Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#40386 - 07/17/10 10:19 AM Political Compass
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
This is kind of a generic "forum" quiz that's popular to pass around, but I'm posting it here as more than just a springboard for water-cooler talk. I am genuinely interested in getting a rough demographic survey of the political affiliations of Satanists. I found Lewis's study interesting, but not really in-depth enough to give me a concrete idea where Satanists (as a rule) stand politically. I certainly have a good hypothesis based on observation, but I'd like more data, if you will indulge. You've probably seen it before, and may have your results saved somewhere. If you've never taken it, I recommend it; it's fun. \:\)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Yes, I am aware that many of the threads here ask for rough approximate affiliations, but I find them deficient. Satanists are notorious hair-splitters, and the definition of any political term (anarchist, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, fascist, totalitarian, libertarian, authoritarian) can be used to mean just about anything depending on who wields it. We wouldn't call ourselves Satanists if we didn't think the use of terms was flexible. I like this quiz because, regardless of the label you affiliate with, it will give an objective measure of where you stand relative to others. I fondly remember that, in one high school class in which I encountered this quiz, most of the "democrats" and "republicans" were, in fact, populists, and there was little to no discernible difference between those who called themselves one or the other.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: 10.00 (Laissez-Faire Capitalist)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74 (For individual freedom)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40389 - 07/17/10 10:56 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Mine landed about where I thought it'd land, although I expect my Economic Left/Right should be closer to 8 or so. I might have picked apart the questions too much.

Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

Economic conservative/capitalist, social libertarian. About right I'd say.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40391 - 07/17/10 12:00 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Fnord
Mine landed about where I thought it'd land, although I expect my Economic Left/Right should be closer to 8 or so. I might have picked apart the questions too much.


I do the same darn thing. I spent forever deliberating over

"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."

Someone on either end of the spectrum may "strongly disagree" with that for a completely different reason than another. It's too middle-road of a statement to indicate anything without qualification. For one, it says "mothers" instead of "women," which suggests a woman may be career-oriented if she chooses not to have children. It also allows for the possibility that mothers may have careers. A hardcore social conservative may strongly disagree if for no other reason than he thinks a woman's only career is being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen vacuuming under his ass and making him a sammich. An extreme social liberal, on the other hand, would resent the idea that mothers can't have their cake and eat it too, or that men can't be "Mr. Mom," and also may strongly disagree. It would be really hard to tell which one was intended by "disagree." :P

I also wondered about whether some of the statements were at all relevant to my political position. I mean, what does my opinion about the definition of "art" have to do with my politics? As for social issues, I'm hardcore libertarian when it comes to actual implementation of policy. The law, in my mind, should live and let live unless someone's life is at stake. But oftentimes the quiz asks for my personal opinion on social matters without attaching it to any issue of policy, and I wonder how that may affect my score. For example, I don't think people with serious genetic problems should be reproducing, so I may click "strongly agree," but I also don't think it's any of the state's business whether they do or not. So though my personal opinion may be more on the fascist eugenics side of things, my political position is far more libertarian. :P
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40397 - 07/17/10 02:36 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40411 - 07/17/10 11:39 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40436 - 07/18/10 01:28 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: ta2zz]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3881
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I agree with ta2zz. I died a little inside when I saw this mcdonalds calibre shit posted here. Whats next..a word association thread?

This isn't mcos.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40438 - 07/18/10 01:44 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Damis Offline
pledge


Registered: 12/10/08
Posts: 60
Loc: England
I remember this site from my time in college, we were actually advised against using it in the course of our work due to it's gross inaccuracy at least when it came to British political positioning. (Such as how it puts the Labour party on the right, when it is by policy a moderate left wing party).

However if you are interested in finding out how your political position is viewed through taking an online quiz, then I would at least recommend: http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey

Although it's data from real world politics is about five years dated, I would think that it would still be useful when it comes to the core essentials. It's a lot more thorough and encompassing than 'Political Compass', with around seventy-five questions covering a wide range of common political topics. The results are also a lot more detailed, if memory serves correctly, it also provides a detailed breakdown of your answers and which areas influence your position the most.

However I would still be dubious about any online survey that claims to provide an accurate picture of something as complex and relative as a political position. (A lot of people can't even agree on what Left and Right actually are!).

When I took the latter quiz a while ago, I remember being placed firmly on the right but with a very big sway in the direction of the liberal quarter.
_________________________
Leben ist krieg.

Top
#40440 - 07/18/10 02:23 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1735
Loc: New York
Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#40443 - 07/18/10 03:53 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: ta2zz]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.

~T~


Facebook and MySpace quizzes are usually shallow, poorly designed, and give really generic, vague answers that would be applicable to anyone. This quiz, I feel, is accurate and informative enough to actually indicate something relevant.

"Which Disney princess are you?" may be cute, but it has no impact on people's lives. The Political Compass gives people a clearer idea of where they stand overall in regards to the issues and what political parties actually serve their interests. It can radically alter a person's self-perception.

I've known a lot of people who simply vote straight ticket for whatever party their family happens to belong to, without actually giving any thought as to why they vote the way they do or whether this party serves their interests or principles. In my opinion, this quiz is useful for introspection.

And as I said before, I'd actually like to get an idea where Satanists stand politically, for my own purposes. I'm not just asking for the hell of it.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40447 - 07/18/10 04:30 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Damis]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Damis
However if you are interested in finding out how your political position is viewed through taking an online quiz, then I would at least recommend: http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey


My results from this were:

1 left/right +1.7821 (+0.1073)
2 pragmatism +8.5562 (+0.5150)

While I appreciate the effort to contribute something good, I don't really perceive much of a difference. I was asked a few of the questions twice, so it didn't really end up being 75 questions. It seems about the same to me, although I'm not really sure how the Pragmatic/Idealistic dichotomy is determined. I guess Libertarian/Authoritarian was a clearer axis. Also, I didn't really see a detailed output besides my basic numbers. Maybe that's something they've since scrapped?


