Page 2 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#40501 - 07/19/10 04:17 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I can sum up my political beliefs by saying I believe I own myself and I believe might makes right. Yes I realize this is a bit heterodox, but the world is a crazy place.

I still like the idea of market anarchy (the functions of government continue, but are absorbed into the free market), but I don't think human beings natural will to power would ever allow for that.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40502 - 07/19/10 04:27 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I uphold two conflicting positions. On the one side I am a fascist because this is the most effective way to herd cattle. Opposed to that, I do believe those that rise above cattle are perfectly capable of governing themselves.

D.

Top
#40506 - 07/19/10 04:42 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I agree with that Dia. I would say the ones that DESERVE to govern themselves are the ones capable of rising from the muck to do so. The rest will be herded regardless.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40516 - 07/19/10 06:03 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
As for social programs, I think that private charities and programs work better. Maybe it's naive of me to think so (one could certainly argue that), but there you have it. Not only do public support programs create opportunities for abuse, but they also create a sense of complacency on the part of individuals that the government will take care of these issues, so they don't need to do anything about it themselves.

Private nonprofit organizations have independent and direct discretion to discern whether an individual is genuinely a hardworking, honest individual in need of a hand up or a leech. They also have to establish a track record of low overhead to keep the reputation they need to get more donations.

Public programs, on the other hand, are subject to political pressure and have to answer to higher-ups who are depending on appealing to voters more than they are to running efficiently and effectively. They can't afford to be subject to allegations of "discrimination," whether these allegations are legitimate or not. As such, public programs have cookie-cutter standards that allow people to "qualify," which enables abuse more readily. Once there are clear standards for what it takes to qualify, people can try and meet those standards themselves, like the "ex friend" who conceived for the sake of generating welfare checks.

For that matter, a lot of assistance can come out of the self-interest of the giver. A university may decide to give me a loan on my education if it decides I'm a promising individual. After all, if my education there increases my earning capacity considerably, giving me a student loan is simply a good investment. It's been my experience that giving out of self-interest is far more likely to help a sincere individual than a social parasite.

I think that any type of assistance should act as a "safety net" to try and catch people if they understandably slip (we all do sometimes.) The issue becomes when the safety net is so comfortable people decide to use it as a hammock.

Some people seem to think the government is this big, looming "other" that just eats up people's money. What they don't necessarily realize is that it may well be their own demands that drive up taxes. Yes, occasionally politicians may embezzle or overspend on their own paychecks or benefits, but far more often, I think, it's taxpayers that end up driving up government spending by always begging for more. And politicians often spend like crazy because cutting programs can make them really unpopular when re-election rolls back around.

The problem is that the government is a buffer that prevents citizens from directly feeling the impact of what they spend. If I buy an item, I have to write out all the 0's on the check myself, or put down each bill myself, and make note of how much lighter my wallet is because of it. That stings, and it makes me be more careful to ensure that I'm spending wisely. But part of the reason people abuse credit cards more than cash is because they don't directly feel the impact; it's like anesthetic. People abuse the government in the same way; they don't get the immediate impact of the cost to themselves on government spending. They only notice the goodies the government gives them, and they want more goodies. They don't necessarily stop to think about what their share of the cost for those goodies is, because they don't necessarily know what their taxes were paying for.

(Btw, it's this very same "buffer" effect that drives up the cost of private health insurance. If healthcare covers a certain percentage of the cost of an item, people are more likely to get more expensive drugs and procedures because "they're covered" than they would if they were paying directly out of pocket. Then they bitch about how much their coverage costs... gee, I wonder why?)

On that note, I think "tax receipts" would be an excellent idea. When people's paychecks indicate how much was deducted for taxes, I think they should get a receipt for where it went. It may make them think a bit more about holding government accountable for its spending. It may also help them reconsider whether or not the goodies are really worth what it costs them.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40523 - 07/19/10 06:25 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Dan_Dread]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I think the reason this thing put me where it did was simply because I do think that government's job is to regulate certain areas of business. The federal government is supposed to regulate foreign affairs and the income tax was originally (read: constitutionally) supposed to come from business and foreign business done by Americans. Constitutionally, big brother only exists to handle those things that are out of the scope of the individual states, the states cover what the counties can't handle, and on down the line to city level. Living in any society requires a certain amount of collectivism just to make things work properly, but my belief is that ALL government should have VERY limited powers and that for the most part, people should sink or swim according to how much effort they put into living.

