Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 08:45:43 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Political Compass  (Read 3115 times)
nlovric
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 190


View Profile
September 23, 2013, 03:36:15 PM
 #1

How does Political Compass expect me to complete their test to determine whether I'm a authoritarian or libertarian, left or right, when the following question on the first page makes me chose between national and international authority:

Quote
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

OpenPGP public key (4096–bit Rivest–Shamir–Adleman (RSA); 7777 B191 5933 ACF1 B998  0101 70B9 7690 C7F8 DD31)
1511469943
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511469943

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511469943
Reply with quote  #2

1511469943
Report to moderator
1511469943
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511469943

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511469943
Reply with quote  #2

1511469943
Report to moderator
1511469943
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511469943

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511469943
Reply with quote  #2

1511469943
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
September 24, 2013, 10:52:03 AM
 #2

It doesn't make you chose between national and international authority. "Military action that defies international law" is a subset of military action in general, so if you feel military action is never justified under any circumstances, then you answer "Strongly Disagree". It's not a hard question.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
September 24, 2013, 05:16:22 PM
 #3

How does Political Compass expect me to complete their test to determine whether I'm a authoritarian or libertarian, left or right, when the following question on the first page makes me chose between national and international authority:

Quote
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

What? If you reject authority, period, then you disagree. Right?  Huh
ktttn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


Capitalism is the crisis.


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2013, 04:56:55 PM
 #4

All military action is unjust.

Wit all my solidarities,
-ktttn
Ever see a gutterpunk spanging for cryptocoins?
LfkJXVy8DanHm6aKegnmzvY8ZJuw8Dp4Qc
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 05:04:20 PM
 #5

All military action is unjust.

Except when a nation must defend itself against another nation's aggression; to be without a military is to have a big sign that says "please invade us", much the same way anti-gun legislation puts a sign on the citizen's face that says "please mug me."

MAbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 06:27:24 PM
 #6

All military action is unjust.

Except when a nation must defend itself against another nation's aggression; to be without a military is to have a big sign that says "please invade us", much the same way anti-gun legislation puts a sign on the citizen's face that says "please mug me."

I don't consider myself part of a "nation" in the way you use it. Self-defense is important, but so are the lines that we choose to draw. If a superpower attacks the US tomorrow, I surely won't support the US army in anything that it does -- how could I, considering history? I will defend myself and my community -- fuck this country. I just hope that someday, the US won't exist.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 06:44:28 PM
 #7

I don't consider myself part of a "nation" in the way you use it. Self-defense is important, but so are the lines that we choose to draw. If a superpower attacks the US tomorrow, I surely won't support the US army in anything that it does -- how could I, considering history? I just hope that someday, the US won't exist.

I agree with you, but the people invading aren't going to make that distinction, and they'll either consider you an enemy, or expect you to fight on their team; either way, you're dragged into the problem the minority created, without anyone's permission but their own.

Frankly, the only way to avoid this issue, as of today, is to not live in the country which is being invaded.  If, in the future, we begin to assimilate and lose the borders, it becomes a lot more difficult to wage huge wars as we've done in the past, as it becomes painfully clear that the two warring parties are of the same kin--that is, they're both human beings first, as opposed to being, for example, Americans first and human second, or Chinese first and human second (ignoring how incredibly expensive it would be to wage wars in a voluntary society.)  If the old adage is true, "United we stand, divided we fall," then this planet has no hope; it seems the end-game of politics, then, is either a one-world state, or no states; I'm personally rooting for the latter.

But that shift takes time, and until then, there will be people who want to kill other people for whatever silly reason, and the people being killed will have to defend themselves; a military is but an organized people with the intent or expectancy of violence.

TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
September 25, 2013, 06:45:32 PM
 #8

That would be military (probably over)reaction, not action.

Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
September 25, 2013, 06:46:27 PM
 #9

That would be military reaction, not action.

Semantics, my only weakness Tongue

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 25, 2013, 06:58:20 PM
 #10

Obviously, by disagreeing, you accept international law. Just thought I'd throw that out there to confound you.
nlovric
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 190


View Profile
September 28, 2013, 12:12:03 AM
 #11

It doesn't make you chose between national and international authority. "Military action that defies international law" is a subset of military action in general, so if you feel military action is never justified under any circumstances, then you answer "Strongly Disagree". It's not a hard question.


International law deals almost-exclusively with nations.

For instance, I have filed an application against my country in front of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). But, I cannot file an application against any persons who have committed criminal offenses against me in front of that body. It is only possible to sue a state.

At the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), they only try e. g. generals.

Bodies of the United Nations (UN) act at national, ethnic, or similar and not personal levels.


International laws are contracts between nations. Any non-national military is "paramilitary" to them.

For instance, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms according to which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judges is a contract signed between all member states. You might call this court an arbitration body.

These courts are different from national courts in the sense that they apply only to states which adhere to them. For instance, the United Nations (UN) cannot apply a single United Nations resolution against Vatican City as it is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

Libertarianism is already global, but is valid only for entire states.

OpenPGP public key (4096–bit Rivest–Shamir–Adleman (RSA); 7777 B191 5933 ACF1 B998  0101 70B9 7690 C7F8 DD31)
b!z
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568



View Profile
October 02, 2013, 12:58:25 PM
 #12

It doesn't make you chose between national and international authority. "Military action that defies international law" is a subset of military action in general, so if you feel military action is never justified under any circumstances, then you answer "Strongly Disagree". It's not a hard question.


International law deals almost-exclusively with nations.

For instance, I have filed an application against my country in front of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). But, I cannot file an application against any persons who have committed criminal offenses against me in front of that body. It is only possible to sue a state.

At the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), they only try e. g. generals.

Bodies of the United Nations (UN) act at national, ethnic, or similar and not personal levels.


International laws are contracts between nations. Any non-national military is "paramilitary" to them.

For instance, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms according to which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judges is a contract signed between all member states. You might call this court an arbitration body.

These courts are different from national courts in the sense that they apply only to states which adhere to them. For instance, the United Nations (UN) cannot apply a single United Nations resolution against Vatican City as it is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

Libertarianism is already global, but is valid only for entire states.

What sort of application did you file against your country? What country is it?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!