Political Compass

[punkinside]

I don't know if you've done this before, but it'll be a hoot looking at those scores:

www.politicalcompass.org

Mine were:

Economic Left/Right: 3.25 (leaning right)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59 (On the libertarian side)

[Alice Shade]

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31

Figures.

[Kokoba]

I've taken similar things before. I always end up as fiscally and socially liberal.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

[Googler]

I'm pretty much with punkinside
Economic Left/Right: 3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

[jon_hill987]

I tried to answer honestly, some of the questions made that a little dificult though, anyway I got:

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

[Epyllion]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62

[Kokoba]

If there's a Dirty Socialist Hippie Race going on, then it looks like I'm winning it.

Dang.

[punkinside]

If there's a Dirty Socialist Hippie Race going on, then it looks like I'm winning it.

Dang.

you're the most extremist on both parts of the spectrum! Now that's a surprise ;)

[Ascendancy]

Yeah:Economic Left/Right: -7.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

[Kokoba]

Yeah:Economic Left/Right: -7.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Oh, I just fell into second place. =P

[Ascendancy]

So Very Sorry

[Kokoba]

Don't worry about it, comrade. ;)

Whoa, when were smileys enabled?

[Serenstar]

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

[Alice Shade]

Smileys were always enabled, Kokoba. It`s just people not use them all that much. ^_^


It seems, that most of people around here are socialistic anarchists... Weird, ne?

[punkinside]

Proudhon would be proud!

But really, whats with all the socialism?

[Alice Shade]

I guess, that on individual scale, people are leaning towards socialism now.

Though, hippy communities are formally socialistic, too.

I`m guessing it`s just an age thing. ^_^

[punkinside]

I don't know if I'm too cynical to be a socialist or that I just reached the "mental 30" early.

All I can say is: don't worry, socialism can be cured ;)

[Alice Shade]

Well, it depends.

Personally, I somehow manage to combine general socialism with pretty mercenary outlook.

[punkinside]

Thats easy, Stalin, Mao and others have done just that ;) (kidding)

But really, I was bit by the anarcho-socialist bug in my teens, even wrote lots of articles and papers about it. Until somehow I realized that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was essentially bullcrap and might work in small communities of closely related individuals, but not in a globalized society, and specially not in careless, egomaniacal and competitive beings such as humans.

Hence, my "individualist" approach. I cannot say I'm much of a fan of Ayn Rand, but she has some valid points. I essentially believe in a free market composed of well educated beings, because ignorance, as always fucks everything up. Therefore, I do believe in a "socialized" educational system in which every child has the same opportunity as every other child, but armed with the knowledge that there are just a few winners and a whole lot of losers out there.

[Alice Shade]

Uh, that`s exactly the pinch of it, Punkinside.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is intended to work within smaller clusters - like, say, a factory, or an institute. And it pertains to work things mostly, I believe.

It does not works on global scale - only on one common joint project.

[Kokoba]

Thats easy, Stalin, Mao and others have done just that ;) (kidding)

But really, I was bit by the anarcho-socialist bug in my teens, even wrote lots of articles and papers about it. Until somehow I realized that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was essentially bullcrap and might work in small communities of closely related individuals, but not in a globalized society, and specially not in careless, egomaniacal and competitive beings such as humans.

Hence, my "individualist" approach. I cannot say I'm much of a fan of Ayn Rand, but she has some valid points. I essentially believe in a free market composed of well educated beings, because ignorance, as always fucks everything up. Therefore, I do believe in a "socialized" educational system in which every child has the same opportunity as every other child, but armed with the knowledge that there are just a few winners and a whole lot of losers out there.
Most of my socialist tendencies tend from wanting to make sure the losers (and hell, not even just the losers, but the little guys) don't get seriously fscked over.

Because, at least how "capitalism" plays out in America, people get screwed. The safety net for the losers is flimsy, and many attempts at small/medium businesses just get squashed, not for lack of talent or effort. Just because the other guy is way over-powered.

