All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Which is slightly more right wing than last year. Which puts me economically with Hilary Clinton but socially a world apart from all of the US candidates.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Economic Left/Right : -5.50 Social Lib/Authhoritarian : -3.90
Which is about where Nelson Mandela and Ghandi were on the middle of the bottom left green square on the Libertarian Left...Mike Gravel in '08 (whoever that is...Have to look him up!)
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
Getting much more left wing in my old-age I would normally call myself a conservative! - maybe need to start re-thinking that. Maybe getting more cynical the older i get.
Economic Left/Right: -3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
I was kinda surprised how left I am. I consider myself a hard core capitalist but apparently I'm Gandhi reincarnated.
Go figure
I took this test last week and I'm there too, as is the party I voted for on Saturday. Perhaps they should have this test out the front of polling booths so people can determine which party represents their values.
If this board is representative of anything in the US, the next American President is gonna be Dennis Kucinich. Which is okay, 'cause he's got a hot wife.
And I still can't believe I'm so friggin' right wing. I'm against the death penalty and want to oust Bush, for God's sake! I'm moderate! Moderate, I tells ya!
But seriously, I think the Compass is really useful in gauging where you stand, especially during election time. If everybody took the test before voting, and voted based on the results, instead of whatever populist 'answering-the-question-without-answering-the-question' campaign-rhetoric the politicians spew out, or personal sympathies, the political landscape might look a bit different.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
And I still can't believe I'm so friggin' right wing.
TJ, you NRA toting-Pro life-English is our first language-Christ rules-Gas chamber advocat-Pat Buchannon nuthugger...you learn something new everyday, I guess
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Since writers tend to be a very liberal bunch I don't think this thread represents the general political leanings in the US and since this thread seems to have turned into a "conservative bashing" thread there probably won't be too many members trumpeting their conservatism.
Last time there was an election here, there was some effort to get people to take this test in order to get voters to see where they reaally stood politically before voting. Maybe it will be more succesful this time around.
Since writers tend to be a very liberal bunch I don't think this thread represents the general political leanings in the US and since this thread seems to have turned into a "conservative bashing" thread there probably won't be too many members trumpeting their conservatism.
Last time there was an election here, there was some effort to get people to take this test in order to get voters to see where they reaally stood politically before voting. Maybe it will be more succesful this time around.
Hey, apparently I'm "conservative", and I approve of this bashing. No, but seriously, it's all in good fun and I hope nobody feels too intimidated to own up to voting for dubuya, being pro-life, against gay-marriage and abortion. It's just politics: so we disagree, big deal...doesn't mean we can't all be friends.
Ooops, I think just became a bleeding heart liberal.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I didn't say I disagreed with you about anything. I just don't like bashing of anybody...
I just don't see the bashing? Just Rob and I having a laugh. The joke was that I don't consider myself conservative and then Rob ascribed me traditional conservative values he knew I didn't subscribe to. No bashing. In fact I think the word 'bashing' is thrown around a tad too often online.
But if I've offended anybody, I'm sorry.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Considering being pro-life and against abortion is the same thing, that's not that impressive.
That's how I took it, but you could say pro-life in regards to the death penalty as well. That pretty much falls outside the realm of the conservative though.
That's true about pro-life. Personally I'm against the death penalty because of the chance of sentencing an innocent man to death. Not so much because I think it's inhumane anymore. But I'm on the fence.
Jordan,
?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I'm against the death penalty because I think it's a barbaric way for a civilised society to act, but I think if you murder someone you should spend the rest of your life in prison.
As for gay marriage, I'm for it. Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as everybody else.
I'm personally against abortion, but I don't think society should take away a person's right to choose.
I'm against the death penalty because I think it's a barbaric way for a civilised society to act, but I think if you murder someone you should spend the rest of your life in prison.
As for gay marriage, I'm for it. Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as everybody else.
I'm personally against abortion, but I don't think society should take away a person's right to choose.
I get what you're saying, but why should our proverbial tax dollars go to fund the meals and sustenance for a convicted killer or rapist, when none of them go to the victims?
Ideally I would send murderers and rapists to live on Mars where they would mine for Tiberium deep beneath the surface for the benefit of all mankind. But the corporations go too far and cut off the air for the colonies and people almost suffocate. Until Arnold Schwarzenegger kills Michael Ironside and saves the day, only to realize it was all in his head, or something.
As for gay marriage: they should have the exact same legal rights but we shouldn't force religious institutions to perform same-sex weddings. It's not a human right to get a church wedding.
Anyway, anyone else wanna take the test?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Wow, I didn't realize I was surround by a bunch of tree hugging commies. Anyway, here's my score:
Economic Left/Right: 4.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.54
I guess that would make me the most conservative one here so far...???
Coincidently this subject came up during thanksgiving dinner too. I found out that I'm basically the most conservative person in my family, which I think is surprising. While on that side of the spectrum, I consider myself more towards moderate, but still, it seems like everyone's left of me. Anyway, that situation didn't turn out too pretty.
@ deathmonkey and the other non Americans: I'm surprised at how aware you are of American politics. Good for you. I know next to nothing about the politics of Denmark. Actually, I'll correct that. I know nothing about Denmark and now I feel ignorant. Oh well.
