Big Brother is watching you: The 2007 International Privacy Ranking

[Lorizael]

I'm unaware of the Patriot Act, and I live here!

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you seriously unaware of the Patriot act?

Well, lets see. Up here we use stealth nation defense to protect ourselves from people who don't really value this sense of 'freedom' that we have here.

Down there they have an actual military.

I'm not sure why the patriot act is detrimental to the freedom of a nation.

Taxes on the other hand, that's a huge issue. The difference is stark. The higher the taxes the less free people are to live their life in the manner of their choosing. So long as our taxes are higher, I cannot say that we are freer up here then down there.

[Asher]

Ben. The keyword is in the title, "Privacy".

Your rant on taxes is awesomely retarded though, kudos.

And if you're not aware what the Patriot Act has to do with privacy/individual freedoms, then you're hopeless. Maybe do some research if you can muster up the courage to read about something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_Act

[Whaleboy]

It seems that our government's desire to obtain ever more detailed data about our lives is inversely proportional to their ability to handle that information .

If you consider this to be a threat to the open society then the biggest problem is the f*cked up sophist attitude of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". DinoDoc, I'm looking in your direction!

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben. The keyword is in the title, "Privacy".

And how private is your life if you spend a third longer working to preserve the apparatus of the state?

And if you're not aware what the Patriot Act has to do with privacy/individual freedoms,

I am challenging your assertion that the Patriot Act is contrary to individual freedoms.

You seem to assume that the only threat to privacy comes from internal forces. That's hardly the case.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And how private is your life if you spend a third longer working to preserve the apparatus of the state?

That's retarded, paying taxes doesn't entail heavier monitoring schemes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
DinoDoc, I'm looking in your direction!

/me doesn't remember posting in this thread before and starts to feel paranoid.

I'd have to have a more clear breakdown of how they arrived at thier conclusions and why because one of those categories if I know what event I think they are refering to seems like a bit of scaremongering.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

There are plenty of authoritarians on the left, and libertarians on the right.

Statistically speaking, there aren't. In fact the number of left wing authoritarians in countries like Canada is close to zero. Most people who score highly for the LWA character trait score even higher on the RWA scale. The guess is that these are people like Mussolini or Lyndon LaRouche, who started out on the left, but were really right wingers. You'd have authoritarians in countries like North Korea, but they are people who would support any established authority (RWAs) rather than revolutionary authorities (LWAs).

The RWA test has been given to a large number of Canadian and American elected representatives. Two things are evident. First, Americans are more authoritarian than Canadians. Second, conservatives are almost always (the only exception are the few remaining Dixiecrats) more authoritarian than liberals. That means, that there is almost no overlap. Almost all conservatives are more authoritarian than any liberal. The data is absolutely unequivocal in this respect.

The guy who does this stuff argues that the RWA scale is actually more informative of political preference than any attempt to invoke ideology. It certainly changed much of my thinking about contemporary politics.

Libertarians are an odd case. There really aren't very many of them, so they probably fall into the margin of error. But I think the studies prove that the so-called "2-Axis" measures of political ideology (like the political compass test) aren't really very informative.

If you want to know, I took the RWA scale test informally and came out extremely low (radically low). I scored higher on the LWA test, but still very low and nowhere near what high RWAs score on it.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's retarded, paying taxes doesn't entail heavier monitoring schemes.

Where does the money come to fund the cameras?

True, not all high taxes will lead to greater monitoring, but you can't have heavy monitoring without also having high taxes.

Secondly, there's the other principle here. What constitutes freedom? I think it's a bit more then just the notion of privacy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Statistically speaking, there aren't. In fact the number of left wing authoritarians in countries like Canada is close to zero.

I'm not sure of that. I see lots of people on the left saying that we shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public, in our cars with our kids, things like that. All these are authoritarian measures. I frankly can't understand how a nation that encourages pot use can also clamp down on cigarette smoke. People should be allowed to choose things that are unhealthy be they meals high in fat and smoking, regardless of the consequences to their own health. We hear that all the time that the folks on the right wing are trying to ban substances when it seems to me they just want to ban what the other enjoys.

Most people who score highly for the LWA character trait score even higher on the RWA scale. The guess is that these are people like Mussolini or Lyndon LaRouche, who started out on the left, but were really right wingers. You'd have authoritarians in countries like North Korea, but they are people who would support any established authority (RWAs) rather than revolutionary authorities (LWAs).

I know very few conservative authoritarians, way more libertarians and folks on the left, the -10, -10 folks, and then the few on the left that are in the upper left quadrant. It's too simplistic to say that conservatives are all about increasing the size of the state when the majority of them have significant problems with government spending, whereas the left wants to extend the reach.

The RWA test has been given to a large number of Canadian and American elected representatives. Two things are evident. First, Americans are more authoritarian than Canadians. Second, conservatives are almost always (the only exception are the few remaining Dixiecrats) more authoritarian than liberals. That means, that there is almost no overlap. Almost all conservatives are more authoritarian than any liberal. The data is absolutely unequivocal in this respect.

I've taken the RWA test and surprising many folks here came out on the libertarian scale. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It doesn't seem to matter what test I take, I always score in that range. My experience is that libertarians are a very significant component of the right, and that there are more libertarians per se on the right then on the left.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyways "the test" for those who missed it earlier.

1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.

Civil disobedience is an essential feature of any healthy democracy. The conduct of those who participate I have seen to be usually worthy of their claims whereas the desire of the government to silence opinions contrary to their own greater. So no. I think most protestors have legitimate complaints and that they shine light into areas we have been unaware.

