Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Political Compass Score

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 2 years ago

User Journal 39

OK, now that I've bad-mouthed them, here I go:

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.62

OK, now that I've bad-mouthed them, here I go:

Economic Left/Right: 4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.62

So, yeah: I'm totally a right-wing SoCon, but I differentiate strongly between morality and ethics, and thus veer libertarian on federal Constitutional issues.
E.g.: life begins at conception, but if you pagans in Washington want to build altars to Moloch and sacrifice your offspring, then God have mercy on you. And, in the same fit of folly, declare sex with a mare 'love' and marry your horse. I'm not coming to Washington on vacation, that's for sure.
As for Economics, if you haven't read The Road to Serfdom, you probably think this sunshine Obama has been blowing up your nethers is somehow valid.

cancel ×

39 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41813529)

Claiming that we are promoting the Obama regime as something to look up to.

Morality, with or without an attached religion, is how you live your life, a completely, or should be, an absolutely personal matter. Something you have no right to impose on anybody else. Ethics, to be perfectly simplistic, is how you interact with those things outside yourself, a more social concern.

And since my writing skills are quite limited, I will take a quote about that silly book:

...the State is simply a tool, and when it is being used against us it is not the tool, not the Matador's cape, but the persons and interests guiding and controlling it that should be the concern. Blaming the State, as such, is as primitive of an understanding to what is going on around us as someone blaming "the gun" that shot them with no concern for the shooter.

Anyway, thanks.. I appreciate it. My curiosity has been quenched, for now :-)

Re:There you go again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41817317)

Did you actually read my blog post?

Morality, with or without an attached religion, is how you live your life, a completely, or should be, an absolutely personal matter. Something you have no right to impose on anybody else. Ethics, to be perfectly simplistic, is how you interact with those things outside yourself, a more social concern.

You did a fine job of summarizing what I wrote. Bravo.
Alas, we're both 'wrong'. The cluttered thinking of the day, seeking to make the State a god, equates morality and ethics. The definitions are circular.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41817539)

Yes, I did... after I posted. Some things are self evident. There seems to be a minor bug where every comment was posted twice.

And please note that I took that particular quote about the state for a reason. That should also be self evident, as I have posted on that very thing several times, but few people seem to pick up on it.

Re:There you go again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41817811)

It's a WP blog, with Disqus for comments. Dunno how you're getting the dupes. May I ask your browser?
The crucial point about the State is that it is composed of individuals. Fallible individuals. Which is why Al Gore horrifies me when he says [nytimes.com] :

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

Either Al is a fool, or he thinks you are.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41818137)

Seamonkey.. but it is a beta version (v2.13, recent, but needs to be updated) All other browsers should be banned by law :-)

Al Gore is a politician who, like most of his compadres, believes that the law that applies to us does not apply to himself. I hardly care what he thinks or says, especially on this 'climate change' BS. He wants us to consume less so he can have more. I couldn't finish reading that spiel. I gag when I read what he writes, but there is no need to be any more concerned about him than any of the rest.

Once again, I'm begging you, don't take my criticism of your favorite as support of somebody who really is no different. I support nobody who wants the job. That's an automatic disqualification. It's pathological.

Re:There you go again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41818625)

Al Gore is a fairly representative sample of the statist ills that affect both right and left.
Don't take my enthusiasm for Romney as naivete that he won't go wobbly. He will, and the napalm shower will greet him.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41829221)

...the statist ills...

So small is your frame of view, you don't see a word I said. Is it subconscious, or intentional? I think it's a little of both.

Re:There you go again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41854711)

Liberty. Start there.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41859635)

For ALL. Start there... You only want to shift authority to a different, equally tiny 'elite'. That is unacceptable.

Re:There you go again (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41874345)

Thoroughly erroneous. If the Romney administration acts even a little like Obama, you're going to see the tatters of the mainstream media on one flank, and the Tea Parties on the other.
I realize that you cannot grasp the authenticity of the Tea Party movement, reality being such an affront to Commie thinking.
The interesting thing will be seeing how the Left explains a wobbly Romney getting blasted from the Right.

Re:There you go again (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41831613)

fustakrakich == countertrolling == iminplaya (== sometimes AC)

Clearly, I've been here too long.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41832413)

Ah, so you're like that logical_failure guy with all those sock puppet theories. This oughta be fun...

