Reasons why the political compass is bullshit -Many questions have - #65176781 added by repostsrepost at American Politics

Back to the content 'American Politics'

Refresh

Options

asd

#8171 - repostsrepost

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

Reasons why the political compass is bullshit
-Many questions have nothing to do with anything. What does astrology have to do with my political beliefs?
-Many questions are politically loaded and in answering them you accept assumptions that are not necessarily valid
-In what ways are Mitt Romney more authoritarian than Barack Obama if Mitt Romney wants to cut the size of government, and how the hell are both of them more authoritarian than Hugo Chavez?
-The way social and economic freedoms are separated using a four quadrant system is completely illogical, freedom is freedom, either you want less of it, or more of it.
-If leftists want more state involvement in the economy, it is virtually impossible to be a left-libertarian.

#8175 to #8171 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

The top/bottom represents civil liberty. The left/right represents economic liberty.

Mitt Romney wants to ban abortion and gay marriage.

By cutting the size of government do you mean eliminating social security, medicare/medicaid and removing all financial regulations?

I don't understand what you mean by "freedom is freedom". So anyone that isn't a libertarian, hates freedom? The four quadrant system is perfectly fine. The 3-dimensional system gives people headaches.

You think of libertarianism in the American political context. Contemporary liberalism involves civil libertarianism and a mixed economy.

Fucking Americans...

#8206 to #8175 - repostsrepost

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

Romney doesn't want to ban gay marriage he has said publicly that he was against it but said it was a states issue. And Abortion is not a freedom, its murdur, an infringement on the freedoms of another. Obama has nationalized GM when the Constitution does not authorize him to do so. Obama has authorized the EPA to use drones to spy on farmers which is pretty unconstitutional. Obama gave guns to dangerous drug cartels weapons that would be used to kill both Americans and Mexicans and then tells us that our use of guns needs to be regulated. He has used executive power to change laws already enacted by Congress like Clinton's welfare reform and existing immigration law. Who's the authoritarian here?

#8743 to #8206 - Advillia

Reply0

(09/13/2012)[-]

"Abortion is murder, an infringement on the freedoms of another"

Whose freedoms?

#8217 to #8206 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+2

(09/04/2012)[-]

"One of the great things about our nation (dot)(dot)(dot) is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same(dot) But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people(dot) I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country(dot) I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U(dot)S(dot) Senate candidate(dot) I believe that since Roe v(dot) Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign(dot)" - Mitt Romney, 1994

2012 Presidential platform:

You're right, he doesn't want to ban abortion, he just wants to overturn Roe vs(dot) Wade(dot) He's quite a flip-flopper, isn't he?

Obama never nationalized GM(dot) GM went bankrupt and so the US treasury propped it back up so 50,000 people wouldn't go out of work(dot) The US treasury owns 26% of GM to be sold later on when stability is achieved(dot)

Your drone story is a work of fiction(dot)

"Fast & Furious" was an operation created by the Arizona branch of the ATF in 2006(dot) It had nothing to do with the Obama my black sonistration or the ATF outside Arizona(dot) Neither the Texas, New Mexico or California branches knew of its existence(dot)

Also, Obama has not once, ever, made a comment about regulating guns(dot) It's shit the NRA makes up to get people to buy more guns(dot)

The GOP ads about Obama and welfare to work/immigration are complete nonsense(dot) They made it up(dot)

Do your fucking research(dot) I'm a Canadian and I had to spend time researching this shit to disprove your bullshit(dot)

#8173 to #8171 - Orangepeel

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

A while back I emailed them regarding a few issues I had with their placings:

Why are the some of the social democratic countries more libertarian than the US? I noticed there weren’t any questions regarding firearm ownership or freedom of expression. Had these been included in the test, European countries such as Sweden would have moved up on the authoritarian scale.
Whilst these may only be two issues, in many countries they play an important role and would (in my opinion) dramatically change where countries or politicians stand on the compass.

This is how they responded:

RE: Guns: Globally, the belief among many Americans that gun control is inherently 'authoritarian' is seen as dubious at best. For example, by any independent analysis on national civil liberties that we have been able to locate, the Netherlands , the Nordic states and New Zealand are far ahead of any others. However, gun control is seen in these states (and virtually all others) as a measure of public safety and civilisation - certainly not authoritarian.