Edited by XiaoGui17 (07/18/10 04:31 PM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40468 - 07/19/10 01:42 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Damis Offline
pledge


Registered: 12/10/08
Posts: 60
Loc: England
Like I said, it's probably been about two years since I've used the site in question, however I do recall that quite a few questions are the same but just rephrased, my best guess is that it's just a means of verifying your positions or the strength of said positions.
_________________________
Leben ist krieg.

Top
#40474 - 07/19/10 09:09 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

so...tell me about me...

Top
#40490 - 07/19/10 02:58 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

And as I said before, I'd actually like to get an idea where Satanists stand politically, for my own purposes. I'm not just asking for the hell of it.


It will make for an interesting study I think.

I've interacted with folk online who claim to be Satanists but vote for increasing spending on social programs (ie left side of the spectrum).

To my mind, it's difficult to be a fierce individualist with a pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality, who supports taking the earnings of one member of society and giving it to a weaker member of society. Of course I've illustrated my point in a simple manner, but I can't see much on the fiscal side of the left that I can support.

Redistribution of wealth via heavier taxation on a selected few?
I can't get behind that unless I'm willing to say that I think it's right to punish achievers.

Health care, the bailouts, this new bullshit nanny state garbage about monitoring people's BMI's... it's all overhead that the tax payer will ultimately shoulder the burden for. I don't see how any of it is compatible with fierce individualism.

If you get very far into this or decide to write something up, I'd like to read it.


Edited by Fnord (07/19/10 02:58 PM)
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40494 - 07/19/10 03:31 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
The problem with social programs like welfare is that it is meant to be temporary assistance until people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps but far too many people make being on welfare their job. I know a guy who actually admitted to me while he was drunk that the reason he keeps having kids is for the tax credits and welfare. Not long after that I stopped hanging out with him.

I could probably get food stamps right now if I wanted, but I don't. Not only would I prefer to make it on my own but I am in no danger of starving and it would be rather hypocritical of me, an Individualist Anarchist, to beg for help from the system that I so despise.

Even so I am still glad that Oregon has a free state health insurance plan. I myself have no insurance, whether from the state or private company, which is why I don't seek medical attention unless it is absolutely necessary. However, my sister recently got pregnant and that coupled with the fact that she is a working student makes her eligible for Oregon Health Plan. She is by no means a societal leech; she works full-time as a cook and a small town cafe and goes to school full-time at Portland State University pursuing a Master's in History so she can be a museum curator.

I like knowing that her and my future niece or nephew will be taken care of should anything bad happen. As far as most of the rest of the world I care not one bit for them or their well being. Fuck you, what have you ever done for me anyway! ;\)

Taxes? Fuck taxes, the government has no right to forcibly take money from those who have earned it. That being said I never did understand why "the rich" got to pay lower taxes. If they are going to take money from people it seems logical that the more you make, the more would be taken from you. In the end, however, I still "fuck taxes!"

And it is at this point that we come to a little problem of logic. On one hand I am staunchly against taxation but on the other I am for my sister's ability to receive health insurance which is paid for by, you guessed it: taxes. Very hypocritical and contradictory a position I hold. I see no way that these two very different opinions can hold as strongly as they do within my own mind but they do none-the-less.

Issues like these are seldom black and white. And the example I have just provided is proof of that. This test, while probably not totally inaccurate, should be seen as nothing more than a novelty. I couldn't pin myself to either side of the political spectrum; I have many varying views that intersect with both sides and as an over all I despise the authoritarian system that created this "political division" to begin with.

Just some random thoughts that your post, Fnord, got me mulling around in my head.

/free form rant


Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (07/19/10 03:35 PM)
Edit Reason: Mechanics
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40498 - 07/19/10 03:53 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Well, my own views aren't as stark as what I presented either.

I'm not against social programs en toto. I'm against the consistent gaming of the system and I'm against politicians who want to maintain the status quo and I'm befuddled by the people who support those politicians unless they are beneficiaries.

I think we waste way too much money in this country on increasing the size of the government (see my post on Michelle Obama's 20+ 'assistants'). Our government has gotten the idea that they should be calling the shots instead of acting in favor of their constituents (ie their employers).

I think for people like your sister, who want to improve and who have the drive to do the work, programs should be available to help. I'd rather be taxed so that someone can be become better (which will make the world I live in better) rather than be taxed to support someone like your ex friend ( I have a few of those ex friends too).

Stephen King once said in an interview I heard that sure you can teach a man to fish and feed him for life but how about feeding him for a while so he can learn to fish. If there is a result at the end of it and if there is a timetable attached, I have no issue.

As for the rich paying less taxes:
Here is an independent study with some citations. That bar graph is pretty well known and is pulled directly from the IRS site. The top 5% pay over 50% of all taxes.

AND:
As for being a hypocrite... we all are in some way or another.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#40501 - 07/19/10 04:17 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3881
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: 3881
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: 1137
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: 1137
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: 3881
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: 1137
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: 1137
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: 3138
 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: 1137
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: 3138
 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: 3881
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
#40563 - 07/20/10 05:39 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
To be fair The Satanic Reds do not use the same definition of socialist as every other socialist does. They do have their own spin on things. The basics are covered in their FAQ: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html

For me personally I don't care for the politics in particular but the metaphysical writings (the dark doctrines) of some of the members of the group are indeed very good (even if Tani tends to rant to much).

