Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:33 pm

"“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”",
"A good citizen is a patriot.",
"A good policy is a pragmatic policy without ideology.",
"A language is defined by its users, not by scholars.",
"Abortion should be limited to specific cases.",
"Abstinence should be prefered to contraception, to preserve the true nature of the sexual act.",
"Activism in existing political organisations is not relevant to change society.",
"Activists must always act in strict accordance with the law.",
"All sciences, even chemistry and biology, are not absolute and are subject to being shaped by our society.",
"Armed struggle in a country is sometimes necessary.",
"Banks should remain private.",
"Biologically, human beings are designed for heterosexuality.",
"Borders should eventually be abolished.",
"Changes in an individual's way of life can induce changes in society.",
"Changing the system radically is counter-productive. We should rather transform it progressively.",
"Citizens should take priority over foreigners.",
"Conditions of life in jail should be greatly improved.",
"Differences of treatement and quality of life in our society show that racism is still omnipresent.",
"Dismissals of employees should be forbidden except if it is justified.",
"Elections organised by the state cannot question the powers in place.",
"Energy and transport structures should be a public matter.",
"Environmental norms should be influenced by mass consumption and not from an authority.",
"Euthanasia should be authorised.",
"Exploitation of fossil fuels is necessary.",
"Foreigners enrich our culture.",
"Foreigners living in my country should be allowed to act politically, equally to those who have the nationality.",
"GMOs should be forbidden outside research and medical purposes.",
"Hacking has a legitimate place in political struggle.",
"Heavy penalties are efficient because they are dissuasive.",
"Homosexuals should not be treated equally to heterosexuals with regards to marriage, filiation, adoption or procreation.",
"Hormonal differences can explain some differences in individual characteristics between women and men.",
"Humans should neither eat nor exploit animals.",
"I am equally concerned about the inhabitants of my country and those of other the countries.",
"I do not have any problem if other official languages are added or replace the already existing official language in my country.",
"If two countries have similar economies, social systems and environmental norms, then the free market between them has no negative impact.",
"In some specific conditions, the death penalty is justified.",
"Individuals who get out of prison should be accompanied in their reinsertion.",
"Insurrection is necessary to deeply change society.",
"It is a small group that consciously and secretly controls the world.",
"It is acceptable that some industry sectors are private.",
"It is acceptable that there are rich and poor people.",
"It is better to arrest someone potentially dangerous preventively rather than taking the risk of having them committing a crime.",
"It is important that health should stay a public matter.",
"It is important to encourage an agriculture that maintains a food biodiversity, even if the output is inferior.",
"It is legitimate for a country to intervene militarily to defend its economic interests.",
"It is merit that explains differences of wealth between two individuals.",
"It is necessary to avoid private monopoly.",
"It is necessary to implement assemblies to ration our production to the consumers according to their needs.",
"It is necessary to massively invest in research to improve productivity.",
"It is necessary to remove regulations in labour legislation to encourage firms to hire.",
"It is necessary to teach history in order to create a sense of belonging to the nation.",
"It is not acceptable that human actions should lead to the extinction of species.",
"It is unfair to set a minimal penalty for an offense or a crime.",
"Justice should always take into consideration the context and the past of the condemned and adapt their penalty accordingly.",
"Loans contracted in the public sphere (State, regions, collectivities...) should not necessarily be refunded.",
"Looking for one's own profit is healthy for the economy.",
"Maintaining strong economic growth should be an objective for the government.",
"Market economy is optimal when it is not regulated.",
"Marriage should be abolished.",
"Mass strike is a good way to acquire new rights.",
"Members of a nation or culture have some unchangeable characteristics that define them.",
"Minimal levels of salary should be ensured to make sure that a worker can live of her/his work.",
"Multiculturalism is a threat to our society.",
"My country must pay for the damages caused by the crimes it commited in other countries.",
"My religion must be spread as widely as possible.",
"National Chauvinism during sport competitions is not acceptable.",
"No one should get rich from owning a business, housing, or land.",
"Nobody is by nature predisposed to criminality.",
"Nowadays employees are free to choose when signing a contract with their future employer",
"Nuclear fission, when well maintained, is a good source of energy.",
"Offshoring and outsourcing are necessary evils to improve production.",
"Order and authority should be respected in all circumstances.",
"Patents should not exist.",
"People need to stand up for their ideals, even if it leads them to betray their country.",
"Preserving non urban ecosystems is more important than creating jobs.",
"Prisons should no longer exist.",
"Reduction of waste should be done by reducing production.",
"Research produced by my country should not be available to other countries.",
"Revenues and capital should be taxed to redistribute wealth.",
"Revolutions will always end up in a bad way.",
"Sabotage is legitimate under certain conditions.",
"School should mostly teach our values, traditions and fundamental knowledge.",
"Selfishness is the overriding drive in the human species, no matter the context.",
"Sexual assaults are partly caused by men's natural impulse.",
"Sexual orientation is a social construct",
"Social assistance deters people from working.",
"Social differences between ethnic groups cannot be explained by biology.",
"Some sectors or type of employment should be financially supported.",
"Space colonization is a good solution for supplying the lack of raw material on Earth (iron, rare metals, fuel...) ",
"State-run companies should be managed like private ones and follow the logic of the market (competition, profitability...).",
"Technological progress must not to change society too quickly.",
"The age of retirement should be lowered.",
"The categories “women” and “men” are social constructs that should be given up.",
"The fact that some schools and universities are private is not a problem.",
"The filing and storage of personal records should be delimited strictly and database cross-checking should be forbidden.",
"The influence of religion should decrease.",
"The labor market enslave workers.",
"The main goal of a couple is to make at least one child.",
"The maximum allowed hours in the legal work week should be increased.",
"The police should be armed.",
"The purpose of the judiciary system should be to punish those who went against the law.",
"The right to be anonymous on Internet should be guaranteed.",
"The sacrifice of some civil liberties is a necessity in order to be protected from terrorist acts.",
"The social roles of women and men can partly be explained by biological differences.",
"The State should be abolished.",
"The values of my country are superior to those of other countries.",
"Traditions should be questioned.",
"Transforming ecosystems durably to increase the quality of life of human beings is legitimate.",
"Transgender individuals will never really be of the gender they would like to be.",
"Transhumanism will be beneficial because it will allow us to improve our capacities.",
"Violence against individuals is never productive.",
"Wage labour is a form of theft from the worker by companies.",
"We must fight against global warming.",
"We need to establish a monarchy to federate the people and preserve our sovereignty.",
"We need to make compromises with the opposition to apply our ideas.",
"We should accept changes in our way of consuming food to limit the exploitation of nature.",
"We should always distance ourselves from protestors who use violence.",
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:21 pm

