The problem with this test...

[davywavy]

...is that it presumes liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing.


Far-Left Liberal


Where do you fall on the liberal - conservative political spectrum? (United States)
brought to you by Quizilla

Comments

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

Oddly, by trying a *more* rabidly anti-immigration viewpoint, I ended up as far left, too.

Their definitions are a little out, methinks.


Conservative


(http://quizilla.com/users/hazelwudi/quizzes/Where%20do%20you%20fall%20on%20the%20liberal%20-%20conservative%20political%20spectrum%3F%20%20(United%20States)/)

[souldier-blue.livejournal.com]

Somehow I'd never pictured you as being on the far left of the political spectrum...

Re:

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's the thing - nor would I; however, if I answer the questions according to a libertarian philosophy, that's the answer I get.

Odd

[applez.livejournal.com]

I can't even get a calculated result without it crashing my window.

Hmm, I must say though that the answers are simplistic at best.

For example:

I probably would have voted that the death penalty should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes ... except that I find that in those cases, death is too merciful for such criminals. Worse, the courts very often get it wrong ... as declassified papers are showing just how convenient and expedient an excuse the Rosenburgs were, for example. The standard American response seems to be: if it's a heinous blue collar crime, fry a black; if it's a heinous white collar crime, fry the Jew. Attitudes haven't changed *that* much in 50 years.

As for homosexuals, honestly I don't think they are any more unnatural or psychologically twisted then 'normal' people or heterosexuals. People are fundamentally mad anyway, I think. Was probably vaguely useful when we were fleeing tree snakes ... now it's quite a handicap for our drugged motoring species.

Comrade

[(Anonymous)]

So, finally you are exsposed. Mrs T will NOT be Happy :)

glad to see you are keeping the red flag flying

yours working towards a socialist utopia

Monty

Re: Comrade

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Aye, brother. As I were saying to comrade Scargill last time I saw him, my deep-red credentials are second to none.

Re: Odd

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Because I don't believe in frying people, killing homosexuals at birth before they breed, and locking up women for thinking about having an abortion it appears that in your country this mke me a bleeding heart liberal, whereas here I'm far-right wing.

Odd dichotomy.

Re: Odd

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

There was another test back last year sometime that defined right-wing politics as being all about the rights of the individual, while left-wing was all about the state.

That definition sounds far more sensible to me.

Re: Odd

[(Anonymous)]

Individuals have rights? Ohhhhhhhhhhh that pesky wade has been misleading me again...


MOnty

Re: Odd

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And a definition I'd agree with, too. Hurrah for the rights of the individual! Boo to the soulless bureaucracy that swallows their lives!

Re: Odd

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

To be precise: THIS individual.
Screw the rest of you :)

Re: Odd

[applez.livejournal.com]

Quite right you liberal nutter you! ;-p

----

Re: Odd

[applez.livejournal.com]

No too simplistic I think. Sure one can have a individual vs. state power matrix, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to early French left/right political models ... especially when one gets to substantive issues.

Not frying people, for example, is considered a massive enfranchisement of the individual against the 'tyrranical state' ... and that *is* a banner for the left-wing, generally speaking.

Perhaps a socially-Progressive vs. socially-slowing matrix is better for Left vs. Right ... for the US anyway, and then for social issues. ???

Economically, there is an odd general concurrence by all parties and political philosophies on capitalism generally, and government enforcement generally. The exact share is debated.

Militarily, there seems an odd general concurrence as well...and sadly ethics is still playing catch-up to technology while a general ethos that violent force is still the most trustworthy method of gaining one's political aims still reigns.

----

Also, Wadester, you'll probably disagree with the following, but I find libertarianism, whilst an interesting thought experiment, to be ultimately impracticable in a complex society. Assuming one wants to maintain a vaguely civil society. Since the problem of enforcement of shared values on even fundamental things like murder and racism, let alone run-of-the-mill crimes/injustices (since crime as a legal term may become moribund) like theft, slights, trespassing - becomes increasingly fractured and difficult with a weakened central authority ... the only realistic recourse for the individual is tribal/gang unification (natural cultural evolution of strength in numbers in such a challenging situation).

