western democracy - what a joke.

Hey all,

Came across an interesting website that i thought that everybody should take a look at, when i saw somebody say that x was to far left for them, i thought how can somebody say that something is to far left? unless your a corporation left is a good thing for everyone - so we all know our political alignment etc... i figure that if people actually knew what they where we might actually see the demise to the corporate backing facists like george w. bush etc...

1% of the worlds population have 33% of the wealth of the world.
5% of the worlds population have nearly 50% of the wealth...

How can we all be paying taxes for the last 2008 years and still have starvation etc? It is obvious to me that there is a wealthy elite. The only way to beat them is to educate the world to their ways.

so anyways here is the link to the site. take the test and if you feel like it post your results here. then maybe we could discuss who for and why we vote.

especially considering that in a 2 party system like most western countries have where one of the parties is extreme authoritarian right and the other is mid authoritarian right. they are both backing the corporations just one is doing it less than the other. how can the people expect to get ahead without understanding the very system we have no choice but to support.

So my scores were

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

so i am in the middle of libertarian left. i would vote for the greens (australia/new zealand)

Hope we have some interesting discussion.

Peace
Blurry

reply to post by blurryone

Especially considering that in a 2 party system like most western countries have where one of the parties is extreme authoritarian right and the other is mid authoritarian right. they are both backing the corporations just one is doing it less than the other. how can the people expect to get ahead without understanding the very system we have no choice but to support.

First Installment. Ah, Blurry, life is not so simple. The disagreeable (to me) distribution of wealth you refer to is not new. In fact, recalling from ancient Egypt forward, it may well be that we are in the “best of times.” See Note 1.

Capitalists favor the “trickle down” theory of wealth distribution. Although I disdain that theory, there is some merit in it. As a group, rich people tend to be “more” qualified than poor people to administer wealth. Now, by “administer,” I mean to use some of their wealth to employ the poor which is a trickle down system. If the poor were not employed, then presumably, lacking the means of production, they would starve to death. This is exactly what happened in most of the world until the Industrial Revolution began in England in the 17th century. Enter the modern era.

There have always been “good” people, that is, people who have empathy for the less fortunate. In the 1980s I lived in a townhouse next door to an medical doctor from India who was a notable pediatric surgeon. (The townhouse was merely a temporary stop on his up-ward mobility trip in the US of A).

I was the facility manager. His wife asked me to have some cabinets installed in her kitchen. Of course, my rich employer would have none of that. He was interested only in maximizing his rental income as compared to his capital investment, the cost of the townhouses. Adding cabinets would not add to the rental value. Hence, no cabinets.

Then she asked me if she could have them installed at her expense? On my own authority, I said “yes.” She then asked me to send her a carpenter. I told her that would be very hard for me to do and rather expensive for what she wanted done. I explained that not many qualified carpenters would take small jobs.

I asked her what she would do in India. She being of high caste although that system is no longer sanctioned legally but remains strong as a custom, explained that in India, each morning a dozen or so men would knock on the back door - the servants door - and ask for day work. I asked what happened to them if they did not find work. She answered in easy conversational tones and without any noticeable feeling or concern, “Oh, why they would die.” There was no safety net in India. Well, if you don’t count the morning funeral pyre.

Post Script: In all large cities in India, each day just at first light a number of trucks scan the neighborhoods for those who had died during the night. The bodies are stacked on the flat bed trucks and taken straight to a morgue for a quick examination. Then the dead are carried to a funeral pyre where they are cremated en mass. By noon-time they are but a statistic. End of First Installment.

Note 1. IT WAS THE BEST OF TIMES, IT WAS THE WORST OF TIMES: A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens. The opening – "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." – and closing – "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." – of the book are among the most famous lines in English literature. Wikipedia.

[edit on 1/6/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by blurryone
especially considering that in a 2 party system like most western countries have where one of the parties is extreme authoritarian right and the other is mid authoritarian right. they are both backing the corporations just one is doing it less than the other. how can the people expect to get ahead without understanding the very system we have no choice but to support.

As far as I am aware, the USA is the only two party system that springs to mind. Most of Europe is multi-party Parliamentary democracy with dozens of parties, of varying sizes and flavours.

