Forum Research, Posters' Political Compass

[mentalfloss]

The left and the right want to control different things, OK, but what is libertarianism? I thought it was about reducing control. It's on the "less" side of the less/more government continuum. If left libertarians are for more economic control, then are they less libertarian the most control they demand. And the same for right libertarians who are supposedly for more social control. The more right they are the less libertarian they are.

That's why you need to break up the liberty into social and economic paradigms (and have a two-axis map) in order to avoid that paradox. The only true, all-encompassing "libertarian" would be a right-wing, social libertarian because they do not want any government intervention or control for anything.

 

[Goober]

That's why one needs to break up the liberty into social and economic freedoms (and have a two-axis map) in order to avoid that paradox. The only true, all-encompassing "libertarian" would be a right-wing, social libertarian because they do not want any government intervention or control for anything.

Is that not the 9-9-9 Man running for President? Fukim if they are sick, hungry or in need.

 

[mentalfloss]

Is that not the 9-9-9 Man running for President? Fukim if they are sick, hungry or in need.

If you're referring to Ron Paul, yea, he would be closest to that I think. But he still does have some social conservatism about him that holds him back if not mistaken.

Also, you'll never truly find a pure right-wing, libertarian prez. as that's pretty much the death knell for his job - unless he only cares to work for one term.

According to Wikipedia there's no adequate definition of fascism. Which makes "fascist" a pliable enough insult to hurl around.

The closest thing I can suss out for fascism is a collusion between government and corporations to control the public. In the lightest sense, one can allude to some form of fascism in our current system.

Now you can take the insult and spread the fear.

Another term that's always lost in some form of ambiguity is "republic". A lot of people mistake a republic as some form of government, like a democracy. In fact, some even think a republic can replace a democracy. It's not true.

A republic is simply another way of stating accountability in government, whatever the form. The nature of that accountability is for government to be held at the whim of the pubic - hence re: the public (republic). You can have a democratic government that is more republic, for instance, if we could routinely eject politicians if they do something we don't like. The fact that it is democratic would mean it would have to pass the democratic test, like say, a mass poll that accurately (statistically) reflects our decision to keep that member in government or not.

 

[JLM]

Can't agree that tomatoes are untasty. :lol:

 

[Mowich]

Not me - Ghandi and I are quite similar. Go figure.

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw my graph, Goob. :smile:

Ok, so maybe some of that was a stretch. :lol:

Hope it was the voting NDP part, Locutus..........;-)

 

[Goober]

If you're referring to Ron Paul, yea, he would be closest to that I think. But he still does have some social conservatism about him that holds him back if not mistaken.

Also, you'll never truly find a pure right-wing, libertarian prez. as that's pretty much the death knell for his job - unless he only cares to work for one term.



The closest thing I can suss out for fascism is a collusion between government and corporations to control the public. In the lightest sense, one can allude to some form of fascism in our current system.

Now you can take the insult and spread the fear.

Another term that's always lost in some form of ambiguity is "republic". A lot of people mistake a republic as some form of government, like a democracy. In fact, some even think a republic can replace a democracy. It's not true.

A republic is simply another way of stating accountability in government, whatever the form. The nature of that accountability is for government to be held at the whim of the pubic - hence re: the public (republic). You can have a democratic government that is more republic, for instance, if we could routinely eject politicians if they do something we don't like. The fact that it is democratic would mean it would have to pass the democratic test, like say, a mass poll that accurately (statistically) reflects our decision to keep that member in government or not.

Great post - Thank you

 

[taxslave]

Translation..... Ron has finally come out of the closet. Good for you Ron. Congrats.

[/FONT]

Now that one makes me bananas. Odd because I don't like bananas and am not a fruit although I have been called a fruitcake a time or two.

 

[Goober]

Now that one makes me bananas. Odd because I don't like bananas and am not a fruit although I have been called a fruitcake a time or two.

HHHMMM - Were you ever called a Nut Cake. There may be more to this. I know a Physhrink???????

 

[Machjo]

I seem to bounce back and forth between the left and the right depending on my mood which probably affects how I interpret the questions. I'm always on the libertarian side though.

I agree many of the questions are open to interpretation, not to mention that had different questions been asked, that could have changed the results too. So it's certainly not a scientific exercise, as fun as it is.

 

[JLM]

The trick is to be Liberal with the benefits but Conservative in obtaining the wherewithall required and make it work. I doubt if any gov. in history has............actually that is wrong Alaska was sending out rebate cheques to the taxpayers years ago.

 

[The Old Medic]

None of the above, because those are caricatures of political leanings.

 

[Tonington]

I'll pencil you in as 0,0.

 

[In Between Man]

Last Man Standing

There might have been a way out of the city, but he didn't care, and he didn't have anywhere to go regardless. Any inhabited place of possible escape would have people willing to turn him over. Besides, he had grown accustomed to the graffiti covered brick walls and dingy hiding spots that he now made home every night since the socialists took over. In reality it was far worse than that however, there was still a homicidal mob after him and he sensed his war might finally be over.

Searching for rats to eat in the mesh of alleys, he came across a group of friendlies huddled over a fire. He knew these guys well, they were the remnants of the Libertarian-Right party and he was uneasily welcomed by them.

"Look, grab a piece of rat meat, get warm, but then you gotta go... before it gets dark."

He knew why, but he still asked. "Something wrong?"

Someone else from the crowd piped up "We don't want the mob to see us with you."

Our hero just kept his eyes glancing down, trying to separate his mind from the awkwardness. He wasn't going to be in their company tonight and they had no hesitation telling him so.

"They've been sweeping the alleys looking for you... you know they'll never let it go... for all those things you said..." they explained.

They tried to reason with him "Alley... you know they said we can still be right-minded, they just won't allow anyone to be so authoritative in their principles."

"You want me to compromise! You want me to appease!!" he retorted.

They would have kicked him out of their camp right then and there if they weren't startled by a chap abruptly running into camp huffing and puffing.

"The... socialists are coming! ... The socialists are coming!"

Now our hero could finally see how clever his comrades hiding spot was, as they scurried behind a dumpster, through a hole and into the basement of an abandoned building. Against the liking of his group, the camp leader tried to convince our hero to come with.

"Get in. It's a good hiding spot, they'll never find you."

"Why? Just so they can find me the next day!? Just so they can find me two towns over!? They took my land, they took my guns, and the only freedom I have left is the choice between hiding or fighting... well I'm sick of hiding!" said our hero.

"Look! You're the only authoritarian-right guy left in town... you're a major trophy for them..." his comrade pleaded.

Our hero had that look in his eyes, a mixture of the warrior-spirit and acceptance for what was about to happen.

"Let them tear me apart" he said calmly, banging his fist on his heart.

Now alone, he could hear them coming. He could see their torches lighting the walls as they got closer. They erupted with glee when they spotted him, standing and waiting for them in an open space. As they ran up to meet him, our hero infuriated them further by straightly holding up his small, tattered bible and shouting religious doctrine at the top of his lungs.

Never before would you see a man so valiantly hold off his attackers and fight to the end. For several minutes he remained standing and fighting, but was slowly weakened and eventually the crowd overwhelmed him. They jeered like banshees as they tugged and pulled on their prize. They planned to take his bloodied corpse to the city centre, to parade it before the masses; but, they found themselves cloaked in fear, scattering, as a bright, pure light broke from the heavens, and the Lord's voice made the command:

"Come up here!!!"

The End!

(Hope you got a chuckle)