Back in highschool I came up with this thing called the political compass. It was a compass of 8 sides, with a political system on each point. The North side of the compass was more Liberal, and the South more Conservative. The Western side was more Unproductive, and the Eastern was more Productive and Moderates were in the center of the compass. I attached a picture of the compass to this post, you can see that two points aren't linked to any current systems. My theory was that the combination, of the two systems on either side of a point, equal the poltical system at the point. :bugeye: For instance, Liberal beliefs fall between Communism and Socialism (Not as bad Communism, but not as productive as socialism), this trend would happen to every point. My question is, do you think the best points of Libertarians, and Socialist's beliefs would make the perfect system? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How would that look, and what parts of the two would you combine. Yes I know this is only my old stupid high school theory Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, but maybe I was right.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Took me a while to figure out what you meant but... yes, you may be right there. Unfortunately, for the compass to remain steady you'd have to be sailing in calm seas... and right now the world is riding a reasonably heavy storm. Nice idea though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First off, I'd like to say its a nice though but utopia is impossible and I'll explain. For one thing, those kind of charts cannot exists as 2d, it can only be accurately rendered through a 3d environment to account for breadth of a belief. Secondly, you've based your idea on personal beliefs not universal. The fascists wouldnt be living in the utopia you describe. Just as in calculus, the right answer is always located at the intersection. It is the only source of perfection or utopia as this chart goes by. Now you look at it and you naturally say 'there is an intersect' and there sortof is, if you bend space completely. Since there are such different levels of each ideology, you can come very close to the intersect (as compared to the accelerating to the speed of light) but you will never reach it, because then you will cross over to the other beliefs which is, simply put, illogical. I'm tired so its difficult for me to explain right now. I dont blame anyone if they cant get what I'm saying. But this is why its impossible and also why your version of the chart is wrong.
The Political Compass is a website with similar ideas. If you're interested in their interpretation of your position on the compass rose, they have a test. The Fish? Libertarian-Left, hangin' there with Ghandi. Big surprise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
No, They use what I call a 2d interpretation. x and y coordinates. I'm talking about a 3d interpretaion, x y z coordinates, to measure actual breadth. Imagine your in a 3d environment with these ideologies on each line, kind of like a star shinning out in large spikes.(actually it'd have to be 4d - our universe - to work out the way I expect, Forget about stupid string theories)
Sorry, Elbaz, I was responding to static's OP; I should have quoted. I would have to agree with you that a 2D represention of the current political landscape would be inadequate.
The Perfect Political system.... Warning: Long post!. Interesting question, however I've got a few problems with believing that, Socialism is either more productive than Communism, they are really moderately similar. For example, in Communism the state owns the goods of production and the facility of production, whereas in Socialism the society owns the means of production as well as the goods. Who decides which society receive such goods? The State!!.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Though in your quest for a "perfect political system" I find it extremely weird that you din't mention a "free republic with a Laissez-faire capitalism economical system" The fact is that the only country to almost reach this was the United States, and for it we live as we do today, in record time of human history did a ever a country accomplished so much in such little time. Here is a plyght for the fight of Capitalism: The Moral Basis of Capitalism Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness. by Robert W. Tracinski Past Chairman The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth." But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing. If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth. What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual. Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide Web—because scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products. Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves. Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issues—and many others—depend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence. The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers. The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"—that is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment. Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term results—only what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effort—they dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims—they impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force. The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values. In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage." It is common to condemn this approach as selfish—yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of others—those who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union. A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery—and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale. Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life. Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal. Robert W. Tracinski is co-founder and Past Chairman of the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism and is editor of The Intellectual Activist.
I agree with you that capatilism is a moral ideal. I personally support capitalism as an ideal, myself, in that people have to be responsible with things like charity and such. But that cannot be a utopia situation because it is reflected on personal ideals where individuals may attain higher moral standards. In the real world, individuals have different beliefs, a utopia must satisfy everyone, which is why I say it can be an ideal in a specific area, but it has to be the sole intersection in each of the ideals to form a balanced and thus perfect system, which cannot exist in normal means, because ideals for the seperate systems would no longer be these seperate ideals if they intersected, which is illogical. Bringing me back to my point on how it is impossible to attain perfectness under normal conditions. There's always a bias in this world.
True to the point however.... Politically, capitalism is the vasis to building a better society, it has so far built our society. But a "utopia" is a theist conception, one of which is achieved thrugh death, hence the forthcoming of going to "heaven" when we die. A "utopia" while we live on earht, is not achievable, as long as there's religion, involved. Perhaps if humans would learn to "evolve" above religious beliefs there would be in the world a better society.
I happen to think that it is Hatred and self intrests and NOT religon that is the cause of all the misery in this world.
