In the simplistic left/right divide, I'd call myself
Displaying poll results.26207 total votes.
I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)
I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)
I'm a (Score:5, Funny)
left-leaning Red-Black tree !
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm a (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry, I still have to look up what type of tree I'm implementing -after- I implement it. Data structures all sort of gel together after a while.
First (past the) Post (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with this poll is that the "centre" is different depending on where you live. In the US, the political centre is undoubtedly to the right of centre politics in the UK..
First (past the) Post!
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:4, Informative)
- This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:4, Insightful)
One dimension is not enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
It simply astounds me how anyone on earth can take something as complex as political leaning, and try to reduce it to a scalar. Politics is a multivariate vector even if simplified. Worse, there seem to be a whole lot of people in the USA that would like to reduce it to a boolean: { republican, democrat }.
Now comes the complex part, how to vote? Where are the listings for a fiscally conservative socially liberal secularist? Not on my ballot...
Re:Tea Party is the mix you seek. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal too [in fact I think a lot of people would be, if they took the time to think about it], but I don't think the Tea Party is a good fit. Sure, they call themselves fiscally conservative, but then they scream "keep your hands off my Medicare!" in the next breath. They're really more the "I got mine so fuck you" party.
The real tragedy that's going on here is that the Libertarians and Greens aren't capitalizing on the Tea Party and Occupy movements (respectively), and then forming a coalition.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Interesting)
The US left is to the right of the Swedish right...
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it looks a bit like this:
EU Left ---------------------- EU Right/US Left ---------------------- US Right
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to add NSDAP, PNF, and KPSS to that scale.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx [gallup.com]
Self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals in the USA by a ratio of about 2:1, and this has been stable for decades. Moderates also outnumber liberals by almost 2:1. People on the liberal end of the spectrum make up only about 20% of the population.
The USA is a center-right country.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Insightful)
And campaign financing limits ... in AmericaSpeak, that comes out as "limiting free speech" (though of course, the problem is that it's not "free", it costs over a $BILLION to win an election nowadays, so (hummed to the tune of "Rawhide")
lobby lobby lobby,
money money money,
keep that pork a-flowing
though voters disapprovin',
we OWN those senators voting, Pork Hide!
Don't try to understand 'em, ...
Cheap drugs and booze will grab 'em,
Soon we'll be living high and wide.
Boy my heart's calculatin'
The return on bribes we'll be taking, taking to the end
Move 'em on, vote 'em up,
Vote 'em up, pass into law
Count that pork, bribe some more Pork Hide!
Pay it out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, we own them now
Cut 'em in, we'll always win Pork Hide.
Votin' votin' votin'
Votin' votin' votin'
Votin' votin' votin'
Pork Hide!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that an appendix has the same value as a 8 week old fetus. Why then would an assault leading to a burst appendix get somebody a year or two in jail (at most) whereas the same exact assault leading to the miscarriage of an 8 week old fetus could lead to more than a decade in jail in many states?
The Spartans drew the line on abortion some time shortly after birth, I don't imagine you would advocate practice that even if it was conclusively proven that infants are not sentient. What about 1 day
Re: (Score:3)
How about a completely different genetic code that isn't only different due to mutations within the body? Your ear is made of your cells. Your appendix is made of your cells. It is part of your body. An embryo is not made of the mother's cells, it is simply dependent on the mother for it's survival for a time.
Re: (Score:3)
Left Right and Center have also changed over the years.
If you transplanted a Dem or Rep from another era, they might end up run out on a rail or choose to leave on their own accord.
This kind of poll needs at least one other axis if not more.
Re: (Score:3)
Being annoyed of hardcore capitalism doesn't mean that one is either communist or socialist. But that's what ppl seem getting accused of all the time. Center/conservative for me has the flavor of being stagnant. The right wing has that stench of chauvinism. And classic left-wingers seem too naive and unrealistic.
I for example love the "Floating a
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of poll needs at least one other axis if not more.
Like this? http://www.politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org]
There is a left/right axis, and a libertarian/authoritarian axis.