Serendipper wrote:"“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”",

True because not all females are women, imo.

"A good citizen is a patriot.",

False. What if the state is tyrannical? Can't blindly support any state.

"A good policy is a pragmatic policy without ideology.",

Somewhat true because an ideal policy is not always practical.

"A language is defined by its users, not by scholars.",

Well duh

"Abortion should be limited to specific cases.",

I have no opinion on that.

"Abstinence should be prefered to contraception, to preserve the true nature of the sexual act.",

False. That's crazy idealistic.

"Activism in existing political organisations is not relevant to change society.",

Not sure what that is asking.

"Activists must always act in strict accordance with the law.",

True I suppose. If it weren't, then it would be a revolution and not activism.

"All sciences, even chemistry and biology, are not absolute and are subject to being shaped by our society."
,
False. Wtf!

"Armed struggle in a country is sometimes necessary.",

True

"Banks should remain private.",

I've never considered that one before, but I'm saying false. Screw the banks and I've seen no advantage for competition between banks.

"Biologically, human beings are designed for heterosexuality.",

True. The plug goes in the socket.

"Borders should eventually be abolished.",

False. Good fences make good neighbors.

"Changes in an individual's way of life can induce changes in society.",

I suppose so, but to a small extent.

"Changing the system radically is counter-productive. We should rather transform it progressively.",

That seems reasonable.

"Citizens should take priority over foreigners.",

Of course!

"Conditions of life in jail should be greatly improved.",

Probably true.

"Differences of treatement and quality of life in our society show that racism is still omnipresent.",

True.

"Dismissals of employees should be forbidden except if it is justified.",

True. Why dismiss for an unjustified reason?

"Elections organised by the state cannot question the powers in place.",

How can the state question itself?

"Energy and transport structures should be a public matter.",

True

"Environmental norms should be influenced by mass consumption and not from an authority.",

Mostly false.

"Euthanasia should be authorised.",

True.

"Exploitation of fossil fuels is necessary.",

True.

"Foreigners enrich our culture.",

True. So long as they don't take over.

"Foreigners living in my country should be allowed to act politically, equally to those who have the nationality.",

False.

"GMOs should be forbidden outside research and medical purposes.",

I have no idea.

"Hacking has a legitimate place in political struggle.",

Interesting idea, but no.

"Heavy penalties are efficient because they are dissuasive.",

Seems like a true statement.

"Homosexuals should not be treated equally to heterosexuals with regards to marriage, filiation, adoption or procreation.",

True. I've never understood why homos, or anyone else, would want to get married. Their raising kids doesn't seem like a wise idea.