So, uh, I guess I'm going to start running before the barrage of stones come...
Well, American politics have an impact on the world. Danish politics don't.
Basically Denmark is a very secular welfare state with very high taxes, free education, medicals and all that jazz. This is changing slightly with our conservative/liberal (as in economic liberal) government securing a third term last month with promises to lower taxes. This is in part to help bring educated immigrants to the country who right now flee to places where they'll make a buck. Which is also why we've got an immigration problem. However should we place the Danish conservative party on the political compass, they'd be about 1-2 to the right and about 1-2 on the social. So no that conservative.
Bob Simon did a horrendous segment for 60 minutes on Denmark during the Muhammed cartoon crisis, where he erroneously pointed out that the Anti-immigration party The Danish People's party gets 20% of the votes. At the height of the crisis they got 17% in a poll. 1 month before and one month after they got 13%. they usually move between 10-13%.
That's a crash course in Danish politics.
With Sheepwalker and Jordan's new results, I'm no longer that conservative. I'm...moderate again. Mmmmm.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I think if I posted my results I'd offend everyone, so I'll refrain from that. I'm probably the most conservative person on these boards. I'm against nearly everything everyone is for and for a lot of stuff everyone is against. haha.
I think if I posted my results I'd offend everyone, so I'll refrain from that. I'm probably the most conservative person on these boards. I'm against nearly everything everyone is for and for a lot of stuff everyone is against. haha.
-Chris
Well now I HAVE to know.
Seriously though, don't sweat it. I think think most regulars know where you stand on moral issues and such so I doubt anyone will be offended. But of course, it's your choice.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Economic Left/Right: -5.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Not really sure what that means. But I'm all for gay marriage. The fact that two people in love can't get married in some parts of the world because they happen to have the same sex organs makes me laugh. Laugh with rage.
Also agree with Jordan about the death penalty. It isn't used enough these days and we don't have it down here at all. There are a lot of scumbags in the world who simply deserve to die. That might make me sound like a cold-heartred prick, but I don't care. It's just how I feel.
And I'm ridiculously pro-abortion. I think they're wonderful gifts under any circumstances.
Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
This seems like a relatively good reflection of my political leanings and at the same time, I don't think this is a very accurate method of calculating such leanings. I'm not a fan of questions containing the words "all," "always," and "never." Those are generalizations and some issues nowadays are too complex for generalizations. I also didn't find myself "strongly agreeing" or "strongly disagreeing" with too many questions, except for the questions about sex, artists vs. businessmen, and a couple others. I guess this was kind of an interesting test to take but at the same time, I've never been good with tests like these.
Yeah, I know Denmark and most of the rest of the world are irrelevant. I just figured it'd be more tactful to have someone else say it.
In the words of our greatEST President, "Mission Accomplished"
sheepwalker
Haha! Don't underestimate the smugness of small insignificant countries. If we can't beat ya, we'll just act like we're better than you, and roll our collective eyes every time your president claims that "childrens do learn".
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
This seems like a relatively good reflection of my political leanings and at the same time, I don't think this is a very accurate method of calculating such leanings. I'm not a fan of questions containing the words "all," "always," and "never." Those are generalizations and some issues nowadays are too complex for generalizations. I also didn't find myself "strongly agreeing" or "strongly disagreeing" with too many questions, except for the questions about sex, artists vs. businessmen, and a couple others. I guess this was kind of an interesting test to take but at the same time, I've never been good with tests like these.
I agree the tests lacks a "Don't know/no opinion" option. Especially the question about whether we are ultimately more divided by nationality than class would fall into that category for me, but it makes me choose and thus gets an inaccurate reading.
But most of the questions pretty well conceived, IMO. For instance, the question on abortion states that unless it threatens the women's life, it should always be illegal. the way I interpret that is if I tick "Strongly agree" I'm saying that taht is absolutely right, no exceptions, and if you just click agree you might have reservations but generally agree.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I agree the tests lacks a "Don't know/no opinion" option. Especially the question about whether we are ultimately more divided by nationality than class would fall into that category for me, but it makes me choose and thus gets an inaccurate reading.
If you read their faq you will discover
You should have a "don't know" option
This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.
This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.
True. But the drawback are the inaccurate results that you get, because there really are some issues that you neither agree nor disagree on, or you simply are undecided on. This seems to be the case with many of the presidential candidates as well. Rf. Hilary Clinton's stance on granting driver's licences to illegal aliens. Well, now she decided, but for a long time she had no stance on it.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Mistakes seems to run in that family. Wasn't it his father who said: "Read my lips - no new taxes"?
The apple and the tree...
Actually, I was referring to Abraham Lincoln after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation (He also did a mid air chest butt with Stephan Douglas. Don't believe me? Look it up. ...in your gut though) but I guess Bush fits the bill too.
Quoted from DeathMonkey
Haha! Don't underestimate the smugness of small insignificant countries. If we can't beat ya, we'll just act like we're better than you, and roll our collective eyes every time your president claims that "childrens do learn".
Touche, Sir. However, your smugness is no match for our arrogance and iron clad steadfatstness (especially in combination with our bombs).
This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea.
