Support NeoGAF

[TAJ]

>>>I put "disagree", but only because I feel that if a nation exemplifies values and standards that you, as an adult who has examined the issues, feel to be consistent with your own ideals, then you can, in fact, be proud of your nation. For example, if a nation is peace-loving, charitable, protective of individual rights, and just, then why would it be foolish to be proud of one's nation? <<<<

Because you have nothing to do with your nation being that way. Sorry, but it's almost certainly the truth.

 

[Do The Mario]

And what is Authoritarian/left? The state more important than the individual?

Communist Russia during Stalin's reign and Communist China.

There are other “one party” communist states that fit the bill.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

I want to be on the cool part of the graph.

Also, I wish to call myself -6.88/-6.56 like that wacko on American Idol.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

 

[Loki]

I don't think it was referring to pride in the "I effected some result and hence can be proud of it" sense, but rather something like this sense:

Pride: c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>

Proud: c : much pleased

You can be proud of (read: pleased with) your nation given certain conditions. You're quibbling over the precise definition of "pride" and how it relates to one's feelings regarding one's nation (i.e., how can one be "proud" of one's nation if they had no direct hand in its actions/policy?); while there is some merit to this view in the de facto sense (i.e., despite our pretensions, the people in a democracy do not create the laws, nor do our representatives in a republic necessarily do what we would like them to), in an abstract sense it doesn't hold water-- not for democracies, at least. Further, I was using the term in the colloquial sense that people usually use it in-- you mean to tell me that you've never heard a Canadian say that they're "proud" of their nation's policies? :lol It's a figure of speech, quite apart from any question of causality.


I do see your point, though, and I suppose the question could be phrased better.

 

[Azih]

Which is a bit inconsistent by my reckoning. That is, it's basically saying "fewer restrictions on people, more restrictions in the economic sphere", both of which are perfectly justifiable in their own right, and perhaps even together given the proper personal philosophy; when you're extremely out there, however, like say -8, -8 or more-- or +8, + 8 for that matter, to take the other polar example (which we're in no danger of seeing on this board )-- I tend to think that something's awry.

I think that's sort of the point of the whole excercise. Freedom in an economic sense and freedom in a social sense are considered to be tied together by a number of people (maybe because of the standard one dimensional left/right line we're used to) but there's no reason to do so.

 

[Che]

And what is Authoritarian/left? The state more important than the individual?

Something that gives communism a bad name. In other words psychos who use communism but they have nothing to do with it like Stalin or an even more ridiculous example, Ceausescu.

 

[Zaptruder]

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26

Normally, I'd be more liberal... but eh.

 

[Mandark]

Which is a bit inconsistent by my reckoning. That is, it's basically saying "fewer restrictions on people, more restrictions in the economic sphere"

I can't speak for all the double-negative posters, or even for everyone in the Locus of Awesome, but here's why I think it's a natural connection:

Restrictions on freedom are not exclusive to government. People's practical choices are limited by their savings/debts, earning potential, education, health, free time, etc. The "restrictions in the economic sphere" are generally designed to give more choices or opportunities to people who would otherwise have very limited options.

Child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, publically funded universities, minimum housing standards, automobile safety regulations, the FDA, fire codes, etc. all put limitations on the actions of corporations or capitalists (in the first sense of the word). Even programs that don't directly affect capitalists (free, mandatory, primary and secondary education and publically funded health care) restrict them economically if they are paid for by a progressive tax system.

However, these laws remove practical restrictions for many people. I'd argue that more people benefit from increased freedom as a result of these laws than people suffer from decreased freedom. I'd also argue that the people being restricted still have way more options than most people, and won't feel the sting too badly.

Even though I said I couldn't speak for my fellow libbies, I'll give it a quick shot: I think the natural tendency for a liberal, or for a US citizen who votes Democratic is to identify with The Little Guy, against the Fat Cats. They don't want the CEO's dictating the distribution of wealth and screwing over hard-working Joe Schmo, and they don't want senators dictating where Joe can and can't stick his penis.