If what has already been witnessed from gang culture in our government-organised societies (be it anti-tank rocket-toting Swedish Hell's Angels; or assassin-for-hire Vietnamese teens in Los Angeles; or troublemaking yobbos in Wolverhampton), having more of that will mean a net loss for society, I argue.

Example: one may easily joke and feel disappointed by law enforcement in parts of one's country or very own city, but to then divert one's productive time to personal protection (and the paranoia that can instill) becomes a net drain on your overall productivity (and mental health).

Re: Odd

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

Note I said *THE* individual. I didn't say who that individual is :)

[omentide.livejournal.com]

Looks like it's American definitions of those terms and nothing to do with the UK political parties named after the base concepts.

The questions seemed to tackle moral, rather than political issues.

Libertarianism is, in many ways, at right angles to the Left Wing/Right Wing spectrum.

Though I'm still peeved that I came out further 'right' than you on this test. I was, after all, forced to attend Socialist Sunday School as a child. Perhaps I am finally managing to overcome my conditioning.

Well, whatever the country, whatever the party...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Best to simply go by stated agenda and actual actions. Then see how that pairs up to 'Left'/'Right'/'Centre'

Frankly, since the 1990s strategy of grabbing and holding the political centre (Clinton/Blair), strongly affiliated policy items have weakened.

Compared against, say the reactionary events in Denmark, Holland, and even Italy. Pim Fortyn's anti-immigrant stance might have strongly correlated with some American conservative positions, but the norm of Dutch social investment which is beyond debate far exceeds what even American liberals are struggling for.

My tuppence anyway. :-)

-----

Re:

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Good for you! Don't let the commie brainwashing you were subject to as a child define you now!

[ex-boog351.livejournal.com]

I think you were supposed to say what you really think :)

Worryingly, I got the same score. this is obviously some sort of commie subversive propaganda quiz designed to get us to join in the revolution.

There was nothing, for example, about who controls the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Re: Odd

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Depends on what you mean by libertarianism - In the US, it means buying lots of guns and living in a cave with lots of spam.
In the European tradition, IME, it means such radical things as 'liberty, fraternity, egality', freedom of association and of conscience and so forth.

Since when has individual liberty resulted in a weakened central authority? Central fgovernment should be responsible for those things that society needs to function but cannot be provided by the individual or by private means - impartial law enforcement being the two that spring to mind defense of the realm.
The single greatest failure and error of modern society has been, to my mind, the expansion of cenral bureaucracy into such fields as social programmes for those able to work but unwilling to do so, healthcare which is unnecessary for the prolonging of life, and so on. These are anti-libertarian policies and are damaging in that they teach the individual to rely upon others, not themselves.

Re: Odd

[applez.livejournal.com]

Since when has individual liberty resulted in a weakened central authority? Central government should be responsible for those things that society needs to function but cannot be provided by the individual or by private means - impartial law enforcement being the two that spring to mind defense of the realm.

Yes, I think you've unintentionally illustrated my point quite nicely. The 'reform' of central government as you'd see it is in fact a de facto weakening of when and how they can act, when seen from the clutch.

As I had started typing:

The concepts of applied libertarianism I generally come across are the sort that argue for weaker central authority, and generally propose the thought experiment that disputing individuals can either come up with their own negotiated settlement or turn to unofficial 3rd party arbitration. No need for officious government to be involved.

The 'no tax, only keep token government for national defence financed as needed or via use-fees, we the individuals can sort the rest out ourselves' principle.

While I think that might work in some cases, when applied broadly and generally there will eventually come the point (flashpoint if you will) when violence become a critical issue...not necessarily war, but individual-become-community violence perhaps.

