# Why So Many Lefties?



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm curious as to why there's so many left-minded folk on here. Anyone care to chime in? (And before you start spewing slurs at me, I'm not conservative. I'm libertarian.)


----------



## asher (Mar 24, 2014)

The truth has a well-known liberal bias.










Definitely not entirely kidding. But I think it has something to do with the age range (on the younger side, mostly, but not totally), most people not seeming to be too high up the income scale to where their economic bias slants self interest over effective policy, and most people on here being supportive, open, accepting, empathetic dudes. And some ladies, too.

I'd also wager there are more people that aren't, that just don't pipe up.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> I'm curious as to why there's so many left-minded folk on here. Anyone care to chime in? (And before you start spewing slurs at me, I'm not conservative. I'm libertarian.)



It's simply my observation that this is an electric guitar forum and electric guitars are predominantly used in the creation of rock 'n' roll music. People associated with this genre of music typically hold the liberal viewpoints of casual premarital sex and legalized drug use. The exception would be the conundrum known as "Ted Nugent"... On the other hand, 4wd & Gun forums usually tend to be predominately conservative.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> It's simply my observation that this is an electric guitar forum and electric guitars are predominantly used in the creation of rock 'n' roll music. People associated with this genre of music typically hold the liberal viewpoints of casual premarital sex and legalized drug use. The exception would be the conundrum known as "Ted Nugent"... On the other hand, 4wd & Gun forums usually tend to be predominately conservative.


There are forums dedicated solely to 4WD vehicles...internet just got weirder today.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> It's simply my observation that this is an electric guitar forum and electric guitars are predominantly used in the creation of rock 'n' roll music. People associated with this genre of music typically hold the liberal viewpoints of casual premarital sex and legalized drug use. The exception would be the conundrum known as "Ted Nugent"... On the other hand, 4wd & Gun forums usually tend to be predominately conservative.



I can dismiss this theory with one word: rig-talk. Rig-talk seems super conservative, pro-guns, pro-objectifying women in advertisements, (from one of my 3 deals on Rig-talk) pro-racism, and of course, anti-Obama.

Now I don't know what the average age of each forum is, but if I had to guess I'd say... 
SSO: 18, with most vocal members being ~22-28. 
Rig-talk: 35, with most vocal members being ~40-50.

It'd be interesting to know - I'm sure it's easily computable, at least for a first approximation using only those members who have listed their birthdates (a little biased as members on either extreme would likely be less likely to list it).


----------



## Mike (Mar 24, 2014)

Honestly came in here thinking you meant left handed people/guitarists lol.

I believe musicians as a collective whole are free thinkers. They don't accept what's being fed to them without first questioning every ingredient that goes into it. Most people here have questioned and understand both sides of the fence and have chosen viewpoints that they believe are right and best for them.

I think why you see a lot more of the left wing viewpoints being supported/spoken out about here is probably because of the demographics of the users. From what I see, most of the active posters are lower to middle class citizens (in terms of wages, not character), age 17-30. A big chunk of that group are the so called "Millennials" and people in that bracket usually cling to many of the same viewpoints, make similar wages, and have been brought up in a very tolerant world compared to those living in the 70's and earlier.

TL;DR: Young, working class people don't vote republican.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

All are good points. I'm not necessarily surprised, but I don't like uneven representation for some reason. Tends to lead to people being ganged-up on for their beliefs (yes, liberals are really bad for this too) and political misinformation, which is rampant across the board. Any one wanna chime in on that?


----------



## Mike (Mar 24, 2014)

I agree things aren't necessarily balanced around here. You gotta think about what this forum is though. Just look at name, Sevenstring.org. The site is focused (or at least the original intent of it was) on the 7 string way of life. Just by being a 7 string player, there's already an affinity towards thinking outside of the box and rejecting the idea of traditional as the only way. 

I disagree about political misinformation being rampant across this forum. I think both sides make very good points that are more often than not, based on real facts and statistics. Go and fact check any one of these heated debates here and the info checks out. I do think that more often than not, it's Eric vs. The World here, but he holds his own.

I don't really know of a way to fairly balance out the proponents when the initial selling point of this site already filters out those who are not willing to open their minds to something as simple as a low B. Maybe tell the rig-talk guys that a bunch of liberals are ganging up on conservatives over at sevenstring.org and they need help balancing out the scales.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 24, 2014)

Left brained or liberal? 

I only lean to the left... That's enough to piss off anyone farther right than me these days... Liberals get mad at what I have to say too...


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 24, 2014)

I've always wanted where did people get this left and right stuff from, since when do directions have political meanings. Is it the same thing as referring to someone as a Republican or a person who has conservative views (The right?)?


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

Mike, I meant across the political spectrum that people are willing to lie to further their cause, not SSO. Haha.

Konfyouzd, I know those feels. According to the majority of people I'm not allowed to support legal marijuana, lawful gun ownership, and gay anything all at once.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I've always wanted where did people get this left and right stuff from, since when do directions have political meanings. Is it the same thing as referring to someone as a Republican or a person who has conservative views (The right?)?



That's what I was thinking about a minute ago. As a libertarian, going by that standard, am I a centrist, or completely out of the field?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 24, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Mike, I meant across the political spectrum that people are willing to lie to further their cause, not SSO. Haha.
> 
> Konfyouzd, I know those feels. According to the majority of people I'm not allowed to support legal marijuana, lawful gun ownership, and gay anything all at once.





Aren't Libertarian and Totalitarian Down and Up respectively? The way I understand it there's left right up and down and you can view it in quadrants... There have always been libertarians but now it's "trendy" to be one so they get a bit more attention. Then you've got the Tea Party CALLING themselves libertarian and mucking up the waters a bit. Totalitarian you're just not going to hear about... That's Hitler... I'm pretty sure we'll try our damnedest to keep that one from happening here... If that were to happen Obama would look like ....in' Mother Theresa...


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Mar 24, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I've always wanted where did people get this left and right stuff from, since when do directions have political meanings. Is it the same thing as referring to someone as a Republican or a person who has conservative views (The right?)?





ThatCanadianGuy said:


> That's what I was thinking about a minute ago. As a libertarian, going by that standard, am I a centrist, or completely out of the field?



Basically left wing people stand for innovation, big governments with lots of laws, seperation of church and state, higher taxes, socialism (take from the rich and give to the poor) and changing perspective with a changing population. Right wing people stand for traditionalism, capitalism (rich get richer, poor get poorer), freedom, a smaller government with less restrictive laws, but generally are religious and therefore against gay marriage and stuff like that.

But a one dimensional left-right scale isnt great for describing all partys. A better way to eescribe partys is two dimensionally, with the x axis being social and y axis being economical. For example Libertarians are politically right wing (capitalism) and socially left wing. The truth is IMO, socialism/communism just doesn't work very well and so libertarians have the best of both worlds IMO. You can of course be a left leaning libertarian or right leaning. 

That is my not very good explanation of the wings and libertarianism.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 24, 2014)

I guess I'm right in the middle then, I think taking the best parts of each view is the best way to go so everyone benefits.


----------



## Mike (Mar 24, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Mike, I meant across the political spectrum that people are willing to lie to further their cause, not SSO. Haha.



Board/forum whatever. In the scope of political equality on a national scale (with an Americentric perspective seeing as that's what I know and where I am) I think for the most part we're pretty balanced. If anything, more right wing ideologies/hot button topics are still actually the law. More states don't allow abortion, same-sex marriage, and marijuana, than states that do and the death penalty exists in 32 out of 50 states. A conservative favoring. Some issues swing one way and some swing another, but I think each side gets their fair share of victories usually dependent upon the political affinity of the area/state (i.e. red or blue states).

edit: As far as it stands at this point in time, liberal votes aren't actually overturning conservatively viewed laws on a national scale, so I don't think the left has this domineering power that you perceive. The left might be more opinionated and vocal, but they're sure as heck not showing up to the polls to reflect that.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I guess I'm right in the middle then, I think taking the best parts of each view is the best way to go so everyone benefits.



But you're always going to come up against those people that oppose whatever it might be because it doesn't suit them. Hard to win these days.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

Mike said:


> Board/forum whatever. In the scope of political equality on a national scale (with an Americentric perspective seeing as that's what I know and where I am) I think for the most part were pretty balanced. If anything, more right wing ideologies are still actually the law. More states don't allow abortion, gay marriage and pot, than states that do and the death penalty exists in 32 out of 50 states. A conservative favoring. Some issues swing one way and some swing another, but I think each side gets their fair share of victories usually dependent upon the political affinity of the area/state (i.e. red or blue states).



That's a fair analysis. Canada has a very similar situation. A lot of stuff is more restrictive though, which saddens me, as it shouldn't be about MORE restrictions, but rather the RIGHT restrictions. Preferably, I'd like to see more people using involved critical thinking and then many of the restrictions would be redundant and done away with.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 24, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I guess I'm right in the middle then, I think taking the best parts of each view is the best way to go so everyone benefits.



Not only that, it just seems that all sides have a way that makes sense. It's really a matter of which way is most useful given the current circumstances... It seems that if we could see past the lines that divide us it'd be easier to discern which way is best to go at what time.

Politics is a team sport and it sucks a lot sometimes.


----------



## flaik (Mar 24, 2014)

The idea of a seven string guitar is left minded for a lot guitar players.

Thats enough explanation for me


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Not only that, it just seems that all sides have a way that makes sense. It's really a matter of which way is most useful given the current circumstances... It seems that if we could see past the lines that divide us it'd be easier to discern which way is best to go at what time.
> 
> Politics is a team sport and it sucks a lot sometimes.



You know what other team sports suck? Baseball.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

flaik said:


> The idea of a seven string guitar is left minded for a lot guitar players.
> 
> Thats enough explanation for me



That I'll never understand. It's literally one more flimsy piece of wire. How freaking complicated to people make things nowadays?


----------



## Mike (Mar 24, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> You know what other team sports suck? Baseball.



No.



ThatCanadianGuy said:


> That I'll never understand. It's literally one more flimsy piece of wire. How freaking complicated to people make things nowadays?



As I stated earlier, it's because it's outside of the norm and non-traditional. There's a heck of a lot of closed minded guys (mostly those that believe if it's not a Gibson Les Paul or a Fender Strat than it's not worth their time) that think if it has more than 6 strings and tunes below E standard, it's not a guitar and you should just play bass.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 24, 2014)

Mike said:


> As I stated earlier, it's because it's outside of the norm and non-traditional. There's a heck of a lot of closed minded guys (mostly those that believe if it's not a Gibson Les Paul or a Fender Strat than it's not worth their time) that think if it has more than 6 strings and tunes below E standard, it's not a guitar and you should just play bass.



Meh. Generally those are the people that think metal belongs to the devil. Flipping weirdos.


----------



## Mike (Mar 24, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Meh. Generally those are the people that think metal belongs to the devil. Flipping weirdos.



No those dudes still love and play plenty of Judas Priest and Maiden. So metal isn't just for the devil in their books. You're thinking of the way too far right wingers.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 24, 2014)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Basically left wing people stand for innovation, big governments with lots of laws, seperation of church and state, higher taxes, socialism (take from the rich and give to the poor) and changing perspective with a changing population. Right wing people stand for traditionalism, capitalism (rich get richer, poor get poorer), freedom, a smaller government with less restrictive laws, but generally are religious and therefore against gay marriage and stuff like that.



Capitalism and socialism may both be flawed, but IMO capitalism is rearing its head to be the worse out of the two as of late. Capitalism is what has led to corrupt politicians, Super PAC's, tax dodging, systematic poverty, rising costs, collusion and the dozens of monopolies that now exist. Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave if he knew how businesses were allowed to be run nowadays. In an ideal world either one would probably work just fine. Capitalism only works well for everyone when people aren't excessively greedy. Problem is a lot of people are greedy, hence their resistance towards anything socialism.





It's not like it really matters. I mean republicans are supposedly for smaller government and lower taxes yet the government has grown, taxes were increased and debt increased during just the last 3 republican presidents alone. Neither side really keeps their word or to their supposed agenda, including Obama and Clinton. In many cases they'll 'accomplish' their goals, just not quite the way we intended them to.

As previously stated, this country is still largely conservative politically and socially. Liberals haven't repealed or changed the lions share of conservative laws when you look at it on a macro level. As one example, abortion is getting harder, verging on next to impossible, in several states as time goes on. Though we have made progress socially, there is still a lot more that needs to be moved more to the center. I think the conservative leaning leads to a more vocal group of liberals much like a more liberal society probably leads to a louder group of conservatives. Personally I think the internet just makes everyone louder.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Not only that, it just seems that all sides have a way that makes sense. It's really a matter of which way is most useful given the current circumstances... It seems that if we could see past the lines that divide us it'd be easier to discern which way is best to go at what time.



It'd be a lot easier if politics in America was distanced further from religion. Big government, small government... I can't even start to saddle up to issues like that when one party would prefer one set of people have less privileges than others due to their sexual orientation, or would attempt to shove nonsense into science classes. If I voted along big-idea lines I'd probably disappointed, because none of that ever changes, but the social issues almost always get pushed along further if the government reflects the majority of the population.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 24, 2014)

Mike said:


> No those dudes still love and play plenty of Judas Priest and Maiden. So metal isn't just for the devil in their books. You're thinking of the way too far right wingers.


Yeah, they're just a bunch of old guys/girls stuck in their ways.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 25, 2014)

I think SSO is almost the worst place to ask the question in the opening post, not because the question isn't right about the political affiliations of most people here (seemingly), but because the people here tend to be able to support their stances on individual issues as a result of either researching or considering the facts and perspectives related to those issues.

In my experience people who go out of their way to identify themselves as left- or right-leaning tend to do it because it's easy - nothing makes you feel more correct in your assertions than having a bunch of people backing you just because you're on the same political team. You see which party or ideology most closely aligns with your opinions, and then anything they say that you otherwise had no opinion on you either ignore or accept. I realise this is a huge generalisation, but it's amazing how many people will swallow rhetoric just because 'their side' swears it's true. I don't remember the last time I saw that on this forum, which is what keeps me coming back.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Capitalism and socialism may both be flawed, but IMO capitalism is rearing its head to be the worse out of the two as of late. Capitalism is what has led to corrupt politicians, Super PAC's, tax dodging, systematic poverty, rising costs, collusion and the dozens of monopolies that now exist. Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave if he knew how businesses were allowed to be run nowadays. In an ideal world either one would probably work just fine. Capitalism only works well for everyone when people aren't excessively greedy. Problem is a lot of people are greedy, hence their resistance towards anything socialism.



Now, historically... Socialism hasn't worked out either. Why? Like you said, people are greedy. Especially for power.


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2014)

There is a world of difference between a strong social safety net/welfare state and socialism guys....


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2014)

No there isn't... Commie...

'Merica!


----------



## flint757 (Mar 25, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> Now, historically... Socialism hasn't worked out either. Why? Like you said, people are greedy. Especially for power.



Except that it hasn't really been tried in any ideal sort of way. Most nations claiming to be socialist are actually totalitarian states. Aside from that, applying socialist practices does not make the nation as a whole socialist. We still consider our society to be capitalist in nature despite medicaid, medicare, social security, SSI, welfare, primary education, infrastructure, etc. being provided by the state. It is the capitalist part of our society that is causing a lot of our current problems though, not the socialist practices.



asher said:


> There is a world of difference between a strong social safety net/welfare state and socialism guys....



Obviously, but that seemed rather understood.  I mean technically it is still socialism, it just doesn't warrant the negative connotation associated with it. I personally don't think a society has to adapt the entire doctrine of socialism for it to be called socialism. Maybe that is the wrong way of looking at it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Except that it hasn't really been tried in any ideal sort of way. Most nations claiming to be socialist are actually totalitarian states. Aside from that, applying socialist practices does not make the nation as a whole socialist. We still consider our society to be capitalist in nature despite medicaid, medicare, social security, SSI, welfare, primary education, infrastructure, etc. being provided by the state. It is the capitalist part of our society that is causing a lot of our current problems though, not the socialist practices.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, but that seemed rather understood.  I mean technically it is still socialism, it just doesn't warrant the negative connotation associated with it. I personally don't think a society has to adapt the entire doctrine of socialism for it to be called socialism. Maybe that is the wrong way of looking at it.



Add this guy to the list of people to lynch when we cleanse the nation of commies...


----------



## flint757 (Mar 25, 2014)

viva la resistance!!!


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Obviously, but that seemed rather understood.  I mean technically it is still socialism, it just doesn't warrant the negative connotation associated with it. I personally don't think a society has to adapt the entire doctrine of socialism for it to be called socialism. Maybe that is the wrong way of looking at it.



You would think that, but given how lightly the term is bandied about (especially as a criticism) I don't really think so.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 25, 2014)

I am not one of them, I am vocally very conservative and very pro capitalism. 

I just never post in the political section because there is no point for me to do so and I see how people on both sides of the spectrum on this forum act like children when they get into political arguments.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 25, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> I am not one of them, I am vocally very conservative and very pro capitalism.
> 
> I just never post in the political section because there is no point for me to do so and I see how people on both sides of the spectrum on this forum act like children when they get into political arguments.



I am also quite conservative, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've generally (not universally, but generally) found that people here, regardless of their political bent, are reasonably able to give both sides of an argument a fair shake. As such, I have a lot of respect for many of the posters here, because even though I disagree with them, they still make compelling arguments. Sometimes, I am swayed. Sometimes, I've done the swaying. That's the joy of intelligent discourse.


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2014)

Xaios said:


> I am also quite conservative, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've generally (not universally, but generally) found that people here, regardless of their political bent, are reasonably able to give both sides of an argument a fair shake. As such, I have a lot of respect for many of the posters here, because even though I disagree with them, they still make compelling arguments. Sometimes, I am swayed. Sometimes, I've done the swaying. That's the joy of intelligent discourse.



Agreed. For the most part, at least when the debates are had in good faith on both sides, ad hominems have been rather rare.

Usually when they're not it's just resulted in tons of evasion and deflection instead of actual name-calling.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 25, 2014)

Xaios said:


> I am also quite conservative, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've generally (not universally, but generally) found that people here, regardless of their political bent, are reasonably able to give both sides of an argument a fair shake. As such, I have a lot of respect for many of the posters here, because even though I disagree with them, they still make compelling arguments. Sometimes, I am swayed. Sometimes, I've done the swaying. That's the joy of intelligent discourse.



Well I could be wrong. I am just used to people in real life calling me all sorts of things for what I believe in.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2014)

Well that can't be helped... You're dealing with the unfiltered masses there... 

Conservatives call me a liberal and I get in heated fights with liberals for sounding too much like a conservative... 

Neither of those things happen here... I think here ppl just think I'm crazy... That's just ambiguous enough for me to be okay with...