So you can be left/libertarian (Gandhi), or right/libertarian (Friedman), for example.
Political Compass (Score:3)
To contribute to the discussion, I'll share: after taking that test, my scores are
Economic Left/Right: -3.75 & Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't judge us by what you see our politicians do. Once elected, they ignore us and do what the corporations pay them to do.
--
Regards,
A Paleoconservative
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Fool me once...
I would buy that if you would not vote for them again. I could accept the first GWBush as an accident, vote fraud, WTFJustHappened moment. But the minute he was elected for a second term, the USA inherited full responsibility for everything he did during both terms.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Funny)
I am a poor boy too... pa rum pa pum pum.
I have no mod points to give ... pa rum pa pum pum.
Shall I respond to you ... pa rum pa pum pum.
And ask for MOD PARENT UP? ... pum pum pum
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly why I will not vote for either party anymore. GWB cured me of any Republican leanings I might have had in his first term. I thought we were getting a left leaning president with Obama that might undo some of the damage from the previous eight years, not the exact same policies with a better marketing program.
Left or right makes no difference, they're all just puppets for the highest bidder.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, insisting that you "will not vote for either party anymore" tells me that you've decided to abstain from the entire process. Your opinions, consequently, are meaningless.
To be honest, I'm glad that you've decided not to vote. It's uninformed voters like you that got us into this mess in the first place.
You have the mistaken belief that there are only two choices, democrat or republican. There are other parties. I won't vote for anyone in the two main parties ever again. They stopped representing us decades ago. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil. Vote third party -- any third party.
It's uniformed morons like you who consistently vote in the same crooks election after election that got us in this mess in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting the same people in year after year is even more idiotic.
Since the 2008 election, 2.5 million voters have quit the two major parties and gone to third parties or have become independent. People have finally figured out they have been sold a lie when told they MUST vote for a democrat or a republican. Keep drinking your koolaid. I'll be voting my conscious.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Interesting)
"Don't judge us by what you see our politicians do. Once elected, they ignore us and do what the corporations pay them to do."
That's a popular delusion and when the clueful spout it, a lie.
The US public are represented effectively by their politicians, in that they don't enforce accountability and toddle off to the ballot box to reinforce the same scumbags every election.
Failure to aggressively run your own country while falling back on excuses is bullshit.
Americans barely speak out, while elsewhere in the world people are willing to fucking DIE on the barricades for the same freedoms Americans surrender "for the children" or to "fight scary ragheads".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Here's the way it works
Step 1: Politicians become politicians. For whatever reason. Idealistic or whatever, doesn't matter.
Step 2: 93% of all Politicians who spent MORE money got elected or re-elected this past election.
Step 3: Politician realizes that their sole job is to raise more money for next campaign. (not run the country or other silly shit like that because none of that matters.) More money = re-elected.
Step 4: Realize easiest way to get more money is from corporations and rich folks.
Step 5:
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not include India. It's supposed to be a democracy?
Including nations with similar types of government are certainly fair game, as is excluding those with radically different forms of government.
Also, "left and right" only make sense where it is possibly to choose.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, if you're far left, left, centerist or moderate right you vote Democrat. If you're far right and ridiculously far right you vote GOP, otherwise you probably vote for crack pots like Ron Paul. Seriously, just read up on the various opinions he's penned over the last few decades if you don't believe how nuts he is.
What's really sad is that most of the GOP runners are so screwballed that a fruitcake like Ron Paul seems to be a viable candidate. Not that I have the most sympathy for Libertarians or Democrats, but come on. Honesty, Integrity, Competency. Pick any two. You're luck if you get two. Or even one.
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First (past the) Post (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, you are spot-on. Politics is indeed a dick-waving contest.
