Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Political Compass

Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So I took the test and it said I'm moderately libertarian and economically centrist, but it seems to me like a lot of the questions were flawed. I just wanted to see what other people thought about them. Here are some examples:

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
This is really a moral question, not a political question. Couldn't someone think that it is immoral, but that the state nonetheless shouldn't get involved?

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
And what of abstract art that does represent something? This question assumes that the test taker thinks abstract art doesn't represent anything.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Well, that's certainly an advantage, but that doesn't mean the reader thinks a one-party state is a good idea.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Is this really an issue? I would think there would be universal agreement on this. Isn't the conflict over whether people who aren't working are refusing to or whether there is genuinely no opportunity to do so?

There's more, but I'm curious what other people think.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 10:06:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.

The state does enforce morality though, otherwise why have laws in the first place?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 10:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 10:06:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.

The state does enforce morality though, otherwise why have laws in the first place?

Its sort of that hypocritical morality though, the one that goes like: "The only moral thing is to not shove your morals on other people. States need to be tolerant"
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 10:17:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 10:14:35 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:06:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.

The state does enforce morality though, otherwise why have laws in the first place?

Its sort of that hypocritical morality though, the one that goes like: "The only moral thing is to not shove your morals on other people. States need to be tolerant"

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:10:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 10:17:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:14:35 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:06:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.

The state does enforce morality though, otherwise why have laws in the first place?

Its sort of that hypocritical morality though, the one that goes like: "The only moral thing is to not shove your morals on other people. States need to be tolerant"

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.

This
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:14:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 10:17:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:14:35 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:06:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 10:03:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:27:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Morality interferes with social issues that are, in turn, political.
Yes, but isn't the real political issue whether you think the state should enforce morality? Whether a given thing is considered moral is irreverent to that larger question.

The state does enforce morality though, otherwise why have laws in the first place?

Its sort of that hypocritical morality though, the one that goes like: "The only moral thing is to not shove your morals on other people. States need to be tolerant"

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.

This isn't necessarily the role of states, but rather the role of a democracy. However, if the majority collectively thinks they should turn cannable and eat the minority, well, then you are still legislating morality, or rather, immorality.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 11:20:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 5:18:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
And what of abstract art that does represent something? This question assumes that the test taker thinks abstract art doesn't represent anything.

Represents something like objects. The semantics of the sentence above should be obvious. And that's not the issue the above was trying to convey. It's testing whether you are authoritarian or libertarian. An authoritarian would answer "yes" because he/she believes "art" should be more rigorously defined while a libertarian would not.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Well, that's certainly an advantage, but that doesn't mean the reader thinks a one-party state is a good idea.

It doesn't assume that the person is in favor of a one-party system. It tests whether its an advantage. Many, including myself, don't see it as an advantage since they see the arguments as necessary. Whether it is better to be more cautious or to trust authority to make the right decision.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Is this really an issue? I would think there would be universal agreement on this. Isn't the conflict over whether people who aren't working are refusing to or whether there is genuinely no opportunity to do so?

You'd be surprised.
There's more, but I'm curious what other people think.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:27:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 11:20:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/15/2012 5:18:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
And what of abstract art that does represent something? This question assumes that the test taker thinks abstract art doesn't represent anything.

Represents something like objects. The semantics of the sentence above should be obvious. And that's not the issue the above was trying to convey. It's testing whether you are authoritarian or libertarian. An authoritarian would answer "yes" because he/she believes "art" should be more rigorously defined while a libertarian would not.
Good point. I think I was over thinking this one

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Well, that's certainly an advantage, but that doesn't mean the reader thinks a one-party state is a good idea.

It doesn't assume that the person is in favor of a one-party system. It tests whether its an advantage. Many, including myself, don't see it as an advantage since they see the arguments as necessary. Whether it is better to be more cautious or to trust authority to make the right decision.
Yeah, but which way does that cut? In an anarcho-capitalist system there's no need to argue because everyone just does what they want.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Is this really an issue? I would think there would be universal agreement on this. Isn't the conflict over whether people who aren't working are refusing to or whether there is genuinely no opportunity to do so?

You'd be surprised.
lol, probably. That's why I support a job guarantee -- anyone not working is either unable or lazy. It removes the whole can't find a job argument.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:34:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Represents something like objects. The semantics of the sentence above should be obvious. And that's not the issue the above was trying to convey. It's testing whether you are authoritarian or libertarian. An authoritarian would answer "yes" because he/she believes "art" should be more rigorously defined while a libertarian would not.

