NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all, i took this recently and wanted to know were the world stood. So square are you in and post your score! http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
take the test if you havn't yet also!

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

I don't think anyone here would be interested in that sort of thing. :(

and why not? I want to see how an unbiased political calculater would place you. Im just interested in what ideals my fellow rp'ers hold up, since most people play authoritarian nation, i want to see if people are actuly that authoritarian.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

IIRC, the last time I took the test I was -7.20/-7.03

I refuse to believe that the extent of my political opinion and thought can be measured using only 2 dimensions.

edit to add: I like pie, so if we assign a dimension to each decimal position, I'm 3.141592. . . . . ;)

Libertarian Right. My Government class took the test and I think I was the only one that got that.

I refuse to believe that the extent of my political opinion and thought can be measured using only 2 dimensions.

edit to add: I like pie, so if we assign a dimension to each decimal position, I'm 3.141592. . . . . ;)

If you make one better than this, that is in 3 dimensions, then i will agree with you. But for the time being we have this and it works for what im trying to discover

If you make one better than this, that is in 3 dimensions, then i will agree with you. But for the time being we have this and it works for what im trying to discover

There was a guy named President Shrub who tried to do that on here a while ago. He got banned, however, so I think he never got a chance to finish it for us.

Btw, my Political Compass score is in my sig.

I don't think anyone here would be interested in that sort of thing. :(

Agreed.

Yep, it's that time of year where all the usual ratings sites get hauled out of cold storage...

... the results in my sig will do for now. I might take the test once again when I get more time... silly finals week...

I'm a Libertarian Right.

I usually get Centrist, leaning a little bit towards Libertarian Right.

If you make one better than this, that is in 3 dimensions, then i will agree with you. But for the time being we have this and it works for what im trying to discover

My point is, given a (possibly) infinite number of issues, and an infinite number of positions one may take, any finite measure is not only useless, but misleading. Plus, it irks me to no end that I am lefthanded, but that is not the meaning of "leftist" :eek:

My point is, given a (possibly) infinite number of issues, and an infinite number of positions one may take, any finite measure is not only useless, but misleading. Plus, it irks me to no end that I am lefthanded, but that is not the meaning of "leftist" :eek:

I'm ambi.

I'm ambi.

ambidextrous or ambisinistrous?

Oh good, I don't feel alone anymore. Who'd have thought so many people interested in running their own country would be Libertarian?

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Not too different from how it was the last time, half a year ago or so - and the times before that. Though my ideology has evolved a fair bit.

To sum it up: Rampantly misanthropic (though not very hateful; helping humanity reach extinction if it fails to re-engineer its nature would be a kind, loving act;)), semi-nihilistic, semi-hedonistic, somewhat crackpotty technocracy advocate and extreme rationalist.

Oooh, I haven't taken it in ages. Lemme see...

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

Well, hasn't changed a whole lot. It's still misrepresenting my economic score though, I'm really further to the right than that. Some questions are just formulated a bit clumsily. I still prefer the pofo quiz.

Er..

I really don't feel like doing this again, so I'll just try to remember where my dot was, and make something in Paint..

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/blahhh/f4da88f9.jpg

Yeah, if i could change one thing about the test is that it dose place you furthur on the left, just for saying you want to reg. Corp. Whats the pofo quiz?

ambidextrous or ambisinistrous?

dex

the guest test and pofo was broken, and my email was bannded and ive never been there

dex

Must be tough, having to buy two pair of gloves just to get a match . . .

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

I've moved right on the economic scale. Two years ago I remember scoring
-10.00 on the economic scale. Even though I score a poor -0.50 now, I still consider myself to be a more fair and compassionate person and therefore more to the left than the score shows.

Must be tough, having to buy two pair of gloves just to get a match . . .

?

EDIT:*wikis ambidextrous* ah ic

To the Southwest

and why not? I want to see how an unbiased political calculater would place you. Im just interested in what ideals my fellow rp'ers hold up, since most people play authoritarian nation, i want to see if people are actuly that authoritarian.

Of course it's biased. Everything is biased. And the problem with this one is the questions are ambiguous. For examples.

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

Which race? Humanity? White people? How is this a political question at all, anyway? It isn't!

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This is a loaded question. What if the two things are the SAME?

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment

This really depends on the economic situation.

I could go on, but the fact is this test isn't accurate, or scientific, and certainly not unbiased. Things are more complicated than can fit into neat little boxes. People too.

Let's see:

Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.82

Which according to them puts me at about the same place as Romano Prodi. Interesting, I would have thought myself to be farther to the right than him.

*takes test for the umpteenth time*

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

I'm a little more socially libertarian than before, but otherwise I haven't changed much since the last time I took it.

I'm a left-wing anarchist. I'll pass on wasting five minutes of my time on a test I've taken repeatedly already.

And did NS suddenly take a sharp shift to the right, or are those poll results non-representative?

Edit: Ah, that's better.

Libertarian left. Or as I call it,

Liberaltarian.

look at my sig...

Er..

I really don't feel like doing this again, so I'll just try to remember where my dot was, and make something in Paint..

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/blahhh/f4da88f9.jpg

Excellent idea Ruffy. This what mine roughly looks like.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g66/Boonytopia/f4da88f9.jpg

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72

And I always thought I'm a rightie.

Last time I took it...

Economic Left/Right: 0.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.25

or something like that.
------------
*drum roll*

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.28

meh, there's no neutral choice. :(

See sig, though that is a few months old.

Sig. Although I think I'm more socially liberal, stupid death penalty questions.

NSG has been insidiously turning me more socialist! :eek:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494088

if you wanna see where you might line up in the general discourse.

I am NOT updating the graph, so don't gravedig, I am not contacting Pure Metal to update the graph, so don't gravedig.

I only post it for informational purposes.

Somewhere in the lower left quadrant.

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

Looks like im libertarian left

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

?

It's in the sig.

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95

Which makes me a left-leaning moderate around here.:p

Which race? Humanity? White people? How is this a political question at all, anyway? It isn't!
Answering yes would suggest that you don't believe in the equality of all people. That has relevance on the social scale.
This is a loaded question. What if the two things are the SAME?
It's only a loaded question because you're overcomplicating it.

If you think that serving the needs of humanity is done through serving the needs of trans-national corporations, then you do not believe that globalisation should serve humanity rather than trans-national corporations.

You weren't being asked to choose between serving one over the other or serving the other over the one. You were being asked whether you should serve one over the other - yes or no. If you don't think you should serve either over the other, then the answer is no.

It's a yes-no question. Yes and no are always going to be valid answers.