That's lame. First off, if the President of the United States of America can answer a question with the phrase "I have no earthly idea" (this is exactly what he said), I think people taking this test should be able to do the same. A lot of people don't have feelings about certain issues anyways or they're on the fence. Second, the makers of this test seem to have too much faith in people. I doubt most people who come across statements they don't know how to answer to are going to take the time to "really evaluate their feelings." They're going to pick whatever answer pops into their head first and move on because they want to see their test results (which also contributes to its potential inaccuracy). At the same time, people might be just as lazy if they had the option "I don't know." Still, I think the test would work better with such an option.
But most of the questions pretty well conceived, IMO. For instance, the question on abortion states that unless it threatens the women's life, it should always be illegal. the way I interpret that is if I tick "Strongly agree" I'm saying that taht is absolutely right, no exceptions, and if you just click agree you might have reservations but generally agree.
True. Still, there are a couple that, depending on the person, could potentially be double-sided. For example, the question with the Marx quote. I garauntee that question greatly effects your communist/anarchist leanings. But my stances on communism/socialism in theory and in practice are complete opposites. I'll also just come out and say I think anarchy is retarded. I agree that the majority of the questions are well-conceived but some of them are strong enough to throw off your results based on answers not taken in context.
Meh... Food for thought. It's an interesting and somewhat fun test. I just have a bad habit of taking things apart like this, hehe.
True. Still, there are a couple that, depending on the person, could potentially be double-sided. For example, the question with the Marx quote. I garauntee that question greatly effects your communist/anarchist leanings. But my stances on communism/socialism in theory and in practice are complete opposites. I'll also just come out and say I think anarchy is retarded. I agree that the majority of the questions are well-conceived but some of them are strong enough to throw off your results based on answers not taken in context.
Meh... Food for thought. It's an interesting and somewhat fun test. I just have a bad habit of taking things apart like this, hehe.
Yeah, that's a good point. I've taken the test over 20 times over the course of the last 3 years (I started out being exactly where Sniper is now) so I know the questions almost by heart and I tend check the disagree box to the "each according to his ability...is fundamentally a good idea" because the implication seems to be "if socialism was viable we should employ it". It's like saying "Everybody being nice all the time is fundamentally a good idea." Yes, I agree, it is. But that doesn't mean I think we should force people to be nice through legislation.
So it might be a somewhat strategic answer on my part.
Same goes for the one where you have to choose between class and nationality, what separates people the most. The implication of choosing class could be socialist tendencies, whilst clicking nationality imbues you with an air of authoritarianism.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
I'm in the bottom left too. It looks like we've got the conservatives well and truly out numbered. So I say lets throw diplomacy out the window and go in for the kill.
I also found a link to this site on the political compass's FAQ. It has grouped and listed the world's "best" democracies in terms of civil liberties, corruption, press freedom, human rights and rule of law.
If the UK is in number 9 in the world, then God help democracy. It's been like living under a totalitarian regime with nu-Labour in charge.
The problem I have with the test is that personal politics are a different matter to Governmental politics in my opinion.
Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
I'm a Libertarian and believe in the people having the freedom to choose, however I know from experience that a large percentage of people simply do not have the mental faculties to be able to live like that. The more liberal some things get, the more the cry for strict moral standards from the other side.
It also is not a very useful barometer for voting, as in England all the major parties are Thatcherites in terms of Economics. There is simply no way to vote for parties in a General Election that represent your views. Hence increasing apathy with the political system.
For me the greatest political thinker remains Karl Marx. I think turbo-captalism's effect on all levels of society, with people valuing money above all human considerations shows how right he was when he said that the inevitable outcome of Capitalism is to enslave humanity.
Global Corporations can now decide World wide policies with the strength of their money and can even control everything that the general populaces sees, reads and hence thinks.
It's galling to me that, in a time like no other, when we have the ability to communicate with each other and to learn new ideas, educational standards, artistic standards and standards of behaviour are dropping to a deplorable level.
We treat news of corruption and murder as disposable entertainment and allow grave injustices that we all know about to happen on a daily basis.
It's time that all the decent people across the world came together under a single political movement and put an end to the mess once and for all.
For me the greatest political thinker remains Karl Marx. I think turbo-captalism's effect on all levels of society, with people valuing money above all human considerations shows how right he was when he said that the inevitable outcome of Capitalism is to enslave humanity.
Global Corporations can now decide World wide policies with the strength of their money and can even control everything that the general populaces sees, reads and hence thinks.
It's galling to me that, in a time like no other, when we have the ability to communicate with each other and to learn new ideas, educational standards, artistic standards and standards of behaviour are dropping to a deplorable level.
We treat news of corruption and murder as disposable entertainment and allow grave injustices that we all know about to happen on a daily basis.
It's time that all the decent people across the world came together under a single political movement and put an end to the mess once and for all.
That's interesting. But imagine a world without capitalism. Without free markets. Without supply and demand. Even though Marx may be right that unchecked capitalism may lead to monopolies, corporation-states and eventually enslavement, Marx's idea of combatting this eventual enslavement was immediate enslavement.
The free market is fundamentally an agent of democracy in its truest form. Is the market not the will of the people? If you like something you can support it by investing your money in it, and if you dislike something or somebody you can boycott them. That'd first hand democracy. One can only be allowed to become a successful corporation if willed by the people.
