Political compass! (who believes what?)

[pjwaffle]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

See my joke thread: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7624.0

Here's mine,

[1715062816]

1715062816

[1715062816]

1715062816

[1715062816]

1715062816

[1715062816]

1715062816

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I'm not a fan of that test because of how biased the questions are.

[Anth0n]

This test has very ambiguous questions. For example, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." What if you do not believe in controlling either one? Also, "People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality." Divided how? Those are just a couple of examples to show what I mean, but the bottom line is that the questions are poorly structured. Try this one: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

[pjwaffle]

This test has very ambiguous questions. For example, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." What if you do not believe in controlling either one? Also, "People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality." Divided how? Those are just a couple of examples to show what I mean, but the bottom line is that the questions are poorly structured. Try this one: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Thanks, I'll try it!

[deadlizard]

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

where's the "who cares" option?
I used to love this compass but it seems that my bias has shifted right and the questions seem stupid 
anyway
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=2.75&soc=-6.87

@Anth0n how is theadvocates any less biased? i got 100/100

[FreeMoney]

Here's a quiz:

Are you a nosy controlling asshole?

If yes: You are political
If no: Congrats

[grondilu]

Mine:

[chickenado]

I'm an anarcho-fascist

Where does that put me on this graph?? 

[deadlizard]

I'm an anarcho-fascist

Where does that put me on this graph?? 

upper left

[SmokeTooMuch]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.12&soc=-7.38


Hmm, never seen myself as a leftist libertarian.

[Alex Beckenham]

I seem to be drifting south east... I remember being closer to the centre a few years ago.

[pjwaffle]

I've seen the results I expected to see, bitcoins are basically for people who don't like government control of most sorts

I'm happy I'm with my crowd!

[TheKoziTwo]

This is what I got a few months back:

[左]

Whenever I used to take that test I always used to end up in the left bottom corner, you know, -10, -10. I won't bother taking it again, because I doubt my opinions have changed at all in regards to the questions asked.

The problem with the other question is that it assumes you want a government, which I don't. I think I once emailed the creators about this, and they said something like "yeah, we know, whatever". Or maybe that was the first mob. Anyway, anarchy! (Also, they owe us a living.)

(Also, 100 posts.)

[JohnDoe]

Damn those questions sucked, couldn't even finish the first page. Anyway, as a Stirnerite I'd probably be on the bottom right.

[Danube]

I wonder what makes you guys go to the bottom-right, and not to bottom-center.

[JohnDoe]

I wonder what makes you guys go to the bottom-right, and not to bottom-center.

Because the market shouldn't be regulated at all?

[Danube]

But doesn't that lead to monopoles and cartels? As we have it today e.g. with the central banks (not controlled by governments)?
IMHO already a P2P protocoll is something which no completely unregulated.

[pjwaffle]

I wonder what makes you guys go to the bottom-right, and not to bottom-center.

Because the market shouldn't be regulated at all?

:O Shocking concept! (/me <3 sarcasm)

@Danube... why are you here if you want to regulate the market!? The entire point of bitcoin is unregulatibility!

[Danube]

I don't want to regulate the market. As far as I understand, would that draw you upwards in the diagram... The horizantal axis is the distribution of goods. Right: all to few, left: all to many.
Horizantol axis is the regulation via laws: Top: highly regulated, bottom: unregulated.

[grondilu]

But doesn't that lead to monopoles and cartels? As we have it today e.g. with the central banks (not controlled by governments)?

Pfff....  Isn't this in a liberalism FAQ or something?   If not, it should.

[FatherMcGruder]

where's the "who cares" option?

I read somewhere that an agree or disagree answer registers as "I don't care". I think you have to strongly agree or disagree to affect your score.

[JohnDoe]

But doesn't that lead to monopoles and cartels?

Personally I wouldn't care about that, but no, it wouldn't lead to monopolies/cartels. On the contrary, it is way easier to achieve monopolies with excessive regulations as it creates artificial barriers to entry that make it prohibitively expensive for new players to enter the game.

I don't want to regulate the market. As far as I understand, would that draw you upwards in the diagram... The horizantal axis is the distribution of goods. Right: all to few, left: all to many.
Horizantol axis is the regulation via laws: Top: highly regulated, bottom: unregulated.

The horizontal axis represents economic freedom. The further left you are means the more laws you support regulating the market. The vertical axis represents personal freedom.

[kinghajj]

Here's one I just took. I've drifted mostly left, but also a bit down since I first took this test in my teens.

[compro01]

the social (y) axis must be biased differently than the CBC's compass, though the economic axis lines up.

voted NDP in the Canadian election.  sadly, my province is almost completely blue, except a single spot of red.

[grondilu]

Here's one I just took. I've drifted mostly left, but also a bit down since I first took this test in my teens.

Guys, we have an intruder.   Set the dogs!    

[kinghajj]

Ah, come on. Can't all anarchists get along here? At least I'm the most anti-authoritarian in this thread  (well, according to this biased test.)

[grondilu]

Ah, come on. Can't all anarchists get along here? At least I'm the most anti-authoritarian in this thread  (well, according to this biased test.)

Yeah, I was kidding.  As long as you don't have the police tax me and torture me to reveal my wallet encryption password, I'm fine...

[Anth0n]

But doesn't that lead to monopoles and cartels? As we have it today e.g. with the central banks (not controlled by governments)?
IMHO already a P2P protocoll is something which no completely unregulated.

Do you realize that central banks are established by governments? And that the members are also appointed by government? They claim to be independent but that is far from the truth. Also, the idea that monopolies rise without government regulation is a myth. Regulation often prevents smaller businesses from competing with larger ones. See this article for more details: https://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.PDF

[abyssobenthonic]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.12&soc=-7.38


Hmm, bever seen myself as a leftist libertarian.

I'm finding the libertarian left to be one of the more interesting political/philosophical phenomena out there.

http://all-left.net/ is as good a place as any to explore.

[abyssobenthonic]

Sheldon Richman blog entry at The American Conservative on left-libertarianism (I think I found it via via this Hit & Run post)

[pjwaffle]

We started off with right libertarian people (like me and a few others), but the thread quickly shifted to left libertarian people!!!

What is happening to our awesomeness!?

[kinghajj]

We started off with right libertarian people (like me and a few others), but the thread quickly shifted to left libertarian people!!!

What is happening to our awesomeness!?

Let's just rejoice in our (so-far seemingly) universally-shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. We don't really conflict, anyways, since in a post-State world each community will choose how it operates, so there will undoubtedly be anarchic communities of all persuasions, and each person will be free to choose a community that best reflects their own values.

[pjwaffle]

We started off with right libertarian people (like me and a few others), but the thread quickly shifted to left libertarian people!!!

What is happening to our awesomeness!?

Let's just rejoice in our (so-far seemingly) universally-shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. We don't really conflict, anyways, since in a post-State world each community will choose how it operates, so there will undoubtedly be anarchic communities of all persuasions, and each person will be free to choose a community that best reflects their own values.

Fair enough. But being anti-authoritarian doesn't imply you want anarchy - there are varying degrees of it. For example, I still support a government run military, police force, and a few other essentials... But with very very low taxes and spending.

[joeydangerous]

This is weird. I grew up in a democrat family and had far-left beliefs until a couple years ago when I educated myself. I'm not surprised to be neat the bottom, but I'm a little surprised to be slightly to the right than to the left.

[The Script]

Muah ah ah ah.

[deadlizard]

Muah ah ah ah.

[The Script]

Exactly.  And I'm coming for all you anarchist lefties. Be warned.  In the end, as gin-scented tears stream down your face, you will realize that you love Big Brother.

[fetokun]

Nice!

[Garrett Burgwardt]

We started off with right libertarian people (like me and a few others), but the thread quickly shifted to left libertarian people!!!