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: [F cannot be cast to PoliticalOpinions

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95

Which makes me a left-leaning moderate around here.:p

Pretty much. Which would probably make me a centrist. Probably right leaning at that. :D

Hey all, i took this recently and wanted to know were the world stood. So square are you in and post your score! http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
take the test if you havn't yet also!

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

The test is fatally flawed.

The bias in the questions is to be expected, since that is the point - unfortunately, I don't agree with how it was defined or weighted.

For what it's worth, my score is: Economic Left/Right: -8.13, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10.

My sig says it all. I doubt I could get anymore right-wing on economics than it currently is, and certainly not less.

Oooh, I haven't taken it in ages. Lemme see...

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

Well, hasn't changed a whole lot. It's still misrepresenting my economic score though, I'm really further to the right than that. Some questions are just formulated a bit clumsily. I still prefer the pofo quiz.
Knowing you I'd add +3 to the economic one. :p

Answering yes would suggest that you don't believe in the equality of all people. That has relevance on the social scale.


It only suggests that if by "race" they mean the antiquated pseudo-science of "race." If by race they mean a species, then no it doesn't suggest that. Completely ambiguous and thus worthless. Especially considering people here are fellating this stupid test as "unbiased." As if!

It only suggests that if by "race" they mean the antiquated pseudo-science of "race." If by race they mean a species, then no it doesn't suggest that. Completely ambiguous and thus worthless. Especially considering people here are fellating this stupid test as "unbiased." As if!
My beef with it is what if one believes there are biological differences between races, but thinks nothing of it beyond that? Would this test automatically place them on the more authoritarian strain? That would be absurd.

My beef with it is what if one believes there are biological differences between races, but thinks nothing of it beyond that? Would this test automatically place them on the more authoritarian strain? That would be absurd.

Not really. Since there can be bigger biological differences within a 'race' than between two 'races' - the entire separate 'race' concept is kind of ridiculous. To insist upon such separations would be closer to what this test defines as 'authoritarian'.

My beef with it is what if one believes there are biological differences between races, but thinks nothing of it beyond that? Would this test automatically place them on the more authoritarian strain? That would be absurd.

To me that's merely symptomatic of the whole pigeonholing problem so prevalent in political ideology. If you say this, you're that. Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative, Neocon vs Hippie, Democrat vs Republican, Us vs Them. There's no real in-between. Even if this test allows for more variation than many, it still suffers from that.

And then we as a society wonder why people like Ann Coulter can make millions just by pounding out a book with nothing but "Blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah libs blah blah blah liberals."

To me that's merely symptomatic of the whole pigeonholing problem so prevalent in political ideology. If you say this, you're that. Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative, Neocon vs Hippie, Democrat vs Republican, Us vs Them. There's no real in-between. Even if this test allows for more variation than many, it still suffers from that.

And then we as a society wonder why people like Ann Coulter can make millions just by pounding out a book with nothing but "Blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah libs blah blah blah liberals."

what gets me is that the test asks me what I think, so I answer what I think, but then I remember that what I think about something has little to do with what I think the government stance should be.......so I end up way more screwed up on the graph than I really am.

for example

"Do you believe in God?"
yep.

I wonder what they do with that information......they didn't ask if I supported theocracy or secular government, which I support the latter, but it asks if I believe in God like it's supposed to tell them something about what I believe politically.......:confused:

Not really. Since there can be bigger biological differences within a 'race' than between two 'races' - the entire separate 'race' concept is kind of ridiculous.
To my knowledge this doesn't in fact invalidate the concept.

To insist upon such separations would be closer to what this test defines as 'authoritarian'.
How so exactly?

what gets me is that the test asks me what I think, so I answer what I think, but then I remember that what I think about something has little to do with what I think the government stance should be.......so I end up way more screwed up on the graph than I really am.


Yes, exactly.

For me an example would be, the one about "that water is a consumable and packaged good is a sad reflection on our society." I answer yes, but that answer apparently means I advocate an authoritarian economic system...! Which is nonsense. I support the free market, I just think it's sad that people pay for water which could be had for free, but for pollution and/or sheer laziness.

Yes, exactly.

For me an example would be, the one about "that water is a consumable and packaged good is a sad reflection on our society." I answer yes, but that answer apparently means I advocate an authoritarian economic system...! Which is nonsense. I support the free market, I just think it's sad that people pay for water which could be had for free, but for pollution and/or sheer laziness.

The test is attempting to fit square pegs in round holes. We're not all so neatly compartmentalized.

Economic Left/Right: 5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

Right wing, leaning towards Libertarianism.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

I am slightly libertarian center if you look at the graph that follows the numbers.

I always thought of myself as a centrist, and it seems this test proves that for its means.

Economic Left/Right: 5.11
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

Results are in my sig.

Economic Left/Right: 5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.87

I haven't taken this test in awhile:

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

Wow, I'm libertarian left too! Interesting that NSG attracts so many of us. That must be why I like it here...:D

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

I'm always on the line socially.. so neither libertarian or authoritarian on this. Economically I sway from 1. something right.. to 1. something left .. depending on my mood when I answer the questions .. or maybe it's if I answer Strongly to whichever question it is that sways it. Either way I'm extremely centered on this test.

Took it twice just now.. the first put it to the right economically by 1.38.. the second put me to the left by about the same margin.

My beef with it is what if one believes there are biological differences between races, but thinks nothing of it beyond that? Would this test automatically place them on the more authoritarian strain? That would be absurd.
But the question specifically asks whether you perceive superiority as a result of those differences.

Frankly, if there are substantive differences, I find it hard to believe that none of them lead to any level of superiority anywhere.

This test should have 5 answering options and not just 4, then you won't have to pick an option if you actually don't agree with any of them.

This test should have 5 answering options and not just 4, then you won't have to pick an option if you actually don't agree with any of them.
How could you not have an answer? The test asks if you hold a particular opinion, and you even have the option to decribe the extent to which you do or do not. There's no possible middle ground.

Show me a question where you want a fifth option.

Economic Left/Right: 0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

Wow, I'm libertarian left too! Interesting that NSG attracts so many of us. That must be why I like it here...:D

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
It's quite obivious that this board is full of mostly leftists, one reason why Bush is so hated.

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

It's quite obivious that this board is full of mostly leftists, one reason why Bush is so hated.


That a fact? I consider myself Conservative and I hate Bush.

That a fact? I consider myself Conservative and I hate Bush.Same here.

That a fact?

Er...yeah. As evidenced by every single "what's your political position" poll.

I've done this plenty of times before. This time,I got -5, -7.49. I've drifted closer to the centre. I seen some people were saying the questions are biased. They can't be cos they're porpositions not questions. Regarding the one about the inflation and unemployment, you just choose which is more important to you in general, even if neither or both is important to you, or you'd do one in some circumstances and one in others.

