Author
|
Topic: political compass
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 04 July 2008 01:19 PM
I noticed just how many of the world leaders are on the right and authoritarian...gee what a surprise, harper is considered almost moderate.Where are you pdf on a new political compass Perhaps if you scroll near the borrom of the PDF it shows political compatibility, This maybe where the greens are taking their cue on the 'not left not right, but straight ahead.' As noted in the chart big business and greens occasional allies. People might want to save the planet but allying with big business won't let it happen, as the chart implies. At every turn green is hrdpressed to e independant. The only reason BB likes gren is it sees the marketing green in it. economic -9.75 social-7.18 [ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 04 July 2008 04:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by RosaL: It might be fun to do an analysis of the political position of the test itself.
I would guess they define center as the 50th percentile. I was about -1 and -1 the last time. [ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 04 July 2008 05:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by RosaL: It might be fun to do an analysis of the political position of the test itself.
No kidding. I gave up at the first question: quote: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Corporations aren't people; they have no interests. Since the question doesn't make sense, there's no point in paying attention to the answers.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
genstrike
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15179
|
posted 07 July 2008 01:13 PM
I got it on my facebook... I got ec -9.75 and soc -9.49But I think that this thing completely breaks down when you get towards the edges because at that point it is pretty much only measuring how liberal you are with "strongly agree" vs. just "agree" Also, although it is fun to compare and see who wins (is the closest to the bottom left), I think that if you need an internet quiz to identify yourself politically... yeah I have heard criticisms that the test has a right-libertarian bias in terms of both the questions and the labeling of the axes. I have seen some similar quizzes where the axes were labeled something like "social freedom" and "economic freedom" (a term which has been completely butchered by the right). Predictably, because I do not support corporate fascism, and do support workers rights, that means I do not support economic freedom...
From: winnipeg | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 07 July 2008 05:52 PM
From the OP: "The only reason BB likes gren is it sees the marketing green in it."Who iz dis BB? The only question I didn't understand as to why it was included in this quiz is: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" My score: Libertarian Left Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 July 2008 12:16 PM
So if someone out there is contributing to a pension plan that holds Haliburton shares, they should be put to a painful, humiliating death? After all, they've forfeited their basic human rights by setting aside their humanity.Maybe I should check to see what the Caisse de dépot is doing with my QPP contributions. If everyone in Quebec is to be put to death, then I might want to consider moving. eta: Is there any corporation whose activities are sufficiently non-evil that buying its shares doesn't merit the death sentence? [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 08 July 2008 12:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: So if someone out there is contributing to a pension plan that holds Haliburton shares, they should be put to a painful, humiliating death? After all, they've forfeited their basic human rights by setting aside their humanity.Maybe I should check to see what the Caisse de dépot is doing with my QPP contributions. If everyone in Quebec is to be put to death, then I might want to consider moving. eta: is there any corporation whose activities are sufficiently non-evil so that buying there shares doesn't merit the death sentence? [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Gee wonderful debating style. No I never said that. And if someone's pension plan is buying war stocks the members of the plan should speak up. As for the CPP crap that some economists pushed on us I still fight that misuse of my money.I for one try to vilify people for their decisions not decisions made in their name because otherwise the "leader of the free world" speaks for me. And I will ask you Sir not to ever fucking imply that I am in favour of the death penalty for any reason. Keep your personal insults to yourself and try to stick to political discourse.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 July 2008 01:19 PM
So what fate awaits those who abandon their humanity?And as for death sentences, how many kazillions of non-humans has your immune system killed off? eta: You see what happens when you start taking rhetoric at face value? That's why I gave up on that political compass thingy at the first question. [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 July 2008 01:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples:
The primary interest of corporation is to maximize the next bonus package for the CEO and the board of directories, an interest which is in practice not parallel with maximizing the interests of the shareholders.
That may be the primary corporate interest, but all of their rights are ultimately granted by democratic society under which they allegedly serve everyone's best interests. Or at least that's what there mega-million dollar advertising would have us believe. So far they've managed to hoodwink world leaders into believing their monopolizing interests and the interests of billions of people are one and the same.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 08 July 2008 01:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
So what fate awaits them?
This isn´t a Christian site Stephen. I don´t think anyone will argue they´ll burn in hell for all eternity for being mean people. A lot of us like to believe that being and doing good is a valid end in itself. It´s certainly a prisoner´s dilemma: Regardless of what others are doing, I´m personally better off from a utilitarian point of view buying Haliburton shares, which will do doubt go up and up and up. And that´s true of everybody. But we´re all better off if nobody buys shares in Haliburton. I think it´s called the tragedy of the commons in Economics. The fate that awaits us all for allowing such a world is a less good world with less equality, less opportunity, et cetera. Since the bible is false the punishment will not be doled out in a fair manner.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 08 July 2008 01:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: I was glad to hear that you can equate the murder of humans with the murder of viruses or what ever it is my immune system kills on a regular basis.
Remember what you said upthread? quote: In my opinion buying shares in Haliburton cancels your claim to being part of humanity.
