lol'd

 

 

??? I never said "Hey Joe, let's all do this so that...". I said, here' s a bunch of plausible scenarios why power might de-centralize. Of them all, a fiscal crisis of the Fed Gov I think is the most likely.

 

Really? Because that's how I interpreted this:Unless what you meant is "De-centralization of power and for people to wake up (...) would be a good thing, so let's all NOT do that."



(pauses for reflection)



But rather than engaging in he-said / she-said, I'm really more curious as to how you believe that a mature nation with a strong central government (such as the US) could be, as you put it, de-centralized, and then maintained in a state of utopia, without one or more of the following outcomes:

1: Absent any strong central authority, power begins to concentrate in the hands of local military / police officials, who wield it against the population in a feudalistic manner. (eg: half of Africa at this point)

2: Unable to raise a strong and coordinated military, the US is simply conquered outright by a strong foreign power such as China or the Canada / Mexico alliance.

3: Civil war leads to totalitarianism and re-unification as a police state. (eg: USSR)

4: Any of the various Max Mad scenarios.

5: We return to the style of strong local government of the early 20th century US. Power is concentrated at the level of the state and city office, and sold to business interests and organized crime syndicates in an ad-hoc political marketplace.

6: (etc)


The problem is that power abhors a vacuum, and for any sufficiently large population sample, there will always be within it certain individuals who possess both an aptitude and a willingness to concentrate and exploit power for their own gain, usually at the expense of the larger community. We could go anywhere from the local mob boss collecting protection money under the nose of a corrupt mayor all the way to Reductio ad Hitlerum with this concept.

 

Not terribly surprised at my results, but didn't like the way some of the statements were worded, as depending on my chosen interpretation it could change my answer for a variety of them fairly markedly.

 

i mean some of those questions arent even fair. especially the one about being a superior race.

 

Really, though, the questions are ridiculously ambiguous. And yes, I've read their "explanation" -- and I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about something like this:

Agree or disagree?

Well, that's tough. If I say I disagree, am I disagreeing that it's an advantage? Or disagreeing that a one party system avoids arguments? Or disagreeing that delaying "progress" is something to be avoided at all, rather than being a fundamental part of the democratic political system?

 

In any case, trying my best to game the system and answer what I think would shift my position in the most honest direction, I got this:

 

Hehe. This reminds me of some of the stuff on the LSAT.

Look at it conversely. If you put "Agree", then you agree that

1: A one-party state avoids arguments which delay progress, and
2: Avoiding arguments which delay progress is advantageous.

Thus, disagreement could plausibly indicate that you believe either

1: A one-party state does not avoid arguments which delay progress, or
2: Avoiding arguments which delay progress is not advantageous.



The question does not ask you to judge whether progress is good or bad, or whether delaying it is good or bad. Only whether a single-party system avoids arguments which delay it, and whether avoiding arguments which delay progress is advantageous.

You could infer that one's answers to the question indicate a preference as to whether progress itself is advantageous or disadvantageous, but the question does not actually ask that. (It also relies upon an assumed consensus as to the definition of what "progress" means.)

 

Damn, even Mg wasn't further right than Brainy.

 

I think making that (or some similar) inference is all but necessary, given that choosing Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree is supposed to reveal something about my political positions that is significant enough to shift me by some measurable amount along either the Left-Right or Authoritarian-Libertarian axes.

In other words, even once we move beyond the ambiguous language of the question, the lack of context means that I don't trust the test-writers to interpret my answer correctly, and at best can only guess which response best represents my position in terms of numerical score.

 

this is what i was saying...

 

right is might, that's why im the admin.


time for lunch. getting greek today.

 

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72

 

Well, we can only guess as to the exact mechanics behind the test (eg: are responses to various questions analyzed in groups, does the response to one weight the analysis of another, etc.)

If we consider a black-box analysis, then I think it's reasonable to make certain assumptions, however.

For instance, if you agree that a one-party state is advantageous in that it avoids arguments which impede progress in a democratic system, this indicates that you are likely to hold other beliefs which, collectively, suggest that you might lean more towards an authoritarian point of view, as authoritarianism generally implies a tendency towards mandate rather than consensus.

 

I bet you're all wondering what y8s is!



I'm going to liberaltarian up your business!

Imagine if I hadn't said "corporations can't be trusted" so many times in that survey!

 

The funny part about that graph, Y8s, is "left" is communism, "right" is a form of liberalism.

So, everyone on the right is a liberal, everyone on the left is a communist.

 

I would have believed "socialist" is left. I'm certainly not a communist.

 

Read the sites own definitions. They defined communism as left, liberalism as right in it.

Which makes some of the people's results entirely too funny. (Hi Brainy, you DIRTY DIRTY LIBERAL!)

 

maybe I'm just an anarchist then.