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

Damn... I've slipped to the right a bit...:D

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

I'd say it's about right for me...maybe a little off, but not too much

It's in mine and a some other people's sigs

but here you go...

Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

I'm always right around Ghandi.

I've taken this test a number of times and the result is usually similar:

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

There is one question that was kinda funny... it was something like "It's fine for people to discuss sex, but these days it's going too far." I selected disagree because I don't think that it's gone too far, but one could also in theory disagree that it's fine to discuss sex.

I've been drifting away from the center, apparently.

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

Quite a bit of a shift since my last take.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

Libertarian Left

OK that's more or less accurate. However, many of the questions on this "test" could use a "not applicable" option IMO

Wow. No wonder no one ever agrees with me.

Wow. No wonder no one ever agrees with me.

LOL

OK that's more or less accurate. However, many of the questions on this "test" could use a "not applicable" option IMO
Why? How could you not know whether you agree with any given statement unless you didn't understand it?

Lib Left.

Wow. No wonder no one ever agrees with me.I think it's more your unique view of things than anything else. ;)

But the question specifically asks whether you perceive superiority as a result of those differences.

Frankly, if there are substantive differences, I find it hard to believe that none of them lead to any level of superiority anywhere.
Simply espousing this belief is not authoritarian though if it is not coupled with a concomitant desire to oppress individuals perceived as inferior. The problem is that the proposition is poorly phrased.

Wow. No wonder no one ever agrees with me.
I agree with a good deal of what you say.

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

Not on anywhere near that all-too-common y=x line and not a libertarian. What kind of freak am I?

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

Not on anywhere near that all-too-common y=x line and not a libertarian. What kind of freak am I?
Similar to me, actually. I got more libertarian and less commie since I started NS, go figure.

Yeah, that's exactly how it worked out for me. I slowly progressed to the right (socially, I stayed the same) until I made it to the 0 line, and I haven't moved since. I've been hovering to the left of that line for over a year now.

OP

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

I moved more down-left from my September test.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.72

Seems I'm in the centre.

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

Simply espousing this belief is not authoritarian though if it is not coupled with a concomitant desire to oppress individuals perceived as inferior. The problem is that the proposition is poorly phrased.


I agree with a good deal of what you say.
You and I do certainly have a lot in common economically. I am surprised, though, to see the extent of the leftist majority here.

I knew we were outnumbered, but not so dramatically as this.

In far left-down corner, which means libetarian left (or anarcho-communism)

In far left-down corner, which means libetarian left (or anarcho-communism)
That's not a position I understand. Why is one sort of freedom good while another sort of bad?

That's not a position I understand. Why is one sort of freedom good while another sort of bad?

I think the general argument is that ecenomic freedom is artificial and uneeded in this hypothetical perfect anarchist communist state.

I think the general argument is that ecenomic freedom is artificial and uneeded in this hypothetical perfect anarchist communist state.

No. "Economic freedom" as it is generally used is not "freedom" in any meaningful sense at all.

There is such a thing as "economic freedom", that is, freedom in the spheres of our lives dominated by the economy, but it is not the "economic freedom" defended by capitalist ideologues and it is maximized, not eliminated, in an anarchist communist society.

poll suckage as it doesn't include the centrist parts.

I'm very socially libertarian - enough to scare most of Britain's citizenry, and economically slightly left leaning - enough to scare most of Britain's politicians.

Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassCastException: [F cannot be cast to PoliticalOpinions

Maybe my answer was a little too bizarre... did anyone actually understand?

That's not a position I understand. Why is one sort of freedom good while another sort of bad?Unfortunately that's what humanitiy's line of best fit tends to show. The importance that one escribes to social liberties is inversely proportional to that which one escribes to economic liberties.

Similar to me, actually. I got more libertarian and less commie since I started NS, go figure.Woah... I just took the test again... I must be in an odd mood or something, because I took a huge jump to the left by 5 points or so. Still libertarian as ever - accept discipline, make peace with the establishment? Nevah!

Previously...

Economic: +7.5
Social: -8.2

Currently...

Economic: +4.15
Social: -8.35

I think I've just become considerably more empathetic over the past year or so. :fluffle:

Although I should point out- in regards to the test, many of those questions simply ask for a personal sentiment without questioning whether or not I feel the government should be involved in the said function.

With those kinds of questions, an anarchist could be labeled as a totalitarian.

EDIT: Some would argue that sliding from +7.5 to +4.15 still qualifies me as a bona-fide douchebag.

EDIT: Some would argue that sliding from +7.5 to +4.15 still qualifies me as a bona-fide douchebag.
I think it makes you a pinko.

Unfortunately that's what humanitiy's line of best fit tends to show. The importance that one escribes to social liberties is inversely proportional to that which one escribes to economic liberties.
Sure, most people are dumb. That's not news.

No. "Economic freedom" as it is generally used is not "freedom" in any meaningful sense at all.

There is such a thing as "economic freedom", that is, freedom in the spheres of our lives dominated by the economy, but it is not the "economic freedom" defended by capitalist ideologues and it is maximized, not eliminated, in an anarchist communist society.
Economic freedom involves the freedom to enter into agreements with each other - particularly agreements regarding production. That's all.

you can see what i was last time we did a thing here http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/political%20compass1-4.pdf

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

I guess just your garden variety libertarian.

you can see what i was last time we did a thing here http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/political%20compass1-4.pdf
Heh, I've moved since then. Quite funny to see Vittos on the Libertarian-Left though. :D

Ack. Someone didn't pay attention when clicking on the poll. <.<

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

I remember I took it a few years ago, and ended up something like -9, -8

Economic Left/Right: -9.49
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.82

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

I'm growing ever more moderate.

Last time I took it:

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.something


Basically, corporations and politburos both suck, for largely the same reason.

**waves tiny "Petite bourgeoisie" flag**

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

Economic Left/Right: -9.49

Economic Left/Right: 10.00


How anyone could get more than 5 or 6 points away from the center, I just don't understand.

I agree with a good deal of what you say.

As do I.

Economic freedom involves the freedom to enter into agreements with each other - particularly agreements regarding production. That's all.

and there you have it folks - slavery is freedom

How could you not have an answer? The test asks if you hold a particular opinion, and you even have the option to decribe the extent to which you do or do not. There's no possible middle ground.

Show me a question where you want a fifth option.

Inflation- Unemployment. They're connected so neither of them are most important to fight. We should keep both as low as possible and not focus on fighting a specific one of them since it would make the other one worse.

A fifth middle option would also be good if you don't actually know what you think or don't care about a question.

How anyone could get more than 5 or 6 points away from the center, I just don't understand.

