Anything school tells you is wrong. There's my views.
What if school says it's wrong?
I would be a little reluctant to declare the law of gravity wrong, but I do agree that there is a ridiculous amount of pressure to establish the educational system as the sole authority on truth and fact. While rigid overgeneralising rules are not the way to go at it, I do believe that like science some hundreds of years ago the educational system should start to question authority and rely more on proof. While I do not believe that proving everything in one's lifetime is a viable option, I would suggest simply a broader array of sources than just a national board of education that makes all the curriculums.
For an example the local educational system here teaches in all biology classes under ecological conservation that electric transport is a inefficient and in fact useless alternative to petrol driven transportation, which is in fact utter non-sense. Electric transport is in the end a lot more fuel efficient and produces a lot less greenhouse gases no matter where you get your electricity from and not only are they up to par with the with petrol vehicles, they are more user-friendly as casual transportation. Well, I could go on, but you get the point with electric transportation, no reason not to use and all the reasons to be better for all of us. Except for the private sector it seems, who seem to fight them at every corner.
I've met a lot of specialists in their fields, who absolutely despise the factual inaccuracies of the educational system here. In stead of making children to rely on the board of education for their information, schools should promote discussion and debate providing as much raw information as possible from experts directly and guidance if needed.
This brings me to the matter of political tests. I agree with everyone that the test I posted isn't perfectly neutral, it was merely the first one I got hold of. While I don't really think there are any absolutely neutral tests on this matter, I'm still very interested if someone has a better one to offer.
[No mr. text-wallie you have to stay outside]
I do not believe myself special, which is actually quite frustrating as it is, as I don't really like the human race as the way it is and thus the fact that I AM biologically human unnerves me somewhat. Go figure. Also, in my view I do not see self-interest as the main drive, but instead the fact that everything we do is from our own personal view point, not a collective point for an example. I guess it rather fussy to everyone else and I should and maybe will write a book at one point about it to explain my ideas on this.
I actually don't really get the question, I don't see the problem. The point with anarchism is to eliminate the possibility that someone can live off the fat of others(this is why I don't like "anarcho"-capitalism), which is in the end damaging to the whole. While I acknowledge that some might perform better than other, but I don't see why they should be subsidised. They'll be better off the amount that the direct result of their labour is better. As I understand, the Americans understand Anarchy quite radically different from us Eurofreaks, so it might be that.
Now, I wanted to say something and now I forgot. Anyways, whats up with the Americans anyway? Wasn't everyone pissed off with Republican conservatives just a moment ago? How come everyone seems to be taking crackshots at Obama now? I don't get the two party system at all. Representative democracy is bad enough, but with only two choices it's quite a ways off the horrible side. Could someone give me their respective of this?
I guess the EU isn't any better. I bet 99.9% of us hasn't got a clue what's going on in Brussels.
Now we need a religion debate, to really get the muck flying 
It occured to me. Might be interesting if we survive this thread and get something out of it. People seem to be a little reluctant to challenge opinions of others and put up their own to be challenged. I understand the fear of flames, but we wont get anywhere without debate.
Are there no right-wingers on the netrowebmachine?
Most people would probably call me right wing, but I don't want to subscribe to any pre-existing set of ideas.
EDIT: Silly me, that's not what ascribe means.
Sure you are, I used to think I was a righty as well when I was in school and defended the idea of communism as a fundamentally good one.
But seriously. You believe in negative liberty, but what about positive liberty. Should a person forced to starve to death because he can't pay for food? Should society defend our ability to fulfill our aspirations?
I think Communism is superior to Capitalism, but mankind is best suited to Capitalism, since we're so competitive and ambitious.
I don't believe that humans are competitive in nature. Rather capitalism makes everything competitive by making it necessary to achieve personal goals, even survival. Communism can be successful if it were driven directly by the needs of the individuals. It couldn't be set in place by force or with indirect measures.
I see myself as a neo-communist. Basically, communism mixed with some business freedom, but most of all, democracy.
It should be more of everyone-is-part-of-the-state-and-has-their-say. I believe businesses should be allowed freedom, but the taxes on max income should go up and min income should go up. You can still make more then your fellow human, but not enough to raise you to a next class.
Also, their should be a huge emphasis on anti-corruption. Since power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts, their should ALWAYS be someone to tap you on your shoulder when you've done something wrong.
Well, in communism you wouldn't have property, no property no business, and no money, which means no income nor taxes. What you described is a sort of socialism or a more strict social democracy.
The problem with this is that you'll kill of the main drive of capitalism while leaving it still in place in the society, in my view at least. You take away the motivation that people get from getting more stuff, so you'll inevitably end up with a sort of stagnation like in the Soviet Union(there was no communism in the CCCP, its a fact and they acknowledged it in the constant speeches party members gave telling that communism will come in another 50 years. If there had been communism then there wouldn't have been money or property).
Poll
Author
Topic: Political Spectrum (Read 10630 times)