 

[sprsk]

I can't speak for all the double-negative posters, or even for everyone in the Locus of Awesome, but here's why I think it's a natural connection:

Restrictions on freedom are not exclusive to government. People's practical choices are limited by their savings/debts, earning potential, education, health, free time, etc. The "restrictions in the economic sphere" are generally designed to give more choices or opportunities to people who would otherwise have very limited options.

Child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, publically funded universities, minimum housing standards, automobile safety regulations, the FDA, fire codes, etc. all put limitations on the actions of corporations or capitalists (in the first sense of the word). Even programs that don't directly affect capitalists (free, mandatory, primary and secondary education and publically funded health care) restrict them economically if they are paid for by a progressive tax system.

However, these laws remove practical restrictions for many people. I'd argue that more people benefit from increased freedom as a result of these laws than people suffer from decreased freedom. I'd also argue that the people being restricted still have way more options than most people, and won't feel the sting too badly.

Even though I said I couldn't speak for my fellow libbies, I'll give it a quick shot: I think the natural tendency for a liberal, or for a US citizen who votes Democratic is to identify with The Little Guy, against the Fat Cats. They don't want the CEO's dictating the distribution of wealth and screwing over hard-working Joe Schmo, and they don't want senators dictating where Joe can and can't stick his penis.

why do you hate freedom?

 

[Inumaru]

You can be proud of (read: pleased with) your nation given certain conditions. You're quibbling over the precise definition of "pride" and how it relates to one's feelings regarding one's nation (i.e., how can one be "proud" of one's nation if they had no direct hand in its actions/policy?); while there is some merit to this view in the de facto sense (i.e., despite our pretensions, the people in a democracy do not create the laws, nor do our representatives in a republic necessarily do what we would like them to), in an abstract sense it doesn't hold water-- not for democracies, at least. Further, I was using the term in the colloquial sense that people usually use it in-- you mean to tell me that you've never heard a Canadian say that they're "proud" of their nation's policies? :lol It's a figure of speech, quite apart from any question of causality.


I do see your point, though, and I suppose the question could be phrased better.

^^This is the "Count of Concision"? :lol

Seriously, though, it seems obvious to me that the "colloquial" use of "pride" in the given context is "much pleased". What U.S. citizen sits around thinking about how much they like the U.S. because of how they personally helped make it what it is?

 

[sefskillz]

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

 

[Minotauro]

I can't speak for all the double-negative posters, or even for everyone in the Locus of Awesome, but here's why I think it's a natural connection:

Restrictions on freedom are not exclusive to government. People's practical choices are limited by their savings/debts, earning potential, education, health, free time, etc. The "restrictions in the economic sphere" are generally designed to give more choices or opportunities to people who would otherwise have very limited options.

Child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, publically funded universities, minimum housing standards, automobile safety regulations, the FDA, fire codes, etc. all put limitations on the actions of corporations or capitalists (in the first sense of the word). Even programs that don't directly affect capitalists (free, mandatory, primary and secondary education and publically funded health care) restrict them economically if they are paid for by a progressive tax system.

However, these laws remove practical restrictions for many people. I'd argue that more people benefit from increased freedom as a result of these laws than people suffer from decreased freedom. I'd also argue that the people being restricted still have way more options than most people, and won't feel the sting too badly.

Even though I said I couldn't speak for my fellow libbies, I'll give it a quick shot: I think the natural tendency for a liberal, or for a US citizen who votes Democratic is to identify with The Little Guy, against the Fat Cats. They don't want the CEO's dictating the distribution of wealth and screwing over hard-working Joe Schmo, and they don't want senators dictating where Joe can and can't stick his penis.

Thanks for stating it ten times more eloquently and clearly than I would've been able to.

 

[Acrylamid]

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

 

[Queeg]

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

 

[Atrex]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

 

[Justin Bailey]

Splittin' the uprights!

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08

 

[Sirpopopop]

Economic Left/Right - -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian - -5.54

 

[bishoptl]

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

SEIG HEIL

 

[missAran]

So wait a minute. Ghandi was libertarian, and People like Hussein and Arafat were Authoritarian/left, and Bush/Blair were Authoritarian/right? What does that mean?

