5-dimensional political test

[Valsuelm]

Well, give it 30 years in EU and you will see the economic system collapsing.....

 

It's not going to take even close to that long....

[BruceVC]

 

The problem you are pointing to aren't a result of socialism, it's monetary and cultural. We have more than enough resources, it's simply distribution that have needed, until now, to be tightly controlled... and it worked really well, we brought an entire group of people from abject poverty to excess. Capitalism truly revolutionized distribution of wealth and socialism with capitalism has worked really well up here in the north - some would say better than most other system (if Fukuyama is to be believed).

 

But the system is starting to show it's weaknesses in a modern economy evolving away from production and industry. Extreme waste, the fact that irresponsibility is more often more profitable, growing disparity due to ingrown corruption etc.

 

We need to come up with a new system - not socialist - which essentially still operates under industrial assumptions and not capitalistic.

 

 

 

Extreme waste, corruption and irresponsibility are hallmarks of all political system across time when you look deeper into them. Nazi germany was extremely controlled and yet there was plenty of corruption in it. The point being is that those traits are not the result of systems failing but people failing the system. Unbridled capitalism is the absolute champion in those categories anyway.

 

The push to destroy the welfare state comes from the rich, all in an effort to push the state out of businesses (both in terms of regulation and ownership) so they can take them over and put all the profits in their own pocket. 

If you cut down on the socialist aspects of the system all that will be achieved is that more money will be drained out of the government and by extension, out of what it can provide for the citizens, while the corrupt public figures will be replaced by corrupt private figures accountable to no one.

 

 

Wow, if this is  your positive view on current state of Western societies I would hate to see your negative or more critical view  

[Valsuelm]

I thought support for Israel was universal. Perhaps it's louder with the republicans. Democrats would still answer 'yes' though. Is there anyone of importance that wouldn't ?

 

Coming out against Israel was for a very long time political suicide in the U.S., and in many circles still is. The Israeli lobby is arguably the most effective lobby in Washington D.C. Without a doubt it's the most effective foreign lobby. They have a lot of politicians by the balls.

 

Times are slowly changing though as one really has to try to ignore the evils and pure BS that government perpetrates, and more people have woken up to that and the fact that Israel really does near nothing positive for the U.S. as an ally, is a giant liability, potentially on a scale no nation can afford, and if you're really astute in your history and modern world affairs they're even arguably our enemy. Hearing anything bad about Israel in main stream media just about never happens. It's pretty much non stop: 'Israel is our friend we must help them', 'Israel is our friend we must help them', 'Israel is our friend we must help them', 'Israel is our friend we must help them', 'Israel is our friend we must help them' over and over and over and over. Basic and effective brainwashing.

 

The closest you'll get to a major national politician saying we shouldn't support Israel is someone like Ron Paul saying we shouldn't be involved in their issues, and he wasn't at all supported by the major parties or the main stream media.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

I thought support for Israel was universal. Perhaps it's louder with the republicans. Democrats would still answer 'yes' though. Is there anyone of importance that wouldn't ?

 

Coming out against Israel was for a very long time political suicide in the U.S.. The Israeli lobby is arguably the most effective lobby in Washington D.C. Without a doubt it's the most effective foreign lobby. They have a lot of politicians by the balls.

 

Times are slowly changing though as one really has to try to ignore the evils and pure BS that government perpetrates, and more people have woken up to that and the fact that Israel really does near nothing positive for the U.S. as an ally. Hearing anything bad about Israel in main stream media just about never happens. It's pretty much non stop: 'Israel is out friend we must help them', 'Israel is out friend we must help them', 'Israel is out friend we must help them' over and over and over and over. Basic and effective brainwashing.

 

The closest you'll get to a major national politician saying we shouldn't support Israel is someone like Ron Paul saying we shouldn't be involved in their issues, and he wasn't at all supported by the major parties or the main stream media.

 

 

This is an interesting post but I'm convinced its accurate

 

I would like other people to comment, with the basic premise of the post is " Israel does nothing for the USA so why do we keep defending and claiming we are such good friends" ?

 

I have my opinion because I do think Israel is an ally to the USA but I want to hear other opinions first

[Rosbjerg]

Give people the fishing rod and learn them how to fish, instead of giving them the fish and making dependant. I will always disagree with the notion that you need redistribution. I can agree that in the case of physically and mentally disabled people you need some form of basic help to allow them to operate in the society in a civilized way, but no one will ever convince me that we need to pay taxes and give people social benefits. I don't mind the paid insurance for instances of losing a job, and equal chances at obtaining the basic education ( so basic learning materials and access to basic education). Everything else is in the hands of the individual.

 

I've climbed in 6 years from an intern to an Finance Manager in a global multibillion corporation, then resigned from that and went to start a career in another field after a long break and I am sure I will be successful in it too within 2-3 years. My father was starting up own business 4 times before he got successful. If I or my father, who came from poor family could do that, then everyone can do it. If you are too lazy to do that, then that's your fault, and no one elses. Do not put a burden of financing lazy or stupid people on people who worked hard to get to where they are.

 

As for the resources, how do you define "enough"? Enough does not equal unlimited, and as in case of everything that has limits (starting with fertile land and living space to diamonds) there will be a value. If you want socialism, you need redistribution. If you need redistribution, you need people doing that. The question is, how much reditsribution you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it. There are no "free" items in the world. Everything has its value, including human life, when you look from the limited resources perspective. There are however different value tags based on the perspective on given problems.

 

I've often found that people who accuse those not like them of being "lazy" are exactly that themselves and would prefer to do nothing, if they had the opportunity. I'm lazy too, I'm happy to admit - but that's not to say that everyone who fails is. Spend time with the people you criticize and you'll see they work hard for the things that matter to them. It's just that it might not be the things that matter to you...

 

 

And you general critique is still a monetary and industrial perspective - where an items 'value' is a function of the time and resources invested in it. With widespread renewable energy, it would be effectively free - with widespread and advanced 3D printing and robotics, the production costs would be effectively free.. with advanced computers, you don't even need human designers.. So what value would materiel things have then? What job could you hold that wouldn't be done better by machines in the next 100 years?

 

This model is making itself obsolete, capitalism is simply too effective at minimizing costs (that's a good thing). In a future capitalist society, no one can have a job, because humans are terribly inefficient and expensive. At the same time we are creating (or rather maintaining) an ideology of mindless consumption and waste, Black Friday being a scary manifestation of this - where people buy and consume products that are completely useless to them, simply because the dominant ideology compels them to (thank you Edward Bernays).

 

For a good critical critique of what I believe this ideology to be, see Sophie Fiennes 2012, "A Perverts Guide to Ideology". Wherein Slavoj Zizek goes through the tropes, memes and symbolism of popular American cinema, to expose the underlying ideology of western consumerist society.

 

 

The point being is that those traits are not the result of systems failing but people failing the system. 

 

A very interesting point, which I agree with - and I would argue that money and bureaucracy will always go hand in hand - for someone must control and maintain the wealth distribution. And all monetary system are in essence, system of wealth distribution. 

 

So I ask; perhaps it's time we did something else?

[Walsingham]

Too many of the questions represent unrealistic binary choices. I don't even feel comfortable giving them a 'maybe'. If forced, I think I would answer 'it depends' to about 90% of them.

 

That's the point. It's a normal part of writing psych tests.

 

~~

 

Collectivism score: -17%

Authoritarianism score: 50%

Internationalism score: 0%

Tribalism score: 17%

Liberalism score: 33%

 

Also, if your answer to 26 is 'yes' then shortly thereafter a white van should appear at your place of work or residence, you should be bundled into the back, then taken from that place unto a place of making seafood flavoured snacks, boiled alive, and used as flavouring.

 

EDIT: Hugely amused at notion that people let a system down. If I make a suspension bridge out of bronze and it breaks, then where does the fault lie? the bronze is the material which will fail. But I am am the ***hole who thought it wouldn't.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Walsingham

[Rosbjerg]

EDIT: Hugely amused at notion that people let a system down. If I make a suspension bridge out of bronze and it breaks, then where does the fault lie? the bronze is the material which will fail. But I am am the ***hole who thought it wouldn't.

 

 

Yet that is exactly what is happening, the end users so to speak are being blamed for the failings of the system. A good analogy.

[kirottu]

You are a: Left-Leaning Multilateralist Humanist Liberal

 

Collectivism score: 33%

Authoritarianism score: 0%

Internationalism score: 50%

Tribalism score: -50%

Liberalism score: 33%

[obyknven]

Collectivism score: -17%
Authoritarianism score: -33%
Internationalism score: -33%
Tribalism score: 33%
Liberalism score: 33%

 

Stupid test. 

[obyknven]

 

You are a: Right-Leaning Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Nationalist Liberal

Really stupid test. This test is broken, give me another one...

[obyknven]

In next test i vote as a typical Russian spy who want make maximum harm to Murica.

I side with Green Party on most political issues.
Parties you side with...


Green Party 81%
on environmental, foreign policy, immigration, economic, and social issues.

Libertarians 70%
on foreign policy and domestic policy issues.

Democrats 53%
on immigration issues.

Republicans 52%
on domestic policy and healthcare issues.

 

Conservative Party  51%
on domestic policy and healthcare issues.

Constitution Party 46%
on domestic policy and healthcare issues.

Socialist 24%

on immigration issues.

 

[Gorgon]

 

Too many of the questions represent unrealistic binary choices. I don't even feel comfortable giving them a 'maybe'. If forced, I think I would answer 'it depends' to about 90% of them.

 

That's the point. It's a normal part of writing psych tests.

 

~~

 

Collectivism score: -17%

Authoritarianism score: 50%

Internationalism score: 0%

Tribalism score: 17%

Liberalism score: 33%

 

Also, if your answer to 26 is 'yes' then shortly thereafter a white van should appear at your place of work or residence, you should be bundled into the back, then taken from that place unto a place of making seafood flavoured snacks, boiled alive, and used as flavouring.

 

EDIT: Hugely amused at notion that people let a system down. If I make a suspension bridge out of bronze and it breaks, then where does the fault lie? the bronze is the material which will fail. But I am am the ***hole who thought it wouldn't.

If there is no suitable option then a perfectly reasonable response would be to not answer the question within the parameters, that makes for a bad test surely. It essentially eliminates a lot of people from the sample. What if those people were representative of... something and their absence from the sample would make it less accurate. You can't fix that by making the sample larger. 

 

 

It's simply a practical consideration for the kinds of comparisons you need to make with the data.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

This is an interesting post but I'm convinced its accurate

 

I would like other people to comment, with the basic premise of the post is " Israel does nothing for the USA so why do we keep defending and claiming we are such good friends" ?

 

I have my opinion because I do think Israel is an ally to the USA but I want to hear other opinions first

 

I assume you mean inaccurate.

 

Israel is indeed an ally of the US; even helping us with logistical support in the Iraq war, but being an ally and being an asset are two different things. Relations between the US and Israel are good, but it's a dysfunctional relationship. Their status as an ally compels the US to get more involved in the Middle East; not only to protect their interest, but also because being their ally earns us the ire of Muslim radicals. I'd rather those radicals kill each other rather than us. Then there's the economic aid we give them. Having Israel as an ally is just too expensive.

 

Not to mention I oppose the very notion of the US having "allies" as a matter of principle. 

[Walsingham]

 

EDIT: Hugely amused at notion that people let a system down. If I make a suspension bridge out of bronze and it breaks, then where does the fault lie? the bronze is the material which will fail. But I am am the ***hole who thought it wouldn't.

 

 

Yet that is exactly what is happening, the end users so to speak are being blamed for the failings of the system. A good analogy.

 

 

Well, in reality it's both. My example only works because you'd have to be completely ignorant of your materials to think you could make a suspension bridge out of bronze.

 

If people are a material, then one can still ask why the available materials are crap. In my people as metal analogy then this is at least partly down to culture. People are - in my tiny pointy head - like iron. If well handled they can be used to achieve triumphs. If badly handled they are surprisingly fragile and prone to break.

 

EDIT: Namutree, the US isn't strong in spite of its allies. It is strong because of its allies. It's a strange sort of statecraft that thinks having allies is bad. And by strange I mean ...well...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Walsingham

[LadyCrimson]

They see government as a tool: It's good when used properly, and it can be bad when misused. A hammer for example is good for construction, but it's not so good when used to bash people's head in. The problem isn't the hammer; it's the misuse of the hammer.

I suppose that's fairly close to me.

 

I don't want police states. I don't want anarchy. I see some laws as a necessary and sometimes inconvenient (to me personally) system to help prevent anarchy, but I don't like having too many laws/too much regulation or "nanny" laws. Especially the latter. Which is what's annoying me about certain patterns in the US the past couple decades. So many nannies.

 

I'm liberal in a lot of areas like environmental laws and freedom of choice/equal rights, but outside of those I'm mildly to fairly conservative in many areas, much to the head-shaking of my very Demo./liberal family, at times. ;p

[Namutree]

 

 

The push to destroy the welfare state comes from the rich, all in an effort to push the state out of businesses (both in terms of regulation and ownership) so they can take them over and put all the profits in their own pocket. 

 

HAHAHA!!! Oh socialists and their class theories. None of it is ever based on facts; just ideology. The push to end welfare mostly comes from blue collar (I don't know if that's an American specific term; it basically means working class) people pissed off that they have to work while lazy slackers feed off the system.

 

Most of the political support FOR welfare comes from the upper-class communities. I can assure you in the US if you ask poor to lower-middle class people about welfare about 1/2 of them will want it eliminated, and the other half will only accept the programs grudgingly. Ask the rich and about 19/20 of them will give their complete support for welfare.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Namutree

[Namutree]

I don't want police states. I don't want anarchy. I see some laws as a necessary and sometimes inconvenient (to me personally) system to help prevent anarchy, but I don't like having too many laws/too much regulation or "nanny" laws. Especially the latter. Which is what's annoying me about certain patterns in the US the past couple decades. So many nannies.

 

You don't like the "nanny" laws? For those who may not know "nanny" is code for welfare.

 

Let me guess LadyCrimson; you are more working class than wealthy elite.

[Gorgon]

That's not really a hard guess. It's a tiny minority after all.

[Namutree]

That's not really a hard guess. It's a tiny minority after all.

That's true. Still Drowsy suggested that the push to end welfare comes from the rich; not common people. If she's not rich it at least suggests that the push does not come from the rich alone. 

[LadyCrimson]

You don't like the "nanny" laws? For those who may not know "nanny" is code for welfare.

 

Let me guess LadyCrimson; you are more working class than wealthy elite.

No, I mean stuff like seatbelt and helmet laws (for adults).

 

Welfare...I think conceptually it's not a terrible thing (helping out a bit when ppl have a difficult period) but in practice it's very lacking. So far I wouldn't want to get rid of it completely but it needs overhaul. Then again, when it comes down to it, I really don't care that much. It's not one of my strong interest areas.

 

I/we are not in the 1%, no. According to wikipedia we'd be in the top 10%. Which doesn't mean quite as much here in SFBay Area as it might in other areas. But we are not poor. And that's with hubby working about half as many hours as the average person does.

[Gorgon]

Unrest comes from the bottom rung, the middle classes help protect the system and the elite both politically and physically. Curiously they (the middle class) have often made the priorities of the rich their own. Logically they should maximise their potential for collective bargaining. I guess they are just not aware of how enormous their power base could be expanded to be. 

[LadyCrimson]

Curiously they (the middle class) have often made the priorities of the rich their own.

This is probably because, exactly like the very rich, they tend to, at least eventually, become very concerned with losing what luxury they do have. Maybe more so, because they don't have the filthy-rich cushion of having millions/billions in their backpocket in case of bad times.

 

Also, the funny thing in semi-recent years has been how almost everyone that isn't very poor or very rich considers themselves middle-class. On the one hand, the "middle class" is disappearing...on the other hand, "everyone" is middle class.

[Walsingham]

 

Curiously they (the middle class) have often made the priorities of the rich their own.

This is probably because, exactly like the very rich, they tend to, at least eventually, become very concerned with losing what luxury they do have. Maybe more so, because they don't have the filthy-rich cushion of having millions/billions in their backpocket in case of bad times.

 

Also, the funny thing in semi-recent years has been how almost everyone that isn't very poor or very rich considers themselves middle-class. On the one hand, the "middle class" is disappearing...on the other hand, "everyone" is middle class.

 

 

It's much simpler than that. In the UK everyone is middle class because no f***er does any work, so they can't be working class. Least of all the leeches who claim to be the champions of the proletariat.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

The push to destroy the welfare state comes from the rich, all in an effort to push the state out of businesses (both in terms of regulation and ownership) so they can take them over and put all the profits in their own pocket. 

 

HAHAHA!!! Oh socialists and their class theories. None of it is ever based on facts; just ideology. The push to end welfare mostly comes from blue collar (I don't know if that's an American specific term; it basically means working class) people pissed off that they have to work while lazy slackers feed off the system.

 

Most of the political support FOR welfare comes from the upper-class communities. I can assure you in the US if you ask poor to lower-middle class people about welfare about 1/2 of them will want it eliminated, and the other half will only accept the programs grudgingly. Ask the rich and about 19/20 of them will give their complete support for welfare.

 

 

That's because neoliberal ideologues are working overtime to convince everyone that the theoretical "welfare queen" is to blame for everything. Its a project they've been doing ever since the Reagan/Thatcher era and its easy to prove where it originated. Just because some blue collar muppets took up the cause (that goes against their own interests) doesn't make them the real brains behind it. 

 

Its nonsense of course, people have no sense of the scale at which a country's economy operates. A certain number of people leeching the system at the bottom rung make absolutely no difference whatsoever to an economy that shuffles billions or trillions of (insert currency) per year. 

 

its easy to demonstrate how the current economic crisis and the recession are precisely the fault of the uncontrolled financial capital institutions from the housing crisis onwards. It was the result of systematic abuse that cost taxpayers across the world insane amounts of money and brought economies to the brink of collapse. In fact, it has been repeatedly demonstrated by top economists that that is in fact what happened.

Welfare itself has never been an economic threat to the system but it is a barrier to increasing profit margins and possibilities for corruption for people on the top. The money that can be made from privatizing health care and social services is unfathomably large. 

[Guard Dog]

 If I make a suspension bridge out of bronze and it breaks, then where does the fault lie? the bronze is the material which will fail. But I am am the ***hole who thought it wouldn't.

 

I am so stealing that line for my next work conference call!