22 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI took the test again. Now i'm a Libertarian Right. You're a Libertarian Left. I'm economically to the right and a socially Libertarian. You're economically to the Left and a Social libertarian.
Well, I don't know exactly who I resemble, but this was the result:
Political Compass--
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90
So, why are you against nat'l health care? And why am i somewhat for it.?
GRANNY.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydIncome tax doesn't apply to large corporations.
I see your point--I don't think the majority of super-rich people got that way "from the sweat of their brow"; blind $--thouse luck had more to do with it than anything else. But I don't see how taxing them more wouldn't lessen their incentive. If I were a corporation owner (one of the hardworking rich) and was told my taxes were to go up 15%, I can see ...[text shortened]... cause at my core, I AM a yellow dog, bleedin' heart liberal,... and proud of it 😉
These are libertarian myths because there are several countries with high taxes and low unemployment. For example, Norway has 2% and Holland 3.5%.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI had:
Well, I don't know exactly who I resemble, but this was the result:
Political Compass--
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28
Funny how you are apparently more leftist than me.
22 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by smw6869I'm against every plan I've heard so far because they all require me (and everyone else) to participate in the program whether I want to or not. I have a hard time with government forcing people to join anything . If it was voluntary, I'd be for nat'l health care.
I took the test again. Now i'm a Libertarian Right. You're a Libertarian Left. I'm economically to the right and a socially Libertarian. You're economically to the Left and a Social libertarian.
So, why are you against nat'l health care? And why am i somewhat for it.?
GRANNY.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydAccording to the chart you're more left than Obama, but you didn't vote for him. I think you're so far Left that you're actually Right. I have no idea what My problem is. I'm for Nat'l health care if it could be managed a hell of a lot better than every other gov't program.
I'm against every plan I've heard so far because they all require me (and everyone else) to participate in the program whether I want to or not. I have a hard time with government forcing people to join anything . If it was voluntary, I'd be for nat'l health care.
GRANNY.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869Agreed, and that's the problem: the government hasn't shown me it can manage any program...[i] ever.
According to the chart you're more left than Obama, but you didn't vote for him. I think you're so far Left that you're actually Right. I have no idea what My problem is. I'm for Nat'l health care if it could be managed a hell of a lot better than every other gov't program.
GRANNY.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869I think we've missed the obvious conclusion: the test is flawed. 😉
According to the chart you're more left than Obama, but you didn't vote for him. I think you're so far Left that you're actually Right. I have no idea what My problem is. I'm for Nat'l health care if it could be managed a hell of a lot better than every other gov't program.
GRANNY.
The main issue I had with the test (which was interesting and fun) was that there was no way to answer "neither agree nor disagree", or "it depends." One question was "An eye for and eye"--well, I say yes if the perp is sane, no if he's not, maybe if there are mitigating circumstances. How about "The rich are taxed too much"? In general, over the course of this administration, or right at this minute? In the USA? What defines rich? I need more precise, well-defined questions.
And that is why I propose we make our own test. And to quote a very good and wise friend of mine, we shouldn't try to differentiate between liberalism/consevativism, nor libertarian vs. authoritarian. No, we should make the definitive test to determine whether one is a Capitalist or a Communist, as I agree with him: there is no clearer way to define a person's character, moral code, ethics, "soul", and views on pretty much everything than to measure the person by the Capitalist/Communist yardstick.
I'll start.
Question 1. The needs of the many are always of more importance than the needs of the few.
Question 2. Greed is always good.
{note: to avoid the problem of having a strictly "Yes/No" test, I put the word always in both maxims. Without it, I'd have to answer "sometimes" to both questions, and that was the flaw I saw in the other test}
Whaddya think?
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat's the rub. It is a matter of liberty. All leftist, socialist notions in the end require the force of government to work.
I'm against every plan I've heard so far because they all require me (and everyone else) to participate in the program whether I want to or not. I have a hard time with government forcing people to join anything . If it was voluntary, I'd be for nat'l health care.
Markets may be messy and unpredictable but they don't require force or fraud. Force is the single objectionable characteristic of all leftist plans. Fraud, can happen in either case.
25 Dec 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydQuestion 1. The needs of the many are always of more importance than the needs of the few.
I think we've missed the obvious conclusion: the test is flawed. 😉
The main issue I had with the test (which was interesting and fun) was that there was no way to answer "neither agree nor disagree", or "it depends." One question was "An eye for and eye"--well, I say yes if the perp is sane, no if he's not, maybe if there are mitigating circumstances. ...[text shortened]... questions, and that was the flaw I saw in the other test}
Whaddya think?
Can the rights and needs of individuals be sacrificed, for the good of the collective, made of of individuals. Morally no. Pragmatically yes. Is pragmatism moral, that is the end justifies the means?
Question 2. Greed is always good.
Yes, minus force or fraud.