Your argument seems to be that capitalism has failed because people are basically morons and can't control their own destiny, right? If this is true, then we are doomed no matter what system we employ.
The bottomline is if the majority of the people were against these big bad corporations, then they wouldn't be able to survive. And if we can't afford to let people decide how to spend their money, how can we entrust them to choosing who they want to represent them?
Turbo-capitalism is a bad thing, and I think we should check ourselves against monopolies, but like democracy capitalism is the worst form of economic system. Except for all the others that have been tried.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
In the Australian Football League they capped the amount of money football clubs could pay their players, so basically every playing roster has to operate on the same budget. Now we don't have the same clubs buying success year after year like they do in the English Premier League and clubs that have struggled for years have finally experienced success, because it's now a level playing field.
I think one the reasons socialism and communism has failed in some countries is because there wasn’t enough incentive for people to work hard, because everybody would pretty much get the same wage regardless. In fact I used to work with a guy who lived in Communist China and said that very thing.
So what if, the state controlled all businesses and capped the maximum annual income at say $500,000 a year? This would be enough to motivate the ambitious, whilst also making sure there was still enough revenue to fully fund essential public services like: health, education, housing, welfare etc
In the Australian Football League they capped the amount of money football clubs could pay their players, so basically every playing roster has to operate on the same budget. Now we don't have the same clubs buying success year after year like they do in the English Premier League and clubs that have struggled for years have finally experienced success, because it's now a level playing field.
I think one the reasons socialism and communism has failed in some countries is because there wasn’t enough incentive for people to work hard, because everybody would pretty much get the same wage regardless. In fact I used to work with a guy who lived in Communist China and said that very thing.
So what if, the state controlled all businesses and capped the maximum annual income at say $500,000 a year? This would be enough to motivate the ambitious, whilst also making sure there was still enough revenue to fully fund essential public services like: health, education, housing, welfare etc
Could this work?
I think the reason why socialism and communism failed was because these are systems that are dependent on everybody in the country being ardent communists. If just 1% of the people don't believe in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" the system fails. Which is why every commnist state that has ever been has cracked down hard on those who dissent.
Beyond that, if there were no privately owned business that would mean the supply would be controlled by the state, not by the people who demand it. That's not very democratic. Which is why in communist states the literature you could read, the music you could listen to and the movies you could see were closely scrutinized and never opposing the state. Even if the people wanted to be exposed to it.
Basically, I believe communism fosters censorship, oppression and uniformity. Even if it means well.
Human beings are individuals with different tempers, desires, needs, abilities and dreams. Communism basically says: "Well, you shouldn't be."
But we are. And that's why socialism will always fail, IMO. And capitalism is the reason why socialism will always survive.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Beyond that, if there were no privately owned business that would mean the supply would be controlled by the state, not by the people who demand it. That's not very democratic. Which is why in communist states the literature you could read, the music you could listen to and the movies you could see were closely scrutinized and never opposing the state. Even if the people wanted to be exposed to it.
Why couldn’t the state just supply the people with what they wanted?
Anyway, I’d put it to you that the people don’t control demand, the corporations do, by convincing people that they need to buy their products.
I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism. I'm just floating the idea of capping individual salaries at 500K.
Why couldn’t the state just supply the people with what they wanted?
Anyway, I’d put it to you that the people don’t control demand, the corporations do, by convincing people that they need to buy their products.
I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism. I'm just floating the idea of capping individual salaries at 500K.
Because I think there is an inevitable downwardspiral when we entrust one singular entity with the control of what is traded and what isn't. I think history supports me in making the assertion that the state controlling demand leads to oppresion a whole lot faster than big bad corporations controlling it, should we concede that to be true.
Well, then your argument seems to be that people are brainwashed and can't decide for themselves what they need. And if this is true then how can we possible advocate democracy? The politicans control what we vote by convincing us that we need to vote for them or the country will collapse.
If it were true that the corporations controlled demand, how do we explain that some products fail to sell? How do we explain boycotts? People have freedom of choice, and if they decide to buy something, who are we to question whether they really want it or not?
Another problem is your definition of "need". Is need just the bare minimum to survive or is it a 32 inch flatscreen TV (but not 40", no one NEEDS that) and an SUV? So who decides what we need? I would argue the most democratic thing would be to let people decide for themselves what they need instead of the state.
To me it seems like the socialist view of the human being is that of a helpless animal that can't be trusted with any significant aspect of their own lives.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Well, then your argument seems to be that people are brainwashed and can't decide for themselves what they need. And if this is true then how can we possible advocate democracy? The politicans control what we vote by convincing us that we need to vote for them or the country will collapse.
If it were true that the corporations controlled demand, how do we explain that some products fail to sell? How do we explain boycotts? People have freedom of choice, and if they decide to buy something, who are we to question whether they really want it or not?
I have no doubt they want it, but usually it’s because they’ve been convinced that they need it. Why else would coca-cola spend the majority of it's budget on advertising when people already know that the product exists?
To me it seems like the socialist view of the human being is that of a helpless animal that can't be trusted with any significant aspect of their own lives.
If that belief is exclusive to the socialist view, why do the capitalists go to such great lengths to influence people’s thinking, rather than letting them make up their own minds about who they want to vote for or what they’d like to buy?
I have no doubt they want it, but usually it's because they've been convinced that they need it. Why else would coca-cola spend the majority of it's budget on advertising when people already know that the product exists?
So you distinguish between a 'natural desire' for something and then a 'convinced desire'? So how do know when someone is only needing something because they've been convinced, and when it's genuine?
There is an important distinction between convincing someone that they need the product and then that they need YOUR specific brand. People want cola because they like the taste. People want Coca Cola because Coca Cola spends billions in advertising.
But they're not creating a need for the product, just influencing people's inclination towards their brand. That's not controlling demand.
Quoted Text
If that belief is exclusive to the socialist view, why do the capitalists go to such great lengths to influence people's thinking, rather than letting them make up their own minds about who they want to vote for or what they'd like to buy?
Well, if people couldn't make up their own minds then advertising would be redundant. Advertising is in essence an argument for buying a specific product or brand. Some advertisements appeal to logic, some to more basic urges like hunger or thirst, some to our sexual drive. But the choice IS left up to the consumer to decide which argument is the best one. Thus 'capitalists' (obsolete term, really, because we are all capitalists now) do work within a framework that entrusts every decision to the consumer, unlike socialism.
Again, your argument seems to entail that we are somehow brainwashed by advertisements and when we make a choice to buy something, it's not really our choice because we've been influenced by advertising. So when I decide to buy a pair of converse shoes, how do you know if it's actually me wanting them or if I'm just buying them because Will Smith wore them in I, Robot?
And if I only bought them because of Will Smith, isn't that my choice? And my money?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
But getting back to my original question. Do you think it would work if society capped individual salaries at 500K?
Actually, the question, why does it matter? If I buy a hamburger simply because a hot girl is holding it on a billboard, that's my choice and my money.
I don't think so, no, because it works against independent human entrepreneuring, which I think is a good thing. If an individual gets a great idea he or she should be able to pursue it and start a business around it. And if it's a really great idea and you work really hard for it, you should be able to make whatever amount people will pay you. This is the way society moves forward, IMO.
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Coca-Cola uses very specific things in it's drinks to create an actual NEED to have the drink.
It's like cigarettes.
I think people are a lot more influenced by advertising than you think. They spend fortunes on creating subliminal associations. They use celebrity to give the products a veneer of sophistication etc and make you think that you are making a choice when in a lot of instances the choice you are making has been informed by all the subconscious images that you have built up over time.
People in general rarely make choices in the truest sense of the word. They just go along with whatever they are told to do. This is true of all levels of commerce and politics as well.
Coca-Cola uses very specific things in it's drinks to create an actual NEED to have the drink.
It's like cigarettes.
I think people are a lot more influenced by advertising than you think. They spend fortunes on creating subliminal associations. They use celebrity to give the products a veneer of sophistication etc and make you think that you are making a choice when in a lot of instances the choice you are making has been informed by all the subconscious images that you have built up over time.
People in general rarely make choices in the truest sense of the word. They just go along with whatever they are told to do. This is true of all levels of commerce and politics as well.
Well that's not advertising then, but chemical dependency and is a completely different discussion. But even people decide for themselves to smoke, mind you.
I'm not saying people aren't influenced by advertising. But you seem to suggest that when I buy Pepsi because I saw Tiger Woods drink it in a commercial I'm somehow making a less informed purchase, or worse, I'm not even making a choice. But if I wanna spend money on feeling I'm associated with Tiger Woods, then that's my business. Why can't I spend money on that? And again, this only pertains to brand preference not the demand of a product. They can't subliminally make me want to eat haggis.
And again, how can those of you who say that people can't really make choices for themselves at all support a system of government where the people are actually entrusted to elect their leaders? Surely that must be lunacy if they can't even choose a soft-drink for themselves?
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
And again, how can those of you who say that people can't really make choices for themselves at all support a system of government where the people are actually entrusted to elect their leaders? Surely that must be lunacy if they can't even choose a soft-drink for themselves?
You've created a straw man here, TJ. A lot of people are influenced into the “choices” they make after being misled about what their choices actually are. But there are independent thinkers who are capable of making up their own minds no matter how much propaganda gets slung at them; unfortunately they’re in the minority.
A problem with capitalism, in many countries, is the two party dominance, where you have the two right-wing parties getting all the media coverage because they are funded to the hilt by the corporations who want them to stay in power, because they know they’ll maintain the status-quo. This creates the illusion that people only have the choice of voting for one or the other of the right-wing parties. So a lot of people vote for what they think in the lesser of the two evils or, as happens in the USA, many people just don’t vote at all. That’s the so called free market for you.
Anyway my point is that I don’t believe anybody really needs more than 500K a year. Capitalism has reached the point where 2% of the world’s population control 85% of the wealth. I think it’s wrong that a small minority of people indulge themselves in decadent excess whilst millions starve, but you just go ahead and keep defending that TJ.
You've created a straw man here, TJ. A lot of people are influenced into the �choices� they make after being mislead about what their choices actually are.
I'm not sure I follow you here? Could you give an example?
Quoted Text
But there are independent thinkers who are capable of making up their own minds no matter how much propaganda gets slung at them; unfortunately they�re in the minority.
If only a minority of the people can actually think for themselves, then hasn't democracy failed? What good is the will of the people if it's not "really" the will of the people?
A solution would be to only have independent thinkers franchised. Only we might run into trouble defining "independent thinkers".
Quoted Text
A problem with capitalism, in many countries, is the two party dominance, where you have the two right-wing parties getting all the media coverage because they are funded to the hilt by the corporations who want them to stay in power, because they know they�ll maintain the status-quo. This creates the illusion that people only have the choice of voting for one or the other of the right-wing parties. So many people vote for what they think in the lesser of the two evils or, as happens in the USA, many people just don't vote at all. That's the so called free market for you.
First of all I think it's unfair to impose US political traditions of extreme two party dominance on "most countries". While certainly the two biggest parties in some Western countries are center right, they're not nearly as dominant as the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.
But allow me to qualify that statement (that the two biggest parties in many countries are right-wing) by listing the following exceptions:
Spain: Spanish Socialist Workers' Party Italy: The Union (center-left) Sweden: Arbetarepartiet (Social democrats) Norway: Arbeiderpartiet (social democrats) Austria: Social democrats Finland: Social-democrats
And these are just the western European countries whose biggestparty is center-left or more. In fact, the VAST majority of European countries have Social democrats (or equivalent center-left politics) in the top 2. The exception being the UK.
Secondly, you make A LOT of assumptions when you claim that people are "tricked" into voting for right wing parties backed by big corporations. Is there evidence for this? Also, keep in mind that right and left wing are relative terms. The democratic party isn't right wing in the US, even if some of its members might be. Take a look at Mike Gravel and Denis Kucinich. They're where you are on the compass and they're running for president for the democrats. Yet they're losing.
So if this was a case of people voting right wing because they were told they only had the choice between the Democrats and Republicans, why is it they vote right wing within the party itself?
But I agree that it is a problem that corporations sponsor and influence policy. However, these days with the internet coming up to speed there are sites like http://www.opensecrets.org/ where you can actually see who gets donations from who and when. So via this site you can check if Hilary Clinton has gotten any money from the NRA before a debate on gun-control. That's also the free market for ya.
I am by no means a fiscal extremist, but I recognize that the free market, for all its trappings and shortcomings is a helluva thing considering the alternatives. Maybe some day we'll invent someting better, but until then...
Quoted Text
Anyway my point is that I don�t believe anybody really needs more than 500K a year. Capitalism has reached the point where 2% of the world�s population control 85% of the wealth. I think it�s wrong that a small minority of people indulge themselves in decadent excess whilst millions starve, but you just go ahead and keep defending that TJ.
And my point is, who's going to define what you "need"? How much do you need?
Actually, if we granted free trade to African nations and removed the tarriffs and protectionism in Europe, America and Australia, so that the world's poor could compete equally with the wealthy nations, we could elevate hundreds of millions of people OUT of poverty. In fact, already now the standards of living are on the rise in the third world, so just imgaine what we could do if we LET them compete with us on the free market? Fair trade will be infinitely more beneficial than hypocritical charity.
So, I'll disregard your unwarranted snide remark, and go ahead and defend the free market in this case. Because if we actually introduced a genuine free market globally, those figures you trump in your post would look very different indeed.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
This is why I normally refrain from discussing politics or religion. It doesn't end until people get mad.
You mean "it doesn't end when people get mad" or better yet "it doesn't end." I'm usually a sucker for debates but trying to convince someone with completely opposite political or religious points of view to change their beliefs or even reconsider them or even consider reconsidering them is a waste of time. Even trying to make someone see things your way is difficult when they're already set with theirs.
That's not to say I'm not against debating politics or religion. On the contrary, I have a good time doing. Not on the Internet though. Political debates get pretty intense and I'd rather have one with someone in person rather than post a comment and wait 5-10 minutes to maybe several hours for someone else to post a retort.
Interesting test!! I am in the exact same spot as the Dalai Lama. That makes me happy! I hoped I'd be in the green area, but didn't realise how much so.
I'm not sure I follow you here? Could you give an example?
You’re saying that I think people can’t make choices for themselves. That’s not my position and you’re saying that it is my position and then attacking it; that’s a straw man.
If only a minority of the people can actually think for themselves, then hasn't democracy failed? What good is the will of the people if it's not "really" the will of the people?
Noam Chomsky once said, ‘Democracy is a great idea, somebody should try it sometime’. I agree with him.
First of all I think it's unfair to impose US political traditions of extreme two party dominance on "most countries". While certainly the two biggest parties in some Western countries are center right, they're not nearly as dominant as the Democratic and Republican parties respectively.
Secondly, you make A LOT of assumptions when you claim that people are "tricked" into voting for right wing parties backed by big corporations. Is there evidence for this? Also, keep in mind that right and left wing are relative terms. The democratic party isn't right wing in the US, even if some of its members might be.
Yes. The corporates keep backing the parties that are going to protect their interests and those parties keep winning. But when did I claim that people were tricked into voting for right-wing parties?
Right and left wing are not relative terms, just because you’re slightly left of George Bush, doesn’t mean that you’re left wing. I’d also dispute that the democrats in the US aren’t right-wing. The way they manage the economy when they’re in power seems very right-wing to me.