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

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.


A Satanic Reds member position on egoism: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/egoism.html

 Quote:

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.


Well, I am not in agreement with The Satanic Reds, nor am I a socialist, and it was a long time since I read their political material so I cant relate my views to it. My basic critique of a free economy has already been discussed in this thread: http://www.the600club.com/topic35106.html No need to start the same discussion here again.

But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the enviroment.


Edited by TheInsane (07/20/10 05:47 PM)

Top
#40568 - 07/20/10 07:14 PM The Satanic Reds [Re: TheInsane]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
To be fair The Satanic Reds do not use the same definition of socialist as every other socialist does. They do have their own spin on things. The basics are covered in their FAQ: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html


 Originally Posted By: The Satanic Reds

6) Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?
==================================================
We are sort of both. Dirigist capitalism is a form of Socialism!...Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! Anyone who is in favor of women's rights, feminism, gay rights, and against racism is called a Red! In fact, anyone in favor of tolerance toward alternative religions is called a Red or a "pinko commie." This is not new! And so, we call ourselves REDS!


I do understand the concept of "Dirigist capitalism" (Dirigisme or socialism-lite). But social issues (gay rights, feminism, non-racism, religious tolerance) have nothing to do with being a "red." The fact that other people ignorantly fling around a term without understanding its meaning doesn't mean it actually means that.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
A Satanic Reds member position on egoism: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/egoism.html


When I refer to egoism, I'm referring to an ethical stance. The best I can glean from this word salad is that he sees egoism as some sort of epistemological position. :? Obviously they aren't on the same wavelength I am, so it would be difficult to have any sort of discussion about it.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the environment.


I went over your posts in that thread. It seems regarding social issues, you talk about the problems caused by various factors (individual ownership of firearms, drug use, etc) and thus say they should be legally limited or prohibited. My issue with that is that history shows prohibition and gun control don't work. It's only great in theory to ban things; in reality, bans are ineffective and often counterproductive. Just because there's a problem with one system doesn't mean the other system has the solution.

As for the economy, a free market is a system in which the government interferes minimally (if at all) with the economy. You go on about how such a system values money and profit over human and environmental interests. But a free market is a POLICY, not a value system. You seem to have equated capitalism with consumerism. They're not the same thing at all.

You also mention how, in a free market, sometimes companies do unethical things (exploit their workers, pollute, deceive the public, etc). This is true, but again, that doesn't mean that implementing regulation is going to solve these problems. Again, history has demonstrated that attempts at interference inevitably result in corruption.

Simply put, you've demonstrated that capitalism and individual liberty are imperfect/flawed, i.e. they fall short of realizing a utopia. But all of the proposed "solutions" to this problem end up creating a bigger mess than the original problem in question. The "cure" is worse than the disease. I don't think my policy preferences would result in a perfect world; simply the lesser of two evils.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40571 - 07/20/10 08:17 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: XiaoGui17]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I will not try t defend The Satanic Reds. I am not a member and I do not agree with them politically.

On politics, I'd rather not go in deeper into the topic again since it's already been done. But I would like to comment on some things.

1. Gun control does work. Statistics show that less murders and accidents caused by guns occur in countries where it is illegal or restricted to own/carry a gun.

2. The policy of a free market does create a certain value system automatically even if it may not be part of the original policy. A free market capitalism creates consumerism. There is no way around it if the market is free.

3. Yes, government interference can result in corruption. I never said it was without faults. I do however believe it is better that it can be controlled rather than having it free and thus out of control for everyone.

4. I am not surprised that you consider "the cure worse than the disease". Its only natural. I think the same way but about your system. Its called having different opinions \:\)

Basically I've been through this discussion before on this board and unless there are new perspectives to add to it I feel no need to comment much further on it. We would have to agree to disagree.

Top
#40574 - 07/20/10 08:46 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TheInsane]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I've always though of some of my political ideas as being somewhat socialist but due to socialism not really having one standard definition and it's more commonly accepted definition really doesn't fit my ideas I'm not sure what to call it.

I am not at all for interference with private business. I don't feel the state providing some of its own production is a form interfering with private business. I don't see how it is at all anti-capitalist for the government to produce, give jobs, and distribute resources to its workers. All socialist/communist ideologies that I've heard in support of these ideas pair it with the abolition or regulation of private business but I can't at all see why that's necessary.

When the problem is not enough jobs for the people isn't it logical to address the problem with the state creating jobs to assist with the situation? When the problem is a fucked up healthcare system it makes sense to me for government to try and provide a better alternative without interfering with the private. If the state options are truly better than private ones then they'll beat them out. I think the state should be able to produce in the interests of its people. If the "socialist" option doesn't work it'll die off like any other business.

I'm not as knowledgeable in politics or history as others so I don't take my ideas in the field that seriously but I do think on them a lot.


Edited by TV is God (07/20/10 08:46 PM)

Top
#40577 - 07/20/10 10:05 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TV is God]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I was a member of the Communist Party years ago when I was interested in trying new things out and acquiring a stronger awareness of the political and economic.

Let me just say the Communist Party and I didn’t really make much sense together and I left, but I did spend a long time studying Marx, Engels and Lenin etc.

One thing I will say about the Communists: they never really got over Stalin, and over the collapse of the USSR.

The “iron laws of history” haven’t exactly played out as Marx thought they would. The relegation of all human beings into either the camp of the bourgeoisie or the camp of the proletariat hasn’t really happened, and the necessary collapse of the capitalist mode of production hasn’t happened either.