False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
I would even go so far as to say that in today's politics the whole notion of 'conservative' and 'liberal' no longer exists - there is no more a 'conservation' of an old order (as it is long gone), nor is there anything like the 'liberalization' of political structures that happened in the 19th century. Politics in America have turned more into a moralization of party aims, labeling them as 'conservative' or 'liberal' according to what demographic they are preaching to. There is no longer any discussion on the relative merits or cost analysis of any legislation, merely the selling of the legislation to the demographic.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then... I guess we'll rename them the moral party and the immoral party.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Funny)
Well then... I guess we'll rename them the moral party and the immoral party.
If you were going to go to a party, which one would YOU go to?
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Funny)
A bunny party at Hef's place :)
Re: (Score:3)
A LAN Party! ;)
A Lesbian ANal party?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
how about the immoral party and the amoral party?
That's the most accurate assertion of the current situation I've seen as of yet.
Anyone who thinks there is any difference between the two prevailing, extremist ideologies is not actually paying attention, only parroting the talking points their extremist leaders of choice instruct them to.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and republicans aren't to the right or left of where they were in the 60's. Rather, they have shifted toward authoritarianism. The power of the printing press is absolute, and you know what they say about absolute power.
Re: (Score:2)
The the political compass [politicalcompass.org] test and see how it goes. I'm moderately left with a libertarian bent.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
it doesn't ask any questions about moderate state regulation, like food labeling; minimal environmental regulation (i.e. rivers that don't spontaneously combust) ; or, say, the glass-steagall act. it's all phrased about police abuses, military adventurism, and welfare queens.
yes, i know, libertarians will say you can't have the one without the other, but that's exactly what makes it slanted, isn't it?
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd even go so far as to say that it's a myth perpetuated by the politicians themselves, even more in traditional two-party systems like the USA and UK.
Over here in the Netherlands, where we have a lot of small political parties, each occupying their own niche on multiple political axes. There are at least clear distinctions on the Liberal-Conservative, Capitalist-Socialist, Confessional-Atheist and Industrialist-Ecologist lines of thinking.
It's hard to come up with a left-right narrative in such a diverse landscape, even though still some do try, in general you see shifting alliances along all the lines I have identified above.
And those are only the parties big enough to get at least one seat in parliament.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed it's a false dichotomy, or anyway too simplified as a single, straight-line continuum. Still, there's this to account for: While there are sociopathic liars and paranoid fools distributed across the whole spectrum - left-right, up-down, and front-to-back - it's not an even distribution. If you hold your opinions honestly, and not as a matter of expediency, and are open to contrary evidence and argument, and able to weigh somewhat accurately whether the contrary arguments are themselves honestly presented, then your attitude is roughly-speaking scientific. It is a sociological fact that scientists are, on average, less conventionally religious than most of the population, as most religions somewhat discourage the scientific attitude. It is a political fact that the party on the "right" in America is largely anti-science and pro-religion. The party on the "left" is more of a muddle on both, but is much friendlier to science - often ignoring it but rarely outright condemning it as the "right" party does.
You might argue that the position of the "right" doesn't really exist. It's a mass of convenient but in the end incoherent arguments that are expeditious for gaining and holding power. None-the-less people sign up for that position, and work very hard through a network of blogs, publications, and "news" casts to form those signed up for it into a unified mass. The discipline within the group, the punishment of those whose thoughts stray from the day's orthodoxy, is amazingly effective. So when someone says they're "on the right" it's usually easy to predict their position on every issue of the day.
When someone says they're "on the left" though it's much less definite where they'll be on any issue. There are plenty of doctrinaire leftists, but there are also plenty on the left who are much less vessels of received opinion, and more people making their own sense of the world, with their own instincts for justice and compassion rather than merely going with a tribe's hatred of others and love of itself. The "conservative" attitude is basically a reverence for received opinion, the tribe's love of itself, and hatred of others.
However that's different from being a Burkean conservative. Edmund Burke was best friends with Tom Paine, who - despite claims by the right recently - was about as far to the left as a radical can go. Burke was a bit less radical. His argument was that societies best develop organically, rather than by having rational-seeming new innovations suddenly imposed on them. He and Paine differed on the French Revolution. So a Burkean conservative believes it's better to evolve the institutions we have than suddenly replace them with an engineered new design - no matter what the principles of engineering applied, they doubt that we so well understand our societies as to invent new designs superior to those which have evolved over centuries.
