Your political views

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I hear what you're saying. I just have this awful feeling that social progress won't happen until it's "Economically Viable". The fact that we've started down the long road to Von-Neumann level machinery (large or small scale) means that eventually the current system based on the scarcity of certain elements and materials will be thrown completely out the window. Under the current system, the first person or organization that cracks replication tech will have the world by the short-n-curlies.

I know the standard response here is "Oh, but that won't happen for centuries! We don't need to worry about it.", but this seems tragically short sighted when you consider how far we came in the last 50 years alone. Let's face it, tablet computers went from science fiction to science fact in 20 years flat, NASA's got a rudimentary "impulse" drive working and the 3D printer is that first stab at replication technology. The pace of progress is going to increase for a while yet.

The main thing about replicators is the conservation of matter and energy.  The material has to come from somewhere, probably from the general energy fields in the gravity well.  Wonder what happens when you start tapping it?

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

All joking and high idealism aside, I know this stuff will take power generation to and past it's current limit, but there's no reason they won't eventually get a Tokamak or other fusion reactor working. Clean fuel for such a system is a concern, seeing as the 'best' reaction we could hope for would be an He3/Deuterium mix, with He3 in majorly short supply at the Earth's surface. But I still think the current economic and political systems will struggle to cope with the changes that are coming.

[matias93 7,535]

U.S. politics sucks , It seems to me if you are not a corporation , you are screwed . Judicial system the same , the one with the fattest pockets wins .

Just my opinion from experiences around the block .

I think that those observations applies for basically all the world, all the time since humanity exists (or even before), specially if you widen 'money' as 'material resources'.

Looks like I'm in a similar position as several others here and about where I would have expected it.  I did have trouble with a few of the questions, however, since I'm not quite sure what the intent was.  For instance, for "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system," I said "disagree" from the standpoint that we (in the US) effectively have a one-party state WITH the delay process.  I doubt that was the intent of the question, but there were a few like that where I felt the question itself incorporated a kind of bias.  Perhaps I should have just ignored those questions.

(-1.75, -3.44)

In fact, most real experiences with a formal one-party system results in all the differences expressed as internal factions, struggling for the control of the party-State. So you change 'State' for 'party' and 'citizenship' for 'militancy' and you have basically all the same liberal competition rules with a one-party system (bridgeing the obvious differences when the party is repressive and totalitarian, which is not always the case).

 

And yes, that test is a bit strange in the scope of the questions, and wildly hard to 'export' to foreign realities (outside the US, or the developed countries). Count with those differences when hearing the pope in DC this week.

I hear what you're saying. I just have this awful feeling that social progress won't happen until it's "Economically Viable". The fact that we've started down the long road to Von-Neumann level machinery (large or small scale) means that eventually the current system based on the scarcity of certain elements and materials will be thrown completely out the window. Under the current system, the first person or organization that cracks replication tech will have the world by the short-n-curlies.

I know the standard response here is "Oh, but that won't happen for centuries! We don't need to worry about it.", but this seems tragically short sighted when you consider how far we came in the last 50 years alone. Let's face it, tablet computers went from science fiction to science fact in 20 years flat, NASA's got a rudimentary "impulse" drive working and the 3D printer is that first stab at replication technology. The pace of progress is going to increase for a while yet.

Ah, the old, yet wonderful faith in technological advancement. I'm digging it too, and I love it. But sadly is not as bright and beautiful as we want. In most cases, a tech improvement in productivity (a Von Neumann machine is an extreme case, a steam machine a much more known example) produces nor work emancipation nor workers dilapidation, but a strange mixture of both. Less workers are needed to do a previously human bounded job, so less workers are used (and less wages paid), but unemployment does not rise totally and permanently, because the tech improvements produce or force the opening of new work instances, in which people is enrolled (not necesarially the same people that was fired previously).

In the long run, you get a more automatized production system, most human workers in jobs that machines couldn't do (nor most blue-collar workers can), and a huge informal or precary tertiary sector of McJobs or peddlers.

