Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2013, 09:40 AM
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(22-08-2013 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just who are these 'gun people'?
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative right-wing civilian gun-owners, give or take a parameter. I heard they're almost a half of American population. It's strange that you ask, actually. You might be one of them, for all I know. In stricter, more nerdy sense they could be further defined as monetarists, Libertarians, voters for Ron Paul, voters saying Ron Paul isn't Libertarian enough...
Usually they don't mind smoking pot (unless they're Christian) but they usually don't smoke it themselves, it's bad for aim.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 10:19 AM
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(22-08-2013 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just who are these 'gun people'?
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative right-wing civilian gun-owners, give or take a parameter. I heard they're almost a half of American population. It's strange that you ask, actually. You might be one of them, for all I know. In stricter, more nerdy sense they could be further defined as monetarists, Libertarians, voters for Ron Paul, voters saying Ron Paul isn't Libertarian enough...
Usually they don't mind smoking pot (unless they're Christian) but they usually don't smoke it themselves, it's bad for aim.

Holy generalization, Batman!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-08-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(22-08-2013 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 08:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Just who are these 'gun people'?
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative right-wing civilian gun-owners, give or take a parameter. I heard they're almost a half of American population. It's strange that you ask, actually. You might be one of them, for all I know. In stricter, more nerdy sense they could be further defined as monetarists, Libertarians, voters for Ron Paul, voters saying Ron Paul isn't Libertarian enough...
Usually they don't mind smoking pot (unless they're Christian) but they usually don't smoke it themselves, it's bad for aim.

That group mostly exists in your imagination. I doubt there are very many people who match your list.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 01:03 PM
Re: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
I wasn't able to adjust the scales to high or low on my phone.

But am I the only Greeny one? I got that and I'm no Christan liberal at all.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(22-08-2013 08:29 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Social liberal 100 %
green 78 %
social democrat 67 %
market liberal 67 %
anarcho-capitalist ??%
libertarian conservative 45%
christian democrat(wtf?) 34 %
classical socialist 23 %
communist(again,wtf?)23 %
anarcho-cummunist 23 %

can some1 explain if this is good or bad?

KC IS A LIAR!!!! HE PROMISED ME VANILLA CAKES AND GAVE ME STRAWBERRY CAKE Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 03:03 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2013 03:11 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(22-08-2013 09:43 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  
(22-08-2013 08:29 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Social liberal 100 %
green 78 %
social democrat 67 %
market liberal 67 %
anarcho-capitalist ??%
libertarian conservative 45%
christian democrat(wtf?) 34 %
classical socialist 23 %
communist(again,wtf?)23 %
anarcho-cummunist 23 %

can some1 explain if this is good or bad?
You seem to take pride in being classy and reasonable. The present principles of government and economy are mostly acceptable to you. You seem to trust in government and believe in conventional solutions that maintain lots of the present order and prosperity. After all, political campaigns can't lie that much, they've got to do at least something of what they say in party guidelines. If we elect moral people and elect other people to watch them, they will know what to do with our money and will spend them carefully. We just need to let people work, then tax the winners and spend the money on good causes.
Yes, it's bad Yes

(I have an astrology course)

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(21-07-2013 09:26 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Just going to chime in on the Ayn Rand commentary...

Her observations where insightful, the idea that bureaucratic (how many vowels does one word need btw) sprawl leads to corruption, that regulation leads to aggressive lobbies, that business is hampered by the government...these are all valid.
These are valid within a hierarchical context, because hierarchies of any kind produce these effects. Bureaucratic hierarchy produces USSR-style corruption, capitalist hierarchy produces American-style corruption, church hierarchy produces abuse scandals and coverups, school hierarchies produce much the same as churches. The problem is the structure, not the medium to which it's applied.

Concentrated power, however it may be concentrated, produces corruption. Whether that power comes at birth from ownership, or is accrued through manipulation of coordinator positions, or made up from nowhere and called Godliness, makes a difference only in style, not in corruptive influence.

On the other hand, diffuse, distributed power, shared among a population and checked from accumulating to one person or group... in other words, direct popular democratic control of economic and political functions... is much harder to corrupt, I believe.

Quote:Her solution on the other hand is so beyond naive that it's mind blowing. "Let everyone do whatever they want and it will all magically sort itself out." Any Randism is a one way ticket to the post apocalypse. How do you avoid the slave wages and worker deaths of early 1900's steal mills without regulation? ...snip... Everyone in Atlas Shrugged was a perfectly moral upstanding citizen (because that is the only way her philosophy works) we know now better than ever that just because you are a 'prime mover' that doesn't make you an altruist.

Well, yeah. I think she read a few Enlightenment predictions about the owning class naturally becoming benevolent philosophers, and neglected any real events that followed. History is important... I like a more distributed version of Hellenic democracy, which worked out well for 5 centuries. She likes the City on the Hill, which only existed in pretty dreams.

WWMWAZSKDTVQHTMJD?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 01:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2013 02:11 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Test for which European political ideology you are closest to
(23-08-2013 12:26 PM)I Am Wrote:  Concentrated power, however it may be concentrated, produces corruption. Whether that power comes at birth from ownership, or is accrued through manipulation of coordinator positions, or made up from nowhere and called Godliness, makes a difference only in style, not in corruptive influence.