In that sense, the current American "right" is truly radical on many issues, willing to dismiss the Constitution where it doesn't suit them. Witness for instance Newt's stated policy that a president should ignore the courts if they disagree with him. It can also be argued that at this point in our history respect for science is the conservative position. Certainly the desire to remake America as a theocracy isn't conservative, as that's never been our historical form.
Re: (Score:3)
To be precise, Paine differed more from Burk before he was imprisoned by the French revolutionary movement. After his fortunate release, Paine seems to have shifted to a more "Burke-like" position (I base this on his last book, "Agrarian Justice", penned a year after he got out of prison, as he didn't live long enough to write much more). In a book that was intended as a rebuttal to the argument that rich and poor are divinely ordained differences, Paine obviously takes what was then a radical anti-clerical
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
I also have to say that referencing Burke is rather ridiculous. Of course he was a 'reformer' and not a revolutionary like Paine... he was a member of parliament for chrissake! What was he going to do, overthrow himself? ("l'état, c'est moi...") Nevertheless, the Burke/Paine dichotomy, insofar as there is any, does not inform American politics or its political tradition. Thomas Paine was quickly marginalized politically and his lasting legacy is solely for his propaganda (which is unfortunate because the man had a lot more to offer, but the fact that he hated Christianity makes him toxic to study in depth by people who ironically hold him in high regard out of their ignorance of that aspect), and Edmund Burke was never considered by the American body politic at large. That's like saying Atticus had a big effect on Roman politics because he frequently corresponded with Cicero.
Suffice to say there are a lot more useful archetypes to American political development, Hamiltonian federalists, Jeffersonian "libertarians" (anti-federalist just doesn't resonate anymore), Jacksonian populists (hey, I have a great idea, let's get a lot of guaranteed votes by enfranchising people who were left out of the system for a reason!), etc.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's really difficult to prevent malicious actors from placing characters that screw up the formatting of the whole web page. You'd have to go through the entire Unicode space to look for the characters that are acceptable to display, to make a giant whitelist.
Must be a huge problem for Facebook... except that it isn't.
How to tell (Score:5, Informative)
The Political Compass [politicalcompass.org] is a really useful guide to political left-right but works out your position on both an economic scale (left-right) and a social scale. (Authoritarian-libertarian.) It does seem a little biased towards the left-wing but I think much of that is people having different views to the views they think they have.
Re: (Score:3)
A large part of the bias comes from the limited range of answers and the false assumptions built into the questions. There's no way to correctly answer the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" if I can't say "Cowboy Neal".
Or consider the question on capital punishment. It's nominally a left/right or liberal/conservative issue, but it can't deal with answers like "Capital punishment is bad but Charlie Manson should be ground into paste."
The quiz was not developed with sufficient care.
Re: (Score:3)
Authoritarians hate abstract art with a passion. In fact, the Nazis outlawed it as "degenerate". The Soviets weren't very fond of it, either.
For one thing, abstract art encourages independent thought, lateral thinking, and creativity. It encourages people to stop categorizing everything, and challenges their assumptions as to what exactly art is. Dada, the infamous anti-art movement, was actively trying to force people to redefine art. If I take a toilet and install in at an art exhibition, has that to
Using US or international standards? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm moderate-left by international standards, but that's far-left by US standards. I voted using international standards.
Re:Using US or international standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the only other place in the world that's as fiscally far-right as the US is probably Mexico. Even Canada and the UK are considered socialist by US standards, and most places are far more "socialist" than those. If the international Overton window, on a simplified single-axis L/R scale, ranges from 0 to 10 where 0 is communist and 10 is fascist, the US Overton window ranges only from about 4.5 to 9. Few other countries in the world would span so far right, even the UK learned from their brush with far-right economics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Using US or international standards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah the US is socially on the liberal side...