"Hormonal differences can explain some differences in individual characteristics between women and men.",

True.

"Humans should neither eat nor exploit animals.",

False

"I am equally concerned about the inhabitants of my country and those of other the countries.",

False

"I do not have any problem if other official languages are added or replace the already existing official language in my country.",

False.

"If two countries have similar economies, social systems and environmental norms, then the free market between them has no negative impact.",

True

"In some specific conditions, the death penalty is justified.",

I suppose in some instances.

"Individuals who get out of prison should be accompanied in their reinsertion.",

That actually seems a good idea.

"Insurrection is necessary to deeply change society.",

Idk

"It is a small group that consciously and secretly controls the world.",

lol yeah probably.

"It is acceptable that some industry sectors are private.",

True

"It is acceptable that there are rich and poor people.",

True.

"It is better to arrest someone potentially dangerous preventively rather than taking the risk of having them committing a crime.",

False. That's insane!

"It is important that health should stay a public matter.",

True

"It is important to encourage an agriculture that maintains a food biodiversity, even if the output is inferior.",

False. (This is an issue?)

"It is legitimate for a country to intervene militarily to defend its economic interests.",

Of course!

"It is merit that explains differences of wealth between two individuals.",

Only somewhat true.

"It is necessary to avoid private monopoly.",

True

"It is necessary to implement assemblies to ration our production to the consumers according to their needs.",

False

"It is necessary to massively invest in research to improve productivity.",

Massively? False.

"It is necessary to remove regulations in labour legislation to encourage firms to hire.",

False.

"It is necessary to teach history in order to create a sense of belonging to the nation.",

False.

"It is not acceptable that human actions should lead to the extinction of species.",

True. (Why do they confuse the question with "not"?)

"It is unfair to set a minimal penalty for an offense or a crime.",

True. Let judges judge.

"Justice should always take into consideration the context and the past of the condemned and adapt their penalty accordingly.",

Of course!

"Loans contracted in the public sphere (State, regions, collectivities...) should not necessarily be refunded.",

Not sure what is asked.

"Looking for one's own profit is healthy for the economy.",

Mostly false, but somewhat true.

"Maintaining strong economic growth should be an objective for the government.",

True

"Market economy is optimal when it is not regulated.",

False

"Marriage should be abolished.",

False.

"Mass strike is a good way to acquire new rights.",

True. (Not that I advocate it)

"Members of a nation or culture have some unchangeable characteristics that define them.",

True

"Minimal levels of salary should be ensured to make sure that a worker can live of her/his work.",

True

"Multiculturalism is a threat to our society.",

Idk. If one overtakes another, then it's no longer multi. If it's eternally multi, then it's probably ok. Good fences make good neighbors.

"My country must pay for the damages caused by the crimes it commited in other countries.",

Seems fair.

"My religion must be spread as widely as possible.",

LOL no

"National Chauvinism during sport competitions is not acceptable.",

Why wouldn't it be acceptable? The purpose of sports is mock war.

"No one should get rich from owning a business, housing, or land.",

False. (Gloom, I hope you didn't say true to this one lol)

"Nobody is by nature predisposed to criminality.",

False.

"Nowadays employees are free to choose when signing a contract with their future employer",

True

"Nuclear fission, when well maintained, is a good source of energy.",

False

"Offshoring and outsourcing are necessary evils to improve production.",

True

"Order and authority should be respected in all circumstances.",

False.

"Patents should not exist.",

False.

"People need to stand up for their ideals, even if it leads them to betray their country.",

True

"Preserving non urban ecosystems is more important than creating jobs.",

Somewhat true. Don't get crazy, but don't wipe out the land either.

"Prisons should no longer exist.",

False.

"Reduction of waste should be done by reducing production.",

False.

"Research produced by my country should not be available to other countries.",

False. We should help each other.

"Revenues and capital should be taxed to redistribute wealth.",

Absolutely true!

"Revolutions will always end up in a bad way.",

False.

"Sabotage is legitimate under certain conditions.",

False.

"School should mostly teach our values, traditions and fundamental knowledge.",

Why would that not be true?

"Selfishness is the overriding drive in the human species, no matter the context.",

True

"Sexual assaults are partly caused by men's natural impulse.",

Well duh

"Sexual orientation is a social construct",

False.

"Social assistance deters people from working.",

False.

"Social differences between ethnic groups cannot be explained by biology.",

Somewhat false.

"Some sectors or type of employment should be financially supported.",

True?

"Space colonization is a good solution for supplying the lack of raw material on Earth (iron, rare metals, fuel...) ",

False. Seems silly

"State-run companies should be managed like private ones and follow the logic of the market (competition, profitability...).",

Somewhat true.

"Technological progress must not to change society too quickly.",

True

"The age of retirement should be lowered.",

Hey that's a good idea.

"The categories “women” and “men” are social constructs that should be given up.",

False. Insane!

"The fact that some schools and universities are private is not a problem.",

True

"The filing and storage of personal records should be delimited strictly and database cross-checking should be forbidden.",

True

"The influence of religion should decrease.",

True

"The labor market enslave workers.",

True

"The main goal of a couple is to make at least one child.",

False.

"The maximum allowed hours in the legal work week should be increased.",

Idk

"The police should be armed.",

Well I guess so

"The purpose of the judiciary system should be to punish those who went against the law.",

True

"The right to be anonymous on Internet should be guaranteed.",

True

"The sacrifice of some civil liberties is a necessity in order to be protected from terrorist acts.",

Anyone answering true to this ought to swing from a tree.

"The social roles of women and men can partly be explained by biological differences.",

True

"The State should be abolished.",

False.

"The values of my country are superior to those of other countries.",

Somewhat true.

"Traditions should be questioned.",

Questioned? Yes.

"Transforming ecosystems durably to increase the quality of life of human beings is legitimate.",

I guess

"Transgender individuals will never really be of the gender they would like to be.",

Probably true

"Transhumanism will be beneficial because it will allow us to improve our capacities.",

Idk

"Violence against individuals is never productive.",

Never? False. Rarely? True.

"Wage labour is a form of theft from the worker by companies.",

True

"We must fight against global warming.",

False.

"We need to establish a monarchy to federate the people and preserve our sovereignty.",

:lol: False.

"We need to make compromises with the opposition to apply our ideas.",

Maybe.

"We should accept changes in our way of consuming food to limit the exploitation of nature.",

Idk

"We should always distance ourselves from protestors who use violence.",

That's wise, yes.

If anyone has an issue with an answer, hit me up!
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Silhouette » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:36 am

PolitiScales.jpg
My Result
PolitiScales.jpg (185.34 KiB) Viewed 2823 times
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:12 pm

Zero Sum

Not just grossly simplistic but actually quite intentional in that deregulation is how the internationalists gain control of entire governments. It is their door inside the reins of power within government.

It is exactly why the United States went from a regulatory state capitalist nation in the 1960's to a deregulated capitalist nation run by private corporations in the 1980's. (Thanks to that cunt Ayn Rand and the libertarian movement that is over shadowed by neoconservatives.)

Deregulated capitalism is so powerful in the United States that it practically has taken over the entire republican party. You would think the democratic party as the opposite party would support regulations more but they're equally for deregulation. (No surprise as both parties are cheerleading whores for Wallstreet.)

Agreed, there was more socialism and prosperity piror to the 80s, and both parties are now practically completely capitalist and corporatist.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:20 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:This thread needs more revolutionaries since the power structure has essentially bought off all of government. You can't reform a corrupt system from the inside out as the only way to change it is to violently topple it over and replace it. In time this will become obvious to even the most ardent reformists.

Well, as you say, revolutionary balkanization may be possible if there's an economic or environmental collapse, and there could very well be one soon any day, it's only a matter of time, our civilization is totally unsustainable.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:29 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Yea, overall you're centrist.
Overall I'm left wing, particularly on ecological and economic matters, but I'm an essentialist and a nationalist, and divided on rehabilitation/punishment and progressivism/conservatism.

As Zero Sum points out, it's interesting how both you and Mr. Reasonable are regulatory capitalists (corporatists).
The MSM tends to lump regulation with socialism and deregulation with capitalism, but in both peoples minds and the real world, it doesn't often work that way.
This is an example of how mainstream politics is grossly simplistic.

I'm not sure I'd identify as a corporatist. I think the free market should be free within bounds set by regulation and wouldn't call myself a communist nor a capitalist, but sensiblist because it's not sensible to let the market run unchecked nor be tied down.

I wonder which questions we answered differently. I looked for a list of the questions to no avail.

So you think things should perhaps be a little more socialist than today, but not much.
Myself I think capitalism should almost completely be destroyed, and replaced with a combination of green socialism and syndicalism.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:33 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Overall, Zero Sum's test results could be summarized as right wing on social issues, and left wing on economic issues.
Wendy's results are similar, but she's in favor of rehabilitation and divided on revolution/reformation.
I suspect women will tend to shy away from punitive and revolutionary violence.
Mr. Reasonable's test results could also be characterized as centrist, altho on social issues he's more left wing and economic he's more right, in contrast to Zero Sum's test results.