Re:There you go again (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41833757)

I'm pretty sure "sockpuppets" implies simultaneous usage, and an attempt to make them appear as different people. The accounts I referred to seem to have been created, used for a while, and then abandoned (and posting as AC for a while) before moving on to the next. And no such attempt.

Re:There you go again (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41836751)

Whatever floats yer boat. Conspiracy theories always make for good entertainment.

I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41818253)

But even compared to Rerum Novarum- Obama is way off.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41818649)

We part company. I'll heed the Pope, insofar as he rightly divides the Word of Truth.
The fact that an Economist may, spiritually, be a fool does not necessarily impact his math. Math.
Hayek makes the great point that central planning is a crappy god, and we should echo that.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41818881)

The problem is that Hayek's math- if followed- leads as much to central planning as if we had followed Karl Marx. The only difference between a libertarian and a crony capitalist is having enough capital to purchase politicians through lobbyists. The only difference between a crony capitalist and a communist, is that the capitalist owns politicians and the communist is owned by politicians.

Without limits on the growth of both business and government, centralization is inevitable. Only morality can provide a limit of duty on the right of private property (Caritas in Veritate).

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41820437)

Boss, I just don't buy off on your read of Hayek.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41822283)

What is missing in Hayek's equations is the gravitational constant of currency (Return on Investment, Interest) in any capitalist system.

Because it takes money to make money, investors, not labor or consumers, are the true rulers in capitalism (Karl Marx did notice this, despite his other flaws, that's why he named the system capitalism; as it centralizes on wealth).

The one thing most libertarians seem to forget, is that government, any government, is created primarily to protect and defend wealth, and only secondarily to protect citizens. Thus, any significantly large accumulation of wealth, will result in government, even if there is no official governing body (no professional politicians) at all. The larger the concentration of that wealth, the more totalitarian the government will have to be to protect it- rich people cause government to happen, and at the extremes, all governments are plutocracies.

And what the socialists seem to forget, is that by assigning ownership to the state, they simply make the state the biggest concentration of wealth in the country. Which is why socialism is always totalitarian.

Want to avoid centralization? Ignore Hayek, go with Leo XIII. Distribution of ownership- real ownership- and limitation on private property with a preference for the group that *can't* buy political influence. Just wages for labor and fair prices for consumers. Profit only an afterthought when those first two ideals have been met.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41824497)

I think our simplest method to moving away from excessive centralization is reforming the Federal Reserve.
While I think the Aggregate Evil Of Humans is probably a constant, I submit that the Unintended Consequences of that evil are best minimized by re-invigorating the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41831427)

Because it takes money to make money, investors, not labor or consumers, are the true rulers in capitalism (Karl Marx did notice this, despite his other flaws, that's why he named the system capitalism; as it centralizes on wealth).

It strikes me that money is merely a proxy for property. That is, your physical stuff is part of your net worth, and your money is the other part because it is "potential property", convertible into actual private property. Money is just a convenience for trading things owned, so that you don't always have to trade in actual property. (E.g. my employer doesn't have to trade jugs of gasoline and milk for my labor, but can instead trade stand-ins for those types of things.)

And I think a notable counterpoint of our current times to what you wrote next is Apple Inc. It became the richest company ever, market capitalization wise, not just by the actions of the investor class. Consumers (most of whom are laborers) decided who would rule in that space.

So I don't think the cliched adage that it takes money to make money is accurate. I became wealthier via improving my education and skills. That is, while I am still but one man and can only execute so many hours of labor a day, I've increased the value of that labor, and hence it traded for more money. Combine that with my inexplicably but thankfully innate frugality and debt-aversion, and my long-term trend has been in the positive direction for net worth. That is, I've been growing my real and potential pots of possessions.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41834015)

But in capitalism, money can be converted to more money directly, through the miracles of Interest and Return on Investment. No other property required.

"And I think a notable counterpoint of our current times to what you wrote next is Apple Inc. It became the richest company ever, market capitalization wise, not just by the actions of the investor class. Consumers (most of whom are laborers) decided who would rule in that space."

Apple hasn't been innovative since the Lisa came out. All of their technology trails other inventions. In fact, I can't name any winners in the computer space that were actually INNOVATORS.

"So I don't think the cliched adage that it takes money to make money is accurate. I became wealthier via improving my education and skills."

Except, like me, you haven't. At best you've stayed equal while running as fast as you can, only to have your projects be THROWN AWAY if they aren't profitable in 4 months (something that has happened to me several times since it was first pointed out to me in 1997 that any project that is not profitable in four months is a failure).

