Imitation Saccharin :

werepossum:

No, but thank you for asking.

You know, until she was selected as a candidate for veep the Dems held her up as an example of a good Republican for her work in stopping the Bridge to Nowhere.

I'm not a Dem, so I fail to see how that holds any relevance.

But to the point, what exactly happened to that Bridge money?

My point was that Palin, like McCain, was considered (by the Democrats and by their media wing) to be a wonderful person when she was fighting fellow Republicans and big oil. But when they potentially stand in the way of the Messiah's Ascension, they become spawn of the devil. (Speaking of which, am I the only one creeped out by organized school children singing hymns to Obama a la "Dear Leader"?)

I believe earmark money defaults to the state if turned down, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I believe the Bridge to Nowhere was pretty mild graft by earmark standards. A lot of those earmarks are just senators and representatives sending tax money to family members, which is ethically acceptable as long as the family member is not the sole beneficiary. In other words, it would be unethical to give your son $1,000,000 in tax money. But it's perfectly okay to give $10,000,000 to a company of which he owns 50%. Ain't ethics great?

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49
i remember taking this test 3 years ago and i was econ left/right: 0 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: .51. i guess my opinions have changed.

i think the food and drug administration (people in america who make sure we dont get too much fecal matter in the produce department or heart exploding ibprofen) should have agents licensed (and trained) to kill. they should have their investigations funded slightly more than the average war and they should get all the hardware. because beleive it or not the concept for the umbrella corporation was (very very very very) loosely based on a real company(in the same way that vampire legends come from that guy who liked to impale people) but without the whole zombie thing or all the morals. i personally think someone should stop people from feeding beef to cows, and making lethal cough medicine and genetically modified corn that devours souls. oh, and shitting on our spinach. thats just gross.

oh yes, lets all do what were best at. so... what if it turns out i would be really really good at killing people stealthily, but am "not a team player"? does that mean i get to be an assassin, and in fact HAVE to be an assassin? what if it turns out im a good bank robber, does that mean i HAVE to rob banks? that seems like it would help soceity a LOT. if people dont always do what they are best at they might have multiple talents and cross discipline knoledge, which can be quite useful in a variety of situations, perhaps the engineer designing the nuclear power plant might realize from his mindfuckingly dull nuclear physicist days before his midlife crisis "holy shit, this design is like ASKING for a meltdown, we need to start over" saving hundreds/thousands/millions of lives. or perhaps the game designer might be looking at instructions from a foreign office and realize from his days as a translator "wait... this was all direct literal translation, and if i go backwards here it could mean any one of a thousand different things!" and what happens to the professional athlete when they break a leg, lose a leg, or just get too old? are they melted down and used to feed the rest of us?

werepossum:

Imitation Saccharin :

werepossum:

No, but thank you for asking.

You know, until she was selected as a candidate for veep the Dems held her up as an example of a good Republican for her work in stopping the Bridge to Nowhere.

I'm not a Dem, so I fail to see how that holds any relevance.

But to the point, what exactly happened to that Bridge money?

My point was that Palin, like McCain, was considered (by the Democrats and by their media wing) to be a wonderful person when she was fighting fellow Republicans and big oil. But when they potentially stand in the way of the Messiah's Ascension, they become spawn of the devil. (Speaking of which, am I the only one creeped out by organized school children singing hymns to Obama a la "Dear Leader"?)

I believe earmark money defaults to the state if turned down, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I believe the Bridge to Nowhere was pretty mild graft by earmark standards. A lot of those earmarks are just senators and representatives sending tax money to family members, which is ethically acceptable as long as the family member is not the sole beneficiary. In other words, it would be unethical to give your son $1,000,000 in tax money. But it's perfectly okay to give $10,000,000 to a company of which he owns 50%. Ain't ethics great?

ill give you a hint at why dems no longer like her. when she became the vp nominee all of her past came out like with any other politician but hers was a little more creepy.

#1 she was a member of an organization that wants Alaska to secede(her husband still is if I'm correct)

#2 that whole make rape victims pay for their rape kits statement.