The first time I took a basic dual-axes quiz thingy, I was 100% market liberal, 100% social liberal. I realized the discrepancy between those results and my opinions in real life, and I've started to think that it's just a semi/subconscious tendency to orchestrate or cluster certain answers.

I can never rely on any questionnaire-type quiz for solid results- I always catch myself wondering about the impact of each answer on my overall score, which I'm sure influences my answers without my intent...

Basically, I think some people just have a natural inclination to test as an ideology.

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51

Far left, a bit belong the line on libertarian.

*boos at all the people who got positive social scores and eyeballs anyone who got very extreme economic scores* Authoritarianism just sucks, and whilst I'm open to fact that people can have varying views on the economic axis due to varying views on human nature and the like, I think an extreme view just smacks on naivety.

I'm so extreme t's not even funny

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.53
:)

Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.49

Hmmm...changed a bit in five years.

On the plus side, I am in the company of great men like John Howard and President Bush :D :D :D

Economic freedom involves the freedom to enter into agreements with each other - particularly agreements regarding production. That's all.

Which, rather transparently in certain social contexts, is a recipe for oppression - at least if the terms of the agreement are "freely" negotiated as well.

Which, rather transparently in certain social contexts, is a recipe for oppression - at least if the terms of the agreement are "freely" negotiated as well.
Sometimes I think our two sides will never be able to talk to each other. It's like we're using different languages. The sad thing is that I used to be a lefty, so I should know how to communicate across the divide. The pity is that I don't...I used to use words like "oppression" without ever actually bothering to ask what it is. It got some sort of emotional response, that was good enough.

But to humour you...is oppression (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppression) bad if both sides agree to it? How is this different from some third party condemning homosexuality?

Someone should really just sticky one of these topics. They keep coming up.

*boos at all the people who got positive social scores and eyeballs anyone who got very extreme economic scores* Authoritarianism just sucks, and whilst I'm open to fact that people can have varying views on the economic axis due to varying views on human nature and the like, I think an extreme view just smacks on naivety.
Why do you think an extreme view of economics smacks of naivete?

Sometimes I think our two sides will never be able to talk to each other. It's like we're using different languages. The sad thing is that I used to be a lefty, so I should know how to communicate across the divide. The pity is that I don't...I used to use words like "oppression" without ever actually bothering to ask what it is. It got some sort of emotional response, that was good enough.
I get that feeling as well sometimes.

How anyone could get more than 5 or 6 points away from the center, I just don't understand.
We have sufficient strength of conviction that we don't equivocate.

We have sufficient strength of conviction that we don't equivocate.

Sssshhhh. Intellegence bad, Vodka good. And yes, I only have one of the two right now. :D :D

Edit: omg those smilies look different, seriously.

and there you have it folks–slavery is freedom
You are free to buy! Obviously, freedom = market deregulation.

Free to choose to eat the constituent parts of Mars Bars in little balls, rather than as a whole bar. Free to choose which way to eat a Mars Bar!

Yaaaay! Freedom!

I just took this test a few months ago so just check out my sig. I don't know how accurate these scores are, I've always considered myself an authoritarian-anarchist ;)

But to humour you...is oppression (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppression) bad if both sides agree to it?

That depends entirely on what is meant by "agreement."

Under a certain, very narrow definition: no. But in the vast majority of cases, yes - because the "agreement", for various reasons, is not meaningfully free.

We could spend a long time getting into all the possible reasons for this, but the most relevant one here is simply that the terms of economic contracts are determined by the relative power levels of those making the contract, and the social and economic circumstances that determine relative power levels are not consented to by the participants in the agreement.

How is this different from some third party condemning homosexuality?

First, you falsely assume that it is necessarily a "third party" who objects to the content of an agreement. That is not at all the case; plenty of workers object to their conditions of employment, and have throughout history. Plenty more would prefer better deals even if they do not actively oppose their present circumstances.

Second, in cases where a third party is objecting to the content of the agreement, and neither party to the agreement objects (at least openly), there is no difference at all. The correct standard is the same: is the arrangement made with genuine freedom, or not? A person brought into a same-sex relationship (or opposite-sex relationship) by force, or emotional manipulation, or blackmail, or any number of other reasons characterized by non-freedom has been treated unjustly, and the relationship should be objected to.

Inflation- Unemployment. They're connected so neither of them are most important to fight. We should keep both as low as possible and not focus on fighting a specific one of them since it would make the other one worse.

A fifth middle option would also be good if you don't actually know what you think or don't care about a question.
Not really. Within an economy, high unemployment tends to result in low inflation, and low unemployment tends to result in high inflation. This is because when you have more people working, you have more people buying more things, so there's more money being moved around at any given time. The more money you have, the less valuable it is, so you get inflation.

Of course, it's possible to decrease both (or increase both) at the same time, but there aren't any reliable ways for a government to do that.

How is this different from some third party condemning homosexuality?

or third parties condemning an abusive relationship? oh, wait...

We could spend a long time getting into all the possible reasons for this, but the most relevant one here is simply that the terms of economic contracts are determined by the relative power levels of those making the contract, and the social and economic circumstances that determine relative power levels are not consented to by the participants in the agreement.
You need to make that connection: Why does this matter? How are the relevant power levels affecting free choices?

Furthermore, I think there's a credible argument to be made that the participants DID consent to those circumstances.

How are the relevant power levels affecting free choices?

how are they not? do people not speak of bargaining position where you are from?

I've always considered myself an authoritarian-anarchist ;)

I hope that's a joke.

You can't be authoritarian and an anarchist. You just can't. They're mutually exclusive...!

As for the actual topic, see m'sig. And if you can't, then I'm (-10.00,-9.33)

I retook it and got 9.25, .62, which is where I've been for a year or two now.

How are the relevant power levels affecting free choices?

Because bargaining power determines the content of any agreement.

If you have far more bargaining power than I do, my capability to choose the content of the agreement is drastically reduced. You are the one with the power.

I still must consent, yes... but because I am consenting to the TOTALITY, I need not like many of the conditions. The more bargaining power I have, the more power I have to eliminate or alter those conditions; the less bargaining power I have, the more I am subjected to whatever conditions the person with whom I am making an agreement wants to add, without any meaningful input on my part.

"Free" agreement in conditions of power inequity is thus consistent with very low levels of control over one's life - that is, unfreedom.

(How free is an agreement made at gunpoint?)

Furthermore, I think there's a credible argument to be made that the participants DID consent to those circumstances.

Until each of us, individually, can choose the social systems and distribution of property in the societies in which we live, no such credible argument can be made.

Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

This test does not adequately address my economic positions.

You can't be authoritarian and an anarchist. You just can't. They're mutually exclusive...!


That's not strictly true. Anarchy implies a lack of external control and authoritarianism calls to mind regulation. It could be possible to have a society that communally were extremely regulatory in some respects, without any pressure from 'outside' or 'above'... just based on their own local, direct representation.