I hear what you're saying. I just have this awful feeling that social progress won't happen until it's "Economically Viable". The fact that we've started down the long road to Von-Neumann level machinery (large or small scale) means that eventually the current system based on the scarcity of certain elements and materials will be thrown completely out the window. Under the current system, the first person or organization that cracks replication tech will have the world by the short-n-curlies.

I know the standard response here is "Oh, but that won't happen for centuries! We don't need to worry about it.", but this seems tragically short sighted when you consider how far we came in the last 50 years alone. Let's face it, tablet computers went from science fiction to science fact in 20 years flat, NASA's got a rudimentary "impulse" drive working and the 3D printer is that first stab at replication technology. The pace of progress is going to increase for a while yet.

The main thing about replicators is the conservation of matter and energy.  The material has to come from somewhere, probably from the general energy fields in the gravity well.  Wonder what happens when you start tapping it?

Conservation of matter and energy is accomplished by a Von Neumann machine, conservation of work not. A Von Neumann machine is analogous to a self-replicating organism, so it multiplies the work invested in its fabrication (not in its design, too; except in some strange cases of Von Neumann software).

A Von Neumann machine is certainly possible and it looks not so hard with current technology. Anyway, socioeconomical issues won't be solved by self-replicating machines, just as weren't resolved in slavist societies with self-replicating workers.

All joking and high idealism aside, I know this stuff will take power generation to and past it's current limit, but there's no reason they won't eventually get a Tokamak or other fusion reactor working. Clean fuel for such a system is a concern, seeing as the 'best' reaction we could hope for would be an He3/Deuterium mix, with He3 in majorly short supply at the Earth's surface. But I still think the current economic and political systems will struggle to cope with the changes that are coming.

Just as that, humans have proved ourselves to be capable of transform any new invention, from a solution to a problem, to a cause for another (and usually bigger) problem. Also, most of those derivated problems are social and not material ones.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The basic problem with political systems is that they are pretty much all hierarchical and the Peter Principle applies.  For example, look at the United States Congress:  It is full of old boy incumbents whose main goal is to cling to their seats.  The present state of the oncoming 2016 election campaign is a farce.  To say that it is time for a general shakeup of their system is the understatement of the century (so far).  The two party system is a FAIL.

Here in Canada, we are running a close second.  Our current federal election campaign with three major parties and three minor ones is looking very stupid.  It is getting harder and harder to distinguish between the major parties because they are all full of themselves and not interested much in the country.

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

Ditto that for the UK. It used to be two party, Labour and Conservative, but Labour ended up becoming 'Tory-Lite' (they could be going back the other way though,) the Lib Dem's performance while power sharing in the last parliament has made sure no-one will vote for them again in a hurry. The only difference I can see between them half the time is the colour of their ties.

A small chance of something different if Corbyn can get his butt in the door of number 10. I don't think the masses will let that happen...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The western political systems are being suborned by the capitalist crowd, and slowly becoming plutocratic oligarchies.  Near as I can tell from across the border is that the U.S. has become exactly that with overtones of police state.

[matias93 7,535]

The basic problem with political systems is that they are pretty much all hierarchical and the Peter Principle applies.  For example, look at the United States Congress:  It is full of old boy incumbents whose main goal is to cling to their seats.  The present state of the oncoming 2016 election campaign is a farce.  To say that it is time for a general shakeup of their system is the understatement of the century (so far).  The two party system is a FAIL.

Here in Canada, we are running a close second.  Our current federal election campaign with three major parties and three minor ones is looking very stupid.  It is getting harder and harder to distinguish between the major parties because they are all full of themselves and not interested much in the country.

Ditto that for the UK. It used to be two party, Labour and Conservative, but Labour ended up becoming 'Tory-Lite' (they could be going back the other way though,) the Lib Dem's performance while power sharing in the last parliament has made sure no-one will vote for them again in a hurry. The only difference I can see between them half the time is the colour of their ties.

A small chance of something different if Corbyn can get his butt in the door of number 10. I don't think the masses will let that happen...

In fact, it is pretty normal that, in countries without big troubles, parties tend to converge and render elections trivial. Anthony Downs described that in the 1940s and is still real.

Anyway, when parties are basically clones, whichever issue that put both of them in the same side could disturb it all and change the political map completely: look at Greece, where the PASOK and New Democracy thought the competiton was over 10 years ago; now they barely exists in voting intention.

The western political systems are being suborned by the capitalist crowd, and slowly becoming plutocratic oligarchies.  Near as I can tell from across the border is that the U.S. has become exactly that with overtones of police state.

Well, historically all democracies have been also plutocracies, except in some bloodshed and brief cases. To be elected is costly, and, as Hannah Arendt posits, only men freed from labour (by means of the forced labour of others) could do politics in the agora. With some slight changes, that is still true.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

My political views:

Economic - Utilitarian

Social - Progressive

personally held beliefs - pragmatic Catholic

 

That means I believe wealth redistribution should be limited to what maximizes utility of that wealth, everyone should be free to do anything they desire as long as they accept the consequences, and I try to be faithful, polite, kind, honest, and generally good but I am fully aware of my faults and wish to improve so as to help others.

 

  Edited September 24, 2015 by OcramSeattle  
explained

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Marco, do you really practice the Catholic faith as delineated by Jesus Christ?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Marco, do you really practice the Catholic faith as delineated by Jesus Christ?

Well, I try always to do the right thing but I admit I don't do it out of the goodness of my heart. I recently went to mass when the gospel talked about doing the right thing for the right reason vs for the wrong reason. There were 3 reasons given to do the right thing: pleasure (example given was how Scrooge changed), pragmaticism (example given was a snippet from some presidential speech about how helping the needy can help you because your help can put others in the position to help you down the road), and some other term that meant doing the right thing out of the goodness of your heart. Like I said, I'm pragmatic: my greatest pleasure is an outstandingly delicious meal and helping others brings me little pleasure; if all I did was to make me feel good or a means to feel good, I would just do whatever it takes to go out to good restaurants and buy fancy ingredients. I only do good out of a sense of duty because I believe I have an obligation to improve the world. I use the Bible as a guide to do good, along with a few modern sets of ethics. All the good I do is to make the world we live in better so me, my loved ones, and their loved ones can be better off than if I did not exist. I don't spread the word of God because I don't think it is in the least bit pragmatic in modern society. The closest I usually do is to tell people (vaguely) that they are loved by very important people. I also believe I am going to Purgatory first when I die (the 'cleansing' fire much like what most think of when they picture Hell but Purgatory is temporary).

  Edited September 24, 2015 by OcramSeattle  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting.  To continue this we must move elsewhere.

Politics, to quote Bismark, is the art of the possible.  I am out of the loop essentially except for my tiny kick at the cat called a ballot.  I plan to use an advance poll because I have no longer the strength to walk the gauntlet into the usual poll in the community centre.  I may be old, but I am still a voter, and who knows, my ballot may be the one that makes a difference.

Everyone with the franchise should exercise it.  Besides being a visible civic duty, it says you believe in the system.  One of the options is to refuse the ballot.

People who don't vote cannot complain about the government that results.  These people get the government they deserve.

[Haljackey 17,398]

Canada 2015 Election party policy positions according to this website

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2015

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Canada 2015 Election party policy positions according to this website

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2015

 

How on earth did the Green Party end up on the right? And NDP Libertarian?

[MintberryCrunch 83]

My political views:

Economic - Utilitarian

Social - Progressive

personally held beliefs - pragmatic Catholic

 

That means I believe wealth redistribution should be limited to what maximizes utility of that wealth, everyone should be free to do anything they desire as long as they accept the consequences, and I try to be faithful, polite, kind, honest, and generally good but I am fully aware of my faults and wish to improve so as to help others.

 

I think that describes me pretty well too. I'm a Catholic, but I'm fairly progressive socially (not on everything, but on many issues). Whenever I take these political tests, they often put me right in the center or slightly left of center. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Not surprising.  If you buy the whole Catholic dogma, you should be dead centre.  The Church is essentially for the status quo, and only changes with the passing of centuries.  The faithful are not allowed to question anything.  Are you not glad that the Holy Office is more or less out of business?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I left Seattle because the ultra progressives are getting their way with taking money from successful, thrifty, and/or industrious persons in order to help others avoid consequences of bad behavior. The amount of money taken comes with heavy deadweight loss and is spent unwisely. I am in favor of redistribution of wealth, as long as it increases total utility ($10 is more useful to a minimum wage worker than a billionaire) and I am in favor of freedom and equitability as long as everyone is not only granted equal protection under the law but also have to take responsibility for all consequences of all their actions. Because of the sacrifice of the Golden goose (productive contributors) to convince voters with with a feast, the whole environment will collapse. I only hope those responsible for the problems face the consequences before innocents suffer.

[matias93 7,535]

Canada 2015 Election party policy positions according to this website

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2015

 

How on earth did the Green Party end up on the right? And NDP Libertarian?

Green parties, and even more green parties of industrialized countries, are located in centre-right configurations because of their policies, that aim to conservate the environment, and avoid industrial development, which is the base of the enrichment of the masses. If you look, the countries that have reduced poverty the most have done that at the cost of destroying the environment. Green parties in those countries oppose that and are strongly unpopular for that, except on high class environmentalists, that have no need to explote the nature to thrive or live.

  Edited September 30, 2015 by matias93  

[Ocram's Razr 964]

My idea of good is innovation that increases sustainable human happiness. My idea of evil is action that increases long-term human suffering (or extinction). Because of that, I hold some views that are held by extreme progressives and some views held by extreme conservatives but it averages out to mostly centrist (slightly to the left) Libertarian (3-4 points below the center line, away from Authoritarian) on that test but my viewpoints are not held by the majority that end up in similar positions on the compass.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My idea of good is innovation that increases sustainable human happiness. My idea of evil is action that increases long-term human suffering (or extinction). Because of that, I hold some views that are held by extreme progressives and some views held by extreme conservatives but it averages out to mostly centrist (slightly to the left) Libertarian (3-4 points below the center line, away from Authoritarian) on that test but my viewpoints are not held by the majority that end up in similar positions on the compass.

You should spend some time in the history books with the Roman Empire starting about 100 BCE and going forward into the collapse.  You will see the history that is being repeated now in the Capitalistic countries.

[GrandpaKim 7]

Canada 2015 Election party policy positions according to this website

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2015

 

Personally I'd shove most about 6 squares to the left.  The con's are centrist so I would move them about 8 squares left.  I shouldn't judge.  I'm a little color blind left and right.  Put me anywhere down on the bottom row.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ Well, it is all over but the shouting.  The Con$ are now the Official Opposition, Harper quit and they have a new interim leader.  The new government has really turned over a new leaf if not opened a new book.  Lots of cheering all around.  Liberal majority, so it seems all is forgiven or the Harperman was strategically given the old heave-ho.  The fat hits the fire December 5th with the Speech From the Throne.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

A great change has happened in my personal life that changed my perspective without changing my goals. This epiphany has brought me great joy and has made it easier for me to achieve my goals now that my heart is in it.

 

I still want wealth redistribution to be limited to what maximizes utility. I still want governmental (and all other bureaucratic) overhead to be minimized. I still want to earn a Baccloreate Degree of Science in Chemical Engineering and Biochemistry. I still want to move to an oil-rich region in the (contiguous 48) states for my career. I still want to make the world a better place. I still want to improve myself physically, mentally, and economically.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Commendable, Marco.  Now, how do you feel about unlocking that mess of a congressional system?

[Moerp 449]

I'm a convinced liberal with a tendency to socialist views. Unfortunately, the major german parties don't include an option actually fitting to me (there is "Die LINKE" ('the left') but the party is virtually split-up since the Group-Chairman Gregor Gysi left the party for personal reasons), so I don't quite know what I should vote for the upcoming elections in Germany in 2017.