Post your political compass result.

Post Reply New Topic

i'm no expert, but my impression is that what he espoused was the idea that it makes sense for different people to be concerned with different things, and that his philosophy (or anyone else's) wasn't supposed to be followed equally by everyone (as it obviously never would be). being concerned with who does or doesn't follow it would mean being concerned with large-scale politics anyway


i think the idea loses its meaning once you approach it from a rational angle rather than an intuitive one, because it can't be defined universally. by definition, it can only be translated into objective terms in context


i think what that sentiment fails to capture is the fact that 99% of the problems solved by society were created by society in the first place. that 1% (the "natural problems" solved) makes a big difference, but it tends to happen more as a side effect than as the actual goal. because it requires large-scale social organization, which is rarely driven by altruism, and inevitably entails power-hungry individuals succeeding at obtaining personal gain at most everyone else's expense. different systems of government and economy can change some important details of the outcomes of human existence, but that particular detail is unchangeable in any society with a central government. and even prosperity itself is two-sided, because it leads to population growth, which entails a whole new set of problems

collectively speaking, i think we can compare people/civilization to grasshoppers/locusts (which happen to be the same species). people in small-scale societies are like grasshoppers, while large-scale human societies are like a big swarm of locusts. there's a complex combination of variables, there are relatively simple triggers, and there's a threshold. once that threshold is reached, the swarm emerges and becomes an organism of its own, and each individual touched by the swarm becomes a part of it and acts as such

but the analogy is limited, and i think that's the point. because, as people, we have the ability to detach ourselves from the swarm to a certain extent, for the same reasons why the human swarm naturally evolves into complex social pyramids (which in terms of social structure itself is pretty much the opposite of an actual swarm). the ironic implication is that the path of least resistance is often also the path of most self-bending. no matter which way you choose, you need to go out of your way not to go out of your way. and that's some mind-bending whatthefuckery right here . "is there a possible escape from it?". i don't know, but i wonder


i think the catch when we talk about "our nature" as a social species is that it's actually twofold. the emergence of civilization isn't a simple evolution of our social nature, it's an evolution of our social nature combined with our capacity for abstract thinking. it seems like a good thing at first glance, but it's trickier than it sounds. we normally think of reasoning when we think of abstract thinking, but that's not what drives large-scale society. instead, it's our ability to attribute metaphysical properties to humans and human-made entities and structures

society becomes fundamentally different when human hierarchy becomes a seamless extension of divine hierarchy (or eventually synonymous with it). and that's inevitable when you're aware that the human powers that govern your life are beyond your personal sphere of acquaintances through time. your brain can tell the difference between people you know and people you don't know, but it can't tell the difference between people you don't know and supernatural forces. you can rationalize it and apply logic to it, but the primary nature of the perception stays the same. if something is outside of your personally-accessible social sphere but clearly affects your life anyway, then it's either a god or a demon

so yet another way to phrase my question is "in modern society, is there a consistent and sustainable way to keep your concern with hierarchy limited to your own sphere of daily life and personal influence?". the main problem is that the abstract levels of hierarchy outside of your sphere tend to come back to bite you in the ass if you just leave them be, because that's exactly how they even came to be to begin with. but willingly slicing a chunk of your ass and handing it to the powers that be is no better. and trying to bulletproof your ass isn't very effective or appealing either. for one thing, you'll probably need some contraption to help you s**t and wipe your ass every day in the morning. and someone will eventually come up with ass-armor-piercing weapons anyway. which sums up the "99%" i was talking about

but i guess if someone is biting you in the ass, you can always fart on their face, so there's that

He also espoused the idea that the world didn't require governing, that it would spontaneously self-govern. From a non-human-centric perspective that might make sense, but I don't think it works if you boil your ideology down to the pursuit of happiness and nothing more. I believe his idea of freedom would have led to most humans becoming prey for the rest to feed upon, much like any other system.



Not if you're at all familiar with the experience of watching babies growing into toddlers. If you want to see a simplistic model of spontaneous human behaviour without paying heed to social norms, they're the best example we have (aside from some really messed up adults - I've known a few). Natural spontaneity includes the likelihood that simple curiosity will cause harm to yourself or others.



