Political Leanings QuizFollow

Sure. But that only changes the degree to which you'd presumably fall in one direction or another on some political axis, right? My point is that regardless of how strongly you feel about something, the correct way to measure someone's position on an axis called "social" in which "authoritarian" is at one end and "libertarian" is at the other is to measure the degree to which rules and regulations are in place to enforce specific social results. If you support *any* laws designed to affect social outcomes, you should fall more towards the "authoritarian" side, while opposition to said laws puts you towards the "libertarian" side.


Can anyone honestly argue that the Democratic party is *not* heavily about creating laws designed to impose specific social outcomes? Ignore the side issue about the degree to which economics plays a role and just ask "Do Democrats work hard to pass laws to change social outcomes"? I think the answer is a very clear and very strong: Yes!


I just don't see how anyone can disagree with this. Not unless you completely ignore what authoritarian and libertarian mean in this context. And if you are ignoring that, then what's the point of using those labels?


EDIT: Let me be clear about something btw. When I say laws designed to affect social outcomes, this does not include eliminating existing laws which impose actual social inequalities (or to amend them so they no longer contain them). So removing the restriction that only white males could vote is libertarian, not authoritarian. Similarly, removing the restriction that only males could vote is libertarian. Eliminating Jim Crow laws is libertarian. Ending segregation is libertarian. But creating affirmative action laws is authoritarian. Racial quotas are authoritarian.

You need to get past thinking in terms of "do I think this is good for <insert minority group>?" and think in terms of "am I creating a rule or law that imposes a social outcome rather than just allows people to deal with themselves on their own". That axis is not about right or wrong, good or evil. It's about the degree to which we're bound by laws with regard to our social interactions. That's it.

Edited, May 5th 2011 7:45pm by gbaji

1. He advocated for a system in which the rich would become the powerful. The richest men in France in Rousseau's time were largely Bourgeoisie. The most powerful were the nobles. The oldest nobles were also quite rich, and there were many, many weak and destitute noble families scattered throughout the kingdom who lacked power but still had some privileges (they were exempt from taxes, for instance).

Rousseau liked the idea of a system in which the merchants and craftsman didn't have to follow laws established by the nobility, but by all who had wealth. France, at his time, used a guild system in which crafters had to belong to a guild in order to peddle their wares. But they were too expensive for smaller crafters to join (like the housewives who wanted to make bonnets for additional income). As such, the guilds were heavily disliked by many in France. Only the richest crafters and the royals liked them. Rousseau felt like they should be done away with so as to give the bourgeoisie more freedom in the market.

2. Rousseau had a very different view of man than both Hobbes (who was cynical and believed man entered into society only for the protection of life) and Locke (who felt that man entered society only to gain more liberties than those he could guarantee for himself). He didn't believe man founded society for liberty at all--it was entirely becuase he wished to gain more of the goods he enjoyed--food, sleep and sex. The idea of rights and liberty only formed because he joined society--that is to say that society and social organization are required for rights to even exist. As such, the mere existence of a social organization (which by definition demands sacrifice from us) cannot possibly be held to suppress his rights. That's not to say that gov't couldn't be used to rule man--it certainly can, and that's what Rousseau takes issue with.

But he feels that a gov't formed around the basis of the general will maximizes the liberties of all men. And since liberties don't exist outside of society, the "sacrifice" of rights in order to gain more liberties isn't a controlling factor, it's part of the social construct by which you are gaining liberty from the lack of it. Only when social constructs don't lead to liberty is there a problem, for that gov't is one that is controlling people, rather than formulating itself around the will of the people.

Just to check: are you saying the Republican party does not do this? You emphatically said yes to Democrats, so I expect either a yes or no answer to this.

Laws designed to enact social change and laws designed to allow for others to express their social rights are two fundamentally different things that possibly have similar outcomes.

The thing you keep missing is that no person has a right to prevent others from exercising theirs. Any law forbidding someone from doing so does not decrease anyone's liberty, as they had no right to restrict another person in the first place.