Spoken like a true Conservative. It's one of the few developed democracies that use "bleep" on TV when politically incorrect slang occurs. They also happen to black out the genital parts of non-human animals on educational TV. But yeah, compared to Saudi Arabia America is fairly Liberal.
Not to mention the War-on-Drugs, indefinite detention, free speech zones, charging children with "child pornography" for taking pictures of themselves in their birthday suits, and very liberal use of obscenity laws to censor the Internet and the pornography industry, the social demonetization of the poor and the jobless. I could go on.
Yes, in a very witty and semantic way, America is very Liberal with oppressing people who don't hold the lifestyles and belief systems of the far right religious zealots that control the government and social mores of society.
Re: (Score:3)
All those things are true (except perhaps censoring animal genitals, I haven't seen that) but America is still socially liberal compared to a great number of places of which you are apparently ignorant. Not that I'm defending or agree with the US' social policy, but let's not pretend those places don't exist and that the US' bleeping of curse words is one of the planet's greatest affronts to freedom.
In the US, you can stand in front of a TV camera and say "Obama is a big idiot douchebag and I oppose him ent
Re: (Score:3)
Hang on, weren't you trying to argue that the US was less liberal than the UK and Australia?
You can say (or print) what you wrote in the UK, but there are restrictions on broadcasting it -- unless it was news, you'd have to wait until 9pm. (If it was news, you'd have to warn viewers beforehand, before 9pm).
What would Americans make of the British broadcasting "guidance" [ofcom.org.uk]? To pick one at random, on making claims of religious abilities:
The purpose of this rule is to prevent the susceptible from being abused, by those who purport to have gifts and abilities of a religious or similar nature in order to encourage people to support them e.g. financially.
Such programmes may not be shown when children, who are as yet unable to form mature judgements on such matters, may be watching in significant numbers, or are particularly likely to be listening.
don't be so pessimistic for the US... (Score:3)
In France for instance, we have
- an overtly racist president that was elected on the specific idea that Europe must reject Turkish adhesion (main thema of his last face-to-face debate against his challenger)
- ministers picked from the locak nazi party
- specifically racist laws (one is "anti-tchador" for instance)
- regular mesures of ousting out specific populations, like arabs or "bohemians".
Next presidential election is imminent, and (only?) because of the crisis the majority is expected to change.
Let's ho
Re: (Score:3)
That entirely depends on how you measure how right or left a country is. If you measure it by how much of a countrys economy is controlled or owned by the government, then the US is fairly moderate. For example, in North Korea and China the state ownership would be close to 100% so they would be to the extreme left. Then you have classical welfare states like the Scandinavian countries in which about 50% of the commerce is state-owned or France and Japan where the percentage is about 60%. They are all "left
Politics are multidimensional (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole left/right thing forces people into a false choice - that you are defined by a single point on a linear spectrum. But politics are multi dimensional, with as many dimensions as there are topics for debate. If anything you are defined by the relationship of your grouping of points to that of the main political philosophies (and note I did not say parties)
2D examples of this are the World's Smallest Political Quiz [wikipedia.org] or the Nolan Chart [wikipedia.org]
Relative To Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
So by your standings I'm definately a loony lefty with parents who were both members of Militant Tendency [wikipedia.org] and a grandfather who was a member of the communist party [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Since slashdot is an American site but I'm Northern Irish I'm going to go with far left. Comparative to the UK/rest of Europe what you americans call socialists/communists are still seen as being quite right wing over here.
So by your standings I'm definately a loony lefty with parents who were both members of Militant Tendency [wikipedia.org] and a grandfather who was a member of the communist party [wikipedia.org].
If you follow in your ancestors politics I think that most Europeans would also see you as extreme left!
Re: (Score:3)
If you follow in your ancestors politics I think that most Europeans would also see you as extreme left!
Hardly - there were times in Europe when Marxism was pretty mainstream. My grandparents were members of the communist party, and three of them joined communist resistance movement [wikipedia.org]. My parents were members of the Youth Communist League [wikipedia.org]. Pretty mainstream at the time, but I can see how an American reading this paragraph could think of it as extreme, with McCarthyism, Glenn Beckism and such skewing the view on such things...
