The Political Compass

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:26 am

Objectivist wrote:
The person who started this topic called the test a "reliable guide."


Maybe they think it is, doesn't mean they implied it was scientifically accurate. They just think it fairly gives a broad overview. But either way, I don't agree or disagree about its validity. I assume it is but an attempt.


If the video is unreliable you or anyone else should have no problem disproving anything it says.


Did I say anything about the video being unreliable? At all? Only thing my entire post mentioned was the correlation between you calling this test out for nondisclosure and the lack of available info provided by the poster/video. Doesn't make much sense to call a test out for non-disclosure in one breath, then link something you think its accurate yet fails to make obvious its authors/validity in the next breath. I've said nothing about the validity of the video's content.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:36 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Did I say anything about the video being unreliable? At all? Only thing my entire post mentioned was the correlation between you calling this test out for nondisclosure and the lack of available info provided by the poster/video. Doesn't make much sense to call a test out for non-disclosure in one breath, then link something you think its accurate yet fails to make obvious its authors/validity in the next breath. I've said nothing about the validity of the video's content.


I didn't say the reason the test was unreliable was because there was no disclosure on who runs the site or how they get their results. I just pointed out the secrecy of the web site and mentioned the reported link of the website to a semi-big name left winger.

Even if the site is ran by liberals, it does not mean it is any more or less accurate. My problems with the site has a lot to do with the way they measure answers and the way they treat historical figures...by basically answering questions for them and placing them wherever they like on the field.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:45 am

Objectivist wrote:
I didn't say the reason the test was unreliable was because there was no disclosure on who runs the site or how they get their results. I just pointed out the secrecy of the web site and mentioned the reported link of the website to a semi-big name left winger.


And I didn't say you said that. I just pointed out the contradiction.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby agga » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:58 am

the video is kind of moronic. the continuum it's describing is something like the main diagonal of the political compass, from the upper-left to the lower-right corner: total government to no government.

but then he gets into this "dictatorship- oligarchy - democracy - republic - anarchy" continuum, which is total bunk. a dictatorship could govern less than a democracy. an oligarchy could exercise total control over society. all of these could be republics, so long as their rule was codified into law. this part of the video makes no sense at all.

also, as the narrator is describing anarchists as "looting, killing, and burning", he's showing modern, western anarchist protesters in photographs from what are probably economic summits, and equating them with "terrorists". i tell you, i have been one of these people (i have mellowed), and have known many of them, and none of them were terrorists, none of them looted or killed anything or anyone. here, he's just repeating anti-leftist slander.

he also equates anarchists with revolutionary marxist communists from a century ago. plenty is wrong with this. Lenin, Mao, and Castro were not anarchists. neither was Hitler, who gets brought up in the same breath as Lenin, in some weird, ahistorical equation of their respective rises to power. ridiculous.

"a true republic is a government limited by law, leaving the people alone". the author clearly has an agenda. this is not a neutral, scientific, accurate description of a political continuum. the political compass has three hands up on this thing.

the whole "democracy" thing is, in modern times at least, semantics. he's playing this boring word game - "what democracy actually means". he clearly doesn't know what it actually means, today, in the 21st century (and in the last century) to most modern people: it means that we vote for our leaders and legislators. that is a democracy. everyone knows this.

the only evidence the author has for his progression from "republic" to "democracy" to "oligarchy" is a 45 second history of Rome. and, since we're apparently just projecting our own personal POVs on Roman history, here's mine: Rome was always an oligarchy, but it went from one run by the wealthy to one run by the military. does that mean that wealthiness <-> militarism is a valid continuum by which to define political systems?

one of dozens, probably. but this video is junk.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Sun Fin » Thu Apr 01, 2010 6:56 am

Objectivist wrote:The person who started this topic called the test a "reliable guide."



I said more relaible then anything else I've used. Difference.

I'd also like to point out its got most of use pretty much right, it hasn't given a single verdict back on this forum I'd consider inaccurate.