#3 that time she got an exorcism

#4 you want to know what she means when she says she fought oil. shes referring to a pipeline they wanted to run across the boarder in Canada she wanted it to stay in the US. that's it that's her heroic crusade against oil. O and that bridge to nowhere she took the money from the project after it was canceled. for gods sake the entire state of Alaska is run by oil company's where do you think most of the campaign contributions come from?

werepossum:

But when they potentially stand in the way of the Messiah's Ascension, they become spawn of the devil.

Or it could be the campaigns have become a disgusting and vicious smear war.

werepossum:

(Speaking of which, am I the only one creeped out by organized school children singing hymns to Obama a la "Dear Leader"?)

Probably.

werepossum:

I believe earmark money defaults to the state if turned down, but I could be wrong.

So your saying Palin kept the money?

werepossum:

Ain't ethics great?

It's not my screwy system, so sure why not.

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

That makes me a moderately anarcho-syndicalistic atheist someway South of The Dalai Lama.

A fascinating quiz with some difficult questions.

-EDIT-

I have just got around to doing the other one:

-3.5 on Moral Order - so I am immoral?
1 on Moral Rules - so I am slightly pro Governance?

System: Socialism. Ideology: Social Democratism. Party: Democratic Party - that is weird, as I am voting Conservative in the next UK election
Jimmy Carter, Ralph Nader, Barrack Obama - I was expecting it would say David Cobb of the Green Party

7% of 487,555 Facebook respondents are close to me.

I have to say that this second test is an inaccurate portrayal of my views.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

Just about near Nelson Mandela. I can cope with that.

Your scored -4 on Moral Order and 3.5 on Moral Rules. A Socialist. Close to Shivari, but a little more authoritative.

black lincon:
[quote=werepossum post=18.73417.798161][quote=Imitation Saccharin post=18.73417.798108]
ill give you a hint at why dems no longer like her. when she became the vp nominee all of her past came out like with any other politician but hers was a little more creepy.

#1 she was a member of an organization that wants Alaska to secede(her husband still is if I'm correct)

#2 that whole make rape victims pay for their rape kits statement.

#3 that time she got an exorcism

#4 you want to know what she means when she says she fought oil. shes referring to a pipeline they wanted to run across the boarder in Canada she wanted it to stay in the US. that's it that's her heroic crusade against oil. O and that bridge to nowhere she took the money from the project after it was canceled. for gods sake the entire state of Alaska is run by oil company's where do you think most of the campaign contributions come from?

#1 is a lie; her husband was a member for seven years (until 2002 - being part-Yupik he probably has a bit different take toward Alaskan independence than you or I), but Sarah Palin was never a member. She did speak at the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 - to ask for their votes in her campaign as a Republican, as she has been registered since '82.

#2 is false - an official she supported or appointed (I forget which) supposedly made that policy. There is however no record of a rape victim ever being charged for a rape kit in Wasilla (which would be a policy of the hospital where the procedure was done, not the police department - although certainly the police department could and should pick up the tab, care is billed to the patient.) So you have a situation where Palin might or might not have known about (but did not initiate) a repugnant policy that affected no one. The liberal media have repeatedly spun this as truth as well as alleging that the Alaskan bill to mandate that government pay for rape kits w as caused by Palin, but before McCain selected her there are no news stories about this and her name (or Wasilla) were never mentioned in the debate over the bill.

According to the FBI statistics, no rape was ever reported in Wasilla up until 2000 (dating back to 1930), when the law was passed making it the government responsibility. Curiously, the sheriff in Wasilla (whom I believe was appointed by Palin) spoke out in 2000 against the law, stating that the sheriff's department charged the victim's insurance. Quite curious when no rapes had ever been reported at the time. There was one rape in 2000, but no record that the victim had ever been charged for her rape kit.

It's quite telling that so many Democrats came forward to accuse Palin of this heinous practice after she was selected as VP candidate, while not a single written record or news story prior to that links Palin to this issue. The closest that they can come to a written record is that a sheriff that (I think) she appointed or supported spoke out against the bill after it was passed.

#3 - WTF? I've heard a lot of Palin smears, but I've never heard that one. She isn't Catholic, so I highly doubt she got an exorcism. Any documentation on that claim?