The single greatest failure and error of modern society has been, to my mind, the expansion of cenral bureaucracy into such fields as social programmes for those able to work but unwilling to do so, healthcare which is unnecessary for the prolonging of life, and so on. These are anti-libertarian policies and are damaging in that they teach the individual to rely upon others, not themselves.

I also keep in mind the uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity, now without government intervention. Many will pick up stakes and try as best they can wherever they can, but others will be pretty p.o.-ed. Even the peaceable sort who move on have to go somewhere, then we get the NIMBY issue magnified.

It is dramatically poetic to blame government for society's ills, but often I think government is all that's there to keep society's ills from imploding said society.

Now to the point you make specifically about assistance for those who don't need it ... where is said line drawn? What we have today is the result of popular will, and proper democracies have to respond to that.

Also, your bit about assuming impartial government ... that requires more layers of self-monitoring government, in reality. To get anything like a guarantee of that critical assumption requires more government then you'd see as philosophically necessary.

You see? Impracticable

A case - New York City's water

[applez.livejournal.com]

You may dispute this as a case of applied libertarianism (which you have to admit has never truly happened), but I think is a powerful example of why in the clutch, strong, *responsive* government is needed.

As NYC grew, there quickly became a pressing water issue. The Hudson was polluted by industry who were not accountable (laissez-faire economic policy by government), and there was virtually nonexistant water distribution infrastructure. Those with money procured water delivery services, by horse-drawn wagon, in large barrels from far upstate and its fresh mountain springs. The poor, well, they became diseased and were treated as so much filth that embodied the streets. It quickly became a free market bonanza, with water purveyors of all kinds and qualities hitting the market. A mad network of competing pipes from rival companies was being built, and there were no standards to speak of.

At some point, the city elders recognised the overwhelming need for a proper water solution so plonked down the tremendous capital to buy rights to upstate water resources and to pipe it in to the city. The price for water was set at very near free, to the benefit of the city's poorest, which lead to higher productivity and greater overall urban value.

I know of similar development histories for industrial England.

Frankly, a more efficient less-materially wasteful solution came about due to this government intervention...and propelled NYC to early megacity status.

In a 'practical' libertarian situation, I don't think such an intervention would be supported. After all people were looking out for themselves, and it really wasn't a government issue ... certainly not one based upon the social values at the time.

Re: A case - New York City's water

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As London grew, the problem of piped water and sewerage became intolerable, and after a cholera outbreak, people realised that something had to be done.

So they built the London sewer infrastructure, which was entirely funded by public subscription. No central funds were used in the project.

You can make the point both ways.

Re: Which commie brainwashing would that be?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Other than the BBC world service, anyway :)

Re: Odd

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I think you’ve unintentionally illustrated my point quite nicely. The reform of central government as you’d see it is in fact a de facto weakening of when and how they can act when seen from the clutch.

We are using different definitions for the same term, and so I’m not illustrating your point at all. I would not regard a government that was precluded in interfering in it’s citizens lives as ’weak’. I would regard a government that was strong in appropriate areas – military defense, law enforcement et al (Foreign policy and diplomacy spring quickly to mind) - to be appropriate, and one which stuck it’s nose into other areas where it shouldn’t be(Identity cards? Never!) (One of the best things Gordon Brown has done has been to free the Bank of England from central control) as weakening itself by losing focus on those areas in which it should not be concerned.

While I think that might work in some cases, when applied broadly and generally there will eventually come the point –flashpoint if you will – when violence becomes a critical issue...not necessarily war, but individual-become-community violence perhaps.

This is why I mentioned law enforcement in my list. There are probably other areas that I actually did miss out, but then again this isn’t a written proposal.

Now to the point you make specifically about assistance for those who don’t need it ... where is said line drawn? What we have today is the result of popular will, and proper Democracies have to respond to that.

There’s a story about Margaret Thatcher. Anita Roddick went to a do back in the eighties wearing a T-Shirt with “70% say no to Trident”. Thatcher looked at it with contempts and said "Seventy five percent say bring back hanging" and stalked off.
So don't give me that 'popular will' stuff, because if you're half as clever as I think you are, you know it's a nonsense.