I am interested in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but one has to be careful with these concepts.

There is very little which is Satanic in Communism.

The whole premise of the thing is based on controlling and stopping water from seeking its own level.

The whole national productive apparatus is coordinated and controlled from a central point. What will be produced, how much will be produced, who will get what and how much is all determined by some faceless bureaucrat in some grey building somewhere else.

It reminds me of the sort of world Kafka wrote about in The Trial, it’s just a nightmare.

The Communists attempted to put an end to classes, but instead they merely put the bureaucracy and the engineers in charge. It was and is a clanking, grinding machine with everybody in their assigned place and ready to take orders, and the whole economy and society is orchestrated by a handful of bureaucrats in some bureau somewhere. It’s a nightmare.

Top
#40599 - 07/21/10 02:38 AM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TV is God]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: TV is God
I don't feel the state providing some of its own production is a form interfering with private business.


OK, I can try and take this one on. What you're essentially talking about is the state providing a "public option" within a particular industry, whether it's shipping (U.S. postal service), education (public schools), or healthcare.

Here's why I would take issue with that.

In sectors with a "public option," the government can subsidize its businesses with taxes, thus artificially lowering prices to levels that private businesses simply can't compete with, and driving its competitors out of business. The public option monopolizes the lower-income demographic. Think of the school system; only the rich and picky can afford to go to private schools.

Why is this a problem?

Well, compare it to a sector that's exclusively private, like the restaurant industry. Even if you're poor, there are still a variety of options available; there's competition. Don't like McDonald's? Go to Burger King, or White Castle, or Jack in the Box, or Wendy's. When you have a public option, however, there's only one option available at the low income level. It's like prison food; you take what's available or you simply go without. The reason all private schools are outlandishly expensive nowadays is because a cheap private school wouldn't be able to compete with FREE public schools.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
I think the state should be able to produce in the interests of its people. If the "socialist" option doesn't work it'll die off like any other business.


That's just the thing; it won't. It's supported by taxes and thus prevented from going out of business. It's got its own built-in bailout system. Look at what a mess Amtrak is. It can't turn a profit, it can't get business, and it keeps getting millions in government money.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
When the problem is a fucked up healthcare system it makes sense to me for government to try and provide a better alternative without interfering with the private.


The problems with our health care system stem from government interference in the first place. Because tax incentives make it far cheaper to get health care through one's employer instead of independently, people just take whatever their employer offers instead of "shopping around" for the best deal. If people bought their health care directly from the company instead of getting it via their employers, companies would be made to compete, and consumers would get better deals. It would certainly be simpler and easier to phase out government interference in the health care industry than to implement a "public option," but I'm not holding my breath.

Another issue I mentioned before in this thread (see quote below) is the fact that health insurance isn't really insurance; it's a buffer system for health care costs. Insurance covers unexpected expenses. Your car insurance covers things like wrecks or engine failure, not routine costs like car washes or gasoline. Theoretically, health insurance would cover unexpected illness or injury, not routine check-ups, vaccinations, and the like.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
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...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?



P.S. I could address TheInsane's points, but I think you've made it pretty clear you don't wanna debate the issue any further, so I'll let it slide for now.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40601 - 07/21/10 03:29 AM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: XiaoGui17]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
Okay I can understand that. But if the reason a free option of anything would be low quality and monopolized is due to taxes then what if there were no taxes? If the state were to not to charge taxes to begin with and instead try and use state business as the production of necessities couldn't this problem be avoided?

I think if it's done right there's no reason for state production to deal with money at all. As an example I could see a network of public farms. You put so many hours doing work for farm near where you live and you're entitled to a reasonable amount of all the produce from the whole network of farms. Entirely voluntary and no money exchanged. This would of course drive private farmers out of business but the product would not be any lower quality. And there would be more than enough to go around because to receive you must produce.

Now maybe this would cause the private food industry to charge more but I can't see that necessarily as a bad thing. You have high quality product just from working for it. I could see a more mid-level market where you bring ingredients in exchange for prepared food. Just a thought.

I see money has become an obstacle. Money is supposed to be a means to exchange any resource for another resource. Now money has become some strange entity all its own. Banks will lend you money because you already have money. Somehow money has become more important and valuable than the resources it buys. An effort to directly compensate work with resources when possible is an interesting idea to me.

The big criticisms of socialism and communism are the egalitarian aspects which I don't see at all necessary. If carefully planned I can see public production coexisting with private production in a way where both progress.


As for insurance I absolutely agree with you about the buffer concept. I purposely avoid modern politics as much as possible (I don't pretend this doesn't makes me much less aware of what's going on, it's just a matter of personal disgust for being told what I'm supposed to care about and debate for) but I hear talk of requiring health care? I feel the state has no right to force anyone to use a private business. The state telling me I have no choice but to have car insurance is already the biggest plate of bullshit uncle sam has made me eat. I have to pay a private business almost $100 a month (a lucky price at my age) to do absolutely nothing. So about $1200 a year for a service that by no miracle or stretch of the imagination would ever pay me near that much if anything happens. Oh yeah and they're the ones that get to decide if they want to pay anything.

Excuse me for straying from the point a bit.

Top
#41256 - 08/02/10 02:12 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.33

I didn't bother really reading all the stuff so Im guessing that means National Socialist? If not the test was wrong.

Top
#41257 - 08/02/10 02:41 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: spinosaurus01]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
National Socialist? Are you a member of the original German Worker's Party or a member of the incarnation that had Adolph at the helm? Or maybe you are one of those confused individuals who didn't get the memo that WWII is over and are therefore still holding out false hope for a 1,000 year reich that will never come. Or perhaps you are just out for a laugh. I suppose any one answer is just as likely as the next, though I am genuinely curious.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41333 - 08/02/10 07:43 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: ta2zz]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.


Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.

Even more, those questions are horribly leading. "Women should stay at home and be homemakers: yes or no" is far too simple. It doesn't give you the ability to address related conditions or exceptions.

And of course, many political viewpoints aren't represented. Where do you put monarchists/feudalists/traditionalists?
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#41347 - 08/02/10 11:09 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: SODOMIZER]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SODOMIZER
Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.


Yes, I recognize the deficiencies of the quiz, as I've noted before. It's bound to be simplistic by attempting to reduce political opinions to a numerical scale. I suppose a more qualitative approach, asking open-ended questions issue by issue, would be far more accurate, but it would also be tougher to demonstrate a concrete trend.

My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels. Case in point: I know a "Latter Day Saint" who drinks, fornicates, and does goodness knows what else they aren't supposed to be doing. Ask him if he agrees with this or that quote from J. Smith (Eden in Missouri, origins of Native Americans) and he'll wriggle around about how that's not "official doctrine." Apparently, nothing Mormons believe is "official doctrine." So when someone tells me he's a "Republican," what am I supposed to make of that? Who knows if his meaning of the term in any way conforms to my understanding of it?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41365 - 08/03/10 09:15 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels.


I agree that this is a big confusion.

It seems to me that people view political outlooks as labels or categories, and don't realize that each has a core idea -- the big picture -- which determines what its viewpoint will be on each detail.

For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.

For another example, why leftist topics like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. tend to cluster with socialist or communist views -- the left is primarily an egalitarian philosophy.

When you look at it from the highest level of organization, things become clear that are invisible when you're comparing labels.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#41403 - 08/04/10 12:35 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: SODOMIZER]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SODOMIZER
For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.


I get the general idea of Social Darwinist philosophy, but I don't see how it relates to traditional conservatives or opposing gay marriage. As a libertarian, I can definitely see how libertarianism is philosophically social darwinist: leave everyone to their own devices with minimal government intervention and let those who so well for themselves prosper!

But where liberals feel the need to protect people from society (anti-discrimination laws, state benefits), *social* conservatives feel the need to protect people from themselves. Banning allegedly "dangerous" or "immoral" activities is one of their favorite social policies. I say, let people do dangerous/immoral things so long as they're only risking their own lives; that's Social Darwinism in progress right there.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41758 - 08/11/10 05:04 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
National Socialist? Are you a member of the original German Worker's Party or a member of the incarnation that had Adolph at the helm? Or maybe you are one of those confused individuals who didn't get the memo that WWII is over and are therefore still holding out false hope for a 1,000 year reich that will never come. Or perhaps you are just out for a laugh. I suppose any one answer is just as likely as the next, though I am genuinely curious.



http://www.666blacksun.com/Main.html

Top
#41762 - 08/11/10 05:43 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: spinosaurus01]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
Not going to pass off a whole bunch of information about the history of the black sun symbol and its significance or meaning..
But that one particular site has been multiple times flagged as conspiracy-theory source. While I am all in to take a closer skeptical look at some holocaust numbers and claims, the site bulks out of inconsistencies and historical mistakes. It is a fun thing to read, but to use it as a claim for validation?

I think you'll have to do better and at least take a critical look at your sources before turning them in.


Edited by Dimitri (08/11/10 05:45 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#41780 - 08/11/10 11:26 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: spinosaurus01]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Oh boy and yet another Nazi group masquerading as Satanists. You people crack me up sometimes. Most of the time though, you just piss me off. I will tell you the same thing I tell everyone else who has a hard-on for for crazy ol' Adolph: If you are such a fan of Hitler, take a page from his playbook and deep throat a gun.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#42911 - 09/09/10 05:20 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Wolflust Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/20/09
Posts: 33
These were my results:

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

This didn`t exactly make me any more certain of my own stance \:D But it got me thinking though. As for one question being about different civilizations and cultures, I think cultural differences will have a great impact on a survey like this, since as a Norwegian I don`t really feel that my individual rights is being affected by "counter-terrorism". I have to delve into more political literature too as well, with time.

From what I`ve seen among most CoS members (or those with a myspace page and writing at LttD), many of them seem to share an odd mix of liberal and fascist thoughts. LaVey himself didn`t seem that interested in politics to me, even though he, if I remember correctly, suggested a police state in The Devils Notebook, "to keep all of you fuckers in line". \:D
_________________________
It is not my name or my number, its how I use it and what I do.

Top
#70460 - 08/22/12 09:50 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Wolflust]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
The quiz seemed a bit tenuous for predicting actual political and/or policy preferences. I would not discount it though. My results had only minor deviations from other political quizzes I've taken. I do tend to wonder if the economic result was based more on normative judgments inherent in the questions. Centrist Libertarian is kind of an odd description of my actual views.

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#70461 - 08/22/12 10:33 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Le Deluge]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
I've taken this many times. I'd like to think I've changed. But who knows ?

My score today: -5.25, -3.90. I'm a Left-Libertarian, almost in the Middle. I mapped almost perfectly to Gandhi. Cheers, bro.

JK
_________________________



Top
#70462 - 08/22/12 11:16 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Jason King]
Erich Zann Offline
member


Registered: 02/01/12
Posts: 193
Loc: Germany
Welcome to the club - I'm nearly a Gandhi as well ;\) Still you're a bit more Libertarian it seems.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.12&soc=-3.13
_________________________
The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with "Hail Satan!".

