The Political Compass

Boom The Cat

farfromglorified wrote:

What do you mean by "REAL mess"? And how will communism help that "REAL mess"?

You suggested that businesses and corporate American should be "blown up". After that happens, what will you put in place of those businesses and corporations?

Obviously I was overreacting at that, The communism thing can help up and coming countries in a mess get some collectiveness until they are firm on their feet. As for the buissiness thing, obviously all bussiness destroyed would be a catastrophy, but I hate the way the world is so heavily money minded, if you look at the back of pretty much anything there is always money behind it. There is always someone (who usually has enough money as it is) trying to earn that extra buck. They'd sell their own grandmothers.

hippiemom

I found many of the questions poorly worded too.

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races" - I believe that, but I also believe that other races have qualities superior to ours, so I'm not sure how to answer (and I'm taking "race" here to mean the human race, as opposed to other species, although I'm not sure why they didn't use the word "species" in the first place).

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Sure, if the enemy of my enemy is a basically decent person. If he's Saddam, then no.

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all" - Why isn't there a "Who gives a rat's ass?" option? It's a matter of personal taste, what do I care what anyone else considers art?

"The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist" - The world needs both, why can't I say "equally important"? I answered "strongly disagree," but my answer would have been the same if the question had been worded the other way around.

Anyway, my score:
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

farfromglorified

Boom The Cat wrote:

Obviously I was overreacting at that,

Ok.

The communism thing can help up and coming countries in a mess get some collectiveness until they are firm on their feet.

How will "collectiveness" get them firm on their feet?

As for the buissiness thing, obviously all bussiness destroyed would be a catastrophy, but I hate the way the world is so heavily money minded, if you look at the back of pretty much anything there is always money behind it. There is always someone (who usually has enough money as it is) trying to earn that extra buck.

So you think it would be better if say, sacrifice, were behind it instead of money?

They'd sell their own grandmothers.

Who's "they"?

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races" - I believe that, but I also believe that other races have qualities superior to ours, so I'm not sure how to answer (and I'm taking "race" here to mean the human race, as opposed to other species, although I'm not sure why they didn't use the word "species" in the first place).

I think they mean your race as in white/black/etc.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Sure, if the enemy of my enemy is a basically decent person. If he's Saddam, then no.

Another troubling one. I had to "STRONGLY DISAGREE" here based on the lack of any qualification of my "enemy".

"Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all" - Why isn't there a "Who gives a rat's ass?" option? It's a matter of personal taste, what do I care what anyone else considers art?

I think they're asking your opinion. For example I "STRONGLY AGREE" here because my personal definition of art requires a representation of something. But I completely understand someone who would disagree with the statement.

"The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist" - The world needs both, why can't I say "equally important"? I answered "strongly disagree," but my answer would have been the same if the question had been worded the other way around.

I thought the exact same thing here.

Boom The Cat

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok.



How will "collectiveness" get them firm on their feet?



So you think it would be better if say, sacrifice, were behind it instead of money?



Who's "they"?

1. Well I always kinda thought that (simply put) communism is where everyone gets equal pay has their own equal property etc. so its kinda obvious to see why I think it could help worse off countries to their feet.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by sacrifice, I just think money should always have to be the root of everything, whether there is too much of it or not isn't the case, I just think its bad that money is behind EVERYTHING.

3. They? 'They' are the people who care too much about money.

farfromglorified

Boom The Cat wrote:

1. Well I always kinda thought that (simply put) communism is where everyone gets equal pay has their own equal property etc. so its kinda obvious to see why I think it could help worse off countries to their feet.

And in such a situation where would that property and pay come from?

2. I'm not sure what you mean by sacrifice, I just think money should always have to be the root of everything, whether there is too much of it or not isn't the case, I just think its bad that money is behind EVERYTHING.

Is it? How much are we making posting here?

3. They? 'They' are the people who care too much about money.

The only person here talking about money is you.

nfanel

sweet adeline wrote:

according to this, i'd get along great with ghandi. but then again, who wouldn't!

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

i, too, would get along with ghandi and the dalai lama.

Boom The Cat

farfromglorified wrote:

And in such a situation where would that property and pay come from?



Is it? How much are we making posting here?



The only person here talking about money is you.

1. I admit myself I am not 'up' on communism so I honestly dont know

2. I mean, right at the back of things, this forum was probably paid for, has to be paid for every month or so, and if it wasnt for us all buying internet connections, we wouldnt be here.

3. I didn't mean anyone here, I meant the outrageously rich, who want to get richer.

OutOfBreath

hippiemom wrote:

Anyway, my score:
Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

Finally someone as down and out on the scale as myself. Although I guess I'm not surprised. Hail, fellow anarcho-commy!

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

Finally someone as down and out on the scale as myself. Although I guess I'm not surprised. Hail, fellow anarcho-commy!

Peace
Dan

You guys are so conflicted

farfromglorified

Boom The Cat wrote:

1. I admit myself I am not 'up' on communism so I honestly dont know

Don't worry. Most people "up" on communism don't know either.

2. I mean, right at the back of things, this forum was probably paid for, has to be paid for every month or so, and if it wasnt for us all buying internet connections, we wouldnt be here.

Sure. But we did all those things with a non-monetary purpose, didn't we? We don't pay for our Internet connections for the sake of giving up $25 a month, do we?

3. I didn't mean anyone here, I meant the outrageously rich, who want to get richer.

And what's wrong with wanting to get rich, even if you're already rich?

Boom The Cat

farfromglorified wrote:

Don't worry. Most people "up" on communism don't know either.



Sure. But we did all those things with a non-monetary purpose, didn't we? We don't pay for our Internet connections for the sake of giving up $25 a month, do we?



And what's wrong with wanting to get rich, even if you're already rich?

