[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Heh, me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.90

Extremely left, but also highly libertarian.

No surprises.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Heh, me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.90

Extremely left, but also highly libertarian.

No surprises.

You're not surprised at the -5.9 on the libertarian/authoritarian axis?

[Tricks]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

no real changes for me. I'm just a (naughty word)'s hair into the right wing authortitarian, 1 over and 1 up.

I was about the same when Mr. C posted it.

[Tricks]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Heh, me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.90

Extremely left, but also highly libertarian.

No surprises.

You're not surprised at the -5.9 on the libertarian/authoritarian axis?

That's not normal for a dipper, but you are no normal dipper.

[Brenda]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

[hurley_108]

Tricks Tricks:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Heh, me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.90

Extremely left, but also highly libertarian.

No surprises.

You're not surprised at the -5.9 on the libertarian/authoritarian axis?

That's not normal for a dipper, but you are no normal dipper.

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or insulted...

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Heh, me:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-5.90

Extremely left, but also highly libertarian.

No surprises.

You're not surprised at the -5.9 on the libertarian/authoritarian axis?

Nope. Many left-wingers are also libertarians.

It's a strange paradox that leftists frequently support decriminalization of many things yet the very nature of leftism requires authoritarianism to enforce the precepts of communal property and communal work. Absent enforcement mechanisims the leftist 'utopias' typically move to free market economics.

Capitalism and libertarianism are the nature of a free market and post-Communist Russia was a perfect example of this. No one needs to be forced into free market capitalism, but force must be used of necessity to implement communism (little 'c') at the national level.

Communism at the local or village level naturally exists in many Canadian and American rural areas although the participants would be deeply offended if you were to tell them that what they call "being neighborly" actually has a different name.

Personally, I have no problem with voluntary communism at the local level. I only have a problem when someone wants to force me or anyone else to participate.

Rich people have a right to what they have, productive people have a right to keep what they produce. If they wish to share, then good on them. If they don't, then that is their right.

What isn't a right is for some people to forcefully take away what the rich man has or what the productive worker produces in the name of "social justice" or some other moniker for armed men who steal with the authority of the state.

Be a lefty and be a libertarian if you wish.

Just be careful about the authoritarians amongst your friends who think that they should be "in charge".

[Freakinoldguy]

Strangely I thought of myself as more middle of the road but here I am.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I still think these are loaded question designed to push a person to one extreme or the other. When I read them I had to think about the answers because what I felt about alot of the topics wasn't given as an answer option, so I chose the lesser of two evils.

[neopundit]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Slightly right, and quite libertarian... just where I want to be

You got that right:

Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Rich people have a right to what they have, productive people have a right to keep what they produce. If they wish to share, then good on them. If they don't, then that is their right.

You'll get no argument from me on that in general, but consider theft.

Does a highly productive, rich thief have a right to keep his ill-gotten gains? Naturally, no. But then one must define theft.

It's plain that if I break into your house and take your belongings and cash, that's theft.

But if you're down on your luck and in debt and I offer you a loan with a 200% interest rate, and know I can since nowhere else will offer you any loan at all, is that not also a kind of theft?

Is it theft if I can get away with paying you $1 for your labour in producing something I can sell somewhere else for $100, since you are incapable of selling it yourself, and I can in my position of relative priveledge?

On these sorts of situations is where most of the disagreement lies, I think, between left and right; social democrat and capitalist.

$1:

Be a lefty and be a libertarian if you wish.

Just be careful about the authoritarians amongst your friends who think that they should be "in charge".

Wise words. Beware the pigs.

[Blue_Nose]

neopundit neopundit:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

Slightly right, and quite libertarian... just where I want to be

You got that right:

Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Here's to the IVth quadrant!!

[Knoss]

Right 7.63; Libertarian 5.59

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Rich people have a right to what they have, productive people have a right to keep what they produce. If they wish to share, then good on them. If they don't, then that is their right.

You'll get no argument from me on that in general, but consider theft.

Does a highly productive, rich thief have a right to keep his ill-gotten gains? Naturally, no. But then one must define theft.

It's plain that if I break into your house and take your belongings and cash, that's theft.

But if you're down on your luck and in debt and I offer you a loan with a 200% interest rate, and know I can since nowhere else will offer you any loan at all, is that not also a kind of theft?

You don't have to take the loan. Also, 200% is still cheaper than the "payday advance" places that are now legal in the USA so that's actually a good rate compared to what the government allows.

Usury is prohibited by the Bible and now that we're removing religion from society a lot of regulations that were founded in Christian morals are being undone. So according to the society the left has been creating - a secular society - there is no justifiable reason for the government to prevent someone from charging 200% interest on a loan - nope, 450% is acceptable.

But is it theft? No, it is not. If you don't like the terms, don't take the loan.

$1:

Is it theft if I can get away with paying you $1 for your labour in producing something I can sell somewhere else for $100, since you are incapable of selling it yourself, and I can in my position of relative priveledge?

