Short Political Quiz

Pages

AuthorTopic: Short Political Quiz
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #0
These mostly focus on the US, but anyone is free to participate. I'm trying to get a fairly accurate account of community views, so please answer honestly.

Poll Information
This poll contains 10 question(s). 68 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=SMSzwgbGQYHT"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=SMSzwgbGQYHT"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window IMAGE(votenow.gif)     IMAGE(voteresults.gif)

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #1
10 is pretty much going to get nothing but agree votes. A more interesting question would be whether the wealthy should be taxed at a higher rate, rather than if they should pay more in absolute terms.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #2
EDIT: Put the clarifications higher up so people could see them.

1) You may replace "can" with "should, if necessary" if you would like.

2) For citizens of fighting age/ability if they are needed as determed by the army and other leaders.

3) Intentionally vague. Define obscene however you would normally define it and answer the question.

10) Higher can be defined as higher than the status quo or a higher rate than those of the lower class...define as you interpret the question.

[ Friday, December 09, 2005 17:35: Message edited by: *i ]

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #3
#2: a duty for whom? Obviously a society isn't going to function if everyone (or even every able-bodied young adult) suddenly pulls up sticks and joins the army, so it can't be a duty for everybody.

#3 is pretty vague. Pretty much everyone thinks rape should be illegal, so I assume the scope of the question is meant to be restricted to consensual acts? (Of course, then you get to the curly question of what constitutes consent, especially when animals are involved.)

Okay, I'm done nitpicking for now.

[ Friday, December 09, 2005 17:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally written by *i:

By higher taxes, I mean more than the status quo.
Oh. In that case, my Agree should be a Disagree.

EDIT: And I suspect I'm not the only one who got the wrong end of that stick.

[ Friday, December 09, 2005 17:29: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #5
More clarifications:

1) You may replace "can" with "should, if necessary" if you would like.

2) For citizens of fighting age/ability if they are needed as determed by the army and other leaders.

3) Intentionally vague. Define obscene however you would normally define it and answer the question.

10) Higher can be defined as higher than the status quo or a higher rate than those of the lower class...define as you interpret the question.

[ Friday, December 09, 2005 17:33: Message edited by: *i ]

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
Profile #6
Maybe I'm letting the cat out of the bag here, but it seems to me as if every question is intentionally designed to be vague to some extent. The impression I got is only partially due to the questions themselves; *i's posts regarding objectivity in the Political Compass thread also led me to this conclusion.

It seemed that, for most questions, I could come up with opposite answers representing my views that both answered a particular interpretation of a given question.

For example: 8) Federal social security programs provide a needed safety net for retired people.

If answering the question, "Federal social security programs should provide a needed safety net for retired people" I would agree. On the other hand, if I wanted to answer "Federal social security programs currently provide a needed safety net for retired people" I would be tempted to disagree. I feel that both are valid interpretations of the question.

Additionally: 5) A National ID card would be more efficient and ensure integrity in elections.
More efficient how? In elections? What if I agree with the efficient part but not the integrity part? It seems intentionally vague to me.

[ Friday, December 09, 2005 17:43: Message edited by: wz. arsenic... ]

--------------------
5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0...
Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #7
With 8 voters, nobody has yet disagreed with 2, 6, 8, or 10.

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy
Encyclopedia Ermariana - Trapped in the Closet
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #8
Limiting free speech sounds horrible and un-American and all until you realize that completely free speech could mean no secrets whatsoever. As much as I support free speech, I think there will always be information that should not be revealed to the general public, especially in this age of the internet and potentially universal access to said information. This explains why at least one of the answers to the first question is "Agree".

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

Polaris = joy.

In case of emergency, break glass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #9
Well yes, suppose you somehow came across classified information that is vital to our national security. Does the government have the right to restrict your ability to talk reveal that information to the public?

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #10
One could make the case that if national security relies so heavily on keeping secrets, the nation isn't very secure anyway, because secrets have a tendency of getting out in time regardless of any efforts to the contrary.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #11
I don't think you can really make that argument as some secrecy is required to have a good defense. If your enemy knows everything about you, it is easy to exploit your system, as nothing is perfect and without weakness.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by *i:

If your enemy knows everything about you, it is easy to exploit your system, as nothing is perfect and without weakness.
Thankfully, there's so much intelligence floating around that the prospect of someone getting us really bad because ours is too free is pretty dismal - after all, wars up to this point have shown spycraft interesting but remarkably ineffective.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #13
In that sense, completely free speech (and writing) would also make copyrights impossible. Those restrict someone's ability to speak or write too. Thinking of government secrets as information that the government has copyrighted for its own protection covers the only justifiable exception to free speech that I can think of. You have the right to say or write anything you want as long as it's your own original words, but when it's someone else's, that other party may have the right to prevent it from being said.

—Alorael, who is not ready to believe that open-source everything is viable. Open-source government will be a long time in coming.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #14
Simply because a person is "rich" doesn't mean that person should be taxed more. They should be taxed based on earnings of course, like all people are. But it isn't really their place to hold all of society up. Every person should pay the same rate of tax based on what they earn.

I am curious about why so many people feel businesses should be rewarded for projects doing good in the community.