----------



## fps (Mar 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Obviously, but that seemed rather understood.  I mean technically it is still socialism, it just doesn't warrant the negative connotation associated with it. I personally don't think a society has to adapt the entire doctrine of socialism for it to be called socialism. Maybe that is the wrong way of looking at it.



That is the wrong way of looking at it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 25, 2014)

Enlighten us? Unless you were making an ironic joke that went over my head... 

I still dont understand why things have to be put into nice neat little clearly defined boxes that are 100% distinguishable from someone else's way of doing things...

Is your approach to everything like that? I know that's not how I approached music... I took what I liked from country, reggae, ska, punk, hardcore, metal (and whatever sub genres you might like), etc and I made what I wanted out of it. It still kills me every time I write a song and one part has a different feel than the last and someone says something like... "What is this, country now?"

No... It's whatever it's always been, the feel has just changed ever so slightly to suit my needs.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 25, 2014)

fps said:


> That is the wrong way of looking at it.



Why? What is wrong with calling it socialism? Socialism isn't in and of itself a bad thing if that's why. Socialism may refer to a much broader subject matter, but the practices we were discussing definitely fall under the umbrella. Everyone puts tax dollars in, everyone gets access to certain benefits as a side effect. if we have a strong safety net/welfare state then we are all paying taxes to support programs of which we can receive the benefit of using if needed. That is a function of socialism.


----------



## Varcolac (Mar 25, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I've always wanted where did people get this left and right stuff from, since when do directions have political meanings. Is it the same thing as referring to someone as a Republican or a person who has conservative views (The right?)?



Have some history:

The French Revolution is where this comes from. Before they resolved to guillotine the monarchy, the National Assembly divided into two camps - those in support of the monarch, and those in support of total revolution. The former stood to the right of the President of the Assembly. The latter stood to his left. 

After Louis and Marie lost their heads to Dr Guillotin's proposal, there were of course continuations of dissent in the Assembly. This time, those in favour of very moderate constitutionalism and defence of the new status quo stood to the right. Again, those in favour of continuous innovation and change stood to the left.

There you have it, gentlemen. It's all down to the semi-Brownian motion and grouping of delegates to the French National Assembly in 1789. Who knows, if Honoré de Mirabeau and the Abbé Sieyès had come in to the room and sat on different sides than they did, we'd have left-wing conservatives and right-wing liberals, up would be down, left would be sideways, cats and dogs living together, a world gone mad I tell ya.

Or maybe it's just arbitrary like that. I dunno man, you guys have got a blue liberal* donkey fighting a red conservative elephant. Next to that, left-right seems like a walk in the park.


AND ANOTHER THING

Americans have the colours wrong. Does that annoy anyone else? Left should be red, right should be blue. _Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the red flag flying here._



*To a given value of "liberal" - all the more amusing when American conservative pundits accuse the Democrats of being "socialists." They're a country mile from anything that'd be recognised as even partly socialist in Europe.


----------



## asher (Mar 25, 2014)

Varcolac said:


> *To a given value of "liberal" - all the more amusing when American conservative pundits accuse the Democrats of being "socialists." They're a country mile from anything that'd be recognised as even partly socialist in Europe.



Hence my earlier comments. Seriously guys, Socialism is more than some welfare state.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 25, 2014)

Varcolac said:


> Have some history:
> 
> The French Revolution is where this comes from. Before they resolved to guillotine the monarchy, the National Assembly divided into two camps - those in support of the monarch, and those in support of total revolution. The former stood to the right of the President of the Assembly. The latter stood to his left.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info dude.


----------



## ThatCanadianGuy (Mar 25, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Enlighten us? Unless you were making an ironic joke that went over my head...
> 
> I still dont understand why things have to be put into nice neat little clearly defined boxes that are 100% distinguishable from someone else's way of doing things...
> 
> ...



Now here's something interesting. I'm glad you could link music to it. Everybody has a different way of approaching music, but generally there's a trial and failure aspect to writing as well as finding music you like listening to. I can see that tying into the progressive nature of the left: musicians like to experiment.

And funny enough, somebody gave me negative rep because I was too off-topic in my own thread. xD People are just great.


----------



## DslDwg (Mar 25, 2014)

I consider myself conservative, mostly I don't post in political forums because people don't know how to have a conversation. 

Here's how I see it: Bring up hot topic -> left leaning guy states his opinion -> more left leaning guys parrot the first guys opinion -> right leaning guy states his opinion -> left leaning guys pile on the right leaning guy -> back and forth -> back and forth -> left leaning guy give's negative rep and tell right leaning guy to go kill himself (anonymously) -> right leaning guy leaves and goes back to talking about guitars.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Mar 25, 2014)

DslDwg said:


> I consider myself conservative, mostly I don't post in political forums because people don't know how to have a conversation.
> 
> Here's how I see it: Bring up hot topic -> left leaning guy states his opinion -> more left leaning guys parrot the first guys opinion -> right leaning guy states his opinion -> left leaning guys pile on the right leaning guy -> back and forth -> back and forth -> left leaning guy give's negative rep and tell right leaning guy to go kill himself (anonymously) -> right leaning guy leaves and goes back to talking about guitars.



Incidentally, flip the directions around and you have any political post on TGP or Rig-Talk.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 25, 2014)

I am just going to say this, please do not judge-

One thing I remember was Libertarian/Conservative Economist Thomas Sowell once saying that over his life of being a Marxist to being a Capitalist, he has always wanted the same results- He always wanted what was best for the poor and the get them out of poverty. It is just overtime his belief on how to do that has changed.

Through out my life I have been called an idiot, retard, you name it, because I am a conservative and have my beliefs and stick to them, to the point I almost gave them up to become something else. Conservatives get shat on too, so I try to tend to be the mediator and stop the arguing, which is why I rarely come here unless I make a point. But sometimes I see people neg repping each other for a variety of reasons or only agreeing with people who have the same ideology, and I get tired of the lines being drawn as such. 

Honestly, in the end of the day that is what both the Left and the Right want, they just want what they believe is best for humanity. Note I am talking about 99 percent of the population of living beings. Hell I know rich liberals, poor conservatives, Atheist Conservatives, christian liberals, conservatives for gay marriage, Liberals against abortion, eco friendly Republicans, young conservatives, old liberals, conservatives who want higher taxes, libertarians who want the death penalty, you name it, people are not so black and white and cannot really be labeled as one thing or the other. In the end of the day it is not so black and white, and everyone has their own belief on what is best for humanity. Just because it is different does not make it right or wrong, nothing is absolute. Hell if we all thought the same we would all have the same boring guitars over and over again. Instead we got big companies, mid sized companies, small lutheirs, you name it, ideas bring about progress and we have flurished because them. And humanity has come along in many good ways over the past 100 years through all of our different ideas. 

As far as the "truth" goes, that is very, very relative. Two people could look at a situation and interpret it in many different ways to try and figure it out. We all have biases, we all are going to try to prove our point, the chances of changing some one's mind are slim to none, so why fight about it all? 

What I am saying is we need to stop judging people and labeling people for their ideas and beliefs. My best friends are liberal and I have dated liberal girls, and I make Rush Limbaugh look like a socialist. Can't we all just get along? 

Maybe I am just one who despises drama and arguing to the point that nothing gets done. I am not even talking politicians I am talking the common people like us.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 25, 2014)

I'm not a lefty. (Remember all those topics where someone insisted that anarchy or communism is better than representative democracy? Or when a lot of people thought it was a good idea to give in to an anarchic mob, rather than have elections and rule of law to bring about change?)

However, I'm sure that I come across as leftist on here whenever certain issues come up.

Not giving a person or group full civil rights (heartfelt cause of social and religious conservatives).

Not having the full truth allowed into public (Prez W suppressing governmental studies which found global warming, creationists fighting against teaching science, "Racism doesn't exist in the US, so stop saying it does!" etc.).

Seeking to impose the beliefs of a few onto everyone else (again, creationism, but also reproductive rights and other areas). 

I might also be considered a lefty by those on here with whom I've debated why a woman with the same education and experience should receive equal pay for the same position. I don't understand how some of the arguments against that could be made with a straight face.

On the plus side, there were plenty of discussions where it wasn't politics at the core, but instead ancient astronauts (in spite of informal bet I proposed, they still haven't arrived as asserted) or wacky conspiracies (even loyal Democrats kept quiet about 9/11 being an inside job, no doctor wants to break ranks with the establishment in order to get a Nobel Prize as the doctor who cured cancer). 

Fortunately also, I have had enough interesting stuff in real life that I didn't need to respond about someone posting a reference to the Nephilim (both fallen angels and extraterrestrials) in a recent chocolate covered conspiracy nut cluster of a topic here. *laugh*


----------



## DslDwg (Mar 26, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Incidentally, flip the directions around and you have any political post on TGP or Rig-Talk.



That is pretty funny I'm not a member of either board. 

I'm much rather talk about guitars than politics anyway


----------



## DslDwg (Mar 26, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> As far as the "truth" goes, that is very, very relative. Two people could look at a situation and interpret it in many different ways to try and figure it out. We all have biases, we all are going to try to prove our point, the chances of changing some one's mind are slim to none, so why fight about it all?



I think you're right on with this.

To take it a step further - when there is a big melee in the political forum it's usually just people from both sides quoting www.i'mrightyou'rewrong.com 

Most of us are limited to listening or reading the mainstream news outlets - where is the truth? Liberals will say FOX is BS, conservatives will say the same of CNN etc. So is the truth available? Or, are you always being fed the news of the day with some built in bias? Then you're taking the piece that supports your established beliefs as truth and discounting those pieces that don't.


----------



## Noxon (Mar 26, 2014)

DslDwg said:


> I consider myself conservative, mostly I don't post in political forums because people don't know how to have a conversation.
> 
> Here's how I see it: Bring up hot topic -> left leaning guy states his opinion -> more left leaning guys parrot the first guys opinion -> right leaning guy states his opinion -> left leaning guys pile on the right leaning guy -> back and forth -> back and forth -> left leaning guy give's negative rep and tell right leaning guy to go kill himself (anonymously) -> right leaning guy leaves and goes back to talking about guitars.



This. I was about to say something to that effect myself. I am not trying to be offensive to those that do debate politics--debate away. I am just here for the guitars. We have so many different types of people from all over the world, where there are about as many different political views as there are stars in the sky, all here for one reason: unashamedly geek out on all things guitar with our fellow nerds. It doesn't really matter what our personal politics are. Guitar is more important to me, and would seem to be more universal amongst our community.


----------



## vilk (Mar 26, 2014)

So, I guess it's not exactly on topic but my end point is related, so I might as well do a quick mini-rant here.

I consider myself to be on the lefter side of things... I'm all about environmental protection (a topic all too overlooked when it comes to terms of left and right), rob the rich and give to the poor, 30 hour work week, free college and heath, you name it.

But one thing I find so many liberal type people being super hung up on that I just don't really get is political correctness in speech. Don't say retard, don't say ...., don't say gay, don't say racial slurs... Now, maybe it's because I've spent time studying language, or maybe it's because in my mind I am so distant from racism or prejudiced feelings, but I don't see the issue. I've always felt that giving power to these words by telling people not to say them will only prolong the negative meanings people have associated with them. Languages evolve over time--Most words we say today in English come from words that are totally different in their origin. In the future being homosexual wont be an issue (I'm sure I and most young people already feel that it isn't), so calling something gay to indicate negative sentiment shouldn't be an issue either. Because in the future there won't be "gay" people. There will just be "people". So calling a movie gay just means I didn't like it, and it's obvious that it's not a dig at homosexuals because it's a given that no one would hate on someone based solely on their sexual orientation. I know, I know, words have inherent power (or at least that's what someone sometime said and everyone just jumped on it), but only as much as you give them, and as far as I can tell making rules about what words not to say because they single out groups of people only enforces the idea that there's something wrong with that group and that's why we need to tip-toe around their feelings.



Anyways, why do you suppose liberal type people seem to be the most uptight about being PC? I mean, if you're modern and progressive and looking to the future where everyone is looked upon as socially equal type deal then why would you emphasize that we're different?


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 27, 2014)

vilk said:


> Anyways, why do you suppose liberal type people seem to be the most uptight about being PC? I mean, if you're modern and progressive and looking to the future where everyone is looked upon as socially equal type deal then why would you emphasize that we're different?



Even the notion of equality isn't as simple as it looks at first.

One of the major divides between the early left / right ideologies is that both sought equality, but different types. The left (social) wanted equality of OUTCOME, whereas the right (I'll say liberal, though it's not entirely accurate) wanted equality of OPPORTUNITY. This one little thing leads to hugely different views on policy and social services:

Equal outcome means regardless of your role or status in society, you will have wealth, shelter, education, possessions, and work roughly equal to everybody else around you. Your interests and skills should inform how you live your life, but being particularly skilled won't get you 'more' than anybody else.

Equal opportunity means regardless of your role or status in society, you were given the same minimum level of support as everybody else, such as education, shelter, and options for jobs, and then if you are particularly skilled or hard working, you have the chance to profit from your work far more than others (note that this viewpoint still places importance on welfare - education, shelter, and job support are not free, and it's weird that welfare has almost disappeared as a talking point amongst the descendents of this ideology).

"Nice one, Josh" I hear you all say, "But what in the sweet bloody .... does that have to do with political correctness?"

The ideology of _opportunity_ assumes that because everybody has been given the 'same' initial chances in life, people who are disabled, down on their luck, or part of a minority race or religion are outsiders more or less by choice. If they just work hard enough, they'll be super wealthy and popular, and if they feel insulted by mere words, that's their problem and nobody else's. 

The ideology of _outcome_ assumes that equality is a constant, continuing effort. So if any group - race, religion, low economic status - is being insulted, it's a means of oppression, and needs to be stopped. Marxism in particular is really concerned with oppression (which is ironic if you look at the outcomes of various Marxist states), so calling people bad words is something that needs to be stopped or challenged.

Now, I'm not suggesting that people of particular ideological persuasions sit around talking about this sort of stuff explicitly, I'm just suggesting that political correctness is heavily tied to notions of equality. The current cultural and moral zeitgeist thankfully means that most of the population, regardless of their political position, has no interest in attacking the disadvantaged. I just think these ideological roots might influence peoples' sensitivity to language, if not their political stances.

EDIT: Note that I'm talking about the left/right divide within the democratic framework from the French and American revolutions through to today's democracies. Genuine socialists and Marxists, as well as the Ayn Rand type of 'capitalists' probably think the ideas listed above misrepresent their sides by being a bit 'soft'. Personally, I think societies require all viewpoints in order to function, even if it means function becomes incredibly slow and convoluted. When a society favours a single viewpoint above all others, it tends to lead to disaster (human rights abuses, revolution, war, Jong-Uns, etc).


----------



## Explorer (Mar 27, 2014)

Interesting. I haven't really found conservatives to be much for equal pay opportunities for equal education and experience, and they're fought many legislative fights to prevent such.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about what he considered PC rules. It went something like this:

Now you can't even call someone fat without a lawsuit.

I don't believe that. Can you give me an example?

Well, maybe not fat, but other things.

Again, why not give me an example?

Well, you can't call someone a retard at work.

And you're the manager. Do you understand why that is?

Because of all this political correctness.

And if the owner hear you call someone a retard... do you think she'd insist on political correctness?

Yeah, because she's brainwashed.

Could it have something to do with the way her nephew, who is mentally retarded, is call "retard" by people who are using it as an insult? Going a little further, is it because she'd consider you an idiot who isn't a nice guy, and capable of being like those who torment her nephew, and who she wouldn't want in charge of other people?

No, it's because she'd been brainwashed.

What if she heard you use a non-PC word like n***er to describe someone.

Well, I wouldn't do that.

Why not?

Because that's not nice.

????

----

I think that people assume that being insulting should get a pass, and when it isn't, they complain that their being an asshole is being persecuted. 

That's not the issue, though. Instead, you have the full right to freedom of speech and of whom you choose to associate with.

And so does everyone else... which is why people who are insulting to others find themselves sidelined. That's why, for example, the WBC have the right to be hateful, but others have the right to not hang out with them, especially after hearing how they think. 

It's not a new concept, of course. Before it was "non-PC," it was called being boorish....


----------



## 7stg (Mar 27, 2014)

I'm libertarian and will only vote "3rd" party. The fact that republicans and conservatives have come to try to pass themselves off as libertarian is to me just a sick joke. I made it through the first 40 something videos of 2014 CPAC and reavowed to never vote republican regardless of the canadate because it gives power to those who would legislate many of my freedoms away. Some of them talk about libertarianism and freedom, but in the next breath they call for the banning of this or that, imposing new restrictions, how they want to invade the next country, oppress and degrade women, deny science, how they want to impose their religion on me, and more. Frankly, it was painful to watch, and somehow they think they are going to capture the youth vote. The liberal progressive democrats aren't any better with their own set of problems and desired restrictions. 

There are several better models of the political spectrum beyond left right Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Mar 28, 2014)

I'm an anarchist bro, do you even left?


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 29, 2014)

I don't see much purpose in being balanced these days. I used to be a bit of a "center-left" guy when it comes to US politics, but then I moved to Arizona 

Moving to a more religious, more conservative, state made me realize I hate "conservative" viewpoints on social issues nearly without exception. I find them indefensible and morally objectionable. Back in my home state I wasn't confronted to with the "SHOOW US YER BIRTH CERTIFICATE MR BARACK HUSSEIN", "YAY GUNS", or "THANK YOU BABY JESUS!!" crowd much.

Conservative financial policies on the other hand, I do think have their place. Not overspending, etc. However, I'm a scientist and Republicans cutting funding to science education is why I'm in an UNFUNDED masters program. So, they can screw themselves.

Not that I like either established party much. Democrats are pretty awful as well.

Really, I'm just feeling misanthropic tonight! Sorry dudes!


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 29, 2014)

groverj3 said:


> I don't see much purpose in being balanced these days. I used to be a bit of "center-left" guy when it comes to US politics, but then I moved to Arizona



Interesting choice of words: "purpose in being balanced". It's an appropriate choice of words too, because being anything other than a political extremist has become a little useless in the USA, unfortunately.

I think we've covered gerrymandering a few times in the last six months, and it's a topic that's starting to go a little more mainstream. I've seen Stewart/Colbert cover it several times, and even one of my favourite YouTube programs on video games has done an episode on it (if you like video games and haven't seen any Extra Credits, do it!). It makes me very, very, very, very thankful that Australia's population and voting districts are so small that re-drawing electorate boundaries doesn't have a huge effect on election results. It happens somewhat in the major cities, but it's not yet enough to 'lock in' districts to particular parties (and besides that, we only have about four major cities). 

