Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

That's strange, I didn't pick up on that. No one would be stupid enough to say that Europe is centrist. There's fascism in Italy (Berlusconi, wonderful corrupt leader, fond of young girls), democratic socialism in Sweden, conservativism in Britain, and only science knows what else in the other countries.

1) Berlusconi is not Fascist.
2) Some of his allies, like the Italian Social Movement and the Social Action party are post-fascist. Not fascist. Post-fascist. (EDIT: Well, they call themselves not fascist anymore. Their foes beg to differ.)

[Christes]

Anyway, it just seemed that way.  Using opinions from Europe to argue that America is almost universally conservative is rooting the center in Europe, that's all.

The US political center is right-slanted compared to most developed nations, not just Europe. To argue that all of them are left-slanted, while the real political center just so happens to precisely fall where it does in the US, is a pretty nice example of American Exceptionalism.

Where did I say America was centrist?  My point is that it's all relative.  Just like calling any point the center of the universe is a fallacy, calling any political opinion the middle is as well.  If you look at all social opinions that have ever been held by anyone, we're all insanely left-wing.

[Megaman]

I don't need a silly test to decide who I am. I say I'm centerist so I am centerist.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

You seem to be assuming the Europeans are the centrist ones.

honestly i think european and americen political systems are not that comparabel, some notions (like republican, democrat) have no meaning for us.
even european countrys have different views on politics, some idees migth be normal in one country but too extremist in an other ...

[shadowclasper]

Dead center of the green Left-Libertarian quadrant.

I'm pleased they're using the PROPER definition of Libertarianism, that established by Rousseau's The Social Contract, not the modern party that is FAR more about "Government shouldn't interfere with business" than it is about the rights of the people.

[Rezan]

I'm pleased they're using the PROPER definition of Libertarianism, that established by Rousseau's The Social Contract, not the modern party that is FAR more about "Government shouldn't interfere with business" than it is about the rights of the people.

Is that seriously what modern libertarians stand for? There's already a term for that, and it's called economic liberalism. It caused the horrible living and environmental conditions in the 1700ds and 1800ds. Almost every nation that followed that premise decided to start regulating it, because people could not be trusted to do what was good for the people (even though Adam Smith himself was a true believer in humanity, and was by no means a selfish Arch Conservative, his economic liberalism became what we today would associate with LCS' arch-conservativism, simply put)

[shadowclasper]

Thank you. And yes. It is what the modern Libertarian party (in the US at least) proclaims. It's basically "HEY! REMEMBER HOW AWESOME THE GUILDED AGE WAS! LET'S GO BACK TO THAT!" -_- you'd THINK that they'd consider the great depression and the current recession proof enough that deregulating the economy is complete idiocy, but no... they don't... they claim if there'd been no regulation AT ALL then this wouldn't have happened... I've yet to have one tell me exactly how regulating caused either of those events...

[Alexhans]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

And this is me:


lots of questions were a bit ambiguous... I'd openly debate most of them and probably change my views with good reasons.

[Rezan]

Thank you. And yes. It is what the modern Libertarian party (in the US at least) proclaims. It's basically "HEY! REMEMBER HOW AWESOME THE GUILDED AGE WAS! LET'S GO BACK TO THAT!" -_- you'd THINK that they'd consider the great depression and the current recession proof enough that deregulating the economy is complete idiocy, but no... they don't... they claim if there'd been no regulation AT ALL then this wouldn't have happened... I've yet to have one tell me exactly how regulating caused either of those events...

These are people who did not pay attention in history class in secondary school. The Industrial Revolution was greatly thanks to economic liberalism, however, it came at a price - namely the suffering of poor people, and horrible pollution (as I already mentioned). If anyone has ever pictured London with fog, then you have pictured the late 17th century (possibly mid-18th century) image of it - but it isn't fog. It's coal dust and smog, which slowly turned London's inhabitants' lungs black.

I expect smoking was healthier than not smoking back in those days (cleaner air).

And anyone who claims regulation "ruins things", please turn to the state of Norway, where everything is regulated. The UN recently announced Norway was the best country in the world to live in (based on 2007 stats, I'm sure we're still on top though - barely even noticed the "economic downturn"). There's also Sweden, which is far more successful in comparison to its somewhat scarcer resources and larger populace.

Note that both of these nations are democratic socialist nations (yes, evil socialism!) and both have better living conditions and equality than the US.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Yay! I am an Authothirian! (sp? so what?)