To be more specific, if I start a business and said business fails, that's my problem. I don't have health insurance because I don't feel like I need it. (In one year I spent more on insurance than if I would have paid all medical out of pocket for me AND both my kids.) and no, that wont save us if the big shit happens, but with a family deductible of 500-1000$ and insurance payments of 400+ per month, neither will insurance. To answer the question of Obamacare...well hell, now it's just a matter of principal to me: I don't want the shit; I don't care if it's ten dollars a year with zero deductible, no one has the right to force me to buy something I don't want. Most things that go on in a hospital I am prepared to handle on my own: illness from whatever happens to be going around at the time, suturing wounds, I could even set a break and cast it as long as it's not too hairy. So unless I'm thrown from my truck at 65 mph, chances are high that I'm not going to consider it worth a trip to the hospital in the first place. There is even a place in my town where you can go to order your own blood tests (for whatever, give them the blood and tell them what to look for and they do it for less than 50$ on average) and a place where you can order your own x-rays. I have very little need for a doctor, which is just the way I like it.

I think minimum wage is bullshit as well as affirmative action, government subsidization of farming, bailouts, and many other programs that are going on these days. But it seems that because I do think that government has the right to set standards that control pollution, the quiz has put me on the left side.

If people were made to depend on themselves more, it's my opinion that everyone would benefit from it. We were a stronger nation in the 50's than we are today, and there's a reason for it.

P.S., without going to a copy-paste and reiteration, I agree with X above me regarding social programs versus private charities, also.


Edited by ceruleansteel (07/19/10 06:28 PM)
Edit Reason: .PS....

Top
#40528 - 07/19/10 10:14 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: ceruleansteel]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
I think minimum wage is bullshit as well as affirmative action, government subsidization of farming, bailouts, and many other programs that are going on these days. But it seems that because I do think that government has the right to set standards that control pollution, the quiz has put me on the left side.


The quiz is, unfortunately, an issue-by-issue series of questions that leaves a lot of issues out. Standards that control pollution seem relatively reasonable compared to a lot of the other issues you mentioned, so I do think it was a bit inaccurate for it to place you on the left. I considered making my own quiz, but I wanted something separate and objective.

It was my hypothesis that Satanists would be relatively Libertarian & Capitalist (bottom-right) like myself, and so far a lot of the results seem to confirm that. 6 out of 6 (this is including the results from the MCoS) have been on the socially liberal side of things. That makes sense; we don't have the same traditional sense of "morality" that Xians typically do. The fact that a good number of the questions on the quiz referred to religion specifically certainly contributed to that.

As for the reason Satanists lean towards capitalism, I think that Fnord explained it just about as well as I could. Responsibility to the responsible; need I say more?

It's common, though, for certain reactionary Christians to assume that Satanism is communist or socialist, or, alternately, that said economic philosophies are "Satanic." Why? The Cold War had people railing against communism. Noting that communists were atheists, the public linked Christianity and capitalism together as "American values." Despite the fact that Christianity is very collectivist and ascetic, the idea of capitalist as a "Christian" idea is cemented in the minds of the American people. Since they see capitalism as Christian, they reason Satanism must be for the opposite.

Yet everything I've seen from Satanists, from quotes from LaVey about water "seeking its own level," to the ideals of individualism, elitism, meritocracy, and harshness, all seem to point to an ideal society in which you succeed or fail based on your own abilities.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40529 - 07/19/10 10:45 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I could not imagine a more socialist ideology than christianity, nor a less socialist ideology than Satanism. I think whatever christians you are imagining haven't read the words attributed to their Savior re- camels and the eye of a needle, nor much else in the communist manifesto that is the new testament.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40530 - 07/20/10 01:10 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Dan_Dread]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I could not imagine a more socialist ideology than christianity, nor a less socialist ideology than Satanism. I think whatever christians you are imagining haven't read the words attributed to their Savior re- camels and the eye of a needle, nor much else in the communist manifesto that is the new testament.