In the UK, there are three major parties and a swarm of smaller parties. On the continent, Governments are often alliances of several parties, because enone of them have a majority.

These Governments, whilst being somewhat unstable, tend to be alot more in tune to the Electorate, as changes in voting patterns could seriously affect their standing at the next election.

Now, if your talking about the system in America being all fudged up, I suppose that you'd be right. I'm not so sure for that's the case for Democracy in Europe.

reply to post by stumason

As far as I am aware, the USA is the only two party system that springs to mind. Most of Europe is multi-party Parliamentary democracy with dozens of parties, of varying sizes and flavours. In the UK, there are three major parties and a swarm of smaller parties. Now, if your talking about the system in America being all fudged up, I suppose that you'd be right. I'm not so sure for that's the case for Democracy in Europe.

I’m native born but no “America my country right or wrong” sycophant. I’m at that point in life when history has a firm grip on my time. I’m still trying to get a handle on why America is so much different than Western Europe despite the obvious fact that most of our early inhabitants came from that part of the world. It’s as if Europeans were from Venus and Americans are from Mars.

I attribute that phenomenon to the “self selecting” by the voyagers who traversed the Atlantic when it was not a fun thing to do. It was costly and it was generally unpleasant and it was always risky. Our own historic Mayflower of 1620 took 95 days to cross, about a month longer than usual. I’m more a southern type person and so, I find myself in the group that lampoons the New Englander types because their objective was Virginia but their seamanship put them ashore 600 miles short of their intended destination. Nothing to boast about there.

America was always a pure capitalist country until the Great Depression of 1929-1939. Over here. My personal icon, FDR, gets credit NOT for ending the Depression but for getting us through it in good spirits. And kudos for creating a modern government that really functioned. The New Deal. It was War 2 that ended the Depression for us. 1941-1945 although we began shipping materials to our natural allies in 1940. (In my own pantheon of demigods I actually rank Sir Winston Churchill as the single MOST significant person of the 20th century, just ahead of FDR).

We had that which Europe did not have but which was essential to personal standing. Land and more land and yet more land. Even another of my admired persons, Voltaire, had to have land to be fulfilled. Our first great acquisition of land came in 1785 when George III ceded to the US the land we called the Northwest Territory. It contained the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota. I do want to point out the Continental Congress set aside every 16th section for public education, thereby creating a commitment to education that antedates the present Constitution by 4 years. But alas, I digress.

In the first election under the current constitution we did not have political parties. It is frequently said George Washington was chosen unanimously. I do not mean to detract from him, but only 10 states voted in the first election. NY, NC and RI did not adopt the new Con in time to be included. There were 8 men who received one or more electoral votes for president. Washington did however carry majorities in all 10 states. Unanimous!

By the second election, America was divided into strong central government types - Federalists - and weak central government types, then called Republicans and were followers of Jefferson and were later called Democratic-Republicans. After losing the 1800 election, the Federalists morphed into the Whigs. By the 1840s, they had disappeared. We then had TWO Democratic parties. The Northern Dems who were anti-slavery and the Southern Dems who were pro-slavery. That was the ONLY real issue dividing Americans. By 1856, a third party, the anti-slavery Republican Party had been formed. Lincoln polled barley 39% of the popular vote in a 4 way race in 1860 to become our 16th president.

Although Grover Cleveland was twice elected as a Democrat, he was as much anti-labor as any Republican ever was. You might say the Republicans held sway in America until the 1912 election. It fell to Republican Calvin Coolidge - 1923-1928, who was Harding’s vice president, to say it most succinctly, “The business of government is business.”

The only time in American history when the LEFT held sway was 1932-1938. The New Deal under FDR. Johnson got a lot of important social legislation passed - Medicare - in the post JFK era of remorse which ran from 1963 to 1968 but most of which was done in 1964-1966. All but one of the large labor unions have been broken. The Teachers Union excepted but it is under constant attack from the Republican Party and anti-evolution Evangelicals. Darwinism is a dirty word over here.