Turn that on it's head: What if my offer of $1 per hour for labour is a boon to someone in, say, Malawi? From their point of view I'm enriching them tremendously. Should they be kept in poverty because in our economies this would not be a fair market wage?

$1:

On these sorts of situations is where most of the disagreement lies, I think, between left and right; social democrat and capitalist.

It's all a matter of perspective and I tend to think that the best perspective to have is to put aside our preconceived notions and to look at what does the most good. The $1 an hour thing may seem unfair, but not to someone in Malawi. Does it do the Malawian more harm to stop the "exploitation" and then leave him in utter poverty or is it more harmful for him to at least be one rung up the ladder to getting out of poverty despite the obvious economic inequality between the US/Canada and Malawi?

$1:

$1:

Be a lefty and be a libertarian if you wish.

Just be careful about the authoritarians amongst your friends who think that they should be "in charge".

Wise words. Beware the pigs.

Orwell was a very wise man.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You don't have to take the loan. Also, 200% is still cheaper than the "payday advance" places that are now legal in the USA so that's actually a good rate compared to what the government allows.

Usury is prohibited by the Bible and now that we're removing religion from society a lot of regulations that were founded in Christian morals are being undone. So according to the society the left has been creating - a secular society - there is no justifiable reason for the government to prevent someone from charging 200% interest on a loan - nope, 450% is acceptable.

But is it theft? No, it is not. If you don't like the terms, don't take the loan.

That works for an intelligent rational person, but there are some people out there who are not intelligent, not rational, and in need of someone looking out for them. And I agree that it is a shame that some time-honored traditions about looking out for your fellow man are being eroded (but at the same time I'm not sad to see some old and bigoted ways struck down). It's complicated.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Turn that on it's head: What if my offer of $1 per hour for labour is a boon to someone in, say, Malawi? From their point of view I'm enriching them tremendously. Should they be kept in poverty because in our economies this would not be a fair market wage?

It's all a matter of perspective and I tend to think that the best perspective to have is to put aside our preconceived notions and to look at what does the most good. The $1 an hour thing may seem unfair, but not to someone in Malawi. Does it do the Malawian more harm to stop the "exploitation" and then leave him in utter poverty or is it more harmful for him to at least be one rung up the ladder to getting out of poverty despite the obvious economic inequality between the US/Canada and Malawi?

Question is, if on your $100 sale, and given the choice between paying our hypothetical Malawian $1 or $2, what changes if you pay him $2? Does he benefit more than you are hurt? Is that $1 worth more to him or to you?

What if you could rapidly accelerate the pace of progress in Malawi by paying people $2 instead of $1?

If you're choosing to pay $1 because less than that and they'd be better off not working for you and doing something else but because more than that and they could develop past their need for you and could start selling their products themselves and make your $99 profit their $99 profit, then by deliebrately choosing to pay them such a specific rate as locks them into serving you and making you rich, then there's something wrong with that.

I don't know if this is the case. I don't know if it works that way. I don't know if it's happening. But if it is, if it does, and if it is happening, then millions (billions?) are being robbed of their self-sufficiency, their prosperity, their future. And I feel that's wrong.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Question is, if on your $100 sale, and given the choice between paying our hypothetical Malawian $1 or $2, what changes if you pay him $2? Does he benefit more than you are hurt? Is that $1 worth more to him or to you?

What if you could rapidly accelerate the pace of progress in Malawi by paying people $2 instead of $1?

If you're choosing to pay $1 because less than that and they'd be better off not working for you and doing something else but because more than that and they could develop past their need for you and could start selling their products themselves and make your $99 profit their $99 profit, then by deliebrately choosing to pay them such a specific rate as locks them into serving you and making you rich, then there's something wrong with that.

I don't know if this is the case. I don't know if it works that way. I don't know if it's happening. But if it is, if it does, and if it is happening, then millions (billions?) are being robbed of their self-sufficiency, their prosperity, their future. And I feel that's wrong.

This came up about 20 years ago when Nike opened a plant in Honduras. Nike was really trying to be a good corporate citizen and started out paying their employees in Honduras a wage of US$5 per hour.

In Honduras at that time $5 was a good wage for the day.

Nike, in their generosity, caused a bit of a social and economic problem for Honduras as people were suddenly flush with money and that caused an inflationary spike in the country. The Honduran government prevailed on Nike to lower it's wage to a less disruptive $3 per hour.

Something is better than nothing, but there is also a responsibility to not give too much because that can be just as harmful as too little.

In the case of our proverbial Malawian, I would not give him $2 per hour if that would be disruptive to his country.

But I would definitely invest money in providing benefits to him and (this is just me, mind you) I'd be building schools to educate my worker's kids so that they could build a better life for themselves.

Just me, mind you, but if I was making 99% profits then it would be easy for me to be generous to the people who needed it - I couldn't sleep at night if I did otherwise.