Also - of course, one could feel differently about different issues. Anything to do with what consenting adults do with one another for recreation, or whatever... should be absolutely up to them (anarchistic position), while industry should be carefully controlled to regulate (authoritarian position).

Because bargaining power determines the content of any agreement.
Of course. I'll wait to see you make a relevant connection with this.
If you have far more bargaining power than I do, my capability to choose the content of the agreement is drastically reduced. You are the one with the power.
Again, true. Still waiting.
I still must consent, yes... but because I am consenting to the TOTALITY, I need not like many of the conditions. The more bargaining power I have, the more power I have to eliminate or alter those conditions; the less bargaining power I have, the more I am subjected to whatever conditions the person with whom I am making an agreement wants to add, without any meaningful input on my part.
Yes, but you agreed to the initial conditions of the negotiation. In a free market, the wealth you hold (your bargianing position) arises from your own choices.

While you may have less power in this negotiation, you have less power because you decided so.
"Free" agreement in conditions of power inequity is thus consistent with very low levels of control over one's life - that is, unfreedom.
The only way that can ever be true is if no one ever suffers as a result of their own bad decisions without making everyone suffer equally.
(How free is an agreement made at gunpoint?)
Poor analogy. I didn't agree to be held at gunpoint.

how are they not? do people not speak of bargaining position where you are from?
The rational default position is not to believe in things. Disproof is never the first necessary step.

Bargaining position does not necessarily require a limitation on choice.

liberal left, but only just; i'm on the cusp of authoritarian. I'm guessing my permissive sexual morality keeps me from going over the edge so to speak:

Economic Left/Right: -8.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

In a free market, the wealth you hold (your bargianing position) arises from your own choices.

Your own choices in the context of a pre-existing socio-economic system with a given distribution of wealth.

Which is kind of exactly what I said. And doesn't impact my point.

Economic: +3.38
Social: -10.00


The test still doesn't go deep enough, really...

Your own choices in the context of a pre-existing socio-economic system with a given distribution of wealth.
The distribution of wealth to you, however, is subject to your consent. Each person's position is arrived at through his consent.

The pre-existing socio-economic system isn't subject to your consent, but it never is. That's not a chageable condition.

I stand on my feet

The distribution of wealth to you, however, is subject to your consent.

No, it isn't.

I want a million dollars. Where is it?

The pre-existing socio-economic system isn't subject to your consent, but it never is. That's not a chageable condition.

No, but a democratic economy permits us control over not only our personal decisions in a given context, but also the context itself.

Because bargaining power determines the content of any agreement.

If you have far more bargaining power than I do, my capability to choose the content of the agreement is drastically reduced. You are the one with the power.

I still must consent, yes... but because I am consenting to the TOTALITY, I need not like many of the conditions. The more bargaining power I have, the more power I have to eliminate or alter those conditions; the less bargaining power I have, the more I am subjected to whatever conditions the person with whom I am making an agreement wants to add, without any meaningful input on my part.

"Free" agreement in conditions of power inequity is thus consistent with very low levels of control over one's life - that is, unfreedom.

(How free is an agreement made at gunpoint?)


Strongest argument against socialism I ever read.

Strongest argument against socialism I ever read.

Since socialism's entire point is to eliminate that power inequity through the egalitarian distribution of economic power....

Huh. Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

This leads to a problem in answering the poll question :rolleyes:

My point is, given a (possibly) infinite number of issues, and an infinite number of positions one may take, any finite measure is not only useless, but misleading. Plus, it irks me to no end that I am lefthanded, but that is not the meaning of "leftist" :eek:

I made a thread about how it was to be left handed because another thread was aboutbeing left politically and a lotof left handed people were confused on that thread.

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social: -4.05

Hooray for me!

Since socialism's entire point is to eliminate that power inequity through the egalitarian distribution of economic power....

Read your own post:

Because bargaining power determines the content of any agreement.

If you have far more bargaining power than I do, my capability to choose the content of the agreement is drastically reduced. You are the one with the power.

This is very true. And no one has more bargaining power than the government. In full-fledged socialism, where everyone is employed by the government, the government has an absolute monopsony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony)on labor. How is the employed person to negotiate a fair price when the the government can simply stop paying him until he consents to their price?

Let's say a person wants to be employed as a....construction worker. He's the most skilled construction worker on the planet and can do twice the labor of an ordinary laborer. Or, something like that. But the government will only pay him a wage minimally above the typical wage for a construction laborer. He can demand a fairer price and refuese to work all he wants, but in the end, as you said, it's a matter of bargaining power. The government has all the bargaining power, because either they employ him or he starves.


I still must consent, yes... but because I am consenting to the TOTALITY, I need not like many of the conditions. The more bargaining power I have, the more power I have to eliminate or alter those conditions; the less bargaining power I have, the more I am subjected to whatever conditions the person with whom I am making an agreement wants to add, without any meaningful input on my part.

Continues the same point. The government has TOTAL control of the market conditions.

"Free" agreement in conditions of power inequity is thus consistent with very low levels of control over one's life - that is, unfreedom.

This is true. It is hardly a free agreement for me to be forced to work at a government shop when I would be willing to make the investment and take the risks of starting one of my own. I am living in unfreedom.

(How free is an agreement made at gunpoint?)

0%. But a company can't force someone to work for them at gunpoint, not in developed countries at least. But the government can.



Point is, power inequity is always a problem, but if the country in which an economic agent operates is developed and has enacted the neccesary policies to promote free enterprise and upward mobility (as in anti-trust/monopoly laws, public education, etc.), then free enterprise is almost always better.

You talk about someone being a victim of "power inequity". But, in free enterprise, power inequity isn't nearly as much of a problem, because of competition. If you go to one landowner, and they say they'll hire you to work on their land for $1 a day, and you go to another landowner, and they say they'll hire you for $10 a hour, which one would you work for? Obviously, it's not always so neat and tidy, but the fact is, unless there is a monopoly or a monopsony, the distribution of power in capitalism will be kept fairly fair. Obviously, government influence is needed to keep trade fair, and to ensure that people are able to advance upward economically through programs like education and health care. And, there will be times when the government needs to protect the long-term (as in centuries) interests of the economy from the more immediate interests of corporations. But there is a huge distinction between government to promote free enterprise, and government enterprise.

How is the employed person to negotiate a fair price when the the government can simply stop paying him until he consents to their price?

He or she can always get a job elsewhere. Yes, a government job... but a different government job, with different pay and conditions. The government is not a monolithic entity... unlike, say, a monopolistic company, which has every incentive to universalize exploitative wage scales. (Indeed, a government accountable to the people has every incentive to diversify its options.)