Now to the point you make specifically about assistance for those who don't need it ... where is said line drawn?

When I graduated, I was a doley-dosser for a year (this wasn't for want of trying to get a job, but more because there was a recession on and graduate employment was down).
Whilst signing on, I worked as a volunteer in the local cancer hospital, on the philosophical grounds that I was being paid by society and so I ought to work for society to repay the debt.
That's where I draw the line. I see no reason why I should pay others who are not prepared to work in return for the social subsidies they receive.

Also, your bit about assuming impartial government ... that requires more layers of self-monitoring government, in reality. To get anything like a guarantee of that critical assumption requires more government then you'd see as philosophically necessary.

You see? Impracticable

No, I don't see at all.
A few weeks ago, the percentage of the workforce working for the government in one form or another went over 25% for the first time ever. I won't accept your point until you can demonstrate to me that by adopting a social model such as I propose this percentage would decline. I'm not saying there is a magic number above which the government should employ; however it should be the purpose of the government to remain as small as possible whislt following it's objectives. this is manifestly failing.
So my 'philosophical necessity' is one of aims, rather than specific numbers; and those aims are manifestly not being met.

A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[applez.livejournal.com]

Then posit your own case of functional libertarianism. :-)

-----

Re: Which commie brainwashing would that be?

[applez.livejournal.com]

Nah, sorry to deflate one's pride, but Radio Moscow actually spoke *better* English than the BBC ... even back in the days when Northerners and anyone vaguely real was exiled from the microphone for international broadcasts.

Also, I deleted the post because I didn't want to 'claim jump' after I saw who the comment was originally meant for.

----

Yes, the Soviets did quite a few things really really well. Human capital was damned well invested in, even if it could never be properly marketed. Likewise, a lot of their military grade machinery was a bit roughshod, but those literal rust buckets would continue to work with a squeeze of oil and a load of fuel. By comparison, one dent in a western airframe, and then whole thing would have to go back in the shop for overhaul. ;-)

---

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Oh, they're about as common as seven-bob-notes and functional socialist economies; in fact, I'm unsure I know of any instances where it has even been tried.

I can dream, n'est pas - and I have the advantage of supporting a system that has not been demonstrably shown to fail every time.

Re: Which commie brainwashing would that be?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Soviets did quite a few things really really well.

Never said otherwise - I'd say that we do more things better, however.

Likewise, a lot of their military grade machinery was a bit roughshod, but those literal rust buckets would continue to work with a squeeze of oil and a load of fuel. By comparison, one dent in a western airframe, and then whole thing would have to go back in the shop for overhaul. ;-)


Soviet military hardware was largely superior to western, at least in the late 80s' It was the development & expansion costs of that to compete with American military expansion during the Reagan era that bankrupted the Soviet ecoonomy and lead to the Soviet Union collapsing.
So using the military hardware comparison doesn't really help convince me of the superiority of the socialist model, you know :)

Re: Which commie brainwashing would that be?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Nah, sorry to deflate one's pride, but Radio Moscow actually spoke *better* English than the BBC

I'm less surprised by this that you might imagine - obviously the British are the people the world feels the need to compete with :)

Re: Odd

[applez.livejournal.com]

different definitions for the same term

Yes, probably.

[identity cards]

Those have been done already, and frankly were probably damned useful in the successful 'XX Committee' policy circa 1939-1945.

[government sticking its nose where it shouldn't]

In the American case at least, I think the problem of civil rights and social (in)justice forced government intervention ... and properly so I'd argue. Earlier too during the Depression crisis. Discriminated minorities did not have a legal recourse from their local government, and any indirect federal assistance through state agencies would never reach them. To advance social equity, and thereby actually realising greater economic efficiency, central government had to intervene in what was (and some still consider) business generally not that of government, let alone central/federal government.