It's still the best system that we've come up with to date, granting the most freedom to the largest amount of people. This system, one that so many people rail against, has given us the ability to share our thoughts and ideas with people all around the world, to expand our philosophies by smashing those ideas into each other and refining them. That's a continuous process, and I'm absolutely certain there are potentially much better ways for human societies to function.

The problems that you mention are incidental to the core problem of social stratification being an inevitable outcome of human interaction - and that would be necessary if only for the purposes of procreation. In our modern societies, instead of killing each other for resources, we compete with each other in the context of societal rules - and yes, there are people bending and breaking those rules to cheat the system, and there are people hoarding large amounts of resources, but the point still stands.



Well, no. Whilst I appreciate the analogy, there are plenty of social mammals we can observe who offer a far better behavioural example of pre-linguistic humans. Human beings also seek to preserve and improve their environment. Unlike the locusts, we replant and replace the crops we consume. Social interaction and organisation has enabled us to develop our tool-use to the point that we can shape and bend the world to suit us. There's no direct comparison for that elsewhere in the animal kingdom.



Bending, in this case, is just another way of saying that you accept things as being the way that they are, of making peace with the establishment if you like (frankly, I find the phrase to be more than a little vague, but it suffices). I haven't let go of the ideals that defined my personal ideology as a youth, but I've come to terms with the fact that compromises need to be made, and that you have to set your sights on the more immediate goals in order to even entertain the possibility of achieving your dreams. Just as everyone else must, I've also had to learn to know the difference between what is possible and what is desirable.

What I mean by pragmatism, as opposed to idealism, isn't the abandonment of the latter. It's how you resolve the latter with the former, without falling into a huge pit of despair.



We're a multi-faceted species with multiple strengths and weaknesses (which are sometimes indistinguishable from each other), and it would of course be simplistic to boil everything down to a single trait. I recognise that our social nature is a double-edged sword, for example. A sword which all too easily leads to competition, violence and war. Our abstract thinking, likewise, has given us great propensity for engineering solutions to problems, which often presents as the crafting of better quality pointy sticks to poke other human beings with.

The philosophies that resulted in our sociopolitical systems are the result of that problem-solving being abstractly applied to socialisation. It's very much a work in progress, and we've made a metric s**t-ton of mistakes.



But it doesn't need to be a pure dichotomy. The forces beyond your control, no matter their sentience, can be considered to be utterly ignorant of your existence unless you draw attention to yourself. Much as we'd all like to think of ourselves as Neo in The Matrix (in essence, if not in form), most of us are more like Cypher in that we'd eventually realise we'd rather be plugged back in and enjoy the taste of chicken again.



I think that the trick is to detach yourself from those things you have no control over, to not be emotionally invested in things that are beyond your power to move. Enlightenment is the knowledge that you don't need to look beyond the boundaries of your own mind to find affirmation, that you don't need to justify yourself to anybody but yourself. That doesn't exclude the value of engaging with others nor of explaining the reasons or logic behind your opinions, your decisions or your valuations (sometimes necessarily at length or with tedious repetition depending on who you engage with), it simply means letting go of the need for approval from others.

Perhaps that doesn't adequately answer your question on the grounds that it isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. What it might do, however, is offer some insight as to why I'm not interested in quasi-religious group ideologies, appeasement of other people's egos, etc.



But if you s**t in their mouth, they're far less likely to try it again.

if he really thought so, then i guess he underestimated both the viral aspect of civilization and the extent of what stress hormones can do to a human population. and anyway, where would you draw the line between what's "natural" and what's "artificial", right? depending on how you look at it, we are spontaneously self-governing ourselves, and we've always been. how could it be any different, right? the distinction is completely arbitrary. but i think he knew that, and i have the impression that that was a major part of his point


it's hard to extract the intended meaning from a metaphorical text written thousands of years ago halfway around the globe, so it's open to interpretation, but i think you're taking it too literally if you define it that way. because he probably wouldn't have talked about skilled artisans as examples to be followed if he didn't believe in the virtue of some form of self-discipline. spontaneity* itself (like everything) is two-sided, because it can't be achieved without discipline. there's an "unlearning curve", if you will

* i think the current concept of "flow" in psychology is probably closer to what he meant. it's a type of spontaneity experienced as meaningful


interpretations aside, most everything you're saying matches with my own perceptions. but this ^ is the point where we diverge. i don't think it's the worst system, but i don't think it's the best either. like any other system, basically. it may seem like humankind follows a roughly linear progression, but that's because we're looking at it from the point it all has led to so far. even though some failures in history are pretty obvious, in the long run there is no clear winner. because no meaningful way to measure what's better or worse can be universal in space and time. even apparent no-brainers can be more complicated than they seem. you save millions of lives today, you have a shortage of water followed by war tomorrow. you give freedom to everyone, people become aimless and dissatisfied. and so on. then which option is better or worse? it depends

it's also very hard to imagine how we would feel about certain things if we had been born and raised in radically different circumstances (you care about "freedom", and so do i, but i don't think that's universal or genetically inherited for the most part). i observed it when i moved to a big city some ten years ago. all the people i met who were born there complained all the time about all the horrible things about the city, just like all the outsiders did (things like being routinely stuck in traffic for a large part of your day most days of your average week, or having to look out for your belongings and your safety 24/7). but most of them just couldn't imagine living elsewhere, even though they easily could if they decided to. meanwhile, i couldn't imagine living there any longer, even though socially speaking it was the natural course

is "system a" better for me compared to "system b"? would it be better for me if i had been raised under "system b"? is it best for the people i care about? is it best for most people? do i care about "most people" if i'm not one of them? is it best in the long run? can it even be achieved? is it worth it? and so on. some of these questions are inversely correlated with each other. bottom line: it doesn't matter, it's mostly just food for thought. the devil is in the details, and no large-scale system of government is self-sustaining (and maybe no such system could ever be). all such systems ultimately lead to some unintended and unwelcome evolution of itself. it's how we got here and it's how we'll keep going

but then the funny thing is that it seems that, the more everyone gets involved in large-scale politics, the more it tends to go awry. which is counterintuitive, but not so hard to understand. this is why what i see as ideal is whatever system that would consistently allow upward influence and participation without direct concern. bottom-up thinking. instead of all those questions above, just a continuous feedback system between your small-scale social sphere and the outside world. "is this good for me and the people i care about?", end of story. as long as it doesn't force me to care about things i don't really care about, i'm fine with it (which is not the same as "as long as it's not forcing me right now to care about things i don't really care about". and, realistically speaking, you do need to get involved with the outside world if you want to know how to safely forget about it eventually. it's the unlearning curve)


yes, it's a limited analogy. it's not about the actual behaviors or abilities, but about that collective threshold. maybe there are more similar species that have that kind of thing, but i'm not aware of any. my main point is that there is more than one "social nature" encoded in the same dna, with very different implications, and "complex variables, simple triggers, and a threshold" determine "which nature" will manifest itself


that's where one of the dangers of freedom lies, if you think about it. because freedom doesn't mean anything if you believe that it means everything (or, more importantly, if you believe it should mean everything. because then, the more you learn about reality, the less you accept it). you don't believe that, i don't believe that, but it's easy to see how many people do, apparently more and more every day. it's a problem because it has the implication of unconditional dissatisfaction, which leads to unrest. though whether or not that's an inevitable consequence of increased freedom in the long run, i don't know


that's an example of rationalizing it and applying logic to it. they're still akin to capricious gods and demons. they often affect your life, they're only marginally and almost never directly affected by you, and they're unconstrained by your intuition and common sense


i liked the first movie as an action movie, but really... why would anyone in their right mind ever want to break the matrix for any reason other than spite? it makes sense to expect that someone would try to do it, but it makes little sense for them to be framed as heroes

lol, i just learned that there is a thing called "radical centrism". although, even after reading about it, it still doesn't sound to me like it's an actual thing

----

after all my rambling (nice chat, btw ), i'm starting to think that this would be more representative of my theoretical stance:


(again, ignoring the quiz. i'm assuming gandhi and stalin never took the quiz, so i don't think it's cheating )

from wikipedia:

sounds good


neither one sounds good on its own

i think what's missing from the model to make it more meaningful is a pragmatism-idealism scale as a third dimension (the degree of distinction between "your personal values" and "your idea of how your values should be generalized to public policies")

Last edited by anagram on 19 Oct 2016, 12:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

We have another little political quiz running that people can try here:

viewtopic.php?t=303548

Just ten questions. You can post your result in the poll at the top of the thread.