I’ve said a lot to say this: America is a conservative, capitalist society with a strong religious component. Reagan - 1980-1988 - had the goal of disassembling the New Deal and Great Society. I would say he has 90% accomplished his goal. While the people want the protections government regulations offer, they always fall for the Reagan slogans, “Less Government is Better” and his best, “Government is the problem not the solution.” As the regulators died or retired, they have not been replaced. As you might have heard in the lead paint toy scandal revealed the government had only ONE full time investigator and he operated out of a 40 year old smallish laboratory. Similar reductions in staff have all but ended food inspections, and as you may have noticed, lack of bank auditors has allowed poor loans and the resulting mortgage meltdown.

America is a right wing state. The Dems are right wing, and the GOP is far right wing (reactionary) which accusation makes its followers all the happier. Ron Paul, an unabashed Libertarian 10 times elected to Congress on the GOP ticket got 10% of the Iowa vote. He wants NO government at all. Mike Huckabee quietly advocates what once was called the FLAT tax but when it failed to gain purchase, it was re-named the FAIR tax. (Not 100% accurate).

Two parties are deeply institutionalized in America. In the 20th century, only Teddy Roosevelt (1912) and Ralph Nader (2000) changed the presidential outcomes. Only in 1860 did a 3rd party have any success in the 19th century. That’s only 3 out of 43! Democrat Billionaire Mike Bloomberg who changed party and succeeded Rudy Giuliani as the Republican Mayor of NYC “thinks” he might run a third party bid in ‘08 if Giuliani does not get the GOP nomination. The GOP convention is in early September. If he waits that long, he'll be wasting his money. I expect he will be guided more by the February 5 Super Tuesday outcome when 40% of the delegates will be chosen.

[edit on 1/6/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
In the 20th century, only Teddy Roosevelt (1912) and Ralph Nader (2000) changed the presidential outcomes. Only in 1860 did a 3rd party have any success in the 19th century. That’s only 3 out of 43!

Excellent post Don, I do however question the above posted statement. Do you not feel that Ross Perot's involvement in the 1992 Presidential election, and to a lesser part the 1996 election, influenced the outcomes? In my opinion if it were not for Perot's presence George H. W. Bush may have defeated Clinton in the first election and may have also cost Bob Dole the election as well.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Excellent post Don, I do however question the above posted statement. Do you not feel that Ross Perot's involvement in the 1992 Presidential election, and to a lesser part the 1996 election, influenced the outcomes? In my opinion if it were not for Perot's presence George H. W. Bush may have defeated Clinton in the first election and may have also cost Bob Dole the election as well.

Very good question based on very solid speculations. Wikipedia says Clinton (43%) polled 44.9 million votes. Bush Sr (39%) polled 39.1 million. Perot (19%) polled 19.7 million votes. It all comes down to how many of Perot’s votes came from Dems and how many came from GOPs. You must go to Wikipedia to see their analysis and demographic charts.
en.wikipedia.org...

I prefer to think that the number of Perot votes would have split about the same as the Clinton/Bush votes split. In other words, to have no effect on the outcome. I can’t prove that. I just prefer it. I feel comfortable with it.

Clinton received 370 electoral votes, 100 more than the requisite 270 to win. Of the 17 closest states, the following BLUE states were close. GA (13), NH (4), OH (21), NJ (15), MT (3), NV (4), KY (8), CO (8), WI (11), LA (9), and TN (11). Total 107 electoral votes. All closer than the 4.65% of TN but not so close as GA, at 0.59% for Blue. Four of the six closet states that went RED were, NC (0.79%), FL (1,89%), AZ (1.95%), and TX (3.48%). SD and VA also were close RED states. It cannot be assumed that all the close states would have gone RED. NC, AZ and FL could have gone BLUE. Bottom line? We’ll never KNOW what effect Perot had on the outcome in 1992. [Whole numbers are electoral votes, % is the margin of victory, Red or Blue.]

The ‘96 election was never close in my memory. Senator Bob Dole, a true American war hero who lost the use of his right arm in Italy in War 2, and who served Kansas as its senator for 30 years, really had no chance to beat Clinton who was very popular. Dole was the GOP sacrificial lamb. Plus Carter and Hoover excepted, most US presidents get a second tem if all is well in the first term. (The Clinton impeachment was in 1998-1999).