Its just a bit of fun, if you want to take the test please do but otherwise can we get back on topic.
Interested in the history behind the novel? Find a list of english language Three Kingdom sources here.
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7102
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:49 am

agga wrote:but then he gets into this "dictatorship- oligarchy - democracy - republic - anarchy" continuum, which is total bunk.


The video simply explains the five forms of government systems known throughout recent history...Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic and Anarchy.

agga wrote:a dictatorship could govern less than a democracy. an oligarchy could exercise total control over society. all of these could be republics, so long as their rule was codified into law.


Please give either current or recent (within the last 100 years) examples.

agga wrote:also, as the narrator is describing anarchists as "looting, killing, and burning", he's showing modern, western anarchist protesters in photographs from what are probably economic summits, and equating them with "terrorists". i tell you, i have been one of these people (i have mellowed), and have known many of them, and none of them were terrorists, none of them looted or killed anything or anyone. here, he's just repeating anti-leftist slander.


At no point in the video does the narrarator say that Anarchists are left wing. You just applied that label yourself. When the narrator is speaking...they simply show video of civil unrest to give a visual image. He's explaining how people use Anarchy to help get rid of the system they have that they do not like.

agga wrote:he also equates anarchists with revolutionary marxist communists from a century ago. plenty is wrong with this. Lenin, Mao, and Castro were not anarchists. neither was Hitler, who gets brought up in the same breath as Lenin, in some weird, ahistorical equation of their respective rises to power.


The video doesn't say Lenin, Mao or Castro were anarchists. There was Anarchy in Russia...which did in fact lead to Lenin taking power.

agga wrote:the political compass has three hands up on this thing


Nothing about political compass is proven, accurate, or scientific. Only pure blind bias could bring you to this conclusion.

agga wrote:the whole "democracy" thing is, in modern times at least, semantics. he's playing this boring word game - "what democracy actually means". he clearly doesn't know what it actually means, today, in the 21st century (and in the last century) to most modern people: it means that we vote for our leaders and legislators. that is a democracy. everyone knows this.


That video describes the American form of government, which is a Constitutional Republic. The video clearly explains that the United States government system is not a Democracy. The word Democracy does not exist in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitutions of the fifty states.

In a Democracy the people are allowed to vote on everything, and all you need is 51% approval for the government to do something. In a Constitutional Republic...even if 51% of the people want something, our legislators have to follow the rule of law (Constitution) before doing something that is beyond the powers of our government. They have to Amend the Constitution first, if they want to go outside the law.

The point of the video is to show that total government controls (specifically in economics) is a left wing concept, while more economic freedom is to the right of center. Complete economic freedom would result in no government (aka Anarchy). You can cry and whine about it all you want...it's a fact.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby agga » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:16 am

Objectivist wrote:
agga wrote:a dictatorship could govern less than a democracy...


Please give either current or recent (within the last 100 years) examples.


how about pinochet's military dictatorship versus california's democracy?

Objectivist wrote:At no point in the video does the narrarator say that Anarchists are left wing. You just applied that label yourself. When the narrator is speaking...they simply show video of civil unrest to give a visual image. He's explaining how people use Anarchy to help get rid of the system they have that they do not like.


he didn't say it - I said it. and, we already have a term for what he/you describe as anarchy: revolution. revolution might involve anarchy, or it might not. and, if it does involve anarchy, it doesn't mean it involves anarchists. this is a confusion of terminology. anarchy as a state of affairs is not usually the same as what is meant by anarchism as a political philosophy - the people shown in the video are political anarchists (among other things), not rioters/looters/murderers.

Objectivist wrote:The video doesn't say Lenin, Mao or Castro were anarchists. There was Anarchy in Russia...which did in fact lead to Lenin taking power.


he does say it, at 4:29. "the anarchists then create a government run by them, an oligarchy.."

Objectivist wrote:Nothing about political compass is proven, accurate, or scientific. Only pure blind bias could bring you to this conclusion.


i explained my opinions on the political compass in the previous post. read it.