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41834693)

My dispute with "it takes money to make money" was not that you can't make money from money, but that that's not the only (or even most used, in practice) way.

But yes, money plus time can be traded for more money. And a tradeable amount of money grows more valuable as the amount goes up* (because there's fewer people who have larger amounts of money that they can afford to part with for a while), and hence can fetch more money back later in trade.

*Outside of govt.-induced market distortions like the housing bubble and fractional reserve banking.

But, money being a mere stand-in for property, this is no different than lending some possessions away for a time for other possessions/money/labor. For example if I had a teenage son and I also had a POS Honda and he wanted to borrow it for a weekend trip to the mountains, I would require certain things in exchange. But if I had a Maserati (that I was even willing to let him borrow!) or he wanted to borrow the POS for a month-long drive across country, I would require even more in trade.

Money is just a trading instrument, and a fixation of the Left in their covetousness, where the actual situation is that simply trades based on perceptions of value by the parties involved are going on.

In summary, taking myself as an example I have things that are mine, that have value, that I can trade for other things of value:
* When I trade actual possessions for other possessions: barter.
* When I trade skilled labor (and hence also time) for money: employment.
* When I trade money plus time for more money: investing.
* When I trade money for physical possessions: purchasing.
Different names, but it's all trading of things with inherent or assigned value for things with inherent or assigned value. Employing a programmer analogy, intellectually factor commonality across things into a base class of understanding about them.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41836465)

Ok. I get it....yes. I need to think on that for a while. Never occurred to me that other property *also* has centralizing gravitational force.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41829313)

You come closest to understanding the critique of that book I quoted above. The state is a hammer. The corp is the owner of said hammer, and we, as the followers of their money and power, and orders, are the wielder. I am very interested to see if they will take it away from us if we were ever to break free of the spell.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41854735)

"break free of the spell" implies competition in a marketplace.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41863297)

Did I ever say there wasn't? I see a wide open field, just waiting for us to try out. In fact, you people are the ones claiming it's more limited, with your 'lesser evil' nonsense, than it really is.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41874259)

"the ones claiming it's more limited"
Dodd-Frank, PPACA, &c

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41831035)

Without limits on the growth of both business and government, centralization is inevitable.

I would broaden this (and me, being me, would word it matter of factly instead of implicitly activist) to say that the growth in size of any group of human beings inevitably results in centralization. This goes for not just businesses and governments but also churches, political parties, special interest groups/charities, labor unions, you name it.

I.e. whatever it is that people come together on is not so material as what it occurs to me my first paragraph is distillable to: Any movement in the direction toward centralization leads to more of it. (Where centralization is bad because it invariably involves abuses and conformity.)

And then I, as a more-or-less libertarian-minded person, struggle with the morality and legality of placing limits on the growth of various types of organizations of men. And whilst prolly sounding defeatist to you, I then remind myself that lots of things in this world/life are not curable (by men). Where I guess by "not curable" here I mean evils that are unaddressable except only by introducing simply what are different evils.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41833937)

Yes, but in a way, the evils of decentralization are both more tolerable and more solvable, by men, than the evils of centralization.

If an evil of decentralization becomes locally tyranical, you can always move away from it. Not so much so with centralized tyranny, which would see your leaving as a defeat for the corporate body.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41841111)

What B D calls the 'left' are just people who fight back to keep others from forcibly removing their own wealth. Making sure that tyranny stays local through resistance is by its nature 'leftist'. It has nothing to do with coveting. It is more of a domination thing. My contention is that those who wish to dominate are not 'leftist' by any means. They are simply tyrants. Despite our differences, I see your descriptions here, and his to a large extent, as spot on. To me, you are describing physical science. Everything, living or not, grows as big as it physically can. That's not evil, it's nature. In other words, it's "god's" will. If that's evil, then so is god. Or maybe he's* just placing all these trap doors (temptation) that we are supposed to learn to avoid. However, I don't believe that seeking harmless, consensual pleasures is a trap door to avoid. In fact I think it's the opposite. Seeking and being allowed those small pleasures would would go a long way towards mitigating the desire for dominance and illusions of grandeur, and those who would deny us those pleasures are tyrants of the worst kinds that turn the desire for pleasure into perversion to be punished.

All this seems like rambling, but some people just won't see beyond the money counters and the bureaucrats' "constitution" and the basic, natural forces that drive them.