I then pointed out that the NDAA and the Patriot Act were both in the name of "public safety", yet their test considers its advocates as "authoritarian". This, they never responded to. Nor did they respond to the point that speech is more limited their aforementioned countries, yet still remains more libertarian.

>Pic related.

They put George W. Bush as more authoritarian than Castro, Mao and Mugabe.

#8172 to #8171 - arisaka

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

Left-libertarian is very much possible. Read Marx, Engels, Debord (or any other member of the Situationist International), Luxemburg, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Makhno, any Marxist Autonomists, etc.

For the rest, you're right.

#8174 to #8172 - Orangepeel

Reply+2

(09/04/2012)[-]

I agree. I normally consider left libertarian to be about collective control (Voluntary socialism) as opposed to individual control (capitalism). Hence you can very easily get a socialist state with little to no government intervention in the economy.

Pic related.
My view of how it should be set. It's impossible to be on the extreme right with an 100% authoritarian government because that requires the government to intervene in the economy.
At the same time, it's impossible to be extreme right and 100% libertarian because that would require abolition of the state. The state is required to protect private property, so you can either abolish the state and private property (moving over to the left), or protect private property but allow the state to remain (making it more authoritarian).

#8207 to #8174 - repostsrepost

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

Not possible. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth which is only possible through government force.

#172902 to #8207 - themaninacan

Reply0

(12/02/2017)[-]

No, it is the social ownership of property- you can be an asshole like stalin or someshit and say this means 'lol state ownership', but it may as well be common, collective or cooperative ownership.

#8208 to #8207 - Orangepeel

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

I'd say there're actually 2 ways of redistributing wealth. One, is at gun point (which is what most leftists want), the other is with the government no longer protecting private property, so the people just seize it (chaotic, but it's genuinely what some people believe).

#172903 to #8208 - themaninacan

Reply0

(12/02/2017)[-]

What is it with 'at gunpoint' and people. Do you think that corporations do not do 'at gunpoint'?

Americans seem to be quite afflicted with Lysander Spooner thinking, without recognizing where his argument actually even took him.

#8176 to #8174 - deltadeltadelta

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

The fuck are you talking about?

The political compass is about ideology. Someone in the far bottom right would be akin to an Anarcho-Capitalist or American Libertarian (not a whole lot of difference though).

The far top right can be seen in some 19th/early 20th century European governments like Imperial Russia. It can also be seen espoused by many Republican politicians of the deeply religious persuasion that believe in an unregulated economy.

#8179 to #8176 - Orangepeel

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

How many deeply religious republicans actually do believe in an unregulated economy?

#8180 to #8179 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

Paul Ryan is one, and he's Romney's VP pick (and a Tea Party favourite). Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum are others, and they were presidential candidates.

They're all deeply authoritarian on civic issues, and extremely right when it comes to the economy.

Romney has co-opted the Tea Party platform, but he just seems like a guy that will do or say anything as long as it means he gets in to power. No one really knows what his actual positions are (not like it matters).

#8181 to #8180 - Orangepeel

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

Civic issues aren't restricted to just gay marriage and abortion. Supported protection of the first amendment and gun ownership rights will bring them well down the authoritarian scale.

As for economics, I know they push for deregulation but I highly doubt they're as far right on the economic scale as Paul or Johnson.

#8182 to #8181 - deltadeltadelta

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

When did Republicans become known for their defence of the first amendment? Aren't they all about establishing a Christian state? They regularly demonize secularism.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

In the vast majority of countries there is no right to own an assault rifle. It's seen as being as much of a liberty as owning something like a grenade or a tank.

#8183 to #8182 - Orangepeel

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

When did Republicans become known for their defence of the first amendment?

Republicans are atheists compared to most in the Middle East. You can't equate opposition to secularization with actually banning all other religions (like actual authoritarians would).
Besides, hate speech regulations aren't exactly advocated by Republicans, bringing them much further down on the authoritarians scale.

In the vast majority of countries there is no right to own an assault rifle.

So you're saying Republicans are less authoritarian than leaders of those countries?

#8184 to #8183 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+2

(09/04/2012)[-]

Secularism is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. There is no "secularization". The US isn't being converted to secularism because it's already secular. The US has always been a secular country.

