I'm not. I'm just having fun. I just find it amusing how right wing I came out on that thing. I made colpie look like a leftie 
Canada more democratic than the U.S.?
- Thread starter Sublime
- Start date
Now when I can make Colpie look like a leftie when I'd always though of myself as moderate left, then that's something to laugh at.
If labour is freer to move then that means that it is more available where it is needed. I'm not sure why unions support it. Labour is like any other commodity, the freer it moves, the easier it is to get and the cheaper it will be. I assume the unions think there will be more work and they can keep wages up.
I was thinking that reduced spending was right and since the government was giving up some of its control of the military, that was less authoritarian, hence lebertarian.
To me, the right should try and reduce the size of government and make things easier for business. A common currency should do both
Freedom of movement and common citizenship are not the same thing. I was assuming that freedom of movement was alread in place (see above). Common citizenship just reduces paperwork and hence government.
See above.
Yes but we already have working languages so equality of all languages would be a move towards the libertarian side.
You must remember that these questions do not reflect all your views on all topics and aspects of the political spectrum. As much as this can be a slice it can also be slanted to be bias in making your answers be in such a way as you will answer to determine a certain category. That is why taking the test over and over shows different results. If it was a great indicator of you it would hardly sway.
Intersting. So for you, right = less government, and left = more government?
Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. I'd always taken right to mean more opposed to change, more conservative and traditionalist, and left being more open to change and new ideas even if never tried before. Perhaps I had a totally skewed idea of what they meant?
In an overly simplistic way yes. A right thinking government left unchecked would do only the things that the citizens can not do for themselves (military, central bank)whereas a left thinking government left unchecked would have there hands into everything. That's why balance is good.
Hence why I like a Centre right leader.. My rating on the graph below had be darn close to the centre.. It had me left but left a few notches over..
The problem is there is no such thing as a right or left thinking government. There are people who espouse right or left ideas when getting elected.
Kleptocracy for instance, is neither a right or left wing issue, but an unchecked human issue.
AgreeA significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. Strongly Disagree
Machjo, of all the answers you gave, this one surprised me most of all. To me it was obvious that it is true, I strongly agree.
In a dictatorship (which is what one party state is), it is very easy to change the direction of the country, dictators simply issues the order and everybody better obey or else.
So a one party state avoids all the arguments. Arguments do delay the progress. Of course, one party state has many other disadvantages which vastly offset the one advantage; I wouldn’t want to live in a one party state.
However, there is no denying that one party state can change the direction very quickly, in the direction of progress or away from it. Thus, when China wanted to limit its population growth, it simply told people that they can have only one child per couple. Sure, it was a draconian measure, but it worked. It wouldn’t have happened in a democracy.
So to me it was obvious that that indeed is an advantage of a one party state (perhaps the only advantage).
Of course, I don't know if this makes me right wing or left wing.
Machjo, of all the answers you gave, this one surprised me most of all. To me it was obvious that it is true, I strongly agree.
In a dictatorship (which is what one party state is), it is very easy to change the direction of the country, dictators simply issues the order and everybody better obey or else.
So a one party state avoids all the arguments. Arguments do delay the progress. Of course, one party state has many other disadvantages which vastly offset the one advantage; I wouldn’t want to live in a one party state.
However, there is no denying that one party state can change the direction very quickly, in the direction of progress or away from it. Thus, when China wanted to limit its population growth, it simply told people that they can have only one child per couple. Sure, it was a draconian measure, but it worked. It wouldn’t have happened in a democracy.
So to me it was obvious that that indeed is an advantage of a one party state (perhaps the only advantage).
Of course, I don't know if this makes me right wing or left wing.
Oops. I must have gone through the statements too quickly. I thought I'd voted 'strongly agree'. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'd voted 'stongly agree' on the test. Anyway, honest mistake. But I fully agree with you. That's a clear advantage.
One-party and no-party are two different things. In Nunavut's territorial elections, every candidate runs as an independent. He could be a member of a political party, but that's not officially recognized by the government. Officially, he's running as an independent. And since parties are not recognized, instead of party caucuses, they have a caucus of the whole.
Honestly, I'm in favour of such a non-partisan system myself.
One must consider it an advantage to avoid delays. The US system was put in place precisely to create delays. If one believes that the less government, the better, any action that hinders government action is a good thing.
Has there ever been a US president that was not related to royalty?
According to Jon Stewart, Americans think the the French are all nuts. No president would admit to being French. They keep that part of their heritage locked in the closet (along with their homosexual tendencies).
