Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Prog & Politics
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProg & Politics
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Poll Question: I love prog, and consider myself to be:
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
37 [60.66%]
11 [18.03%]
13 [21.31%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2012 at 00:27
Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.


So then, what you are saying is that every country in the world is authoritarian, and therefore to the right of center? Although Ayn Rand might agree, I don't see how that helps.
 
Just looking to break the false left/right dichotomy.  If we stop dividing people into these left/right/rep/dem/etc "teams" then we can have an honest, helpful, discussion about what authorities government should hold.

And how would you create a poll to reflect your rainbow-colored, holistic multi-level theme-parked inter-dimensional 3D political graph? A graph atomized to such an extent would look a lot like the New York City White Pages phone book, I imagine...
 
I wouldn't.  You seem to show a disdain for individualism, by the way.

And how does  that work out in America exactly? It's not like you can vote in rainbow colors. You have two choices. You don't even have a parliament, or multi-parties. (Come to think of it, those in here who have that - I don't hear them complaining.)
 
America is currently under a one-party system as both of the supposed major parties rule in the same way.   Even if you (general you, not you personally) are nieve enough to believe there are policy differences between the GOP and DNC then you are looking at one that promotes economic control and one that promotes social control.  
 
 
 


Time always wins.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 01 2012 at 00:04
Thumbs Up
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 23:49
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

One quick one: think of today's arbitration system. Think of today's private guard companies ( yes, the thought of a privatized police has always given me terror but government's police is bad enough already). Now, I never said that absolutely zero government would be perfect, but I just tried to propose a different view of anarchy than the one (common fire-in-the-streets kind) that you gave in your post. This is a quick decent article about the subject. I lost Pat's great link that went into much further detail but all you have to do is search. What I mostly want is for people to open their eyes and realize life can exist without government as we know it. Yes, maybe we'd be better off with some government, but accepting the possibility of peaceful life without government will open doors to at least reducing its size to a more manageable size where it doesn what it can still probably do best and stops being a parasitic entity that feeds off people while pretending to be the one feeding its people. 
 
That is a good article, although I agree with almost none of it.  I may reply in the libertarian thread shortly.  Tomorrow, probably, I'm about to go to bed and don't want to strain my brain right now.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - March 31 2012 at 23:50
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 23:09
One quick one: think of today's arbitration system. Think of today's private guard companies ( yes, the thought of a privatized police has always given me terror but government's police is bad enough already). Now, I never said that absolutely zero government would be perfect, but I just tried to propose a different view of anarchy than the one (common fire-in-the-streets kind) that you gave in your post. This is a quick decent article about the subject. I lost Pat's great link that went into much further detail but all you have to do is search. What I mostly want is for people to open their eyes and realize life can exist without government as we know it. Yes, maybe we'd be better off with some government, but accepting the possibility of peaceful life without government will open doors to at least reducing its size to a more manageable size where it doesn what it can still probably do best and stops being a parasitic entity that feeds off people while pretending to be the one feeding its people. 

Edited by The T - March 31 2012 at 23:12
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 22:39
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.


There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
 
 
They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

ClapClap

That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too). 
 
And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?
The problem is getting through the simple basic idea that legality can be enforced without a government. People can do a lot of things (EVERYTHING) without a government. A quote quoted by MoM (here in more detail) can illlustrate: 

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” 
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Please check libertarian threads 1 and specially 2 for more detail. 
 
I agree with that quote, but I don't see how it proves your point.  First of all, I'm not implying that you object to order, justice, and such.  I can tell from your posts that you want legality, so that's not an issue.  I agree that dependency on the state is a huge issue, but I think that government has it's function: specifically, to uphold natural law and to defend the country against invaders.  The issues in your Bastiat quote are all things that can be done without government, but if there is no government, there is no way to insure justice in a society.  The church can take care of religion and mercy ministry, individuals can decide what they do with their own bodies, but if any entity other than government takes on the administration of justice, chaos will soon follow.  Asking for legality without government is like asking for music without musicians, computers without computer technicians, or skyscrapers without construction workers.  Justice and defense is the role of government and it has been for the entire history of the human race.  Like Epignosis said, no government is perfect because they're made up of flawed people, but so is any other entity, whether it's the church, business, or the family.  They all have their functions in society, and they don't carry them out perfectly but they do it better than any other entity could.  Imagine a business trying to raise children, for example.  So also, governments are very flawed, but we're better off with them than we would be if individuals or other social groups tried to take on the role of government.
 