P.S. I am another one of those who are considered to be very right on the economy issue
Political or Penis direction (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure how to answer this question you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, definitely!
Re:Political or Penis direction (Score:4, Funny)
It can't be a penis direction poll. There's no choice for 'far middle'.
See how the Democrats could guarantee victory (Score:2)
AynRandians and Communistas: They all look alike. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, extreme positions usually indicate what I politely call a "non-reality" orientation. What works in the real world rarely satisfies anyone's ideology. Moreover, examples of what happens in the real world when you take ideology to logical conclusions are consistently ignored by those with extremist positions. Hate government intervention? Well, Somalia waits for you! Love collectivist communism? Visit lovely North Korea! Want a country where God is revered? Iran!
In reality land, you need a balance of things like free market capitalism (but not too free) and government intervention (but not too much) and religious tolerance (within limits - murder and ritual genital mutilation being sorta frowned upon). The difficulty of course, is getting a sensible consensus on the limits to everything from a polity that would rather watch "dancing with the stars" than think about their political environment.
Re: (Score:2)
How about standard hospital practice? I think so. On the other hand, doing it as an adult would have been even less fun and increased my STD chance (minimal of course - This *is* slashdot).
Re:AynRandians and Communistas: They all look alik (Score:4, Insightful)
Male genital mutilation sounds horrible
It is.
but it actually has considerable sanitary advantages.
What advantages? I'm not circumcised, and my penis isn't dirty. Should we cut our ears off, to reduce the need to wash?
Only crazy religious countries claim sanitary advantages to the procedure. It's to prevent masturbation.
You are free to do what you want with your body, but I think circumcision of infants (my understanding of what was meant by "Judaistic male circumcision") should be banned.
Re:AynRandians and Communistas: They all look alik (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole discussion is irrational, only the US and a handful of third-world countries are even discussing this "issue". The rest of the civilized world decided long ago that circumcision is needlessly barbaric and unnecessary.
Sanitary reasons? Do you shower or bathe on even a semi-regular basis? That's all the cleaning your penis needs.
STD reasons? It's called a goddamn condom. Use it, you dumbasses.
Male genital mutilation is barbaric, unnecessary and provides no real, actual benefits. It is a religious ritual thought up by primitive goat herders thousands of years ago. Why pretend it is anything else?
I'm conservative (Score:5, Funny)
I consider myself a conservative. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in the constitution. I believe in helping others. I believe in respecting others. I believe in shared sacrifice for the common good. I believe in all of those conservative values exemplified by "the greatest generation".
All of which puts me on the far left of the current political spectrum.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, actually it makes you sound kinda socialist. :)
Re:I'm conservative (Score:4, Interesting)
Why was this modded "funny"?
There a horrible truth there. Left and right have long since stopped having much of a meaning in most western countries. Here in Germany we've seen the "left" major party passing massively pro-corporate and anti-labour laws, the "left" green party voting for a war, the "right" party declaring the end of nuclear power, both parties trying to tie down the Internet in legal nonsense and basically, you can take any speech by any politician, replace the image with one from the other party and put it on television - and most people wouldn't notice the difference.
In which country? (Score:5, Insightful)
Adjusted for US Bias (Score:3)
I am probably a right-leaning moderate in Europe, so adjusted to the prejudices of the US, I responded with far left.
how I got here (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an American who took one Sociology class at a British university my 4th year of college, where I learned more about the social ramifications of economic policies than in my previous 16 years of education. Not that it was the only influence, but I came out of it a fiscal liberal.
I've been a social liberal ever since I figured out that I didn't want to marry a girl.
Left ? In a poll in an american website ? (Score:3)
so i dont think this poll would represent anything pertaining to left/right (as taken from global political jargon viewpoint) but, instead to right/far right.
I'm a libertarian, so..... (Score:3)
I'm a libertarian, so I'm so far to the right, I'm actually on the left.
