Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Political Leanings QuizFollow

#102 May 05 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Really, it shines a light into his Liberals=Socialists=Communists=Fascists mindset.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 May 05 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

I figured I would be a little more to the Libertarian side. Some guy named Friedman is in my quadrant, though much more severely right than me.

That is Milton Friedman, a fairly notable champion of modern day libertarians.


Jophiel wrote:
Really, it shines a light into his Liberals=Socialists=Communists=Fascists mindset.

Wait, so you're saying us dirty Liberals aren't really baby killing **** commies?


EDIT: who also hate puppies.

Edited, May 5th 2011 7:15pm by kiworrior
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#104 May 05 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
kiworrior wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

I figured I would be a little more to the Libertarian side. Some guy named Friedman is in my quadrant, though much more severely right than me.

That is Milton Friedman, a fairly notable champion of modern day libertarians.
Ah, a proponent of the gold standard.

Lol.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#105 May 05 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Sweetums wrote:
kiworrior wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

I figured I would be a little more to the Libertarian side. Some guy named Friedman is in my quadrant, though much more severely right than me.

That is Milton Friedman, a fairly notable champion of modern day libertarians.
Ah, a proponent of the gold standard.

Lol.
Seems more reasonable than the whole "Make money out of thin air" the Federal Reserve uses now.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#106 May 05 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Imma copypaste what I wrote earlier today. It's untenable because, frankly, the math just doesn't work out.

Quote:
Currently, gold is about $1500 per troy ounce. Globally, around 2000 tons of gold are produced a year. This would be 64,301,493 troy ounces.

1,500*64,301,493 = $96,452,239,500.

Right now, US GDP growth is at about 1.8%. The 2010 US GDP was 14.72 trillion. 1 percent of that is 147 billion.

Even with a growth rate at a record low, and gold at a record high, the global output of gold still wouldn't match the growth of our economy. So, to make it work, we'd have to set the value of gold ourselves rather than go by its intrinsic value.

Welcome to fiat currency.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#107 May 05 2011 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Fair point! Still, imaginary money? Worst mistake you guys made was the Federal reserve act.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#108 May 05 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
Quote:
I would support a bill that wanted to up environmental controls
I wouldn't because its forcing others to do something they may not want to. This would be one of those areas that I'd support government funding to reduce costs of going environmental though. Its that type of spending that keeps me slightly on the left side economically.

And yes, I realize that this path would be forcing others to possibly pay higher taxes despite not necessarily wanting to. That's part of the potentially hypocrisy I face as someone sitting a little more central.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 May 05 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,735 posts
Off of the first quiz I ended up being a solid liberal.

Second quiz:
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74


Gandhi and I go way back.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server (RPC Link)
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
#110 May 05 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Fair point! Still, imaginary money? Worst mistake you guys made was the Federal reserve act.
Much like imaginary numbers, it's quite real.

I don't see how the gold would be any more real, because the value the government would assign to gold would have very little in relation to its actual worth, and the supposed value of gold is that it can't have its value be artificially adjusted.

Because artificially adjusting the value is absolutely necessary to its existence, what advantage would it actually have? It's an empty gesture.

Edited, May 5th 2011 6:36pm by Sweetums
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#111 May 05 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't see why you'd say that liberals can't be libertarian, though*.


A lot of liberals in the last couple decades (as the label "liberal" has gotten a bad rap) have taken to calling themselves libertarians, presumably purely because of the similarities in the names. It's like they think that by calling themselves libertarians, it makes them a smarter/rarer form of liberal. Just look at Bill Maher. Last I recall, he was claiming to be a libertarian. He's not though. Wanting to legalize marijuana doesn't make you a libertarian.

Quote:
I think you're dismissing some of the nuance. Most of my "liberal" tendencies come from my civil rights stances. Aren't those some of the core tenets of libertarians?


Some, I suppose. But modern liberals believe in using government to create social outcomes. What defines a libertarian is a belief in limited government to a far greater degree than Republicans. It's why I often say I'm not a libertarian. I don't believe that we should abolish publicly funded education, or highways, or fire fighters, or police, the entire military, all social programs, and basically every single thing the government does today. That's what libertarians believe and it's nearly 100% in opposition to what "liberals" believe.

To be fair though, that's the platform of the Libertarian party, the broader political position isn't quite so severe, but it still revolves around having a government that does the absolute minimum it has to. So if you believe in a progressive tax system (really income taxes at all), you are not a libertarian. If you believe in raising taxes for the top 2% to pay for benefits for the poor, you are not a libertarian. If you believe in basically about 99% of the current modern US Democratic party platform, you can not be a libertarian. Not just the political party, but the political persuasion. They are basically diametrically opposed.

Quote:
Like: I don't think that the government should be allowed to indiscriminately wire tap. Isn't that value typically shared between liberals (who tend lately to shy away from terror-related govt. expansion of powers) and libertarians?