More importantly, he or she is an active participant in the economic decisions that determine the pay and the conditions in the first place.

Choice of employment is retained... but added to it is meaningful control of the context in which those choices are made. Like I said.

The government has TOTAL control of the market conditions.

Yes, and through the government, the people.

It is hardly a free agreement for me to be forced to work at a government shop when I would be willing to make the investment and take the risks of starting one of my own.

True, it isn't a free agreement.

But then, there is no real "right" you are being deprived of here either - except perhaps self-employment, and in a society where that is mostly the privilege of the rich, you can hardly claim that capitalism is better there.

But a company can't force someone to work for them at gunpoint, not in developed countries at least.

It was an analogy.

But, in free enterprise, power inequity isn't nearly as much of a problem, because of competition. If you go to one landowner, and they say they'll hire you to work on their land for $1 a day, and you go to another landowner, and they say they'll hire you for $10 a hour, which one would you work for?

Both landowners have the same motive: maximize profit.

Both have the same interests as far as labor costs: minimize them.

What sort of "competition" is this? The choice of two different exploiters?

Obviously, it's not always so neat and tidy, but the fact is, unless there is a monopoly or a monopsony, the distribution of power in capitalism will be kept fairly fair.

And that's why most people are comparatively low-level workers in hierarchically-organized workplaces owned by others, and the super-rich control an overwhelming share of the wealth?

The distribution of power in every existing capitalist economy is pretty blatantly unequal.

Economic Left/Right: 2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18

This is what I got last time. It's in my sig as well.

He or she can always get a job elsewhere. Yes, a government job... but a different government job, with different pay and conditions. The government is not a monolithic entity... unlike, say, a monopolistic company, which has every incentive to universalize exploitative wage scales.

What is this you say? Becoming quite the state apologist, there Soheran.


And also, I would like to point out that your method for eliminating power inequity is by eliminating power. People with 1/population control over themselves are unlikely to wield power over others (unless they are good-looking, good orators, or good liars), but of course they also have only the slightest modicum of power over themselves.

What is this you say? Becoming quite the state apologist, there Soheran.

State apologist? :rolleyes:

*Sigh* (Applies to Sominium, Vittos, Sohern) Are you really going to have one of these arguments? Just make a new thread if you want argue.

Oh, and Sominium Effectus you do know that the state/government being the only employer is only one element that is included in only a few socialist beliefs don't you?

He or she can always get a job elsewhere. Yes, a government job... but a different government job, with different pay and conditions. The government is not a monolithic entity... unlike, say, a monopolistic company

The government in comparison with even the largest and wealthiest corporation IS a monolithic entity. Government employment process also takes quite a bit of time, and you can forget about it if you've a criminal record at all. On the other hand there are 25+ million businesses in the country. It's very silly to describe them collectively as a single entity or having only one job with one pay rate and one set of conditions.

The distribution of power in every existing capitalist economy is pretty blatantly unequal.

That's true for any society. For example, my government, and that of the People's Republic of China, are both capable of exerting enough power to, arguably, destroy civilization as we know it. I on the other hand, am in comparison a beer fart trapped within a cushion no one even sits on. But yes! Blame capitalism nonetheless! Government is good, and business is evil, la la la!

State apologist? :rolleyes:

*Sigh* (Applies to Sominium, Vittos, Sohern) Are you really going to have one of these arguments? Just make a new thread if you want argue.

Why?

What is this you say? Becoming quite the state apologist, there Soheran.

I am being a democracy apologist, which I have been forever here.

The precise method of political organization is another question, one that is not at issue in this argument.

but of course they also have only the slightest modicum of power over themselves.

Indeed, that would be the case, if we were to nationalize people.

But democratic control does not apply to decisions whose focus is personal - choice in employment and in purchase (or whatever method of distribution is used) is retained.

Just make a new thread if you want argue.

I'm with Vittos... why?

The government in comparison with even the largest and wealthiest corporation IS a monolithic entity.

Yes, but it is not profit-seeking.

It has no motive to use this power to minimize labor costs.

Government employment process also takes quite a bit of time,

I see no reason why this is any more intrinsic to the process than employment in the private sector is.

and you can forget about it if you've a criminal record at all.

This is something that would change in a socialist economy.

That's true for any society.

Not necessarily.

For example, my government, and that of the People's Republic of China, are both capable of exerting enough power to, arguably, destroy civilization as we know it.

Indeed, that's fucked up.

I am not a statist.

I on the other hand, am in comparison a beer fart trapped within a cushion no one even sits on.

We have been nought, we shall be all.

Government is good, and business is evil, la la la!

No. Smash the state, and abolish capitalism.

I am being a democracy apologist, which I have been forever here.

Six of one, half-dozen of another.

Six of one, half-dozen of another.

Aside from decentralized direct democracy upon the basis of free association, the only alternatives to statism I have seen that are consistent with modern society have either been mindlessly utopian (everyone agrees harmoniously) or not genuinely anti-statist at all (the private statism solution of anarcho-capitalism).

I remain more than open to further options... I would love to hear them.

No. Smash the state, and abolish capitalism.

People forget that true communists (little c, the Marxists) support the first part too.

People forget that true communists (little c, the Marxists) support the first part too.

Urm, only until such time as the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer needed. ;) Then it's away with the state and on to the anarchist worker's utopia!

Urm, only until such time as the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer needed. ;) Then it's away with the state and on to the anarchist worker's utopia!


Workers of the World, Unite! :)

Sorry, the above necessitated it.

Workers of the World, Unite! :) [/SIZE]

Exactly! Join the One Big Union! :D

Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23

Workers of the World, Unite!

Arise, ye wretched of the Earth!

On our flesh too long has fed the raven
We've too long been the vulture's prey
But now farewell the spirit craven
The dawn shall bring a better day!

The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyr'd dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.

Then raise the scarlet standard high,
Beneath its folds we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here!

Ace. :)

That's some rather distasteful verse.
Good thing only a handful of useless malcontents actually put any stock in it.

Workers of the World, Unite!



You have nothing to lose but your life, the lives of those you love, the lives of those you couldn't give a fuck less about, any freedom in who, or what you are, diversity of taste, and the concept of personal identity. Etc.

Join the Collective
Resistance is futile
You will be assimilated

Join the Collective
Resistance is futile
You will be assimilated
Hoorah, you're such a rebel. No, srsly.

Hoorah, you're such a rebel. No, srsly.

Well they were tossing around cliche and trite phrases, so I thought I'd play too.

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

State apologist? :rolleyes:

*Sigh* (Applies to Sominium, Vittos, Sohern) Are you really going to have one of these arguments? Just make a new thread if you want argue.