Haven't read the words attributed to their savior? That would be most of them around here. There are Xians who read about how "GOD HATES FAGS," and there are Xians who read about how he loves everyone, but I'm yet to meet a one that actually reads the whole Bible in its entirety. Either way, it's a matter of having their concept of god conform to their own opinions instead of the other way around.

There were a couple of hellfire and brimstone Southern Baptists on campus hollering about who god hates, and they had a sign listing it all: Feminists, gangster rappers (?), fornicators, masturbators, homosexuals, pagans, atheists, evolutionists, and yes, socialists were listed. When I asked what his justification was for the "socialist" part of that, he claimed that the Bible endorsed capitalism in 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, where it says, "He who shall not work shall not eat." (Apparently, his understanding of socialism/communism is a system in which some people sit back and accept handouts for doing nothing.) I shot back that Lenin said the same thing, and he got this "first principle of socialism" from the Bible. I actually managed to stun him for a split second, before he returned to his default track of "REPENT, heathen!" It's like talking to a brick wall with a loudspeaker attached.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40539 - 07/20/10 09:52 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
I could not imagine a more socialist ideology than christianity, nor a less socialist ideology than Satanism. I think whatever christians you are imagining haven't read the words attributed to their Savior re- camels and the eye of a needle, nor much else in the communist manifesto that is the new testament.


I see where you are coming from ideologically. However most Satanists tend to promote an ideology not on the basis of how much it resonates with his or her personal philosophy but instead with the ideology that makes the individual Satanist thrive. I would say, depending on the circumstances, it could be any ideology really.

Edit: I did both tests. The political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

The political survey:

1 left/right -0.9560 (-0.0575)
2 pragmatism -0.7711 (-0.0464)

Whatever :P


Edited by TheInsane (07/20/10 10:20 AM)

Top
#40540 - 07/20/10 10:13 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
The now nationally famous tv clown, Joel Osteen, regularly preaches about what he calls 'increase', which is essentially his way of telling his ever growing congregation that seeking out material success is all part of god's plan. You can see a video HERE of him doing just that.

He and his wife show up quite regularly on the local news here in Houston, invariably dripping in gold and diamonds, and I've often wondered if they even know where the jewels come from.

Ah well, hypocrisy in christianity certainly isn't new.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40546 - 07/20/10 02:49 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: TheInsane]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
I see where you are coming from ideologically. However most Satanists tend to promote an ideology not on the basis of how much it resonates with his or her personal philosophy but instead with the ideology that makes the individual Satanist thrive. I would say, depending on the circumstances, it could be any ideology really.

Edit: I did both tests. The political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

The political survey:

1 left/right -0.9560 (-0.0575)
2 pragmatism -0.7711 (-0.0464)

Whatever :P


I've read similar things (self-serving ideology instead of ideology based on self-serving principle) from the Satanic Reds. They essentially claim that socialism is a self-serving system.



I can't say I really understand how they came to that conclusion. I've tried reading their socio-political articles. They're such stream-of-consciousness spiels that I really can't follow their train of thought at all. I guess that would explain why there are only a few of them, so far as I can tell.

I'm usually pretty good at following my opposition's train of thought, even if I don't agree with it. After all, I get where the "Christianity & Capitalism" mentality comes from even though I see the flawed logic. But the Satanic Reds... I just don't get it. :?

As far as I understand things, I don't think a socialist system would serve anyone's interest. I think such systems are ultimately unsustainable and doomed to collapse. There's substantial evidence to show that, despite the "inequity" in a capitalist society, even the poorest of the poor are still better off under a free market. Many would argue that it's the poor implementation, and not the system itself, that is the problem with socialism. To that I'd have to say that the poor implementation is inevitable due to human nature, and any system that fails to account for that is never going to be realized. Sure, we can all think about what would go on in an "ideal world," but in the meanwhile we have to deal with what we have here and now.

You do seem to be a bit more articulate than the Satanic Reds, and I'd like to be able to understand why a Satanist would support a more controlled economy. A lot of other people here have explained their reasoning behind their position, and I'd be interested to hear yours, especially since it's unique.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40549 - 07/20/10 03:18 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3110
 Quote:
After all, I get where the "Christianity & Capitalism" mentality comes from even though I see the flawed logic. But the Satanic Reds... I just don't get it. :?