On the other hand, diffuse, distributed power, shared among a population and checked from accumulating to one person or group... in other words, direct popular democratic control of economic and political functions... is much harder to corrupt, I believe.
Power corrupts because it protects its wielder from experiencing consequences of his actions. Theoretically, an omniscient ruler would be completely benevolent, in practice he would suffer so much in accord with everyone, that he'd step down, do nothing and we'd all live on our own forever. Civilizations would not rise.

As I say, a concentration of power produces a social arrangement, a pattern, a hierarchy of those closer to it and further from it. Every such pattern is inherently viable regardless of its merit, but inherently doomed. Doomed, because the mistakes, cruelty, injustice and consequences are still there, only concentrated on the underclass, on the unprivileged - poor, women, slaves, foreigners, dissident thinkers and believers, and so on. And most of all, uneducated laborers and criminals. And other civilizations. They hang around the edges of society, closing in as soon as the core weakens in opulence and corruption.

However, back to the point, this concentration of power stretches the social fabric into areas of stability and subsequent creativity hitherto unseen, that produces new ways of expressing consciousness in forms of culture. This makes it worth it, sort of. Such a culture is highly provincial and bound to its concentration of power, to its social status, and is doomed alongside with it. When civilization falls, intellectuals and rich people are killed first.

Very few contributions to culture are so great, so universal, that they outlast the destruction of their civilization and affect the other civilizations. This is, because they are all of the same several types, which are as universal, as power, stability, trade, art, science, worship and law. These all will appear in almost this order at any sufficient conditions.

One of words I don't like is prosperity. If you don't know where prosperity comes from, watch out. Most likely it's just an exploit or an economic bubble, a phase in expansion where social fabric still holds. Every soap bubble is corrupt and empty, it displays a glorious front, but the inside is void and can only work as long as it expands.
So, how do we avoid this vicious cycle of civilization and barbarism, that was pointed out by Plato in his Republic and then everyone else and their dogs?

For now, let's say that concentrating power is a bad idea, but having no power at all is even more stupid. Concentration of power gave us big industrial science, big corporations, even people in poorest areas of the world have a cell phone, they use it to find out prices on markets 40 km away and stuff. This would not be possible in a world of small self-owners.

However, distributing maximum power to everyone is an idiotic idea as well. Power to do what? To clean our water, to design our cars, to check our airplanes, to synthesize our medicine? People aren't that competent and they make mistakes. If I was to do these things, I'd probably be dead by now and I'd take others with me. I am for empowerment of people like everyone else, one laptop per child, free internet for all, universal income, free travel and so on. But there are areas, small areas in which I want someone else, someone competent to have power over me.
These areas are marked by scientific fields. Andy Warhol said, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. I say, in the future, everyone will have power for 15 minutes, till it takes to finish the task that he is competent in. If I don't know about an area, I absolutely must say, I don't know, let's find out, let's find someone else who knows.

In a world of power in hands of specialists, it is vital to have an oversight over multiple fields. It is very easy to get hurt by entrusting absolute power to one field or area of science, not seeing that the problem has multi-disciplinary solutions. Everyone must have a broad experience with science, from multiple areas, cultures and so on. If possible, everyone must be a scientist generalist first. General knowledge is vital. A physicist might be able to develop a powerful weapon for money, but a generalist physicist will tell the weapon contractors to go fuck themselves, because he knows that violence does not remove root causes of problems, it creates new ones and it does not help communication at all. Specialists selling out their science to make weapons are not better than whores. Whores don't kill people.
If Ayn Rand had any sense in her head, she would write about the revolt of scientists, not of businessmen. But we have the world full of people clever at one area and stupid at all others. We have Stephen Hawking, who imagines aliens will come and invade us, not realizing this is a typical human behavior. Stephen Hawking, who thinks about how stars and particles work, but gives no thought to how people work, how to prevent wars, poverty and corruption.


Damn, there's so much ideas in this text, that you could study every sentence for half an hour.
Now, can anyone tell me, why the hell are you liberals and democrats and social whatever? Tell me, do any of these have any meaning, in the light of what I say? I say, don't trust anyone with your votes who does not understand what I just wrote.

"Godliness, makes a difference only in style, not in corruptive influence."
Riiight. You know what made France a volcano of revolutions? Bureaucracy. There were various kings, each considered himself nearly divine. Each had a suite of advisors, relatives and confidantes. Each revolution killed them all.
A well-established apparatus of bureaucrats is like a computer. It's useful to everyone. You can be sure the nobility of bureaucracy has no allegiance, it serves to anyone. All we need is to come, cut off the head of the guy who sits at the top, and sit there. So building of this great computational institution made the exchange of heads easier and faster. Bureaucracy or a computer, a wellspring of power for anyone, but not everyone. An area of stability, that is independent on the concentration of power! Remarkable, very remarkable. It confirms my thoughts. Imagine if we did away with the power altogether and replaced all bureaucrats with computers for public service, for processing and providing food, traffic, housing and communication without the need for money or government. This proves this is possible, it is possible to avoid the vicious circle of power center rise and fall.
(that was The Venus Project all along)

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: