Home

TheSinner.net

For all you Closet Politicians:

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re:

Postby David Bean on Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:16 pm

Both of these surveys are flawed. Marco's is, because it's out of date vis a vis the current political leadership, it equates being pro-free market with being pro-war (when the US Libertarian Party, for instance, has always been opposed to foreign interventions, and there really isn't any good reason to equate the two), and the graphs don't work.

The Political Compass, meanwhile, keeps asking us to make judgements based upon false dichotomies. For instance, how the hell am I supposed to answer the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations", given that I don't believe there's a conflict of interests? Do I say that I strongly disagree, because I think the premise is balls, or that I strongly agree, because if I did think there was a trade off then of course I'd prefer the common interests of humanity to those of corporations, or do I pick one in the middle so as not to skew the results, or do I just draw my answer from a hat? How do I answer a question on international law, since, having studied it, I realise that most of it doesn't actually exist? Actually, I tend to think the whole of that first page is a lot of arbitrary nonsense.

...Which, on second thoughts, wouldn't distinguish it from the rest of the table. Here's another one: no, I don't think that a company would necessarily value protection of the environment, so I have to vote in favour of regulation. Except, hang on, that's going to make them think I'm a lefty, when the kind of regulation I favour is the assignment of property rights. Whoops, that's another one down the tube!

Here's another: "It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society." What do I do with that? The only people I can think of to whom that applies is people who gamble at casinos for a living, and I regret them, but I also realise that the author thought he was referring to (for instance) hedge fund managers, but I wholly disagree with his assessment of their place in society.

Luckily I managed to end up with the respectably libertarian score of:

Economic Left/Right: 6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

So I guess there were enough decent questions to make up for those. That, or I just managed to mess up the system well enough. :)

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby David Bean on Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:25 pm

Looks like I accidentally re-made Novium's point - sorry about that. I guess I was more emphasising the problems from a libertarian perspective. However, re. Nick82, that probably is about right - Sharon was substantially more authoritarian than Blair (tho' to my mind he's a bloody fascist to boot), but Israeli politics tends to be skewed to the economic 'left' of ours anyway (the Labour opposition there at the moment are proper socialists).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Nick82 on Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:22 am

fair enough.
Nick82
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:41 pm

Re:

Postby Ga on Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:54 pm

Last time this thing came up I turned out to be more left wing than Stalin and more libral than Gandi...

Looks like I still am:

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51


[hr]

If everything in life had a point, life would be pointless
If everything in life had a point, life would be pointless
Ga
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 12:26 am

Re:

Postby novium on Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:11 pm

well, yes, but I am a libertarian for all intents and purposes- at least within US politics- if all things were equal, I would probably not be a libertarian (I don't believe in a weak or nonexistant federal government), but in an age when no one seems to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and democrats and the republicans fight over the government not wasting enough money, and they both want it big and more central and for people to have fewer civil liberties....well, where else could I turn?

Quoting David Bean from 19:25, 16th Jun 2006
Looks like I accidentally re-made Novium's point - sorry about that. I guess I was more emphasising the problems from a libertarian perspective. However, re. Nick82, that probably is about right - Sharon was substantially more authoritarian than Blair (tho' to my mind he's a bloody fascist to boot), but Israeli politics tends to be skewed to the economic 'left' of ours anyway (the Labour opposition there at the moment are proper socialists).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7


[hr]

sed tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.
Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen
novium
User avatar
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:04 pm

Previous

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests