Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What is your political stance?

Page 3 of 7 [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

What is your political stance?
Conservative 20%  20%  [ 13 ]
Right-Libertarian\Classic Liberal 25%  25%  [ 16 ]
Modern Liberal\Progressive 25%  25%  [ 16 ]
Socialist\Communist\left-anarchist\Far-left 31%  31%  [ 20 ]
Total votes : 65

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Jul 2010, 9:30 pm

Sand wrote:
Whereas, in the most successful country in the world, the USA, everyone is well fed, healthy, free of debt, and the cities are free of slums, the infrastructure is superb, everybody who wants work has a well paying job and all the legislatures are totally honest and free of corruption and the president himself is totally loved and trusted and is on top of all problems. Who could possibly want a better system?


From Wikipedia:

Perfect Solution Fallacy

Quote:
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between things, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.


See also:

Nirvana Fallacy

Quote:
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one choice which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Jul 2010, 9:36 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Whereas, in the most successful country in the world, the USA, everyone is well fed, healthy, free of debt, and the cities are free of slums, the infrastructure is superb, everybody who wants work has a well paying job and all the legislatures are totally honest and free of corruption and the president himself is totally loved and trusted and is on top of all problems. Who could possibly want a better system?


From Wikipedia:

Perfect Solution Fallacy

Quote:
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between things, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.


See also:

Nirvana Fallacy

Quote:
The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one choice which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.


This type of reasoning worked perfectly under the violently oppressive Soviet Russian system so why not in the USA?



SoSayWeAll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 623

13 Jul 2010, 9:38 pm

More conservative than anything else, but fairly moderate.

If this is for a study, however--I did vote, but please consider whether or not you consider ADHD to be officially on the spectrum or not before completing the final tally. Any other speculations on my part as to whether I may or may not be on the spectrum are at this time not proven by professional diagnosis.


_________________
Official diagnosis: ADHD, synesthesia. Aspie quiz result (unofficial test): Like Frodo--I'm a halfling? ;) 110/200 NT, 109/200 Aspie.


Mudboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,441
Location: Hiding in plain sight

13 Jul 2010, 9:51 pm

I am a social liberal for the most part and a fiscal conservative. I work hard and give freely of my own free will. Government has no right to tell me I have to give them money so they can waste it on stupid stuff no one needs.

Capitalism and a democratic republic are the not good ways to run things, but every other system in history is even worse.


_________________
When I lose an obsession, I feel lost until I find another.
Aspie score: 155 of 200
NT score: 49 of 200


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Jul 2010, 10:23 pm

Sand wrote:
This type of reasoning worked perfectly under the violently oppressive Soviet Russian system so why not in the USA?

The USSR is condemned largely because it is much worse than many other actual places, or even solid theoretical systems.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Jul 2010, 11:09 pm

Sand wrote:
This type of reasoning worked perfectly under the violently oppressive Soviet Russian system so why not in the USA?


I don't think you understand what the word "perfectly" means, and I'm having doubts about "worked" as well.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Jul 2010, 11:50 pm

You should probably have split authoritarian forms of leftism (e.g., Stalinism) from anarchism, and by your rubric, it would probably be better to vote liberal/progressive for social democrats than with the far left you have collapsed to include all forms of socialism and anarchism. I suppose you meant to collapse in anarchism coming from the right (anarcho-capitalism) with right-libertarianism?



Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

14 Jul 2010, 1:01 am

ruveyn wrote:
BrandonSP wrote:
I'm a socialist who believes that workers should own and control the means of their own production instead of being wage slaves. However, I must admit that I haven't been thinking much about politics lately.


Name one country where that arrangement has worked well.

ruveyn


Egypt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhfh_wPyUwk[/youtube]

And many others, such as: France, Italy, Norway, Spain, UK, Israel, USA, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Jul 2010, 3:38 am

Khan_Sama wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
BrandonSP wrote:
I'm a socialist who believes that workers should own and control the means of their own production instead of being wage slaves. However, I must admit that I haven't been thinking much about politics lately.


Name one country where that arrangement has worked well.

ruveyn


Egypt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhfh_wPyUwk[/youtube]

And many others, such as: France, Italy, Norway, Spain, UK, Israel, USA, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative


Every one of those countries have mixed economies. Some firms are privately owned, other partly owned by the government, all regulated by the government. There does not exist a country on earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea where private ownership is totally banned. Even in the Soviet Union under Stalin, a small portion of the land was turned over to private ownership. This privately owned land, a small sliver, produced thirty percent of the fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union.

Total collective ownership must fail. Why? Because there is no relation to how well or hard people work and what reward they gather for their labor. Under total collective ownership the bums and slackers get stuff they did not produce and the producers are short changed by the system. That is why Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, because production was breaking down rapidly. Some private ownership had to be re-introduced to save the country from starvation.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Jul 2010, 6:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
Khan_Sama wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
BrandonSP wrote:
I'm a socialist who believes that workers should own and control the means of their own production instead of being wage slaves. However, I must admit that I haven't been thinking much about politics lately.