#4 is completely garbled to the point of being almost unrecognizable. Governor Murkowski (R-Murkowski) had negotiated a lease on the pipeline with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to build a natural gas pipeline. These companies hold the long-term leases on oil and natural gas on the North Slope fields. Murkowski's agreement was that the oil companies would get huge tax breaks and pay tiny royalties to the state, to be fixed for decades. Not surprisingly, the Alaska legislature refused to ratify the agreement. When Palin took office, she refused to back the Murkowski agreement but insisted that under the lease agreement the oil companies had an obligation to supply oil and natural gas to whatever pipeline was built. She instead put the pipeline up for bid. BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips refused to bid, insisting that the state honor the Murkowski agreement. A Canadian company, TransCanada (which is at least as qualified as BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to build the pipeline, by virtue of being North America's largest pipeline builder) submitted a bid and was awarded the project, thus eliminating a huge profit margin lasting decades for the oil companies but insuring that the state got a good amount of revenue from the oil and natural gas they piped through the TransCanada.

There are many other Palin smears that were put out by the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, and other left-wing smear merchants - her Downs-syndrome child is actually her daughter's, she tried as mayor to ban books (some of which hadn't even been published at the time), she wants to ban all abortions (she personally opposes all abortion except to save the mother, but declined to call a special legislative session for a proposed anti-abortion bill) - there have been so many lies and smears immediately put forth by supposedly neutral news agencies that it is clear that objective journalism in America has been destroyed and replaced with advocacy propaganda that would make Stalin smile were he alive. These stories are soon recanted by the originators, but in the meantime are copied and advanced by every liberal agendist "news outlet". Even after all "journalists" have dropped them, they live on in Internet forums.

If I hadn't loved Palin before she was nominated, the quality of her enemies would make me love her now.

#1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

#2
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4364.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm

#3
Seriously, WTF?

#4
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/newsmakers/palin_oil.fortune/index.htm

Some others
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/09/13_myths_of_sarah_palin.html

My problem with Palin is that she's my moral antithesis. That's not about to change in a grand hurry. I have issues with most anti-abortion, pro-gun jingoists.

Werepossum, we've had that argument at least three times by now, on different threads. If you want I can re-post what I've said before, but I see it as rather pointless. I'm not a capitalist, I see no merits in the system. You apparently are, and hence do. That's about it.

And in a vague attempt to stop this becoming yet another thread all about the American election, I would like to toss in some stuff about the last Australian election.

For those who don't know, the now ex-prime minister John Howard was ousted from office and his seat by Kevin Rudd's Labor party (Yes, that's the correct spelling.) The overriding attitude in that particular election was "Anyone but Howard!" and as such, it worked. Truth be told however the only real difference between the two parties was that Labor actually bothered to keep most election promises, a habit the Liberals fell out of over a decade ago.

Milton Friedman here...Not completely sure who he is though.

Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

Whatever that means.

werepossum:

black lincon:
[quote=werepossum post=18.73417.798161][quote=Imitation Saccharin post=18.73417.798108]
ill give you a hint at why dems no longer like her. when she became the vp nominee all of her past came out like with any other politician but hers was a little more creepy.

#1 she was a member of an organization that wants Alaska to secede(her husband still is if I'm correct)

#2 that whole make rape victims pay for their rape kits statement.

#3 that time she got an exorcism

#4 you want to know what she means when she says she fought oil. shes referring to a pipeline they wanted to run across the boarder in Canada she wanted it to stay in the US. that's it that's her heroic crusade against oil. O and that bridge to nowhere she took the money from the project after it was canceled. for gods sake the entire state of Alaska is run by oil company's where do you think most of the campaign contributions come from?

#1 is a lie; her husband was a member for seven years (until 2002 - being part-Yupik he probably has a bit different take toward Alaskan independence than you or I), but Sarah Palin was never a member. She did speak at the Alaskan Independence Party convention in 2006 - to ask for their votes in her campaign as a Republican, as she has been registered since '82.

#2 is false - an official she supported or appointed (I forget which) supposedly made that policy. There is however no record of a rape victim ever being charged for a rape kit in Wasilla (which would be a policy of the hospital where the procedure was done, not the police department - although certainly the police department could and should pick up the tab, care is billed to the patient.) So you have a situation where Palin might or might not have known about (but did not initiate) a repugnant policy that affected no one. The liberal media have repeatedly spun this as truth as well as alleging that the Alaskan bill to mandate that government pay for rape kits w as caused by Palin, but before McCain selected her there are no news stories about this and her name (or Wasilla) were never mentioned in the debate over the bill.

