For all the whiners!

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by obviousman
Would everyone be in favor of our government campaigns being able to only receive anonymous donations. That would stop corporate America from giving just to get benefits back and rigging elections. Also candidates would not feel obligated to give back to companies that supported them.

What companies would do would be to give even more as 'anonymous' donors, and then maybe drop by and let someone know exactly who dropped off the $20M check. But then only a few people would know who made the big donations.

BTW, what is with that whole "Economic Left/Right: -3.38, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62" thing?

 

[obviousman]

I know that would have GOP but atleast we could try. We can say all day it wouldn't work but it needs to be done. It would in turn make even more criminal presidents. Oh and if you go to www.politicalcompass.org you can take this test and it just shows you how you think. Economic left is favor of small business over corporate which I am. And Libertarian is in favor of the "little government" instead of "big government" its a good thing to take so you can see where you are compared to some of the past governments hated and loved.

 

[Bry]

My numbers, according to the test:

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Your representation of the test is flawed, obviousman. Maybe you should go back and reread the introduction and analysis. left / right economic is a distinction between community interests versus corporate interests, not big versus small business. And Libertarian / Autoritarian is a reflection of how much influence the government (as opposed to the people) should have over our personal decisions, not necessarily the size of the government. eg. most Autoritarian regimes were not democratic, and they were very invasive in terms of "moral legislation".

 

[obviousman]

Your obviously misinformed for your sake I will provide an analysis. I don't know though maybe I just didn't express what I meant as well as needed to. It could have been a situation were I knew what I wanted to say but it didn't come out to where everyone else could.

About The Political Compass
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.





If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.





Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)





The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.



International Chart
A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of globally known figures to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.

We regret the present exclusion of some major leaders, especially in the developing world. This is due to our inability so far to contact independent experts.

 

[Bry]

Your obviously misinformed for your sake I will provide an analysis.

jeje. Thanks for your "analysis", I read it perfectly well on the policicalcompass site. Now, can you explain how you think I was misinformed?

It could have been a situation were I knew what I wanted to say but it didn't come out to where everyone else could.

Yes, I think that is likely. The "innovation" which the site encourages, as I said is not to view political positions on a linear scale, but to view them on a coordinate plain, with level of control of the economy along one axis, and level of control of social issues along the other. But at the end, i think we both know what we mean, and that we are more or less in agreement.

Thanks for providing the link, it is an interesting site.

 

[obviousman]

Sorry, I guess I was assuming that he realized it was a cordinate plain I was describing and not 2 linear lines. I guess I should have been more descriptive.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by obviousman
Oh and if you go to www.politicalcompass.org you can take this test and it just shows you how you think. Economic left is favor of small business over corporate which I am. And Libertarian is in favor of the "little government" instead of "big government" its a good thing to take so you can see where you are compared to some of the past governments hated and loved.

I think your analysis is misleading as well. From reading the site, Economic leftists would be those who believe in state control over the economy (i.e. communism), where as economic rightists believe in market forces controlling the economy (i.e. free-marketers). The libertarian/authoritarian thing was pretty straightforward, but it deals with social issues, not economic. Anyway, my economic score was 6.88, my lib/auth score was 1.18, which I assume is because I dared to say that sex outside marriage is immoral, although I would have no intentions of regulating such activities.

 

[obviousman]

Well Jeep I too said sex outside of marriage was immoral seeing how I am a Christian. Communism isn't evil like people think, its actually the opposite. Communism is all about working for the good of people. Since I oppose the evils of Corporate America I favor the Communist side. And since I am for the rights of people I was on the Libertarian side. Although I wasn't that far over because i obviously don't believe anyone can do anything they want. I would consider my ideas to parallel that of communism but not the communism of Stalin or Lenin or Castro. I don't know if its ever been done but if you would like I we have a discussion about it on the Anarcho-Communism message board on this site somewhere.

 

[Dan]

That test set me right about where I figured, just this side of left, and slightly Libertarian:

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

I checked the graph and that's right about where Ghandi was.

 

[obviousman]

Dan- according to that test we're very similar. We'll have to watch though how that plays out in some of the discussions. I don't know if we'll agree as much as we're supposed to or not.

 

[Dan]

That's aiight, I'm used to disagreeing, when this board first started, I was the only one with any liberal points of view at all. Once you handle that, you can handle anything.

 

[Bry]

you and Ghandi, man.

jejeje

you have by far the most disturbing avatar I could have thought possible. It actually gives me vague feelings of nausea, but every time you post, I find myself mesmorized by it. May I ask where you found that horror? I think I want to worship it.



cheers.

 

[jimnyc]

I was thinking the same thing, Bry. I think it sends subliminal liberal messages to the masses.

Seriously though, if I know Dan it's probably something from one of the wacky bands that he listens to. Dan is a bit unique in his musical and artistic tastes.

 

[Dan]

Haha, actually, Jim, you're wrong this time! Sorry!

I was at the Snopes.com message board (it's all about urban myths) and someone had that, and i thought it was cool so I stole it. There's a girl in my English Lit class who has a patch on her bookbag of that same character, I've been meaning to ask her what it is.

 

[jimnyc]

Haha, actually, Jim, you're wrong this time! Sorry!

I know, it's rare, mark it in your calendar.

I was at the Snopes.com message board (it's all about urban myths) and someone had that, and i thought it was cool so I stole it. There's a girl in my English Lit class who has a patch on her bookbag of that same character, I've been meaning to ask her what it is.

THIEF!

 

[Dan]

THIEF!

I know, right? Just because I took someone's avatar. And I was listening to mp3's direct from Kazaa. And I was doing all this on the computer I robbed from my neighbor.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Dan
I know, right? Just because I took someone's avatar. And I was listening to mp3's direct from Kazaa. And I was doing all this on the computer I robbed from my neighbor.

LMFAO!!!!

 

[NightTrain]

Jeff, as a fellow Republican I should tell you that I've already identified and reported Dan to the GOP, so omit him in your report back to HQ.

Newt is keeping a very, very close eye on him.

 

[DKSuddeth]

<<The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)>>

Someone redefine this please, I was under the impression that Fascism is a state controlled economy through corporatism and that Socialism is a state controlled economy throught ownership by the peoples of that state. I also have a hard time listening to people like Rumsfeld define husseins Baath party as 'evil socialism' when iraq was anything but ruled and owned by the people. I would also think that an extreme deregulated economy is something that the far right capitalists would like to see because of the increase in competition and trade, or is that wrong also?


Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
<<The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)>>

Someone redefine this please, I was under the impression that Fascism is a state controlled economy through corporatism and that Socialism is a state controlled economy throught ownership by the peoples of that state. I also have a hard time listening to people like Rumsfeld define husseins Baath party as 'evil socialism' when iraq was anything but ruled and owned by the people. I would also think that an extreme deregulated economy is something that the far right capitalists would like to see because of the increase in competition and trade, or is that wrong also?


Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

DK,

Your definitions are pretty right on. I think that defining Iraq as a socialist state is somewhat misleading, as Saddam was more of a dictator/tyrant than a socialist leader, though it may be technically correct.
As far as an "extreme deregulated economy," I think most of us on the political Right would like to see less regulation exactly because we think it would lead to increased competition and trade, which in turn would lead to more jobs (lower unemployment).