Shhhhh, Joph, we're not supposed to talk about that. Clearly, Boehner is spending all that money to keep society from changing. It's totally different!

Artificially preventing society from changing via legislation is the very definition of imposing specific social outcomes.

I know you know this. I'm guessing Gbaji is trying hard to ignore it.

Edited, May 5th 2011 11:34pm by Jophiel

If you think economic assistance is the only way that liberals use to rectify the situation, you are either inattentive or dishonest.

Keeping inflation low has a positive effect on keeping unemployment low.

Yes. As "social" equals. Hence, the term. Surely you understand the need to distinguish between people who cannot function as equals because of some law saying "people with X gender, or Y skin color, or Z religion" are not allowed to do A, B, or C, and those who can't function as equals because they earn less money and thus can't afford to do A, B, or C as often as others?



I'm assuming you meant to say "capitalist", but if that is the case, then why did the scale we're talking about make a specific distinction between "economic" factors and "social" ones?

The two azis are:

Economic Left/Right
Social Authoritarian/Libertarian

Think about it for a second and perhaps it'll occur to you what I'm talking about.



Lol. Regardless of whether it derives from a mandate from the masses, or a farcical aquatic ceremony involving moistened tarts lobbing scimitars, we're still talking about the same supreme executive power, right? And that power can be used to force people into various social conditions, or to allow them to enter into them on their own. We call the former "authoritarian", and the later "libertarian".



If he can't get a job because he's a black man, sure. But unless that social inequality derives from the government forcing him to not get a job because he's black, then that inequality is not the result of an authoritarian social policy, is it? It can't be "authoritarian" unless someone with authority is making things happen.



Sure. If there are actual rights being violated. The problem comes in when some people try to expand the meaning of rights to include "can afford to buy health insurance", and "can send my children to college". That's where we get ourselves in trouble.

Guess I should have read farther first. Um... That falls under the heading of opposing something the Dems are trying to do. Doesn't count. Find a social outcome the GOP wants to achieve for which they attempt to pass laws in order to create said outcome. Can you do that? It's trivially easy to find tons of examples coming from the left. Everything from gay marriage, to affirmative action, to sex education in schools, welfare funding, social security, medicare/medicaid, support for unions, etc, etc, etc... The list is nearly endless. It's what the left is about, and it's what the Dems do in order to gain favor with the left.

Most of what the GOP does is try to keep the government doing just what it should and fight against all the stuff the Dems are trying to do.

So I'm guessing that was a no? Legislating to prevent change isn't controlling outcomes like legislating to cause it does?

Hahahahaha, ********* :P



So they do everything they can to keep half the population from being represented in gov't, got it. Who cares if most of the country wants to change; clearly, things should stay exactly as they are!

And gbaji, this might be difficult for you:

Fascism- Forced rule by another party.
Liberalism- Self-government on the basis of consensus.

I don't really see why it's hard for you to grasp. A liberal gov't should = the people, a fascist gov't = a small group of them.

And just to be clear, I'm not talking about absolute democracy vs. dictatorship (though those are extreme poles that fit this situation). I think a Republic is as good as it's gonna get, considering the % of the population that has no clue what's going on. But a liberal republic is one in which those elected by the people work for the good of all people. A fascist republic is one in which the officials are elected by the people (and I'm assuming it was a fair election) but only serve the interests of a small group of people (of which they are probably included).

That DOES NOT mean that the fascist gov't is determined to make the little people suffer, it just probably does. Likewise, a Liberal gov't doesn't ***** the fascists at every turn, it just doesn't favor anyone (and when you are used to having power, you perceive it as an attack).

I'd beg to differ on one point. You don't want the minimum effective number of military forces, you want a bit above that, otherwise it incentivizes competing forces to overproduce such that it is no longer the minimum effective number. What is preferable is having a strong striking force that exceeeds other nations reasonably obtainable forces, so you don't have to use those forces and have them become depleted.

For the record, except for a few cases, I think the US is well past this number by a pretty significant magnitude.

Edited, May 6th 2011 10:18pm by Timelordwho