[punkinside]

Most of my socialist tendencies tend from wanting to make sure the losers (and hell, not even just the losers, but the little guys) don't get seriously fscked over.

Some deserve it. Who decides which do? I know I don't want my taxes paying for some schmuck's "social help" just because he's too lazy to get a job. There are some people that fall through the cracks, but thats what private charities are for.


Because, at least how "capitalism" plays out in America, people get screwed. The safety net for the losers is flimsy, and many attempts at small/medium businesses just get squashed, not for lack of talent or effort. Just because the other guy is way over-powered.

Remember, each and every one of the Fortune 500 companies started out in a garage somewhere. Heck, Google is just 8 years old! You-tube "made it" too! All you need is one good idea. And just like I said: few winners, a whole lot of losers.

I hate it when some small town begins complaining about a Wal-mart killing the mom-and-pop shops. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy at Wal-Mart! And, nobody ever asks, why should Wal-Mart stay out of some towns, forcing people to pay more to keep the mom-and-pop shops open? Its all faulty logic to me. Thats the beauty of capitalism, that its democratic. The problem with today's capitalism though, is that people are just dumb and don't realize the power they have. There are no such thing as "evil corporations"! If suddenly everyone realized that eating at McDonalds was bad for you, and stopped McDonalds would have to change the menu, or simply go Chapter 11.

[Alice Shade]

Well.. Arguably, Punkinside, problem with the Wal-Mart is that it replaces not just one shop, but practically every shop in town. And it comes with young employees, and all moms and pops suddenly find themselves without work... And since they were privately employed, they have only their savings to live on.

I believe, that core of protesters are those moms and pops, plus their numerous friends, relatives and neighbors.

[Kokoba]

Everytime a Wal*Mart goes up in a medium/small town, there's actually usually a net LOSS of jobs, compared to before it went up, not a net gain.

Plus, if the private individual is spending more money on a shirt at a mom and pop store than at Wal*Mart, that's still more money per the dollar, percentage-wise and straight out quantity-wise, going back to that community (in the form of taxes, I assume, as well as back to mom and pop patronizing OTHER places of business) than if they bought it at Wal*Mart.

and re: schmucks on welfare. Being on welfare (or its Swedish equivalent) is not really the haven of layabouts and slackers one would think it is. There's not really any honor or dignity in it (though you have enough money to live decently on), and most people prefer not to stay on it for very long--I think most would prefer never to need it in the first place.

Of course, this is a country where socialism has been the norm for pretty much the entire twentieth century. You can't up and change a whole nation's ANYTHING over night, so....eh. What to do?

So yeah. I'm a dirty hippie what buys locally every chance I get. =P

[punkinside]

Well.. Arguably, Punkinside, problem with the Wal-Mart is that it replaces not just one shop, but practically every shop in town. And it comes with young employees, and all moms and pops suddenly find themselves without work... And since they were privately employed, they have only their savings to live on.

I believe, that core of protesters are those moms and pops, plus their numerous friends, relatives and neighbors.

Everytime a Wal*Mart goes up in a medium/small town, there's actually usually a net LOSS of jobs, compared to before it went up, not a net gain.

Plus, if the private individual is spending more money on a shirt at a mom and pop store than at Wal*Mart, that's still more money per the dollar, percentage-wise and straight out quantity-wise, going back to that community (in the form of taxes, I assume, as well as back to mom and pop patronizing OTHER places of business) than if they bought it at Wal*Mart.


Why do people still buy at wal*mart then? Is anybody somehow forcing them? That's just the thing I'm talking about. People like to complain, as if it's wal*marts fault, and not the fault of the dumb fucks who mess up their own economy and then blame the big, bad corporation. :icon_rolleyes:


and re: schmucks on welfare. Being on welfare (or its Swedish equivalent) is not really the haven of layabouts and slackers one would think it is. There's not really any honor or dignity in it (though you have enough money to live decently on), and most people prefer not to stay on it for very long--I think most would prefer never to need it in the first place.