I don't think politics should have a place for blatant blind, ideological faith. Can you imagine if the Democrats suddenly found themselves at the behest of a Leftist Tea Party-style movement? Because that's the sort of thing that happens when extreme politics becomes too popular within a party. That the Republicans haven't completely imploded yet as a result of Tea Party influence is kind of amazing. 

Hell, now that I think about it, the Tea Party might be the reason it's so hard to find people who'll publicly admit to leaning to the political right these days. The loudest 'Righties' happen to be the biggest idiots in the public eye right now, and as tempting as it is to say that the ideology of the Right made them stupid, I'm pretty sure the worst of them wouldn't get any smarter by changing their political stance. The Right just happens to be stuck with a lot of dickheads right now, and can't afford to tell them to leave because those same dickheads isolated the Republican Party from most of their moderate supporters. Romney's attitude and "47% speech" certainly didn't help. Without the extremists, the Republicans would barely have voters, which isn't going to do much for them at the next election.

Holy shit, for the first time ever I feel bad for Republicans.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 29, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Hell, now that I think about it, the Tea Party might be the reason it's so hard to find people who'll publicly admit to leaning to the political right these days. The loudest 'Righties' happen to be the biggest idiots in the public eye right now, and as tempting as it is to say that the ideology of the Right made them stupid, I'm pretty sure the worst of them wouldn't get any smarter by changing their political stance. The Right just happens to be stuck with a lot of dickheads right now, and can't afford to tell them to leave because those same dickheads isolated the Republican Party from most of their moderate supporters. Romney's attitude and "47% speech" certainly didn't help. Without the extremists, the Republicans would barely have voters, which isn't going to do much for them at the next election.



I think you're definitely on to something there.

I don't agree with most right-wing fiscal policies any more than I agree with their social policies, but I do think there is logic behind them that they could defend in an academic setting. However, they're really out of touch with the average human.

I'm no political scientist, but I tend to think the only reason that the Tea Party supporters haven't split off from the mainstream Republican party is due to the established two party system we have. Without associating with an established name they wouldn't actually have enough support to survive at this point.

Due to their stances on social issues I expect the Republican party to win exactly zero presidential elections in the near future, unless they modernize. People in the 18-35 age bracket tend to be liberal in their social views, even if they think like "classical" Republicans when it comes to economics or other topics. This age bracket also has high voter turnout now, as opposed to the "apathetic young person" stereotype.

The real problem in US politics is a completely moronic and ineffective congress. People who blame the president for everything that happens really draw my ire. I mean, are they really so thick as to think that we live in some kind of dictatorship? Most of the power really lies with a larger body which hasn't done much recently in any way shape or form.

Once again, as I mentioned before though... I do see a place for conservative financial policies and whatnot, less government involvement in some things. The thing is though, the American "right" stopped actually being about these things a long ....ing time ago.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 29, 2014)

I once heard conservatives described as being "beholden to the values of latter days," or something to that effect. I've always been reminded of that when I hear pundits say things on TV about "returning to America's roots/values/ideals the country was founded on." Maybe being a minority makes me more keenly aware, but the America of just twenty years before I was born is not a place I would ever, ever want to live. I know that's not what conservatives mean, but still...

All I see in American history is doors being opened. Land-owners being able to vote. Men being able to vote. Slavery being outlawed. Women gaining the right to vote. Civil rights available to all. These were all progressive movements, movements that challenged the status quo of their times, and were unpopular with whichever party was the conservative one. None of us would be willing to say that these things were wrong, that we crossed a line somewhere, so why do social conservatives do it now? Why do they insist on keeping all the doors shut? We say that nobody's perfect, implying we could all do something to improve ourselves? How is the nation any different?

Aside from my gripes with social conservatives, I also have gripes with fiscal conservatives on a few things. Strangely enough, I have less tolerance for debates about fiscal issues with right-leaning people than any other topic, simply because it's the one thing that can be quantifiably dealt with, and thus should never be a matter of opinion.


----------



## Jakke (Mar 29, 2014)

I view myself as pragmatic right, which is possibly almost entirely due to my contrarian streak. See, my own country has gone almost hysterical in social justice and... well... leftism. So, of course I will have to be contrary to that.

From an american perspective, I'm probably *at least* left of center.


----------



## zappatton2 (Mar 29, 2014)

As I get older, I tend to be more skeptical of all calcified political positions. But one thing I have always been is an enthusiast towards are the natural sciences. And one thing that really makes me shake my head is when people paint the pure sciences as some kind of leftist cabal.

In the face of all the evidence for evolution, it's all lies to wipe god out of public life. If climatologists overwhelmingly agree that we are contributing to a warming planet, it's socialists trying to steal my money. If social research shows that injection sites lower mortality due to drugs or communicable disease, or the least punitive and most rehabilitative focus justice systems tend to have the best outcomes and lowest crime and recidivism rates, it's all weak-kneed hug-a-thuggery.

I know there are different brands of conservatism, and though I am not actively a capitalist, and definitely not libertarian, I can appreciate that there are rational arguments to be made there. But if I comment on the wrong site (especially the boards of the Sun, AKA Fox News North), essentially just providing a few counter points to an article on why climate change is a socialist lie, I don't just get disagreement. I get literal threats. A level a intolerant rage I do not at all see on boards like this. I don't mind of course, I'm all for all kinds of free speech, but I think for the occasional slagging we do see here, SSO is pretty middle-ground and tolerant of a variety of political positions.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 29, 2014)

I think the reason SS.org does well on the political discussion is good moderation, along with clear and enforced rules.

I used to be active on a keyboard/synth forum, and at some point during the second invasion of Iraq, a poster asked, "How come we haven't seen any actual weapons of mass distruction?" At that point, two posters started mercilessly spamming every topic from that questioner. I wrote to the admins, but they couldn't reel it in. Finally I wrote a public post about the need for moderation, with just about everyone (except the two neo-cons, of course), but even that wasn't enough to get things going.

And that was that. I left, and didn't have to worry about the trolling. 

----

You know, it's been mentioned more than once in this topic, but it is pretty astonishing that running up your credit cards, and then requiring someone else to bail you out, is considered "fiscal conservatism." Nixon needed Carter to fix things, Reagan stuck Bush and Clinton to fix things, and W needed Obama to foot the bill....


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 30, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> I once heard conservatives described as being "beholden to the values of latter days," or something to that effect. I've always been reminded of that when I hear pundits say things on TV about "returning to America's roots/values/ideals the country was founded on." Maybe being a minority makes me more keenly aware, but the America of just twenty years before I was born is not a place I would ever, ever want to live. I know that's not what conservatives mean, but still...



If only the conservatives would get back to the good old days of conservatism ...  Seriously though, it's weird that in the last twenty years or so Conservatism and Rightism have merged, so that being conservative now comes with specific attached values instead of just a desire to maintain a system. It's especially weird when conservatives attach themselves to values systems from eras that are not recoverable in terms of policy. Ironically, conservatism just isn't what it used to be.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 30, 2014)

I agree. It's sad that the Republican party has squeezed out so many people because they don't fit the mold of the most extreme elements. 

It would be like the Democrats saying that if you weren't an anarchist, you weren't a real Democrat. 

So, you're don't believe in spending money irresponsibly? You're not a real Republican. You don't believe that people of other religions should acknowledge the US as a Christian nation? You're not a real Republican. The ability to get birth control, if only to prevent others from having to subsidize another human being for many years? Nope, not a real Republican. 

And the fact that those now in charge of the label "Republican" feel that one of my relatives isn't really a human being, and that they have fought to keep him sidelined, led my mother, a lifelong Republican, to change parties. It's fine when it's theoretical, but if you go after a member of the family, family trumps political loyalties, no question.

In fact, having heard what the American Council of Bishops was up to fairly recently, what with trying to get petitions into my mother's church asking for legislation similar to DOMA, as well as their working with the Tea Party to try to scuttle Obamacare over access to contraceptives (leading to the government shutdown for religious concerns, trumpting funding national security), my mother was confirmed in her belief that she had done the right thing in leaving the Republican party. 

Sorry... clearly I feel a little upset at the wingnuts taking over the right. *laugh* It's possible that they've always been this way though, and that I didn't realize it until later in life....


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 31, 2014)

I used to work for the Republican party 



groverj3 said:


> I think you're definitely on to something there.
> 
> I don't agree with most right-wing fiscal policies any more than I agree with their social policies, but I do think there is logic behind them that they could defend in an academic setting. However, they're really out of touch with the average human.
> 
> ...



As an ex-political scientist lol I have to say you hit a lot of major points right on the head here


----------



## asher (Mar 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I think the reason SS.org does well on the political discussion is good moderation, along with clear and enforced rules.
> 
> I used to be active on a keyboard/synth forum, and at some point during the second invasion of Iraq, a poster asked, "How come we haven't seen any actual weapons of mass distruction?" At that point, two posters started mercilessly spamming every topic from that questioner. I wrote to the admins, but they couldn't reel it in. Finally I wrote a public post about the need for moderation, with just about everyone (except the two neo-cons, of course), but even that wasn't enough to get things going.
> 
> And that was that. I left, and didn't have to worry about the trolling.



I've spent quite a few years now, both active and lurking, on various kinds of forums which included open/political discussions as well as topic-specific stuff, very much in a proportion like here (though one was an EVE Online forum that seriously ended up with more bitter vets goofing off in General than real posts, I swear). Sevenstring.org is, hands down, the best moderated forum I have ever been on, and it really shows.


----------



## will_shred (Apr 9, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> There are forums dedicated solely to 4WD vehicles...internet just got weirder today.


 

Well, people who love their Jeeps/Subaru's/other popular 4x4's do kind of outnumber us guitar nerds by a lot. 


Also, kind of what has been said before. I think this forum is filled with a lot of rational, and intelligent people. The objective truth just so happens to have a "liberal bias" 

I mean, when it comes to politics and such I really try to see the good and the bad and take in factors and base my reasoning off of facts, and I've found that the truth usually happens to line up with progressive ideaology. If there were mountains of emperical evidence to show that Reaganomics was the best way to run an economy, I would be a passionate right winger. However the evidence to show the failings of right-wing social and econimic policy is OVERWHELMING. I also understand that the government has many short comings, however I think the better route is to fix the problems with the government, as opposed to just getting rid of it all together. 

I can empathize with some conservative philosophies such as being against the government monopoly on violence and the general ideas behind the thinking that Less Government=Better. However the evidence is stacked against them in terms of actual effective public policy. Red States have higher poverty rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, higher drug abuse rates, they collect more welfare per person than blue states. By all objective measures they are generally worse off, and that is reflective of their unsympathetic public policy. 

Also, I am a social libertarian. I think that the democrats have a lot of short comings in terms of social liberty such as the push to ban e-cigs which has absolutely no scientific basis. That's being spearheaded by democrats, and its ....ing stupid.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 9, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Also, I am a social libertarian. I think that the democrats have a lot of short comings in terms of social liberty such as the push to ban e-cigs which has absolutely no scientific basis. That's being spearheaded by democrats, and its ....ing stupid.



Are they really? Now that's dumb. I've heard countless reason why they 'should' be banned by people, but had not realized it had reached the political arena, especially when most of the claims are dumb, unfounded or relevant to more than just e-cigs.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 9, 2014)

Phillip Morris doesn't want to lose customers, so why not grease a couple palms and get eCigs banned?


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 9, 2014)

I think the number one crisis facing America is the level of influence corporate lobbyists have on policy and votes in both Houses. I question whether or not we really live in a democracy anymore, of it's just a democracy in name. For example, we know that whoever spends the most money in a campaign usually wins. A corporation just has to get behind the candidate most likely to work with their agenda and voila, they've won an election. 

I think both parties should commit political suicide and rush out an anti-lobbyist law of some kind.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Apr 9, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> I think the number one crisis facing America is the level of influence corporate lobbyists have on policy and votes in both Houses. I question whether or not we really live in a democracy anymore, of it's just a democracy in name. For example, we know that whoever spends the most money in a campaign usually wins. A corporation just has to get behind the candidate most likely to work with their agenda and voila, they've won an election.
> 
> I think both parties should commit political suicide and rush out an anti-lobbyist law of some kind.


All of this.


----------



## kmanick (Apr 10, 2014)

I try to stay out of this section because I tend to get very hot headed over the
daily Hypocrisies I see both arms of our government get away with on a seemingly daily basis.
I have been a member of both parties, but for the last 10 years have been 
registered as an Independent. I think both sides have "good intentions" but the whole system has become so corrupt that I think we really need to clean house.
As long as there continue to be no term limits and lobbyists are allowed to call
the shots we will continue to have a dis functional government.
The media in this country only adds fuel to the fire and helps to send people more to the left and more to the right.
It's amazing to me how I can flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox news and be watching conversations on a topic that so wildly swing in 2 directions. The spin machines are in full force from both sides. It's pathetic. We really need new parties that actually care about the country and not just focus on "staying in power" or "taking care of their cronies". I hear so much bullshit from both sides.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Apr 10, 2014)

Jakke said:


> I view myself as pragmatic right, which is possibly almost entirely due to my contrarian streak. See, my own country has gone almost hysterical in social justice and... well... leftism. So, of course I will have to be contrary to that.
> 
> From an american perspective, I'm probably *at least* left of center.



Yeah, there's this detail, too. In many European countries, that which is considered to be right wing would be viewed as socialist in the US. I figure SSO European members are more likely to side with American leftists due to this.



Church2224 said:


> Honestly, in the end of the day that is what both the Left and the Right want, they just want what they believe is best for humanity.



That's debatable. My main issue with Brazilian right-wing partisans is precisely that they're mostly defending exclusively their own interests. I'm not really talking about our politicians - left or right, most share this same noble belief - but I see this pattern among right-wing constituents, with only a few exceptions who tend to be more of a center-right, a segment with virtually no representatives in the Congress.

I, for once, do concede there are advantages to being economically liberal. Brazilian economically liberal parties are terrible for a number of reasons unrelated to their political inclination, though - and then there is this sad momentary alliance between economically liberals and socially conservative which I couldn't possibly condone.

That said, I'm economically center-leftist and socially libertarian.

EDIT: well, maybe not really "center"


----------



## will_shred (Apr 10, 2014)

> Honestly, in the end of the day that is what both the Left and the Right want, they just want what they believe is best for humanity.



That's a bold statement, and honestly I kind of disagree with you. I think that the majority of people do not think on that large of a level. They want what's best for their own agenda. I think there would be a lot less partisan nonsense if everyone really wanted what's best for the human race and not just what's best for their personal short term interests.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 11, 2014)

Since I'm not allowed to talk about illegal activity on here, I can't talk about my politics. 

I'm neither left, right, or center. I am anti.


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 11, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Since I'm not allowed to talk about illegal activity on here, I can't talk about my politics.
> 
> I'm neither left, right, or center. I am anti.



Oddly enough, a stance I no longer find ridiculous. Minus the illegal bits, I'm becoming persuaded that modern government has reached whatever peak this is, if peak is even the right word for it. Thought about it, it's not. 

Something big needs to change. Our system of government is not as young as foolproof as it used to be. Two centuries have provided plenty of opportunities to take a good idea and twist it into an ugly, farcical nightmare of bloated men with gray hair getting rich off of suffering. I'm beginning to wonder if there's a place for a "system" in a world as connected as ours is now to begin with.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 11, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> Oddly enough, a stance I no longer find ridiculous. Minus the illegal bits, I'm becoming persuaded that modern government has reached whatever peak this is, if peak is even the right word for it. Thought about it, it's not.
> 
> Something big needs to change. Our system of government is not as young as foolproof as it used to be. Two centuries have provided plenty of opportunities to take a good idea and twist it into an ugly, farcical nightmare of bloated men with gray hair getting rich off of suffering. I'm beginning to wonder if there's a place for a "system" in a world as connected as ours is now to begin with.



The Venus Project

Maybe a bit utopic. But it's a good goal to work toward. Basically, the monetary system is outdated. Money was created as a means to limit scarcity and sustain resources, but at present we live in a world where money limits the technological ability to provide us with what should be exponentially growing efficiency (among many other things on a more specific socioeconomic level)

More and more people are beginning to realize this. And too many people try to keep humanity down.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 11, 2014)

While I support the intent of the venus project, and other similar ideas, it'd require our government to relinquish it's power and a lot more worldwide cooperation than I think is likely to ever happen sadly. We have a hard enough time making small steps in any direction to begin with. The venus project is a rather HUGE step. It's an idea that lower class and lower middle class people would support and most upper class and upper middle class folks wouldn't. Sadly the latter has the most sway in what goes on in the world around us.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Apr 11, 2014)

flint757 said:


> While I support the intent of the venus project, and other similar ideas, it'd require our government to relinquish it's power and a lot more worldwide cooperation than I think is likely to ever happen sadly. We have a hard enough time making small steps in any direction to begin with. The venus project is a rather HUGE step. It's an idea that lower class and lower middle class people would support and most upper class and upper middle class folks wouldn't. Sadly the latter has the most sway in what goes on in the world around us.


 
Definitely. But it's something that can be worked toward. The amount of people that are just sick of modern day politics and the governing systems of the last 300 years is growing pretty quickly lately. It takes lots of education, and open minds. Which, unfortunately seem to be outnumbered by the uneducated and closed-minded..


----------



## Explorer (Apr 12, 2014)

I always admired groups like the Friends and Quakers who would go to jail rather than serve in the armed services. That's being courageous, and having the courage of one's convictions.

I've never been impressed by people like Anonymous, whose members always try to escape the consequences of their actions. It's like watching Oliver North, another person who claimed to have deep convictions... until he was granted immunity. Then it was all about wearing the uniform, and being thanked for his service to this country.

At least Liddy went to jail and held onto his principles.

With that said...



abandonist said:


> Since I'm not allowed to talk about illegal activity on here, I can't talk about my politics.
> 
> I'm neither left, right, or center. I am anti.



And yet, even though you might not believe in (or are involved in actively negating) the American political system, you continue to reside therein and to reap the benefits, even though you claim to be opposed to it.

That strikes me as... inconsistent, if those beliefs are genuine.

And if they aren't genuine, then it sounds like just playing and proclaiming, not very impressive....


----------



## Explorer (Apr 12, 2014)

Regarding the Venus Project...

In Mexico when I was younger, folks had enough to eat.

Nowadays, malinchismo has led to folks buying modern machinery which is beyond their means. Sure, there are other issues, including the arrival of the narcotrafficers and former rebels which the US funded in other countries, but most of what I see is people who want what is available in the first world.

In other words, how are you gonna keep them on the farm once they've seen the big city?

Like my own experiences, my Vietnamese girlfriend has seen this same kind of thing in Vietnam, where there is bone-crushing poverty, but a desire for things of the first world.

What the Venus Project is calling on is either for the first world to provide those things to the third world, or for everyone to renounce the high technology and such. That's utopian, and will never work. The fact that we're all on our fancy computers, and that none of us in this conversation have sold them to donate to the Project, shows where our real beliefs reside.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 12, 2014)

Explorer said:


> And yet, even though you might not believe in (or are involved in actively negating) the American political system, you continue to reside therein and to reap the benefits, even though you claim to be opposed to it.
> 
> That strikes me as... inconsistent, if those beliefs are genuine.
> 
> And if they aren't genuine, then it sounds like just playing and proclaiming, not very impressive....



This is disingenuous. Life does not exist in a vacuum. Of course I benefit in some ways from simply living in America. This doesn't negate my personal politics or beliefs in any way or form. 

It's precisely this kind of thinking that's detrimental to change. This idea that you're "breaking edge" if you participate in any way with the thing you dislike. Being a marginal part of the system because of where I live is frankly bordering a weird form of racism that helps no one.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 12, 2014)

Well, you were the one who stated that your political activities don't respect the rule of law, something valued in a democratic republic. 

That, combined with you reaping the benefits of that rule of law in that democratic republic, sounded like a funny combination, and a bit parasitic. 

I'm not saying that lawbreaking can't be done in a courageous or principled way. I gave examples of both courageous and cowardly implementations. 

But seeking to remove someone else's right to use the democratic process, in this case by subverting that process illegally, sounds like just reaping the benefits without really taking a principled stand. 

My views on the rule of law and the democratic process aren't detrimental to change. However, they are definitely rigged against those who want to rob others of the right to use that democratic process and the rule of law.

----

And yes, as a Mexican American who has toured the Deep South with black musicians, I have run into problems with racism, and have been fortunate enough to get light shined on situations where it made things better. I was at personal risk, but did what I had to in order to make things better.

And yes, using our system of laws. 

I don't understand your assertion of "breaking edge," incidentally. Are you saying that I have to be willing the break the law in secret, instead of being courageous enough to do it publicly if I disagree?

Or are you saying that I should have as much respect for those who don't have the courage of their convictions as for those who do?


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 12, 2014)

He's saying that you can dislike the system while still participating in it. It's not a binary issue. In fact, those willing or wishing to subvert the system are generally those affected by it. I don't think a lot of Belgians are clamoring for reform in American politics. 

He also didn't allude to any actions which would suggest that he's infringing on the rights of others to participate in the democratic process. All he suggested was that his politics fall into the broad spectrum of "illegal activity." 

I take issue with your presumption that the "democratic process" is the means through which people can, or should, rather, foment change. If this is the America of 200+ years of the "democratic process," I don't see how we can make a broken machine fix itself. There's been too many decades of loopholes being exploited and created, powers being expanded and contracted, for this system to continue. We're at a point where nearly everyone of every political ideology is disappointed in our nation's leaders, and there's absolutely no way out. Politicians can't stop playing the games they play, and they won't stop. I'm under no illusion that there was ever a time where our government functioned smoothly, but there's no doubt that in today's world the government is a joke. No one is going to vote for radical politicians willing to forge a new path, because both the big parties know that money spent on ads is what wins elections, not new ideas. 

I want a complete restructuring of our government. Democracy has come as far as it can. When the paradigm shifts from representing the will of the people to convincing them that the other side is wrong, you've lost whatever spirit it was founded on. Tell me how I can use my vote to accomplish that? How can I use my vote to express my desire for randomly selected congressmen who only serve as messengers of how my district votes on issues? Where do I sponsor an amendment to the Constitution that abolishes the electoral college? Who do I vote for who will reflect my voice instead of pushing their party's agenda? Or their own, for that matter?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 12, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Why? What is wrong with calling it socialism? Socialism isn't in and of itself a bad thing if that's why. Socialism may refer to a much broader subject matter, but the practices we were discussing definitely fall under the umbrella. Everyone puts tax dollars in, everyone gets access to certain benefits as a side effect. if we have a strong safety net/welfare state then we are all paying taxes to support programs of which we can receive the benefit of using if needed. That is a function of socialism.



Unfortunately, everyone does NOT put tax dollars in. In fact, alot of people don't contribute at all, but they sure like reaping the benefits.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 14, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Unfortunately, everyone does NOT put tax dollars in. In fact, alot of people don't contribute at all, but they sure like reaping the benefits.



That's true, but who are we talking about? There's a notion out there that a large portion of any nation's welfare recipients spend their entire lives living of tax dollars, and that's just not the case. I may have posted this earlier in the thread, but because I don't remember, I'll post it again:

Only 19.6% of families who depend on welfare money are in the program for more than five years. 19% are in the program for less than seven months. 

So, if we're talking about people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, they usually use welfare money as a means of gaining financial independence. It's a safety net, not a guarantee of wealth.

If we're talking about the higher end of the economic spectrum ... Well, we may remember all the criticism lobbed at Mitt Romney in the lead-up to the last election. The effective tax rates of the super rich are often lower than the rates of the middle class. It's easy to make arguments that they contribute to society through other means - donations, foundations, job creations, scholarship...ations  - and those arguments are reasonably valid. Most of the criticism levelled at these sorts of programs tend to be about their implementation, and whether or not they tend to favour people who don't require assistance. 

And all that aside, we're only talking about _financial_ contributions. There are a lot of ways people can contribute to society whether they pay tax or not. I'm currently on welfare as a student, so not only do I pay very little tax, but I can't donate financially to social programs that I consider important. So, when I started studying I also started donating blood. I happen to be eligible to donate, and I happen to be of a blood group that's somewhat rare in Australia (B+). I don't get paid to donate blood or plasma, and by donating plasma instead of whole blood I can donate once every 2-3 weeks instead of once every 3 months. And plasma is used to help people who really, really need it. 

I'm of the opinion that we need to redefine 'social contribution'. If you don't / can't pay tax, what else can you do? Do local shelters need volunteers? Are your local schools understaffed or underequipped? Can you contribute to charity drives for local health centres? Do you have skills that could be used to create youth programs, like sporting or music events? And if you suggest any of these things to somebody who is unemployed / underemployed, and their response is: "Nobody else is doing it, why should I?", there's a pretty good response. "Nobody else is doing it because they don't have people in their lives that set a good example. You can be that person.". 

Preachy rant over . Have I convinced anyone to donate blood? A lot of good people really need the help, and even though it means getting stabbed in the arm, it definitely feels better than paying tax.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Apr 14, 2014)

I just wish America would finally stop using regressive taxes.

Edit: and also treat people with dignity without regard to religion, sexuality, political bias, gender, race, or occupation. Right or left, oppression of beliefs causes instability.

And maybe we could stop having a ridiculously strict legal system with corporate prisons.


----------



## jimwratt (Apr 14, 2014)

Lots of good points in here. The only thing I'll add is that the leadership of both major political parties rely on strategists. It is politically advantageous for the GOP to take the stances they do on immigration, abortion, entitlements, sexuality, and race because it allows them to monopolize a certain type of voter. Because those voters are dying off, their message will change. The Democrats are basically a coalition by default because of what's happening on the other side of the aisle. Their strategy is to offer a rhetoric of inclusion while participating in the status quo arrangement. For me, the Democratic Party is the one that is most supportive of my self-interest. So in short, SSO leans left because the Demkcratic Party's policies are the closest to representing our interests. That doesn't mean they do a great job, but they don't have any credible competition when it comes to advocating for most Americans.

Personally, I side with the Rent Is Too Damn High Party though. A more widely affordable cost of living would alleviate much of the politcal toxicity that has overtaken this country.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 16, 2014)

jimwratt said:


> The Democrats... offer a rhetoric of inclusion while participating in the status quo arrangement.
> 
> ...(Democrats) don't have any credible competition when it comes to advocating for most Americans.



Hopefully my quoting those bits don't change the context too much, but...

I don't understand how the Democrats being on the side of, say, marriage rights is just rhetoric while participating in the status quo arrangement of DOMA. 

That's just one example. Investigating and mitigating anthropogenic climate change is another.

I'm glad the Democrats are advocating for most Americans... but I'd argue that they're not just using rhetoric, but doing the lifting as well.


----------



## asher (Apr 16, 2014)

jimwratt said:


> It is politically advantageous for the GOP to take the stances they do on immigration, abortion, entitlements, sexuality, and race because it allows them to monopolize a certain type of voter. Because those voters are dying off, their message will change.
> 
> Personally, I side with the Rent Is Too Damn High Party though. A more widely affordable cost of living would alleviate much of the politcal toxicity that has overtaken this country.



Their message needs to be changing already, and they're finding themselves on the wrong side of the trends of most issues, but look how well their supposed re-branding went after Romney lost. And why? Because the party's finding it's actually mostly made up of bigoted rich white men (again, I'm talking about elected and electable officials, not voters or people who support what actual Conservatism would be).

As to the second, in short: Gilded Age levels of wealth inequality.


----------



## will_shred (Apr 20, 2014)

I don't get why you don't like the Venus project? It's Utopian, yes. However I think they bring up a lot of important points and quite frankly, they're _right_. I don't care how outlandish it might sound, the basic premise that we as the collective human race need to get our priorities straight is dead on right. They're basically talking about humanity making the transition into a Type One civilization. Which we'd have to do in order to, you know, survive.


Here's some food for thought, imagine what we could achieve if we put as much capital and natural resources into science, renewable energy, space travel, medicine, infrastructure ect. As we do on war alone. We would get some shit DONE.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 20, 2014)

Very true, but it just isn't going to happen is the main problem. Rich people will not give up their power and control and we are politically divided as is when the difference between the two groups are minuscule at best. That's just in the US. Taking into account the various cultures and societies who are even more against these kinds of policies I just don't see it happening. I'll gladly be proven wrong though.

I have a friend who contradicts himself quite a bit involving this kind of topic. He is worried that there will be a 'One World Order' (or already is one), but at the same time supports things like the Venus Project or Zeitgeist which would also require some type of a 'One World Order' to achieve. 

The scale is just too massive. Couple that with all of the above and you get a hot mess. If you can't even get people to agree when they support the same Utopian vision how are you going to get everyone else to participate as well?


----------



## Explorer (Apr 21, 2014)

@will_shred - Assuming that question was directed at me, regarding my thinking the Venus Project is unworkable...

At some point in the past, a country had slaves. They were of one particular range of skin colors, easily identified. All kind of epithets were in use for that group, some still in use as insults (do a search on police violence for examples). 

Why didn't people in the past just get rid of slavery, give that group full civil rights (including suffrage and protection from discrimination), and then vote in a President from that group immediately?

There's nothing wrong with having a long-term plan, but having a long-term plan which also requires everyone else to change teams and to get on board seems unrealistic. 

I also don't think that money/currency is outdated. However, I love to learn. Are there any other systems out there which have survived for even a fraction of the time humans have been using monetary systems of exchange?

If not though... one of the basic premises fails.


----------



## Jzbass25 (Apr 21, 2014)

kmanick said:


> I try to stay out of this section because I tend to get very hot headed over the
> daily Hypocrisies I see both arms of our government get away with on a seemingly daily basis.
> I have been a member of both parties, but for the last 10 years have been
> registered as an Independent. I think both sides have "good intentions" but the whole system has become so corrupt that I think we really need to clean house.
> ...



When I was going for my first degree (economics) my favorite teacher would say things like, if we had a president with a background in economics (or at least one that listened to his advisers) both sides would hate him. 
I should add that many things in economics are counterintuitive so it's hard to get the idea through to the people. 

Anyways, I really think politics has become just a corrupt money grubbing circus and the news viewers hear what side they're supposed to support and that's the end of it. The problem also is the refutation of legitimate science or studies, people only listen to things that suit them best. It's so bad that the cognitive dissonance in people and politicians is actually ....ing scary.

It's bad enough in science but even in economics people will refute much better models, studies and evidence for their moronic idealized image of how economics works and they'll say a blanket statement like well economics is subjective which isn't an argument you can use to negate all Economists until one economist says what you want to hear. The worst part is that many politicians know they're spouting bull (well until they actually convince themselves it isn't bull) but the masses eat it up which just causes issues through the generations. 

That's not to say there aren't fair points from both sides though. Example, regulation of our economy is beneficial but it is terrible when you have money in politics and cronyism. The problem is no one wants to listen, not even many proclaimed independents. I can just hope for everyones' sake that we get our shit together, all I can do is try and wade through the shit and survive.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> @will_shred - Assuming that question was directed at me, regarding my thinking the Venus Project is unworkable...
> 
> At some point in the past, a country had slaves. They were of one particular range of skin colors, easily identified. All kind of epithets were in use for that group, some still in use as insults (do a search on police violence for examples).
> 
> Why didn't people in the past just get rid of slavery, give that group full civil rights (including suffrage and protection from discrimination), and then vote in a President from that group immediately?



This is a pretty good way of looking at it as the change expected for the Venus Project to work is probably even more dramatic than the end of slavery.



Explorer said:


> There's nothing wrong with having a long-term plan, but having a long-term plan which also requires everyone else to change teams and to get on board seems unrealistic.



It is certainly plausible, but I don't see it happening either way. It'd require everything falling apart before EVERYONE would get on board and by then we probably wouldn't have the resources to even pull it off. Too little, too late kind of thing. 

Before it's stated by anyone (as someone usually does), that doesn't make me a part of the problem either. People already don't vote for who they really want (voting for what you believe in(I actually do )), I haven't seen any rich philanthropists getting it all going (someone like Bill Gates could certainly get the ball rolling if they wanted to. Then again that requires him no longer being super rich so...), and most of the people I've met in support of Zeitgeist or the Venus Project passively support it making my opinion ultimately irrelevant to the subject (as passively supporting something leads to the same result of nothing happening).



Explorer said:


> I also don't think that money/currency is outdated. However, I love to learn. Are there any other systems out there which have survived for even a fraction of the time humans have been using monetary systems of exchange?
> 
> If not though... one of the basic premises fails.



I don't think using currency is outdated for buying things and payment of service yet...BUT it does have many hang ups. As an example: companies push out useless products, drugs etc. because it is profitable to do so, things are made to break so you have to buy a new one, R&D can sometimes be slowed down by lack of currency/resources, major breakthrough ideas either take forever to make it to consumers or never makes it past an idea on a piece of paper due to currency being an overall limited resource, etc.

There are positives as well though. As previously stated, it is an efficient means of buying/selling and getting paid for services. Bartering with good just doesn't work that well. If we no longer had to barter getting rid of it would be significantly easier though. The goal to make money tends to also push R&D to develop new/better ideas (albeit not always). Having limited access to money can even sometimes allow people to come up with creative solutions. 

Considering nations have different imports/exports it'd be a logistic nightmare without some form of currency being used. For food exclusively, if we became capable of making limitless amounts of food, currency could certainly be pulled from the equation when it comes to purchasing goods, but for other things, like guitars, electronics, homes, vacation spots, etc., it would be much more difficult given limited resources and a shit ton of people.




I think the largest problem with the Venus Project has more to do with the on/off nature it'd require for it to even matter. We have to give up what we know works okay in the hopes that something else works better. It's really hard to convince people something new is going to be better. Just look at technology and the backlash Microsoft had for Windows 8. People were hating it before they even tried it in some cases. Happens all the time (politics, technology, economics). Humans, I think, are naturally afraid of change. That is a rather large barrier on its own.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 21, 2014)

It was Mik3D23 who asserted that the current monetary systems were outdated. Sorry, I wasn't attributing that to you, flint.

Anyway, I stand by my assertion that utopian schemes are unworkable. Whether based on anarchy, communism, Islam, Jesus, eliminating money, whatever... I have a much easier time believing in the wrokability of a system that presupposes that humans will try to subvert things, and therefore has built-in safeguards, then a system which assumes that people will all abandon their previous diverse viewpoints and instead embrace whatever is being put forward as good.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> It was Mik3D23 who asserted that the current monetary systems were outdated. Sorry, I wasn't attributing that to you, flint.
> 
> Anyway, I stand by my assertion that utopian schemes are unworkable. Whether based on anarchy, communism, Islam, Jesus, eliminating money, whatever... I have a much easier time believing in the wrokability of a system that presupposes that humans will try to subvert things, and therefore has built-in safeguards, then a system which assumes that people will all abandon their previous diverse viewpoints and instead embrace whatever is being put forward as good.



Agreed.

I was more or less piggy backing off your comment to add to my original point that the Venus Project really isn't feasible considering a large part of what they propose is the elimination of money.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 21, 2014)

Remember when an early Occupy statement felt that a surgeon with 12 years of specialist training should earn no more than a mechanic? *laugh*

And now, just a bit of perspective as to why I'm automatically wary of utopia.

Through the course of my life, I've known people who have survived the Communist China purges, the Soviet communist revolution, and the Nazi death camps. Although it's not always something I invoke in these topics, whenever there is a utopian suggestion, I always shiver when I notice the similar utopian thinking, and what actions such thinking has been used to justify....


----------



## will_shred (Apr 21, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Very true, but it just isn't going to happen is the main problem. Rich people will not give up their power and control and we are politically divided as is when the difference between the two groups are minuscule at best. That's just in the US. Taking into account the various cultures and societies who are even more against these kinds of policies I just don't see it happening. I'll gladly be proven wrong though.
> 
> I have a friend who contradicts himself quite a bit involving this kind of topic. He is worried that there will be a 'One World Order' (or already is one), but at the same time supports things like the Venus Project or Zeitgeist which would also require some type of a 'One World Order' to achieve.
> 
> The scale is just too massive. Couple that with all of the above and you get a hot mess. If you can't even get people to agree when they support the same Utopian vision how are you going to get everyone else to participate as well?




Unfortunately I think there's a thin line between the great thinkers like Jacque Fresco, and conspiracy nuts. 

The key to changing society is framing an argument properly, and than doing it a dozen different ways, and than getting it out to the public. Of course I understand that today it takes years to even get a new car out, much less get a new philosophy out there. Here's the thing about the Venus Project and well... kind of the ideas i'm pushing. The heart of my argument starts out with war, seeing war for what it is. ....ing stupid and an enormous waste of scarce natural resources. War might be the most wasteful thing the human race has ever done. Whenever you ask someone "why can't we just stop war?" They'll usually tell you that it's because humans have _always_ gone to war. So, what? Killing each other is just a ....ing tradition? My dad was raised catholic, but he sure as hell doesn't go to church anymore. 

I mean, you'd think that asking humans to stop mindlessly slaughtering each other and work together shouldn't be such a tall order


----------



## will_shred (Apr 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> It was Mik3D23 who asserted that the current monetary systems were outdated. Sorry, I wasn't attributing that to you, flint.
> 
> Anyway, I stand by my assertion that utopian schemes are unworkable. Whether based on anarchy, communism, Islam, Jesus, eliminating money, whatever... I have a much easier time believing in the wrokability of a system that presupposes that humans will try to subvert things, and therefore has built-in safeguards, then a system which assumes that people will all abandon their previous diverse viewpoints and instead embrace whatever is being put forward as good.