George Bush Sr. once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

In 6 states it's currently illegal for an atheist to run for office (of course these laws would never hold up in a court).

The US doesn't have any hate speech laws. Some European nations do.

Just look at what happened when they were building a mosque inside a community centre that was a few blocks away from Ground Zero. The religious-right lost its collective shit.

No, I'm saying letting people own weapons of carnage isn't considered a liberty outside the United States. Do you think people should be allowed to own grenades? How about RPGs? Gunships?

#8187 to #8184 - Orangepeel

Reply-2

(09/04/2012)[-]

George Bush Sr. once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

George Bush Sr. was a bloody libertarian compared to the religious fanatics screaming "death to the infidels!"

In 6 states it's currently illegal for an atheist to run for office (of course these laws would never hold up in a court).

Again, nowhere near as authoritarian as the theocracies in the Middle East. My point still stands.

The US doesn't have any hate speech laws. Some European nations do.

Bringing America further down, and Europe up on the authoritarian scale.

Just look at what happened when they were building a mosque inside a community centre that was a few blocks away from Ground Zero. The religious-right lost its collective shit.

The political compass is a universal chart. Compare the religious right freaking out about a mosque to Muslims actually being violent at the thought of a synagogue being built near them. Makes the Americans look pretty tolerant, doesn't it?

No, I'm saying letting people own weapons of carnage isn't considered a liberty outside the United States.

So being able to defend yourself with a firearm isn't even considered? Up on the authority scale they go!

Do you think people should be allowed to own grenades? How about RPGs? Gunships?

Anarchists might disagree, but I'm more authoritarian. I don't think they should be allowed to carry RPG's or grenades. Some people are more authoritarian than me, and think we shouldn't even be allowed to own hand guns.

#8189 to #8187 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+2

(09/04/2012)[-]

No, your point doesn't stand. You're spewing fallacies. You're saying it's okay as long as they're not as bad as third world tribal hellholes.

#8190 to #8189 - Orangepeel

Reply-3

(09/04/2012)[-]

You're saying it's okay as long as they're not as bad as third world tribal hellholes.

No, I'm just explaining why calling someone like George Bush Snr. a die-hard authoritarian simply because he doesn't think atheists are true patriots is laughable when there are so many people who actually want to kill people who aren't of their same religion.

Like I said, it's impossible to be totally authoritarian and as far right as you can go.

#8191 to #8190 - deltadeltadelta

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

I'm not equating him to someone like the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, you are.

Your argument is that it's impossible for deep blue or deep purple to be possible. I told you how you were wrong and I gave some examples.

Authoritarian in the political compass is there as the antithesis of Libertarian. By Libertarian it means Civil Libertarianism, with Authoritarianism being opposite, and it doesn't strictly mean tyrannical dictatorship.

If the American religious-right ruled without contest, anyone that wasn't a Christian would be a second-class citizen. gays would be oppressed and sodomy would be a felony. No one could run for office without belonging to a pre-approved church.

Just because they'd imprison the gays rather than executing them doesn't make them any less Authoritarian. Evangelicalism is the biggest threat to the United States.

I bet you're a teenager. I also bet you're the kind of person that think Hitler was left-wing and a socialist because he was the leader of the National Socialist Party. I bet you've never read the wikipedia page on the National Socialist Party, National Socialism or Fascism.

#8193 to #8191 - Orangepeel

Reply-3

(09/04/2012)[-]

Your argument is that it's impossible for deep blue or deep purple to be possible.

Because it is impossible. You can't be totally authoritarian without interfering in the economy, and you can't be totally libertarian without abolishing the state. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction.

If the American religious-right ruled without contest, anyone that wasn't a Christian would be a second-class citizen. gays would be oppressed and sodomy would be a felony. No one could run for office without belonging to a pre-approved church.

Okay, lets pretend for a second that this is actually true. Even if the religious right did do all these things you think they would, the fact that other issues such as gun ownership, expression and (normally) centralization would mean that they couldn't possibly be 100% authoritarian without embracing the authoritarian values the american left holds on to as well.
Lets say, for a second, they did do all those things. They'd need a police-force to be able to hold on to this authoritarian regime, meaning there would need to be funding, meaning there would need to be government intervention in the economy. :. Not 100% free market.

I bet you're a teenager.
I bet you're an American.