Bear in mind Mr R was asleep through half of it ;) I must say, the test did seem to drag on forever and I was about to bail before scrolling up to find I only had 2 questions left.

For me it wasn't long at all.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:41 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Overall, Zero Sum's test results could be summarized as right wing on social issues, and left wing on economic issues.
Wendy's results are similar, but she's in favor of rehabilitation and divided on revolution/reformation.
I suspect women will tend to shy away from punitive and revolutionary violence.
Mr. Reasonable's test results could also be characterized as centrist, altho on social issues he's more left wing and economic he's more right, in contrast to Zero Sum's test results.

Yes, women being more emotional almost always shy away from violence. In an ideal world we wouldn't need to utilize violence or war but unfortunately this world isn't ideal where it is necessary to implement both. For now men safeguard existence utilizing extremes so that women can have security, comfort, and peace of mind from both internal or external enemies.

There is unfortunately not a peaceful alternative to everything and women don't like hearing that. I've tried to convince Wendy of this but she always retorts that I'm wrong. 8)

Reformation is preferable, but not always possible, as time drags on, it's looking increasingly less likely.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:50 pm

Serendipper

"No one should get rich from owning a business, housing, or land.",

False. (Gloom, I hope you didn't say true to this one lol)

While people who're more productive at sustainably producing things (particularly healthy ones) should be more rewarded, (no I don't believe we should all have the exact same income) nobody needs, nor deserves to be a billionaire, or perhaps even a multimillionaire.
To say class disparity has gotten way out of hand, is an understatement, anything you could say about it, would be an understatement, it's insane.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:04 pm

Silhouette's center-left on almost every issue the test deals with except for he's an 'essentialist', interesting.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:20 pm

Gloominary wrote:Serendipper

"No one should get rich from owning a business, housing, or land.",

False. (Gloom, I hope you didn't say true to this one lol)

While people who're more productive at sustainably producing things (particularly healthy ones) should be more rewarded, (no I don't believe we should all have the exact same income) nobody needs, nor deserves to be a billionaire, or perhaps even a multimillionaire.
To say class disparity has gotten way out of hand, is an understatement, anything you could say about it, would be an understatement, it's insane.

Oh you did! Bad Gloom! Bad! :D

I agree people shouldn't be billionaires, but they aren't billionaires from selling product, but selling stock (Bill Gates didn't get rich selling software, but owning shares). The desire to get rich from selling products is what puts products on the market. No authority could dream-up the products we have and anticipate what people are going to want to buy; hence free market competition.

I guess the question is a bit ambiguous relying on subjective interpretations of "rich", but it's not "filthy rich" and it's more than just "scraping by" because if I could only scrape by, then I wouldn't go through all the trouble of running a business. I want to be rich in terms of having more money than I need to live happily and if I can't do that, then send me welfare checks.

Land and housing, eh, I'm a little more pliable on that.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:26 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Serendipper

"No one should get rich from owning a business, housing, or land.",

False. (Gloom, I hope you didn't say true to this one lol)

While people who're more productive at sustainably producing things (particularly healthy ones) should be more rewarded, (no I don't believe we should all have the exact same income) nobody needs, nor deserves to be a billionaire, or perhaps even a multimillionaire.
To say class disparity has gotten way out of hand, is an understatement, anything you could say about it, would be an understatement, it's insane.

Oh you did! Bad Gloom! Bad! :D

I agree people shouldn't be billionaires, but they aren't billionaires from selling product, but selling stock (Bill Gates didn't get rich selling software, but owning shares). The desire to get rich from selling products is what puts products on the market. No authority could dream-up the products we have and anticipate what people are going to want to buy; hence free market competition.

I guess the question is a bit ambiguous relying on subjective interpretations of "rich", but it's not "filthy rich" and it's more than just "scraping by" because if I could only scrape by, then I wouldn't go through all the trouble of running a business. I want to be rich in terms of having more money than I need to live happily and if I can't do that, then send me welfare checks.

Land and housing, eh, I'm a little more pliable on that.

There's no reason why government, and democratic corporations owned and controlled by workers can't do this just as well or better than individuals, government and democratic corporations already do to some extent, as a portion of the economy is already managed by them.

Nationalized or unionized (which all big businesses must become) corporations can, and do anticipate what consumers want and are willing to pay for.

If someone invests money in collectivized corporations, there should be a limit to how much money they can make from their investment.
Fundamentally corporations belong to the state or workers, not to individuals who merely own stock, there must be limits to stock, after a while stock belongs to the state or workers.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:49 pm

Gloominary wrote:There's no reason why government, and democratic corporations owned and controlled by workers can't do this just as well or better than individuals, government and democratic corporations already do to some extent, as a portion of the economy is already managed by them.

If someone invests money in nationalized or unionized corporations, there should be a limit to how much money they can make from that, fundamentally corporations belong to the state and to workers, not to individuals who merely own stock, there must be limits to stock, after a while it belongs to the state or workers.

That seems a lot like Richard Wolff's workers coop idea. Are you familiar? https://www.democracyatwork.info/

But that doesn't stop people from getting rich selling products, it only spreads the profits among the employees. Ultimately, the incentive to produce is to get rich.

Instead of all that, why not tax the piss out of the obscenely rich and redistribute?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:08 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:There's no reason why government, and democratic corporations owned and controlled by workers can't do this just as well or better than individuals, government and democratic corporations already do to some extent, as a portion of the economy is already managed by them.

If someone invests money in nationalized or unionized corporations, there should be a limit to how much money they can make from that, fundamentally corporations belong to the state and to workers, not to individuals who merely own stock, there must be limits to stock, after a while it belongs to the state or workers.

That seems a lot like Richard Wolff's workers coop idea. Are you familiar? https://www.democracyatwork.info/

But that doesn't stop people from getting rich selling products, it only spreads the profits among the employees. Ultimately, the incentive to produce is to get rich.

Instead of all that, why not tax the piss out of the obscenely rich and redistribute?

There must be limits to production, especially mass production.
Government will set limits, to protect nature, and to protect our health, prevent people from producing stuff that's significantly more of a cost to ourselves and nature than a benefit.
Sociologists and economists will work together with philosophers and the public to decide what these limits ought to be.

If we don't do something like what I'm proposing, if we just keep growing and growing, humanity will go extinct, or at least collapse back into the dark ages, as has happened to western civilization twice already on record.
Minoan and Mycenaean civilization collapsed, Greco-Roman civilization collapsed and Euro-American civilization will too, but if we learn from history, we can perhasp avert a total collapse that'll place our species in real danger of extinction.

There's nothing fantastic about what I'm saying, civilizations always at some point decline or collapse.
It's inevitable, and once we recognize that, we can begin taking reasonable steps as individuals and a collective to prepare.
Our civilization doesn't need one or two touch-ups, it needs a massive overhaul, to dramatically change course and immediately, or we will perish.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:17 pm

Gloominary wrote:There must be limits to production, especially mass production.
Government will set limits, to protect nature, and to protect our health, prevent people from producing stuff that's significantly more of a cost to ourselves and nature than a benefit.
Sociologists and economists will work together with philosophers and the public to decide what these limits ought to be.

If we don't do something like what I'm proposing, if we just keep growing and growing, humanity will go extinct, or at least collapse back into the dark ages, as has happened to western civilization twice already on record.
Minoan and Mycenaean civilization collapsed, Greco-Roman civilization collapsed and Euro-American civilization will too, but if we learn from history, we can perhasp avert a total collapse that'll place our species in real danger of extinction.
There's nothing fantastic about what I'm saying, civilizations always at some point decline or collapse.
It's inevitable, and once we recognize that, we can begin taking reasonable steps as individuals and a collective to prepare.
Our civilization doesn't need one or two touch-ups, it needs a massive overhaul, to dramatically change course and immediately, or we will perish.

What overproduction do you have in mind? Do you have an example? I haven't considered that to be a problem. On the other hand, setting limits is terrifying because it could produce a shortage and cause artificial scarcity or it could result in massive overproduction.

Yeah civilizations collapse, but obviously they come out of it because here we are. Collapse is a natural part of forward progress, no? Even if we go extinct, we could come back billions of years later and be none the wiser.

I'm not sure Alan Watts would like your heavy-handed approach ;)
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:49 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:There must be limits to production, especially mass production.
Government will set limits, to protect nature, and to protect our health, prevent people from producing stuff that's significantly more of a cost to ourselves and nature than a benefit.
Sociologists and economists will work together with philosophers and the public to decide what these limits ought to be.

If we don't do something like what I'm proposing, if we just keep growing and growing, humanity will go extinct, or at least collapse back into the dark ages, as has happened to western civilization twice already on record.
Minoan and Mycenaean civilization collapsed, Greco-Roman civilization collapsed and Euro-American civilization will too, but if we learn from history, we can perhasp avert a total collapse that'll place our species in real danger of extinction.
There's nothing fantastic about what I'm saying, civilizations always at some point decline or collapse.
It's inevitable, and once we recognize that, we can begin taking reasonable steps as individuals and a collective to prepare.
Our civilization doesn't need one or two touch-ups, it needs a massive overhaul, to dramatically change course and immediately, or we will perish.