Oh, and Sominium Effectus you do know that the state/government being the only employer is only one element that is included in only a few socialist beliefs don't you?Wow you prefer the thread be simply a list of people's political compass scores with the occasional complaining the poll?

(Don't think I missed the irony of you complaining about debating and then attempting to debate with Sominium Effectus.)

The government in comparison with even the largest and wealthiest corporation IS a monolithic entity. Really? What's WalMart's gross income compared to the government of Mozambique?

Exactly! Join the One Big Union! :DAnother I.W.W. member? Awesome.

That's some rather distasteful verse.

You have no taste. ;)

Well they were tossing around cliche and trite phrases, so I thought I'd play too.

That's the best reply you can ever give to "cliche and trite phrases"... that or mockery, which in this case I suppose you managed too.

But trite and cliched leftist propaganda so completely overwhelms the trite and cliched competition that it's a losing fight for you.

Just look at music.

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

My little dot is near Ghandi's. Cool.

However, some of the questions could be interpreted in many ways or depends heavily on the circumstances- so next time I take the test my score could be totally different XP

That's some rather distasteful verse.
Indeed. :)

I've been avoiding these for a whilw. But I took it again tonight, an have shifted a fair bit more centralish on the left-right axis.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

(I think I scored a +8 or so on the L-R axis a couple of years ago...)

I noticed that my closest polar opposite on the scale they give is Robert Mugabe. This pleases me greatly! :cool:

Another I.W.W. member? Awesome.

Is the I.W.W. now just an attempt of liberals and intellectuals to gain some iota of relevance?

I mean, nothing against you, but do you have some reason to be in the Industrial Workers of the World?

Their whole front page is about unionized Starbucks employees and a bicycle shop. What a joke.

Yes, but it is not profit-seeking.

It has no motive to use this power to minimize labor costs.

Instead, to use the power to bomb and oppress people. Commit genocide. Put people in prison. And this is better than the evils of profit-seeking?


I see no reason why this is any more intrinsic to the process than employment in the private sector is.

Me neither; it's just how it is.

This is something that would change in a socialist economy.

I don't see why it would. Are socialist politicians more trusting of criminals?

If so, why?

No. Smash the state, and abolish capitalism.

...

You know, I'm not even going to go there. I just wanted to address your stated issues of the morality of gov vs business.

Is the I.W.W. now just an attempt of liberals and intellectuals to gain some iota of relevance?I can't speak of the motivations of everyone in the union, perhaps for an occasional member, but no, not for everyone. We do actual organization work, and sometimes succeed.

I mean, nothing against you, but do you have some reason to be in the Industrial Workers of the World?Yes, I believe in the goals of the union, as well as the tactics of the union, as I believe they have the potential to work better than other unions.

Their whole front page is about unionized Starbucks employees and a bicycle shop. What a joke.Well, the Starbucks campaign is a national campaign, so it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people who check the site might be interested in it. I'm not sure about the bicycle shop.

Why?

This topic is about your 'political alignment' not about arguing various political beliefs.

(Don't think I missed the irony of you complaining about debating and then attempting to debate with Sominium Effectus.)

I only realised that once I had posted it and couldn't be bothered editing it. Hooray for irony!

I can't speak of the motivations of everyone in the union, perhaps for an occasional member, but no, not for everyone. We do actual organization work, and sometimes succeed.

Yes, I believe in the goals of the union, as well as the tactics of the union, as I believe they have the potential to work better than other unions.

Well, the Starbucks campaign is a national campaign, so it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people who check the site might be interested in it. I'm not sure about the bicycle shop.

These Starbucks "baristas" have no clue of class consciousness, just like the overwhelming majority of leftists.

These starbucks employees will graduate college have kids and commence with their "petite bourgious" lives.

These Starbucks "baristas" have no clue of class consciousness, just like the overwhelming majority of leftists.

These starbucks employees will graduate college have kids and commence with their "petite bourgious" lives.The union itself isn't specifically an anarchist or leftist union. I mean, there are things about class consciousness in the literature, but there isn't an ideology check for potential members.

Nonetheless, I would say that whether or not the specific employees who were fired have any class consciousness, why would the campaign have become national if not for class consciousness? (Keep in mind that the I.W.W. actually pays only a handful of people to work for the union.)

Instead, to use the power to bomb and oppress people. Commit genocide. Put people in prison.

Yes, right.

Now... what does this have to do with a socialist economy?

Me neither; it's just how it is.

So... why does it matter?

I don't see why it would. Are socialist politicians more trusting of criminals?

No.

But the significance of public sector employment is different when all employment is public sector.

I just wanted to address your stated issues of the morality of gov vs business.

Hmm, I don't believe I claimed anywhere that the government is more moral than business.

Indeed, my position tends to be that the question is pointless and unanswerable... the state and capital are inseperable, and the immorality of each is part and parcel of the other.

I think public power - that is, the power of democratic institutions, insofar as they are genuinely democratic - is better than the private power of a privileged elite.

These Starbucks "baristas" have no clue of class consciousness, just like the overwhelming majority of leftists.

You must be using a definition of class consciousness with which I'm not familiar.

Reading Das Kapital is not a prerequisite.

These starbucks employees will graduate college have kids and commence with their "petite bourgious" lives.

So?

Nonetheless, I would say that whether or not the specific employees who were fired have any class consciousness, why would the campaign have become national if not for class consciousness? (Keep in mind that the I.W.W. actually pays only a handful of people to work for the union.)

I'm not entirely sure what the great draw is to the Starbucks Union, especially when Starbucks actually offers excellent benefits (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/15/starbucks-healthcare-benefits-cx_cn_0915autofacescan01.html), relatively speaking.

Nevertheless, it seems almost a natural truth that class consciousness is only preached on the campus, and only practiced by those who have never been.

So?

So, these people's commitment to class consciousness is an intellectual afterthought. It has never been a part of their lives.

I'm not entirely sure what the great draw is to the Starbucks Union, especially when Starbucks actually offers excellent benefits (http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/15/starbucks-healthcare-benefits-cx_cn_0915autofacescan01.html), relatively speaking.Relatively speaking, yes. Actually speaking, no, especially when you consider that their benefits package is worse than Wal-Mart's.

Nevertheless, it seems almost a natural truth that class consciousness is only preached on the campus, and only practiced by those who have never been.I would say that there is a sort of intellectual divide, but not as severely as you make it out to be.

Yes, right.

Now... what does this have to do with a socialist economy?

Not much. :p

So... why does it matter?

Because when you're in need of work, waiting six months for the government to process your application isn't very appealing when compared to a business that could hire me within a much shorter time frame. Or even when the comparison is not made.

No.

But the significance of public sector employment is different when all employment is public sector.