I am by no means a fiscal extremist, but I recognize that the free market, for all its trappings and shortcomings is a helluva thing considering the alternatives. Maybe some day we'll invent someting better, but until then....
Well that’s what I was advocating. I’ve already said I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism, just a much more restricted form of capitalism.
And my point is, who's going to define what you "need"? How much do you need?
The job of any government is to set boundaries, they’re called laws. A government that truly had the best interests of the majority would legislate for a much more even distribution of wealth. Governments impose a whole range of restrictions on various things, why should income be any different? Oh that’s right the rich don’t want them to.
Actually, if we granted free trade to African nations and removed the tarriffs and protectionism in Europe, America and Australia, so that the world's poor could compete equally with the wealthy nations, we could elevate hundreds of millions of people OUT of poverty. In fact, already now the standards of living are on the rise in the third world, so just imgaine what we could do if we LET them compete with us on the free market? Fair trade will be infinitely more beneficial than hypocritical charity..
How can you call for an expansion of capitalism when the current levels of capitalism are already environmentally unsustainable?
So, I'll disregard your unwarranted snide remark, and go ahead and defend the free market in this case. Because if we actually introduced a genuine free market globally, those figures you trump in your post would look very different indeed.
There was nothing snide or unwarranted about it. You’re defending practices that have resulted in 2% of the world’s population controlling 85% of the world’s wealth, whilst millions of people are suffering from the ravages of poverty. I was just pointing that out.
Disclaimer: (these are jokes in reference to a hideous looking avatar I used at the time this was written. When I change to something else, this is not me being serious)
Hey TJ, I think these last few posts may be our fellow member’s way of saying that they've had enough of our little chat. Anyway, I think I've made my position and my reasons for my position clear, so I don't think I have anymore to say on the issues we've been discussing. I best get back to things related to screenwriting. Peace.
Woah! Easy there, buddy. IMDB? Let's not say things we can't take back. I know for a fact people are way more civil around here at their worst than the idiots over there.
I honestly don't think mockery's what's happening here. Typically, heated debates escalate until the threads are locked then sometimes, another thread pops up because someone's pissed off someone else got the last word. Of course, that thread is locked as well. That's what I've seen the most of, anyway. In any case, these kinds of threads often get a little too serious and start to lose their fun. It's only natural people might pop in and try to loosen things up or the thread simply takes off in another direction, as is often the case.
Anyway, I think this thread's run its course. I think everyone who's interested has taken the test and we've got a good sense of what the board looks like politically. In any case, politics are like a "Boston Chilli Dog." Shitty. While I don't doubt you guys can have a political and still be civil to each other, I don't think the thread needs to go in that direction.
You’re saying that I think people can’t make choices for themselves. That’s not my position and you’re saying that it is my position and then attacking it; that’s a straw man.
I know what a straw man is, Chris. I was talking about this:
"A lot of people are influenced into the “choices” they make after being misled about what their choices actually are. But there are independent thinkers who are capable of making up their own minds no matter how much propaganda gets slung at them; unfortunately they’re in the minority."
Quoted Text
Noam Chomsky once said, ‘Democracy is a great idea, somebody should try it sometime’. I agree with him.
So you're saying that democracy still hasn't been tried? Could you elaborate on that?
Quoted Text
They are in Australia and the UK.
Well, that's two countries. Two isn't exactly "many".
Quoted Text
Yes. The corporates keep backing the parties that are going to protect their interests and those parties keep winning. But when did I claim that people were tricked into voting for right-wing parties?
You wrote that corporations cause (through excessive funding) people think they only have the choice between two right wings parties and that that illusion makes them vote for only these two, or none at all.
Trick: to deceive someone, often as a part of a plan:
I think it's pretty apt.
Quoted Text
Right and left wing are not relative terms, just because you’re slightly left of George Bush, doesn’t mean that you’re left wing. I’d also dispute that the democrats in the US aren’t right-wing. The way they manage the economy when they’re in power seems very right-wing to me.
That's a sweeping statement. Right wing and left absolutely are relative terms. The center is defined by the extremes. For instance in Denmark we have two socialist parties who would be between -6 to -8 on the economic axis. Our conservative party is about +2-3. Thus our moderates would be in -2, and the conservative party left of all but two American democratic presidential candidates.
Now imagine if the communist party had a relative foothold in American politics. Then that would shift the political paradigme completely, and the left wing would need to be redefined.
So why do you think right and left aren't relative terms?
Quoted Text
Well that’s what I was advocating. I’ve already said I’m not advocating a return to communism or socialism, just a much more restricted form of capitalism.
Okay. I disagree but this is a moot point.
Quoted Text
The job of any government is to set boundaries, they’re called laws. A government that truly had the best interests of the majority would legislate for a much more even distribution of wealth. Governments impose a whole range of restrictions on various things, why should income be any different? Oh that’s right the rich don’t want them to.
I would like to remind you, I'm an English major (raised in a single-parent socialist home). The best I can hope for when I'm done is a high school teaching job. I'm not gonna get rich, so if you would please refrain from treating like I'm in it for the money.
I believe what I believe because I genuinely believe you should be skeptical of all authority, especially the state. The argument that the state should control how much you can make, because it's job is to control other aspects of life is strange to me. That kinda logic could precipitate laws on how much you can eat in a day, because it's the govermemt's job to impose laws and regulations.