In the posited view (by admittedly American libertarians) that in such an event, individuals could sort it out for themselves sans any government ... I get visions of Black Panthers v. KKK ... hardly a civil solution.

The American South was lucky to have MLK when they did, but frankly as individual liberties and equality became more pressing, his nonviolent message was being increasingly marginalised by the popular flare of those like 'Malcolm X'. My point here is that when there is a pre-existing inequality, this violent or angered confrontation is nigh on inevitable ... and strong government needs to intervene to prevent a chaotic situation. Moreover 'law enforcement' is insufficient since that is not crime prevention...and then the very alleged neutral institution can get tarred by something as impassioned as race. It might be as little as public embarrassment as with Damiola Taylor (an embarrassment which hurts the credibility of law enforcement, incidentally) OR it could lead to full-scale conflagrations in the streets.

Incidentally, the fuel strikes of 2000 that were peaceful and legal that could happen in the UK would never be so peaceful in the US, IMO. The US hasn't faced a major life-stopping strike at the national scale in 80-100 years (when the coal miners went on strike; yes there was the 1980s air traffic controllers strike, but read on) ... and is a technique largely disarmed by existing laws authorising the federal government to interdict at the get go.

[fun resource incidentally: http://members.tripod.com/Norrit1/afl-cio/1800.htm]

I bring up these collective actions because ultimately that is really the only way an individual can make genuine social change ... unless they win elections, gain massive popularity (or infamy).

Also I bring up race, because it is the classic challenge to the status quo, and it's 'Black History Month' now hereabouts. :-)

[70% T-Shirt]

Cute, but that doesn't change an underlying social ill, for example.

(to be continued)

continued

[applez.livejournal.com]

[doley-dosser, etc.]

Well this comes down fundamentally to what you consider the dole to be. An innate right as a citizen of nation X implied in the philosophy of social contracts? A form of employment? A transaction? Where is the higher social value? Economic value? If the dole gets someone to a higher paying tax braket, the government more than recoups the outlay. If the dole stabilises society, it keeps down costs elsewhere (be it urine-irrigated public parks to outright revolution).

Looked at from the point of managing a nation and society, the dole is useful and needs to be designed to the particular aim, no?

(incidentally, the American sensibility is that the dole is inherently evil and 'welfare to work' was instituted under a Democratic Presidency ... even with horrific glaring holes and probable crime results)

As a preventative of damage done, it seems some Scandinavian countries have done well by their dole system. As a bona fide social investment to advance the society & economy, Switzerland deserves credit with its public/state education all the way to advanced degrees.

[25% ... ]

I don't know why you are particularly bothered by 25%, frankly. It seems a natural economic evolution to me. Look, there hasn't been proper work for a percentage of the population since at least the advent of agriculture. This shrunk dramatically further with the advent of industry. Now, we're beyond that, with less than 2% of the US population employed at agriculture generating surpluses beyond what the US can *sell* abroad. If subsidies and protections were removed, this apportionment would shrink still further. In the UK, there is no future in agriculture, not as a vocation of economic advancement in any case. Likewise, in this 'post-industrial economy' the numbers of people we need to make the tools to keep the machines running is shrinking. So the remainder are largely paper shuffling in this 'service economy' ... a structure entirely dependent on people buying. The global economy is tanking at the mo, and few are buying much ... so naturally there's a surplus of labour and prospective labour.

Sure, a share will find or make work on their own cuff. Some may innovate and generate growth. But really, most will have little to do until everyone feels more confident about the future. Does the government leave them be? Does the government hire them directly? Does the government assist them?

Well, since we're not into genocidal colonial wars any more, that's not a good pressure valve for population. Voluntary and enforced emigration is a possibility (Tenerife? Southern France? Ibiza?), but the planet's not a vast empty space anymore. No 'Soylent Green' either please, thank you.