What overproduction do you have in mind? Do you have an example? I haven't considered that to be a problem. On the other hand, setting limits is terrifying because it could produce a shortage and cause artificial scarcity or it could result in massive overproduction.

Yeah civilizations collapse, but obviously they come out of it because here we are. Collapse is a natural part of forward progress, no? Even if we go extinct, we could come back billions of years later and be none the wiser.

I'm not sure Alan Watts would like your heavy-handed approach ;)

WW3 fought over diminishing resources will plunge us back into the stone age, if it doesn't see our extinction.
WW3 (between the US and USSR) nearly happened at least once already, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that was at the peak of our prosperity in many respects.
When climate change really starts taking off, peak oil and uranium, an economic collapse or coronal mass ejection, and they will, one or more of these catastrophes will occur and all's it takes is one, WW3 will practically be unavoidable.

In the near future I will make a thread going into detail about what forms of production I wish to cut back on, but for now, the bottom line is this: something like 90% of our economy doesn't need to exist.
We, particularly the rich, but even the poor in some respects, consume far, way too much.
There's too much hedonism, materialism, inefficiency and waste, and much of it will come to an end, one way or the other.

My approach thus far has been mostly top-down, outside-in where as Alan Watt's approach was more bottom-up, inside-out in dealing with these, and other issues, and I don't see why we can't combine both approaches, they needn't be mutually exclusive, in fact they're mutually conducive, the objective is basically the same: harmony between man and nature, man and man, and man and himself, whereas what we have now is a kind of havoc, that's been dressed up nice.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:06 pm

Gloominary wrote:WW3 fought over diminishing resources will plunge us back into the stone age, if it doesn't see our extinction.
WW3 (between the US and USSR) nearly happened at least once already, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that was at the peak of our prosperity in many respects.

Yeah I used to think that but after Fukushima I'm not sure. Plants and animals are thriving there.

People are more prosperous now than in the 60s. Machines are doing so much more.

When climate change really starts taking off,

I don't think we can do much about that.

peak oil

We're drowning in oil, right? A year or so ago we had tankers backed up in the ocean sitting there for lack of a place to put it all. Bad grades of oil actually went to negative prices (had to pay for someone to take it).

and uranium, an economic collapse or coronal mass ejection, and they will, one or more of these catastrophes will occur and all's it takes is one, WW3 will practically be unavoidable.

But there is nothing we can do to prevent coronal mass ejections.

In the near future I will make a thread going into detail about what forms of production I wish to cut back on,

Cant' give me one example of a product we have too much of (besides oil lol)?

but for now, the bottom line is this: something like 90% of our economy doesn't need to exist.

Lots of needless jobs; that's true.

We, particularly the rich, but even the poor in some respects, consume far, way too much.
There's too much hedonism, materialism, inefficiency and waste, and much of it will come to an end, one way or the other.

Houses are too big.

My approach thus far has been mostly top-down, outside-in where as Alan Watt's approach was more bottom-up, inside-out in dealing with these, and other issues, and I don't see why we can't combine both approaches, they needn't be mutually exclusive, in fact they're mutually conducive, the objective is basically the same: harmony between man and nature, man and man, and man and himself, where as what we have now is a kind of havoc, that's been dressed up nice.

Here's a bit I transcribed:

We're always trying to find a way to be one up.
So how do I not do that?
Why do you want to know?
Well, I'd be better that way.
Yeah but why do you want to be better? You see, the reason you want to be better is the reason why you aren't. We aren't better because we want to be. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Because all the do-gooders in the world, whether they are doing good for others or doing it for themselves, are trouble-makers. On the basis of, "Kindly let me help you or you'll drown", said the monkey, putting the fish safely up a tree.

How do you know what's good for others? How do you know what's good for you?!? If you say you want to improve, then you ought to know what's good for you. But obviously you don't because if you did, you would be improved. So you don't know.

If you ask me for enlightenment, how can you ask me for enlightenment? If you don't know what it is, how do you know you want it? Any concept you have of it will be simply a way of trying to perpetuate the situation you're already in. If you think you know what you're going out for, all you're doing is seeking the past... what you already know... what you already experienced. Therefore, that's not it, is it? Because you say you're looking for something quite new. But what's your conception of something new? You can only think about it in terms of something old.

We WASPs have been on a rampage for the last 100+ years to improve the world. We have given the benefits of our culture, our religion, our technology to everybody. And we have insisted that they receive the benefits of our culture and even our political styles,,, our democracy. "You better be democratic, or we'll shoot you." And having conferred these blessings all over the place, we wonder why everybody hates us. Sometimes doing good to others, and even doing good to one's self, is amazingly destructive because it's full of conceit.


