A comment regarding these political tests

[Denny Crane]

I fail to see how one can be Libertarian and socialist leaning at the same time. They're at opposite ends of the spectrum - one empowers the individual, the other subjugates the individual to the will of the collective.

 

[maxiep]

They are opposites on one part of the spectrum, but in today's vernacular are both considered socially permissive.

 

[DennisRodman]

I fail to see how one can be Libertarian and socialist leaning at the same time. They're at opposite ends of the spectrum - one empowers the individual, the other subjugates the individual to the will of the collective.

lol, first question is any specific reason why you'd put this in the Blazers OT forum, instead of the Religion and Politics forum? (unless just for filler)

But regarding the question, I think on the compass, it was Libertarian vs. Authoritarian at North vs. South, and Left vs. Right.

Libertarianism vs. Authoritarianism would be solely the the level of involvment of the government.

While the Left vs. Right would be the issues that each of the parties represent outside of the level of government. (Economy, Iraq, Abortion, Gay marriage, whatever)

So back to the question. It is basically a graph of level of government involvment on the horizontal axis, and Left (all issues except level of gov't involvement) vs. Right (all issues except level of gov't involvement)

That is my understanding I guess.

However yes, socialism and libertarianism cannot agree with themselves. But in reality socialism has never worked the way it was supposed to, and there has never been a pure capitalism with no government intervention in all markets.

 

[maxiep]

lol, first question is any specific reason why you'd put this in the Blazers OT forum, instead of the Religion and Politics forum? (unless just for filler)

We Blazer fans asked to create an OT subforum due to the one at BBF.com getting shut down.

 

[Denny Crane]

However yes, socialism and libertarianism cannot agree with themselves. But in reality socialism has never worked the way it was supposed to, and there has never been a pure capitalism with no government intervention in all markets.

Socialism turns into something authoritarian. Hence my point is still the same... You can't be Socialist and Libertarian at the same time.

OK, OK, there is a weasily way that some left-wingers claim to be libertarian.... That somehow by empowering people through the authority of the state, they are liberated. That's half a joke and half serious.

 

[44Thrilla]

it is possible to have socialist views on certain subjects and libertarian views on others. I don't think you can define one person's political views with a single term.

 

[Denny Crane]

it is possible to have socialist views on certain subjects and libertarian views on others. I don't think you can define one person's political views with a single term.

That would be a flaw with these kinds of tests, eh?

It gets interesting when you think about why they use 2 dimensions. Why not 3? Why is it left/right and up/down when a circle or sphere gives you more degrees of freedom?

I think the tests are basically rigged to allow the impossible for a reason.

 

[DennisRodman]

Socialism turns into something authoritarian. Hence my point is still the same... You can't be Socialist and Libertarian at the same time.

OK, OK, there is a weasily way that some left-wingers claim to be libertarian.... That somehow by empowering people through the authority of the state, they are liberated. That's half a joke and half serious.

Well, an authortarian state coming into power can empower the people if the masses (proletariat) are being impoverished by the bourguoise. The kind of situation where an overhaul (revolution) would be needed, and then at a later point then the government can take a lesser role.

 

[Denny Crane]

Days of Terror. French Revolution.

Look it up

 

[Ed O]

Definitions are important, right? Socialism and communism... different theoretically? Yes. In practice? I don't think so.

Socialism is a government imposition of a certain (new) order on things. Communism is the lifting of the government's hand entirely, after society and its comrades have accepted the new order.

Libertarian-Socialist could be, at some level, Communist.

Alternatively, Socialist could be on the economic axis, at the opposite end of Capitalist/Free Market. Combining no government interference with that kind of anti-free market stance would... hmm... be anarchy? Or, as DC pondered, incompatible.

Ed O.

 

[ucatchtrout]

Maybe there is no definition....only confusion.... for me anyway.

What was once republican is no longer republican. What was once democratic is no longer democratic.

I used to think I knew what these parties stood for, but I don't anymore. It appears to be more of a free for all. Each party would have you believe they are very different from the other, but I'm not so certain. I think maybe Robert Kennedy Jr had it right when he said "the only difference between the democrats and the republicans is the democrats are only 97% crooked"