2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.

If they are both Christians then yes. Otherwise no. The Christian pledge in marriage is reciprocal, the husband pledges to love his wife enough to die for her. Where that promise is not reciprocal, it is bad for women to make such a pledge.

3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.

I'd be happy with a leader who understood that his role is to avoid doing more harm then good. So no, I don't think Canada needs a leader that way.

4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.

Yes, I believe this to be true. Honestly I don't see people in general as moral, we all have our flaws, and they outweigh the good that we do. I don't believe they are very healthy or moral, but the way the question is worded, I don't see them as all that different then the rest of us.

5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds

"There is no faith without doubt". I believe that anyone who hasn't questioned why they believe what they do as truly having faith in something. Faith is not easy, and can be very difficult.

6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.

No. It takes no special virtue to smash a stained glass window. I don't agree with this at all that rebellion in itself is moral.

7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.

The only way we can salvage our society is if they people themselves choose to put themselves on the right path. It cannot be enacted by the state. The motivation has to come from within.

8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.

Then why is access to them restricted? I think there is something wrong with them. For all the rules they pretend they are breaking, they certainly impose a whole other set of them to enforce their 'lifestyle' on other people.

9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.

I would say that we need free thinkers who are willing to oppose the status quo. For me I think to defend traditional values is radical.

10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.

"Morality isn't conveyed at the end of the stick." No I can't agree with this statement here. I believe that people should turn away and make the decisions for themselves without coercion.

11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.

Depends on how you define sexual preferences. I hardly think people should have carte blanche to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want. As for religious beliefs, yes they are permissable provided they don't infringe on the freedoms of other people. I have a serious problem with religions that kill converts.

12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.

I would agree with this. That's two.

13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.

No, I admire folks like Dr. King that fought for racial equality and against hate and prejudice. So no, I can't agree with that.

14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.

There are many leaders who are false prophets that we should avoid. Same problem as the other question.

15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”

Indeed. There are many good folks who have problems with the way Islam conducts their affairs, and who reject the status quo. so yes, I would agree with this statement. There are also many people who are not good who do exactly the same thing.

16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.

Agreed.

17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.

As in killing them? No. I don't believe they should be 'put out of action' even though they are 'godless'. If they kill another person they ought to be punished for doing so, but otherwise they should be free to do as they wish.

18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.

Disagree. I see the reciprocal bond of a husband and a wife in marriage as something that is very special. If a woman feels she is not called for such a life, she is free to choose another, but I don't feel that such a bond today is out of place. I think it is one of the few good things in the world of today.

19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.

"And who would cut out a piece of his own heart." Disagree.

20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.

I believe that Christ showed us the way we ought to live our own life. So I disagree with this statement.

21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional
family values.

Disagree. Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is not a moral value.

22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group’s traditional place in society.

Disagree. People should be allowed to say whatever they want in a free and democratic society.

Anyways, I don't know how you would score this, but there you go. I scored the same as last time now.

[DaShi]

Wow, that's a fascinating psychological profile Ben.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I am challenging your assertion that the Patriot Act is contrary to individual freedoms.

You can't be serious?

The Patriot Act is all about curtailing individual freedoms for the "security of the state". ALL OF IT. That's the entire purpose.

PLEASE tell us what you think the act is.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm not sure of that.

Be sure of it. I have the book by the guy who invented the test in front of me. This is his claim, based on 30 years of test results.

I see lots of people on the left saying that we shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public, in our cars with our kids, things like that. All these are authoritarian measures.

No they aren't. They are measures designed to stop you from harming other people. An authoritarian measure would be trying to prohibit masturbation or homosexual acts, or something else that doesn't affect others.

I frankly can't understand how a nation that encourages pot use can also clamp down on cigarette smoke. People should be allowed to choose things that are unhealthy be they meals high in fat and smoking, regardless of the consequences to their own health.

When the public health system has to pick up the tab, as it does in Canada, this is not unreasonable.

I know very few conservative authoritarians, way more libertarians and folks on the left, the -10, -10 folks, and then the few on the left that are in the upper left quadrant. It's too simplistic to say that conservatives are all about increasing the size of the state when the majority of them have significant problems with government spending, whereas the left wants to extend the reach.

You don't have to be for increasing the state to be an authoritarian. Those who want to restrict the state in favour of private power, such as to produce a starkly inegalitarian society, are authoritarians.

Libertarians really divide into two camps. The first are interested in protecting the lives of individuals from the interference and negative influence of others. The second group are interested in removing such protections (such as laws against racist behaviour) in order that they be free to indulge their prejudices. The latter are authoritarians.

I've taken the RWA test and surprising many folks here came out on the libertarian scale. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It doesn't seem to matter what test I take, I always score in that range. My experience is that libertarians are a very significant component of the right, and that there are more libertarians per se on the right then on the left.

There aren't. Your results are much like mine in that they reflect the social circles you move in. Most people aren't like that, which the results of tests demonstrate. This is true especially of the internet, where the population still skews towards the well-educated and wealthy.

Remember this is social psychology, so the results are only 80-90% accurate. Most of the decent Libertarians you know will fall into the margin of error.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Agathon
You don't have to be for increasing the state to be an authoritarian. Those who want to restrict the state in favour of private power, such as to produce a starkly inegalitarian society, are authoritarians.

Libertarians really divide into two camps. The first are interested in protecting the lives of individuals from the interference and negative influence of others. The second group are interested in removing such protections (such as laws against racist behaviour) in order that they be free to indulge their prejudices. The latter are authoritarians.