Political Compass Thread

[DriXnaK]

He believes in universal healthcare. That alone is enough to make him a socialist in my book. I am also fairly certain he's all for things like social security and other government run pension systems. That's socialism.

[Ben Kenobi]

he's likely to actually convince some semi-retarded female to marry him at some point, whereas as we all know you're going to be alone forever you hateful little ****.

At least I will die having known true freedom.

Also, I want to see some pics of Missus Kentonio.

[Bereta_Eder]

Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31



This test is so dumb, it says I'm more of a leftie than Sava.

my chart is almost identical

[C0ckney]

He believes in universal healthcare. That alone is enough to make him a socialist in my book. I am also fairly certain he's all for things like social security and other government run pension systems. That's socialism.

a socialist may believe in those things, but believing in them doesn't make one a socialist. it seems you have a very odd definition of the term.

[DriXnaK]

You are basically arguing how far a socialist has to go before they become a socialist. Socialism is nothing more than an abstract concept with many different things that can fall under it. Socialist Democracies, Communism, and Nazism are implementations of it. As far as I'm concerned, when you support many of the main programs found in a socialist implementation, you are a socialist.

[Lorizael]

Basically, if you don't spit at homeless people when you walk past them, you're a socialist.

[C0ckney]

You are basically arguing how far a socialist has to go before they become a socialist. Socialism is nothing more than an abstract concept with many different things that can fall under it. Socialist Democracies, Communism, and Nazism are implementations of it. As far as I'm concerned, when you support many of the main programs found in a socialist implementation, you are a socialist.

your definition seems to include everything, which of course makes it meaningless, but perhaps it's worthwhile exploring the point further.

if we take something like 'government run pensions' we will find that people with a whole range of views: all shades of left-wing opinion (including socialists), bourgeois liberals, other centrists and many on the right, support it. this is unsurprising, because government run pensions are designed to stop poor old people from starving to death, and few people want to see that happen. on the other hand if we take something like 'the workers owning the means of production' we'll find that people with much narrower range of views, you can leave out the centre-left (social democrats etc.), the liberals, centrists and right wingers, support such a proposition. this again is unsurprising, as such a position is an explicit rejection of capitalism.

so someone supporting statement one (pensions) doesn't tell us whether they are a socialist. however someone supporting statement number two (workers owning the means of production) tells us that they probably are, or that they hold some other, but related, kind of far-left world view.

[onodera]

Name one. Europe doesn't count and Canada doesn't either.

Moving the goalpost. Good bye.

[Ben Kenobi]

so someone supporting statement one (pensions) doesn't tell us whether they are a socialist. however someone supporting statement number two (workers owning the means of production) tells us that they probably are, or that they hold some other, but related, kind of far-left world view.

You equate communism = socialism. The true definition of socialism is the preference for government control over something like pensions as opposed to private control.

[DriXnaK]

I am fairly confident that Kentonio is all for the worker unions that we see. As far as I'm concerned, unions are a continual step towards the workers owning the means of production. There's a reason why the color of labor is red. I'm also fairly certain that Kentonio is also one of those people who think people need to contribute their fair share to society i.e. income redistribution. What's really being argued here is at what point true socialism begins. At the very least I can confidently say that Kentonio ascribes to many of the ideals of socialism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Moving the goalpost. Good bye.

Texas alone >> military than Canada.

[N35t0r]

lol, "I dare you to find a counter example, from a list excluding these counter examples I know about" LOL

[Ben Kenobi]

"I dare you to find a counter example, from a list excluding these counter examples I know about" LOL

Point is still well taken. My argument is that the military in Texas alone exceeds the military in all of these countries combined. Which, perhaps was the point I am trying to drive home. Savastan wants to cut the military. The problem is that entitlements alone will supercede the value of all the taxes collected in short order.

[C0ckney]

I am fairly confident that Kentonio is all for the worker unions that we see. As far as I'm concerned, unions are a continual step towards the workers owning the means of production. There's a reason why the color of labor is red. I'm also fairly certain that Kentonio is also one of those people who think people need to contribute their fair share to society i.e. income redistribution. What's really being argued here is at what point true socialism begins. At the very least I can confidently say that Kentonio ascribes to many of the ideals of socialism.

well here we run into the same problem. few people are against the existence of unions, the disagreement comes when discussing their role in society. the same with the redistribution of income, almost everyone believes in it in some form or another; you yourself probably do. the debate is about the form and degree.

[N35t0r]

Point is still well taken. My argument is that the military in Texas alone exceeds the military in all of these countries combined.

Which is an argument of what? That the US still has a horribly bloated defense budget?

Which, perhaps was the point I am trying to drive home. Savastan wants to cut the military. The problem is that entitlements alone will supercede the value of all the taxes collected in short order.

I'm failing to see the argumentative line that connects both.

Lowering in defense spending -> rise in entitlement spending surpassing tax revenue?