Sure. That's in that 1% of overlap. Of course, that 1% is also shared by most conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc as well. The problem is that other 99% of the social agenda which liberals and libertarians are in absolutely disagreement about. Again, think of the scale labels "Authoritarian vs Libertarian". This should give you the hint that libertarian is non-authoritarian (which is correct). Authoritarian means that some authority (the government typically) controls social outcomes. Think about how much of the liberal social agenda requires government action to make their desired outcomes happen. That's authoritarian and is the opposite of libertarian.


Edited, May 5th 2011 5:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 May 05 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Still, imaginary money?
Perception is reality in the market. Why do you think gas prices are so high despite there being no actual impact on the global supply?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#113 May 05 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Sweetums, 'phil: Fair points ;)
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#114 May 05 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Sweetums, 'phil: Fair points ;)
Right then. Drinks?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#115 May 05 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I needed a crappy internet poll to tell me I'm a Solid Liberal? ****, I'm not even gonna take that other one.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#116 May 05 2011 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
bsphil wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Sweetums, 'phil: Fair points ;)
Right then. Drinks?
Excellent, mines a Johnny Walker black label, two cubes of ice.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#117 May 05 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled. But that's not what they're measuring at all.
That's incorrect. My social liberal tendencies are based on the fact that I beleive we should let people do as they want. Its not my responsibility to decide for them what they can or can't do. Social conservatives do want to dictate how others should live their lives.


That is a *one* definition of "social conservative" versus "social liberal". But the labels they used were "social authoritarian" versus "social libertarian". A social authoritarian believes that government should use its "authority" to impose social outcomes. Social libertarians are opposed to this. If you support government aid for poor people, socialized/universal health care, affirmative action, progressive taxes, and any of hundreds of political planks in the Democratic Party platform which involve solving social problems by creating government programs, then you are a "social authoritarian".

Remember, being authoritarian has nothing to do with whether you personally agree with the social outcome, but with the method used to attempt to achieve it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 May 05 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Nilatai wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Sweetums, 'phil: Fair points ;)
Right then. Drinks?
Excellent, mines a Johnny Walker black label, two cubes of ice.
Very classy, good call.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#119 May 05 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
I wouldn't because its forcing others to do something they may not want to. This would be one of those areas that I'd support government funding to reduce costs of going environmental though. Its that type of spending that keeps me slightly on the left side economically.


I don't think the freedom to pollute is something you could consider a fulfilling right, and the result of allowing has potentially disastrous results.

We also need to be clear about the scope of what is permissible and what isn't. Having strict regulation of oil rigs in the gulf is something I wouldn't even consider debatable (at least not in the sense where I'm willing to credit the other side with a valid point--we're obviously free to debate to our hearts' content).

Whether or not we should raise the legal limit of acceptable CO2 omissions on the other hand, is something I'd say is debatable. I still fall on the side of environmental protection, because I don't think it's wise to allow every single American to ignore global CO2 levels because switching to a greener mode of transportation is inconvenient. I would definitely favor incentives to encourage people to switch/make it easier on top of such legislation as well.

I'd also support projects by the government to boost green public transit, like building trains.

Still, I would consider those emissions to be infringing on the rights of others to live healthy and happy lives in the long run. It might not affect them immediately, but it will down the road. And that's an easily predictable consequence, not a subtle one.

Quote:
Sure. That's in that 1% of overlap. Of course, that 1% is also shared by most conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, etc as well. The problem is that other 99% of the social agenda which liberals and libertarians are in absolutely disagreement about. Again, think of the scale labels "Authoritarian vs Libertarian". This should give you the hint that libertarian is non-authoritarian (which is correct). Authoritarian means that some authority (the government typically) controls social outcomes. Think about how much of the liberal social agenda requires government action to make their desired outcomes happen. That's authoritarian and is the opposite of libertarian.


Your warped world is funny. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is going to take legislation because of the very nature of gov't as a collective ruling body. That's not to say that legislation is always about control. Yes, a gov't is going to need to pass legislation to say you aren't allowed to murder someone. But it's a law such that the sacrifice to human rights is vastly outweighed by the increase in them. That is to say the right of someone to not be murdered vastly outweighs the right of someone to murder.

Note how this legislation is entirely about ensuring that people don't have their rights infringed upon, even if it means that they need to prohibit certain things. That's the very nature of a social environment though, and does NOT mean represent fascism.

Look at the difference between these two scenarios:
1. A gov't tells you that you must go to <insert denominational> church every Sunday, can only have *** with your wife/husband, must dress in a specific uniform, go to the job they choose for you and work the number of hours they tell you to for a wage they decide.

That's clearly fascist (and an extreme example). Compare it to:
1. A gov't says that you are free to go to church on sunday, but are not allowed to prevent others who wish to from attending. You are allowed to have *** with who you choose, as long as it does not infringe on their right to choose not to have *** with you (which requires that the gov't accepts them as being rationally responsible for themselves, so no children). You are free to wear what you want, within the limitations of codes you agree to (a job may have a dress code, for instance). You are free to work where you want and negotiate your own pay (and choose to leave the job should you find the wages unacceptable). Etc.