Objectivist wrote:The point of the video is to show that total government controls (specifically in economics) is a left wing concept, while more economic freedom is to the right of center.


as I said (without your parenthetical economics qualifier), this is describing the main diagonal of the political compass chart - totalitarian communist in one corner, 'objectivist' maybe in the other corner. but, Hitler wasn't a communist, and Chomsky isn't an objectivist. you can't place everyone along this continuum - one isn't enough, two probably isn't enough. how many dimensions do you think are necessary to "accurately" describe a person's politics? you just think that some vague measure of "government control" is the only relevant measure?

*edit*
i just thought, maybe what you're saying is that you think the two axes of the political compass are strongly correlated with each other. so, if you have strong social control, you must also have strong economic control, and vice versa. this does seem to be assumed by people, for example, when they say things like "a free market in China will bring social freedom".

is this what you're claiming? what evidence is there that the two axes are strongly correlated? you must admit that the political compass at least sorts people by whether or not they *believe* the axes are separable (for example, i believe they are, so i wind up in the lower-left corner).

i mean, that, at least, could be an interesting discussion.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Objectivist » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:35 am

agga wrote:how about pinochet's military dictatorship versus california's democracy?


Please explain further. California is a state, not a national government.

agga wrote:he didn't say it - I said it. and, we already have a term for what he/you describe as anarchy: revolution. revolution might involve anarchy, or it might not. and, if it does involve anarchy, it doesn't mean it involves anarchists. this is a confusion of terminology. anarchy as a state of affairs is not usually the same as what is meant by anarchism as a political philosophy - the people shown in the video are political anarchists (among other things), not rioters/looters/murderers.


You are missing the point. The narrator explains various methods used by anarchists, such as theft or murder. At no point does he define all anarchists as thieves or murderers.

Objectivist wrote:The video doesn't say Lenin, Mao or Castro were anarchists. There was Anarchy in Russia...which did in fact lead to Lenin taking power.


agga wrote:he does say it, at 4:29. "the anarchists then create a government run by them, an oligarchy.."


You're full of crap. He doesn't specifically call Lenin or any of the people named Anarchists. That's not what is said.

agga wrote:i explained my opinions on the political compass in the previous post. read it.


I don't care what your opinion is on the site. It is for entertainment purposes and is not scientific. You can think it's the best thing in the world or a bad idea. It does not matter...because the site means absolutely nothing.

agga wrote:as I said (without your parenthetical economics qualifier), this is describing the main diagonal of the political compass chart - totalitarian communist in one corner, 'objectivist' maybe in the other corner. but, Hitler wasn't a communist, and Chomsky isn't an objectivist. you can't place everyone along this continuum - one isn't enough, two probably isn't enough. how many dimensions do you think are necessary to "accurately" describe a person's politics? you just think that some vague measure of "government control" is the only relevant measure?


It's not vague. It's about government control. Specifically in economics...since money ties into all freedom or lack of. Hitler doesn't have to be a communist to have totalitarian control over his country. The same goes for Mussolini, Stalin, or whoever. Just because Hitler was not a communist it doesn't mean he did not practice massive government controls over the people and market. He was a socialist who wanted to see the destruction of capitalism...regardless of how badly you might not want to admit it. If you read Mein Kampf or the Nazi Party platform...much of it reads like a modern day left wing wet dream.

People would love to try and press Fascism or Nazism on the right side of the spectrum, but the simple fact of the matter is they are left of center. If you want to debate how far to the left they were...we could do that. But you can't tell me that any form of total government control over the economy is not left wing.
The philosophy of Liberty

---If you do not believe in self ownership, you believe in slavery. Looking at all of human history, Liberty is a new concept still being introduced to man and it is growing every single day.
User avatar
Objectivist
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:39 am

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:55 pm

Objectivist wrote:
You are missing the point. The narrator explains various methods used by anarchists, such as theft or murder. At no point does he define all anarchists as thieves or murderers.


Does he mention all the lawful activities or anarchists?