According to the FBI statistics, no rape was ever reported in Wasilla up until 2000 (dating back to 1930), when the law was passed making it the government responsibility. Curiously, the sheriff in Wasilla (whom I believe was appointed by Palin) spoke out in 2000 against the law, stating that the sheriff's department charged the victim's insurance. Quite curious when no rapes had ever been reported at the time. There was one rape in 2000, but no record that the victim had ever been charged for her rape kit.

It's quite telling that so many Democrats came forward to accuse Palin of this heinous practice after she was selected as VP candidate, while not a single written record or news story prior to that links Palin to this issue. The closest that they can come to a written record is that a sheriff that (I think) she appointed or supported spoke out against the bill after it was passed.

#3 - WTF? I've heard a lot of Palin smears, but I've never heard that one. She isn't Catholic, so I highly doubt she got an exorcism. Any documentation on that claim?

#4 is completely garbled to the point of being almost unrecognizable. Governor Murkowski (R-Murkowski) had negotiated a lease on the pipeline with BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to build a natural gas pipeline. These companies hold the long-term leases on oil and natural gas on the North Slope fields. Murkowski's agreement was that the oil companies would get huge tax breaks and pay tiny royalties to the state, to be fixed for decades. Not surprisingly, the Alaska legislature refused to ratify the agreement. When Palin took office, she refused to back the Murkowski agreement but insisted that under the lease agreement the oil companies had an obligation to supply oil and natural gas to whatever pipeline was built. She instead put the pipeline up for bid. BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips refused to bid, insisting that the state honor the Murkowski agreement. A Canadian company, TransCanada (which is at least as qualified as BP, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips to build the pipeline, by virtue of being North America's largest pipeline builder) submitted a bid and was awarded the project, thus eliminating a huge profit margin lasting decades for the oil companies but insuring that the state got a good amount of revenue from the oil and natural gas they piped through the TransCanada.

There are many other Palin smears that were put out by the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, and other left-wing smear merchants - her Downs-syndrome child is actually her daughter's, she tried as mayor to ban books (some of which hadn't even been published at the time), she wants to ban all abortions (she personally opposes all abortion except to save the mother, but declined to call a special legislative session for a proposed anti-abortion bill) - there have been so many lies and smears immediately put forth by supposedly neutral news agencies that it is clear that objective journalism in America has been destroyed and replaced with advocacy propaganda that would make Stalin smile were he alive. These stories are soon recanted by the originators, but in the meantime are copied and advanced by every liberal agendist "news outlet". Even after all "journalists" have dropped them, they live on in Internet forums.

If I hadn't loved Palin before she was nominated, the quality of her enemies would make me love her now.

#1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04party.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

#2
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4364.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm

#3
Seriously, WTF?

#4
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/newsmakers/palin_oil.fortune/index.htm

Some others
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/09/13_myths_of_sarah_palin.html

#3 there's a video of some priest demanding the devil or sin or some crap like that get out of her body. i call that an exorcism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg

o and ill add #5 shes a pathological liar. ill give an example, when asked about her receiving news of being selected to be the vp nominee she told 2 stories in the first she consults her family in the second she makes a quick decision without deliberation. it may seem small but if you cant tell the truth about something so insignificant then what can you tell the truth about?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/17/17756/8965/82/601976

I admit the last site is overly liberal but that doesn't stop it from being valid.

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

I think I hit Gandhi strait on.

Bulletinmybrain:
Milton Friedman here...Not completely sure who he is though.

An idiot. Beleived that the single most important thing for government to do was to balance the budget, and the supremacy of the market economy, and all them other things. Spawned an economic school of thought known as Monetarism. Load of rightist horseshit, most of it. How having a balanced budget within a deppression ever helped anyone is utterly beyond me.

And some of these issues were a bit silly if they were all caluculated. While I find nothing objectional to the state disposing of vile crininals, I also object to them telling people they can't screw whom they damn well want (above the age of consent, naturally), that they can own a gunbut can't drink.