And another - Who Said What?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/30/polit ... ch-quotes/

I flunked it

2 out of 8

lol, i'm reading more about this concept of "libertarianism", and, man, is this confusing!

is the word used only in the u.s. or is it used elsewhere too? if it is used elsewhere, does it have the same meaning? does it even have a consistent meaning in the u.s.?

i'm actually decidedly opposed (both in theory and in practice) to several things that seem to be associated with the word. for one thing, i'm against gun ownership (and i voted accordingly in a referendum some ten years ago). and i'm not even against high taxes, as long as the government does its job. and, most importantly, as long as it stays out of my way (and the same goes for corporations. private, public, doesn't matter to me. i don't want to remember that the phone company exists. if i do, it's probably a bad sign)

i think it's a terrible idea to completely privatize services that everybody is supposed to have access to. "free market" (which i suppose means "unregulated market") sounds like "dog eat dog" to me, and really not a good idea overall. but the thing is (which is what makes it all very confusing to me), i don't see any of these views of mine as a challenge to what i understand as individual freedom. on the contrary

an extreme example: in my imaginary ideal world, public policies would strongly discourage people from owning a vehicle. because widespread car ownership actually tends to reduce the freedom of the average person (me in particular, of course), and it's a HUGE waste of resources. it means that owning and maintaining a car often becomes a major concern. it's something that could very well be out of your way and out of your mind (with properly implemented public transportation and all the respective infrastructure), but then it's not. that's restrictive

if i have to inhale toxic smoke, endure the noise, get stuck in traffic, constantly look out so i don't get run over by impatient drivers, and so on and on (there's also lots of negative implications on city planning and layout and property pricing), all of this without even owning or driving a car (never mind things like unrelated activities and occupations that start to become dependent on owning a car simply because of the prevalence of private vehicles. and never mind climate change. the list is endless...), i see that as a very significant limitation of my individual freedom to not be concerned with those things

but i can easily see how other people would totally disagree with me (even if i still think i'm completely right). i guess the bottom line is that the understanding of what "freedom" means is very subjective and dependent on culture. but then... does the word "libertarian" still stand on its own somehow? or is it always dependent on interpretations of what "freedom" means? is it really the opposite of "authoritarian"?

Where I draw the line between "natural" and "artificial" is in the theories and practices that result from that abstract thinking we were discussing. So forming a social hierarchy is natural, but the rules which we apply are not - though they might be informed by the natural.



Oh, it's entirely possible that I'm doing Zhuangzi a disservice, but I do see a broad theme of pleasure-seeking vs rule-following in his philosophy. That's why I suggested he was an anarchist rather than a libertarian - but as I briefly alluded to, some people don't believe there's much distinction between the two.



I think he's being literal when he talks about satisfying his own purposes, but again, I'm completely open to the possibility that I'm mistaken and he was describing trying to get into "the zone".



As I said, I'm certain that there's a better way, but I'm also certain that we have to arrive there through testing and refinement. I believe you need to strike a balance between process and results - I'm not judging our society against others purely in terms of outcomes, nor am I completely immersed in the immediate. What I would argue, in favour of the modern West, is that no other system has successfully delivered such a high quality of life to so many people. It's less than perfect, and I'd personally prefer to see more focus on improving the lives of those who aren't doing as well, but I also recognise that spending too much effort on that as a goal could be to the detriment of everyone.



Aye. I'm not sure how much of my dislike of city life is down to autism or how much can be attributed to where I grew up, but it took me about three months to decide it wasn't for me.

You could argue for a natural component to the desire for freedom, that it's something informed by the drive that causes an animal to challenge the pack leader, but I'd like to think that our intellectual notions of freedom are quite far removed from base drives like carnal desire. That said, there's no escaping that we are a social animal and therefore driven to reproduce and out-perform others.