[Aldaris]

Yay! I am an Authothirian! (sp? so what?)

Authoritarian?

Well, I suppose that the way they're displayed here means you could argue for any side, anything else would be nothing but a bias worse than what people here are already being Angry Internet Men over. As long as you don't significantly inconvenience others you should be able to do, and especially think, what you feel like.

Personally, I think the worst part of that is the fact that entire statement is a political opinion.

Bleh, one of the few times a thread I start actually kicks of and it ends up on a predictable death spiral of Political Arguments On Teh Interwebs.

[Granite26]

There are also people who look at the history they were taught in school and decide they were lied to about what actually happened₁, that look at India and China today and decide that high polution is a necessary stage in industrialization₂, and who look at the poor factory worker and decide that he left the fields voluntarily to take the 'inhumane' factory job, so obviously he thinks he's better off, so maybe forcing him out of his job by refusing to buy Nikes isn't really in his best interests.

1: There's a lot of economists who believe that the Great Depression was exacerbated by FDRs actions (and coincidentally that far from doing 'nothing', Hoover was FDR lite)

2:  Again, there are people who point to the reduced pollution post-Industrial societies produce and suggest that the best way to reduce emissions is to help India and China develop faster, to get them over the hump.

(Sorry, I'm chronically incapable of letting onesided arguments I disagree with go unrebutted.  I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree at this point)

[Dwarmin]

I'm so boring. I'm sure you guys for can arrange for a liberal kidnapping/brainwashing session.

[narskie]

 I got -9.62, -8.67

"1: There's a lot of economists who believe that the Great Depression was exacerbated by FDRs actions (and coincidentally that far from doing 'nothing', Hoover was FDR lite)"

Economists from the Friedman Chicago school...  Keynesian economics work, it's been shown time and time again.  If you want to create jobs in an economic climate like this one we're in, the government has to do it.  No business is going to hire people when demand is low, no matter how much you lower taxes or give them "subsidies".  If you want people to get loans for starting businesses and buying homes, the government must take over the banks and issue low-interest loans to people, just like FDR did.  No bank is going to make business loans when unemployment is high and consumers are broke, no matter how many billions of welfare Bush and Obama gave the banks. 

It worked very well when FDR did it and was the reason for the robust middle class that lasted for decades. 

"2:  Again, there are people who point to the reduced pollution post-Industrial societies produce and suggest that the best way to reduce emissions is to help India and China develop faster, to get them over the hump."

People representing coal interests...  there's nothing written in stone that a country has to industrialize using fossil fuels.  Corporations are tyrannies, and like most tyrannies they resist change and innovation.  Since coal has been profitable in the past and they're used to exploiting it, rich people and the tyrannies they control don't see any reason not to keep using it.  So again it's up to government to provide the incentives and innovation for renewable sources of energy. 

In the case of China and India it's very important that the reigning superpower first change it's ways before we can begin to influence them to change.  That goes for clean energy, nuclear disarmament, honoring treaties and human rights etc.  As long as we have the biggest WMD stockpiles and emit the most pollution we're nothing but hypocrites and bad examples. 

[Rezan]

There are also people who look at the history they were taught in school and decide they were lied to about what actually happened1, that look at India and China today and decide that high polution is a necessary stage in industrialization2, and who look at the poor factory worker and decide that he left the fields voluntarily to take the 'inhumane' factory job, so obviously he thinks he's better off, so maybe forcing him out of his job by refusing to buy Nikes isn't really in his best interests.

1: There's a lot of economists who believe that the Great Depression was exacerbated by FDRs actions (and coincidentally that far from doing 'nothing', Hoover was FDR lite)

2:  Again, there are people who point to the reduced pollution post-Industrial societies produce and suggest that the best way to reduce emissions is to help India and China develop faster, to get them over the hump.

(Sorry, I'm chronically incapable of letting onesided arguments I disagree with go unrebutted.  I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree at this point)

We aren't talking about China or India here, we are talking about economic liberalism. China for instance is a nation that learns from its mistakes and history, and is influenced by communism, socialism and confucianism. Thusly China invests heavily in clean energy, unlike other "developed" nations like the US, which do NOT learn from their mistakes.

1. Name them and their celebrated work within economics. How have they benefitted society?

2. Frankly, right now, we're the problem, not China or India. China and India know very well that if they pollute too much, they're screwed. Not that we are setting a good example (the US in particular, using 8 times as many resources as the world can viable maintain if every nation did it).

"We" in this scenario refers to developed, wealthy nations.