_ I also bet you're the kind of person that think Hitler was left-wing and a socialist because he was the leader of the National Socialist Party._

Pic related. I bet you're going to cite a few sources that call Hitler "right wing" with very little evidence to back that up.

I bet you've never read the wikipedia page on the National Socialist Party, National Socialism or Fascism.

6 months ago I wrote a 4000 essay on Fascism titled "To what extent could General Francisco Franco's regime be considered fascist according to Benito Mussolini's model of a Corporate state".

#8194 to #8193 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

You obviously don't see a distinction between economic liberty and civil liberty.

I'm Canadian.

I see you're going with the conservative narrative that everything right-wing = good, while everything left-wing = bad. For starters, the left/right political spectrum was coined during the French Revolution. The revolutionaries were left-wing (sat on the left side of the assembly) and the reactionaries were right-wing (sat on the right side of the assembly). The Nazis are considered far right-wing because they're reactionaries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics

Why do you think you were taught in school that Communists = Left-wing, and Fascists = Right-wing. Did you think it was some kind of brainwashing?

As for your picture, it's misleading and even outright wrong.

- Universal Education: Already a staple of all Western nations.
- Guaranteed Employment: Germany created so many jobs during its rearmament in the 30s that it had near full employment. There was no forced work (unless you were in a concentration camp).
- Welfare for the Elderly: Social security was available in nearly every Western nation (except the US) after WWI.
- Elevation of National Health: I don't know what this means. Germany has had universal healthcare since 1883.
- Abolition of Market-based lending: Does it mean asset-based lending? What is "market-based lending"? That makes no sense.

I like how it implies that these things are bad. Whoever made the picture is obviously a fan of Ayn Rand.

I don't smoke, do drugs or drink. I'm also an atheist. My political views are best described as centrist. Did you picture me as some sort of godless, pot-smoking hippy?

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was a reactionary and populist party.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party (says political position: far right)
The Socialist, Workers' bit was to attract the common German to their cause in blaming the Jews for all of Germany's woes. The Nazis were fascists, corporatists.

#8197 to #8194 - Orangepeel

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

I like how it implies that these things are bad.
It doesn't imply they're bad, but how many right wing parties put these programs as their highlights? I know of leftist parties doing these... but I have yet to see a right wing party put "elevation of national health" as one of it's key policies.

I don't smoke, do drugs or drink. I'm also an atheist.
I smoke, used to do drugs and drink moderately. I'm not an atheist.

Did you picture me as some sort of godless, pot-smoking hippy?
Nothing wrong with pot. Nothing wrong with hippies.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was a reactionary and populist party.
Revolutionary* and populist party.

(says political position: far right)
Far right wing extremists who had the state takeover the means of production, centralized all power and banned hunting. *snicker*

The Nazis were fascists, corporatists.
The Italian Fascists were corporatists. The Nazis were more vague, and made little use of corporations when it came to class collaboration. ITALY had the 22 corporations, Nazi Germany had NONE. ITALY had a system where the means of production were controlled by the workers, the capitalists and the state (although, most of the syndicates were tightly controlled by the government). Germany didn't even bother trying to appeal to the masses with corporatism. The only corporatist element Germany had was labour tribunals, basically. The rest of it was just a top down centrally planned economy (though not 100% state-owned).

#8212 to #8197 - deltadeltadelta

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

Outside of the US? Many. Even in the US social security, public education and medicare are considered third rail issues. You don't touch them unless you want to lose your office.

How were the Nazis, revolutionaries? They don't fit any of the criteria. FFS, they were elected.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're just making shit up now.

#8268 to #8212 - Orangepeel

Reply-3

(09/05/2012)[-]

Outside of the US? Many. Even in the US social security, public education and medicare are considered third rail issues.

Rubbish. The liberal party in Aussie, or the National Party here don't gain their support by promising public benefits. That's what leftists (like Nazis) do. According to you, the National Socialist party were extreme right (lol). The Republican party doesn't use the appeal of social welfare like left wing parties do, so why on earth did the Nazi Party if it was further to the right?

How were the Nazis, revolutionaries?

You don't know a thing about fascism, or National Socialism for that matter. Hitler sought CHANGE. He wanted a new system, based on science, technology, Eugenics and totalitarianism.

They don't fit any of the criteria.