Yeah, but "public sector" doesn't translate to "forgiving to criminals." Quite the opposite as far as I can see. That won't change just because the "public sector" (meaning the state) takes over everything.

That's the best reply you can ever give to "cliche and trite phrases"... that or mockery, which in this case I suppose you managed too.

But trite and cliched leftist propaganda so completely overwhelms the trite and cliched competition that it's a losing fight for you.

Just look at music.

That, at least, is true. If political opinions were based on music, I'd still be an Anarcho-Communist.

Relatively speaking, yes. Actually speaking, no, especially when you consider that their benefits package is worse than Wal-Mart's.

By who's measure?

I would say that there is a sort of intellectual divide, but not as severely as you make it out to be.

Its an economic divide. I think workers do have a class consciousness, but for all of the intellectuals reading and coffeehouse chats, they will never understand it.

Because when you're in need of work, waiting six months for the government to process your application isn't very appealing when compared to a business that could hire me within a much shorter time frame.

Yes, of course.

But we both agreed that this is not intrinsic to the process: that is, you can have public sector employment without the long wait.

So the mere fact that today there is a wait does not mean that there necessarily is one.

Quite the opposite as far as I can see.

Yes, but the economic role of the public sector changes in a socialist economy.

The need for criminal background checks is specific to certain roles, and need not be retained in, say, a collectively-owned factory.

By who's measure?By the measure of the number of people who actually qualify for the benefits.

From http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/1133

According to an article in the March 21, 2006, Wall Street Journal, 42 percent of Starbucks workers currently receive benefits -- slightly less than the 43 percent of employees with benefits at oft-criticized Wal-Mart, as reported in a Feb. 23 Bloomberg News article.

Of course, you also have to keep in mind that Starbucks tends to pay less than WalMart, and workers also frequently have to pay for part of their benefits packages.

Its an economic divide. I think workers do have a class consciousness, but for all of the intellectuals reading and coffeehouse chats, they will never understand it.It could be. I've often believed that 'bourgeois' is a bourgeois word to use. (For instance.)

By the measure of the number of people who actually qualify for the benefits.

From http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/1133

The composition of employees at Wal-Mart and Starbucks is hardly comparable. Baristas at Starbucks are much, much younger than those employed by Wal-Mart. Students simply do not need insurance from their employer.

Of course, you also have to keep in mind that Starbucks tends to pay less than WalMart, and workers also frequently have to pay for part of their benefits packages.

Starbucks does pay more than their competitors.

It could be. I've often believed that 'bourgeois' is a bourgeois word to use. (For instance.)

I guarantee that the concept is well understood by those who don't understand the word.

It could be. I've often believed that 'bourgeois' is a bourgeois word to use. (For instance.)

I think they call them "rich people".

The composition of employees at Wal-Mart and Starbucks is hardly comparable. Baristas at Starbucks are much, much younger than those employed by Wal-Mart. Students simply do not need insurance from their employer.If the employees of Starbucks do not need the insurance, then it doesn't really matter how good it is.

Starbucks does pay more than their competitors.Yes, but they also dwarf them.

I guarantee that the concept is well understood by those who don't understand the word.Most likely.

I think they call them "rich people".Lol. Yeah, they probably do.

Yes, and through the government, the people.

Wrong. Change "the people" to "the majority of the people" and you'll be right. (like the "majority" in America that believed it was a good idea to invade Iraq back in 2003. Point being, if trade is fair, then you're much better off if your livelihood is accountable to a constant economic principle like competition than to the malleable will of the people)




Both landowners have the same motive: maximize profit.

Both have the same interests as far as labor costs: minimize them.

What sort of "competition" is this? The choice of two different exploiters?


Patent absurdity. It's no secret that the profit motive is what guides trade in capitalism. But you must at least have a passing familiarity with the "invisible hand" of comptetition that ensures that trade in a competitive, capitalist society works towards the interests of the people in the long run? If there is fair trade, then the landowner that is willing to maximize profits and minimize labor costs the least while still making a profit will be the one who will succeed more in the long term, because he will be getting more business.


And that's why most people are comparatively low-level workers in hierarchically-organized workplaces owned by others, and the super-rich control an overwhelming share of the wealth?

"The super-rich control an overwhelming share of the wealth"--this one is a fish in a barrel. Tink of this: the world is more valuable right now than it was five hundred years ago. Today, in middle class America, you can turn your car into a concert hall or your living room into a theatre. Five hundred years ago the privelege of going to a concert hall or a theatre once in a year would have been reserved only to the wealthiest. Why? Because innovative minds are constantly creating value--developing better, cheaper ways of doing things. In developed countries, a few people "control" an overwhelming share of the wealth because "a few people" have contributed most of the value.

Wrong. Change "the people" to "the majority of the people" and you'll be right.

No. The people.

"The majority" is not a monolithic faction. We have universal suffrage.

Point being, if trade is fair, then you're much better off if your livelihood is accountable to a constant economic principle like competition than to the malleable will of the people

But trade is never fair... if at any point in time it ever became so, it would swiftly cease to be.

And "malleability" is a good thing; it means flexibility, and the capability to respond constructively to failures.

But you must at least have a passing familiarity with the "invisible hand" of comptetition that ensures that trade in a competitive, capitalist society works towards the interests of the people in the long run?

I know the argument, yes.

If there is fair trade, then the landowner that is willing to maximize profits and minimize labor costs the least while still making a profit will be the one who will succeed more in the long term, because he will be getting more business.

No, the one who makes the ultimately larger profit will be more successful: this is the meaning of "success" in this context.

My point was simply that competition is useless if the options are equally bad... and employers with a common interest in keeping labor costs low have every reason to keep them so. (The exception is, of course, when they innovate such that they can raise wages or lower prices without their competitors being able to match it... but this is a temporary, limited phenomenon that does not really adjust the power balance between capital and labor.)

In developed countries, a few people "control" an overwhelming share of the wealth because "a few people" have contributed most of the value.

No. A few people control an overwhelming share of the wealth because a few people have historically controlled the means of production and distribution, and have used their economic power to accrue wealth beyond their value production.

The differences in value production you propose are so vast that it is your explanation that is by far the more implausible.

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

Economic Left/Right 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian 0.92


I guess this means I am to the center right. Oh well, the world needs a few good moderates.

Yes, of course.

But we both agreed that this is not intrinsic to the process: that is, you can have public sector employment without the long wait.


I never agreed with that. I said that it was the process. Sure, hypothetically it's not intrinsic, but I'd need proof before embracing such statist optimism.

Yes, but the economic role of the public sector changes in a socialist economy.

The need for criminal background checks is specific to certain roles, and need not be retained in, say, a collectively-owned factory.

Why not? It's OK to steel from a factory?