I also object to the idea of states rights. The very concept of the States independance from federal government was the reason civil rights was held up. That, and all the Southerners is the Democratic Party.

I also object to America in general. Why, I don't know, but having a superpower who isn't the British Empire is clearly a bad thing.

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

-3.5 moral order -0.5 moral rules

I am JFK and Ghandi :\

The right to bear arms could be resolved if the US Government only allowed people to own hunting rifles.

It would then be harder to walk into a bank with it tucked under your jacket in high summer without arousing suspicion.

So, no pistols, uzis, automatic assault weapons, shotguns, or anything else arms manufacturers might invent in future and convince us we need for 'home defense'.

Those claiming that they must be able to form a civilian militia are not being asked to give all their weapons away. To continue to argue that they must be able to have their BFG 'just in case' is a gross perversion of the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

Uncompetative:

Those claiming that they must be able to form a civilian militia are not being asked to give all their weapons away. To continue to argue that they must be able to have their BFG 'just in case' is a gross perversion of the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

How so?
I would argue that the precise reason that we have the 2nd amendment is the "just in case," scenario.

Don't forget, the people who wrote the constitution all considered themselves British citizens during the revolution. As far as they were concerned they were overthrowing their own government. So essentially, the second amendment was included by the founding fathers in case the American government ever needed to be overthrown by the citizens.

How likely you think that situation is is irrelevant. I guarantee you that's what they were thinking when they decided everyone should keep guns.

Oh, and the founding fathers didn't say: "The citizens shall only keep pistols." They were pretty much fine with your average Joe owning the same quality hardware that the military was using at the time, i.e. muskets. I'm not sure everyone should be able to buy a tank or an RPG, but if you only want to discuss the spirit of the Amendment, then I think you are wrong here.

galletea:
[quote=Uszi post=18.73417.796788]
because your system works just fine it would seem, where you only get 2 weeks holiday and people live in abject poverty, having their homes reposessed, despite being in thre richest nation on earth.
Not to mention your current economic situation.

Not to mention the global economic situation.
And the abject poor are offset by a system that allows you the freedom to make your own choices and be fabulously well-to-do.

John Galt:

TheDean:
a political thread hmm?
My political views are very simple.
No one is allowed any power whatsoever.
Money does not exist.
Anarchy. I had a iscussion about this a while bakc on Passion of the Wiggly facebok page if anyone is interested.

Fail ideology is fail.

I'm sorry, but this sets off my rant-glands like nothing else. If humans are going to accomplish anything socially, then we need a hierarchy. Like it or not, there has been no egalitarian society that has been able to survive for long. Even in modern democracies, there is no real equality. A society with total equality has no leader. A leaderless society has no direction. An undirected society will never be able to survive.

To advocate Anarchy as a supposed utopia or even a decent form of government shows a glaring lack of sense. In any society, you've got people with predatory tendencies and people with no ability to protect themselves from said predators. The existence of a state is the most efficient method to protect people from harm brought about by their fellow man.

Finally, just take a look at the world around you. Would there be an infrastructure able to support something as complex as a computer network, an electrical grid, or even a system of roads, without a controlling body? If we lived in a society without money or power, would there be incentives to improve the world around you? Why would anyone do anything if there was no way they could benefit from it? History has shown us time and time again, that when under the authority of a strong central government, things previously thought impossible can be accomplished in short order. Alexander the Great unified nearly all of the ancient world in a matter of years, the Egyptians used religious authority to drive the masses to build great monuments, the Romans didn't bring peace and stability to the Mediterranean without a strong ambition and efficient method of governance, nor did America simply pull itself out of the Great Depression without the intervention of the government.

While I try to remain open to a variety of political views, I just break out in a fit of nerdrage whenever I see someone claim that no one has the right to lead. People don't lead simply because they've got some secret power you lack or are better than you, it's because they either have the ambition and vision to lead or are chosen to lead by their peers. There are all-too-frequent times where people need to simply follow one path if they want to get out of the forest. Any path will do in theory, but there must be a path. Saying that everyone should pick there own path will accomplish nothing. If you want to live in a world where you're not constantly battling simple things conquered by the first civilizations, then fine. Anarchy is best suited to a world like that. But, if your goal is to live in a world where there is cooperation and prosperity, then you must accept that some people will have to lead you.