Clearly they do.

FFS, they were elected.

The Nazis barely got 30.1% in the general election, and in the run on they only got 36% (still indicating most Germans were against them). Hindenburg appointed Ol' Adolf as Chancellor as he'd promised to end the violence. Guess who was causing all the Chaos in the streets?

Idiot.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're just making shit up now.

Says the guy who thought Nazi Germany was corporatist. There was no tripartisanism in Germany whatsoever. I love how this has become the substance of your argument.

#8259 to #8212 - Orangepeel

has deleted their comment [-]

#8202 to #8197 - arisaka

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

Revolutionary in the sense that they were *elected* into power? True revolutionaries. A monument to us all.

#8203 to #8202 - Orangepeel

Reply-3

(09/04/2012)[-]

The Bolsheviks were elected into power too. I guess they're not true revolutionaries either.

#8255 to #8203 - arisaka

Reply0

(09/05/2012)[-]

I'm going to ignore this fully.

although one could say they were still reactionary on account of the fact that they implemented reform socialism.

#8213 to #8203 - deltadeltadelta

Reply+1

(09/04/2012)[-]

The Bolsheviks weren't elected. They overthrew the Tsarists, and then they overthrew Prince Lvov's provisional government. They were the only revolutionaries with real military might. They just walked over other groups like the Mensheviks.

#8260 to #8213 - Orangepeel

-2

(09/05/2012)[-]

No, you idiot, they beat the liberal government (provisional). The Tsar had abdicated six months before the Bolsheviks really dominated the Soviets.

#8254 to #8213 - arisaka

has deleted their comment [-]

#8196 to #8194 - Orangepeel

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

The Nazis are considered far right-wing because they're reactionaries.
Fascism considers itself to be a revolutionary form of nationalism, by definition, left wing. The fact that both Communist and Fascist regimes deteriorated into a twisted form of neo-feudalism in no way suggests that either ideology is reactionary.

Why do you think you were taught in school that Communists = Left-wing, and Fascists = Right-wing?
In order for the USSR to distance itself from Democratic Socialism and Fascism, it dubbed both ideologies as "right wing". Accusing members of both ideologies as being reactionaries. The USSR was a major power at the end of world war two, so if this is a result of their influence you shouldn't be surprised.

- Universal Education: Already a staple of all Western nations.
I think state-takeover of education would have been more appropriate. If they were far-right reactionaries, shouldn't they have abolished it?

Germany created so many jobs during its rearmament in the 30s that it had near full employment. There was no forced work (unless you were in a concentration camp).

Government programs of public works and rearmament are far from what the right advocates.

- Welfare for the Elderly:
Both the Greek and Italian Fascists rapidly expanded social security. It's no surprise the Nazi party mimicked them.

Elevation of National Health: I don't know what this means.
The government took the physical health of the people into its own hands and made it a national concern. Hence there were tobacco bans, far stricter regulation of food and subsidized sport programs for men and women. Sound familiar?

Abolition of Market-based lending
In 1934, the Nazi government took over finance passing numerous bills including one compelling companies to invest their reserves into unprofitable areas of the economy that benefited the state (for example, most of the public works' projects).

#8195 to #8194 - deltadeltadelta

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Corporatism is when corporations are the ones that form unions, which make up a council which is chaired by the leader of government.

#8198 to #8195 - Orangepeel

Reply0

(09/04/2012)[-]

Corporatism is when corporations are the ones that form unions, which make up a council which is chaired by the leader of government.

Too broad. Corporatism is where society and the economy is organized according into special interest groups that coordinate all within their jurisdiction, and mediate among other areas in order to achieve social harmony.

Fascist Corporatism is a third way between capitalism (businessmen control the means of production) and socialism (workers control means of production): where both capitalists and workers control the economy under the guidance of the state. Capitalists and workers make up syndicates representing each area of society and collaborate in order to achieve the state's goals. For example, when the Italian government demanded ship-building companies build more military-capable ships, the corporation responsible for transport set the production levels, the prices, profits, wages and working hours. This was breeding ground for corruption seeing as how capitalists who were also members of the corporation now had power over rival companies. This didn't become too much of a problem, however, as most of the representatives making up each corporation were subservient to the party, really.

No such system was seen in Germany!

Back to the content 'American Politics'