There's nothing wrong with intellectual exercise as an end in itself. Indulging in mental food purely for the pleasure of the experience would definitely meet with Zhuangzi's approval. He'd probably suggest you were wallowing in mud.

I'm not sure if you meant to apply systems "a" and "b" to (e.g.) city and rural. If so, I think it's necessary to view those in terms of sub-systems due to their interdependence. It's difficult to understand the machine from the limited viewpoint we enjoy from inside it.



You're partially describing what I meant with my Matrix analogy. It's further confirmation that we're probably reading from the same hymn book, if not necessarily the same hymn.

The problem with more and more people getting involved in large-scale politics is that in most cases that brings an exponentially greater percentage of ignorance to the party. I honestly believe that the most effective form of government would be a benign dictatorship. Of course, I also believe that it would be unsustainable for even the most well-meaning autocrat.

In lieu of that non-option, I advocate for the introduction of politics and economics, as mandatory classes, to the national curriculum. I'd like to see an end to ignorant masses dancing on the strings of demagogues.



Aye. It's the fine line between extreme libertarianism and anarchy.



Absent the desire to join their ranks - a la Nigel Farage - I don't see any alternative to rationalising and adapting. Perhaps that's an argument for more people following his example.

Reading that back in preview, I realised that's about as close to a textual "shrug" as you can get without typing the word.



Realising that this is effectively the argument conservatives have with progressives is something of a "red pill" moment for most. So many people missed the point of that trilogy.

Snipped for length but I'm replying to the whole thing.

It seems to me that you're advocating for modern liberalism.

Here is modern liberalism vs libertarianism (or "classic liberalism") on the political compass:



(Gold = libertarianism, orange = modern liberalism)

Most radical centrists are modern liberals.

Libertarians view taxations as an imposition. Generally, the only taxation should be that necessary to maintain law and order. Government should provide very few services. Again, generally only those which directly maintain law and order, like police and courts.

Modern liberalism is harder to summarise because it spans a wider range of views. It shouldn't be conflated with the liberal in "liberals and conservatives", and is not synonymous with "the left" although most have some left-wing beliefs; there is general support for social democracy. Modern liberals generally want to maintain both social and economic freedom, but also believe that maximising freedom is only possible if everyone has access to basic human necessities like food and shelter. Although there is a general trust in the free market, liberals have varying opinions on the extent to which state intervention is necessary to achieve optimum outcomes; nearly all would recognise that market failures mean intervention is sometimes necessary. Some liberals think that letting the market do its thing will usually result in social goods. Others believe that free markets lead to unacceptable levels of inequality and/or poverty.

Modern liberals generally support government provision of services like healthcare and education, which benefit all of society. At the same time, they are usually not opposed to private services co-existing with the public ones.

Although modern liberals are not ideologically opposed to taxation in the same way that libertarians are, they generally want them to remain fairly low (it's rare for them to support a top rate of over 50%, whereas socialists will sometimes go to 70%+), fair, and targeted. Liberals usually want to remove the low-paid from tax altogether, and often support innovative methods of taxation like land-value tax.

And, of course, modern liberals believe that the government shouldn't stop people from doing what they want unless they harm others. They are nearly always in favour of same-sex marriage and adoption, and drug legalisation; they have a range of views on smoking bans, gun control, and polyamory.

There isn't really a mainstream radical centrist or liberal party in America, so it's understandable that you have some difficulty finding one that you can identify with. In the UK, there are the Liberal Democrats. I am not familiar enough with the parties of other countries, but generally speaking I think the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and its constituent parties can fairly be described as modern liberals.

that would be nice. i don't have much faith that it's going to happen (because of all the conflict of interest involved), but i admit that i'm probably a little too skeptical when it comes to that. so who knows

maybe also add to "politics and economics" a whole semester of staring at a blackboard with the words "remember, kids: if you have food on your table, then don't spend money you don't have. it's not free"

----

@the_walrus: that's interesting. the picture is starting to get clearer. thanks for the thorough explanation

i think what makes it so confusing to me is that there are so many names for different political philosophies, and many of those words in isolation have conflicting meanings and usually don't mean what they seem to mean. one incidental example i just came across is this:



is that the general connotation that the word has in the uk too?