(or so far to the left, I'm actually on the right, if you prefer.)
You can be both liberal and conservative... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of folks who are socially liberal and financially conservative, or vice versa. Most people are not a pure liberal or pure conservative across all issues.
That is in fact one of the largest problems with US politics, with a two party system you have to pick the one that agrees with you on the issues you care most about, and the rest come along as baggage. In other, multi-party states you can have parties focused on single issues, or parties that take liberal stance on some and conservative stance on others providing more accurate representation.
I found a quick list of issues with some google, it's fun to read and see if you're more liberal or conservative:
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
Missing Option (Score:3)
Too Complex for such a simplistic definition.
How many axes to the most definitive Moral Compass?
Subject to change with out notice.
missing option.... (Score:5, Informative)
Was moderate with a little lean to the left, but the current congress and crop of complete moron Republicans is making me lean so hard left that I make Al Gore look like he is a Conservative Right winger.
It's like all of the republicans were transported here from the 1920's when racism was trendy, and hating the poor was a sport.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you're a young, blonde female. Then you're on the Swedish Bikini Team.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In Communist China everybody is Far Right (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt you know what "high taxes" are ...
An americna complaining about taxes sounds completely retarded for the rest of the world, sorry, no offense intended.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever buy produce from the grocery store? Government subsidized. Ever fill your car with gasoline? Government subsidized. Ever go to school? Even the private ones receive some government funds. Just because the government never wrote you a check directly does not mean you don't take government money.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in the States and am not dependent on government at all. I have never collected any money from the government and don't want to.
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for." — U.S. Sen. candidate Elizabeth Warren, speaking in Andover, Mass., in August.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_warren [wikipedia.org]
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Leftists are against the rich getting richer.
Rightists are against the poor getting richer.
Re: (Score:3)
I see it this way.
Leftists try to keep the rich from befitting from the government by making rules so complicated that only the rich have the resources to figure out and take advantage of them.
and
Rightist don't want these government services at least in a way so the rich doesn't have to pay for them.
Leftists tend to be younger and live in cities. Why because they see advantages of government support, and they wouldn't be able to survive without these services in t
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find this [taxfoundation.org] particularly amusing, as 8/10 of the states that get the highest ratio of spending to revenue are Republican (for at least 3 of the last 4 presidential elections), while 8/10 of the lowest ratio states are Democratic (of the other two, Colorado was Republican for 3 of the last 4 elections, and Nevada was 2 for each.)
So actually, Republican states are getting more back from their taxes than they pay, subsidized by Democratic states. In other words, people in the cities see the benefits of higher taxation, despite not getting their fair share, while people in rural regions get more than what they pay for, and still bitch about it.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Leftists are against the rich getting richer.
Rightists are against the poor getting richer.
Heh, I'd actually go so far as to say the leftists and rightists want the same thing: elimination of poverty. They only differ in the approach: investing in poor people to eliminate poverty, or eliminating poor people to eliminate poverty.
They both sort of have a point. But right now we pretty much reach some sort of equilibrium where either side doesn't get what it wants.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:4, Informative)
Leftists/socialists are against somebody getting more than others, that is the basic principle. Since they can not use the carrot, they must use the stick.
If I were a "leftist/socialist", I'd say I was not against somebody getting more than others, but I would be against somebody gaming the system to TAKE more than others, without putting anything significant back into the system that enabled them to take in the first place. I would be against the notion of "privatize the profits / socialize the losses". Either do one or the other. "Socialism", in theory is neither good nor evil; it's just a way of things. Socialism is how you act when you "love thy neighbor as thy brother". The entire reason we even HAVE a modern civilization is because of the benefits of "socialism". Humans are social creatures; we assemble into groups and support one another. We don't all live as isolated individuals. When one member of the group is hurt and cannot participate, we take care of him until he can again. If a member refuses to participate, we eventually ostracize/banish/kill him. If a member CANNOT participate, then his fate depends on the charity of others. In more well-off/unstressed groups, he lives as comfortably as fortune will allow. In less well-off/stressed groups, he may not survive. Even still, on the average, humans will lean towards the former than the latter, which is a defining characteristic of "socialism".