His position seems to be that there is no way to tell what is good, and yet you want to control every minutiae of everything. Isn't that inconsistent?
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Silhouette » Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:19 am

I moved away from supporting revolution when I appreciated just how much suffering is necessary to actually get enough people to resort to similar ideas about revolting on their own accord - which is a lot. Way more than we have in the West, despite all the huge relative inequality - and I wouldn't change that for anything.

In the minds of capitalists, this is a huge success, and it is in many ways, but I refuse to believe that such success needs to come at the cost that it does. As much as we need revolution to bring about less of this cost, it will take a lot of reform first, in order to get anywhere near the point when revolution can happen. Nobody reacts well to sudden revolutionary change, not even the instigators - you have to take into account a kind of human inertia - even to the best of ideas there will be mental and emotional resistance.

Gloominary wrote:Silhouette's center-left on almost every issue the test deals with except for he's an 'essentialist', interesting.

I think so too, though on a scale of Existentialist to Essentialist, I am overtly Existentialist. In as far as things are relatively more biologically or socially determined, I happen to know the answer, which is that they are an interaction of environment with genetics - and I'm guessing the test interpreted that as me basically saying that it's mostly all nature over nurture. This is a fault in the test, and pretty much all of these kinds of tests. Upon facing most of these questions I found myself thinking "well it depends", which these tests can't take into account, so you kinda have to judge which answer best reflects a kind of average of all the different variables at play - that was the best I could do.

Put another way, I regard Leftism as a potentially essential part of humanity - a healthy expression of egoism even. It's simple reasoning to understand that helping others in a team helps yourself better than competing with everyone, and a better reputation through exemplified trustworthiness over trying to take opportunistic advantage has far better long term advantages. Competing is great, but only within a context of cooperation.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3310
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Gloominary » Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:50 pm

Silhouette

I think so too, though on a scale of Existentialist to Essentialist, I am overtly Existentialist.

The word essentialist is kind of misleading, it's a more metaphysical word, when this issue is over biology versus culture.
They could've used the word naturism, versus constructivism, to avoid confusion.
I also lean existentialist over essentialist, and I suspect many-most people who're philosophically inclined lean existentialist, these days.

In as far as things are relatively more biologically or socially determined, I happen to know the answer, which is that they are an interaction of environment with genetics - and I'm guessing the test interpreted that as me basically saying that it's mostly all nature over nurture. This is a fault in the test, and pretty much all of these kinds of tests. Upon facing most of these questions I found myself thinking "well it depends", which these tests can't take into account, so you kinda have to judge which answer best reflects a kind of average of all the different variables at play - that was the best I could do.

Right, just because you recognize nature plays a role, doesn't mean you think it plays the exclusive or even the, essential, role in determining human variability, that is a limitation of the test.

Put another way, I regard Leftism as a potentially essential part of humanity - a healthy expression of egoism even. It's simple reasoning to understand that helping others in a team helps yourself better than competing with everyone, and a better reputation through exemplified trustworthiness over trying to take opportunistic advantage has far better long term advantages. Competing is great, but only within a context of cooperation.

For me there's a time for everything, a time for isolation, competition and symbiosis between individuals and groups, as well as a time for competitive symbiosis or collaboration, but extremists think it's right, or preferable to be one way all the time, or nearly always, they think like we're linearly moving from a dark epoch of isolation and competition to a radiant one of cooperation.
Some even go so far as to suppose we're inevitably eternally and infinitely ascending, becoming some Godlike race or cosmic supraorganism of perfect unity and symbiosis.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby Meno_ » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:52 pm

What about Trump's possible trump card of.playing.footsie with China/Norrh Vietnam, Russia to reward.them for 2 years of relative silence.until he can indeed.pardon some.people.and.fire r.Mueller.. If this.was.Vegas, i'd wager on at least 3/1 on this.scenario, a super.skirmish for the test
of.dealing all the right cards.

If .this high card gamble will save the world, why not.go for.a pseudo isolationism, as an artful deal. Machiavelli couldn't have done it better.
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Political Testing: Post Your Political Acumen

Postby omar » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:31 am

Alright.
Here are my results:

Constructivism: 29% Essentialism: 45%

Rehabilitative justice: 31% Punitive justice: 29%

Conservatism: 31% Internationalism: 26%:

Communism: 19% Capitalism: 50%

Regulationnism: 33% Laissez-faire: 29%

Ecology: 31% Productivism: 17%

Revolution: 45% Reformism: 50%

Additional characteristics

Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Serendipper

cron