Maybe he has ideas about protecting women's bodies from themselves. It's also so unnecessary. Seriously, who the hell has five abortions?

It seems that he believes that either:

1. It is okay to kill babies as long as you don't kill more than five.

or

2. It is the woman's right to choose for her own body, as long as she doesn't make the wrong decision too many times.

Maybe there is a third reasoning that I am too dense to see.

explain this concept of extreme centralism to me, please.
It's hard to define, but I think it best describes his politics. It's not the traditional moderate kind of centrism, which advocates moderate change. It's a person who wants lots of change, but they take their desires for change from both the left and the right.

It seems that he believes that either:

1. It is okay to kill babies as long as you don't kill more than five.

or

2. It is the woman's right to choose for her own body, as long as she doesn't make the wrong decision too many times.

Maybe there is a third reasoning that I am too dense to see.
Maybe there is a third reason, since your two assumptions are rooted in the current US two party system's view of the issue.

[QUOTE=President Shrub] in the far distant future (under the control of a computer), an Anarchist utopia. [QUOTE]

thats not an anarchist utopia, as if your controlled by a computer, presumably it has to be an AI, or it wouldnt be able to cope properly, its the same as being controlled by a human, only if the computer wanted you dead it wouldnt have to struggle with emotional or psychological problems, on account of having neither.

edit: i neither have the know how, nor patience, to fix my mistake with the quote box above. sorry.
No, because the computer wouldn't "want" anything other than to accomplish its pre-programmed purpose.

Why do you support a five abortion limit? What is the purpose of that?
I'll copy and paste from the manifesto I'm working on.

(From the The T.S.A.R. Manifesto)

Limited Abortion
The abortion debate is a difficult one and usually fallacious. However, TSAR believes it can settle the debate through sound reason and logic, rather than emotional appeals about "killing babies" or "violating freedom." Not everyone agrees a fetus is a baby, even scientists, and all laws inherently restrict some form of choice.

The founders of liberalism turned away from religious ethics and instead looked towards secular, philosophical ethics. Instead of believing something was immoral because the Bible said so, they said that to know if something is immoral, ask how it is used and if it serves the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarianism). There is no universal definition of "human life." The Jews say it's forty-some days after conception. Doctors say it's after a certain trimester. Well, why not five minutes before that arbitrary point? In one split-second, between those two human-created labels, does it become a human life? No.

And for people who are completely pro-life, you should consider the Greek philosophy, Zeno's paradox of motion. I'll explain it like this: Say that I am holding a syringe to inject sperm into an egg, which has a diameter of about 1/175th of an inch. Okay, now the doctor's job is to pierce the egg, and inject the sperm directly into the center of the egg. It doesn't need to be exactly the center, but that doesn't matter in this case, and we'll just assume it is. Alright, so the doctor needs to inject it into the center of the egg. But before the syringe's needle moves to the center of the egg, it needs to get halfway there (1/350 of an inch). But before it gets halfway there, it also the needle needs to go a fourth of the way there (1/700 of an inch), and an eighth of the way there, a sixteenth of the way there, and so on. So, according to basic mathematical laws, there are an infinite number of points between the outside of the egg and the center, because you can divide each piece as many times as you like. Since it takes some amount of time to go from one point to the next, and there are an infinite number of points, then it takes an infinite amount of time to do in-vitro fertilization! So, when does it become a human life? The same idea applies if a woman is impregnated naturally.

And though there is Calculus to somewhat approximate the infinite series mentioned by Xeno, it is still only a highly accurate approximation, never exact. The only way to have completely accuracy is to find proof that there is a "smallest particle" that can not be broken down into further parts. Scientists currently believe there is a smallest particle, though, many times in the past, they've claimed that a certain particle is the smallest, only to find that there is yet another smaller particle than what they believe. So, the evidence for such a particle is sketchy, at best.

Based upon that, recognizing that allowing abortion and banning abortion ban are neither inherently good or evil, I ask how each of them are used: An all-out ban on abortion would very likely drive up our population, dramatically increasing poverty and crime, as well as destroying Social Security and our other social programs, and killing women who attempt illegal abortions with sub-standard medical facilities. Because according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, women have almost 1.5 million abortions in the U.S. a year. A lot of those are likely twins or triplets. However, also according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 47% of women who have abortions have already had one or more. That leads us to believe that a lot of women are take this liberty for granted.

So, we look at four things: the certain evils, the potential evils, the certain goods, and the potential goods.

Ban on abortion (Republicans' proposal)
Potential evil: Our definition of "life" as an embryo is incorrect, and we restricted citizens' rights for no reason.
Certain evil: Higher poverty and crime, and social programs destroyed (effect on economy as well)
Potential good: Our definition of "life" as an embryo is correct, and we saved billions of lives.
Certain good: None.