There is rational and irrational selfishness--or self interest. Irrationality--all by itself--is frequently the undoing of anything or anyone. Hatred is bred by some religions, and spread by many religionists, and though such fostering is denied by many, it is also argued to be justified by others; claimed to be right and proper according to holy scriptures; acts and oaths purported to be blessed, willed, and even desired by the unseen and the unknowable deity of some believers’ choice. Religion is a man-crafted tool used for good and ill purposes, not unlike a useful, though also deadly axe.
I don't buy that. Hatred is spread by PEOPLE. They may use religon as justifaction but its is still PEOPLE who are responcable. religon in and of itself is netural or hopefull (depends on your perspective) and if it is removed the vilonce would remain but the hope would be gone Oh and self intrests and ALWAYS selfish
Asguard... Who do you think “religionists” are? They are people. And what makes them “religionists?” They are people who use a tool (religion) to spread their own (or someone’s) twisted version of “truth.” A so-called “truth” that is supported by the so-called laws or premises that are inextricably woven into the fabric of various religions. History books, world-wide, are filled with accounts of how people have used religion in such a way. So yes, people do the actual deeds. Religion, however, is a much more versatile kind of tool than is an axe. Far too many religions can be used, have been, and are used to undermine Mankind because the nature of the contents of the religious doctrines allow them to be, and are, mis-used. Believe what you like, but there are many among the faithful who would not deny this. They choose to have faith in a higher power, and yet many would (and do) choose to have nothing to do with any kind of organized religion. And this kind of choice would not be very unlike the choice to not hang around with a group of bullies--when one doesn’t go along with the philosophy or the deeds/thoughts that said philosophy teaches or encourages its followers to commit, or to have. As for self-interest “always being selfish,” I’ll offer no dispute. But there is most certainly a difference between rational and irrational selfishness. Perhaps you’ve not thoroughly explored the difference yet. You’re young. Give yourself some time to experience and learn. I’m older and I’m still learning. ~~~ Counterbalance
Im not sure how much more of the hatred of the people of this world i could handle. Politics can be just as useful to bred hatred but can do nothing to bring hope
Yet, the opposite of hope is ‘despair.‘ Hope can grow as irrational fear is set aside. True, neither politics or religion have all the answers, though supporters of both will promise the impossible to any who‘ll listen--even as both are responsible for causing much of the fear and despair that underlies a good number of any society's critical problems. But we don’t have to look to others to give hope to us. And it doesn’t have to cost us anything to hope. We don’t even have to have faith to have hope. Muster your own hope and be pleased with your ability to do so. CB
Trust me. You don't need religon to cause despair, infact religon was one of the things that helped me. That and the scouts. Basicly where ever i could find love insted of hatred.
Asguard, I’ll trust that you are influenced by your own experiences--as we all are. For you, Religion has been a “good thing.” And I don’t begrudge anyone anything that is truly good. I don’t ordinarily ask anyone to trust the word of Counterbalance, but you may, if you like, trust that many, many other people have had a very different experience with Religion. And you may also gain more understanding some day about how part of what you don’t think is so good about the world or people (the spread of hatred, for example) was made so in part by the existence of Religion, and by those who’ve labored to perpetuate it. It’s nice to be loved and even nicer when we when can love ourselves for who we are. I suspect there are others unaffiliated with any religion who would also value you. Here’s to hoping you get to meet some of them. Apologies for drifting off topic. Good night... CB
Ah! the misconception of selfishness.. There is nothing wrong with been selfish!!, the simple act of "eating" is a selfish act, you may share the food you provide but you can't share the digestion of what YOU eat with anyone else. The act of sex, is a selfish act, sex is the joy of one's achievement, love, and reward for one's effort to attain a mate. *There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his "self-interests" in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in "what" regards as to his own interest: not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but inthe fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level. If it is true that what I mena by "selfishness" is not what is menat conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that alturism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man--a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself or others. It means that alturism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites-that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men--that it permits no concept of justice.* Ayn Rand Rational self-interests is the right to enjoy the rewards of your own efforts of production. Therefore Asguard what the above means is that self-interests is not an evil thing, it is the reward of your own efforts of earning a living. There are those who rather rob, manipulate, usurpe, their living from those who produce values, this may seem to you as serving thier own self-interests, it is however as Countervalence explained these fall under "irrational self-interests" they would rather steal for their livelihood rather than produce any value. Hence if you start thinking very hard, you can probably come up with a few individuals who live off the efforts of others. Politicians come to mind, preachers also fall under this category, think about. What value does a preacher bring?, comfort? counseling? church services? which is nothing more than following religious dogma. And for this we pay heavily!!. Read about "Oral Roberts, Shawgart, or however you spell the basterds name. LOL, these are a few fellows, who are TV evangelists who actually are billionaires, by living off the efforts of others. Remember "Jim Baker"? This bastard is serving jail for tax evation, he too was a multi millionaire with is "church".