What is happening to our awesomeness!?

Let's just rejoice in our (so-far seemingly) universally-shared anti-authoritarian beliefs. We don't really conflict, anyways, since in a post-State world each community will choose how it operates, so there will undoubtedly be anarchic communities of all persuasions, and each person will be free to choose a community that best reflects their own values.

Fair enough. But being anti-authoritarian doesn't imply you want anarchy - there are varying degrees of it. For example, I still support a government run military, police force, and a few other essentials... But with very very low taxes and spending.

I thought like you too, once

Don't worry, you'll get over it once you think it through some

[grondilu]

I just did the test again:

























PS.   no, I'm kidding, I faked this one.   

[BCEmporium]

Thus you can move it with the vars...

I don't blame on the questions, but the options are too narrow and therefore "B&W".

[JohnDoe]

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

PS.   no, I'm kidding, I faked this one.   

Damn! I thought I had just found my lost twin.

[fetokun]

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

PS.   no, I'm kidding, I faked this one.   

Damn! I thought I had just found my lost twin.

Just because I believe in some regulation doesn't mean that I want the government to be able to control each aspect of my life (like what I do with my money).

[sortedmush]

Just because I believe in some regulation doesn't mean that I want the government to be able to control each aspect of my life (like what I do with my money).

What aspects of your life do you want the government to be in control of?

[Prze_koles]

[BCEmporium]

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

You're mistaken the "tool" (money) with what to do with it.
Makes as much sense as saying that just right wing folks would be able to use plowshares...

[grondilu]

In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities.

Why would left libertarians not be happy with that?  As long as they can do whatever they want inside their community, they are fine, aren't they?

[deuxmill]

I think this really fits my way of thinking. I love the thought of a government that is based solely on trust , that can't compel me to pay taxes but i will pay as long as it does conform to most of my principles . The moment it drifts in a way i don't like i stop paying. As for drugs i really don't like restriction laws , they do nothing good except make those that don't care about offending the law getting more money for something that could be really easy to find. Big companies are "bad" but if people weren't ignorant then this companies would easily be compelled to do better then what they are doing now, if people are ignorant then though luck they should be abused. I would also love all religious thinking to disappear.  


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[JohnDoe]

You're mistaken the "tool" (money) with what to do with it.
Makes as much sense as saying that just right wing folks would be able to use plowshares...

I may be totally wrong but isn't the "property is theft" idea central to left anarchists? If so then why would they even need the tool of money if everyone is obligated to share what they produce?

Why would left libertarians not be happy with that?  As long as they can do whatever they want inside their community, they are fine, aren't they?

Yeah, I guess. I have this notion though that they seriously hate capitalism and will probably be unhappy until it is destroyed. Also they would possibly have to trade in a capitalistic way with the rest of the world in order to sustain the quality of life of their communities, adding to their unhappiness as they will feel exploited once again.

[BCEmporium]

JohnDoe,

It's subjective, the "analysis" doesn't state which part of the social sphere a "leftist" likes or not. Retirement, unemployment, health care, "property-theft",  as you call it, etc...
So, your statement would just make sense if you find someone in the lower-left corner (anyone who "fits in the corners" is a crackpot btw, a dangerous fanatic) or even to one of the edges (these let's call those wackjobs).

[FatherMcGruder]

I may be totally wrong but isn't the "property is theft" idea central to left anarchists? If so then why would they even need the tool of money if everyone is obligated to share what they produce?

Some anarchists, like communist anarchists, oppose money while mutualist and individualist anarchists do not, at least, not necessarily. In fact, Proudhon, who coined the phrase, advocated the use of mutual banks to strengthen the working class and to help bring about anarchy.

[sortedmush]

.. (anyone who "fits in the corners" is a crackpot btw, a dangerous fanatic) or even to one of the edges (these let's call those wackjobs).

Are you serious?

[BCEmporium]

.. (anyone who "fits in the corners" is a crackpot btw, a dangerous fanatic) or even to one of the edges (these let's call those wackjobs).

Are you serious?

If you fit in a corner (3 squares around the corner) it means all your positions are "100%" for one "pre-determinate" side, which means you probably sold your brain in eBay and the World turns black an white. "No Agree or Disagree, either Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree".
For those "at the edges", are not quite as bad as the ones in the "corners", but also take their position to an immoderate position.

[pjwaffle]

I just did the test again:




obviously faked

?ec=9.9&soc=-9.9




















PS.   no, I'm kidding, I faked this one.   

[sortedmush]

If you fit in a corner (3 squares around the corner) it means all your positions are "100%" for one "pre-determinate" side, which means you probably sold your brain in eBay and the World turns black an white. "No Agree or Disagree, either Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree".
For those "at the edges", are not quite as bad as the ones in the "corners", but also take their position to an immoderate position.

So is it a bad thing to apply principles consistently? Or to apply them with conviction?

[mewantsbitcoins]

[deadlizard]

interesting 

[mewantsbitcoins]

 
I was wondering how did that images got into my head, although on my mac it's to the left.

Where's my tinfoil - THEY ARE BRAINWASHING US!!!!!!!!!!

[BCEmporium]

If you fit in a corner (3 squares around the corner) it means all your positions are "100%" for one "pre-determinate" side, which means you probably sold your brain in eBay and the World turns black an white. "No Agree or Disagree, either Strongly Agree or Strongly Disagree".
For those "at the edges", are not quite as bad as the ones in the "corners", but also take their position to an immoderate position.

So is it a bad thing to apply principles consistently? Or to apply them with conviction?

Well, for starters picture that as a "planisphere" representing a globe. In fact neither of the 4 corners is faraway from each other, they round about to be the same.
The bad thing isn't to have strong stands, but to have strong stands on everything that is asked, this alone indicates a person willing to stuck the nose on every subject, whether it interests him, if he has something to do with it or not at all "OR" one of those who's blindfold and follows some sort of "one size fits all" ideology, one of those intended to "deal" with all subjects from economy to social to how to get laid.

[kinghajj]

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

I am by no means well-versed in anarchist theory (having just recently begun reading some Chomsky in my spare time,) but it seems to me that even in a socialist/communist economy, some kind of medium of exchange will be needed. BitCoin is attractive to me because it's highly democratic, and would seem to fit nicely in an anarchist society. Individuals wouldn't need money, but syndicates could use it to exchange for needed resources for their production.

Even if BitCoin is never used in a left anarchist society, in the short to medium term BitCoin seems like a worthwhile investment.

[SmokeTooMuch]

I think this really fits my way of thinking. I love the thought of a government that is based solely on trust , that can't compel me to pay taxes but i will pay as long as it does conform to most of my principles . The moment it drifts in a way i don't like i stop paying. As for drugs i really don't like restriction laws , they do nothing good except make those that don't care about offending the law getting more money for something that could be really easy to find. Big companies are "bad" but if people weren't ignorant then this companies would easily be compelled to do better then what they are doing now, if people are ignorant then though luck they should be abused. I would also love all religious thinking to disappear.  

+ 1 because that's exactly my point of view
and + over 9000 because this is the first "first post" I've seen on the forum that is really useful

[abyssobenthonic]

Why would left libertarians not be happy with that?  As long as they can do whatever they want inside their community, they are fine, aren't they?

Yeah, I guess. I have this notion though that they seriously hate capitalism and will probably be unhappy until it is destroyed. Also they would possibly have to trade in a capitalistic way with the rest of the world in order to sustain the quality of life of their communities, adding to their unhappiness as they will feel exploited once again.

Define capitalism.

While I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues, I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not.  Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety.

Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.  But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. " In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term.

Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.

I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)

[em3rgentOrdr]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited.  What if I want economic globalization to serve the interests of both the trans-national corporations, humanity, individuals, and small businesses?  And by what means am I able to use economic globalization to serve some party?  To me, the presumption implied by the question is that there is some means (e.g. voting) or entity (e.g. a state) by which I can influence the outcome.  The question is almost inherently statist (although I suppose that there are indeed non-statist, voluntary means by which a single person can influence the result of economic globalization).

[JohnDoe]

Define capitalism.

a) free market/laissez-faire.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Define capitalism.

a) free market/laissez-faire.

Yeah...this is why I have stopped bothering using the term "Capitalism".  As Roderick explains, it is an anti-concept.  If I do use the term, I like to hyphenate it as in "I am a free-market anti-capitalist."

Roderick Long FTW.

[caveden]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited. 

+1

[sortedmush]

Well, for starters picture that as a "planisphere" representing a globe. In fact neither of the 4 corners is faraway from each other, they round about to be the same.
The bad thing isn't to have strong stands, but to have strong stands on everything that is asked, this alone indicates a person willing to stuck the nose on every subject, whether it interests him, if he has something to do with it or not at all "OR" one of those who's blindfold and follows some sort of "one size fits all" ideology, one of those intended to "deal" with all subjects from economy to social to how to get laid.

Despite the derogatory language you use, I fail to see how being consistent is a bad thing. For instance, if I were to apply the non aggression principle across the board, I would strongly agree and strongly disagree where appropriate. Would this make me a dangerous fanatic? Or a wackjob?

In your opinion, Is consistency preferable to inconsistency?

[grondilu]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited. 

+1

I also thought this question was totally biased, but then I just answered "Disagree", as I don't understand what the heck the epression "serve humanity" means.

[BCEmporium]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

People on the orange are mildly dangerous, they would accept some arguing on a few subjects, but there's something they hold as a "holy Grail" and will react violently if contested (thus claiming they're "self-defending").

People closer to the middle is more up to negotiate positions. One in the middle (0,0) would probably be a nice guy, but wouldn't be able to make up his mind keep changing ideas at every 5 seconds... but I doubt someone can achieve that position.

EDIT: BTW, this test is just a toy, it can't measure "EXACTLY" nothing, as some can be so "strong" towards a single subject and relative towards many others, moving to the middle even being fanatic. It doesn't mean those falling to corners and edges to not have too much "absolute truths", but even those in the middle can be fanatics of something, just not so wide.

[grondilu]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

Yeah, I think you're right.  We should make sure everyone takes this test, and then we'll put all people who fall in the red squares into jail, until we execute them for the greater good.  Hum wait...  if I think this way, shouldn't I be placed in a red square too?  Oh gosh...

[BCEmporium]

Yeah, I think you're right.  We should make sure everyone takes this test, and then we'll put all people who fall in the red squares into jail, until we execute them for the greater good.  Hum wait...  if I think this way, shouldn't I be placed in a red square too?  Oh gosh...

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square 
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

[grondilu]

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square  
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

Also, most people believe it's not morally acceptable to judge people for their beliefs.  People must be judge for their acts, not their thoughts.  There is no such think that a "mental criminal".

But now, even this is nothing but a belief.  You can agree with it, or not.   And if you don't you are probably in a red square anyway.   This whole thing is too complex to make any sense.    I think I'll become a nihilist after this debate  

[BCEmporium]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

[deadlizard]

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square  
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

Also, most people believe it's not morally acceptable to judge people for their beliefs.  People must be judge for their acts, not their thoughts.  There is no such think that a "mental criminal".

But now, even this is nothing but a belief.  You can agree with it, or not.   And if you don't you are probably in a red square anyway.   This whole thing is too complex to make any sense.    I think I'll become a nihilist after this debate  

nihilism is Doubleplusungood crimethink
Doubleplusungood crimethink is paticularly plusdisgustful and is punished by Removethink if it is found to be ungood enough

[The Script]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

People on the orange are mildly dangerous, they would accept some arguing on a few subjects, but there's something they hold as a "holy Grail" and will react violently if contested (thus claiming they're "self-defending").

People closer to the middle is more up to negotiate positions. One in the middle (0,0) would probably be a nice guy, but wouldn't be able to make up his mind keep changing ideas at every 5 seconds... but I doubt someone can achieve that position.

EDIT: BTW, this test is just a toy, it can't measure "EXACTLY" nothing, as some can be so "strong" towards a single subject and relative towards many others, moving to the middle even being fanatic. It doesn't mean those falling to corners and edges to not have too much "absolute truths", but even those in the middle can be fanatics of something, just not so wide.

Look back at my graph.  Now at yours, now back to mine, NOW BACK to YOURS.  Hmm, I guess I'm just barely on the edge of one of the red squares.  Guess I'll have to take the test a THIRD time to make sure I'm all the way in. 

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand.  "Extremists" are often the ones that change the world, for the better or for the worse, but that doesn't make them evil.  Dangerous, perhaps, to the status quo and ruling class.  As far as I am concerned as long as you reject the initiation of violence, theft, and coercion I don't care if you fall in the left or right corner.  If you do not aggress against me and do not steal my property then we should have no problems.  It's the upper scales of the graph I am worried about, left and right.

[The Script]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

I do not believe this makes sense.  Fascism is characterized by strong authoritarian beliefs as well as belief in Nationality, Race and the State.  Fascists believe in a strong ruling authority.  Your red boxes in the upper corners might be considered fascists but the lower ones cannot be.  By the definition of the chart the lower you go the less authoritarian, and therefore the less fascist, you are.  People in the lower reaches of the chart believe in very little or no structured authority.  They just have different opinions on what that would/should look like.  Just because you strongly believe something does not mean you would force it upon other people.

[BCEmporium]

The Script,

It's the most "funny" feature of that graph, to be an "ultimate libertarian" you've to be an "ultimate fascist", as both are extreme positions which never come to happen without authoritarianism and violence. So to end, the issue is just that, that position is that you do strongly believe so much and WILL impose it to others [if given a chance] (otherwise what would be the sense of such way of thinking?!)

Radicalism changes the World to the worse only, there's no single record where it has changed the World to the best; not by religion nor politics.

[BCEmporium]

If you get 4 guys from the extremes:

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

Extreme Left/Authoritarian vs Extreme Right/Authoritarian will render the exact same behavior as the ELL vs ELR.

Extreme Left/Authoritarian vs Extreme Left/Libertarian, they will find to have more in common than anything else and will not fight at all, probably the ELA will "restrain" the ELL due to lack of reasoning of the second, but that's all. On the same line an ERA will not fight an ERL.

If you cross them:

ELL vs ERA = ELL vs ELR except that ERA are normally more organized, leaving ELL in worse shape.
ERL vs ELA same as ELL vs ERA.

Different? Are they?

[caveden]

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand. 

+1

Let's never forget that those advocating for complete slavery abolition on the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th were viewed by the majority as "radical extremists". Abolishing slavery was indeed a very radical and extreme idea at that time.

[caveden]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right. This is not a matter of opinion, it's pretty logical: http://www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=200
Even a little kids understand that taking what belong to others is not a good idea, even little kids react violently when people take what's theirs, you shouldn't really need the full philosophical explanation to understand what most 4 years old can grasp.

Besides, this whole Left-Right thing doesn't make much sense. I would never say I'm "right-wing".

[BCEmporium]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right.

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

[Alex Beckenham]

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

And the occupier is wrong, the one defending himself is right.

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

Even within cultures, it's a matter for individuals.
But you still get a +1.

[BCEmporium]

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand. 

+1

Let's never forget that those advocating for complete slavery abolition on the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th were viewed by the majority as "radical extremists". Abolishing slavery was indeed a very radical and extreme idea at that time.

Wrong! The ones keeping slavery were pretty extremists themselves. Eventually what we got was a moderate position between those two groups, which we call "abolishing slavery". Some of the arguments of those "anti-slavery extremists" if you listen to them now you would be calling them utterly racists, as it sounds they're talking of blacks as dogs... matter of time.

