Socialist United States

[C1ay]

I'm not sure about the pic, Moontanman. When i did mine, I did a screencap, cropped it, and uploaded it to photobucket.

 

Why were you surprised at your results?

 

What I find kind of interesting is that most of our reported results have a similar left/right value as the authoritarian/libertarian value:

 

-5.12, -4.46

-1.25, -3.03

-6.12, -7.64

-4.75, -3.38

 

I guess C1ay's result: 5.50, -3.90, demonstrates that the political compass does need two axes :)

 

~modest

 

Actually the Left/Right axis is the economic axis. I'm an extreme Libertarian according to the short quiz at The Advocates web site. I'm likely more supportive of Capitalism since jobs and income have to come from somewhere. I'm not a fan of 'to each his/her need'. For those that can and do contribute I favor helping them but those than can and don't contribute deserve to do without. Their needs should not be fulfilled at my expense.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the downsides of capitalism is connected to the induced demand for some goods and services. If I came up with the idea of a pet stick, to make money I need to figure out a marketing campaign that can make people demand something they don't even need, or never thought they needed. If I am successful, everyone will want one. If this catches on, even though it is not necessary in any objective way, the induced subjectivity could result in people needing but not being able to have it. Other people good intent will want to raise taxes so even the poor kids have a pet stick. This adds to the social burden, since not having a pet stick can put on in a awkward social position. Once the herd starts to move, with their pet stick, it is easy to get swept up in what appears to be a social necessity, even when it lacks any objectivity.

 

Supply side creating demand, can often result in the induced subjective need for things of marginal objective value. But with subjectivity induced high, it can almost appear like an objective necessity. The lower efficiency of a socialist state will not be able to afford all the pet sticks, plus all the objective necessary things. They will reduce the number of pet sticks, more in line with objectivity, but done in more of an unintentional way.

 

Socialized medicine will not have as many pet stick frills. With so many already in the system, any loss of pet stick subjectivity can seem daunting.

[lawcat]

Hello everyone. I prefer the laissez-faire capitalism + Keynesian corrections if need be. Bottom line way to think about this is in terms of extremes, on one side economy free of limitations imposed by law, and on the other side a completely regulated economy by law (i.e. communism). In U.S., we are in the middle, we are not free market economy nor are we communist, but there are a lot of legislative regulations. I prefer an unregulated economy except for occasional influx of money from the government and common law rules of injury and contract. Old school for me. :)

[Ken]

Hello everyone. I prefer the laissez-faire capitalism + Keynesian corrections if need be. Bottom line way to think about this is in terms of extremes, on one side economy free of limitations imposed by law, and on the other side a completely regulated economy by law (i.e. communism). In U.S., we are in the middle, we are not free market economy nor are we communist, but there are a lot of legislative regulations. I prefer an unregulated economy except for occasional influx of money from the government and common law rules of injury and contract. Old school for me. :)

 

 

Short-term memory loss? :D

 

Seriously, wasn't it laissez-faire non-regulation of players like Goldman-Sachs the precipitator of our recent economic near-collapse? The only way to avoid raw greed designed to economically destroy others is to set rules - to regulate all economic activities to promote fairness and eliminate fraud. Do that and then let market "smarts" and competition do their thing.

[JMJones0424]

Short-term memory loss? :D

 

Seriously, wasn't it laissez-faire non-regulation of players like Goldman-Sachs the precipitator of our recent economic near-collapse?

 

I don't think it's a matter of forgetfullness, rather, I would argue that the federal government's various schemes that supported (and continue to support) the growth of disproportionally large banks and investment in the trading of baseball cards stocks and other financial instruments, to name just a few, directly violate the spirit of lasseiz-faire that Lawcat appears to me to be invoking.

[geko]

...wasn't it laissez-faire non-regulation of players like Goldman-Sachs the precipitator of our recent economic near-collapse?

 

It was the continued credit expansion which leads to unsustainable capital growth. Strangely, the response to 'fix the economy' was more credit expansion.

 

Since i finally posted in this thread i might as well also say that 'socialism' is the public ownership of the means of production. Attempting to weave new and expanded meanings into the term for trying to describe a subjective view of the ideology doesn't change what it is i'm afraid. Communism and socialism are the same thing, the only difference between the two is the means used to achieve it. Socialism uses democracy. Communism uses force.