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #15
The counter argument as to being rich is that societies system has allowed you to live the lifestyle you do. As part of society allowing you to live an affluent lifestyle, you also take more of part (as compensation for having more) of a responsibility in helping maintain that society.

As far as projects for the public good, I give a current example. Suppose we as a society want more wind generated electricity. We have two choices (1) government building of the projects or (2) having businesses do it. Choice (2) is hindered by that, all things being equal, businesses do not want to build these expensive windfarms because they do not want to take the capital risk, which is immense for large capital projects.

Now, if we all agree wind power is a good thing and we want to see them and we would rather the government not just build them, we would need to encourage investors and businesses with some incentive to take on the risk. Note that the business would still make a profit, it is just that the initial capital investment is large and hence risky.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #16
quote:
Originally written by *i:

The counter argument as to being rich is that societies system has allowed you to live the lifestyle you do. As part of society allowing you to live an affluent lifestyle, you also take more of part (as compensation for having more) of a responsibility in helping maintain that society.
So you are taking responsibility for making sure that you remain affluent, and that others like you remain affluent. And people born into the same society but with completely different economic circumstances (about which they had no choice) are also 'helped' to stay in that situation.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #17
Um, no. You're misunderstanding *i's position. It would be more accurate to say that because you have a position of privilege in the society, you have an obligation to do more than others to ensure that the bottom of society gets a fair chance to move up to where you are, or just that they aren't abjectly miserable.

—Alorael, who tries to stuff a large rant into this signature and realized it didn't fit at all. Ranting another day!
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #18
More significantly (for me) as far as the taxing thing goes is this: there are things that the government ought to do that are good for all its citizens: build and maintain roads, fund schools, maintain at least some kind of military for defense, etc., none of which are free. Therefore, the government requires a certain amount of money for its legitimate and necessary activities.

Now, where is it going to come from? The top few percent have an overwhelmingly large percent of the money in the U.S. — as far as I know, the U.S. has one of the largest disparities between the rich and the poor in the developed world, so those in other areas need to bear in mind that it's not quite the same where you're from — so it seems reasonable to me that most of that money come from the people who have most of it. I mean, what is the alternative? Trying to bleed it out of the poor?

I refuse to answer these questions on more or less the grounds that wz. arsenic outlined, though: phrasing things in such vague and absolute terms makes none of them really represent my views, even though I sort of agree with most of them.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #19
I would go a bit further and ask, "why not?"

And okay, maybe there are some reasons (albeit entirely ones which exist on the level of pretzel logic). I'm sure that economists can list 'em and be paid well for doing so.

But ultimately, any sort of argument that either argues for the existence of an upper-class or addresses its existence "pragmatically" purposefully ignores the notion inherent in the idea of an upper-class that it is somehow morally feasible to allow some people to have much larger sums of wealth than others. The idea that people can be "worth" more than one another is essentially a justification for everything wrong in the world save for dying.

It also grants Kissinger a surplus of gerontogasms, which is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #20
Oh I see. Shot down in flames then. As usual I managed to understand everything backwards.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #21
Not really.
Alorael was still talking to your post. Kel felt compelled to reduce class-struggles to an issue of ensuring some illusion that they don't exist.

Or even worse- that we should trust the free market to get rid of them.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #22
quote:
Originally written by Kasumetoru Sai:

But ultimately, any sort of argument that either argues for the existence of an upper-class or addresses its existence "pragmatically" purposefully ignores the notion inherent in the idea of an upper-class that it is somehow morally feasible to allow some people to have much larger sums of wealth than others.
Let's say bloke A has ten million dollars, and bloke B down the road has a billion. Bloke A can whine that his mansion isn't as big as Bloke B's, but I don't really see any moral problems here with allowing this situation to continue.

Similarily, if you work your backside off and contribute a lot to society while I kind of bum around and just work enough to scrape by and feed my 2 minute noodle addiction, I figure it's fair enough that you get rewarded better.

[ Sunday, December 11, 2005 21:40: Message edited by: Ash Lael ]

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #23
Yeah, but the problem is that Paris Hilton is a lot closer to the #2 level of labor than the #1 level of labor, and unless you've got hotel billions laying around somewhere, chances are she's making a lot more than you doing it no matter what you're up to.

I don't think it's particularly moral for billionaires to exist in a world where people starve. At some point, it becomes impossible to justify the amount of capital accumulated by personal contribution to society, and the majority of the money can be explained quite easily by more or less random coincidences - the same that put hard-working men and women out of work and onto the street.
Get born rich, get into the right market at the right time (if Bill Gates had gone into telephony - another hip, frontierish market in the time of his youth - we would have no special reason to know his name today), work with the right people (Steve Jobs, who is a billionaire, would be nowhere without Steve Wozniak, who is not), and so on.

Attributing all of these factors to 'work harder, get rewarded better' turns wealth into a self-sustaining virtue, a figure of religious importance, and I vigorously disagree with that. You're a Christian, aren't you? Why would you contribute to the worship of lucre?

[ Sunday, December 11, 2005 22:06: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #24
I'd respond with more ideologically tetched fappery, but I really like the note BtI ended on.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00

Pages