*emphasis mine*

I'm not keen on paying for the rest.


Of course, this is a country where socialism has been the norm for pretty much the entire twentieth century. You can't up and change a whole nation's ANYTHING over night, so....eh. What to do?

That's the thing, that's not socialism, per se its a welfare state. And it worked for a small, trusting society such as those in Scandinavia, but as their society has opened in the last few decades, and as their birth rate has fallen, they're having enough trouble trying to "perpetuate" the system, which is falling out of their hands like a fist full of sand.


So yeah. I'm a dirty hippie what buys locally every chance I get. =P

I wouldn't hold against you buying locally. That's your choice and I'm all for that! I'm just not very fond of the "big bad corporation" bit. Specially because each person has the same choice as you do, and corporations without customers are toast.

[Alice Shade]

Well... People buy in WalMart because they are egoistic.

They protest while it`s not moved in, out of solidarity with their neighbors/friends/relatives, as described before, but once WalMart does moves in, they all buy there, because WalMart can allow itself to undercut the prices compared to small shops, and still be in profit.

[punkinside]

But, as kokoba said, and I can agree (to a point) wal*mart is bad for the economy of small/medium sized towns. In the end they'll all be complaining. I'm just saying that they deserve it.

So, where does the "big, bad corporation" argument come in? Its not the "big, bad corporation"'s fault, its the "dumb, ignorant consumer"'s, is it not?

[Alice Shade]

Both, I`d say. Dumb ignorant consumer for letting the shit happen, and big bad company - for taking advantage of it and making sure they will be able to do so again and again.

[Kokoba]

But, as kokoba said, and I can agree (to a point) wal*mart is bad for the economy of small/medium sized towns. In the end they'll all be complaining. I'm just saying that they deserve it.

So, where does the "big, bad corporation" argument come in? Its not the "big, bad corporation"'s fault, its the "dumb, ignorant consumer"'s, is it not?
Not everyone in a small town will complain, though.

The masses will shop there, but that doesn't mean the WHOLE masses do. The percentage of people in a small town who seriously care about a Wal*Mart going up (not objecting to it because they can, or just because it's "change") is usually pretty small, and can be hard to miss. Mostly because understanding the economics of the situation requires more education than the typical "small town USA" guy gets. Not to stereotype, but I live in small town USA. I do think that more of the "dumb ignorant consumers" WOULD care, if they knew exactly what was going on. They just don't. Hopefully, as more kids here go to college, one of the results will be halting the creeping growth of corporate empires like Wal*Mart.

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

I saw it on the premiere and, even if it's most likely biased (as these things are), there's still very damning information in it.


And still re: the welfare state: But "the rest" you mentioned make up a ridiculously small percentage of the people you are "paying for" (for lack of better terms). I dunno, I don't mind that, say, a couple pennies out of every dollar I pay into welfare goes to a shmuck, if the remaining 98 cents goes to people who need it.

[punkinside]

Both, I`d say. Dumb ignorant consumer for letting the shit happen, and big bad company - for taking advantage of it and making sure they will be able to do so again and again.

Thats the thing, you can't really blame the corporation as their sole goal is to make a profit. Its up to the "consumers" to control it. And the problem is most people don't know that they do have that power.

[punkinside]

Not everyone in a small town will complain, though.

The masses will shop there, but that doesn't mean the WHOLE masses do. The percentage of people in a small town who seriously care about a Wal*Mart going up (not objecting to it because they can, or just because it's "change") is usually pretty small, and can be hard to miss. Mostly because understanding the economics of the situation requires more education than the typical "small town USA" guy gets. Not to stereotype, but I live in small town USA. I do think that more of the "dumb ignorant consumers" WOULD care, if they knew exactly what was going on. They just don't. Hopefully, as more kids here go to college, one of the results will be halting the creeping growth of corporate empires like Wal*Mart.


Ignorance to me is admission of guilt.

http://www.walmartmovie.com/

I saw it on the premiere and, even if it's most likely biased (as these things are), there's still very damning information in it.


