The Political Compass Test

Rob The Good wrote: Oh another thing: A short while ago our Govt decided to push through a "Civil Union" bill which made gay marriage (in all but name) legal & recognised by the state. The Govt, being an elected body supposedly representing the will of the people, decided to do a big poll to see what the people of NZ thought about it. The result was: over 60% of the country DID NOT want it! Of course, Nanny State decides to shove it through anyway, because they're so fashionably left wing they know what's good for us! Who the **** do they think they are?! Sorry...Angry young man on the loose!

Yeah! This is what I meant about left-wingers curbing democracy in order to shove their opnions above all on the account that only their opinion is valid. In a sense they are precursor but they are also pushing or speeding-up western decadence.

I love being decadent , but there is a limit where decadence becomes rot!

Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

James Lee wrote: ugh, I don't want to get into the gay marriage discussion again...I seem to recall it ending in fury last time...but would you also consider suffrage something that was 'shoved through'? I mean, a minority doesn't deserve to be treated unfairly just because the majority wishes it.

Actually, I can't even imagine how can a gay marriage discussion be in the forum (or in any place): I would discuss it if and when I was forced to marry a gay, but I won't discuss something that doesn't afffect me at all. And I agree with James: the majority has the right to decide on things that affect them, but not in things that are not limiting their rights.

Sean Trane wrote: I surely was not talking of Rob's Civil Union in New Zealand (we got that some years ago in Holland, Belgium, spain etc...) but the general feeling that left-wing politics are very arrogant about them being the only ones having the right politics/opinions and therefore pushing laws that are non-popular and not consulting the population on these issues.

In reference to the Spain situation, all I can tell you is that gay marriage was one of the social advances promised by the socialist party in the last election. They won it so now they are passing this law (with a lot of noise from the right and the catolics -I'm still wondering why-). Anyway, more than 60% of spaniards are OK with this...

gdub411 wrote: James....Bill Gates started out by working out of his own garage...if it is so easy to be rich than why aren't we ALL rich. Bill Gates worked his arse to reach the point where he is at now...he has a right to enjoy the fruits of his labour. I , myself, being the lazy person I am, is exactly where he should be....about $50,000/year.

I never said he didn't have the right to enjoy what he's earned, or that it is at all easy to become rich via personal achievement. Or did I say that? Sometimes I forget...I say so many things...

Seriously, I realize that most of us in the non-wealthy world probably have an incomplete or incorrect idea of the lifestyle and what it takes to reach that point. All I can make are general observations.

...but, given that concession, I would argue that a fair percentage of the wealthy come from a relatively wealthy and influential segment of the population to begin with. Even ignoring inheritance, the sons and daughters and in-laws and friends of the wealthy seem to have much less trouble landing on their feet financially, wouldn't you agree?

There's still plenty of 'self-made men' in the top tier, don't get me wrong...but I don't think it is purely laziness which separates people like Bill Gates from people like us. Much of it is extreme tunnel-vision and a callous disregard for fair play...

...call me impractical if you like, but I don't think that society (or even the general economy, in the long run) is any better off from valuing and encouraging those particular kinds of traits. And I suspect you may privately agree to some extent, unless you really do feel that it is just laziness that prevents you from truly living by the socio-economic beliefs you present.

Garion...my brotherr is a trucker and I wish you could hear out of the horses mouth about the troubles that truckers and trucking companies go through when crossing state lines and such. He'll tell you about toll booths charging 40 + dollars just to cross it if you are a truck. In Illinois, they just doubled the tolls here and they charge trucks even considerably more. The truckers have threatened that they'll start taking the normal highways and cause gridlock...although that hasn't happened as of yet. I am not sure what you meant with deregulation almost killing the trucking industry. It seems to me that the last thing truckers need is more bureaucratic red tape to get around just to do their jobs. More regulations sounds like that would create worse problems to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this comment some, because I am perplexed how more rules to abide by is a less costly thing.

James....even the rich who were born with silver spoons in their mouths have their right to their money. All it means is somebody in their family secured their future interests by making sure their offspring would benefit from their hard earned money as well. Somebody within the family had to work their arse off to secure their children's future. I hold no animosity towards the inherited rich either.

gdub411 wrote:  The truckers have threatened that they'll start taking the normal highways and cause gridlock...although that hasn't happened as of yet. I am not sure what you meant with deregulation almost killing the trucking industry. It seems to me that the last thing truckers need is more bureaucratic red tape to get around just to do their jobs. More regulations sounds like that would create worse problems to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this comment some, because I am perplexed how more rules to abide by is a less costly thing.

What happened was the trucking companies were regulated to charge certain rates.  I know that doesn't sound like fair trade policy and it did hurt competition. However, I knew many truckers who were very unhappy of the deregulation that happened in the 80's.  First of all yes, it opened up to so many to become owner operators BUT the rates went into a free fall and people couldn't charge enough to stay solvent. Now you have Truckers who worked as teamsters for good pay having to compete with some guy out of Briemans Truck Driving School for close to minimum wage jobs. 

 For the long haul drivers instead of the trucking companies picking up fines and tariffs they started having to pay for that themselves.  They started getting a flat fee for the whole job instead of hourly or salaried rates of pay. It wasn’t just limited to the truckers either it  hurt all distribution related jobs.  It was great for people who were customers of the truckers and for businesses heavily relying on distribution but was really bad for the truckers themselves. It was basically a union busting move and it worked.  Seeing what you are saying about your brother it doesn't look like it has changed a whole lot and it is why I changed professions 10-12 years ago.  Jobs that used to pay me 20-25 and hour were down to like 9-12.  I am not saying you are wrong but this was an overcorrection to a problem that could have been eased into instead of dumping the whole thing all at once.  

Sweetnighter wrote: nacho wrote: gdub411 wrote: James....even the rich who were born with silver spoons in their mouths have their right to their money. Now, this is interesting idea to discuss: I completely disagree with that statement, but I guess that's because I'm a socialist. Please give me some time to hide my arrow-shaped tail end and I'll be back All men are not born equal? The concept behind men being born equal gives way to the theory of natural rights... right to life, right to liberty, right to property... but keep in mind that it says all men are BORN equal, not that all men LIVE or DIE equal. Its evident that men cannot, will not, and never will live equally. Only diehard leftists believe that this will ever happen, and human nature will simply prevent it from ever really occuring. Somebody will always be on top. Always.

OK. I resign... I think I'll commit suicide just now...

nacho wrote: gdub411 wrote: James....even the rich who were born with silver spoons in their mouths have their right to their money. Now, this is interesting idea to discuss: I completely disagree with that statement, but I guess that's because I'm a socialist. Please give me some time to hide my arrow-shaped tail end and I'll be back All men are not born equal?

People can be lucky by winning the lottery/being born intelligent/strong/having good genes in other ways. Why can't they be lucky by having rich parents? Although I agree with you up to a point - if someone inherits millions and hasn't made something out of his life by 25 maybe it should be confiscated off him?