I have made the remark on other topics multiple times that concerning Satanism, words such as theistic, atheistic, spiritual, progressive,.. are nothing more then indications of a persons position towards metaphysics.
The way I see the "Satanic reds" is at the same level. They consider themselves Satanists who share the ideas of Socialism. They link Satanism with socialism. Nothing wrong with it and justifieable (in their view at least) to certain extends if a few of their ideas are being read. Just not my slice of the cake.

Edit: scrolled a bit trough the website, they gave me the impression of yet one of those other groups who got ass-bitten decades ago. Had quite a laugh with their "Nine Satanic Statements reviewed", resembled a bit the blackwood grotesque. Hardly worth mentioning IMO..



Edited by Dimitri (07/20/10 03:28 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40552 - 07/20/10 04:21 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1126
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
I have made the remark on other topics multiple times that concerning Satanism, words such as theistic, atheistic, spiritual, progressive,.. are nothing more then indications of a persons position towards metaphysics.


The term "Satanist," as it is used, doesn't necessarily indicate any particular metaphysical stance because those who call themselves "Satanists" run the gamut of metaphysical positions. There are monists, dualists, pluralists, materialists, spiritualists, monotheists, polytheists, suitheists, agnostics, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc who all identify themselves as "Satanists." If someone introduces himself to me as a "Satanist," I can't assume anything about his position on metaphysics without qualification.

While the metaphysics of "Satanism" are, for practical purposes, up in the air, I thought that I at least could make a rough assumption about the ethics of Satanism. Satanists are egoists, individualists, elitists, and intellectuals. (At least, they consider themselves such.) Though I've met self-identified Satanists with every metaphysical position imaginable, I've consistently found that the essential approach to ethics is what Satanists have in common.

And in all fairness, the "S.R." crowd do espouse the same ethical root (egoism) that I've seen most all Satanists support. Given that assertion, though, I don't see how it meshes with the rest of what they say. If we remove the word "Satanic" and just call them what they call themselves, "Egoist Socialists," I still can't wrap my mind around it.

Do they matter? Probably not, as a whole, to the Satanic community. But they're the only extant "political" Satanist org I'm aware of. So within the realm of "Satanic politics," they're relevant so far as they're the only "Satanists" who are actively promoting a particular political position.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40555 - 07/20/10 04:51 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3110
 Quote:
The term "Satanist," as it is used, doesn't necessarily indicate any particular metaphysical stance because those who call themselves "Satanists" run the gamut of metaphysical positions. There are monists, dualists, pluralists, materialists, spiritualists, monotheists, polytheists, suitheists, agnostics, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc who all identify themselves as "Satanists." If someone introduces himself to me as a "Satanist," I can't assume anything about his position on metaphysics without qualification.

Is it relevant to you to know how ones position is at beforehand on metaphysics? Mine hardly is (now at least), and it can only numb down discussions who could have been otherwise productive.
Admitted I only came across 2 persons with a theistic view who could compose complete and rational sentences.

 Quote:
Though I've met self-identified Satanists with every metaphysical position imaginable, I've consistently found that the essential approach to ethics is what Satanists have in common.

That's why I prefer to only hear the term Satanism instead of "atheistic Satanism, theistic,..". Ethics being the golden wire troughout it all makes things such as the sharing of "metaphysical view/political stance/other"+Satanism quite irrelevant. Which is exactly my point.

 Quote:
But they're the only extant "political" Satanist org I'm aware of. So within the realm of "Satanic politics," they're relevant so far as they're the only "Satanists" who are actively promoting a particular political position.

I encounterd a few times fascist Satanists, quite a laugh these guys, mainly consisted out of your local wannabee gothics, metalheads and social retards. My best guess is there are probably more such political orgs but are hardly spoken off since Satanism hardly mangles with pure politics (and tend to give the practioner a bad profile when it comes to voting).
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#40556 - 07/20/10 04:53 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Just because someone makes a crappy website full of incoherent rambling about something does not make that something relevant or worthy of consideration.

The cornerstone of socialism is equality. The good of the many trumps the good of the one. The power is not with the individual, but with the state. The greater good is the only consideration.

It is simply incoherent to try to fit this sort of value system to something that is it's complete opposite. There is no equality. The good of the one is all that matters. The power is always with the one. There is no greater good, only what is good for me.

Is this really under discussion? This is silly.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 2 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.