Haven't heard of it, I'll be downloading that soon.


And still re: the welfare state: But "the rest" you mentioned make up a ridiculously small percentage of the people you are "paying for" (for lack of better terms). I dunno, I don't mind that, say, a couple pennies out of every dollar I pay into welfare goes to a shmuck, if the remaining 98 cents goes to people who need it.

"Need" as defined by whom? How do you know which percentage is "taking advantage" and which are "in need"? How many of those swedes could be taking a job they're "too good for" and that nowadays only immigrants take? This is the essential problem. You're unemployed, but take your time, you'll be earning a high percentage of your last wage for some time, and then a smaller percentage, and still later is when you fall on "welfare"... which is still enough not to starve, you get money from the state for children and even dogs! There's no rush, take it easy! :icon_rolleyes:

If you're suddenly out of a job, somehow managed not to save up anything and are unable to get another job in the same area as before I think you should be ready to get a job "below you". If you're good enough at what you do, you'll get another job. But I don't want to be paying for failed engineers that could just as easily be working as construction crew, but noooo that job is for the "immigrants" :icon_rolleyes:

[Kokoba]

I always love that argument..."Immigrants are taking all of our jobs! That's why I can't find work."

"Says here they're looking for someone to work construction on this job."

"No, that job's for immigrants!"

I don't know what the wage laws are in Sweden, so I can't comment, but a lot of the "crappy" jobs in the states, like janitorial work or waitressing, also pay little more than minimum wage, which is impossible to live on. (True, waitresses do get tipped, which is good.) Part of the reason people may avoid those jobs could certainly be a stupid pride thing, but I think the ridiculously low income is another part of it, too.

Of course, America doesn't have quite the welfare safety net that Sweden does, so I gues suddenly jumping countries like that isn't really logical. I'm just pulling from what examples I know.

And on a whole, I don't think people should feel so pressured and desperate that they'll take ANY job they can find, because they see no other choice. I mean yes, sometimes you should (and need to) man up and take the crappy, grungy job to get by until you get something better. A little bit of character building never hurt anyone--I actually think it would be nice if more kids my age spent some time on menial crappy labor like janitorial duty or what not.

But I don't think the norm should be, "If I don't find a job by the end of the month, I'm screwed and I'm going to lose everything!" In such a situation, people don't think properly. Perhaps something more like, "If I don't find a job in two months, I'm going to have to start tightening my belt." I don't think the stick need be so big.

People shouldn't be entirely coddled, but they should be treated with some element of respect and sympathy. Of course, that's the point where my argument comes from my own ideas about how the world SHOULD work, which is something quite personal and not really sound in terms of making an argument. Even more so, since I am most certainly NOT an econ student. =P

[punkinside]

But I don't think the norm should be, "If I don't find a job by the end of the month, I'm screwed and I'm going to lose everything!" In such a situation, people don't think properly. Perhaps something more like, "If I don't find a job in two months, I'm going to have to start tightening my belt." I don't think the stick need be so big.


I just want to comment on this. I think this is just because credit and debt have become too widespread. I mean, you won't loose anything that you haven't already paid for. So, if you loose your job and that flat-screen, recliner, and car get repo'd because you can't make payments anymore then its your fault for living a lie.

Whatever happened to saving? Nowadays people just whip out their plastic and buy anything. Then complain when they can't make payments. Two mortgages later, what happens?

I mean, live according to your income, if you want nice things, save up for them and wait. If you loose your job you'll have your own fucking safety net. stop buying 8000$ flat screens on an $3000/month income.

EDIT: sorry, rant!

[Alice Shade]

..Uh. People actually do things like those in CREDIT?

Isn`t that obvious, that any credit means losing more money in end?

Personally, I wouldn`t buy a pack of cigarettes in credit. But well, maybe it`s just me and my antipathy for debts of any sort.