No limits on abortion (Democrats' proposal)
Potential evil: We've ended billions of innocent, human lives.
Certain evil: None.
Potential good: Our definition of "life" being at a certain trimester is correct, and we've protected citizens' rights.
Certain good: None.

As you can see above, there is a dilemma. The Republicans' proposal has a potential evil, a certain evil, and a potential good. The Democrats' proposal has a potential evil and a potential good. So, it would seem that the Democratic proposal is logically superior to the Republicans' proposal. However, in philosophical ethics, when you are faced with a dilemma between two undesirable outcomes, it can almost always be broken down to "the morally safest" and "the easiest." According to philosophical ethics, you should always choose the morally-safer course.

But, since we don't have any proof of which definition is correct (science is just as arbitrary as the Bible on the definition of "human life"), we must choose the morally-safer course: which is neither limitless abortion or an outright ban on it. Because a ban on abortion would cause many, certain evil things to happen: poverty, crime, and death. And limitless abortion would cause many potentially-evil things to happen, with the possible murder of trillions of human beings.

At the same time, however, a line must be drawn. A fair amount of consensus is necessary on moral questions. Say, for example, a minority of people said that an apple is human life (or any other arbitrary object). Being that there is no objective, absolute, indisputable proof that apples are not humans, the "morally-safer" course would be to accept that they are. Reasonably, though, it's clear to 99.999% of people that apples are not human beings. So, although TSAR supports limited abortions (up to 5, not including rape or incest), that could change, if there is an extremely strong concensus to do otherwise. Not just a majority, though. It would have to be an overwhelming majority, which we do not currently have. For this reason, both a ban on abortion and limitless abortion are poor policies, merely appealing to the relative morals and emotions of people, rather than human reasons. Logically, being that half interprets life one way and half interprets life another way, we should come to a compromise rather than demanding that the law agree with our one side's perceptions.

Maybe he has ideas about protecting women's bodies from themselves. It's also so unnecessary. Seriously, who the hell has five abortions?
Actually, I don't give a shit about fetuses. Personally, I don't believe they're "human beings", but logically, we should treat them as such until there is an overwhelming majority consensus that they are not.

It seems that he believes that either:

1. It is okay to kill babies as long as you don't kill more than five.

or

2. It is the woman's right to choose for her own body, as long as she doesn't make the wrong decision too many times.

Maybe there is a third reasoning that I am too dense to see.
Partially #2, but not exactly. Read the quote from my manifesto.

I don't know what you are, you've got to figure that out for yourself. A lot of people think of me as some sort of raving, drooling communist - and then are surprised when I come out in favour of the annual Seal hunt, or when I slam enthusiasts of 'fun fur' products when perfectly biodegradable, natural furs are available.

Everybody's an individual. Nobody is just a digit on a political list.

Quick question: do you oppose only government sponsored space programs or private endeavors as well?

You are neither. See Sean Hannity, he will explain everything then Hannitize you. You will know what you are after that. :D

You are neither. See Sean Hannity, he will explain everything then Hannitize you. You will know what you are after that. :D

An ass-hat?

:D

Haha. The other survey said I'm a Marxist.

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, theist, big-government, internationalist, protectionist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist.
I'm not exactly protectionist, but.. well.. yes.. Somewhat. I think protectionism is somewhat necessary right now, to sort of delay globalization as best we can. But ultimately, no, protectionism is a bad idea. And it does hurt the economy. But so do almost all Socialist policies.

Reading about Marxism, I suppose I'd agree with that, being that I am influenced a great deal by Socialism and wouldn't argue with someone who called me a Socialist in the short-term, except that I ultimately advocate technocracy, and believe that many, many aspects of the government should be small.

Your are a Robocratic Radical Moderate Anarchist.

Your are a Robocratic Radical Moderate Anarchist.
Radical Moderate?

Oh, and one thing I would like to clarify is that I *do* believe there very-likely will be a worldwide Communist state, as Marx predicted. But it won't be a utopia, but rather a dystopia. It will be what I call Communo-Fascism, or a "Queen Bee" government. Just think of Chinese Communism, but more oppressive, and far larger, as a one-world government. It won't come out of Communist countries, though, or any kind of revolution. But rather, the individualist ideals of selfishness would benefit fro it. Because a society founded upon production (capitalism) would ultimately be the most productive, if it were formed like a bee-hive. Of course, you'd need to wait until a person has enough technological and financial power to oppress people this much, and get away with it. That probably won't happen for centuries.