-Bart Simpson

Top
#70469 - 08/22/12 07:32 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Iskander Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/21/10
Posts: 70
Loc: Berlin, Germany
The questions in this test are highly selective: They make almost any of the "rightwing" answers looking dumb. Now I am not an expert when it comes to politics inside the USA, but I got the impression that "rightwing" or "conservative" is mainly associated with "christian" and "capitalistic" in this context.

Satanism is not about a specific political agenda, but it should be obvious that the personal freedom Satanism seeks is supported best in an open, tolerant society that values culture over profane maximization of profit in the economy.

Top
#70474 - 08/23/12 07:10 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Iskander]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Granted. Any test is selective in what it measures. But we can still have fun with them. I'll do you one better, click here.

JK
_________________________



Top
#70477 - 08/23/12 09:07 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Jason King]
FemaleSatan Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/11
Posts: 556
Loc: The Dirty South
I came out 6.25/-3.85

Opposite side of Gandhi (purple area)
_________________________
http://female-satan.blogspot.com


Top
#70480 - 08/23/12 12:33 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: FemaleSatan]
Naama Offline
member


Registered: 07/23/12
Posts: 318
Loc: NewYork
I am strongly Libertarian according to this test.
"Right-Left" vector - somewhere in the middle...
_________________________
http://i57.tinypic.com/2j498ih.jpg

Top
#70487 - 08/24/12 01:25 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
seekswisdom Offline
member


Registered: 01/04/12
Posts: 104
Loc: California,U.S.
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
The problem with social programs like welfare is that it is meant to be temporary assistance until people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps but far too many people make being on welfare their job.

Not only would I prefer to make it on my own but I am in no danger of starving and it would be rather hypocritical of me, an Individualist Anarchist, to beg for help from the system that I so despise.


Taxes? Fuck taxes, the government has no right to forcibly take money from those who have earned it. That being said I never did understand why "the rich" got to pay lower taxes. If they are going to take money from people it seems logical that the more you make, the more would be taken from you. In the end, however, I still "fuck taxes!"

/free form rant


I totally agree with you there. Welfare makes people dependent on the system because they never have to work for their food and it makes them useless in my opinion.

That is why I'm working independently as a Welder and am always willing to pick up a few side jobs. For example I am cutting down an oaktree for a friend tommorow for some cash or she would have to pay a tree service five hundred bucks to cut it down. I took the time to observe it first, to make sure that I could cut it down safely, of course.

People dont need the system they just need to become independent and learn how to do many usefull skills to survive and in a free market it is quite simple: Learn to grow your own food, cut your own firewood, work on your own vehicle and never stop learning everything that you can.

I detest paying taxes because it's like working all day for one hundred dollars to have to give it to some lazy ass bum instead of keeping what you've worked for all day for yourself.

As for my second amendment rights. I willl give up my guns when the government do's so first because I would rather defend myself than to depend on a fat cop, who never gets to the scene in time. I would personally rather live in Anarchy than depend on this System.

They shut a fucking neighborhood down now when their is a gunman and ban burning firewood on most days in your own wood-stove in Sacramento. Whats next garbage police making sure that peole are recycling or they will be fined. I'm ready to move to an Island if this shit get any worse.

Top
#70489 - 08/24/12 08:58 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: seekswisdom]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: seekswisdom
Welfare makes people dependent on the system because they never have to work for their food and it makes them useless in my opinion.


Might I ask, what do you mean by "welfare?" Check any boxes that apply:

[ ] tax subsidies for multi-$billion corporations
[ ] unemployment insurance
[ ] common defense
[ ] SNAP
[ ] bailing out speculative banks
[ ] medicaid
[ ] law enforcement
[ ] SSDI
[ ] Pell Grants
[ ] Tax-exempting of certain organizations, esp. churches
[ ] Pretty much anything that helps anybody

Anarchists talk a pretty game, but it's not the game we play. I could snap my fingers tomorrow and destroy all "government" instantly. There would would be, in turn, panic, destruction & death, loss of knowledge, and . . . drumroll, please . . . a new "government". Just one that was set back a few centuries.

Human beings are designed for societal maximization. It's just the way it is, dude. I didn't make the rules, but they are what they are. The proverbial "man of the woods/mountain" is just that - a fucking hunter-gatherer. Some shit we evolved from a long time ago. Gather a few like minds and you have a tribe. And you can move to Africa with that shit. I hear they have some serious tribes and some lack of binding societal infrastructure. You could be all Marcus Garvey with that shit.

Is what we have in the "civilized world" perfect? By no means whatsoever. But don't drown the baby in the bathtub, dude.

JK
_________________________



Top
#70495 - 08/24/12 05:41 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Jason King]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Might I ask, what do you mean by "welfare?" Check any boxes that apply:


[X] tax subsidies for multi-$billion corporations
[O] unemployment insurance (other, paid for by the company, not society as a whole)
[P] common defense
[X] SNAP
[X] bailing out speculative banks
[X] medicaid
[P] law enforcement
[X] SSDI
[X] Pell Grants
[X] Tax-exempting of certain organizations, esp. churches
[P or X] Pretty much anything that helps anybody

"P," Jason, means that it's a public service. Public services tax society as a whole and serve society as a whole. "X" is welfare, which is paid for by taxes from society as a whole but serves only a particular group. You can try to argue that benefiting that group indirectly benefits society as a whole (which is dubious), but there's also the question of whether that benefit was worth the cost.

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Human beings are designed for societal maximization.


Does government have to be the means by which this is accomplished, or are there other means? All government is, at the end of the day, is the entity that a community has collectively agreed has a monopoly on the use of physical force (police and military).