/nerdrage

Look, i'm justing saying i think the only good and fair system is Anarchist communism. Non-theist anarchist communism to be exact.
If the system crumbles and fails, so be it. At least therewsa equality. If we want it to succeed, we play our part. It's as simple as that.

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

Ghandi is apparently my homeboy.

Frankly not *too surprised* at this, however i remember taking a very similarly structured and finalized test like this 6+ years ago when i was in highschool, and i placed damn near ON the 0 axis of libertarian/authoritarian scale while still being slightly Left-minded. Higher education is most likely to blame for my change in state of mind.

TheDean:

Look, i'm justing saying i think the only good and fair system is Anarchist communism. Non-theist anarchist communism to be exact.
If the system crumbles and fails, so be it. At least therewsa equality. If we want it to succeed, we play our part. It's as simple as that.

You do realize that anyone and I mean anyone can ruin your system and the lives of whoever is naive enough to follow it? Say you've got Commune A happily settled along the Generic River. Now, for decades they've used this system and against all odds, managed to get by. As time goes on, it is only inevitable that Fascist State B or Ambitious Citizen C come along and have virtually no opposition when it comes to controlling the hapless inhabitants of Commune A.

Never in history has their been a truly egalitarian society that has been able to progress beyond the tribal level for long. Sooner or later, someone will come along and attempt to impose order on that group. Lacking any sort of leadership or central authority, any reaction to this incursion will be wholly up to the individual, and we all know that one person has a hard time standing against a determined society.

Yes, it would be nice if we could all get along and love each other, but the simple fact of the matter is that there will always be conflicts in any group of people. Authority is what helps us either suppress these conflicts or settle them in a civil manner. If you want to be taken seriously in any discussion, then get rid of your simplistic ideals. There's no point in a system if it's only merit is something like "equality". In order for their to be some kind of social benefit, then a system can't be based on one idea or concept, it requires something more than whatever flimsy moral value you've cooked up.

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

Labyrinth:
SNIP
I'm not a capitalist, I see no merits in the system. You apparently are, and hence do. That's about it.

Can I still point out that most of your modern conveniences - personal computers, MP3 players, CDs and DVDs, telephones, central heat and air - are products of capitalism?

Historically Marxism invents little except means of killing and enslaving - sorry, forcibly liberating other people, and most of what they adopt from capitalistic societies trickle down only to the elite leadership. The local governor might own a Cadillac sedan, but the average person will be lucky to one day own a Zil.

werepossum:

Labyrinth:
SNIP
I'm not a capitalist, I see no merits in the system. You apparently are, and hence do. That's about it.

Can I still point out that most of your modern conveniences - personal computers, MP3 players, CDs and DVDs, telephones, central heat and air - are products of capitalism?

Historically Marxism invents little except means of killing and enslaving - sorry, forcibly liberating other people, and most of what they adopt from capitalistic societies trickle down only to the elite leadership. The local governor might own a Cadillac sedan, but the average person will be lucky to one day own a Zil.

Agreed. Marxism is a fantastic idea, but it's never been purely applied once. I think that's the main reason that it's led to all of the things it's led to; if human nature were different and everyone truly desired to be treated completely equally, the system would be the most popular and lauded in the world. Now, perhaps I'm muddling Marxism with Socialism and Communism, and if I am, then I apologize.

Uncompetative:
The right to bear arms could be resolved if the US Government only allowed people to own hunting rifles.

It would then be harder to walk into a bank with it tucked under your jacket in high summer without arousing suspicion.

So, no pistols, uzis, automatic assault weapons, shotguns, or anything else arms manufacturers might invent in future and convince us we need for 'home defense'.

Those claiming that they must be able to form a civilian militia are not being asked to give all their weapons away. To continue to argue that they must be able to have their BFG 'just in case' is a gross perversion of the intent of the authors of the Constitution.

That's a really good idea! The only thing that could go wrong would be if someone actually didn't follow the law - I think they call that committing a crime. This hypothetical person - let's call him a criminal, to coin a term - would then be free to saw off a hunting rifle or shotgun, or even <gasp> carry an illegal pistol, to facilitate his, um, crime committing. (Hey, there's no language for a possibility as far out and wacky as this "criminal" person, so I have to improvise.)