1. Nice to know I'm not the only one!

2. I dont mean like that, there are certain things, like shops, I dont expect them to give stuff free, because the nature of a shop is a trade of money for goods. But even things like charities, and other well intentioned things, in the end sure some of it will go to what needs it, but there is a notable amount of money that goes to lining the pockets of the 'charitable'

3. I just think its too greedy personally, but thats my opinion on it, I think making rich people unable to have more money would be ridiculous, dont get me wrong there.


What I'm basically getting at, is that there seems to be a loss of genuinley nice giving people, I dont expect everyone to donate to charity or do something for their church, I just think its a shame that people that do 'well for themselves' on money terms will still SELL their junk that means nothing to them, but really something to someone else.

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

You guys are so conflicted

No we're not. We just want communism without rules!
Anyway, that was the site's labelleing, not my own. Libertarian Socialist sounds better.

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

No we're not. We just want communism without rules!

You just made my day

Anyway, that was the site's labelleing, not my own. Libertarian Socialist sounds better.

Well, it's not like you have to fit it on a business card or anything....

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

You just made my day

Glad to help.

Well, it's not like you have to fit it on a business card or anything....

Well, no, but it does.

-Dan, Libertarian Socialist and Sociologist.

Sounds good eh?

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

Boom The Cat wrote:

2. I dont mean like that, there are certain things, like shops, I dont expect them to give stuff free, because the nature of a shop is a trade of money for goods. But even things like charities, and other well intentioned things, in the end sure some of it will go to what needs it, but there is a notable amount of money that goes to lining the pockets of the 'charitable'

Of course! Many "well-intentioned" things tend to end up being corrupt. Why? Because there's no incentive for them to actually be "well-intentioned". If your local shop starts charging you for stuff it never actually gives you, you're not going to pay the bill are you? Communism gets around this issue by sticking a gun in your face and telling you to pay the bill anyway. That's not to say your local shopkeeper coudn't do it as well, but at least in that case you're not paying for the gun the bastard puts in your face.

3. I just think its too greedy personally, but thats my opinion on it, I think making rich people unable to have more money would be ridiculous, dont get me wrong there.

It certainly can be greedy. But greed means that you're taking money you didn't earn. A guy like Steve Jobs (chairman of Apple) was pretty rich in 1999. Then his company came up with thing called the iPod. Now he's much richer. Is that greed? No. He earned that money by giving the world something that the world wanted. All he asked is that the world give something in return. It's known as trading.

What I'm basically getting at, is that there seems to be a loss of genuinley nice giving people, I dont expect everyone to donate to charity or do something for their church, I just think its a shame that people that do 'well for themselves' on money terms will still SELL their junk that means nothing to them, but really something to someone else.

Typically, "their junk" is their labor. And their labor extends from their mind and their body. Every person on the planet has the right to own their own labor and to withhold it from or grant it to others on their own terms.

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, no, but it does.

-Dan, Libertarian Socialist and Sociologist.

Sounds good eh?

How dare you put your name on that??? Not very collective of you.

Boom The Cat

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course! Many "well-intentioned" things tend to end up being corrupt. Why? Because there's no incentive for them to actually be "well-intentioned". If your local shop starts charging you for stuff it never actually gives you, you're not going to pay the bill are you? Communism gets around this issue by sticking a gun in your face and telling you to pay the bill anyway. That's not to say your local shopkeeper coudn't do it as well, but at least in that case you're not paying for the gun the bastard puts in your face.



It certainly can be greedy. But greed means that you're taking money you didn't earn. A guy like Steve Jobs (chairman of Apple) was pretty rich in 1999. Then his company came up with thing called the iPod. Now he's much richer. Is that greed? No. He earned that money by giving the world something that the world wanted. All he asked is that the world give something in return. It's known as trading.



Typically, "their junk" is their labor. And their labor extends from their mind and their body. Every person on the planet has the right to own their own labor and to withhold it from or grant it to others on their own terms.

Yeah, they have their right, but its just sad that they feel the need to express this right, if I have something I dont want, I give it to someone else who does want it, I give it free (unless its something expensive, in which case I drastically lower the price) and I am far from any money whatsoever.

farfromglorified

Boom The Cat wrote:

Yeah, they have their right, but its just sad that they feel the need to express this right, if I have something I dont want, I give it to someone else who does want it, I give it free (unless its something expensive, in which case I drastically lower the price) and I am far from any money whatsoever.

Certainly, but this applies to all people and is often unfairly charged against the rich. If a rich person should be giving things away that they don't want to don't need, so should a poor person.

Sad, to me, is to pretend that a person's labor or property has no value and is, by default, owed to another. Think of your own job. How would you feel if someone came to you and said, "do this and do that" and took absolutely no account of what's in it for you??? That's slavery.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

I think they mean your race as in white/black/etc.

Hmmm. I thought about this one for a while, until I started feeling ridiculous for spending so much time on a question on an internet quiz, haha. It was the "our" that threw me, as I take that to encompass everyone who might be taking the test, which I'd assume would be people of all races. If the statement had been "MY race has many superior qualities," I'd have seen it as a racial question. I said "disagree" when I was thinking of it as a species question, and I'd say "strongly disagree" to the racial question, so I don't suppose it made much difference.

farfromglorified wrote:

I think they're asking your opinion. For example I "STRONGLY AGREE" here because my personal definition of art requires a representation of something. But I completely understand someone who would disagree with the statement.

Another very badly worded question. The word "shouldn't" implies that I don't think anyone ought to consider it art. I don't care for abstract art myself, but I don't care what anyone else hangs on their walls.

I'm told that I tend to over-think these types of things. The test we had to take during our pre-marital counseling almost ended the marriage before it began. It may have caused our counselor to explore other career options too.