I don't make that equation; you do. You are the one claiming that you don't think that shareholders in Haliburton (and presumably many other corporations) are human.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 July 2008 02:11 PM
Corporations Are Not Persons by Ralph Nader and Carl J. Mayer (U.S.) quote: Our Constitutional rights were intended for real persons, not artificial creations. The Framers certainly knew about corporations but chose not to mention these contrived entities in the Constitution For them, the document shielded living beings from arbitrary government and endowed them with the right to speak, assemble and petition.Today, however, corporations enjoy virtually the same umbrella of constitutional protections as individuals do. They have become, in effect, artificial persons with infinitely greater power than humans. This constitutional equivalence must end.
National Security, Corporate Security, or Human Security? quote: The Ethos of the Nation State, essentially an anthropocentric world view, holds that Nation States are comprised of Government, Industry and People, who work together to compete with other Nation States. The Nation State formed the baseline structure for economists from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations to Keynes’ General Theory.The Ethos of Corporatism, at the other end of this spectrum, holds that, under the doctrine of fiduciary responsibility, quarterly monetary returns to shareholders are paramount. People and the environment are thus viewed as “factors of production”. Any adverse effects on people or the environment are treated as “externalities” and ignored as being outside the corporatist world view. With these vastly different models of cultures in mind, let us briefly examine the current global forces at play, together with their consequences. The Evolution of the present Global Economic System Let us pick up the threads of the current tide at the time of the 1929 Stock Market crash and Great Depression. Germany under Adolf Hitler adopted the strategy of creating a totalitarian militaristic state creating employment by building up German armaments and armed forces which led to World War II
Capitalists have no vision for humanity. They want to believe billions of human beings are, like them, just one-dimensional prisoners of our own self-interested greed. [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194
|
posted 08 July 2008 06:18 PM
I tend to not even look at 'the good professors' answers because he is so economic blinded by the Milton Friedman the push in class that he can't see the forest from the tress. When I took Economics, free market economics got the largest time during class and stressed at how much better of a system it was than a command economy like socialism and communism. After entering the real world, I learned that the barter system is the real system but it only applies to the richest people on the planet. Here they use near slave labour(as serfs actually had more money than we do in comparison of landholding lord to the common poor) to build empires and then trade to each other for political favour, like the no bid contracts going on. If there is no bid, how is that a free market? It isn't but that doesn't fit in the profs version of hard right economics. But spending money on bombs makes more sense than making books, making bullets is better than buildings. You see in capitalism the only way the economy stays ahead is if a population increases, or the product is so disposable that you always need more of it. Bullets fall in the disposable category and schools don't. And without all them evil immigrants our country would be falling in consumption as our population decreases along with our real income(on the decline since the rightwingers took office in the 70's). But hey don't forget to put your money into banks, oil, and the military as they continue to fuck over anyone that doesn't have money. Hey steve, do you realize that some of us don't have pensions, I don't , no RRSP's and the CPP would be better off if it just used it's money to lend to small business start ups as they are better for the economy(canadas, not the US of A) as a whole and would have a better return than these downsizing megacorps who's entire share price is based on speculation, instead of the products and procedures of the company itself.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 08 July 2008 07:19 PM
quote: We haven't had real communism yet.
Oh good one! We haven't had paradise yet, either. If you have nothing but murder to show for your communism, after about one hundred years, shouldn't you just grow out of it?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 July 2008 07:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
If you have nothing but murder to show for your communism, after about one hundred years, shouldn't you just grow out of it?
I'm saddened to have to tell you that the experiment in democratic capitalist India alone has produced more skeletons than the entire history of communism everywhere. And that's according to economist Amartya Sen's figures from just 1947 forward, Jeff. It's a monstrous ideology that snuffs its most vulnerable like they were so many leftover widgets - a monstrous ideology. I think if we knew the sum total number of skeletons in kapitalism's closet, it would be truly breathtaking.
quote: According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
Those tens of millions of children were never given the chance to grow out of anything. They live miserable, shitty fucking lives. Short lives, and they die in agony and excruciating pain. They are sacrificial lambs to a murderous ideology, Jeff. That's a holocaust of anywhere from 10 to 11 million children alone, and that's each and every year with Swiss precision. You'd think the fucking dummies would go back to the drawing board now and again in search of something that does work. Grow up? I think that's terrible irony on your part, Jeff. [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 08 July 2008 08:56 PM
You'll notice I mentioned Cuba sparingly, at least in this thread, before Jeff decidesd he can't help himself. Of course, if there was a developing world capitalist success story, you can bet someone would be pointing that out to us on a fairly steady basis. But there isn't one, and no one does.It's Jeff who prefers to compare thirdworld capitalist Indja, a perpetually underdeveloped country in perpetual state of chaos and trading freely for decades, with the current state of tiny socialist Cuba. In democratic capitalist India: quote: 22% of 11 million global child deaths and 30% of global neonatal deaths take place. Infant mortality rate (under 1, per 1000 live births), 2005 56
That's awful! They need socialized medicine in India and America. In socialist Cuba: quote: Infant mortality rate (under 1, per 1000 live births ), 2006 5
Capitalism is the kiss of death for millions every year. [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|