Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
I used to be left of the center for years, but I have made a slow shift to the right during the last 10 years. I think it is fair to say that I am in the center now, and a bit conservative.
Inferring someone's political orientation from their musical tastes is bound to end in tears. Perhaps there was a time during the late 60's to early 70's when an artist's music could be said to reflect the views of their fan demographic? (that strikes me as incredibly unlikely now given that traditional Socialism as I understand it, has been dead in the water for at least 20 years)
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: March 31 2012 at 10:11
jude111 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
I disagree with the parameters. You cannot measure political persuasion this way. Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.
There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: March 31 2012 at 10:17
I am left of left of center.
I think political shade should be treated cautiously. The visible part of the political spectrum is on the far right, beyond it is a sort of infrareactionary wavelength, to the left of the visible spectrum is a whole host of different wavelengths, culminating in the dreaded gamma ray... wait I took this analogy too far.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: March 31 2012 at 11:57
manofmystery wrote:
jude111 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
I disagree with the parameters. You cannot measure political persuasion this way. Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.
There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago. Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: March 31 2012 at 16:09
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
jude111 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
I disagree with the parameters. You cannot measure political persuasion this way. Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.
There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago. Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too).
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.
So then, what you are saying is that every country in the world is authoritarian, and therefore to the right of center? Although Ayn Rand might agree, I don't see how that helps.
And how would you create a poll to reflect your rainbow-colored, holistic multi-level theme-parked inter-dimensional 3D political graph? A graph atomized to such an extent would look a lot like the New York City White Pages phone book, I imagine...
And how does that work out in America exactly? It's not like you can vote in rainbow colors. You have two choices. You don't even have a parliament, or multi-parties. (Come to think of it, those in here who have that - I don't hear them complaining.)
It doesn't work out because we have a one party system that pretends to be two (these goons are all the same), and we'll wind up being the next Greece in a decade or two. Also, we are mostly comprised of morons.
Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1725
Posted: March 31 2012 at 19:30
Epignosis wrote:
It doesn't work out because we have a one party system that pretends to be two (these goons are all the same), and we'll wind up being the next Greece in a decade or two. Also, we are mostly comprised of morons.
No, you won't be the next Greece. Greece may be broke, but they still have the Acropolis, the Parthenon, countless ancient temples and architectural wonders of the world. Not to mention stunning islands like Santorini, Mykonos, Nisyros, etc. America will have broken down gas stations, collapsing Wall Marts, and rusting cars on cracked highways. If only the US could be the next Greece, I would return.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:13
The T wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
jude111 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
I disagree with the parameters. You cannot measure political persuasion this way. Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.
There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago. Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too).
And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?
Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - March 31 2012 at 21:14
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: March 31 2012 at 21:22
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
The T wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
jude111 wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
I disagree with the parameters. You cannot measure political persuasion this way. Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other.
There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...
Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.
That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery!
And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago. Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy.
Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too).
And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?
The problem is getting through the simple basic idea that legality can be enforced without a government. People can do a lot of things (EVERYTHING) without a government. A quote quoted by MoM (here in more detail) can illlustrate:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.