I would rather live in a reward world, than a punishment world.
Depends on what kind of behavior your trying to reward/punish, doesn't it? Would you reward murderers and thieves or punish honest hard-working folks? If we removed all punishments, what are we supposed to do when someone doesn't want the offered reward but goes after a different, more lucrative one, hurting others in the process?
As for me, I desire to live in a world which has both rewards AND punishments. Doing the correct things nets you a reward. Doing the incorrect thing earns you a punishment. Then the only task (and it's a big one) is to figure out what behavior is correct and what is incorrect, and reward/punish accordingly and fairly.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have almost failed to distinguish between voluntary charity and government-forced giving. The clue is in "If a member refuses to participate, we eventually ostracize/banish/kill him", which is the essence of socialism.
There are always going to be cheats. The bigger government is, the more attractive it is to cheats, because being in government expands their ability to get huge gains with little honest effort.
Preventing the overthrow of overlarge government requires a combination of obvious force and mindwashing. The mindwashing can come in the form of religion (in a theocracy) or other widespread beliefs that amount to "I should be able to prevent innocent people from acting as they wish". The commonest form of the latter is socialism, which at its root denies self-ownership.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the root of socialism is the social contract, which basically says if you want to be part of society you play by society's rules. Some people seem to believe they should get all the benefits of society and none of the costs. We usually call those people "Libertarians". If you don't want to play by society's rules (see paying your taxes) you should formally withdraw from society and leave the country. You might not like the alternatives you have to choose from, but then neither does the guy who has to choose between his life and mortgaging his future to pay his medical bills. It's interesting that most libertarians wouldn't let him get away without paying his bills.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, stop shoveling words into the mouths of libertarians. The reason medical care has gotten so expensive in this country is because we have allowed it to be controlled by fascists, ie we have merged corporate and government power by allowing the AMA to set training standards for doctors, which has resulting in continuous raising of the bar to the point that if you want to legally set a broken arm, you have to go to school for 30 years. Prior to the advent of the AMA, medical doctors were lower middle class, and so cheap that anyone could afford housecalls at will. Now only the richest of the rich can afford such things, and everyone else has to wait in line for 12 hours at the emergency room, or make an appointment a couple of weeks in advance. Christ, it's so expensive, we have to amortize our plans with health insurance. There is no need for that. 90%+ of necessary care can be carried out by those with less training than we give our NURSES now. Less restrictions and barriers to entry into that market would result in a lot more doctors, driving down prices. Cheaper prices mean that people don't need to carry expensive insurance any more.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Insightful)
His strawman:
Your strawman:
The antidote to dishonesty is not additional dishonesty.
Re:What is socialism ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hardcore libertarians are always easy to spot (and thus dismiss) when they drag out the old canard about the government using force to make people do certain things.
Guess what? If you want a civilization (i.e. not a bunch of anarchist barbarians killing and raping and stealing at will) then the government needs to be able to use force. If the government can't use force, then it can collect no taxes and pass no laws... it can only beg for money and politely ask people not to commit crimes. In short, a government that can't use force isn't a government at all.
You can't dump toxic chemicals in public spaces. You can't pollute the public airwaves by broadcasting without a permit. You can't create dangerous situations on public roads by driving drunk. You can't take advantage of the stability of the nation to make money, without paying taxes to help sustain that stability. Socialist governments exists because the public gets together and says "We don't want people to abuse us, but we recognize the dangers of vigilantism, so we're going to make sure people respect the public in an organized way". That's it.
All governments are either at least a little socialist, or else they're authoritarian -- existing entirely to benefit a select few.
In short, stop trying to make socialism a dirty word. Stop lying about what it is. Two plus two does not equal five, and socialism is not about denying self ownership. Your concerted effort to change the meaning of a word to control public thought is nothing short of evil.
Re: (Score:3)