Note: Retired Navy Admiral James Stockdale, a long term Vietnam War POW, was Perot’s 1992 VP candidate.

reply to post by blurryone


Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

Seems about right to me.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

I guess this comes as no surprise?

Don W

Great thread

Economic Left / Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian / Authoritarian: - 2.46

reply to post by donwhite


Don, thanks for your fantastic reply. I do wonder how you can say some of it whilst your compass says you are more similar to myself? Do you believe in the 'trickle down' effect?

I think that in place of the trickle down effect perhaps the public education systems and the like should teach people how to use their money and teach people the true nature of politics. I see alot of people voting for parties that are the total opposite of what they believe. Almost as if it comes down to who has the best advertising campainge and nothing to do with what the party stands for or what they will do once in power.

Did you manage to have a look at where the US2008 presidential candidates sit compared to yourself?

Stumason,

Yes i suppose your right in saying that the majority of countries are MMP where there are a multitude of government parties however my experiance of living in australia and new zealand denotes that both countries while being MMP have 2 major parties (much the same as the US 2 party system) and these 2 major parties get the majority of the vote. It only takes a little look at where the parties stand to realise that the only option you really have as a voter is to which level of evil you wish you parliament to become as the majority of presidential candidates or parties in mmp countries are all authoritarian right.. seems weird to me when the majority of people i talk to are libertarian left. why aren't their more options that are towards what the people want instead of what the corporations can afford?

Seems to me the general population is being duped. Perhaps i could understand if there was a choice between authoritarian right and libertarian left..

Another thing i find interesting is how the right wing have all put such a bad spin on communism. communism being defined as "Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[citation needed] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.[citation needed] Opponents say that communism is an ideology, whereas promoters say that it is the only political system without ideology, because it is the consequence of historical materialism and the revolution of the proletariat" (from wikipedia)

I would much prefer living in a classless society than the one we have today where the wealthy elite control everything and we have next to no say in the matter.

Cheers
Blurry

[edit on 6-1-2008 by blurryone]

thought i might add this...

If it is Good for Business and Good for the People - Fantastic smear it accross every information outlet we have as a win for whoever is leading the charge.

If it is Bad for Business and Bad for the People - Fantastic smear it across every information outlet we have as a 'this is why we are in charge' we are protecting the people like you and your best interests

If it is Good for Business and Bad for the People - Fantastic we can charge the business whatever we want to go through with this because if the people found out our heads would be on pikes but because we control the media they will never know. Everybody wins because we get rich and corporations loose a bit of money. Who cares which of the peasants get effected by it they dont even understand why bad things happen to them.

If it is Bad for business and Good for the People - Fantastic we can charge business what ever we want so that it doesn't happen then develop a toned down version and tell all the people how we did this great thing for them and that the people voted for the right person using it as proof. Even though they will never know the true nature of the original scheme because we control all the information sources.

Check out this funny poem called Grateful Slave


[edit on 6-1-2008 by blurryone]

removed post

[edit on 6-1-2008 by blurryone]

Great OP and very informative post from donwhite. Thank you both.

Anyway my score was:
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

I wonder if this is the only sector represented here on ATS, lol

Neat test, it is kind of set up to create certain results though.

Take the question

The Rich are taxed at too high a rate.

Well I said "Strongly Agree" but I also believe that the poor are taxed at too high a rate and that no person should be taxed at all. So indeed, it is a neat test but it is just as set up as any other test.

so..
2.12
-6.77
I suggest you take the politopia test. It allows for a broader more accurate "answer".

Alphard,

No probs.. i guess you could be right in that alot of people on ATS would be in this segment.. Strange though how i have asked people who have no idea about conspiracy stuff, to do it. Because they care about mankind they got relatively similar results. Strange since I would imagine that most working joes would get the same. yet we foolishly believe that the majority of parties are aligned with us.

Tinhatman,

Yes it does ask some slanted questions if you read the FAQ it deals with this and other queries in particular...

Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

So far there are alot of people in this (the libertarian left) segment.

Tinhatman, do you agree with or disagree with the 'trickledown effect' whereby the wealthy peoples' money drips down the classes? Just wondering how you came about having and economic score of 2.12.

How is it that Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and The Dalai Lama are all in our segment yet Bush, Obama, Clinton etc are all total opposite?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by blurryone]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by blurryone]

reply to post by blurryone


I felt it had a clearly defined Statist slant. I do not buy the left right propaganda.

In a free market the basic premise of the "trickle down" effect would be true. Wealthy people would use their capital to create goods or services, which in turn would create more wealth through employment and.. etc etc etc. but.... In a true free market people would be in the position to create their own wealth! Trickle down woudl not be a such a powerful thing. Trickle down how we have been taught is a lie. Wealth in a Corpratist or Socialist State "soaks up". The middle and lower classes reach equilibrium and the rich look down on us from their mansions.


I got the 2.2 because I do not think the State has the authority to regulate business anymore then they have the right to regulate who a person marries or what they smoke. Also because I do not believe coercive taxes should exist, let alone fund other peoples museums or broadcasting.
Stealing from the poor to give to the rich is as bad as stealing from the rich to give to the poor, or stealing from the poor to give to the poor while the politicians pay essentially no taxes and get free everything!!

I think monopolies exist because the market is not free, I think huge multi-national corporations that exploit the poor exist because the market is not free. I also happen to think that the Uber-rich (innovators like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates aside) exist because of direct manipulation of economic and financial systems by the State and by powerful folks who directly benefit from the State. The State working with the Corporations (You bring the guns, I'll bring the money..) have created this wealth disparity and empire. US troops murdering civilians in foreign countries to protect oil companies interests is not an example of Capitalism. Corporate welfare should not exist. No failing company should ever recieve govt funding under any circumstance barring national security. This includes protecting oil fields in foreign countries.


Much misery and poverty exists because the State (all of them US, Uk, China, etc etc) uses it's power to benefit the rich and powerful, corporations and the military industrial complex, at the expense of the common man and small business owner. The State making arbitrary laws to benefit those who can most provide a reward for those who control the state is where evil lies. The idea that some men are more fit or more deserving of others and somehow this translates into their "right" to control other men is evil.

The State is an evil and violent entity that demands submission of the individual through threat of violence. The State creates arbitrary laws that create criminals out of people whose actions did not create victims. If there is no victim, how can a crime be commited? Does an entity created by many men somehow gain more power then a single man just because?
How can the State demand that one company not make a product and that another company can. The State props one business up as another competing business fails.

I got the funny score not because I am some Captialist Corpratist Neo-Con poop, but because I do not believe that any State has ultimate power over how people should interact with each other in business or in personal matters.

People should be free to enter into contracts with each other or others how they see fit and should also be free to control the product of the fruit of their labor without some arbitrary outside group controlling them.

Democracy, Communism, Republic, Syndicalism, etc etc. They will all be the same with the same results. All State creates a "soak up" effect. The powerless become less powerful, the powerful become more powerful. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Unless yuo enter into being ruled voluntarily they are all wrong.

I got my score because the idea that some group of men with special suits somewhere know what is better for me then I do is wrong.

Sorry about rambling, iam at work and cannot edit or rewrite more early.

Oh, another loaded question.

A companies sole moral responsibility be increasing it's shareholders profits. I answered Strongly Agree. A business should make money. But I think that if people were well informed and free, businesses that made profit at the expense od Social or Enviromental standards would fail because the People would not support a company or buy their products if it meant that they woudl be turned orange by their drinking water. Already in the US we find example after example of Socially responsible companies that even though they sell a more expensive product are out performing their competitors. If nobody buys your eggs because you do not use range free chickens you are no longer returning profit to your shareholders and your business will either start using free range chickens or fail and the free range chicken company will win.
Under our system the government would use some earmark to subsidize each non-free range chicken egg you sell so you never go out of business and can then undercut the free range socially responsible business so badly that they in trun fail!!

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Tinhatman]

Here is my score:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.74

reply to post by stumason


REMOVED

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Tinhatman]

Here I am:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -212.36
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 586.2145


no just kidding...for real


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Dorian Soran]