I will check out the libertarian threads (I'm interested; I'm not a libertarian but a lot of libertarian thought makes sense to me), but could you give one example of how justice could be maintained in a society without government?
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:51
That also proves the point. 
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:26
Governments are not magical entities, but entities made up of people.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:22
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.


There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
 
 
They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

ClapClap

That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too). 
 
And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?
The problem is getting through the simple basic idea that legality can be enforced without a government. People can do a lot of things (EVERYTHING) without a government. A quote quoted by MoM (here in more detail) can illlustrate: 

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” 
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
















Please check libertarian threads 1 and specially 2 for more detail. 
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:13
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.


There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
 
 
They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

ClapClap

That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too). 
 
And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - March 31 2012 at 21:14
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 19:30
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

It doesn't work out because we have a one party system that pretends to be two (these goons are all the same), and we'll wind up being the next Greece in a decade or two.  Also, we are mostly comprised of morons.


No, you won't be the next Greece. Greece may be broke, but they still have the Acropolis, the Parthenon, countless ancient temples and architectural wonders of the world. Not to mention stunning islands like Santorini, Mykonos, Nisyros, etc. America will have broken down gas stations, collapsing Wall Marts, and rusting cars on cracked highways. If only the US could be the next Greece, I would return. LOLBig smile


Edited by jude111 - March 31 2012 at 19:50
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 19:01
It doesn't work out because we have a one party system that pretends to be two (these goons are all the same), and we'll wind up being the next Greece in a decade or two.  Also, we are mostly comprised of morons.
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1754 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 18:54
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.


So then, what you are saying is that every country in the world is authoritarian, and therefore to the right of center? Although Ayn Rand might agree, I don't see how that helps.

And how would you create a poll to reflect your rainbow-colored, holistic multi-level theme-parked inter-dimensional 3D political graph? A graph atomized to such an extent would look a lot like the New York City White Pages phone book, I imagine...

And how does  that work out in America exactly? It's not like you can vote in rainbow colors. You have two choices. You don't even have a parliament, or multi-parties. (Come to think of it, those in here who have that - I don't hear them complaining.)
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 16:09
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.


There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
 
 
They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

ClapClap

That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too). 
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66264 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 15:25
I swing both ways.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 15:07
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Extreme Center. 


More extremely centrist than I? No way bro, I am so centrist I'm all over the map.


I am so centrist that I'm in the point in the middle of the map.


I am the mapShocked
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 14:05
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Extreme Center. 


More extremely centrist than I? No way bro, I am so centrist I'm all over the map.


I am so centrist that I'm in the point in the middle of the map.


I am like the little brother of the Equator ok? Centrist in a navel like fashion. Very close to midway half two quarters.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
infocat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: June 10 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4671 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 14:01
Originally posted by uduwudu uduwudu wrote:

Originally posted by infocat infocat wrote:

Just a bit left of center.  I hate extremists on both sides, but I hate the right more.


I may be wrong but isn't hate rather (ironically) extremist? I am in this quandarry as well as extremism is another -ism causing schisms.

OK.  I strongly disagree with most extremist views, both left and right.
Big smile
--
Frank Swarbrick
Belief is not Truth.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 11:57
Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

Originally posted by jude111 jude111 wrote:

Originally posted by manofmystery manofmystery wrote:

I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.


There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
 
 
They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

ClapClap

That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 10:21
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Extreme Center. 


More extremely centrist than I? No way bro, I am so centrist I'm all over the map.


I am so centrist that I'm in the point in the middle of the map.
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 31 2012 at 10:17
I am left of left of center.

I think political shade should be treated cautiously. The visible part of the political spectrum is on the far right, beyond it is a sort of infrareactionary wavelength, to the left of the visible spectrum is a whole host of different wavelengths, culminating in the dreaded gamma ray... wait I took this analogy too far. Unhappy
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.