It is perfectly consistent for a libertarian to define art rigorously and attempt to persuade others to do so without force.

lol, probably. That's why I support a job guarantee -- anyone not working is either
unable or lazy.
A "job guarantee" by definition guarantees a job to people regardless of whether they work at it.

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.
Why have laws in the first place about these things? To not end up on the receiving end of those actions.

I believe it's immoral to huff paint, but this is a very different proposition than my belief that it is immoral to murder, only one ends up justifying state action.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 2:48:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A "job guarantee" by definition guarantees a job to people regardless of whether they work at it.
Depends how it's structured. You can have a job doing piece work, but if you don't work at it, you don't get paid.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 10:25:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:48:36 AM, Mimshot wrote:
A "job guarantee" by definition guarantees a job to people regardless of whether they work at it.
Depends how it's structured. You can have a job doing piece work, but if you don't work at it, you don't get paid.

In which case it's not guaranteed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 10:55:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A job guarantee or employer of last resort program only needs to guarantee an opertunity for employment. It does not need to guarantee that people actually accept the offer. Where is the contradiction in that?
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 1:07:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 10:55:03 AM, Mimshot wrote:
A job guarantee or employer of last resort program only needs to guarantee an opertunity for employment. It does not need to guarantee that people actually accept the offer. Where is the contradiction in that?

The part where a potential job and an actual job are different things, and the phrase "Job" refers to actual job wheres "opportunity for employment" refers to a potential job.

Furthermore, say someone accepts the job, but isn't productive. Wat do?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 3:03:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 5:18:22 PM, Mimshot wrote:
So I took the test and it said I'm moderately libertarian and economically centrist, but it seems to me like a lot of the questions were flawed. I just wanted to see what other people thought about them. Here are some examples:

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
This is really a moral question, not a political question. Couldn't someone think that it is immoral, but that the state nonetheless shouldn't get involved?

Exactly. That is what I thought about this question. +1 for your observation. That is exactly my belief. It is immoral, but should not be messed with by the Government.
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
And what of abstract art that does represent something? This question assumes that the test taker thinks abstract art doesn't represent anything.

Don't really get this one.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Well, that's certainly an advantage, but that doesn't mean the reader thinks a one-party state is a good idea.

Again, +1 for the observation. That is exactly what I thought.
Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Is this really an issue? I would think there would be universal agreement on this. Isn't the conflict over whether people who aren't working are refusing to or whether there is genuinely no opportunity to do so?

I and 16kadams at least that I know of said Strongly Agree on this one, so your observation is a little off
There's more, but I'm curious what other people think.

You should add the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That depends on the situation. Like Russia was the enemy of Germany during WWII. So were we. Dosen't mean we were friends. But England was the enemy of Germany during WWII too. We were friends.

And "controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemloyment". This is a nobrainer. One affects every single person in the country (inflation), one affects ~10% only ~20% of the time (unemployment).

Or "These days openness about sex has gone too far". The same thing about immoral before marriage sex applies here too.
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 6:15:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And "controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemloyment". This is a nobrainer. One affects every single person in the country (inflation), one affects ~10% only ~20% of the time (unemployment).

Shouldn't a real libertarian say the government shouldn't control either? People can create competing currencies and let the market decide how much each one is worth.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:19:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 2:34:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.
Why have laws in the first place about these things? To not end up on the receiving end of those actions.

I believe it's immoral to huff paint, but this is a very different proposition than my belief that it is immoral to murder, only one ends up justifying state action.

No it isn't. If the laws discriminate base on race, or sex and I'm not on the receiving end of the stick, then I don't have to worry about being on the end of the stick so long as the discrimination doesn't apply to white males. Then laws can be created that can harm, enslave, rape, or kill minorities or women.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 9:31:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 7:19:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/16/2012 2:34:56 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

To a certain extent. But why have laws in the first place, if their purpose isn't to enforce some sort of morality? The state makes rape, slavery, and murder illegal because the collective conscious of the US decided these actions were immoral.
Why have laws in the first place about these things? To not end up on the receiving end of those actions.

I believe it's immoral to huff paint, but this is a very different proposition than my belief that it is immoral to murder, only one ends up justifying state action.

No it isn't. If the laws discriminate base on race, or sex and I'm not on the receiving end of the stick, then I don't have to worry about being on the end of the stick so long as the discrimination doesn't apply to white males.
Which is why those of the targeted race and sex will have more interest in fighting these laws, and I only fight them to the extent I enjoy the economic effects of these people being free and to the extent I value a polity that has a general prohibition on doing this things to people as a tool to avoid my being an eventual target. "First they came for the Jews..."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.