Political Compass Test
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
I fall under Libertarian Left right around where they had Nelson Mandela and Ghandi.
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
:thumbsup:
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
:thumbsup:
You're not an authoritarian communist - you're a liberal communist (or liberal 'socialist', if you prefer).
You still favor state controls over citizen economic life.
Looks like you didn't read the 'lessons' well enough. By the way - which definition of "liberal" are we using? The traditional or the contmporary one?
cheers,
Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
...and this is me!
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18
...and this is me!
You favor collectivism over the individual. The "Right of the people" over the "Right of an individual".
You care about the "forest" but not the "trees".
How do you propose to leverage your mandate of economic controls without coercion from the State? You answered it yourself - "democratic" State control.
As if "democratic" State control is somehow more free than "authoritarian" State control! HINT: The government of United States of America for the past 100 odd years, the government you so claim to 'love'; practices "democratic State control".
I favor "no collective control" - a man either owns himself and his property, or he doesn't ... in which case he is either a slave (doesn't own his self) or a serf (doesn't own his property). A government/collective big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take it all away.
I don't know about you, but I'm no slave and I sure am no serf. "I know I'm free for I alone am morally responsible for all that I do." - Robert A Heinlein.
Keep giving away your free will, liberty and responsibility to others, Fox. You shouldn't be surprised when I don't join you in that process.
cheers,
I disagree with you roughneck because you are applying your socioeconomic worldview on people that don't neccesarily share it. what about a society that doesn't own any property collectivly or individually, because they don't believe in the concept of ownership. how does that fit into the slave/serf idealogy?
You think "property" is limited to land/goods/brick/mortar? You think "ownership" or "property" is limited to such things as "business" and "land"? These questions are important - because you asserted that "some societies don't believe in the concept of ownership be it collective or individual" (emphases mine).
You hotshots who are so quick to pronounce judgement on the American Revolution and the foundation of the Republic - can you tell me what was the thought process and belief systems that was behind the Bill of Rights? What is the difference between "Right" and "Priviledge"? And from what primary source do we ALL derive our "fundamental rights" ? Rights for example like, you know, say "Freedom of speech" that helps us continue this mundane conversation? [I realise this is a private board and that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here. But that's not exactly what I meant and y'all know it]. Or "Freedom of expression" that makes "porn" ... er, possible?
In the meantime - to answer your 'question' :
This isn't a question of ME "applying" my socio-economic "worldview" (I mean really - WORLDview? I can understand "national view" or some such - but WORLDview?) at all.
I'm perfectly happy in letting others live as they choose please - so long as they accord me the same respect. I don't mind others living their socio-economic" beliefs -- so long as they let me live mine. If others think "collectivism" is in their best interests - good for them....
But make no mistake about it - trifle with my liberty and I won't take it lying down.
cheers,
I think it's just limited by your limited understanding of what "property" means and what "property rights" is...
Again, fundamentally:
cheers,
well i'd define property as the belief that something has or can be made to have an identity outside of itself.
after all properties means attributes, character, conditions of something. property is the relationship between those and the thing.
non-property would be to think that the sole purpose of a rocks existance is to be a rock and sit there on the ground. or at least that you have no idea what the purpose is because presumbily the rock didn't tell you.
if you imagine that there is some other point to the rock, or more importantly that you have the abilty to see or understand that in the first place, then the rock becomes property.
the progression of that line of thinking of property is utilitarianism (ownership) which leads to a belief in authority and control and all that other stuff we are talking about here.
after all properties means attributes, character, conditions of something. property is the relationship between those and the thing.
non-property would be to think that the sole purpose of a rocks existance is to be a rock and sit there on the ground. or at least that you have no idea what the purpose is because presumbily the rock didn't tell you.
if you imagine that there is some other point to the rock, or more importantly that you have the abilty to see or understand that in the first place, then the rock becomes property.
the progression of that line of thinking of property is utilitarianism (ownership) which leads to a belief in authority and control and all that other stuff we are talking about here.
????
"Property" for our defintions and purposes - is defined (and is implied by) "ownership". I can launch into all kinds of esoteric "tangents" as to what "property" means, but it would mean to drag ourselves into tangential irrelevancy...
Again:
Question: Does "property" include "ownership of Self" ?
Question: Why does "ownership" of "property" imply "Utilitarianism"?
I agree that the fundamental precepts of moral authority over rights and duties arise from the question of property ownership - but I fail to see your argument (that disagreed) vis-a-vis my earliest PoV...
cheers,
PS: It might help if you could suggest a few of those 'societies' that don't consider "ownership" of 'property' - be it "individual or collective". I'd have an easier time grasping your argument maybe....
