Why would you discuss politics here?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Only to pinko commies.

So to all of your professors then?

[Boris Godunov]

My dad's a professor. He teaches graduate-level business courses. Is that OK or not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So to all of your professors then?

I went to the University of Calgary, possibly one of the only right-wing universities in Canada.

Former conservative Prime Ministers/Party Leaders are professors there, and the current conservative Prime Minister of Canada is a graduate of the school also.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
My dad's a professor. He teaches graduate-level business courses. Is that OK or not?

Business is okay.

filosofy though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher

Business is okay.

filosofy though.

But what if I become a music teacher?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




But what if I become a music teacher?

You can do that in a private university or out of your bedroom or mattress store.

[Boris Godunov]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

I'm kinda like Gandhi, apparently. W00t!

And what's wrong with public school teaching?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

I'm kinda like Gandhi, apparently. W00t!

And what's wrong with public school teaching?

Nothing. I just don't want to spend taxpayer money teaching music at public universities.

It's fine in elementary school, middle, or high school.

You shouldn't need a degree to write or listen to music.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
How did this thread get turned into a political compass thread? Oh well, I scored a -9.88 on the econ and a -7.54 on the political. It was really difficult answering some of these questions because I didn't know how to answer "ought" questions as how I thought they ought to be or how things end up working in reality. I mean in my opinion I think it's hard to disagree with the idea that we "ought" to have a well-functioning anarcho-communist utopian society, but realistically that's never going to happen. Another example would actually be in the conservative side. We "ought" to have a highly moral society like the one they think they can impose with anti-gay and abortion laws, but realistically that's never going to happen. One example is one question was if we are too open about sex in society, which I answered agree, because I do think people ought to be more mature and stop making such a huge deal about it and constantly talk about it, I think it's something a bit more personal that we shouldn't have TV shows about. But I definitely don't agree that there should be laws against it or that it is immoral to discuss sex.

Another reason I'm not too big of a fan of this test as it oversimplifies things to a two dimensional scale that are much more complicated. I think the most obvious is the idea of measuring everything (economics, political liberties, etc.) in terms of the inidividual or in terms of society. There is a fundamental difference between Greek style democracy and classical liberalism, the latter would call the former "tyranny of the masses," and simply labelling them both "politically liberal" is highly inaccurate. You could be in any of the four quadrants with either, yet they are fundamentally opposite.

Most lefties I know are very much classically liberal and firmly believe in individual rights, including on an economic level, even though they may believe in very strong government regulation, high taxes, expansive social programs, etc. there are still property rights and all of the normal economic rights the individual is given. Libertarians will scream at me and say that any governmental regulation means infringement upon econominc rights, but that's more rhetoric than reality, all the modern first world countries are strongly classically liberal and measure all in terms of the individual, including economic rights, but some have loads of governmental economic regulation are definitely not libertarian.

But you also could be an anarcho-communist type who believes everything should be measured in terms of the society and not in terms of the individual. For example, the government is highly democratic and non-authoritarian, and you believe in a command economy, but you don't believe too much in individual rights and the individual could be sacrificed for the greater good of the community.

In the other quadrant, left on economic and right on political, inherently is the most anti-classically liberal, and many communists would qualify. The economy is ordered for the greater good of society and property rights are non-existent and there are few political freedoms. You still could be classically liberal though in terms of measuring all things in terms of the individual. High governmental regulation but still strong respect for property rights and the economic rights of an individual, and politically the government measures all in terms of the individual and allows political freedoms on an individual level but is still fairly authoritarian. Probably not too likely.

On the other side, you could be more authoritarian politically and economically on the right but measure things in terms of the individual. This would definitely include the United States (in comparison with similar nations we're very conservative politically and economically, be it for good or for worse) and free market dictatorships like Pinochet and all of our friends in Central America circa late 19th century-the end of the Reagan years. Though dictatorships violate the classically liberal principles of individual freedom, economically conservative ones still probably measure all in terms of the individual. And then of course there's the opposite, Spanish and Italian fascists of the Franco and Mussolini brand who would be economically and poltically conservative, but they measured everything in terms of society. They believed the individual should be sacrificed for the greater good of society and that capitalism could end up serving for the worse interests of the society (mostly because they thought it eroded the culture of the nation and they didn't like the decadence part either). But they generally were pro-business and economically conservative because big business could be used to help the greater good.

And the final quadrant, conservative economically and liberal politically, is definitely the most classically liberal and measures all in terms of the individual. But still, theoretically it's possible that you measure all in terms of the greater good of society without too much respect for the individual. There is a democracy but it's more Greek style, the majority wins and the good of society trumps the rights of the individual, but has conservative, free market economic policies.

Oh and what was with them equating being economically conservative to being neo-liberal? The two are different. You can be very capitalist and pro business but believe in protectionism if it favors your own economy (an example in modern American politics would be Ross Perot).

What are with some of these questions by the way? When you're feeling down you should try to think about something else? Atrology explains many things?

Theres just way too many of them word thingies here to read. Is this being generated by some sort of computer program or are you an insomniac?

I'm getting a little bored with all the winkie smilies so I'll say instead that this is tongue in cheek and not a personal attack.

[Seedle]

Hmmm, my scores were more negative than usual, by about 1-2 points. Oh well.

Eco= -5.25
Authority= -6.05

Agree with johncmcleod that some of the questions aren't as nuanced as I'd like, though he obviously had additional issues that went over my head.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Asher

Nothing. I just don't want to spend taxpayer money teaching music at public universities.

It's fine in elementary school, middle, or high school.

You shouldn't need a degree to write or listen to music.

You shouldn't need a degree to do a lot of things that require a degree. But music degrees are often used by people who in turn teach music in elementary, middle, and high schools, and I think people having a degree in what they are teaching is a good thing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
Nothing. I just don't want to spend taxpayer money teaching music at public universities.

It's fine in elementary school, middle, or high school.

You shouldn't need a degree to write or listen to music.

Music composition and performance require an intense amount of instruction and study. They certainly were much more difficult and intensive than the business courses I took. IMO it is no less valuable in public universities than any other liberal art such as history, English, etc. Now if you're arguing to eliminate THOSE as well, then you're just plain nuts.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

I'm kinda like Gandhi, apparently. W00t!

I'm not sure that Gandhi was a left wing gay. I mustve missed that bit of history. (see above for smilie explanation)

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mohandes Gandhi was not leftie at all, but some of his activities during the liberation of India may have appeared so.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mohandes Gandhi was not socialist at all, but some of his activities during the liberation of India may have appeared so.

Yeah, but I'm not a socialist, either... so what's your point?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yeah, but I'm not a leftie, either... so what's your point?

That you're not like Gandhi but I hope the music teaching thing works out (music education is good for kids).