And obviously the whole problem with our society is a surplus of home defense. Unlike, say, drunk drivers, that dusty shotgun leaning in the corner exerts a wide-spread, malevolent energy field that kills some people outright and lures innocents to within range of its lethal embrace. If a man gets robbed and murdered, it's his own fault for owning something worth stealing. Evil capitalism! If a woman gets raped, obviously that's the natural and proper thing to happen, just the strong exerting their just power over the weak. What's important is that we game-lawyer away a God-given right to prevent victims from fighting back, thereby providing justice for all.

Dumbass.

jamanticus:

werepossum:

Labyrinth:
SNIP
I'm not a capitalist, I see no merits in the system. You apparently are, and hence do. That's about it.

Can I still point out that most of your modern conveniences - personal computers, MP3 players, CDs and DVDs, telephones, central heat and air - are products of capitalism?

Historically Marxism invents little except means of killing and enslaving - sorry, forcibly liberating other people, and most of what they adopt from capitalistic societies trickle down only to the elite leadership. The local governor might own a Cadillac sedan, but the average person will be lucky to one day own a Zil.

Agreed. Marxism is a fantastic idea, but it's never been purely applied once. I think that's the main reason that it's led to all of the things it's led to; if human nature were different and everyone truly desired to be treated completely equally, the system would be the most popular and lauded in the world. Now, perhaps I'm muddling Marxism with Socialism and Communism, and if I am, then I apologize.

I would argue that Marxism has been applied in its purest form - Communism - many times. If you want a better result from Marxism, you'll need to re-engineer humans to be both exquisitely fair and to care no more about themselves and their families than about strangers. Once humans are no more than emotionless automatons - which is how Marxism has historically treated the masses but not historically how the masses have behaved - Marxism would become a viable form of government. That idea scares the hell out of me.

Ow, werepossum...that's a little OTT.

Problem with your scenario is then the victim becomes the murderer and unlike the French courts, there is no plea of crime passionel.

jamanticus:

Agreed. Marxism is a fantastic idea, but it's never been purely applied once... Now, perhaps I'm muddling Marxism with Socialism and Communism, and if I am, then I apologize.

While you could certainly argue that no government has ever applied Marxism "purely" (according to fundamentalist doctrine), I think that misses the point. Marxism has evolved and developed over the years to the point where hundreds of different interpretations exist; Marxists are notorious for spending more time arguing amongst themselves than mobilizing against their political opposites.

A better approach would be to ask "Would a particular country/government have been better off without Marxist influence?" In some cases the answer is an obvious yes (Cambodia, East Germany) and in some cases the answer is an obvious no (Cuba, China, USSR). In many cases, the answer is unclear (Poland, Czechoslovakia).

What is certain is that Marxism, its variants and its sub-variants are like any other political ideology: they have their strengths and they have their weaknesses. In my opinion the strengths usually outweigh the weaknesses, especially if those involved are willing to make it work. There are some truly evil variants of Marxism, for sure, but there are just as many evil variants of every other ideology; for every Stalinist there is a Randian, so to speak.

(I'm not trying to bait anyone into an argument here. I'm just stating my $0.02.)

harhol:

jamanticus:

Agreed. Marxism is a fantastic idea, but it's never been purely applied once... Now, perhaps I'm muddling Marxism with Socialism and Communism, and if I am, then I apologize.

While you could certainly argue that no government has ever applied Marxism "purely" (according to fundamentalist doctrine), I think that misses the point. Marxism has evolved and developed over the years to the point where hundreds of different interpretations exist; Marxists are notorious for spending more time arguing amongst themselves than mobilizing against their political opposites.

A better approach would be to ask "Would a particular country/government have been better off without Marxist influence?" In some cases the answer is an obvious yes (Cambodia, East Germany) and in some cases the answer is an obvious no (Cuba, China, USSR). In many cases, the answer is unclear (Poland, Czechoslovakia).