[caveden]

That what "you believe in" (and most of the World), but it doesn't make it right by itself. It's a matter of culture not "right or wrong" - specially because there's no such thing on ANY subject.

Ethics is not a matter of culture, it's a matter of logic. Try reading the text I indicated you.

[caveden]

Wrong! The ones keeping slavery were pretty extremists themselves.

No, they were not. They were just keeping status quo. Slavery was a reality in human race since a man became capable of producing more than his basic needs. It existed pratically everywhere, for millenia.

The radical ones were those trying to abolish it. And curiously the arguments used against them were quite similar to the arguments used against those who oppose the state.

[BCEmporium]

Ethics are bind to what one consider or not "right" within a given cultural background. Everything is relative, the belief of "absolute truth", "absolute evil or goodness" is actually the root of all extremism and fanaticism.
If you want to put it to terms is even pathetic that a mortal creature claims to "own" a piece of land, taken that piece of land is virtually immortal whereas its "owner" isn't. So to the very bottom of the subject you just "lend" a piece of land for a while.

As for radicalism, keeping the "status quo" can be a radical position, moderation isn't measured by "reaction = moderation / revolution = extremism", moderation is measured by awareness that despite you need a route to follow (a set of conventions we call "right and wrong"), the others' point of view isn't "just wrong" because it's different of yours.

[caveden]

Ethics are bind to what one consider or not "right" within a given cultural background.

You clearly didn't read the text I indicated you and keep repeating something wrong. Basic ethics can be logically determined, do not confuse it with personal values.

Everything is relative, the belief of "absolute truth", "absolute evil or goodness" is actually the root of all extremism and fanaticism.

hehe, if "there is no absolute truth", what is this sentence itself? It can't be an absolute truth itself... meaning that in certain situations, the sentence "there is no absolute truth" is not true. But if this very sentence if false at any situation, that means that in this situation there is an absolute truth, making the sentence false always.

Absolute truths do exist.

As for radicalism, keeping the "status quo" can be a radical position, moderation isn't measured by "reaction = moderation / revolution = extremism", moderation is measured by awareness that despite you need a route to follow (a set of conventions we call "right and wrong"), the others' point of view isn't "just wrong" because it's different of yours.

Wow, now radicals want to maintain the status quo... basically you're defining radicalism as what suits you better.

From the very dictionary definition:

radicalism (uncountable)

    Any of various radical social or political movements that aim at fundamental change in the structure of society

As I said, those wanting to abolish slavery in the beginning of the 19th century were extreme radicals. What they fought for was a fundamental change in the structure of society.

[BCEmporium]

So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...

As it looks I'm talking to an extremist, and extremists are impossible to talk to (doesn't matter if from right or left wing, authoritarian or libertarian), taken everything they "believe in" is "the truth" and everything someone else's does or believe is "wrong"...

For Radicalism it means:

the state or nature of being radical, esp in politics.

Radical:

a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.

Extremism:

the condition or act of taking an extreme view.

Extreme view: Take one's vision or belief as supreme, ultimate and incontestable truth

Extremism can be taken to the "status quo", back in 44 for an instance kill Jews was a status quo of Nazis and it was quite an extremist measure. We don't call the allies extremists, despite by winning the war they caused a major shift within the German society.

[caveden]

So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...

I just gave you the logical demonstration that they exist, didn't you follow? The negation of this sentence is a logical contradiction, meaning that the sentence is necessarily true.

And if you really need an example: 2+2=4.

[BCEmporium]

2 what plus 2 what? May not necessarily be 4, if 2 atoms of hydrogen meets 2 atoms of oxygen they will combine to form water and release 1 atom of oxygen, so here 2H+2O = H2O+O.
Still, mathematics are abstract within abstraction layers there're "absolute truths" or at least results that can be taken as somewhat "absolute". However you don't run your life based on mathematics nor its apparent "perfection", but on social interaction.

Your play with words on the sentence makes it funny and end up to be truth, even the sentence "there's no absolute truth" can be false, but by having the possibility to be false makes it also true. Doesn't mean you didn't put a fallacy and make a statement of denial to be judged as statement.

[grondilu]

Caveden, I agree with what you said about abolitionnists being seen as extremists at their time, but you lost me when you say ethics is a matter of logic.   To me it is just not, really.

The exemple of someone defending his property is a good exemple.  Some people don't even believe in property.  "Property is theft", as Proudhon said.  So, those people can think they have the right to take other people belongings, with force if necessary.  To you and me it is silly and outrageous, but for them it is highly moral.  And logic has nothing to do with this.

[caveden]

Caveden, I agree with what you said about abolitionnists being seen as extremists at their time, but you lost me when you say ethics is a matter of logic.   To me it is just not, really.

Ethics, sometimes called "natural rights" (I don't like this term very much), can be logically determined based solely on human nature and axiom-like premises like "full obedience of ethics must not culminate in human race extermination".
The text in Portuguese I had linked to BCEmporium is good logical explanation of property rights done by Hoppe, you could take a look if you will. Here's the English version: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe11.html

[BCEmporium]

caveden,

You mean "common sense" as "ethics".
Yes, I do agree to the use of common sense, thus I'm aware of its volatile nature, that's what I'm pointing out. Like saying back on 18th Century and Slavery, for the "common sense of the age", at least within the ruling power and to some extent to slaves themselves (mostly didn't even think on a different way of life), slavery was just "perfectly normal". Nowadays is an obnoxious practice, not extinct but no longer accepted on most regions of the globe.

I lack the time now, but later I'll explain this and some misconceptions to practical common sense within that Robinson Crusoe text you sent me.

[caveden]

2 what plus 2 what? May not necessarily be 4, if 2 atoms of hydrogen meets 2 atoms of oxygen they will combine to form water and release 1 atom of oxygen, so here 2H+2O = H2O+O.

Dude, seriously, it's basic definition of math that, unless otherwise specified, in a simple addition like 2+2 we're talking about items of the same nature.

Your play with words on the sentence makes it funny and end up to be truth, even the sentence "there's no absolute truth" can be false, but by having the possibility to be false makes it also true. Doesn't mean you didn't put a fallacy and make a statement of denial to be judged as statement.

Sorry but you seems to have problems with logic. The sentence "there's no absolute truth" is a logical contradiction itself, simply because it implies that sometimes it cannot be true (otherwise itself would be an absolute truth). But if sometimes it's false, then sometimes there are absolute truths, what makes the initial sentence false entirely, and its negation, "there are absolute truths", true.
If you can't see that, I'm sorry but I don't think I can write it any better. I'm not playing with words at all.

[caveden]

caveden,

You mean "common sense" as "ethics".

No, I don't.

This is getting pointless. Please, try reading the text I indicated you regarding property rights. I challenge you to find logical flaws in it. The people on the site are very responsive and may answer you better than I, leave comments there if you don't understand something.

I have to go now. Best regards

[BCEmporium]

2+2 is abstract, means nothing nor have practical use by itself, within the real and practical sphere, which like or not is where we live, 2+2 even for the same kind may not mean 4. World and the Universe is not maths, as it tend to chaos.

On RC story you get all the flaws of the genesis of private property, thus men take more care of what they "own" than what they believe to be "public", the genesis of private property is... stealing.

RC is a demonstrative of morality of the time it was written, Friday doesn't come to be RC friendly neighbor, but RC's maiden, as it was "morale acceptable" at such time that a white guy is the "primarily owner" of everything he lays hands on. So RC doesn't only takeover ownership of the island - which happens to be already inhabited by "savages" - who for the morality of such time wasn't even "human" to take to account of ownership - but also take ownership of Friday.
And if RC is just a fictional character, the pioneers on the American West or Australia aren't but what they did wasn't much different than our imaginary Robinson Crusoe.

I then found some legitimacy on those opposing the idea of private property, but also illegitimacy as they pretend to be heirs of those they aren't... in the modern "all owned" World, those claims renders few than some willing to release land in order for them to "steal for themselves" later on.

Is human nature based on stealing and are we all robbers? Perhaps...

EDIT:

So in the end, whoever wrote that text, forgot one thing: Why there's private property? And the answer is simple: Because there's a force that allows it to remain private, like police and military. Both rely in a government to be enforced.
So private property doesn't "avoid conflicts", it's the security forces who does it. This is also the reason why in genesis this private property distribution was so biased; because the "white man" was way more technologically advanced than Africans and can coerce anyone to accept his claims. And this is not an exclusive of "white man", less than one century before the Portuguese arrival in the Indian ocean a group of Chinese sailors, under command of Zheng He, already did practically the same, killing the entire army of where is now Sri Lanka due to its king refusal into "pay tribute" to the Chinese Emperor.

Actually, and as the demographic pressure is as intense as now, never before the existence of governments were so justified in order to keep private property, for those who believe in such. Making anarchy anachronistic. It would make more sense on the middle ages, when space wasn't anything near scarce, but those poor folks got a "freedom relief program" we name as "governments" (mostly Monarchies).
This also leads to the other bogus interpretation of "first to arrive, first to get" rule; until where is one claims of ownership legitimate? 1 Hectare? 1 Country? 1 Continent? The World? Greed uses to have several issues with borders...

[em3rgentOrdr]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

I do not believe this makes sense.  Fascism is characterized by strong authoritarian beliefs as well as belief in Nationality, Race and the State.  Fascists believe in a strong ruling authority.  Your red boxes in the upper corners might be considered fascists but the lower ones cannot be.  By the definition of the chart the lower you go the less authoritarian, and therefore the less fascist, you are.  People in the lower reaches of the chart believe in very little or no structured authority.  They just have different opinions on what that would/should look like.  Just because you strongly believe something does not mean you would force it upon other people.

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

[BCEmporium]

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

It's implicit within the "strongly agree". Let's say you "strongly agree" that those with pink shirts shouldn't pick the train, if you see a guy with a pink shirt in the train you'll try to put him away, if he's persistent your actions would move from an initial attempt of speech to a more violent and coercive reaction. Or if you're shy you'll feel inner revolt to have that guy there.
That's just plainly natural...

[em3rgentOrdr]

+1.  Yes...need an additional axis: Degree of Belief and Willingness to Use Force to Impose Belief on Others..

It's implicit within the "strongly agree". Let's say you "strongly agree" that those with pink shirts shouldn't pick the train, if you see a guy with a pink shirt in the train you'll try to put him away, if he's persistent your actions would move from an initial attempt of speech to a more violent and coercive reaction. Or if you're shy you'll feel inner revolt to have that guy there.
That's just plainly natural...

No. STRONGLY AGREE != will impose with force.

[BCEmporium]

!= but ~=

And obviously doesn't matter the kind of fanatic, nobody normally takes violence as a primary mean unless mindless bullies.

[grondilu]

Strongly agree can mean a lot of stuffs.  It can mean for instance that you feel passionnate about it, and that you could debate during a long time with someone who disagree.  It can mean that you could be willing to put yourself in danger in order to defend this idea.  Or that you could put some money into it.

Gandhi (one of the famous people mentionned as a left libertarian in the politicalcompass website) strongly believed in his principles and yet he was non-violent.

[BCEmporium]

I'll give that one under one premise, the options of this test are narrow, misses for an instance "neutral" positions; there're subjects you don't either agree or disagree, you just feel "it's not your business", so you wouldn't have a say about it. By narrowing the options also "strongly agree" could mean "yes, I do believe so very much" to "I would kill if it was otherwise".

Gandhi often went "against himself" in order to contain violence, he took the principle of non-violence high as India at his time was at civil war. But ended up by fractionate India into Pakistan and Bangladesh... maybe at long term it will prove to had been quite an high price to pay.

[em3rgentOrdr]

!= but ~=

And obviously doesn't matter the kind of fanatic, nobody normally takes violence as a primary mean unless mindless bullies.

Trust me, I've met plenty of "Centrists" and "Moderates" who are perfectly willing to put a bullet through my head if I don't obey.

[BCEmporium]

!= but ~=

And obviously doesn't matter the kind of fanatic, nobody normally takes violence as a primary mean unless mindless bullies.

Trust me, I've met plenty of "Centrists" and "Moderates" who are perfectly willing to put a bullet through my head if I don't obey.

I stated that early, on in the middle could still "strongly dis/agree so much" to a single subject that would kill if otherwise. So being in the middle means nothing, however being in the edges means to "strongly dis/agree" to way too much subjects.

[deadlizard]

So being in the middle means nothing, however being in the edges means to "strongly dis/agree" to way too much subjects.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of how many subjects are to many.

[em3rgentOrdr]

So being in the middle means nothing, however being in the edges means to "strongly dis/agree" to way too much subjects.

I strongly disagree with your assessment of how many subjects are to many.

I weakly agree with a hue of lavender.

[BCEmporium]

Side speaking, I believe the idea of that "+/-" was to use within market place as a sort of feedback and not to use as sort of "like" button in Facebook for political discussions... 
Using it here will render it so useless as... well... as the like button on Facebook is.

[BitterTea]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

[BCEmporium]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

In general I give a nill regardless, but may be thinking about it.

Nevertheless it looks like a coercive way to abide by the majority... but what can be expected of anarchists? Their only issue with the state is that they're not in charge 

[em3rgentOrdr]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

+1

The only real standard is a defacto standard.  Let the emergent order decide how +/- should be used.

[BCEmporium]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

+1

The only real standard is a defacto standard.  Let the emergent order decide how +/- should be used.

Yeah! Let a DEMOCRATIC measurement utility be used by those who bash Democracy 
Isn't this funny or what?! I guess that's a big nag within Democracy, to be Democracy it has to allow those who opposite to live within.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Nevertheless it looks like a coercive way to abide by the majority... but what can be expected of anarchists? Their only issue with the state is that they're not in charge 

Nice trolling.

No, non-imposed emergent standards of how to use +/- is not coercive.  And there is no need to abide by the majority.  High-ranking forum members have decided to grant us the +/- system without invoking majority rule at all.  And if anyone of us don't like this particular forum rules, we are free to. fork ir by downloaing  a backup of the database and uploading it to our own server, and we can feel free to use our own modifed Simple Machines source cods with any plugons we want and can for our own rules and can invite and prohibit whomever we want.

[em3rgentOrdr]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

+1

The only real standard is a defacto standard.  Let the emergent order decide how +/- should be used.

Yeah! Let a DEMOCRATIC measurement utility be used by those who bash Democracy 
Isn't this funny or what?! I guess that's a big nag within Democracy, to be Democracy it has to allow those who opposite to live within.

That doesn't even make sense.  What do you mean by democratic meausrement utility?

[BCEmporium]

No, the +/- system is a general user feedback tool, not specific to trade. If people like what you have to say and the way you say it, they might give you a plus. Otherwise, they might give you a minus.

+1

The only real standard is a defacto standard.  Let the emergent order decide how +/- should be used.

Yeah! Let a DEMOCRATIC measurement utility be used by those who bash Democracy  
Isn't this funny or what?! I guess that's a big nag within Democracy, to be Democracy it has to allow those who opposite to live within.

That doesn't even make sense.  What do you mean by democratic meausrement utility?

"Democracy sucks"... Let's vote (because that +/- is a voting system, something that is used normally for Democracy, it measures the will of the majority over an issue/point of view).

[BitterTea]

"Democracy sucks"... Let's vote (because that +/- is a voting system, something that is used normally for Democracy, it measures the will of the majority over an issue/point of view).

Democracy sucks because in the end, you're forced to do what the majority says or else you will be killed.

This is not democracy, this is reputation tool, like reddit's karma or slashdot's moderation.

[em3rgentOrdr]

"Democracy sucks"... Let's vote (because that +/- is a voting system, something that is used normally for Democracy, it measures the will of the majority over an issue/point of view).

Democracy sucks because in the end, you're forced to do what the majority says or else you will be killed.

This is not democracy, this is reputation tool, like reddit's karma or slashdot's moderation.

+1

Yeah, BCEmpouriem.  +/- rating system are tools of those damn evil anarcho-capitalists!  How could you participate in such an undemocratic system?

[BCEmporium]

Democracy sucks because in the end, you're forced to do what the majority says or else you will be killed.

It's NOT Democracy that goes around that "abide or be killed/arrested", it's the Government, they're different things.
You got the very same "abide or else..." action within almost all other forms of State, Dictatorships use it even more lightly.

Democracy is just the way issues are addressed and bodies are elected not how to deal with those who don't comply.

BTW, this so called "reputation" systems remembers me why many people complaint of BS on Democracy, it's not "just" politicians fault, it's the people's fault as well, people love to be BS'ed. Like if I come here, just say what you guys want to hear, regardless I would do it or even think on such way, and see my "rep." rocketing... a bit like the votes in a regular democracy. 

[em3rgentOrdr]

Democracy sucks because in the end, you're forced to do what the majority says or else you will be killed.

It's NOT Democracy that goes around that "abide or be killed/arrested", it's the Government, they're different things.
You got the very same "abide or else..." action within almost all other forms of State, Dictatorships use it even more lightly.

Democracy is just the way issues are addressed and bodies are elected not how to deal with those who don't comply.

Well I'm ofcourse not opposed to voluntary Democracy.

[skull88]

vague questions and not the best test imho

[jaybny]

[The Script]

BCEmporium,  you have some disturbingly illogical views on this subject.  I respect your right to your opinion (so don't take personal offense), but I disagree with it. Here's why:

You were saying that anyone who falls into the corners of the chart is an extremist and therefore dangerous.  Yet, you, refusing to evaluate individuals on an individual basis, but instead lumping diverse peoples into a single group and labeling them "extremist" and "dangerous", are being extremist yourself.  To say that Fascist Right-wingers, and Authoritarian Leftists are the same as traditional Anarchists and "anarcho"-Capitalists is an extreme position to take.  The chart distinguishes between authoritarians and freedoms lovers, as well as rightist and leftist economic views.  To say that Hitler (upper Right) and Rothbard (lower Right) are the same is utter nonsense.

So "absolute truth" does exists? Mind to give an example? Other than fallacies there is...

As it looks I'm talking to an extremist, and extremists are impossible to talk to (doesn't matter if from right or left wing, authoritarian or libertarian), taken everything they "believe in" is "the truth" and everything someone else's does or believe is "wrong"...

It seems like you are actually the extremist as a lot of people have tried to explain concepts to you but you blindly proceed with your arbitrary classifications.  Also, to say that there are no absolute truths in the world is illogical.  A meta-analysis of your position will destroy it. 

Consider, for you to state that "There are no absolute truths in the world" is in itself, a statement of the absolute.  If there are no absolutes in the world you cannot actually be sure that your statement is correct.  Therefore, there may actually be absolutes.  The best that you could do would be to admit that there is one absolute, and that is: that there are no absolutes other than this statement.  However, if you admit that there is at least one absolute, why could there not be others?  To say that there is a single absolute in the world is arbitrary and arrogant.  You cannot possess enough knowledge to say for certain something of that magnitude.

Your thoughts? 

[pjwaffle]

inb4 my thread gets more awesome! :3

[sortedmush]

It seems like you are actually the extremist as a lot of people have tried to explain concepts to you but you blindly proceed with your arbitrary classifications.  Also, to say that there are no absolute truths in the world is illogical.  A meta-analysis of your position will destroy it. 

Consider, for you to state that "There are no absolute truths in the world" is in itself, a statement of the absolute.  If there are no absolutes in the world you cannot actually be sure that your statement is correct.  Therefore, there may actually be absolutes.  The best that you could do would be to admit that there is one absolute, and that is: that there are no absolutes other than this statement.  However, if you admit that there is at least one absolute, why could there not be others?  To say that there is a single absolute in the world is arbitrary and arrogant.  You cannot possess enough knowledge to say for certain something of that magnitude.

Your thoughts? 

+1

My internet has been down for a couple of days (funny story see below), and I've been thinking of a nice neat refutation of BCEmporium's analysis. I get back on line and find this ^ which is almost word for word what I had in mind. Nice.

So what happened to my internet connection? .. My housemate came in absolutely shit faced with a couple of his friends at 4am, and woke me out of a lucid dream, playing ridiculous music on MY computer. Incensed, I did what any other self respecting linux noob would do. I shut the machine down remotely using bash from my laptop, then proceeded to giggle myself to sleep.

I awoke the next day to find my monitor smashed and the router ripped out of the wall and thrown in the garden, in the rain.

[BCEmporium]

To say that Hitler (upper Right) and Rothbard (lower Right) are the same is utter nonsense.

Why? Because one caused a World War and the other not, at least yet? Never heard on Rothbard's contest on Hitler's policies - actually almost nobody does contest Hitler's policies as it is never discussed other than come out with the social and emotional effects of Nazism. (This does NOT mean people agree to Hitler's policies, just that issue is barely, rarely or almost never discussed).

Also you guys take everything seriously, and by taking it way too seriously even for a little piece of fun test, you second my thoughts of the danger in the extremes and ultimate danger in corners.

As for that sentence, turns funny, if use it a sole "Absolute argument" would be arbitrary, the fact is it's oppose isn't less arbitrary than it nor less arrogant - And put to practice the argument that "there's absolute truth" is a statement of Authority, taken that if there's than we must all abide by such "truth". I would ask outside math and theories where we can find something, some social or economic value to be in a position we can call "Absolute".

BTW, even on math and written theories you can find the burden of arbitrary, why do we say 2+2=4 and not o+o=d or something else instead? And those characters we use? Do they've any absolute value? Are they more worthy than chinese? Or arabic? And our languages?...
A value to be absolute would need to be immune to time, political quadrant, ideologies, so that from pre-historic times to the future ahead and from libertarians to authoritarians, left to right, it would remain unchanged... up to so far I found no such a thing in the planet, at least in this one.

[s0beit]

[pjwaffle]

inb4 totally awesome flame warz continuingz

[BCEmporium]

inb4 totally awesome flame warz continuingz

Flame?! Where?!
Flame wars are about senseless insults, I wouldn't ever engage such a thing, we're discussing over some arguments here. Different points of view, but arguments.

[pjwaffle]

inb4 being awesomely flamed about accusing awesome flamers of being awesomely flaming!

[BCEmporium]

inb4 being awesomely flamed about accusing awesome flamers of being awesomely flaming!

So your point is that we must all remain silent, because otherwise we will find some points we don't agree with each other and that for you is... flaming?!

[pjwaffle]

inb4 being awesomely flamed about accusing awesome flamers of being awesomely flaming!

So your point is that we must all remain silent, because otherwise we will find some points we don't agree with each other and that for you is... flaming?!

I just mean that I'm enjoying the educated debate/argument. (and making off topic comments in an attempt to get people to be a little less serious and make some jokes)

[The Script]

I wasn't attempting to be incendiary, so if I came across as insulting to BCEmporium, I apologize.  Sometimes I take things too seriously?   

[BCEmporium]

I wasn't attempting to be incendiary, so if I came across as insulting to BCEmporium, I apologize.  Sometimes I take things too seriously?   

No insult taken.
I like mind challenges. 

[The Script]

It seems like you are actually the extremist as a lot of people have tried to explain concepts to you but you blindly proceed with your arbitrary classifications.  Also, to say that there are no absolute truths in the world is illogical.  A meta-analysis of your position will destroy it. 

Consider, for you to state that "There are no absolute truths in the world" is in itself, a statement of the absolute.  If there are no absolutes in the world you cannot actually be sure that your statement is correct.  Therefore, there may actually be absolutes.  The best that you could do would be to admit that there is one absolute, and that is: that there are no absolutes other than this statement.  However, if you admit that there is at least one absolute, why could there not be others?  To say that there is a single absolute in the world is arbitrary and arrogant.  You cannot possess enough knowledge to say for certain something of that magnitude.

Your thoughts? 

+1

My internet has been down for a couple of days (funny story see below), and I've been thinking of a nice neat refutation of BCEmporium's analysis. I get back on line and find this ^ which is almost word for word what I had in mind. Nice.

Apparently I just barely beat you to it.  I've been mulling it over for a few days as well but just have been busy trying to finish up things for my classes (finals week). 

So what happened to my internet connection? .. My housemate came in absolutely shit faced with a couple of his friends at 4am, and woke me out of a lucid dream, playing ridiculous music on MY computer. Incensed, I did what any other self respecting linux noob would do. I shut the machine down remotely using bash from my laptop, then proceeded to giggle myself to sleep.

I awoke the next day to find my monitor smashed and the router ripped out of the wall and thrown in the garden, in the rain.

Mother of Mary.  I would have had an epileptic fit and then would have gone on a chain-saw massacre of the guilty parties.  I hope those assholes are paying for the damages.

[sortedmush]

Mother of Mary.  I would have had an epileptic fit and then would have gone on a chain-saw massacre of the guilty parties.  I hope those assholes are paying for the damages.

They are indeed.

[gigabytecoin]

Muah ah ah ah.

Wow, we would not get along!

I am a tree hugging hippy apparantly. A left leaning libertarian. On par with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama apparently

[The Script]

Muah ah ah ah.

Wow, we would not get along!

I am a tree hugging hippy apparantly. A left leaning libertarian. On par with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama apparently

The hell you are.  You are a right-wing, Fascist, Authoritarian like me.  Companies have the freedom to operate--as long as they do exactly what we say, and businessmen can own companies as long as they kick us back a lot of cash.  We shall create the Fourth Reich and spread our banner of Racial Superiority across the globe.  Not sure how bitcoin fits in though.   

Join me, Brother.

[m4rkiz]

I wonder what makes you guys go to the bottom-right, and not to bottom-center.

Because the market shouldn't be regulated at all?

while i believe that markets in general should not be 'regulated' by the state i strongly support one strike rule - if company decide to knowingly sell something dangerous\risky or simply wrong described stuff it should be wiped out from the market by the state

i should be able to buy anything from everyone and anyone should be able to sell me anything, but as soon as some one forgot to mentioned that "new batch of lcds have tn screen instead of ips (that they shipped to reviewers and stores for display)" or "that used to be spring water but now we use tap water without changing label" they should be punished hard

they have way too much of money for lawyers and marketing... when you get scammed by someone you may (sure, depends on the situation) put him behind the bars, while worst you can do against some companies that knowingly sell junk advertising it as "cure for the cancer that converts your body fat into rolex watches" is class action lawsuit that will mean that they may need to return some money to the people they just scammed...

[BitterTea]

while i believe that markets in general should not be 'regulated' by the state i strongly support one strike rule - if company decide to knowingly sell something dangerous\risky or simply wrong described stuff it should be wiped out from the market by the state

i should be able to buy anything from everyone and anyone should be able to sell me anything, but as soon as some one forgot to mentioned that "new batch of lcds have tn screen instead of ips (that they shipped to reviewers and stores for display)" or "that used to be spring water but now we use tap water without changing label" they should be punished hard

Why not just stop buying the products of disreputable businesses? Isn't that much easier than trying to keep a limit on the power of a small state that is allowed to "wipe out" companies. What do you think it will do when people decide it is no longer necessary and try to "wipe out" the state itself?

[GreenSky]

Here's mine, I'd say it's quite accurate.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.38&soc=-6.97

[m4rkiz]

Why not just stop buying the products of disreputable businesses?

while voting with your wallet can work with smaller stores and services
it is (best of the best scenario) equal fight with large companies
300 billions of dollars is spend every year on advertising just in usa
they targeting average joe and it is their well paid job to sell him products no matter what

what consumers can do ie. about monsanto? NOT. A. THING.
i agree it is government fault as lobbyists used it to protect company business,
but nothing less than government can take companies of that size down if they crossing the line
they have billions of dollars to spend to reach their only goal - more profit
and if there is no way to go to bigger profits via legit ways they making new ways with their money or going there anyway

average joe don't give a shit about them monopolizing market, he just want to pay less for his food
he won't do a thing unless there is some shitstorm, and that is usually too late

[em3rgentOrdr]

Why not just stop buying the products of disreputable businesses?

while voting with your wallet can work with smaller stores and services
it is (best of the best scenario) equal fight with large companies
300 billions of dollars is spend every year on advertising just in usa
they targeting average joe and it is their well paid job to sell him products no matter what

There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising.  It helps to connect producers and consumers.

what consumers can do ie. about monsanto? NOT. A. THING.

Wrong.  If properly coordinated, consumers can make an impact.  Just imagine if all that positive energy and momentum from Obama's 2008 election campaign was diverted towards a grass roots strategy to choke the business of whatever his supporters are against (I'm guessing polluters and abusive insurance companies?) instead of through supporting a clunky behemoth that is the top-down monopoly on violence.

i agree it is government fault as lobbyists used it to protect company business,
but nothing less than government can take companies of that size down if they crossing the line
they have billions of dollars to spend to reach their only goal - more profit
and if there is no way to go to bigger profits via legit ways they making new ways with their money or going there anyway

Monsanto couldn't exist with its size without the help of intellectual property laws.  Patents are the fundamental part of their business model.  From http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

Monsanto patents many of the seed varieties we develop. Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products

In a free market (that is without intellectual property laws), you would not see these giant top-down vertical behemoth corporations that monopolize entire industries through artificial government protections.

average joe don't give a shit about them monopolizing market, he just want to pay less for his food
he won't do a thing unless there is some shitstorm, and that is usually too late

No.  Just look at the proliferation of Linux (and open-source software in general), which has basically destroyed Windows' and Apple's domination of the Desktop market.  While it is impossible to say how many people use Linux distros (since there is no reporting mechanism), just take a look at browser usage rates (recorded whenever you browse a website): Internet Explorer - 24.9%, Firefox - 42.4 %, Chrome - 25.9%, Safari - 4.0%.  So in that case alone of internet browser usage, average joes who want to browse free and cheaply, have destroyed Apple's and Window's monopoly.

[BCEmporium]

"Average Joe" just started to use Firefox, because the virus IE tends to get. Secondly m4rkiz: due to the shitstorm.
IE market share is lowering, but not Windows, which is still the best thing around to use in a desktop. As for Linux... sorry, pal, but X/Xorg sucks big time. Hardly Linux will make a stand against Windows for as long as it can't deliver any horsepower to match it within the graphical environment.
Apple is a "side-story", it's meant for those sort of exhibitionists that like to pay 2000 USD for an 800 USD PC, being the 1200 USD the price of have an apple printed on it. To not mention Apple has the most insane Fascist-like policies around, if Microsoft did that they would be sued up to Hell, but for Apple users as long as the Apple sticker doesn't fall off, it's ok with them.

Here you've W3C OS stats:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

[em3rgentOrdr]

"Average Joe" just started to use Firefox, because the virus IE tends to get.

As for Linux... sorry, pal, but X/Xorg sucks big time. Hardly Linux will make a stand against Windows for as long as it can't deliver any horsepower to match it within the graphical environment.

You should try Compiz, which uses 3D graphics processor effects ontop of your standard X/Xorg to make some really slick desktop effects.  Much cooler than windows.

Apple is a "side-story", it's meant for those sort of exhibitionists that like to pay 2000 USD for an 800 USD PC, being the 1200 USD the price of have an apple printed on it. To not mention Apple has the most insane Fascist-like policies around, if Microsoft did that they would be sued up to Hell, but for Apple users as long as the Apple sticker doesn't fall off, it's ok with them.

Here you've W3C OS stats:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

Wow...that is pretty bad:

Win7    Vista    Win2003   WinXP   Linux    Mac      Mobile
36.5%   7.1%    0.9%    40.7%   5.1%    8.3%    0.8%

But looks like linux has been steadly gaining ground...was about 2% in 2003 and is now past 5%.

[Bazil]

I think my chart is a better representation.  No test for it though: http://www.thefashionablephilosopher.com/politics/the-philosophers-political-spectrum-chart/

[MatthewLM]

Here's mine, I'd say it's quite accurate.

So does that mean you are a socialist? Socialists supporting bitcoins?

I didn't do the test, I just put the graph how it should be for me:



As long as that means full civil and economic liberties.

[m4rkiz]

Wrong.  If properly coordinated, consumers can make an impact.  Just imagine if all that positive energy and momentum from Obama's 2008 election campaign was diverted towards a grass roots strategy to choke the business of whatever his supporters are against (I'm guessing polluters and abusive insurance companies?) instead of through supporting a clunky behemoth that is the top-down monopoly on violence.

until you reset they still have money and are extremely well organized

Monsanto couldn't exist with its size without the help of intellectual property laws.  Patents are the fundamental part of their business model.  

without patents and intellectual property no one will go with coordinated expensive development and testing unless there is quick profit involved

if they can wait for someone and get the results\code\etc. for free there is no point to spend money for it

In a free market (that is without intellectual property laws), you would not see these giant top-down vertical behemoth corporations that monopolize entire industries through artificial government protections.

but they won't disappear overnight too

No.  Just look at the proliferation of Linux (and open-source software in general), which has basically destroyed Windows' and Apple's domination of the Desktop market.  While it is impossible to say how many people use Linux distros (since there is no reporting mechanism), just take a look at browser usage rates (recorded whenever you browse a website): Internet Explorer - 24.9%, Firefox - 42.4 %, Chrome - 25.9%, Safari - 4.0%.  So in that case alone of internet browser usage, average joes who want to browse free and cheaply, have destroyed Apple's and Window's monopoly.

there is os stated in useragent, windows is still installed on more than ~85% of desktops

[em3rgentOrdr]

Wrong.  If properly coordinated, consumers can make an impact.  Just imagine if all that positive energy and momentum from Obama's 2008 election campaign was diverted towards a grass roots strategy to choke the business of whatever his supporters are against (I'm guessing polluters and abusive insurance companies?) instead of through supporting a clunky behemoth that is the top-down monopoly on violence.

until you reset they still have money and are extremely well organized

Ok, so be organized about it.  And pool your money together.

Monsanto couldn't exist with its size without the help of intellectual property laws.  Patents are the fundamental part of their business model.  

without patents and intellectual property no one will go with coordinated expensive development and testing unless there is quick profit involved

if they can wait for someone and get the results\code\etc. for free there is no point to spend money for it

False.  Just look at the Linux and all open-source projects out there.  Proves that you don't need IP in order to coordinate expensive development and testing.

In a free market (that is without intellectual property laws), you would not see these giant top-down vertical behemoth corporations that monopolize entire industries through artificial government protections.

but they won't disappear overnight too

Not necessarily disappear overnight, but be relegated as just another struggling dead irrelevant dinosaur.

No.  Just look at the proliferation of Linux (and open-source software in general), which has basically destroyed Windows' and Apple's domination of the Desktop market.  While it is impossible to say how many people use Linux distros (since there is no reporting mechanism), just take a look at browser usage rates (recorded whenever you browse a website): Internet Explorer - 24.9%, Firefox - 42.4 %, Chrome - 25.9%, Safari - 4.0%.  So in that case alone of internet browser usage, average joes who want to browse free and cheaply, have destroyed Apple's and Window's monopoly.

there is os stated in useragent, windows is still installed on more than ~85% of desktops

That's windows+apple.  Most of those windows are pirated or free versions anyways.  Anyway, everyone still uses open-sources alternatives for most of their daily programs, without even realizing it.

[m4rkiz]

Ok, so be organized about it.  And pool your money together.

they are already organized and already have funds, that can be done against one or two companies, but you can't do that to all of wrongdoers

False.  Just look at the Linux and all open-source projects out there.  Proves that you don't need IP in order to coordinate expensive development and testing.

it still loses big time if you compare it to other systems & that is only some coding done in spare time with no real deadlines

Not necessarily disappear overnight, but be relegated as just another struggling dead irrelevant dinosaur.

or just may start to play dirtier

That's windows+apple.

no, ms + apple has more than 95% total

linux has less than 2%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

Most of those windows are pirated or free versions anyways.

not important why or for how much, they using it over alternatives that they did not know about

Anyway, everyone still uses open-sources alternatives for most of their daily programs, without even realizing it.

my point exactly, average user don't know what is good or better for him

it is not important if that happened because of 300 bln usd on advertising or because he don't have knowledge of what is going behind the scene

there is plenty of dirty tricks that both apple (tn panels instead of ips, cracking screens, broken antennas etc.) and microsoft (that list would be quite long, including things that are not fixed for years even that they are informed about it, broken wga) getting away with every year, and still worst that can happen is some class action lawsuit that ends with some laughable compensations,
even when they knowingly selling crap

and those two still control 95% of all desktop operation systems

there must be fail-safe to shoot down companies that gown too big and starting scamming people

[BCEmporium]

Linux has a shitload of gizmos, but still not match Windows for desktop user. Stop claiming "the user doesn't know what is good for him", he knows... he just wants something that works, Windows does / Linux doesn't. Even within the OS alternative software, it tends to be better on the Windows port than Linux.
Linux, to desktop, is an evolution fiasco; too much versions and updates, support fades as they change main version... unstable and too heavy in graphical environment (it doesn't matter if you can play around with the GUI... that sounds pretty much as fun as touchscreen; cool for the first 2 days, a pain the ass for the rest of the time).

Evolution is what Microsoft did from Vista to 7. 7 can do better using LESS system resources. Do "more" by blasting the machine resources even the lousier coder can do.
Like it uses to say: «evolution is not to create a 500hP car that runs at 250 mph, evolution is to create a 100hP car that runs at that same speed»

Where Linux is good, server side, it has 95% share...

[m4rkiz]

average user need some office suite (even that he will use less than 10% features), some way to put mp3 on ipod, share pictures from camera and web browser

and all that can be achieved for free

[BCEmporium]

average user need some office suite (even that he will use less than 10% features), some way to put mp3 on ipod, share pictures from camera and web browser

and all that can be achieved for free

So the whole point of "Free Software" is "Free" as in "Free lunch"...
Also that "for free" come with a load of nags, MP3 on some distros doesn't play, Linux players requires more resources; try to see a movie encoded on the edge of your machine's capacities in Windows, then in the same machine try with Linux... good luck (you'll need it).
Unless you want to expend a graphical card suitable to play the latest top game in Windows just for can watch a movie with Linux (so long for the "free"...).

Also the (average) user may or may not want that, he may want to produce and edit a video to youtube, edit music he records... why should he resume to "use office and see some pics"?!

[freespirit]

Here is mine

[LightRider]

Politics is obsolete.

[WilliamJohnson]

-