Name one country where that arrangement has worked well.

ruveyn


Egypt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhfh_wPyUwk[/youtube]

And many others, such as: France, Italy, Norway, Spain, UK, Israel, USA, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative


Every one of those countries have mixed economies. Some firms are privately owned, other partly owned by the government, all regulated by the government. There does not exist a country on earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea where private ownership is totally banned. Even in the Soviet Union under Stalin, a small portion of the land was turned over to private ownership. This privately owned land, a small sliver, produced thirty percent of the fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union.

Total collective ownership must fail. Why? Because there is no relation to how well or hard people work and what reward they gather for their labor. Under total collective ownership the bums and slackers get stuff they did not produce and the producers are short changed by the system. That is why Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, because production was breaking down rapidly. Some private ownership had to be re-introduced to save the country from starvation.

ruveyn


And that explains why all those Wall Street financiers who regularly pull down salaries in the millions and billions are dangerously radioactive as only atomic energy could generate the work equivalent to those bonuses and salaries.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Jul 2010, 8:10 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Khan_Sama wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
BrandonSP wrote:
I'm a socialist who believes that workers should own and control the means of their own production instead of being wage slaves. However, I must admit that I haven't been thinking much about politics lately.


Name one country where that arrangement has worked well.

ruveyn


Egypt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhfh_wPyUwk[/youtube]

And many others, such as: France, Italy, Norway, Spain, UK, Israel, USA, Canada, Venezuela, Argentina, and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative


Every one of those countries have mixed economies. Some firms are privately owned, other partly owned by the government, all regulated by the government. There does not exist a country on earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea where private ownership is totally banned. Even in the Soviet Union under Stalin, a small portion of the land was turned over to private ownership. This privately owned land, a small sliver, produced thirty percent of the fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union.

Total collective ownership must fail. Why? Because there is no relation to how well or hard people work and what reward they gather for their labor. Under total collective ownership the bums and slackers get stuff they did not produce and the producers are short changed by the system. That is why Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, because production was breaking down rapidly. Some private ownership had to be re-introduced to save the country from starvation.

ruveyn


And that explains why all those Wall Street financiers who regularly pull down salaries in the millions and billions are dangerously radioactive as only atomic energy could generate the work equivalent to those bonuses and salaries.


Keep your money in a depositor owned credit union and not a for profit privately owned bank. And don't play the stock market.

ruveyn



Khan_Sama
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 882
Location: New Human Empire

14 Jul 2010, 7:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Every one of those countries have mixed economies. Some firms are privately owned, other partly owned by the government, all regulated by the government. There does not exist a country on earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea where private ownership is totally banned. Even in the Soviet Union under Stalin, a small portion of the land was turned over to private ownership. This privately owned land, a small sliver, produced thirty percent of the fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union.

Total collective ownership must fail. Why? Because there is no relation to how well or hard people work and what reward they gather for their labor. Under total collective ownership the bums and slackers get stuff they did not produce and the producers are short changed by the system. That is why Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, because production was breaking down rapidly. Some private ownership had to be re-introduced to save the country from starvation.

ruveyn


Indeed. Worker cooperatives are not traditional socialist per se. Free market economy + cooperation + more equal distribution of wealth. I sincerely believe that neither the state, nor a single individual should have an iron hand over the means of production and distribution. It's the pragmatic individuals who unite to create a harmonious society which make a difference.

The state should merely prevent the emergence of plutocracy, and the society should prevent the emergence of tyranny.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Jul 2010, 7:24 pm

Khan_Sama wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

Every one of those countries have mixed economies. Some firms are privately owned, other partly owned by the government, all regulated by the government. There does not exist a country on earth today, with the possible exception of North Korea where private ownership is totally banned. Even in the Soviet Union under Stalin, a small portion of the land was turned over to private ownership. This privately owned land, a small sliver, produced thirty percent of the fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union.

Total collective ownership must fail. Why? Because there is no relation to how well or hard people work and what reward they gather for their labor. Under total collective ownership the bums and slackers get stuff they did not produce and the producers are short changed by the system. That is why Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, because production was breaking down rapidly. Some private ownership had to be re-introduced to save the country from starvation.

ruveyn


Indeed. Worker cooperatives are not traditional socialist per se. Free market economy + cooperation + more equal distribution of wealth. I sincerely believe that neither the state, nor a single individual should have an iron hand over the means of production and distribution. It's the pragmatic individuals who unite to create a harmonious society which make a difference.

The state should merely prevent the emergence of plutocracy, and the society should prevent the emergence of tyranny.


When plutocracy controls the state as in the current USA there is little if anything that can be done to escape it except outright violent revolution and that seems extremely unlikely at the moment.



Narwhal
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 58

17 Jul 2010, 5:28 pm

I am a Libertarian Socialist.
I'm not going to respond to political arguments here. I'm just stating where I am.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jul 2010, 6:07 pm

None of the above

ruveyn



KaiG
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,045
Location: Berkshire, UK.

17 Jul 2010, 6:17 pm

I'm a social liberal and a fiscal centrist.


_________________
If songs were lines in a conversation, the situation would be fine.