So yes, I think expanding the social protection of one's citizenry during hard times is a necessary thing. Whether one links that to labour in various forms, that's up to the designers I think. It might be useful given the developed world's aging infrastructure, but then again, a lot of that work is highly specialised ... so it's not enough to have a bunch of uncertified labourers build you a Hoover Dam or highway any more.

Re: Which commie brainwashing would that be?

[applez.livejournal.com]

:-)

----

Oh no!

[applez.livejournal.com]

now i've visions of foreign competition for lower-caste Eastenders. ;-p

(yes, I'll ignore Coronation Street and the Aussie clones for now)

-----

Re: Oh no!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Eastenders was broadcast in the US on Masterpiece theartre, of all things, and was hailed as a suberb and accurate social drama. o.O

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[applez.livejournal.com]

ha! ha!

Well, there's no perfection, in human society least of all ... we only muddle through as best we can. And, no insult intended, but at least socialist/capitalist/anarcho/totalitarian/utopian/religious/feudal/etc. philosophies have taken their turn at the muddle...which makes them superior in my view.

Engage the world!

:-)

-------

Re: Oh no!

[applez.livejournal.com]

No no, that doesn't qualify ... that is a direct import after all ... hardly the competition we envision. :-)

By your definition, the US of A's remodeling of 'The Weakest Link,' 'Who Wants to be A Millionaire,' and 'Junkyard Wars' can genuinely rival the originals, with or without imported hosts.

Nah, has to be clone competition I tell you. :-)

-----

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I disagree; just because a philosophy has been used in a society makes it superior? heavens, we could have fun with this one but I'm sure that you know precisely where I'd start.

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[applez.livejournal.com]

Seriously: absolutely. What's an idea about reality if it doesn't try it out? Application is the litmus test of any concept.

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I can only assume that you're yanking my chain here?

Even if a concept is shown to be a crippling failure in every respect, it's still better than one that hasn't been tested?
Failure is better than dreams?

Re: A case, a case, my kingdom for a case!

[applez.livejournal.com]

Even if a concept is shown to be a crippling failure in every respect, it's still better than one that hasn't been tested?

Well besides the fact that I don't think any political concept has 'shown to be a crippling failure in *every* respect,'^ absolutely yes. Only by trying them out can one find the flaws and reform or jettison as needed.

Failure is better than dreams?

Yes, fantasies are so very boring after a while ... far better to give them a shot and see how they do. Idea realised is far more exciting than mere idea. It also the only way to really see them grow (read on).

------

^I find the relative success or failure of a given political philosophy usually comes down to a matter of scale. Religious-mandated dictatorships are hideous at the scale of city and empire, but they are a highly effective means of getting there...to form a nation of people of common purpose and identity out of scattered tribes or villages (e.g. Egypt); whilst being very stable and even just at other scales. This is revisited today in voluntary religious camps, monastaries (what Brother Prior says, goes), and some cults.

Democracy barely worked for the quibbling city-states of Greece, and ultimately the concept needed to be reformed to various forms of Republicanism (with the vital 'social glue' of corruption) at the scale of Pax Romana and beyond.

Going back to Athenian democracy, it is worth remembering that it was paved on the backs of war slaves AND was ultimately trumped (even helped) by Spartan dictatorship.

Powerful stuff, and one wouldn't have your 'libertarian' concepts if the striving of those earlier 'one man, one vote' memes weren't tried out.

Economically, much the same can be said about capitalism...Adam Smith's original concept was very socialist in its valuation of the individual, and that in reality, we still haven't achieved that particular vision. Ask someone about capitalism in the 1890s and it was clearly a 'crippling failure' because of its disenfranchisement of the worker. Smartly, the meme evolved to such an extent that the union is severely weakened (virtually moribund even) in most economic sectors of the US...the worker feels they have a stake in the business and can influence the result. ... even if it's an 'everyone down in flames together' result for the likes of worker-owned United Airlines.

The excesses of management during the 1990s of the mega-corps will again pose the challenge of reform-for-survival to the capitalist meme.