Gandhi was not a libertarian, he was more of a nice communist. Hussein and Stalin were complete authoritarians. Hilter was a social authoritarian, but an economic moderate. Bush is an economic anarachist and a social fascist. In the end, when personal freedoms are infringed upon fascist regimes begin to form.

 

[AssMan]

Gandhi was not a libertarian, he was more of a nice communist. Hussein and Stalin were complete authoritarians. Hilter was a social authoritarian, but an economic moderate. Bush is an economic anarachist and a social fascist. In the end, when personal freedoms are infringed upon fascist regimes begin to form.

Okay. I get Bush being an anarchist, wanting to get rid of government programs, but there's authortarian LEFT and authoritarian RIGHT. What's the difference between the two?

 

[EviLore]

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

I've done this in a few previous threads, so I'd like to see how I compare now to how my compass pointed back in the day.

 

[Blatz]

I'm like Ghandi!! Yay!

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10


This compass is Biased!! Why are the left and Libertarian scores represented in negative numbers? Bah!!

Somebody update the plot already...I think I belong in the Locus!!

 

[missAran]

Okay. I get Bush being an anarchist, wanting to get rid of government programs, but there's authortarian LEFT and authoritarian RIGHT. What's the difference between the two?

I'd imagine it has to do entirely with their economic convictions. For example, a communist and a capitalist could both pass laws that dictate that stealing should be punishable by death. They would be authoritarian in that nature, the capitalist would be right and the communist left.

Stalin and Kim Jong Il are good examples of authoritarian left, whereas a big capitalist who's very much into religious law, for example, is a good example of authoritarian right. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are authoritarian right.

 

[firex]

I just read this and turned out:
Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72

 

[Azih]

Okay. I get Bush being an anarchist, wanting to get rid of government programs, but there's authortarian LEFT and authoritarian RIGHT. What's the difference between the two?

I read the graph differently. People at the very BOTTOM are Anarchists and people at the TOP believe in rigid laws governing behaviour (hence Authoritarian)

People on the LEFT believe in income redistribution, people on the RIGHT don't.

So Bush doesn't believe in income redistribution and believes in rigid laws governing behaviour. TOP RIGHT.

Stalin does believe in income redistribution and also believes in righd laws governing behaviour. TOP LEFT.

Edit: Point being that all four quadrants are pretty different from each other even though each side (left, right, top, bottom) has stuff in common

 

[missAran]

L-R = economic regulation - economic freedom.
U-D = personal regulation - personal freedom.

It's an easy chart to read.

 

[Triumph]

5 pages into the thread and I'm *STILL* the biggest Commie. My dad so hates me right now...

 

[Manabanana]

...but there's authortarian LEFT and authoritarian RIGHT. What's the difference between the two?

How they hold scissors.

 

[missAran]

5 pages into the thread and I'm *STILL* the biggest Commie. My dad so hates me right now...

I'm knipping at your heals, just relax. You keep bring this up like you've done something amazing. But honestly, it's not that big of a deal. Sure, we probably agree one very economic issue -- so that's always cool.

Anyway, how old are you? Because, honestly, you just seem like a rebellious 15-year-old.

 

[android]

Hitler and Stalin had nothing on this regime. The death, destruction and torture were awful.

 

[Slo]

-1.63
-0.31

I can look down my nose at all you baby killin' liberals without associating myself with the redneck right-wing hillbilies. I WIN THIS THREAD.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Which is good, because the moderate/middle are the ones who decide who the leaders are.

 

[itschris]

Large version

I added the gradient because some of the dots were the same colour as the background.

This is probably the last one I'll do, so here's the Excel file in case anybody wants to continue adding people/mess around with the graph/etc.

 

[Socreges]

5 pages into the thread and I'm *STILL* the biggest Commie. My dad so hates me right now...

A ha! So your unusual opinions are simply a product of rebellion against your father! :lol

 

[Loki]

I can't speak for all the double-negative posters, or even for everyone in the Locus of Awesome, but here's why I think it's a natural connection:

Restrictions on freedom are not exclusive to government. People's practical choices are limited by their savings/debts, earning potential, education, health, free time, etc. The "restrictions in the economic sphere" are generally designed to give more choices or opportunities to people who would otherwise have very limited options.