*Sorry for the anthropomorphism

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41842723)

Here's why we are NOT describing physical science: Money doesn't have a physical existence. Neither does dominance, strictly speaking.

Civilization is engineered, not grown; allow nature to take its course and let everything grow as big as you can, is the route to extermination of the weak. The big difference between civilization and evolution is that civilization protects the weak instead of exterminating them.

There is no such thing as a human action that does not cause harm; the small pleasures you speak of are not allowed because they do cause harm, even if you can't see it.

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41876585)

I think where we part ways is when you believe that humans are 'above' the forces of nature and biological instinct. We are not. In fact the belief that we are could very well be the basis of original sin, in that we act precisely the same as all other life forms when we are supposed to know better, or it could be that we just think we know batter, in other words the sin is in our arrogance, with the belief that we are godlike.

Human engineering is no less natural than a termite 'society' building its giant towers. Protecting the weak, for us, is a perfectly obvious survival tactic, as shown by our population growth and domination over the entire planet. Societies that exterminated their weaklings no longer exist, or only exist in tiny pockets, and will end up being conquered also. Domination is not accomplished by being nice. Present day 'civilization' now switched from exterminating their weak to exterminating the weaker enemies and the children of the conquered. Protection is very selective. The politicians kiss the babies here, while killing the ones outside the walled garden. Economic stratification keeps the rest out of the way, until we need their unskilled labor to build our temples and cathedrals of state and finance.

All physical things 'cause harm' to those that are smaller or weaker through assimilation, consumption and/or killing. However, the small pleasures I seek cause no harm to other humans and minimal harm to the environment in general. This is much greater harm in the attempt to prohibit them. It can only result in perversion and destruction. It is the alpha male asserting its authority, so it is essentially biological in nature also. But where the human animal only challenges the alpha to become the alpha, the reasonable human being pushes back and resists, to eliminate the authority altogether. Instead of suppression, redirection by cooperation is the less harmful way of dealing with biological urges.

Like that cartoon boiling everything down to the simplest form: psychology -> biology -> chemistry -> physics...

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 2 years ago | (#41894029)

Still HomelessInLaJolla?

Re:I take my economics from Popes, not Atheists (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41897713)

:-) That's ok... You'll see... All that remains is the wake you leave behind.. Eventually even that dissipates...

All is well in meatspace...

waste of time for me (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 2 years ago | (#41832707)

From your linked page (in your prior JE) and the first two pages of questions of the test, that site is the creation of someone who is solidly Left-wing and (commensurately) cannot see from any angle but his own. So the questions are framed in terms of the Leftist viewpoint, and the responses simply in terms of affirming or denying that narrow viewpoint.

So the test is only effective in identifying if you're a Leftist or not-a-Leftist, but can't provide distinguishment in the variations of why one is not in lock step with the popular Leftist view on something. I.e. there's no way I can answer truthfully for myself, because there's no way to say "yes and no" or "it's not that simple" or "none of the above because that thing doesn't matter to me".

More broadly, it doesn't work for me when Leftists take a stab at defining what Left/Right/Center means. Another example that comes to mind is http://www.allsides.com/ [allsides.com] , which offers up NPR and CNN as the political center.

(They have an even more simplistic quiz, where you're supposed to pick whether you're Right or Left, but the first question for example involved gay marriage. But then if I'm against homosexual unions morally but not legally, am I Right or Left. I would prolly be expected to answer Left, because I think the underlying assumption, also descending from the prevailing Leftist basis/frame of thought we've been given today, is that anything we think is wrong we're supposed to also think "there should be a law against that"/every ill is addressable/we should always do something/anything is better than nothing.)

Re:waste of time for me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41854747)

Concur wholeheartedly.

Thanks for the laughs (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41864105)

And, in the same fit of folly, declare sex with a mare 'love' and marry your horse. [defendproc...efaith.org] . I bet you think that teh gheys caused Sandy (Katrina and Isaac? [defendproc...efaith.org] ), too. Oops, my bad.. I meant 9/11 [youtube.com] ... "probably.. what we deserve..."

You and your peeps really going off the deep end there, looking freakier every day.

Re:Thanks for the laughs (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#41874289)

No, I don't think there is any direct link between sodomy and natural disasters.
Also, I'm not arguing indirect linkage, either.
But I'll allow that, should you have anything to worry about, repentance remains an option.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>