sounds good


well that's just silly . as some other famous guy said, "capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone"


yep


now this is where it gets weird to me, when it's branded as anything radical in any way (especially "radical centrism", which sounds practically like an excuse to string buzzwords together). because i'm used to thinking of those things as "things pretty much everybody agrees on". what people around here generally disagree on is which of those things might or might not need a structural overhaul (which should or should not be prioritized over other things) at any given point in time, and which party is going to offer better short-term solutions (i think not many people here have faith that any party will be doing much at all for the long term, and there's not much any point in trying to think beyond four years ahead)


that's another thing i used to think was the rule rather than the exception. these things make it pretty hard to figure out what's understood as "left" or "right" in different places, which i think sometimes leads to some odd clones and reincarnations of foreign movements lost in translation


i'm not american though, if that's what you mean (i'm south american. the "joke" has probably gotten old by now... ). i only asked about "the u.s. / elsewhere" because at first glance the word "libertarian" seems to have an immediate connotation there, but not elsewhere. in portuguese, the word exists, but it doesn't evoke any particular meaning or connotation (it just sounds kinda like "libertine" to me)

political parties are a dime a dozen here (there are actually dozens). but, according to what you described, most of them (especially the ones that actually matter in practice) are inside that "modern liberal" area. some rely on a more populist appeal, some rely on a more elitist appeal, and some try to stay more neutral, but their policies are similar, and people usually vote for the person rather than the party (a popular politician can easily found a new party and still get elected). and they've all been involved in recent corruption scandals...

although, ironically, the "workers party", which had been ruling for over a decade, has been running an operation so big and so shameless that, now that it has come to light, a lot of people seem to be forgetting about other relatively recent scandals that didn't involve them (or that weren't so party-specific), and this is having a major impact on the political landscape (even more so when it's coupled with the internet and the ongoing craziness in the u.s.). it looks like there's a sort of polarization between denialists at one extreme and aspiring nationalists/whatever/whatnot at the other (the actual right had been virtually nonexistent since the end of the authoritarian period about 30 years ago). but it looks like in practice the workers party is dead. and they used to be by far the main party of "the left" (i.e. the self-victimizing populists). now there's a huge vacuum, and i think nobody has any clue what's going to happen. we had local elections just the other day, and it looks like right now most people are voting against familiar names and electing whoever's left (regardless of party, as long as it's not the workers party)

^ Definitions and names for various political outlooks can never be precise, of course, if for no other reason than that they are used for propaganda purposes by all sides. What I call you and what you call yourself are usually not the same if our views are opposed.

In the US, libertarians often call themselves "classical liberals" to distinguish their views from the current widespread use of "liberal" by the US Democratic Party, which libertarians would tend to call leftist, that is, anti-liberal (leaning socialist, authoritarian, statist). The US constitutional frame of government is very much in the classical liberal (libertarian) tradition -- it is not "liberal" in the sense that word is used by the modern Democratic Party, nor is it "conservative" in the sense that the European right and their opponents use the term "right."

From a libertarian point of view, people on the left seem to be able to imagine only two categories: everyone is either a noble socialist or an evil fascist. (They seem to be politically stuck in the thinking of 1930s Continental Europe and unable to escape.) The existence of a third category -- classical liberalism or libertarianism -- seems to be beyond imagining. And yet there is a great tradition of classical liberalism in Europe as well as in the US: people like Bastiat in France, the Austrian school in Austria/Germany (Mises, Hayek, etc.), and many others. For most of the 20th century this tradition of freedom was swamped in the fraternal war between totalitarian national socialists and totalitarian international socialists.

Added: There's a very good YouTube channel for learning more about the classical liberal tradition, with lots of short professionally-produced videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty

Saw this on reddit, thought it was pretty amusing.

Welcome to team "Likes Free Stuff But is Afraid of Politics". Apparently.

Or team Mandela if you prefer.



Of course, the Political Compass is almost as simple as left<>right and should therefore be taken with a marginally smaller pinch of salt.