Child labor laws, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, publically funded universities, minimum housing standards, automobile safety regulations, the FDA, fire codes, etc. all put limitations on the actions of corporations or capitalists (in the first sense of the word). Even programs that don't directly affect capitalists (free, mandatory, primary and secondary education and publically funded health care) restrict them economically if they are paid for by a progressive tax system.

However, these laws remove practical restrictions for many people. I'd argue that more people benefit from increased freedom as a result of these laws than people suffer from decreased freedom. I'd also argue that the people being restricted still have way more options than most people, and won't feel the sting too badly.

Even though I said I couldn't speak for my fellow libbies, I'll give it a quick shot: I think the natural tendency for a liberal, or for a US citizen who votes Democratic is to identify with The Little Guy, against the Fat Cats. They don't want the CEO's dictating the distribution of wealth and screwing over hard-working Joe Schmo, and they don't want senators dictating where Joe can and can't stick his penis.

Mandark, excellent post; it also coheres nicely, which is good to see. As I said in my post, "both of these (i.e., more restrictions economically and fewer socially) are perfectly justifiable in their own right, and perhaps even together given the proper personal philosophy" -- you clearly have a proper, consistent, and developed philosophy regarding the relationships between these things, which is always good.


My post was basically addressed to the outliers (i.e., communistic anarchists...the -8,-8 group I alluded to), and to people who basically skew towards that lower-left quadrant not due to personal reflection, as in your case, but rather just out of habit/reflex, since it goes along with the prevailing "leftist" philosophy. In other words, it was a call for reflection, since I have a very hard time believing that every person in the far reaches of that quadrant has as developed a personal philosophy as you do. And believe me, if somehow everyone were clustered in the upper right quadrant in that same fashion, I would have said the exact same thing, because I was just trying to get people to think a bit on their own beliefs in a roundabout way, to see if they were being consistent. You clearly are; others, I'm sure, are not (just based on probabilities, not on my opinion of anyone in that quadrant in particular).


Like I said in my post, someone with a +8,+8 has just as great a likelihood of being "inconsistent" in that same way (based on the traditional conception of the nature of the axes), unless they have a thorough personal philosophy which cogently ties everything together. I just don't feel that many people have given enough consideration to the issues, and to life, to have developed such a philosophy, whether they're on the right or the left; so I tend to be a bit skeptical of such people (again, reflexively right or reflexively left) until they show me that there's something going on in that brain of theirs.


Hope that clears things up.

This is the "Count of Concision"? :lol

Seriously, though, it seems obvious to me that the "colloquial" use of "pride" in the given context is "much pleased". What U.S. citizen sits around thinking about how much they like the U.S. because of how they personally helped make it what it is?

Well, there was at least one person who didn't understand it in that colloquial sense, since that was who I was responding to. I wasn't saying all that for my own sake, you know.

I understood it in the "much pleased" sense of the word, and wouldn't have elaborated had TAJ not directed a post towards me regarding the use of the word.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So who's going to test the Nintendo theory based on this info?

Some months back this came up and quite a number of liberal Nintendo fans came out of the woodwork. Catchpenny dubbed us the "Coalition of the Sane".

 

[Drensch]

But now we have a chart, and It'd be neat to see it quantified, along wih other systems.

 

[Inumaru]

Well, there was at least one person who didn't understand it in that colloquial sense, since that was who I was responding to. I wasn't saying all that for my own sake, you know.

I understood it in the "much pleased" sense of the word, and wouldn't have elaborated had TAJ not directed a post towards me regarding the use of the word.

Um...oh. I missed the part that you were replying to someone. Well, -1 reading comprehension for me. Sorry about that.

I enjoy your writing, I just thought your somewhat wordy post was funny in relation to your tag. Precise, just maybe not concise, that time.

 

[Loki]

Um...oh. I missed the part that you were replying to someone. Well, -1 reading comprehension for me. Sorry about that.

No problem.