I don't care what your opinion is on the site. It is for entertainment purposes and is not scientific. You can think it's the best thing in the world or a bad idea. It does not matter...because the site means absolutely nothing.


His opinion established why he thought it was accurate. Until you explain why it isn't scientific, (which i'm not saying it is) your claim is just an opinion as well. I'm not sure most social science surveys/tests are scientific..doesn't mean they are crap either.


People would love to try and press Fascism or Nazism on the right side of the spectrum, but the simple fact of the matter is they are left of center. If you want to debate how far to the left they were...we could do that. But you can't tell me that any form of total government control over the economy is not left wing.


If you're going to pigeonhole facism/nazism on the far-left, it is so far left not to be completely irrelevant. It is nothing which people today consider 'left-wing', especially in contemporary American politics. Those philosophies are inconsistent with even the far-left's political ideas.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: The Political Compass

Unread postby agga » Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Objectivist wrote:
agga wrote:how about pinochet's military dictatorship versus california's democracy?


Please explain further. California is a state, not a national government.


i would say there's much more economic and social legislation in california, which is one of the more democratic (by your classical definition) states in the union, than there was in chile under pinochet, which was a military dictatorship with virtually no democracy.

Objectivist wrote:
agga wrote:he does say it, at 4:29. "the anarchists then create a government run by them, an oligarchy.."


You're full of crap. He doesn't specifically call Lenin or any of the people named Anarchists. That's not what is said.


if i'm so full of crap, you can explain to me what is meant by what is said at and after 4:29 in the video. he's saying that anarchists destroy the current order and then create an oligarchy, "run by them", which by his/your definition is leftist. for one thing, this is a contradiction in your terms, since it's saying that extreme rightists found leftist governments. it's a contradiction in my terms as well (though you think i'm full of crap), since it's clearly saying that lenin, mao, and castro were anarchists before they became communists.

if that's not what the video is saying, then it shouldn't be a video. it's misleading to show pictures of one thing while you're describing something completely unrelated. why say "anarchists found oligarchies" while flashing pictures of famous communist revolutionaries, if it's not what you mean?

similarly, why flash pictures of modern day political anarchists (most of whom are actually anarcho-syndicalists, or socialists of some sort), if you're actually referring to assassins and terrorists?

Objectivist wrote:I don't care what your opinion is on the site. It is for entertainment purposes and is not scientific. You can think it's the best thing in the world or a bad idea. It does not matter...because the site means absolutely nothing.


this whole argument is about our respective opinions. my opinion (though you don't care) is that the p.c. quiz does mean something and that it is accurate within the definitions given by the authors in their site, though i have no idea how *scientific* it is. your opinion is the opposite.

Objectivist wrote:But you can't tell me that any form of total government control over the economy is not left wing.


i'm not trying to tell you anything like that. and, the p.c. doesn't claim that Hitler was right-wing. in fact, it claims to be contrary to popular opinion in showing that Hitler was an centralist (on their scale) in terms of economic control and an absolute authoritarian in terms of social control. fascism doesn't prohibit private property and private capitalism. it doesn't prohibit currency trade or competitive banking. it does set rigid boundaries, saying that if economic activity is not "good for the state", it has to be redirected. fascist German and Italian industries were not state-owned. this isn't "total economic control", it's control at certain limits; it's government regulation, which is a far, far cry from state communism (i.e. all economic activity managed by the state, all industry is state-owned, no private property, no currency trade, etc.), and only slightly left of the modern western model of government (moderate economic regulation, very little state-owned industry). in other words, the main difference between us and the fascists is social, not economic. the main differences between us and the communists is both social and economic.

i really don't understand why you're so opposed to this little quiz. it seems to be in basic agreement with you and your confused video. it says that anarchists are on the far left, which makes more sense than your contention that they are far right AND leftist. it says that Hitler was left of the modern standard, and that communism is further left than that.

what, specifically, do you disagree with in this thing (aside from it being "meaningless" and "unscientific")? if you ask me, an insistence that any political perspective or analysis must be "scientific" sounds kind of marxist. :shock:
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved