corroded:
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

-3.5 moral order -0.5 moral rules

I am JFK and Ghandi :\

Ex_ery:
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

Ghandi is apparently my homeboy.

.

Shadow-Knight:
(-3,-2)
I'm fairly close to Gandhi, is that a good or bad thing?

What is up with everyone getting Ghandi? (Myself included)

ObnoxiousTwat:
What is up with everyone getting Ghandi? (Myself included)

He was made of awesome?

This system only works of the entire world opts in.

Marxism is NOT a good idea.
People are very fond of saying, "It would be a good idea, but..."

First, if it was, it would work -- which it doesn't.
Second, it doesn't make sense. Why should a doctor who is curing cancer make the same as the guy who rents you a DVD at block buster? Who's doing more for society?
Third, the notion, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is flawed. Who determines your needs and abilities? If I determine them myself, then you bet your ass I'll make sure I have no abilities and that I have the greatest need.
Does the government assess these needs/abilities? How does on earth could a bureaucracy possibly assess the needs and abilities of a large population, like in the States (300 million people!).

My recommendation to our Marxists is to read 1984.
Great lesson in big, all powerful government taking care of the needs of the little guys.

Edit:
An interesting trend:
I would say 7/10 people have negative values for economics.
But so far every single one of us has had negative values for social issues.

Uszi:
Marxism is NOT a good idea.
People are very fond of saying, "It would be a good idea, but..."

First, if it was, it would work -- which it doesn't.
Second, it doesn't make sense. Why should a doctor who is curing cancer make the same as the guy who rents you a DVD at block buster? Who's doing more for society?
Third, the notion, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is flawed. Who determines your needs and abilities? If I determine them myself, then you bet your ass I'll make sure I have no abilities and that I have the greatest need.
Does the government assess these needs/abilities? How does on earth could a bureaucracy possibly assess the needs and abilities of a large population, like in the States (300 million people!).

My recommendation to our Marxists is to read 1984.
Great lesson in big, all powerful government taking care of the needs of the little guys.

Edit:
An interesting trend:
I would say 7/10 people have negative values for economics.
But so far every single one of us has had negative values for social issues.

Big all powerful govt? If you read my posts, you'll know i want NO govt, no one has any auhtority at all. As for earnings, no one earns anything at all.
However, at the moment wages are unfair anyway. Why the hell does the person who makes tv shows get paid so much more htan hte guy who cleans up your crap in toilets? THat makes no snse ot me.

TheDean:
SNIP
However, at the moment wages are unfair anyway. Why the hell does the person who makes tv shows get paid so much more htan hte guy who cleans up your crap in toilets? THat makes no snse ot me.

Under capitalism a person earns as much money as the person hiring her - the person whose wealth will pay her wages - will pay and as little as she will accept. What could possibly be more fair than that?

There are huge numbers of people who can acceptably clean my toilet; there are far fewer people who can make my television show a success and thereby earn me even more money. As with everything, wages are a function of perceived usefulness AND scarcity of suitable people. Thus highly successful actors (both relatively scarce and extremely useful in earning more money) earn a great deal of money whilst less successful actors, who have not yet demonstrated an ability to bring in income, clean toilets and serve tables (preferably not in that order.) This is extremely fair and motivates people to learn marketable job skills and work hard rather than partying and playing video games all day.

werepossum:

TheDean:
SNIP
However, at the moment wages are unfair anyway. Why the hell does the person who makes tv shows get paid so much more htan hte guy who cleans up your crap in toilets? THat makes no snse ot me.

Under capitalism a person earns as much money as the person hiring her - the person whose wealth will pay her wages - will pay and as little as she will accept. What could possibly be more fair than that?

There are huge numbers of people who can acceptably clean my toilet; there are far fewer people who can make my television show a success and thereby earn me even more money. As with everything, wages are a function of perceived usefulness AND scarcity of suitable people. Thus highly successful actors (both relatively scarce and extremely useful in earning more money) earn a great deal of money whilst less successful actors, who have not yet demonstrated an ability to bring in income, clean toilets and serve tables (preferably not in that order.) This is extremely fair and motivates people to learn marketable job skills and work hard rather than partying and playing video games all day.

my point there was those doing hard unpleasant jobs should be paid more than ppl with easy jobs.

TheDean:

my point there was those doing hard unpleasant jobs should be paid more than ppl with easy jobs.

According to your bizarre morality, they should be paid more, but according to how every sensible economic system works (ie. based on facts and not delusions), they cannot be paid more. It goes against every single fiber of common sense built into a person to say that discomfort is the standard on which you place value, not inherent usefulness or even the capitalist idea of supply and demand.

Since all attempts prior have failed hard, I will try to convince you once more of the error of your ways.

Imagine you're a business owner (Lawdy no! You've somehow gotten a hold of some money and authority!). Your business employs a janitors and movie stars alike. Now, the janitors are for the most part untrained (college degrees optional for cleaning urinals), and that lack of specialization is reflected in their pay, which (pun very intended) is piss-poor. However, the movie stars on the other hand are a unique commodity. Not everyone can act to the degree that they become profitable, and even then, it requires a hefty bit of training and experience. Therefore, on the scale of supply, the janitors rank pretty high, whereas there's not so many movie stars to be had, thus we get the first part of our pay equation.

Second, due to the scarce supply, people start who want to get at those movie star's you got signed away to various projects. Whereas your janitors toil away in anonymity. The large supply of unskilled laborers cuts down on the demand for them, thus, you can't afford to compete with other businesses and pay them the mystical wages your system calls for. Do the janitors' jobs suck? Yeah. Does that mean we should pay them more? Of course not, only a dolt would posit that.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a capitalist society. Trying to cling to your ridiculous views wont help you and it sure as hell wont harm those with that dreaded thing you call authority. Claiming that discomfort should be the standard of all value is something so incredibly foolish that nerdrage can no longer accurately describe what I'm feeling.

TheDean:
This system only works of the entire world opts in.

Once more, your naivete shines through the internet like a glorious ray from above. You want a system that works when the whole world agrees? Odds are, you'll end up having to kill or segregate everyone who doesn't agree with you (uh-oh, someone's gonna need to use authority!). We can't get everyone to agree even in small groups (NOTE: This is why democracy fails so often, which is also why we need a group with some authority), so what bizarre train of thought must you take to arrive at the conclusion that your system has any merit at all? I'd love to live in a world filled with unicorns, hobbits, and elves, maybe just as much as you want everyone to get along. However, neither of our delusions are going to amount to anything. We both dream of a wonderful world cast out of our reach. The difference is, however, I wouldn't base economics on hobbits and unicorns.

Will all the lunatic capitalists learn some fucking manners and stop using innappropriate sarcasm. THAT IS MY UNDESIRABLE TRAIT!!! MINE!!!

Will all the lunatic communists please accept that, alas, even if communism could work, it would be destroyed by greedy, malevolent people like me.

And as I said, living at either extreme is going to be damned unpleasant. Unregulated capitalism- if your a worker, then you either form a union or get screwed. (Social Darwinists agree- if monopoly is permited, so is combination. And frankly, if your going to be screwed, your going to resort to combination. AND GOOD ON YOU! Capitalists frequently overlook the fact that labourers have the right to protect themselves,ensure standards of trade and so on as much as capitalists have the right to shit on them from a high.)

And as for the command economy- like the man said: 1984.

SO WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING TO ME!? AM I INVISIBLE, OR JUST TALKING ARSE?(Doubted)

And Galt- The Dean has a point. Discomfort, and more to the point, danger, are always going to drive up wages. That is why bomb disposal techs, oil-rig workers and other persons in dangerous trades will get better pay.

Fondant:

And Galt- The Dean has a point. Discomfort, and more to the point, danger, are always going to drive up wages. That is why bomb disposal techs, oil-rig workers and other persons in dangerous trades will get better pay.

Yes, but we can't just give someone a nice salary because they're job is dirty. All those professions you listed contribute quite a bit to society, janitors and people who rent us videos, not so much.

I'm all for keeping workers safe, but I don't think that just because someone's job is unpleasant(I never said anything about dangerous, just discomfort).

Despite calling him a dolt and what have you, you never actually told him _why_ he was a dolt. You just seem to have used phrases such as "only a dolt would say that", "of course not", etc. What's going on with that?

I got

-4.12
-3.74

Which puts me in the lower left quadrant in between anarchy and communism. But not especially far from center. It puts me with the Dalai Lama and completely opposite George W. Bush.

Unpleasant-no. Dangerous- yes. Partly because of supply and demand, but also because we appreciate that something more than greed will motivate these people- i.e You can't spend money when you're dead.

And the Rand economy is funny. Stupid, but funny. Like Marx, only without the splendid propaganda, Lenin, heavy tanks, state control, Lenin and other coolness.

RabidPotatoe:
Despite calling him a dolt and what have you, you never actually told him _why_ he was a dolt. You just seem to have used phrases such as "only a dolt would say that", "of course not", etc. What's going on with that?

I repeatedly explained his doltishness. I used the rage-filled example to tell him why a system in which those with easy jobs are paid less than those with hard jobs wouldn't work if difficulty was all he was basing value on.

TheDean:

my point there was those doing hard unpleasant jobs should be paid more than ppl with easy jobs.

As you can see, discomfort is the only thing he references. He never specifies whether or not he places the person's contribution to society as a value-adding process or not. Frankly, in his earlier example, I think someone who makes television programs contributes a whole lot more to our culture than a janitor.

Labyrinth:

ObnoxiousTwat:
What is up with everyone getting Ghandi? (Myself included)

He was made of awesome?

He was also a rabid racist towards Blacks though...

I dunno about that. If we were all in a situation where we had perfectly rational consumers, then I would calculate that people like TV stars and other froth would be paid much less. Miners and so on would get more, nurses would get more and in general life would be somewhat cooler.

However, we'd have to remove people's emotions first. And that would make sex rather dull.

Fondant:
I dunno about that. If we were all in a situation where we had perfectly rational consumers, then I would calculate that people like TV stars and other froth would be paid much less. Miners and so on would get more, nurses would get more and in general life would be somewhat cooler.

However, we'd have to remove people's emotions first. And that would make sex rather dull.

Again, a completely rational society is a utopia. Anytime in politics where we take out human fallibility, then we leave the realm of worthwhile discussion. That's the primary reason my nerdrage was so hard to bottle. There's no point in making a social system if you've got to fundamentally change human nature to do it. That's like editing the code for a game so you get to redefine what victory means.

I repeatedly explained his doltishness.

You did seem to describe supply/demand, but you never said what made him a thicko for having said what he did.

RabidPotatoe:

I repeatedly explained his doltishness.

You did seem to describe supply/demand, but you never said what made him a thicko for having said what he did.

I see I may have overlooked that in my rant. Alrighty then, once more...with feeling!

In my opinion, assigning value to an object by using what its purchaser is willing to pay (the closest we can get to a utilitarian-based system without going "crazy price regulation") is a much better method than how much work or discomfort was required in its creation. If we used a labor-based system, then we'd eventually begin to focus on how annoying it is to do or produce something rather than what use it has. Anyone can pour hours of work into one poorly made cup, but the only group deserving of reward is whomever can produce said cup in a way that benefits both the producer and consumer. Since I think we can all agree that the purpose of any economy is to make people happy, then you must concede that basing a system on labor put into a product would be a less direct route to a goal we can easily get if there is no standard besides what the consumer thinks is appropriate.

How is a completely rational society a utopia?

If one day, for example, the entirity of humanity woke up and acted on a purely rational basis, thenit would become very unpleasant.

For starters:
A lot of luxury goods and service providers would close down.
The entire advertising industry would crumble (rational consumers are not going to make a choice based on advertising)
We would have no Ferrari's, Lambourghini or any other luxury automobiles (for they fulfil no rational purpose)
And a lot of other things would go the crapper at that.

Platonic, rational societies are nicely satirised in Gulliver's travels, in that Lemuel Gulliver wants to be a part of it, but the problem is that his attraction to a perfectly rational society is is based on irrational, emotive reasoning.

And also, if we were to achieve rationalty, then we would have to kill people's emotions. And if you so much as try that, I'll burn you with a flamethrower.

John Galt:

TheDean:

my point there was those doing hard unpleasant jobs should be paid more than ppl with easy jobs.

According to your bizarre morality, they should be paid more, but according to how every sensible economic system works (ie. based on facts and not delusions), they cannot be paid more. It goes against every single fiber of common sense built into a person to say that discomfort is the standard on which you place value, not inherent usefulness or even the capitalist idea of supply and demand.

Since all attempts prior have failed hard, I will try to convince you once more of the error of your ways.

Imagine you're a business owner (Lawdy no! You've somehow gotten a hold of some money and authority!). Your business employs a janitors and movie stars alike. Now, the janitors are for the most part untrained (college degrees optional for cleaning urinals), and that lack of specialization is reflected in their pay, which (pun very intended) is piss-poor. However, the movie stars on the other hand are a unique commodity. Not everyone can act to the degree that they become profitable, and even then, it requires a hefty bit of training and experience. Therefore, on the scale of supply, the janitors rank pretty high, whereas there's not so many movie stars to be had, thus we get the first part of our pay equation.

Second, due to the scarce supply, people start who want to get at those movie star's you got signed away to various projects. Whereas your janitors toil away in anonymity. The large supply of unskilled laborers cuts down on the demand for them, thus, you can't afford to compete with other businesses and pay them the mystical wages your system calls for. Do the janitors' jobs suck? Yeah. Does that mean we should pay them more? Of course not, only a dolt would posit that.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a capitalist society. Trying to cling to your ridiculous views wont help you and it sure as hell wont harm those with that dreaded thing you call authority. Claiming that discomfort should be the standard of all value is something so incredibly foolish that nerdrage can no longer accurately describe what I'm feeling.

TheDean:
This system only works of the entire world opts in.

Once more, your naivete shines through the internet like a glorious ray from above. You want a system that works when the whole world agrees? Odds are, you'll end up having to kill or segregate everyone who doesn't agree with you (uh-oh, someone's gonna need to use authority!). We can't get everyone to agree even in small groups (NOTE: This is why democracy fails so often, which is also why we need a group with some authority), so what bizarre train of thought must you take to arrive at the conclusion that your system has any merit at all? I'd love to live in a world filled with unicorns, hobbits, and elves, maybe just as much as you want everyone to get along. However, neither of our delusions are going to amount to anything. We both dream of a wonderful world cast out of our reach. The difference is, however, I wouldn't base economics on hobbits and unicorns.

I won't get ofended, becausei never get offended, but i could chose to take ofense at your thought about unicorns and hobbits- please keep sarcastic comments like that for religion threads!
Anyhoo, no i would not need to use authority. How would the system come about? I have no udea. Perhaps reach an agreement with othre countries i don't know htat's not what i'm talking about. I'm discussing the end result.
THe system would work because everyone would have to co-operate. If you want food and a house and what-not, do some work in return. It works on the basis that we all have morals and want to "play fair". That is not to say tht if you don't work you can't still have food, but that's not the point.
And yes, i'm naive.

Edit: as for pay, i still say it iunfair. Movie stars have it easy, so they get less pay. The poor guy who has to clean up excrememnt and omit is doing somehting unpleaseant- he deserves to be paid more for doing this job.

For fuck's sake. 1984 was -not- anti-communist. It was anti-authoritarian, and a statement of social conscience. Orwell hated totalitarianism and social injustice more than anything. To quote the man himself "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

I am dead on Ghandi... Yay for communism

Fondant:

The entire advertising industry would crumble (rational consumers are not going to make a choice based on advertising)
We would have no Ferrari's, Lambourghini or any other luxury automobiles (for they fulfil no rational purpose)

1. A rational society would still need advertising as how can you find out about new products other than showing them to people?

2. Luxury automobiles would still have a purpose in a rational society as a truly rational society would realise that feelings actually play a massive part in humanity so the fact that the exhaust note of an enzo at full revs gives you shivvers and makes you appreciate life is very rational.

Don't try and explain it away with a basic star trek doctor spock style emotions are not rational.

By the way, with Asia's market currently spiralling downwards, I'd like to take this opportunity to say I fucking called it.

Ooops. Daddy just got shot with his wife's pistol by their four year old son who was playing 'cowboys' and 'indians'.

This kind of thing wouldn't happen if she protected herself with a Tazer.

I really don't mind if Daddy owns a scoped sniper rifle to someday overthrow a hostile US government as long as it is registered. After all, I can't see how a small child is going to pick it up, let alone hurt anything with it.

Werepossum - please respond to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said...

Good job I didn't try to discuss my views on abortion, Labyrinth.

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

Werepossum and Galt are going to have a field day...

I took this around this time last year, and then again a few days ago... as I recall, I was somewhere around -4.2, -4. And then I realized that green-square people (as me and my other poli sci friends know ourselves) are rabid anarchists and socialists, and... well, that's just not me.

I'm AGAINST gun control, I'm PRO-choice, and I'm PRO-gay rights, but AGAINST building a wall on the southern border of the US and AGAINST the bailout on Wall St. This has been shaped by 18 years in living in a town of 11,000 surrounded by farms, dairies, and illegal immigrants. I may feel the way the compass says I do but I'm not for socialism and I'm most definitely against anarchy...

A truly rational society would realise that spending US$500,000 on a luxury automobile, or US$200 on a camera phone, or so on is truly stupid. I should know- I have. Emotions are regarded as the antithesis of rationallity for a good reason- They are. They are

@Labyrinth- I appreciate the fact (any blind fool can see it's anti-totalitarian in general- if Nazi Germany had survived WW2 then he would have set it in a Nazi-dominated Britain instead of a communist-dominated one-he just saw extreme communism as the most likely (as it survived, wheras facism did not) that Orwell was not inherently anti-socialist- hell, the man fought for the International Brigades against Franco, for christ's sakes.
The problem is that societies that concentrate too much power inthe hands of the state are inherently vulnerable to 1984- style scenarios.

@Werepossum- the citezens of the US are not in a position to overthrownthere government by main force. All the AR-15s, M1911A1s, Magnums and small arms aren't worth shite against an enemy in possession of tanks, heavy artillery, trained infantry and air support.

And The Dean- you have a point- if nobody plays fair, then no society can function- being rich is pointless if I can kill or steal from you with impunity. THAT IS THE FLAW INCAPITALIT ARGUMENTS- THEY ARGUE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO AS THEY LIKE, ASIDE FROM STEALING FROM THEM.

But I can't see communism working. And I'd oppose it if you tried- why?

Because,it's like I said: Living in extreme forms of society is unpleasant, dangerous and often grossly inefficent.