Topic: Political compass! (who believes what?) - page 5. (Read 13588 times)

Also, most people believe it's not morally acceptable to judge people for their beliefs.  People must be judge for their acts, not their thoughts.  There is no such think that a "mental criminal".

But now, even this is nothing but a belief.  You can agree with it, or not.   And if you don't you are probably in a red square anyway.   This whole thing is too complex to make any sense.    I think I'll become a nihilist after this debate  

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square  
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

Yeah, I think you're right.  We should make sure everyone takes this test, and then we'll put all people who fall in the red squares into jail, until we execute them for the greater good.  Hum wait...  if I think this way, shouldn't I be placed in a red square too?  Oh gosh...

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

+1

Well, for starters picture that as a "planisphere" representing a globe. In fact neither of the 4 corners is faraway from each other, they round about to be the same.
The bad thing isn't to have strong stands, but to have strong stands on everything that is asked, this alone indicates a person willing to stuck the nose on every subject, whether it interests him, if he has something to do with it or not at all "OR" one of those who's blindfold and follows some sort of "one size fits all" ideology, one of those intended to "deal" with all subjects from economy to social to how to get laid.

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited. 

a) free market/laissez-faire.

Define capitalism.

Yeah, I guess. I have this notion though that they seriously hate capitalism and will probably be unhappy until it is destroyed. Also they would possibly have to trade in a capitalistic way with the rest of the world in order to sustain the quality of life of their communities, adding to their unhappiness as they will feel exploited once again.

While I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues, I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not.  Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety.

Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.  But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. " In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term.

Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.

I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)

I think this really fits my way of thinking. I love the thought of a government that is based solely on trust , that can't compel me to pay taxes but i will pay as long as it does conform to most of my principles . The moment it drifts in a way i don't like i stop paying. As for drugs i really don't like restriction laws , they do nothing good except make those that don't care about offending the law getting more money for something that could be really easy to find. Big companies are "bad" but if people weren't ignorant then this companies would easily be compelled to do better then what they are doing now, if people are ignorant then though luck they should be abused. I would also love all religious thinking to disappear.  

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

So is it a bad thing to apply principles consistently? Or to apply them with conviction?

If you fit in a corner (3 squares around the corner) it means all your positions are "100%" for one "pre-determinate" side, which means you probably sold your brain in eBay and the World turns black an white. "No Agree or Disagree, either Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree".
For those "at the edges", are not quite as bad as the ones in the "corners", but also take their position to an immoderate position.