Physical force (or the threat thereof for enforcement) need not be used in the vast majority of everyday interactions that make up society's functions. Creating programs and laws that micromanage day-to-day actions hardly maximizes efficiency; if anything, it creates more red tape and slows stuff down.

I'm not saying get rid of government; I'm saying it's not the one-size-fits-all solution to everything we often treat it as.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#70502 - 08/25/12 03:11 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Jason King]
seekswisdom Offline
member


Registered: 01/04/12
Posts: 104
Loc: California,U.S.
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
 Originally Posted By: seekswisdom
Welfare makes people dependent on the system because they never have to work for their food and it makes them useless in my opinion.

I was talking about food stamps and people who get knocked up just to get paid by the Government. Sorry for not being clear about which welfare I was bitching about.


Might I ask, what do you mean by "welfare?" Check any boxes that apply:

[x] tax subsidies for multi-$billion corporations
[t] unemployment insurance
[n] common defense
[x] SNAP
[x] bailing out speculative banks
[x ] medicaid
[n] law enforcement
[n ] SSDI
[n ] Pell Grants
[x ] Tax-exempting of certain organizations, esp. churches
[x ] Pretty much anything that helps anybody

Anarchists talk a pretty game, but it's not the game we play. I could snap my fingers tomorrow and destroy all "government" instantly. There would would be, in turn, panic, destruction & death, loss of knowledge, and . . . drumroll, please . . . a new "government". Just one that was set back a few centuries.

JK


I wouldnt want total Anarchy(Escape from NewYork style) just less government. Here's my answer key:
X=get rid of it entirely
T= temporary
N= Needed

If someone works their ass off and gets disabled, they should get help,yet should try and get back to work if they recover. But as for the crack-head addicted Mom with six kids,she should'nt get any Government aid because she cant even control her own life and shouldnt be allowed to breed, yet alone raise kids and get paid..

Unemployment is usefull for a month or two, but when people can stay on it for over a year they wont look for a job. I was getting over 350 dollars a week, the last time that I got laid-off, and found another job a few weeks later, but I was looking the entire time. I like working for income and feel proud of myself for doing a good job. I want to be a producer in society, not a slave, and would never want to be a bum leeching off society.

As for Pell Grant money. Instead of sending anyone to College with Federal Aid. The person should beable to at least maintain a 3.00 GPA and keep good attendance, to get it in the first place: work their Ass-off. The College's keep driving up Tuition and paid parking to the breaking point. It shouldn't cost 400 dollars for a three unit class and almost 200 dollars for a Text book. People have to get into dept before even going to a University because of driving inflation brought on by the Banks.

The fact that the banks got themselves into dept and signed it over to the tax-payers is criminal. Every person should reep what they sow in life, especially when it comes to their dept. The number one thing that i hate about govenment is the ability to tax its citizens without limit and the fact that none of these bankers are being hung for their crime: Stealing, lying and cheating. If I burn down my house for the insurance money I go to prison for fraud, yet the bankers do this shit on a daily basis. I read about how and heard witnesses testify about Bank Of America purposely clouding peoples morgages so that even if the people paid the house off their records would get lost in the system. So the banks could get paid and still keep the property. The fact that the banks encourage Reverse morgages proves that they're want property and could give a Fuck-less about people: only money.

I guess the love of money really is the root of all evil.

Shit I forgot to post what I scored on the test for this thread. -2/1. almost dead set in the middle. That test was annoying on a few ?'s but overall I'll give it 7 out of 10.


Fucking hell, reread your post before posting it and use a spell check...Morgan


Edited by Morgan (08/25/12 10:48 AM)
Edit Reason: warning/information

Top
#70506 - 08/25/12 08:39 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: seekswisdom]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
XG and seekswisdom, thank you for the well thought out and delivered replies.

You each have different methods of classification, but I see a bit of common ground. Both of you agree that there is some sine qua non of societal grounding. And both of you pretty much agree as to what (of my listed things) should be funded. The big difference being SW favors Pell Grants and SSDI, and XG stays true to her philosophical basis.

The only other significant difference concerned unemployment insurance, and this was limited by each of you in slightly different ways. Although, to both of you, it is both temporary and at least half funded by employers.

Let's take this to the next level (btw, I almost agree with SW's checks, excepting larger philosophical themes).

What should a government be doing, if anything? Obviously "redistributing wealth" is not supported, but where is such a line drawn? There is a saying: "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome," and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps XG doesn't?

Consider SNAP for a second. What does it do? And if you don't like the mechanism, you have three choices: forced sterilizations (post facto, no less), Foster/state homes (still subsidized), or simply let the kids rot.

But hey, perhaps a human child should be no more privileged than a leopard cub. Make it or don't. Your mommy sucks, so fuck you, kid. Besides, the world IS overpopulated.

If we continue here, we need, first and foremost, to settle on a philosophy/anthropology of human nature. We're not leopards. We're somewhere between ants and lions vis a vis social structure.

JK
_________________________



Top
#70511 - 08/25/12 10:37 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Jason King]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
What should a government be doing, if anything?

Law enforcement and national defense. Pretty much the two I checked before. Government has the right to use physical force to enforce whatever powers it is granted, thus I think it should be restricted to performing only such functions as warrant physical force.

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
There is a saying: "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome," and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps XG doesn't?

As I've noted in other forums, I wholeheartedly agree with Rawls's principles of justice, one of which is equal opportunity. I accept those principles as the best measure of an economic system. Where I differ, from both you and Rawls, is in fact (not principle). I disagree as to which system best serves equal opportunity.