What is certain is that Marxism, its variants and its sub-variants are like any other political ideology: they have their strengths and they have their weaknesses. In my opinion the strengths usually outweigh the weaknesses, especially if those involved are willing to make it work. There are some truly evil variants of Marxism, for sure, but there are just as many evil variants of every other ideology; for every Stalinist there is a Randian, so to speak.

(I'm not trying to bait anyone into an argument here. I'm just stating my $0.02.)

Certainly. I suppose the point I was trying to make was that every attempt at Communism that has been made throughout history has ended in a dictatorship with the word 'Communist' slapped onto it.

harhol:

jamanticus:

Agreed. Marxism is a fantastic idea, but it's never been purely applied once... Now, perhaps I'm muddling Marxism with Socialism and Communism, and if I am, then I apologize.

While you could certainly argue that no government has ever applied Marxism "purely" (according to fundamentalist doctrine), I think that misses the point. Marxism has evolved and developed over the years to the point where hundreds of different interpretations exist; Marxists are notorious for spending more time arguing amongst themselves than mobilizing against their political opposites.

A better approach would be to ask "Would a particular country/government have been better off without Marxist influence?" In some cases the answer is an obvious yes (Cambodia, East Germany) and in some cases the answer is an obvious no (Cuba, China, USSR). In many cases, the answer is unclear (Poland, Czechoslovakia).

What is certain is that Marxism, its variants and its sub-variants are like any other political ideology: they have their strengths and they have their weaknesses. In my opinion the strengths usually outweigh the weaknesses, especially if those involved are willing to make it work. There are some truly evil variants of Marxism, for sure, but there are just as many evil variants of every other ideology; for every Stalinist there is a Randian, so to speak.

(I'm not trying to bait anyone into an argument here. I'm just stating my $0.02.)

Just so we're all clear, advocating unrestrained capitalism is now morally equal to murdering tens of millions of people and forcing even more into slave labor. 'Cause there's probably some unenlightened people here who haven't realized that yet.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Ow, werepossum...that's a little OTT.

Problem with your scenario is then the victim becomes the murderer and unlike the French courts, there is no plea of crime passionel.

In the States there's a saying: Better judged by twelve than carried by six. Self defense is still a valid defense here against murder charges, at least until January. As for myself, I have absolutely no qualms about declaring a loud "Not guilty" to a man defending his home or a woman defending her body.

werepossum:

In the States there's a saying: Better judged by twelve than carried by six. Self defense is still a valid defense here against murder charges, at least until January. As for myself, I have absolutely no qualms about declaring a loud "Not guilty" to a man defending his home or a woman defending her body.

I have a few qualms about defending someone who claims to have been defending their house/body against someone they might have had a reason to kill beforehand though.

And you thought asking a woman out was tough before? Now they can shotgun you.

werepossum:
Just so we're all clear, advocating unrestrained capitalism is now morally equal to murdering tens of millions of people and forcing even more into slave labor.

I'm not sure if the irony in this statement is intentional or not. Surely you're not suggesting that unrestrained capitalism would cause less harm than Stalinism? Capitalism as it is practised today has already been directly responsible for the premature deaths of hundreds of millions of people, perhaps thousands of millions. I honestly dread to think what the consequences of unrestrained capitalism would be. Uncle Joe wishes he could have been as evil as Ayn Rand!

I've been lurking till now, but I'd just like to quickly point out neither Communism nor Capitalism have caused any deaths - they are concepts, abstract and immaterial, and have no ability to murder.

The insane, idiotic or just plain poor leaders using them cause the deaths.

harhol:

werepossum:
Just so we're all clear, advocating unrestrained capitalism is now morally equal to murdering tens of millions of people and forcing even more into slave labor.

I'm not sure if the irony in this statement is intentional or not. Surely you're not suggesting that unrestrained capitalism would cause less harm than Stalinism? Capitalism as it is practised today has already been directly responsible for the premature deaths of hundreds of millions of people, perhaps thousands of millions. I honestly dread to think what the consequences of unrestrained capitalism would be. Uncle Joe wishes he could have been as evil as Ayn Rand!

I invite you to move to the workers' paradise of North Korea, thereby raising the average intelligence of both nations.

Oh, wait - North Koreans aren't stupid, just oppressed. Make that one nation improved. North Korea will just have to take one for the species.