Obviously my qualm is that "need" is indefinable. We are not the same and we need different things. And this is one of those areas where the government shouldn't intrude.
Quoted Text
How can you call for an expansion of capitalism when the current levels of capitalism are already environmentally unsustainable?
Are you actually against removing tarrifs and dismantling protectionism? This is what the African nations have pled us to do for decades, but we're looking to protect ourselves, we don't want them to compete with the rest of us. This could mean that they could get an economy going, they could sustain themselves.
How is removing tarrifs and protectionism enviromentally unsustainable?
Quoted Text
There was nothing snide or unwarranted about it. You’re defending practices that have resulted in 2% of the world’s population controlling 85% of the world’s wealth, whilst millions of people are suffering from the ravages of poverty. I was just pointing that out.
Chris, I hope you would agree I've remained civil in this debate. However, when you write "but you just go ahead and keep defending that TJ." you are making it personal. You are derailing this debate (And I do think it's interesting!) and making it about me.
It is unwarranted in a civil dicussion, no matter how wrong you think I am.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
You mean "it doesn't end when people get mad" or better yet "it doesn't end." I'm usually a sucker for debates but trying to convince someone with completely opposite political or religious points of view to change their beliefs or even reconsider them or even consider reconsidering them is a waste of time. Even trying to make someone see things your way is difficult when they're already set with theirs.
That's not to say I'm not against debating politics or religion. On the contrary, I have a good time doing. Not on the Internet though. Political debates get pretty intense and I'd rather have one with someone in person rather than post a comment and wait 5-10 minutes to maybe several hours for someone else to post a retort.
Yeah. I truly love discussing politics, even when I disagree with those I'm debating. To me it's not so much about convincing the other guy, I mean that would be neat-o, but it's more about making sound arguments. Whether or not the other guy converts is outta my hands.
Debating makes you a better debater yourself, because people will point out flaws in your rhetoric and you're gonna have reflect on that. It helps you understand where you really stand and what you believe in.
Unfortunately, you're right, they often end with less that pleasant results. However, I found the key is to not take politics personally. Even if it can be hard.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Hey TJ, I think these last few posts may be our fellow member’s way of saying that they've had enough of our little chat. Anyway, I think I've made my position and my reasons for my position clear, so I don't think I have anymore to say on the issues we've been discussing. I best get back to things related to screenwriting. Peace.
But I needed to respond to the charges you made. If you didn't want to reply, that's fine, you don't have to. But I don't see the point of this post...
You could just PM me, you know.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
And then if I'd responded to the charges you made(and believe me I could) you'd have to respond to those charges and then I'd respond and on it goes. I'm happy to let you have the last word, because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
Looks like I'm late foe the debate(rhyme +2 points!) . Oh well.
I hope people aren't put off because things are getting a little heated. I think most of us are grown up enough to discuss ideas we may not agree with and come out of it with our feelings intact.
I agree with Death Monkey that a good debate is a really useful thing. It can help expand your horizons, prompt a reexamination of your own beliefs. Without challenges from other points of view we become intellectually lazy.
Anyway, I'd also like to say that I completely agree with Death Monkey. For a European you trumpet American philosophies pretty well. If you ever feel like pulling yourself up by your boot straps or grow tired of the oppression and tyranny of Denmark, I would, and I'm sure most Americans would also, gladly welcome you to the land of opportunity(as long as its legal... ok, I like you enough to look the other way if you come with a visa and let it expire). Well done sir.
sheepwalker
P.S.
If you're looking for a good debate we can finish ours on KOTOR, or next week I'll probably be picking up Mass Effect. But in either case, it will have to wait until next week after finals.
Looks like I'm late foe the debate(rhyme +2 points!) . Oh well.
I hope people aren't put off because things are getting a little heated. I think most of us are grown up enough to discuss ideas we may not agree with and come out of it with our feelings intact.
I agree with Death Monkey that a good debate is a really useful thing. It can help expand your horizons, prompt a reexamination of your own beliefs. Without challenges from other points of view we become intellectually lazy.
Anyway, I'd also like to say that I completely agree with Death Monkey. For a European you trumpet American philosophies pretty well. If you ever feel like pulling yourself up by your boot straps or grow tired of the oppression and tyranny of Denmark, I would, and I'm sure most Americans would also, gladly welcome you to the land of opportunity(as long as its legal... ok, I like you enough to look the other way if you come with a visa and let it expire). Well done sir.
sheepwalker
P.S.
If you're looking for a good debate we can finish ours on KOTOR, or next week I'll probably be picking up Mass Effect. But in either case, it will have to wait until next week after finals.
Haha nonsense, sir! I trumpet the philosophies of fellow European thinkers like Adam Smith, John Locke, Baron de Montisqeu, Immanuel Kant or David Hume
I might be able to sneak Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin in the backdoor when the French philosophers aren't looking, though.
And I so wish Mass Effect was coming to PC, 'cause I can't play any type of shooter with a controller; I need a mouse. But it does look amazing.
"The Flux capacitor. It's what makes time travel possible."
Pages: 
Author
The Political Compass - Your scores?
Logged
Locked Board