 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Consider SNAP for a second. What does it do? And if you don't like the mechanism, you have three choices: forced sterilizations (post facto, no less), Foster/state homes (still subsidized), or simply let the kids rot.

I don't have a problem with what they are intended to do; just how it is done and who is doing it. Fourth option: Let its function be replaced with private institutions.

Social programs (SNAP, SSDI) don't allow for any degree of discretion. You have to set up certain rules and standards by which a person qualifies for aid, in order to be fair. The problem is, explicit rules invite people to "game" the system.

Private charities, on the other hand, have the option of allowing for personal discretion. Many use human judgment to better ascertain who is a con artist and who has genuinely fallen on hard times better than a statutory/regulatory formula ever could. Allowing charities the choice of who to help (and donors the choice of charity to support) not only creates more safeguards against fraud, it also allows for extra funding in times of dire need.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#70513 - 08/25/12 01:08 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
Le Deluge Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/05/12
Posts: 1790
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

Social programs (SNAP, SSDI) don't allow for any degree of discretion. You have to set up certain rules and standards by which a person qualifies for aid, in order to be fair. The problem is, explicit rules invite people to "game" the system.


Greets X,

I do agree there is always the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in any government program. Just one question: SSDI is part of the original OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) Program we *all* pay into via FICA taxes. I even get statements, for example, which denote what I can expect to get at 65 (or older should they raise the age) from Social Security.

Offhand, I do not know how that amount varies should I have some catastrophic accident. I buy private insurance to mitigate risk and maintain a separate retirement account. I would be the first to admit I expect to rely more on these in the future.

My question being: Is not SSDI different in nature from SNAP? One I pay into directly with given expectations regarding retirement, disability (or technically my survivor). With SNAP, it is more a general use of my tax dollar. I can see your objection here (I may or may not agree as a matter of policy), but it is a fair critique under the General Welfare Clause.

Thanks

LD
_________________________
Apres Moi ... Le Deluge

Top
#70525 - 08/25/12 11:56 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Le Deluge]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
SSI and SSDI are funded from your own paycheck and your jobs. You get a statement that says what you can expect to get depending on the amount of quarters that you have worked. It's not a hand out, you earned that money.

You work and get disabled, if you qualify for SSDI you may get it. It is a long process with many visits, lots of paperwork, doctors notes, and you go before a judge before you get it. Plus even after you get it, you still have to requalify for it every year.

SNAP is basically food stamps. If you make on average under $700 a month you qualify for food stamps. You have to have a valid address and proof of how you are paying for your rent, gas, and electric to qualify. Plus valid pay stubs.

Unemployment insurance, you fund this and pay into it. Its your own money actually taxed twice. Once when its taken out of your check while you are working, then again when you have to claim it on your tax returns.

Welfare whereby they help you with part of your rent and gas/electric bills was started as a helping hand for families in a rough place. It was meant as a way to carry you over from one job to another without having your family starve and become homeless which is a bigger burden on the system. In the past, agents used to visit your home and make sure no one else lived there that wasn't on your paperwork. If you had a tv, or a man's shoes in your house and you claimed no husband they threw you off welfare.

Currently, there are so many rules, paperwork, photo id's, thumbprints, and appointments you have to keep, it is almost impossible to scam the system.

Want to bitch about your tax dollars paying into something, bitch about how much politicians get paid. Bitch about how they can vote themselves raises and have done it often in the past. Bitch about how they get FREE healthcare FOR LIFE, but don't want you to have the same healthcare benefits. Bitch about how they earn their salary FOR LIFE even if they are only elected for 4 years.

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#70538 - 08/26/12 05:39 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Morgan]
Bette Doom Offline
member


Registered: 06/18/11
Posts: 134
Loc: Virginia, USA
http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/where-taxes-go

That's a nice story, Morgan, but as Social Security taxes [when in surplus] are used to subsidize the activities of the entire Federal Government AND current workers are responsible for sustaining those who currently receive benefits it is, shall we say, understandable that young workaholics would be a TAD bitter about the program. Japan is already beginning the process of coping with a demographic bottleneck and I have a sneaking suspicion that they will make the transition a little more smoothly and rationally than the U.S. This may sound like a bit of a bumper sticker, but if you work your ass off between classes and are at least mildly concerned about the fiscal insolubility of some of our cherished and favorite entitlement programs, look to the Boomers. It is simply not so that the monies you pay in from various jobs over time are kept in a nice little trust fund with your name on it that isn't fussed with until you yourself need it. Oh, they go into a trust fund alright, and those trusts are tied to the current global reserve currency, but man...

...it would sure be a sorry day if something unfortunate were to happen to the status of the U.S. dollar. That reminds me...deficits and debt relative to GDP have reached staggering levels of whacky-math irresponsible monopoly-dollar chicanery under this administration and Bush II's. Beware the tipping point...

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
_________________________
A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.-Twain

Top
#70540 - 08/26/12 08:05 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: Bette Doom]
Deep Time Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/12/12
Posts: 54
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

My views have hardened over time. I'm no longer up Ghandi's way.
_________________________
http://hereistoday.com/

"All the witches had to show their respect for Satan by kissing his ass."


Top
#70545 - 08/27/12 02:11 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Bette Doom]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I know that the monies that are paid into SSI and etc are used for other things. That was never in question. I was responding to the issues that were raised in regards to how they work and are paid out.

The baby boomers when they all retire will definitely rock the system. They should have not used the SSI for other bullshit and just kept it as a hands off account.

Yes, things are screwed, what else is new....

M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page all of 5 12345>


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

Generated in 0.072 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 78 queries. Zlib compression disabled.