Btw, my tag was bestowed by EviLore, jokingly, in light of my penchant for circumlocution-- I'm not actually "concise", as I'm sure you've already gathered.

 

[Minotauro]

Btw, my tag was bestowed by EviLore, jokingly, in light of my penchant for circumlocution-- I'm not actually "concise", as I'm sure you've already gathered.

Now, if he could only work in a reference to your predilection for emoticons, he'd really have something. :lol

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Horrible MS Paint job, but you know what, screw you, it gets the point across...

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Communism has only killed millions of people and continues to put a strangehold on the basic human rights of individuals today -- let's give it another chance! :lol

 

[Loki]

Now, if he could only work in a reference to your predilection for emoticons, he'd really have something. :lol

Don't give him any ideas. :lol

 

[Triumph]

Communism has only killed millions of people and continues to put a strangehold on the basic human rights of individuals today -- let's give it another chance! :lol

That was Communism coupled with brutal, violent governments that wanted complete control. IMHO, there's never been a "pure" Communist government. I halfway think that despots just espoused Communism to allow their ascent to power.

 

[Azrael]

My post was basically addressed to the outliers (i.e., communistic anarchists...the -8,-8 group I alluded to), and to people who basically skew towards that lower-left quadrant not due to personal reflection, as in your case, but rather just out of habit/reflex, since it goes along with the prevailing "leftist" philosophy.

That's probably part of it. I have also noticed that almost all of the questions about personal liberty skew left towards issues where left libertarians and left authoritarians would be in agreement, like legalization of marijuana and gay marriage.

There's no questions on their survey about banning private gun ownership, the censorship of hate speech, banning smoking in public places, regulating the junk food that people eat, banning recreational hunting -- any issue that would really distinguish between a left libertarian and a left authoritarian. I realize that a survey like this can't include every issue, but when it doesn't include any of a great number of issues where civil libertarianism and rigid socialism clash, the result is going to be that socialists as a whole are going to appear more libertarian while capitalists as a whole are going to appear more authoritarian.

 

[Ill Saint]

Communism has only killed millions of people and continues to put a strangehold on the basic human rights of individuals today -- let's give it another chance! :lol

Capitalism has also killed millions of people and is increasingly putting a stranglehold on the basic human rights of individuals today. The only difference is that it has a nice shiny, well polished sheen. Have you lived under Communism? I have. It's a flawed system (like Capitalism), but it's not always the pillar of human ruination (though the idea is appealing) that the political propaganda machine portrays it as.

Anyway, Enjoy Coke (TM).

 

[Loki]

That was Communism coupled with brutal, violent governments that wanted complete control. IMHO, there's never been a "pure" Communist government.

And there never will be-- indeed, there can't be. There's that pesky little thing called "human nature" that keeps getting in the way...

I halfway think that despots just espoused Communism to allow their ascent to power.

Ya think?

Capitalism has also killed millions of people and is increasingly putting a stranglehold on the basic human rights of individuals today. The only difference is that it has a nice shiny, well polished sheen. Have you lived under Communism? I have. It's a flawed system (like Capitalism), but it's not always the pillar of human ruination (though the idea is appealing) that the political propaganda machine portrays it as.

Capitalism comports with human nature to a far greater extent than communism does, and so it will seldom appear as restrictive as communism does to the majority of people. The ideal system, imo, is fettered capitalism guided by "good sense"-- as ambiguous a term as that may be.

 

[missAran]

That was Communism coupled with brutal, violent governments that wanted complete control. IMHO, there's never been a "pure" Communist government. I halfway think that despots just espoused Communism to allow their ascent to power.

Anyone who think that Karl Marx would've been 'down' with the U.S.S.R. doesn't understand his works. Marx was largely a minimalist and wasn't an advocate of this massive production of the the Soviet Union. So as a result, there has never been a Marxist government.

 

[Azrael]

It's fine and dandy to say there's never been a true Communist nation, but there's never been a true Anarcho-Capitalist one either. Ayn Rand makes Anarcho-Capitalism sound pretty Utopian if anyone could just figure out how to implement it, too.