[Kokoba]

I just want to comment on this. I think this is just because credit and debt have become too widespread. I mean, you won't loose anything that you haven't already paid for. So, if you loose your job and that flat-screen, recliner, and car get repo'd because you can't make payments anymore then its your fault for living a lie.

Whatever happened to saving? Nowadays people just whip out their plastic and buy anything. Then complain when they can't make payments. Two mortgages later, what happens?

I mean, live according to your income, if you want nice things, save up for them and wait. If you loose your job you'll have your own fucking safety net. stop buying 8000$ flat screens on an $3000/month income.

EDIT: sorry, rant!

I totally agree with "live according to your fscking income!" I was actually just reading something about global economics and credit and how America might easily be screwed in the future because we've relied to much on credit...might post that.


But still, sometimes the "I'm screwed if I don't find another job" mentality isn't because people live outside their means. People get sick and don't have health insurance (woo boy is that a rant for another day) or they barely make enough to cover the essentials of getting by to begin with or other things like that come up.


Alice: yes, people seriously do that. You don't lose money if you pay the whole bill on time, but the draw for credit with people is that they can pay the bill back "when they feel like it." It's ridiculous.

[punkinside]

But still, sometimes the "I'm screwed if I don't find another job" mentality isn't because people live outside their means. People get sick and don't have health insurance (woo boy is that a rant for another day) or they barely make enough to cover the essentials of getting by to begin with or other things like that come up.

Well, health insurance is another issue. But if they barely make enough to cover their essentials it means they didn´t have such a hot job in the first place, don't you think?

[Kokoba]

Yeah. In that case it's a no-win situation.

Yarrrr.

[Alice Shade]

Kokoba, as far as I understand the whole concept of crediting, you recevie credit with stipulation, that you will pay back more then you got - for the service.

I don`t think banks would give credit with no interest or fee at all - it would leave them with a loss, not a profit.

Therefore, by taking a credit instead of buckling your belt, and getting dough together will in end make you pay more.

[AaronD]

Not quite. The way credit works, you make purchases on money you don't HAVE to have at the time, but you must pay that money off at the end of the month. If you are late with your payment, interest is added accordingly. At least, that's the way I've always thought credit works, and the way it's been explained to me several times.

[Kokoba]

Not quite. The way credit works, you make purchases on money you don't HAVE to have at the time, but you must pay that money off at the end of the month. If you are late with your payment, interest is added accordingly. At least, that's the way I've always thought credit works, and the way it's been explained to me several times.

That's what I was taught as well. And on a credit card bill there is a minimum balance to pay, and the whole bill. For me (and this is probably because I'm a college student and they like to cut college students ridiculous deals), the minimum balance I have to pay on my bills is about $20....even if the whole bill is like $800. If you keep paying the minimum balance, or anything less than the whole bill, a little bit (or a lot of) interest gets added to it, and so you end up paying more.

Maybe that's just American banks?

[punkinside]

that's how credit cards work, not how credit and debt in general work. What happens with a mortgage or a loan is exactly that: you get Y amount of money money to buy X at a Z yearly interest rate to be paid over W years.

Those numbers depend solely on your credit rating (how good a borrower you are). If you've always kept your bills, you can pay for some things at low interest and over many years, which is somehow still the same as if you're a bad borrower they give you less time to pay and much more interest. And this all is just scratching the surface of all things a bank does to get profit from giving you money, and why you should, (IMO) never, EVER ask for a loan.

[Fallen Hero]

I took the test and got:

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

[Fenrir]

"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things." Seems like a lot of statements were a waste of time, like this one. I sure hope it didn't use those to calculate my political leanings. Otherwise it's interesting to see where people stand on the political spectrum here.

Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

[Aimeethearrow]

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

[PotatoeOfDoom]

Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.31

wow i always thought i was more right wing lol

[Alice Shade]

Eh, it`s not too accurate.

[PotatoeOfDoom]

So am i the only one who got above negative for authoritarian?
Wow, and im above by 2 1/3 whole points, not just barely haha.