What about a Utopia based on science and humanism?


----------



## Explorer (Apr 21, 2014)

@will_shred - How will you convert those who don't want that "Utopia?" Do you ban religious though? Make it a crime? Get rid of those elements who won't accept that you know better than they do? Thus it is demonstrated.

----

You're giving your universal definition of war, and again it's like the uptopian idea, everyone should embrace that definition.

Let's look at just one historical reasons for conflict, using your definition.

If an outside group comes, kills your men and rapes your women and children, you shouldn't fight back, because it's stupid.

I don't buy it.

You could argue that the invading group shouldn't have done that, and so you should fight to protect yourself, your women, your values, your resources... and now your definition of war is invalid. 

Personally? I'm okay with fighting for such reasons. I have many friends who would never have escaped to the US if US troops hadn't protected them. 

And if everyone "right-thinking" was to swear off war, then those who still embraced it would have the advantage. 

----

Here's an alternative theory about war and groups of humans.

We're all primates.

Primates will fight among the members of the same troop, but will band together against outside enemies.

If a primate can find some commonality with another creature, even another species (like a gorilla with a kitten), then that creature will be treated well. 

And if a member of the same species is viewed as a threatening outsider, then it's war. Homos, atheists, towelheads, peaceniks, communiists, Jews, and so on. 

I think my explanation of human nature is more descriptive of how things are than any utopian scheme.

And any utopian scheme which requires people to abandon primate politics must define those who won't embrace it as outsiders in order to work. A paradox for utopia, but consistent with primate politics.


----------



## Xaios (Apr 21, 2014)

Explorer said:


> And if everyone "right-thinking" was to swear off war, then those who still embraced it would have the advantage.



I believe Dogbert said it best.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 22, 2014)

I have no problem with killing off the problem.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Apr 23, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I stand by my assertion that utopian schemes are unworkable. Whether based on anarchy, communism, Islam, Jesus, eliminating money, whatever...



A utopia is loosely defined as an imagined society where everything is perfect. Quite the contrary, anarchists believe nothing _is_ nor _ever will be_ perfect, and autonomy and self-rule have to be fought for and defended. Anarchism isn't a utopia scheme, it's simply the belief that people do not need rulers. It doesn't require everyone to embrace some immutable tenets, nor does it require immediate restructuring of our entire society. It's actionable on an individual level, and in fact embraces the element of human subversion you so rightly suggested.

Generally, anarchists do not seek to be vanguards. Speculation and theory are all well and good but prescribing what an anarchist society "should" look like would be contradictory. This is because anarchism isn't a specific vision for a future society, but rather an immediately actionable philosophy with far-reaching implications.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 23, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> ...Anarchism isn't a utopia scheme, it's simply the belief that people do not need rulers. It doesn't require everyone to embrace some immutable tenets, nor does it require immediate restructuring of our entire society. It's actionable on an individual level, and in fact embraces the element of human subversion you so rightly suggested.
> 
> Generally, anarchists do not seek to be vanguards. Speculation and theory are all well and good but prescribing what an anarchist society "should" look like would be contradictory. This is because anarchism isn't a specific vision for a future society, but rather an immediately actionable philosophy with far-reaching implications.



There's a lot of interconnected points here, but the first sentence has a statement of of interpretation (that government means "rulers"), and one of faith (people don't need government, not even the poorest and weakest members). 

I dispute that your views, that anarchists do not seek to be in the vanguard, represent the majority of self-proclaimed anarchists who make it onto the news. You can employ the "no true anarchist would do that" argument, but the "no true Scotsman" argument is recognized as faulty. 

Getting to your argument that people don't need government, let's use a clear example of one place where I believe our current style of representational government works where yours wouldn't.

A poor woman is raped.

Currently, taxes pay for law enforcement.

Under your scheme, there's no requirement for a balanced approach to gathering evidence, protecting the victim, and so on. You can say that anarchists would, of course, do that kind of thing, but it's not a requirement. It's a popularity contest. If the woman isn't liked by those who have the resources, she's out of luck.

Child rape or molestation? Again, not a situation where anarchy automatically invests resources, or a good situation to demonstrate that people don't need government. (Well, I guess a child victim doesn't *need* government intervention... but I prefer that they receive it.) 

----

In the US, I prefer actions to be in the open, and for people to be willing to be held accountable for actions. If the actions of Ted kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh can fit someone's definition of a philosophy, I'm not on board. 

----

One more thought...

I do think of anarchy as being utopian, but also more unstable than other schemes. 

Basically, anarchy only allows you rights as far as you can defend them, or as far as someone wants to give you some. That sounds like a crappy trade to me. 

And then one armed group starts forcing others to do what they want.

And another.

Power centers.

Feudalism. 

Not my kind of place.

----

Lastly... weirdly enough, it seems like anarchy as practiced today is about removing the free choice of others to have the form of government they want. 

So, even if it's not utopian, it is authoritarian, just like Soviet Communism or Islamic governments. 

I know I put a lot on the table, just as you did, but *what are your thoughts on someone denying someone else free choice?*


----------



## will_shred (Apr 23, 2014)

This thread is getting really interesting.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that humans are an extremely violent species, which is why I think that we're doomed as soon as oil reserves start becoming more and more scarce. I highly doubt that we will have the green revolution that's needed for us to surpass this age of fossil fuel energy. Or if it does happen it will probably already be to late.


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Apr 23, 2014)

Explorer said:


> There's a lot of interconnected points here, but the first sentence has a statement of of interpretation (that government means "rulers"), and one of faith (people don't need government, not even the poorest and weakest members).
> ----
> 
> One more thought...
> ...



Anarchism doesn't necessarily mean "no government", per se. The State is not synonymous with government. Anarchism advocates the abolition of the State and state-like power structures. A state is characterized by a small group of people who make governing decisions for an entire body politic. In representational democracy, we vote leaders into office and invest in them the power to make laws that govern the community. An anarchist (at least in the traditional sense, which I'll get to) would argue that situations where a small number of people hold such all-encompassing political or economic power are inherently unstable, because power corrupts and people will always seek to garner more power for themselves at the expense of others' liberty and rights.

In order to maximize liberty for all, while still maintaining the trappings of civilized life in a community of people, you have to have a situation where no person or group has more power (be it political, economic, or whatever) than any other. So anarchists essentially believe in equality and democracy from the top to the bottom. Every human has a right to self-determination and to have a say in the decisions that are going to impact them. No one has a right to impose their will on another without their consent. So anarchism is just what the name says it is: an-archos, no rulers. An entire community can act as its own government, rather than a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals. 

Now...anarchism is not a closed system like other political philosophies (Marxism is a prime example of a closed philosophy that thinks it has all the answers). It doesn't claim to have all the answers, and it allows for innovation and new ideas. 

There are many different schools of anarchist thought, some of which are completely opposed to each other. In my explanation above, I was essentially outlining what Anarchist Communism has to say about politics, because that was (at least historically) the most preeminent and successful trend in anarchist thought, and the variety I tend to lean towards. These are your "Occupy Wall Street" anarchists. But there is also individualist anarchism, which is essentially what American libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are. That is the every-man-for-himself variety of anarchism to which you were referring and which most people have come to associate with the word "anarchy". It comes from completely different intellectual origins, and was more often a phenomenon that artists and writers admired rather than an organized political movement. But in America, being the political clusterf-ck that it is, it has become popular because it fits into the standard narrative of unregulated laissez faire capitalism that we are all brainwashed into thinking is the _only_ system that is compatible with individual liberty.

It is entirely possible, from my perspective, to have both liberty _and_ equality. Political and economic equality ensures that everyone has the same opportunity to live their lives how they see fit, which is all freedom really means.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 23, 2014)

Abaddon9112 said:


> ...An anarchist (at least in the traditional sense, which I'll get to) would argue that situations where a small number of people hold such all-encompassing political or economic power are inherently unstable, because power corrupts and people will always seek to garner more power for themselves at the expense of others' liberty and rights.



We agree there. If an individual or group is not constrained and goes for a power grab, that's it.



Abaddon9112 said:


> In order to maximize liberty for all, while still maintaining the trappings of civilized life in a community of people, you have to have a situation where no person or group has more power (be it political, economic, or whatever) than any other. So anarchists essentially believe in equality and democracy from the top to the bottom.



Okay, so no problems so far. American democratic republicanism has been working its way towards this. (I know, you might argue that corporate rights today mean that the suffrage for blacks and women are more then outweighed, but I'd disagree that recognizing the right to vote by more than 50% of the population is not insignificant.)

So now let's get to the utopian part, where things just work because they're gonna!



Abaddon9112 said:


> Every human has a right to self-determination and to have a say in the decisions that are going to impact them. No one has a right to impose their will on another without their consent. So anarchism is just what the name says it is: an-archos, no rulers. An entire community can act as its own government, rather than a handful of wealthy and powerful individuals.



(First off, I think it's hilarious that you're arguing that we have rulers in the US, as in people exercising dominion. I'd instead say that we have people who *serve* as proxies for the other citizens, and that those proxies step down at the end of their terms, in a peaceful transition to the next group of proxies, chosen by the citizens. We can discuss that later, if you like.)

So here in the USA, we have the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. It includes free speech, freedom from seizure, and a host of other rights. That's because it's assumed that the citizen *owns* the government, and that the government must be constrained to serve the citizens. 

Further, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. 

*So... since you keep talking up your particular preference in terms of anarchism, how do you guarantee protecting the weakest, especially against those who want a different flavor of anarchism, or even a different form of government altogether?

How do you protect against the tyranny of the majority?*



Abaddon9112 said:


> I was essentially outlining what Anarchist Communism has to say about politics, because that was (at least historically) the most preeminent and successful trend in anarchist thought, and the variety I tend to lean towards. These are your "Occupy Wall Street" anarchists.



You mean the movement with all kinds of sexual violation of women? Where they couldn't adequately police themselves in a relatively tiny area? Where the women would have to sleep in a safe tent, all together?

I hope you can understand my skepticism on a larger scale, but let me be clear:

*If your example of those who purportedly follow your particular philosophy provide less security for women than exists just a bit outside those Occupy campsites, then you're choosing an incredibly deficient example of your scheme's ability to protect the weakest.*

*sigh*

Color me not swayed by the evidence.


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Apr 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> (First off, I think it's hilarious that you're arguing that we have rulers in the US, as in people exercising dominion. I'd instead say that we have people who *serve* as proxies for the other citizens, and that those proxies step down at the end of their terms, in a peaceful transition to the next group of proxies, chosen by the citizens. We can discuss that later, if you like.)



Well that I would say is just a narrow way of looking at the situation. There is often a pretty wide gap between how a government is ostensibly supposed to work and the way it pans out in reality. Do our elected proxies actually serve and represent their constituents, or do they serve the moneyed interests who finance their reelection campaigns? Are elections truly open and free when virtually unlimited amounts of money are allowed to flow into campaign coffers? Which then pays for massive advertising campaigns which manipulate public opinion, such that very few people can actually make an informed decision about politics? If you are then only presented with an extremely limited range of options to choose from in an election, is your choice really free? That all kinda points toward the country being run by an elite and the average citizen being de-facto disenfranchised. So I'd definitely say we have rulers. 



> So here in the USA, we have the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. It includes free speech, freedom from seizure, and a host of other rights. That's because it's assumed that the citizen *owns* the government, and that the government must be constrained to serve the citizens.



Again, ostensibly you have all those rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, but that stuff has been and is being steadily chipped away in the paranoid atmosphere of the post 9/11 world. And while you may _legally_ be guaranteed free speech and freedom of opinion, we have in my view a culture that establishes certain parameters within which you can behave. Culture tends to fill in the gaps left in a free legal system and oppress people by establishing norms. John Stewart Mill wrote a lot about that, and also about the tyranny of the majority, which leads me to...





> *So... since you keep talking up your particular preference in terms of anarchism, how do you guarantee protecting the weakest, especially against those who want a different flavor of anarchism, or even a different form of government altogether?
> 
> How do you protect against the tyranny of the majority?*



I'll readily admit that that is a question I've struggled with myself, and I don't claim to have a very good answer. But I think in a system of community oriented direct democracy, you could still establish a formal constitution with checks and balances that allow dissent to be heard out and provide protection for minorities of all varieties. 

Think of it this way: in science there are a lot of competing theories at any one time. But the process of peer review allows a general consensus to be formed. Dissent and debate are encouraged. And science is open enough to change that theories can evolve over time and be corrected if wrong. All of this happens without any central governing authority. There's always going to be the one guy that still doesn't accept the Big Bang or natural selection, but on the whole it works out. An anarchist society would be organized similarly to that.

I'm fairly confident however that many of the classical and contemporary anarchist thinkers have thought about the issue much more than I, and come up with innovative solutions. 





> You mean the movement with all kinds of sexual violation of women? Where they couldn't adequately police themselves in a relatively tiny area? Where the women would have to sleep in a safe tent, all together?
> 
> I hope you can understand my skepticism on a larger scale, but let me be clear:
> 
> ...




Occupy Wallstreet is an extremely diverse and loosely organized protest movement. There are all kinds of people involved, some of the more prominent of whom are left anarchists. That's why I used that example. But Occupy aren't all anarcho-syndicalist or communists or whatever-flavor-it-happens-to-be. There are also some scumbags involved. That doesn't somehow invalidate what I've been talking about, because they simply aren't _all _advocates of socialist anarchism.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm not a super zealous anarchist, just a fan. I think in a lot of ways it is utopian and probably an unobtainable goal at this point in history. But political ideals offer a good yardstick for judging how effective our normal way of doing things is. You can ask yourself: Does this policy promote freedom and equality, or is it restrictive and unfair? In this way, society can gradually become a little more free and democratic and maybe one day come close to the idealized goal.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Apr 24, 2014)

I'll hit on a few of your points, Explorer. As a general point, I want to make clear that it is not necessary to have specific solutions to problems in order to identify them. That I don't personally know how to address many of the issues I see in our society doesn't alter the legitimacy of any criticism. Furthermore, if I professed to have magic bullet answers to any of these problems, it would be in your best interest to assume I was full of shit. Anarchism suggests community organization to solve problems, it would be contradictory in the extreme for me to suggest I alone have the solution. This is also a perfect example of how anarchism and vanguardism are opposed. Now then...

*"There's a lot of interconnected points here, but the first sentence has a statement of of interpretation (that government means "rulers"), and one of faith (people don't need government, not even the poorest and weakest members)."*

I didn't actually say anything about "governments." However, Anarchist critique equates the state's power with rulership. This is because the state's power is enforceable only through a monopoly on violent force (police, prisons, military). Similarly, anarchism does not necessarily exclude organization, even government of sorts. After all, even people who govern themselves still have "government" in the most literal sense.

*"I dispute that your views, that anarchists do not seek to be in the vanguard..."*

That's well and good, but your statement is anecdotal. There is a great amount of anarchist literature providing in-depth critique of Leninist and other vanguardism. These aren't so much "my views" as they are ideas I have read, agreed with, and then gone on to repeat to others. For but a single example:
H.5 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? | Anarchist Writers

There is no such literature espousing vanguardism, which does not prove there are no vanguard anarchists, but the point is that vanguardism is often and viciously critiqued among anarchists.

*".. a clear example of one place where I believe our current style of representational government works where yours wouldn't.

A poor woman is raped.

Currently, taxes pay for law enforcement.

Under your scheme, there's no requirement for a balanced approach to gathering evidence, protecting the victim, and so on. You can say that anarchists would, of course, do that kind of thing, but it's not a requirement."*

It's interesting you brought up rape and law enforcement, but I'll get back to that shortly. You keep mentioning "my style of government" or "my scheme," this is problematic because I am not prescribing a "style" or "scheme." What I am advocating is that the systems we have do not work, and that organizing ourselves is a superior alternative to all services offered by the government. Case in point, let's return to your hypothetical scenario. I'd like to answer by using a few clear examples of where law enforcement (and thereby necessarily the voters or policy makers responsible for their presence) failed to serve people in the manner you suggest, and in fact accomplished the opposite:

San Antonio cop arrested for rape of 19-year-old during traffic stop: police - NY Daily News

San Jose police officer charged with raping women while on duty, ordered not to contact accuser | abc7news.com

Detroit police officer charged with sexually assaulting woman while responding to call | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

I could keep going and going with these, or start whipping out drug war stats, but you get the idea. The point here is that law enforcement is not a guarantee of safety. Similarly, you suggest that it's not a "requirement" that anarchists do anything, we can see very clearly the effectiveness of such "requirements" in the above as well as widespread mishandling of rape accusations by our justice system. 

According to assault statistics gathered by the national police misconduct reporting project, there are fully 50% more male rapists among the police nationally than the general populace. Law enforcement appears to be a lightning rod for rapists.
2010 Quarterly Q3 Report | PoliceMisconduct.net

*"In the US, I prefer actions to be in the open, and for people to be willing to be held accountable for actions. If the actions of Ted kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh can fit someone's definition of a philosophy, I'm not on board."*

What are you saying? Because these two individuals were identified as anarchists, and just "someone's definition" at that, the entire philosophy is untenable? I hereby invoke Godwin's Law; Hitler was an atheist.

*"anarchy only allows you rights as far as you can defend them, or as far as someone wants to give you some"*

This is an accurate description of our current state of affairs. As has been seen with recent events regarding the NSA and domestic spying, our rights are highly conditional and exist at the whim of the state. 

*"I'd instead say that we have people who *serve* as proxies for the other citizens, and that those proxies step down at the end of their terms, in a peaceful transition to the next group of proxies, chosen by the citizens."*

Abaddon touched on this, the only point I would add is that a great deal of our policy, fiscal and otherwise, is decided by the interests of the military-industrial complex. This can be seen in examples as simple as the invasion of Iraq, a monumental waste of resources and lives which continues to line the pockets of a handful of individuals. 

As Abaddon mentioned, "There is often a pretty wide gap between how a government is ostensibly supposed to work and the way it pans out in reality." Standing on our side of that gap looking at how things are "supposed" to work sounds like the utopian perspective to me. The sad truth is that our system isn't broken or flawed, it's functioning as intended for the benefit of the kind of people who built it in the first place, those with power and influence. Emma Goldman once said, "If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal." This is because the really important decisions don't get made by voters, they get made by people with power and influence. Who remembers voting to invade Iraq? How about voting for the government's right to indefinitely detain your ass without trial in a hole in Gitmo? Or voting for 40 Yemeni citizens to be murdered by drone without trial last week? 

Life-shattering actions are taken on our behalves regularly, and the say we have is minimal.

*"If your example of those who purportedly follow your particular philosophy provide less security for women than exists just a bit outside those Occupy campsites, then you're choosing an incredibly deficient example of your scheme's ability to protect the weakest."*

Your claim of "less security for women than exists just a bit outside those Occupy campsites" is entirely unsubstantiated, especially in light of above info regarding sexual assault by police. 

Occupy was necessarily a representation of our society. Our society has rapists and is often unsafe for women, there is no reason to believe any gathering of us should be different. This is not excuse these events, but rather to point out that these events are symptoms of a larger problem and their perpetrators existed long before Occupy. There are no pertinent statistics regarding the frequency of these assaults, so there is no way for us to say whether they occurred disproportionately at Occupy gatherings.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 24, 2014)

Let me see if I can effectively summarize what's being proposed:

Althouugh American democratic republicanism has evolved to bring greater and greater rights, it hasn't done enough yet. I don't believe it will continue to evolve.

Therefore, anarchy.

We need to turn to a system where working examples fail, but I think it would work if given yet another chance. 

----

I really think I've captured the gist of what's been written. 

Examples are given ("Occupy represents the kind of thinking I'm proposing"), and when examples prove my point ("That example demonstrates my concerns perfectly"), then it doesn't *really* represent that kind of thinking.

----

I've referenced this a few times, but it's worth defining it, since I see it as emblematic of how the goalposts have been moved a few times in this little discussion. 

*No true Scotsman* is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements. (Here's the Wikipedai article, for those interested.)

----

Again, I think the following is the case being made:

*Democracy, although evolving and constantly improving, hasn't been completely perfected.

Therefore, anarchy, which has an even worse track record. *


----------



## The Reverend (Apr 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *Democracy, although evolving and constantly improving, hasn't been completely perfected.
> 
> Therefore, anarchy, which has an even worse track record. *



Is democracy evolving and improving? 

Is anyone suggesting an anarchic system?


----------



## Abaddon9112 (Apr 24, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Again, I think the following is the case being made:
> 
> *Democracy, although evolving and constantly improving, hasn't been completely perfected.
> 
> Therefore, anarchy, which has an even worse track record. *



I think you're still equating anarchism with "anarchy" as the term is colloquially used; to mean chaos, disorder, and an unorganized society. Nobody is advocating any of those things. A society based around anarchist principles would be every bit as organized as our own; but power would be decentralized. 

You keep accusing us of using the no-true-scotsman fallacy, but it is equally a fallacy to take a limited number of poor examples of the application of an idea as representing a failure of the idea itself. You're basing your whole argument about the poor track record of anarchism on the actions of some members of a protest movement. This is the same fallacy that people commit when they assume that communism could _never_ possibly work because the small number of communist countries that have existed have failed outright or turned into authoritarian regimes. There are many factors that lead nations to ruin, just chucking it up as the fault "communism" is taking a superficial look at a very complex situation. 

The only way that you could formally verify whether communism (or anarchism) is a less effective system then capitalism would be to have two civilizations under equal political and economic circumstances adopt either the one system or the other, and see which one succeeds and which fails. Russia, China, and the other communist states have _always_ been politically unstable and oppressive, even before communism. The successful capitalist democracies started out on a much better footing before even adopting their current schemes of government. And anarchism has just straight up never been applied on any large, national scale. So its not the kind of situation where you can just say "oh, they went bad because they adopted communism", or "anarchism has a bad track record".


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Apr 24, 2014)

*"Let me see if I can effectively summarize what's being proposed:

Althouugh American democratic republicanism has evolved to bring greater and greater rights, it hasn't done enough yet. I don't believe it will continue to evolve.

Therefore, anarchy."*

No, that isn't even close to what's being proposed. This is a classic straw man, you're presenting the opposing argument as weak and foolish to make your own appear better. I'm not going to bother addressing non-sequitur arguments, if you disagree with any of my points or rebuttals to yours as stated, then I invite you to address them specifically. I've provided specific counter examples with cited evidence, what do you have? Speculation and conjecture. Show me some evidence if you dispute my claims.

*"I really think I've captured the gist of what's been written. 

Examples are given ("Occupy represents the kind of thinking I'm proposing"), and when examples prove my point ("That example demonstrates my concerns perfectly"), then it doesn't *really* represent that kind of thinking."*

You haven't captured it at all. You either don't understand the argument as presented or are being intentionally intellectually dishonest. The statement was made that Occupiers were one example of left anarchists, and no one said anything even remotely resembling "it doesn't *really* represent that kind of thinking." 

Furthermore, the Occupy example did nothing to "prove" your point, I rebutted that in my last post so I won't bother repeating myself here. If you disagree, I invite you to counter my argument as stated. 

_*I've referenced this a few times, but it's worth defining it, since I see it as emblematic of how the goalposts have been moved a few times in this little discussion. 

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements. (Here's the Wikipedai article, for those interested.)*_

I ignored it the first time you mentioned this because it didn't apply. I haven't invoked this fallacy once in this discussion. Once again, if you disagree, I invite you to produce evidence to the contrary. A quote would suffice.

I assume you're referencing my point about vanguardism, for which I provided _evidence_, something you have failed to provide for any of your meandering speculations. Addressing the definition specifically, I have made no "universal claim" about anarchists. Secondly, you didn't offer a counterexample, *I* did. 

*"Again, I think the following is the case being made:

Democracy, although evolving and constantly improving, hasn't been completely perfected.

Therefore, anarchy, which has an even worse track record. "*

This is still a straw man. Since we're here, though, I once again call upon you to produce evidence for your claims that anarchism has a "worse track record" than social democracy. You have failed so far to specifically address any of the counter arguments being made. I am interested to see any point-by-point rebuttals and evidence you have for your position, which I can see you have thought out thoroughly.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 24, 2014)

Okay, you're right. I don't have enough examples of anarchic systems to say that at least one does better than what democratic republicanism has managed to evolve to so far.

So, please provide some.

That way, I can see how whatever you're proposing is superior.

I'm ready to learn.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 25, 2014)

Did you just answer his question by restating his question at him?


You can do better than that.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 26, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Remember when an early Occupy statement felt that a surgeon with 12 years of specialist training should earn no more than a mechanic? *laugh*



That can actually be a defensible position: 

-The surgeon works 12 less years than the mechanic.
-Getting specialist training instead of doing physical labor is a benefit in itself
-Given an equal salary, both positions would still have candidates.
-you wouldn't get docs that hate being docs but love the money it brings in.

There are some caveats due to the education differences in every country. In France, there is a maximum number of new doctors every year, if you can believe it. And those who are active are lobbying for that to NOT change so they can keep racking in the money. It doesn't help that a good chunk of the politicians are from that body, either.
This has next to nothing ro do with supply and demand. Responsibility ? People WANT it. Why should they get paid for getting something they want ?


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 27, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> This has next to nothing ro do with supply and demand. Responsibility ? People WANT it. Why should they get paid for getting something they want ?



Well, that depends. Are medical lawsuits common in France? The problem with responsibility is that when something goes wrong, you're accountable, morally and legally. And unlike a mechanic, who can replace a car if it's destroyed through negligence or by accident, doctors who destroy a life though negligence or accidents face the possibility of immediately being removed from duty, possibly never practicing again, almost certainly having to face either the person whose life you've permanently altered (or their family if you manage to kill them), likely go through civil and possibly criminal proceedings to rectify your mistake, and if nothing else, spend the rest of your life having to live with the knowledge that you lessened the life of somebody else, even if you can offset that with many cases of having improved lives.

Even if I thought I could get through medical school (I couldn't), I'd never become a doctor. That kind of responsibility is hefty enough to warrant financial recognition in my book, if only because financial recognition is really the only way we do things these days.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Apr 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Okay, you're right. I don't have enough examples of anarchic systems to say that at least one does better than what democratic republicanism has managed to evolve to so far.
> 
> So, please provide some.
> 
> ...



No, all of my arguments stand. I have provided you with substantial evidence for my positions, you have provided nothing but meandering speculation. I am not going to waste my time on your rambling non-sequiturs, if your argument has any merit whatsoever then you can address each of my points with specific evidence and counter examples.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 28, 2014)

I used an example of defending the weakest members of society, and asked how an anarchic system would handle it.

It was stated that a particular form of anarchic thinking had an example in the Occupy movement. 

I pointed out how Occupy was a terrible example.

I was told not to use it.

I asked for a working example of what is being proposed to replace representative democratic republicanism.

You say you provided one.

Could you again just point to where such a system is successfully used, a system which internally protects the weakest? Because I missed it.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 29, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Well, that depends. Are medical lawsuits common in France?



From what I gathered, lawsuits period are less common in France than in the USA, where eveyrone seems to be suing everyone because the dog shat on the wrong side of the fence.

Medics do have a responsibility. So do cooks, not to poison people (believe me, it's very easy to poison people), masons, so that the house doesn't crumble on the inhabitants, etc. They are far from earning what a doctor does and have just as much responsibility.

To your question, we do have some lawsuits related to medical mistakes, but remember over here most of the hospitals are state-run and not out for a profit margin. Which, in the end, is paradoxically cheaper overall because poor people actually get healed. You're not a productive worker when you have untreated health problems.

Please note I'm not saying being a doctor in a hospital is easy. It's long hours and grueling work. But not worse than many other less respected jobs.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Apr 29, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> From what I gathered, lawsuits period are less common in France than in the USA, where eveyrone seems to be suing everyone because the dog shat on the wrong side of the fence.
> 
> Medics do have a responsibility. So do cooks, not to poison people (believe me, it's very easy to poison people), masons, so that the house doesn't crumble on the inhabitants, etc. They are far from earning what a doctor does and have just as much responsibility.
> 
> ...



1. The majority of hospitals in the US are non-profit with the remaining third split between government run and for-profit (this is not necessarily a bad thing). Not sure what this has to do with the number of lawsuits though.

2. All professions have responsibilities; some more than others. Not one of those careers you mentioned requires as much responsibility, skill (though, they are totally different skill sets), education, or stress as a surgeon (or general doctor really). Not poisoning someone isn't a responsibility of a cook; it's required behavior for anyone not trying to be a shitty person. Jesus, I can't believe you actually made that comparison . 

I have no issue with how much doctors get paid. Hell, pay them more . Their salaries are such a minuscule part of health care costs in this country.


----------



## Explorer (Apr 30, 2014)

Many areas in the US have a short course (less than an hour) in order to prepare for a food handler's permit. I've taken several over the years, and I have learned more in a single 1-credit college course than in any of those.

I don't know if I would put the level of training necessary for safe food handling at the same level as being a doctor. 

Gee, just thinking about the huge amount of stuff my friends had to learn every day, the huge amount of information allowing them to winnow down to a few diagnosis, the minutia memorized... I can't think of any other profession with so many details and with so much potential impact on the individual being helped. 

A friend of mine is a pediatric oncologist, and I just can't put my nephew the mason into the same category. 

----

I still haven't seen a working example of an anarchic system put forward. Anyone else want to take a shot at it?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 30, 2014)

Yeah, you can get trained within a year to be a mechanic or a cook and in some cases just pick up on it on on your own. A doctor has to go to school for basically a decade, work for free for a period of time, work ridiculous hours and always faces the risk of losing his or her job and even their license. Engineering and medicine are 2 fields off the top of my head with WAY more risk and responsibility than a mechanic. Considering here in the States we pretty much pay for our own education as well, and considering the overall longer period of education, I think it's perfectly reasonable that those jobs pay more than a chef or a mechanic.

If you're a brilliant mechanic or chef you could in fact end up with more money. It just isn't the default result and it honestly shouldn't be.

There are jobs in the business world that have completely unjustifiable salaries though, but that doesn't mean every single job is being unreasonable.


----------



## The Reverend (May 1, 2014)

Not sure that level of perceived responsibility and stress or tuition are the best metrics to determine pay. I would think something along contribution to the well-being of humanity would be more deserved. After all, the civil engineers who work in concert with geologists to make sure our shit doesn't turn watersheds into toxic dumps get paid less than petroleum engineers who are helping to pollute the world. Teachers get paid shit, and they have arguably the most important job of all. I would argue that society at large is taught, not inherent, and that a lack of quality teaching is related to a lack of a quality society.


----------



## Explorer (May 1, 2014)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that bit of the Occupy list was a little off.

Keep in mind, of course, that the designers (yes, designers, it wasn't spontaneous) of the Occupy Wall Street movement consulted with those in the same group who worked for the media. The media members said one should avoid any specific demands whatsoever, because as soon as you got specific one could examine those demands and make a value judgment. 

----

Even though no SS.org member ever indicated they had an interest in seeing how the blueprint was laid out for the Occupy movement (at least so far), or how the sincere participants were manipulated for the organizers' ends, I highly recommend the documentary "Occupy Unmasked." 

Or, if you want to reject the information on the basis of principle, like a Creationist rejects any evidence which contradicts that Book, be sure to join the others who have done the same thing in this SS.org topic:

*Occupy Unmasked - what did you think of this documentary?*


----------



## Andromalia (May 1, 2014)

> Considering here in the States we pretty much pay for our own education as well


In France the doctor university is public and costs nothing, it's funded by taxes. And, again, being able to just sit and receive an education instead of working is already a benefit. It's not a sacrifice at all and dosn't warrant any compensation.


----------



## estabon37 (May 1, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> In France the doctor university is public and costs nothing, it's funded by taxes. And, again, being able to just sit and receive an education instead of working is already a benefit. It's not a sacrifice at all and dosn't warrant any compensation.



Under that system it certainly warrants _less_ compensation, but I don't know if I'd agree that it doesn't warrant _any_. I can't shake the feeling that medical classes are trickier than the education classes I'm undertaking, and that diagnosing medical issues (of which there are so many many many possibilities and variations) is significantly trickier than diagnosing a child's or adolescent's learning difficulties. While I certainly agree with The Reverend's sentiment stated above that teachers should be paid more (mostly because I'm trying to become a teacher and I'm not going to discourage people from giving me money whether I deserve it or not ), I'm still of the opinion that the nature of a medic's work, the length and difficulty of the shifts they work, and the level of specialisation often required should be reflected in their salaries - but again, this is only because society rewards through money. I'd also add nurses and medical emergency response teams (ambulance operators) to this same list. 

To repeat an apparently controversial statement I've made in the past, I'd also add police to the list of underpaid / under-rewarded professions, but I say this on the assumption that police forces would have to be extremely discriminating in their selection criteria. While corruption and mismanagement won't likely ever be completely erased from policing, I think hiring more intelligent and compassionate police officers will go a long way towards reducing the problems inherent in many police forces, and realistically, intelligent, compassionate, hardworking people have little incentive to work for low pay alongside thugs in a job that requires them to deal with the worst humanity has to offer when they can take a higher-paying stress-free job in an office somewhere. 

I really find this thread fascinating. The initial question was: "Why so many lefties?". I don't think we've come up with an answer, but a certain idea seems to be taking shape. We've covered a lot of ground and it seems that an interest in / emphasis on social justice sits at the centre of the conversation - even the bits about whether or not anarchism is a viable social alternative. I really hope this thread doesn't die off.


----------



## Explorer (May 2, 2014)

I think it was proposed earlier, but I suspect the answer is:

It takes a certain kind of mind to question orthodoxy, and more to question oneself. 

Although there are certain dogma which occasionally occur on SS.org, most members are open to facts and consideration. 

Two more factors - SS.org moderators help weed out those who just can't stand being civil, and I sadly believe that it takes a certain kind of person to consistently go wrong of this. I've been on other music websites where members have been challenged, and who suddenly burst out with all kinds of rhetoric about the evils of letting women speak, how everyone is a hippie, and so on. Then down comes the ban hammer. 

(Didn't Eric C. come out with some thing about how women were only around to breed on, a little before his antiscience trolling got out of hand?)

Fun fact: A 2009 poll found that only 6% of scientists in the US were Republican, compared to 32% independent and 55% Democrat. (9% said they were conservative, 52% said they were liberal, and 14% said they were very liberal.) I think that same kind of thinking contributes to the membership's outlooks here....


----------



## Grindspine (May 19, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> I'm curious as to why there's so many left-minded folk on here. Anyone care to chime in? (And before you start spewing slurs at me, I'm not conservative. I'm libertarian.)


 
I would have considered myself fairly moderate until the mid 2000s. As the far right has become more prominent in the media, I feel that my views have been viewed by others as being further left.

That all being said, I live in Indiana (definitely a Red state), but was in Bloomington at Indiana University (one of the Blue counties in the state) for many years.

I went to a private Christian high school, but have rejected religion. Since then I have studied biology (including evolution), philosophy, geology, earned an associate's degree in psychology, a bachelor's degree in anthropology, and have a medical certification after a year in medical school. So, I do consider myself fairly educated.

On the flip side of education, I also have crippling student loan debt, am paid below the national average for my job position, and see friends and family members struggling financially. I hate seeing some family members who recognize themselves as republicans preaching the mantras of the party that will keep the wealthy paying little in taxes while cutting social programs that could be useful to others in the same family.

If socio-economic status is a contributing factor toward political leaning, I would suspect that many younger, more internet savvy people would be visiting forums on a regular basis.

From a guitar standpoint, seven string & extended range guitars are considered to be non-traditional (though both types have existed for a long time, they do not fit the archetype of the Strat or Les Paul from the 1950s). Those that would play such instruments would hypothetically be more open-minded and less constrained by traditional ideas in that aspect of their lives. That type of thinking might very well extend to other aspects of an individual's life.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2014)

The education in science is the factor I'd say makes you lean left. Knowing about geology and biology, and therefore about two of the pillars of evidence which support evolution, makes most people turn away from the GOP and its embrace of superstition as a value.


----------



## asher (May 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> The education in science is the factor I'd say makes you lean left. Knowing about geology and biology, and therefore about two of the pillars of evidence which support evolution, makes most people turn away from the GOP and its embrace of superstition as a value.



I'm not quite sure I buy that - at least, not wholesale. I feel like the staunchly anti-intellectual stance that has emerged as a big hallmark of the GOP has only done so recently, and I think most of us here are a little too old for that to be the kicker, or even the bigger push.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2014)

My first exposure to the anti-observable-fact mindset was when I was a child, with my fundamentalist Christian aunt arguing about how dinosaur bones were put into the earth by God, with deceptive dating, in order to test the faithful. I asked questions, and it was clear she was just nuts. However, I learned that these viewpoints were part of a political viewpoint as well. (Ah, the joys of having Christian fundamentalists around during one's formative years! *laugh*)

Since that was over 40 years ago, and because I always assume that many here are much younger than me, I'd be ready to assume that those who are younger had the same opportunities to see how whacky these people can be.... *laugh*


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 20, 2014)

I'm all for small government, with very minimal laws (only the bare necessities)

I'm very nearly an Anarchist.


----------



## hairychris (May 20, 2014)

I would be an anarchist but I know that it won't work.

So I'm socially libertarian but financially almost-kinda-socialist. I should move to Sweden, basically. They do it right.

I don't trust "free" markets. If true libertarianism was possible then I might go along with it, but that'll never work due to human nature. A benevolent communism would never work either, also due to human nature.

I'm too old & ....ed to be idealistic - there's only disappointment down that path. It's going to take something catastrophic to change the current path of corporatism and "Panem et Circensus", maybe something to do with oil although melting pack-ice might .... up 80% of our major cities before the end of the century so that may be fun.

I'm 42. I don't plan on having children. I've stopped caring about all this shit. .... the human race, basically.


----------



## asher (May 20, 2014)

Explorer said:


> My first exposure to the anti-observable-fact mindset was when I was a child, with my fundamentalist Christian aunt arguing about how dinosaur bones were put into the earth by God, with deceptive dating, in order to test the faithful. I asked questions, and it was clear she was just nuts. However, I learned that these viewpoints were part of a political viewpoint as well. (Ah, the joys of having Christian fundamentalists around during one's formative years! *laugh*)
> 
> Since that was over 40 years ago, and because I always assume that many here are much younger than me, I'd be ready to assume that those who are younger had the same opportunities to see how whacky these people can be.... *laugh*



I do make a point of separating fundamentalist Christians from the party as a whole, until recently, because AFAIK you didn't have to denounce ANYTHING that wasn't in the Bible or the Free Market (tm) to prove you're a conservative until a few years ago. It was definitely always there, but it had't consumed everything yet.


----------



## Explorer (May 20, 2014)

@asher - I see your point about it not being so out in the open before, but whenever Reagan made his comments about us living in the end times, and about how trees cause pollution, it was clear that people on the right were fine with that. 

that was more than 30 years ago. It wasn't long after that anti-abortion was made a plank of the GOP.

I agree, the GOP anti-science, pro-superstition craziness has become even more apparent, but the textbook controversies and end-times, pro-Israel thinking (an established Israel being a feature of the end times) has been in place for a long time.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 20, 2014)

hairychris said:


> I would be an anarchist but I know that it won't work.


I know that true anarchy wouldn't work either, that's why I said 'almost'.


----------



## Alexxx (May 21, 2014)

Hey guys, check this out, I think it'll help clear up some confusion and even help you find where you stand!

The Political Compass

I think its very cool how Libertarianism is south, Authoritarianism is north, and the left and right are, well, left and right.


----------



## Alexxx (May 21, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I would have considered myself fairly moderate until the mid 2000s. As the far right has become more prominent in the media, I feel that my views have been viewed by others as being further left.
> 
> That all being said, I live in Indiana (definitely a Red state), but was in Bloomington at Indiana University (one of the Blue counties in the state) for many years.
> 
> ...



Amen brother, shout out from a fellow Hoosier in South Bend  I feel your pain.


----------



## estabon37 (May 22, 2014)

Alexxx said:


> Hey guys, check this out, I think it'll help clear up some confusion and even help you find where you stand!
> 
> The Political Compass
> 
> I think its very cool how Libertarianism is south, Authoritarianism is north, and the left and right are, well, left and right.



I love how this crops up every year or so on this forum. As interesting as it is the first time around, I think it's worth doing every few years to see if you've 'shifted', because I think major social and political events will get you answering the questions differently. In this sense, I consider the compass to both reaffirm your ideological base by seeing whether or not you consistently land in the same quadrant, and giving you an idea of how recent events may have shifted you around that quadrant if you're still in the same one.

I have a strong feeling if I did the test now, I'd land further north than I did two years ago. No time at the moment, but I'll see if I can find a screenshot of my last test and do a comparison.


----------



## Church2224 (May 22, 2014)

This is where I am


----------



## hairychris (May 22, 2014)

Hahahaha, why am I not surprised?






EDIT: I voted in the European & local elections today. Green Party all the way. The mainstream UK parties do not correspond with my views.


----------



## ferret (May 22, 2014)

I still think this thread is about left handedness everytime I see it.

Completed unsurprised:


----------



## asher (May 22, 2014)

I'll try to take it at lunch or something. Pretty sure I'll be pretty far left and somewhere neutral between libertarian/authoritarian.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 22, 2014)

What I find most interesting is that "commie" Obama is super close to Mitt Romney on the scale... And I'm all the way to the left.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2014)

Obama is honestly pretty centrist if you go by his actual policy. I am surprised that puts him as far right as it does.


----------



## ferret (May 22, 2014)

asher said:


> Obama is honestly pretty centrist if you go by his actual policy. I am surprised that puts him as far right as it does.



That's due to overall American politics being much further right than the rest of the world. On the world stage, most of our American liberals, even the furtherest left of them, are more like, at best, centralists or very moderate liberals.

I've always been amused by the hatred of the American right for Obama, while simulateously praising Reagan. We've shifted so far right that compared to 20+ years ago, Obama sits closer to where Reagan would fall than current Republicans do.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2014)

ferret said:


> That's due to overall American politics being much further right than the rest of the world. On the world stage, most of our American liberals, even the furtherest left of them, are more like, at best, centralists or very moderate liberals.
> 
> I've always been amused by the hatred of the American right for Obama, while simulateously praising Reagan. We've shifted so far right that compared to 20+ years ago, Obama sits closer to where Reagan would fall than current Republicans do.



I meant on our domestic scale, even. I know our window is pretty far to the right.


----------



## stevexc (May 22, 2014)

Man, what is with some of these questions on this compass thing? Are they supposed to be this specific?

"Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried."

Are you actually asking me if only wrongdoers should be worried about being surveilled? Because I agree with that, if you're not doing anything wrong nobody's gonna catch you doing anything wrong. But I strongly DISAGREE that it's a "pro" for surveillance which is where the question is clearly leading to.

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."

I'm pretty sure the only qualification for something to be "art" is that it represents something - but why is it specifying "abstract" art? Is it implying that all abstract art doesn't represent anything? Because there is abstract art that DOES represent things.

I answered as if they ARE really just that specific and I think I got a result that's accurate - but a lot of these seem REALLY close to "trick" questions.


----------



## Mik3D23 (May 22, 2014)

It's interesting that the libertarian candidate only sat right in the middle


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (May 22, 2014)

Makes sense since I'm a cherry picker and think no one side is entirely in the right, but I do typically lean more to the left


----------



## MFB (May 22, 2014)

ferret said:


> I still think this thread is about left handedness everytime I see it.
> 
> Completed unsurprised:



Damn, this is eerie






We're like, 1x1 off from each other


----------



## flint757 (May 22, 2014)

Pretty much unchanged since the last time I did it.

[EDIT]

And here is mine backed against 2012 candidates.


----------



## Eliguy666 (May 22, 2014)

I should have expected this one, really.


----------



## flint757 (May 22, 2014)

I think all of us in the green quadrant are completely screwed when it comes to US and world politics.


----------



## Necris (May 22, 2014)

I am remarkably consistent.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 22, 2014)

I dropped way down on the Libertarian scale since the last time I took this...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 22, 2014)

I've moved a tick or two left since the last time I took it, but otherwise I'm still essentially what I'd consider mostly centrist. I suspect the slight shift left has to do with my being more passionate about gay rights than the last time I took it, and the entire last page of the survey is about that.


----------



## groverj3 (May 22, 2014)

Well, can't say I'm surprised. I'm pretty much ....ed when it comes to politics, aren't I?


----------



## MikeDojcsak (May 22, 2014)

Well, I always tried playing right handed but found it too awkward, so I bought a lefty and was more comfortable.

....
...
..
.


----------



## groverj3 (May 22, 2014)

Alexxx said:


> Amen brother, shout out from a fellow Hoosier in South Bend  I feel your pain.



I'm from Niles, MI. Basically South Bend, IN . Right on the border.

I'll say though, even though IN and SW MI is red, moving to Arizona has shown me the true meaning of bat-shit crazy conservativism.


----------



## MFB (May 22, 2014)

The one thing I wonder about with that Political Compass test is how much does it change between "Agree" and "Strongly Agree"? What, a whole point, half a point? Who decides/how?


----------



## asher (May 22, 2014)

Commentary as I go:

Ew. Yeah. The wording of some of these questions... when they say "free market" are they talking about the most open and accessible one (people-free) or the CAPITALISM, FVCK YEAH highly de-regulated one (classic "free market")? Because it seems to waffle.

"Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity."  I'm not sure why I find that as funny as I do, but I do. (think I'll go with Disagree).

Alright. Right. I forget that what they mean by Libertarian is not what most people who actually _claim_ Libertarianism think (I think that is what they're calling neo-lib):




Otherwise, about what I expected.


----------



## Eliguy666 (May 22, 2014)

asher said:


> Commentary as I go:
> 
> Ew. Yeah. The wording of some of these questions... when they say "free market" are they talking about the most open and accessible one (people-free) or the CAPITALISM, FVCK YEAH highly de-regulated one (classic "free market")? Because it seems to waffle.
> 
> ...



Is Virgil Goode actually Hitler or something? I mean, there's not many other ways to be that far top right. Authoritarianism and right wingedness is actually the definition of fascism.


----------



## asher (May 22, 2014)

I was going to start quoting bits, but there's too much wingnut.


----------



## flint757 (May 23, 2014)

asher said:


> Commentary as I go:
> 
> Ew. Yeah. The wording of some of these questions... when they say "free market" are they talking about the most open and accessible one (people-free) or the CAPITALISM, FVCK YEAH highly de-regulated one (classic "free market")? Because it seems to waffle.
> 
> ...



The whole thing seemed very Americanized so I'm pretty sure the last page was all about gay rights and it was referring to deregulated markets. Some of the questions really could go either way though.

I don't understand how accepting the system is maturity, but I have heard people say that before.


----------



## hairychris (May 23, 2014)

Haha.

SS.ORG Anarcho-Syndicalist Posse!


----------



## ferret (May 23, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I don't understand how accepting the system is maturity, but I have heard people say that before.



On this particularily point, I don't think they meant it that way. "Making peace" isn't the same as "Accepting". I don't know. Words aren't suiting how I want to phrase it. I read it more as understanding that the system is in place and must be worked with, even if you don't like parts of it.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (May 23, 2014)

I always considered myself as socialist.


----------



## asher (May 23, 2014)

ferret said:


> On this particularily point, I don't think they meant it that way. "Making peace" isn't the same as "Accepting". I don't know. Words aren't suiting how I want to phrase it. I read it more as understanding that the system is in place and must be worked with, even if you don't like parts of it.



No, that's what it means 

Accepting that it's there and that you can't really do much about it and you need to live with it.

Which I think is kind of crap and you can be perfectly mature and even dedicate yourself to working against it. Even if you realize it might be futile!


----------



## Explorer (May 23, 2014)

In this other SS.org topic, How to Spot a Satanist, there's a really great example of far right.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/politics-current-events/271290-how-spot-satanist.html

I find it very hard to put Obama into this same kind of space, even if you argue that American politics lean to the right. 

I'd be interested in seeing how Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin and Mao fit on that spectrum. 

I call shenanigans.


----------



## ElRay (May 27, 2014)

ThatCanadianGuy said:


> I'm curious as to why there's so many left-minded folk on here. Anyone care to chime in? (And before you start spewing slurs at me, I'm not conservative. I'm libertarian.)



Since you claim to be a small-L libertarian, then you're 1/2 "current Lefty" (liaise faire socially) and 1/2 "theoretical Righty" (liaise faire fiscally).

I think the apparent shift to the left is that "The Right" has gone Christo-fascist and are adamantly forcing their early 1900's Revisionist Evangelical Christian Theocracy and Revisionist History on everybody. The end result, since most people tend to be linear thinkers, is anybody opposed to the christian sharia that "The Right" is forcing on everybody, is labeled "Leftist", even if they disagree with almost all of the rest of stereotypical "Leftist" positions.

The big problem is that politics is NOT linear. You're somewhere between the two extremes regarding "social engineering" and somewhere between the two extremes on "fiscal engineering". In addition, two folks equally high on the same scale could be pushing for different goals. E.G. Both your "Stereotypical Communist/Socialist Leftist" and your "modern Christo-fascist pro-Theocracy Rightist" will be very high on the "authoritative scale" socially, because they want to ban books they don't agree with and/of blocking teaching that they don't agree with. They're blocking different items for different reasons, but they're still using government to force their social views on others.

A pretty descent chart is:



It's a bit "off" because it's not really clear that "authoritarian" includes both the stereotypical "Leftist" and "Modern Christian-based" social engineering. Authoritarian also includes "passing fiscal laws to benefit my buddies" whether the folks are "left" or "right". Many folks here are in the Washington/Jefferson area, but given how far "The Right" has gone towards Christo-fascist, we're all seeming very "Leftist"

I still prefer the correct label "Classical Liberal" -- Hands-off fiscally and socially, but the label "Liberal" puts you in the upper left corner instead of the bottom-center where a small-L libertarian/Classic Liberal should be.

This graph:



Is a little more "on", but you have to imagine multiple axises (social/fiscal at the very least), replace left/right with authoritarian/liberal and realize that "Republicans", especially Tea-Party, Christo-fascists, etc. are way at the left side and no longer adherents to the correct term "Constitutional Republicanism".

Ray


----------



## fenderbender4 (Jun 1, 2014)

narad said:


> I can dismiss this theory with one word: rig-talk. Rig-talk seems super conservative, pro-guns, pro-objectifying women in advertisements, (from one of my 3 deals on Rig-talk) pro-racism, and of course, anti-Obama.
> 
> Now I don't know what the average age of each forum is, but if I had to guess I'd say...
> SSO: 18, with most vocal members being ~22-28.
> ...



Yeah, the "Rock n Rollers" who got old and don't want to admit they are now the "Get off my damn lawn!" guys.


----------



## 7stg (Jun 2, 2014)

here is mine


----------



## Dog Boy (Jun 7, 2014)

fenderbender4 said:


> Yeah, the "Rock n Rollers" who got old and don't want to admit they are now the "Get off my damn lawn!" guys.


 
+1

Had to leave that place. Pretty rotten bunch of guys.


----------



## fenderbender4 (Jun 8, 2014)

Okay, a little off topic, but needed to vent. I recently started a new job (about 3 weeks ago, weekend only doing some truck driving). There's a fellow driver I met about two weeks ago, just casual conversation. Now he's small town Minnesota and blue-collar job holder.

So I think he views us as buddies (having spoken to him once) and he starts talking to me last night. Some highlights of the illuminating conversation:

1. Obama is a Muslim
2. Obama is making himself King
3. The founding fathers were "superior men", George Washington could have made himself king, instead he "walked away from all that power"
4.Obamacare is the worse thing for this country
5. Women should not be allowed to vote
6. The Somalis are ruining our economy by getting married and inviting their fellow coworkers so things run a little slower due to a short staff
7. The principles that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are founded on, are due to the Mason's
8. The South Vietnaemese didn't want to fight for their freedom, they just cheated the US
9. Bowe Bergdahl is a coward and deserter and should be shot.
10. The local paper is a liberal propaganda machine
11. The recent jobs numbers are propaganda and a complete lie
12. His friend has a mail order bride
13. Kim Jong Un is a Chinese puppet
14. As a soldier "you DON'T ABANDON YOUR POST!" (don't think he's served).

It was like listening to my grandmother on Fox 'roids.


----------



## asher (Jun 8, 2014)

Full on wingnut.


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 9, 2014)

Explorer said:


> The education in science is the factor I'd say makes you lean left. Knowing about geology and biology, and therefore about two of the pillars of evidence which support evolution, makes most people turn away from the GOP and its embrace of superstition as a value.


 
Going back a few pages...

Yeah, in general, the far right tends to embrace religious ideology (superstition) over observable fact (hard science).

That being said, having degrees in psychology and anthropology (both social sciences that are also considered studies in humanities or "liberal arts") certainly does not make me sympathize with the far right either.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 9, 2014)

fenderbender4 said:


> So I think *he views us as buddies* (having spoken to him once) and he starts talking to me last night.



This is always the trigger for me to hear the most racist and vile sh1t form people who assume that our outward similarities in appearance mean that I'm just as racist and vile as them.


----------



## ferret (Jun 9, 2014)

fenderbender4 said:


> 7. The principles that the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are founded on, are due to the Mason's.



Strictly speaking... this one actually isn't that far from the mark. A hefty number of the founding fathers and those who signed the Declaration and Constitution were indeed Masons.

Whether that holds any real significance for you depends on how badly you cast Masons in a conspiracy light.


----------



## fenderbender4 (Jun 9, 2014)

ferret said:


> Strictly speaking... this one actually isn't that far from the mark. A hefty number of the founding fathers and those who signed the Declaration and Constitution were indeed Masons.
> 
> Whether that holds any real significance for you depends on how badly you cast Masons in a conspiracy light.



I realize that, but the Mason's weren't the originators of most of their ideas/beliefs, just an organization. It's more the case of like-minded individuals forming a group. A little semantic-ey. Basically his point was, no masons= no U.S.A. Sort of a half-truth, depending on one's perspective, and given the fact this guy said he was being groomed for the Masons, explains his perspective.


----------



## 7stg (Jun 9, 2014)

There may be some truths to what the guy said, but as it's said "If you pick a truth and follow it blindly. It becomes a falsehood, and you a fanatic" and that's his story.


----------



## fenderbender4 (Jun 13, 2014)

To answer the question though...I mean aren't we all working on our left-hand dexterity? 

Maybe it's the "evil frets of Stalin" that are secretly training my fingers and infiltrating my brain...NOOO!!! I knew it was weird when I asked for stainless steel frets and got stalinless steel.


----------



## asher (Jun 13, 2014)

fenderbender4 said:


> To answer the question though...I mean aren't we all working on our left-hand dexterity?
> 
> Maybe it's the "evil frets of Stalin" that are secretly training my fingers and infiltrating my brain...NOOO!!! I knew it was weird when I asked for stainless steel frets and got stalinless steel.



So is their composition of Lenin or Kruschev higher?


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm a centrist . Left-wing? right-wing? Two sides of the same coin. Just like how democratic procedures need to be democratically balanced (being not too democratic and not too undemocratic), the best political theory will be smack dab in the middle. Do I know the policies and the nature of the procedures that pertain to this "best political theory"? Absolutely not, but knowing what I've just told you helps. I may be able to start with a clean slate and come up with an axiomatic system with the main principles of democracy, but political philosophy isn't even my area and I'm busy as shit


----------



## Loomer (Oct 12, 2014)

Bumpin' becauses Socialism.

Most musicians are broke. Broke people rarely see the benefits of laissez faire capitalism.


----------



## DocBach (Oct 12, 2014)

I would describe my self as being pretty far left in a lot of ways, and pretty far right in others. Not even the libertarians would want me.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 13, 2014)

Since this got bumped, I'm going to point out that anyone who is willing to challenge popular sentiment on "a guitar should only have six strings!" means they don't just bow to authority because it's expected. 

Being willing to explore beyond the boundaries, and to embrace whatever evidence comes of such explorations, is the complete opposite of conservatism.

Since only 6% of scientists in the US are Republican, I think that SS.org has the same kind of dynamic going on.

(It's deeply ironic that one more cause of there being *less* people on the right is that people like Eric Christian decide that their religious and political viewpoints trump the SS.org rules, a weird contradiction because it's a rejection of the site's authority, but completely in line with all those current events where some on the right in the US are completely okay with pushing their beliefs on others, rules be damned.)


----------



## McKay (Oct 14, 2014)

I'm definitely not a conservative, but I'm also regularly irritated by the left's lack of reasoning skills and complete absence of perspective. Not a huge fan of capitalism, not a socialist. I think we need something new.



Explorer said:


> Since this got bumped, I'm going to point out that anyone who is willing to challenge popular sentiment on "a guitar should only have six strings!" means they don't just bow to authority because it's expected.
> 
> Being willing to explore beyond the boundaries, and to embrace whatever evidence comes of such explorations, is the complete opposite of conservatism.
> 
> ...



Being conservative doens't make you right wing, way to conflate the two there.

Here's the likely reason most scientists aren't Republican, title is tongue in cheek: Right Is The New Left | Slate Star Codex. In the past the norm was conservative and right wing, and people who want to question the world (scientists) will have found a great deal to be found by questioning that norm. They also want to differentiate themselves socially. The article goes into considerably more detail than this but the general finding is that the top echelons of academia are starting to shift to something else now.




> Fundies &#8211; in all of their Bible-beating gun-owning cousin-marrying stereotypicalness &#8211; have so far served as the Lower Class With Which One Must Not Allow One&#8217;s Self To Be Confused. But I think that&#8217;s changing. Sorting mechanisms are starting to work so well that, at the top, the fundies just aren&#8217;t plausible. In our model, people from class N can be confused with class N-1, but never with class N-2. But as the barber-pole movement of fashion creeps downward, fundies are starting to become two classes below certain people at the top, and those people no longer risk misidentification.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 14, 2014)

McKay said:


> In the past the norm was conservative and right wing,



Socially that may be true, but as far as economic policy goes that's not true at all (At least in America). Keynesian principals used to govern our economic policy, fairly high taxes, lots of public investments in infrastructure, heavily regulated banks and financial markets. Until those policies took the blame for the stagflation of the 1970's (which totally didn't have anything to do with the oil crisis) and those we're replaced with the right wing policies of Ronald Reagan which are pretty much objectively the causes of a lot of the economic and political problems we have today.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 15, 2014)

@McKay - So... the reason the US Republican Party has had numerous initiatives to oppose science (both research and publishing of studies which undermine Republican talking points) is because they don't want to differentiate themselves socially?

I have to say, in working on various US sites which were devoted to scientific and medical research, the driving force was normally curiosity and excitement about learning something new. 

I find your inversion of how nerds get tormented by jocks being a choice on the part of the nerds to be hilarious but wrong. 

Have you actually worked in the sciences because differentiating yourself socially was your goal? 

I clicked on the link, thinking it might have data to refute those polls and studies about those who work in science. I instaed found a piece by a conservative (self confessed in the piece IIRC). 

I'm sorry if I conflated both social and economic conservatism in the same way the Republican Party does. Once they change their own chosen definitions, I'm sure I'll be convinced that the current conflation is no longer the case.

----

Regarding economic conservatism, I noticed (when I got old enough) that there was a steady cycle of Republicans engaging in deficit spending and bad tax policies, ending in an economic crash, followed by a Democrat putting policies in effect which fixed it. That's why you had Jimmy Carter getting Nixon's leftovers and having to bite the bullet to fix things, Reagan moving to reverse those fixes, leaving Bush with a crash, Clinton fixing the Reagan crash and building a surplus, W spending the surplus and crashing the exonomy, and Obama having to fix things again. 

Since George Bush inherited Reagan's craptastic economic fallout, there's no doubt it came from Reagan. Reaganomics was a failure. 

Given that track record, I don't know if the Republicans actually engage in economic conservatism... unless your idea of being conservative economically means maxing out your credit cards and hoping that someone bails you out.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 15, 2014)

Back on topic... here's a link to that topic where guitar players who are conservative regarding the number of strings give crap to ERG players.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/236469-discriminated-number-strings-tunings-guitars.html

Using McKay's either/or of wanting to stand out, or not wanting to... doesn't that describe the ERG player's situation to a T?


----------



## McKay (Oct 15, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Socially that may be true, but as far as economic policy goes that's not true at all (At least in America). Keynesian principals used to govern our economic policy, fairly high taxes, lots of public investments in infrastructure, heavily regulated banks and financial markets. Until those policies took the blame for the stagflation of the 1970's (which totally didn't have anything to do with the oil crisis) and those we're replaced with the right wing policies of Ronald Reagan which are pretty much objectively the causes of a lot of the economic and political problems we have today.



Economically the left has been almost entirely wiped out in the west, at least the far left. For the worse really, it makes politics that much less interesting.



> I instaed found a piece by a conservative


 Then you didn't read it.



> So... the reason the US Republican Party has had numerous initiatives to oppose science (both research and publishing of studies which undermine Republican talking points) is because they don't want to differentiate themselves socially?


That has nothing to do with my point, you raised the issue of political alignment of the scientific community, not the initiatives of the Republican Party!



> I find your inversion of how nerds get tormented by jocks being a choice on the part of the nerds to be hilarious but wrong.


Excuse me? I made no such claim.



> Have you actually worked in the sciences because differentiating yourself socially was your goal?


It's pretty widely known that intellectuals, musicians, artists, scientists etc generally identify as being outside the norm, as part of an outgroup. It follows that they'll have an instinctive cynicism of whatever they perceive as the norm, which remains in most people's eyes conservate attitudes. Those at the top of the scientific and academic ladder are starting to realise that the cultural left now extends throughout society stopping just short of a few outliers, and are beginning to seek alternate perspectives in the interest of challenging the consensus. You know, one of the basic tenets of scientific thought.

That doesn't necessarily translate to conservatism but does translate to a rejection of modern cultural orthodoxy. That's a key point of that essay, which is why if you actually read it you would never call the author a conservative. He specifically states that he isn't one and finds conservatism backwards and immoral. The whole point here is that the left don't seem to have realised that their views are now mainstream. Intelligent people like to question the mainstream whatever it is, they recognise the value in challenging established ideas, so there's a shift away from modern leftism starting to happen. That is the diametric opposite of conservatism.


----------



## McKay (Oct 15, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Back on topic... here's a link to that topic where guitar players who are conservative regarding the number of strings give crap to ERG players.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/236469-discriminated-number-strings-tunings-guitars.html
> 
> Using McKay's either/or of wanting to stand out, or not wanting to... doesn't that describe the ERG player's situation to a T?



It's not a bad comparison. Especially since ERG guitars are becoming mainstream and people are starting to move away from them because it's what everyone seems (_seems_) to be doing.


----------



## asher (Oct 15, 2014)

There is, in fact, a fairly significant number of economists who have been pretty spot on since how things actually go, especially since 2008 (but well before that too). The MSM gives them no press whatsoever because they're not the Very Serious People in the Beltway and not the Reaganesque supply side freshwater gurus, and most of the right isn't actually engaged in a good-faith debate because everything always boils down to cutting spending via benefits and safety nets and lowering taxes.


----------



## estabon37 (Oct 18, 2014)

McKay said:


> It's not a bad comparison. Especially since ERG guitars are becoming mainstream and people are starting to move away from them because it's what everyone seems (_seems_) to be doing.



See, this is why I've differentiated myself by starting to play no-string guitars. It's really improved my playing - I haven't played an incorrect note in weeks.



asher said:


> There is, in fact, a fairly significant number of economists who have been pretty spot on since how things actually go, especially since 2008 (but well before that too). The MSM gives them no press whatsoever because they're not the Very Serious People in the Beltway and not the Reaganesque supply side freshwater gurus, and most of the right isn't actually engaged in a good-faith debate because everything always boils down to cutting spending via benefits and safety nets and lowering taxes.



Hey, now that asher has brought up economics, I'm going to ask dumb questions because economics is really my weakest point in engaging with these issues. 

Is there really a "way things actually are" in economics, and all sides of politics kind of ignore it in favour of their idealised versions of economics? Earlier in the year Piketty's _Capital in the Twenty Firest Century_ seemed to make waves around my uni campus (where all the lefties hang out), then I saw it show up on Colbert Report (the leftie in disguise), and then it just seemed to fall off the radar. Admittedly, my radar has been full of other things, so maybe I just wasn't looking in the right places. Either way, I don't remember it really being brought up here, and conservatives seem to think it's a 'leftie' book based on its conclusion that we have to do something about wealth inequality. Whether or not Piketty has 'got it right', it there a right 'it' to get?

I realise that most things are essentially political, but what little I've seen on economics recently seems to be about 'ideologising' authors and theories, which isn't really about the politics so much as it's about forcing everybody to take sides. I've always thought that, like science, economics is at least theoretically neutral, and that once a major study is complete and consensus is more or less reached, the next logical step is to act on the problems. Instead, it seems that the only material that gains the attention of public office are the studies that reach the conclusions those offices have already drawn; the worst and potentially most destructive example of confirmation bias that exists.

So. Is my economic ignorance making me see things in a light that doesn't accurately reveal the current circumstances, or has the field of economics been hijacked by the left and right alike?


----------



## will_shred (Oct 22, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> See, this is why I've differentiated myself by starting to play no-string guitars. It's really improved my playing - I haven't played an incorrect note in weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love economics, I think I can answer your questions. 

It's kind of yes and no. There are some inherit facts about economics, and there are some gray areas, and there are some philosophical quandaries that don't really have an answer. However, a huge problem in the US (mostly the house of representatives) is that the basic facts of economics have been turned into partisan issues by politicians that either genuinely are ignorant of how the economy works (see Rand Paul or Michelle Bachmann), or are in the pocket of very wealthy interests who want to protect their ability to shaft the working man (see Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz), or they themselves ARE the ones trying to shaft the workers (see Mitt Romney, Rick Scott, Scott Walker). One fact is, that income inequality is bad for everyone. It's not a partisan issue (despite what the mainstream media would have you believe), its a people issue. When the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the middle class become working poor. Its bad for everyone. The economy is dependent on spending, when you have a HUGE section of the population that doesn't have any extra money to spend, and a very small portion of the economy that has more money than they could ever possibly spend, spending as a whole slows. Which means businesses make less money, which means less hiring, which means less spending, it's a viscous cycle (also, when more people have less money, it means less tax revenue, and more people needing to utilize the social safety net which means less money for government investment which further hurts the economy). The right wing has also been pushing this really bizarre idea that _we exist to serve the economy_. Forgetting the point that the economy as a whole isn't just this ambiguous thing that we need to keep happy. The economy is the result of the finances of hundreds of millions of individual people. So, what's good for the people IS good for the economy. Another great example of a non-partisan issue that's been hijacked by the right wing is the minimum wage. When you have Walmart as one of the nations largest employers, you have lots of Walmart workers who are adults with families who qualify for food stamps (and often take them, because it's better than starving). The best welfare program is a job, however if that job doesn't pay enough to live off of than it's pretty much just symbolic. When you pay people a fair minimum wage, they have more disposable income to spend. One guy with an annual income of $2,000,000,000 cannot possibly generate more economic activity than say 25,000 people making $80,000 per year. As Nick Hanuar (Networth of about 2 billion) said, "People like me have thousands of times more money than the average American. However, we do not buy thousands of times more stuff" 

Another point of economics that's really not up for debate, but the right wing seems to have hijacked in the national conversation is deficit spending. When you spend $100,000,000 on say Tomahawk cruise missiles, those missiles will be launched and destroyed. The money is never seen again. Lets say you take that $100,000,000 and use it to build schools, or roads, or hospitals, or put it in NASA, or use it to send people to college for free. These actions produce lasting wealth for the nation, and usually produce a positive return on investment. Lets say you spend $20,000 sending someone to college for free and they get a job that pays $80,000 per year instead of $20,000 per year if they had not gone to college. Over that individuals tax paying lifetime, they will have more than generated the $20,000 in taxes that the government spent to send him to college, so the government (or, we the people) see a profit on that investment. This is basic economics and most developed nations have policies that reflect those principals. Germany just abolished their student tuition, because they know that having a highly educated work force keeps them competitive on an international level.


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 22, 2014)

will_shred said:


> I love economics, I think I can answer your questions.
> 
> It's kind of yes and no. There are some inherit facts about economics, and there are some gray areas, and there are some philosophical quandaries that don't really have an answer. However, a huge problem in the US (mostly the house of representatives) is that these basic facts of economics have been turned into partisan issues by politicians that either genuinely are ignorant of how the economy works (see Rand Paul or Michelle Bachmann), or are in the pocket of very wealthy interests who want to protect their ability to shaft the working man (see Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz), or they themselves ARE the ones trying to shaft the workers (see Mitt Romney, Rick Scott, Scott Walker). One fact is, that income inequality is bad for everyone. It's not a partisan issue (despite what the mainstream media would have you believe), its a people issue. When the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the middle class become working poor. Its bad for everyone. The economy is dependent on spending, when you have a HUGE section of the population that doesn't have any extra money to spend, and a very small portion of the economy that has more money than they could ever possibly spend, spending as a whole slows. Which means businesses make less money, which means less hiring, which means less spending, it's a viscous cycle (also, when more people have less money, it means less tax revenue, and more people needing to utilize the social safety net which means less money for government investment which further hurts the economy). The right wing has also been pushing this really bizarre idea that _we exist to serve the economy_. Forgetting the point that the economy as a whole isn't just this ambiguous thing that we need to keep happy. The economy is the result of the finances of hundreds of millions of individual people. So, what's good for the people IS good for the economy. Another great example of a non-partisan issue that's been hijacked by the right wing is the minimum wage. When you have Walmart as one of the nations largest employers, you have lots of Walmart workers who are adults with families who qualify for food stamps (and often take them, because it's better than starving). The best welfare program is a job, however if that job doesn't pay enough to live off of than it's pretty much just symbolic. When you pay people a fair minimum wage, they have more disposable income to spend. One guy with an annual income of $2,000,000,000 cannot possibly generate more economic activity than say 25,000 people making $80,000 per year. As Nick Hanuar (Networth of about 2 billion) said, "People like me have thousands of times more money than the average American. However, we do not buy thousands of times more stuff"
> 
> Another point of economics that's really not up for debate, but the right wing seems to have hijacked in the national conversation is deficit spending. When you spend $100,000,000 on say Tomahawk cruise missiles, those missiles will be launched and destroyed. The money is never seen again. Lets say you take that $100,000,000 and use it to build schools, or roads, or hospitals, or put it in NASA, or use it to send people to college for free. These actions produce lasting wealth for the nation, and usually produce a positive return on investment. Lets say you spend $20,000 sending someone to college for free and they get a job that pays $80,000 per year instead of $20,000 per year if they had not gone to college. Over that individuals tax paying lifetime, they will have more than generated the $20,000 in taxes that the government spent to send him to college, so the government (or, we the people) see a profit on that investment. This is basic economics and most developed nations have policies that reflect those principals. Germany just abolished their student tuition, because they know that having a highly educated work force keeps them competitive on an international level.


 
Very well said!


----------



## StrongEverything (Oct 24, 2014)

I wish there were more conservative metalheads in my area. I've gotten kicked out of bands due to my right-wing views. Not fair.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Oct 24, 2014)

StrongEverything said:


> I wish there were more conservative metalheads in my area. I've gotten kicked out of bands due to my right-wing views. Not fair.



My bassist and I have damn near come to blows over gun law debates (I lean left on this, being from UK). Made for some awkward moments at practice for everyone lol. But he's a good player and i'm a good (enough) player, and we both respect that. And now we get along quite well actually. It's uncanny really.


----------



## StrongEverything (Oct 24, 2014)

VBCheeseGrater said:


> My bassist and I have damn near come to blows over gun law debates (I lean left on this, being from UK). Made for some awkward moments at practice for everyone lol. But he's a good player and i'm a good (enough) player, and we both respect that. And now we get along quite well actually. It's uncanny really.



You gut lucky then.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 24, 2014)

VBCheeseGrater said:


> My bassist and I have damn near come to blows over gun law debates (I lean left on this, being from UK).



I'm hugely curious about one thing...

Who would bring up the subject Was it generally just one of you?


----------



## McKay (Oct 25, 2014)

will_shred said:


> When you spend $100,000,000 on say Tomahawk cruise missiles, those missiles will be launched and destroyed. The money is never seen again. Lets say you take that $100,000,000 and use it to build schools, or roads, or hospitals, or put it in NASA, or use it to send people to college for free. These actions produce lasting wealth for the nation, and usually produce a positive return on investment. Lets say you spend $20,000 sending someone to college for free and they get a job that pays $80,000 per year instead of $20,000 per year if they had not gone to college. Over that individuals tax paying lifetime, they will have more than generated the $20,000 in taxes that the government spent to send him to college, so the government (or, we the people) see a profit on that investment. This is basic economics and most developed nations have policies that reflect those principals. Germany just abolished their student tuition, because they know that having a highly educated work force keeps them competitive on an international level.



To be fair, spending on defense does subsidise the high tech industrial base, so it's not all bad. Better to fund it directly maybe but technology needs a use. Hence why going into space should be our main national priority.


----------



## McKay (Oct 25, 2014)

VBCheeseGrater said:


> My bassist and I have damn near come to blows over gun law debates (I lean left on this, being from UK). Made for some awkward moments at practice for everyone lol. But he's a good player and i'm a good (enough) player, and we both respect that. And now we get along quite well actually. It's uncanny really.



One of you must be insufferable if you nearly came to blows with a bandmate over politics!


----------



## will_shred (Oct 25, 2014)

McKay said:


> To be fair, spending on defense does subsidise the high tech industrial base, so it's not all bad. Better to fund it directly maybe but technology needs a use. Hence why going into space should be our main national priority.



Of course, spending on defense does do something. Obviously if you want to be on the cutting edge of military, you need new technology, and people to manufacture the weapons. However it's a really inefficient model when you can invest money into technology that _ isn't designed to kill people_, and doesn't really produce any lasting wealth or benefit for everyone outside of our national ability to .... shit up. Like medicine, or renewable energy, or space travel. 

Inb4 space travel doesn't matter.


----------