Yes, you aren't totally free. But you will NEVER be able to have a society that guarantees everyone every right. Liberals are all about guaranteeing society as many rights as possible. Sometimes that means that certain rights need to be eliminated. But this is only justified when the result is a substantial increase in rights of the whole. And the rights you lose are almost always rights that aren't considered valuable beyond the right of choice (that is to say, they have no intrinsic value in and of themselves).

What I mean is this:
1. You might argue that the right to read and educate yourself (without censorship) is intrinsically valuable.
2. On the other hand, the right to throw your cigarette on the ground or in an ash tray really only has a value due to the fact that you get to choose which you do.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 May 05 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
All liberals should end out toward the authoritarian side of the social scale, if it was actually measuring the degree to which society is free/controlled. But that's not what they're measuring at all.
That's incorrect. My social liberal tendencies are based on the fact that I beleive we should let people do as they want. Its not my responsibility to decide for them what they can or can't do. Social conservatives do want to dictate how others should live their lives.


That is a *one* definition of "social conservative" versus "social liberal". But the labels they used were "social authoritarian" versus "social libertarian". A social authoritarian believes that government should use its "authority" to impose social outcomes. Social libertarians are opposed to this. If you support government aid for poor people, socialized/universal health care, affirmative action, progressive taxes, and any of hundreds of political planks in the Democratic Party platform which involve solving social problems by creating government programs, then you are a "social authoritarian".

Remember, being authoritarian has nothing to do with whether you personally agree with the social outcome, but with the method used to attempt to achieve it.

This is entirely untrue. The creation of government programs to promote social equality does not make one a "social authoritarian" unless those programs force (or prevent) social interaction to achieve equality. Social Authoritarianism means that people would submit to an authority to determine what they can and can't do. Government programs aren't social authoritarian because they don't force (or prevent) any kind of social interaction. If a government outlawed interracial marriages (or same *** marriages), imposed a caste system, or instituted a national religion, or required people to behave a certain way, then it would be authoritarian (or possibly totalitarian).

The fact that you believe modern liberals to be "social authoritarians" shows me how uneducated you are in regards to social and political philosophy.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#121 May 05 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
The fact that you believe modern liberals to be "social authoritarians" shows me how uneducated you are in regards to social and political philosophy.


****, it means that he barely understands even a basic flow of history, even if he's never engaged with political thinkers.

You can never have read Smith, Marx, Aristotle, etc. and still see the difference between a social gov't's protections and a fascist regime's mandates.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 05 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

I must say, though I don't much care for capitalism, I don't think socialism is right for the US.
#123 May 05 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
The fact that you believe modern liberals to be "social authoritarians" shows me how uneducated you are in regards to social and political philosophy.


****, it means that he barely understands even a basic flow of history, even if he's never engaged with political thinkers.

You can never have read Smith, Marx, Aristotle, etc. and still see the difference between a social gov't's protections and a fascist regime's mandates.


I'm frankly not sure how anyone could read those and not understand that they are both authoritarian. I suspect you don't understand that authoritarian doesn't just mean "rules that I don't agree with are imposed on me". Authoritarian means that rules are imposed on you. Period. The more laws, the more authoritarian. The more government, the more authoritarian. The more intrusion, the more authoritarian.


What's really going on is that modern liberals aren't comfortable with the fact that their policies are authoritarian in nature. They've been taught that "authoritarian==bad". So they find ways to change the labels in order to make themselves feel better about what they are doing. They convince themselves that it's ok to impose social change as long as it's "good" social change. And a graph like that one illustrates this. They're really just measuring the degree to which a social agenda matches theirs and labeling that "libertarian", with anyone who happens to fall in the other direction being labeled "authoritarian". But those are not even remotely the correct labels to use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 May 05 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

I must say, though I don't much care for capitalism, I don't think socialism is right for the US.


Why do you think that? I think the US could do it, if they'd finally realize that the Soviet Union and China have never been socialist and the term finally lost the unwarranted stigmatization it's received as a result.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#125 May 05 2011 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.36

I must say, though I don't much care for capitalism, I don't think socialism is right for the US.


Why do you think that? I think the US could do it, if they'd finally realize that the Soviet Union and China have never been socialist and the term finally lost the unwarranted stigmatization it's received as a result.
I think we as a country largely accept the meritocracy model, the only distinction is in the level of perfection (conservatives leaning towards a more perfect meritocracy and liberals leaning towards a less perfect meritocracy).
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#126 May 05 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,373 posts
gbaji wrote:
That is a *one* definition of "social conservative" versus "social liberal". But the labels they used were "social authoritarian" versus "social libertarian". A social authoritarian believes that government should use its "authority" to impose social outcomes. Social libertarians are opposed to this. If you support government aid for poor people, socialized/universal health care, affirmative action, progressive taxes, and any of hundreds of political planks in the Democratic Party platform which involve solving social problems by creating government programs, then you are a "social authoritarian".

Remember, being authoritarian has nothing to do with whether you personally agree with the social outcome, but with the method used to attempt to achieve it.
No, some of those are authoritarian, while others are left economics. You're lu,mping all together though as you see anything with increased taxes as authoritarian.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (79)