Topic: Political compass! (who believes what?) - page 3. (Read 13588 times)

"Democracy sucks"... Let's vote (because that +/- is a voting system, something that is used normally for Democracy, it measures the will of the majority over an issue/point of view).

That doesn't even make sense.  What do you mean by democratic meausrement utility?

Nice trolling.

No, non-imposed emergent standards of how to use +/- is not coercive.  And there is no need to abide by the majority.  High-ranking forum members have decided to grant us the +/- system without invoking majority rule at all.  And if anyone of us don't like this particular forum rules, we are free to. fork ir by downloaing  a backup of the database and uploading it to our own server, and we can feel free to use our own modifed Simple Machines source cods with any plugons we want and can for our own rules and can invite and prohibit whomever we want.

Yeah! Let a DEMOCRATIC measurement utility be used by those who bash Democracy 
Isn't this funny or what?! I guess that's a big nag within Democracy, to be Democracy it has to allow those who opposite to live within.

+1

The only real standard is a defacto standard.  Let the emergent order decide how +/- should be used.

In general I give a nill regardless, but may be thinking about it.

Nevertheless it looks like a coercive way to abide by the majority... but what can be expected of anarchists? Their only issue with the state is that they're not in charge 

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

Side speaking, I believe the idea of that "+/-" was to use within market place as a sort of feedback and not to use as sort of "like" button in Facebook for political discussions... 
Using it here will render it so useless as... well... as the like button on Facebook is.

I weakly agree with a hue of lavender.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of how many subjects are to many.

I stated that early, on in the middle could still "strongly dis/agree so much" to a single subject that would kill if otherwise. So being in the middle means nothing, however being in the edges means to "strongly dis/agree" to way too much subjects.

Trust me, I've met plenty of "Centrists" and "Moderates" who are perfectly willing to put a bullet through my head if I don't obey.

I'll give that one under one premise, the options of this test are narrow, misses for an instance "neutral" positions; there're subjects you don't either agree or disagree, you just feel "it's not your business", so you wouldn't have a say about it. By narrowing the options also "strongly agree" could mean "yes, I do believe so very much" to "I would kill if it was otherwise".

Gandhi often went "against himself" in order to contain violence, he took the principle of non-violence high as India at his time was at civil war. But ended up by fractionate India into Pakistan and Bangladesh... maybe at long term it will prove to had been quite an high price to pay.

Strongly agree can mean a lot of stuffs.  It can mean for instance that you feel passionnate about it, and that you could debate during a long time with someone who disagree.  It can mean that you could be willing to put yourself in danger in order to defend this idea.  Or that you could put some money into it.

Gandhi (one of the famous people mentionned as a left libertarian in the politicalcompass website) strongly believed in his principles and yet he was non-violent.

!= but ~=

And obviously doesn't matter the kind of fanatic, nobody normally takes violence as a primary mean unless mindless bullies.

No. STRONGLY AGREE != will impose with force.

It's implicit within the "strongly agree". Let's say you "strongly agree" that those with pink shirts shouldn't pick the train, if you see a guy with a pink shirt in the train you'll try to put him away, if he's persistent your actions would move from an initial attempt of speech to a more violent and coercive reaction. Or if you're shy you'll feel inner revolt to have that guy there.
That's just plainly natural...

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

2+2 is abstract, means nothing nor have practical use by itself, within the real and practical sphere, which like or not is where we live, 2+2 even for the same kind may not mean 4. World and the Universe is not maths, as it tend to chaos.

On RC story you get all the flaws of the genesis of private property, thus men take more care of what they "own" than what they believe to be "public", the genesis of private property is... stealing.

RC is a demonstrative of morality of the time it was written, Friday doesn't come to be RC friendly neighbor, but RC's maiden, as it was "morale acceptable" at such time that a white guy is the "primarily owner" of everything he lays hands on. So RC doesn't only takeover ownership of the island - which happens to be already inhabited by "savages" - who for the morality of such time wasn't even "human" to take to account of ownership - but also take ownership of Friday.
And if RC is just a fictional character, the pioneers on the American West or Australia aren't but what they did wasn't much different than our imaginary Robinson Crusoe.

I then found some legitimacy on those opposing the idea of private property, but also illegitimacy as they pretend to be heirs of those they aren't... in the modern "all owned" World, those claims renders few than some willing to release land in order for them to "steal for themselves" later on.

Is human nature based on stealing and are we all robbers? Perhaps...

EDIT:

So in the end, whoever wrote that text, forgot one thing: Why there's private property? And the answer is simple: Because there's a force that allows it to remain private, like police and military. Both rely in a government to be enforced.
So private property doesn't "avoid conflicts", it's the security forces who does it. This is also the reason why in genesis this private property distribution was so biased; because the "white man" was way more technologically advanced than Africans and can coerce anyone to accept his claims. And this is not an exclusive of "white man", less than one century before the Portuguese arrival in the Indian ocean a group of Chinese sailors, under command of Zheng He, already did practically the same, killing the entire army of where is now Sri Lanka due to its king refusal into "pay tribute" to the Chinese Emperor.

Actually, and as the demographic pressure is as intense as now, never before the existence of governments were so justified in order to keep private property, for those who believe in such. Making anarchy anachronistic. It would make more sense on the middle ages, when space wasn't anything near scarce, but those poor folks got a "freedom relief program" we name as "governments" (mostly Monarchies).
This also leads to the other bogus interpretation of "first to arrive, first to get" rule; until where is one claims of ownership legitimate? 1 Hectare? 1 Country? 1 Continent? The World? Greed uses to have several issues with borders...

No, I don't.

This is getting pointless. Please, try reading the text I indicated you regarding property rights. I challenge you to find logical flaws in it. The people on the site are very responsive and may answer you better than I, leave comments there if you don't understand something.

I have to go now. Best regards