I’m taking a test right now. it’s at the site www.politicalcompass.org. The reason I tell you this is that I have been putting thought into why I think what I think as far as politics is concerned, as is my want, and I’ve decided to putz around for a few minutes on the computer answering basic questions about political beliefs. I thought it would be a good thing to do to pick a few, not all, of the statements made, write them here along with my answer, and explain, as much for myself as for you, my faithful readers (all 4 of you) why I think what I do. Pedestrian, school kid stuff, but I like that kinda thing.
Page 1, Statement 2) I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. My answer: Disagree. Reason. If my country has done some visceral wrong, and I live in a democracy, that means I have, in some small degree, taken part in that wrong. Unless I am some kind of fool who wishes harm on people I don’t know and probably never will, that is something I want to avoid. Therefor if I support my country when it is wrong, I am actively taking part in destructive, anti-social behavior in ways that aid and abet improper behavior in others. Material support of all such behavior is wrong at all times. Therefore I will not support my country when it is quote unquote “wrong”. Now “wrong” itself is open to interpretation.
Page 1, Statement 5) The enemy of my enemy is my friend. My answer: Disagree. Reason. Factually incorrect. The enemy of my enemy acts in ways I may approve of towards my enemy, but that does not make him my friend, unless I am an idiot. Bastard may hate me too. Bastard.
Page 2, Statement 7) It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. My answer: Agree. Here I am agreeing with the general concept. I am not saying anything about the truth of the statement. I am sure there are many who DO contribute to society. Just saying those who don’t do for the world around them suck.
Viddy of the day. Crowbar, Existence is punishment. Great song.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Page 2, Statement 14) The freer the market, the freer the people. My answer: Strongly Disagree. Freedom doesn’t come from markets, or from people in markets, but from the hearts and minds of responsible individuals. “Free” markets can be manipulated by players within that market, “free” markets can lie to and cheat players within the system, that is coersion, and coersion subverts freedom, it is NOT freedom. Anyone who equates market coersion, which is the norm in business, with freedom needs to realize he isn’t trying to protect freedom, but social darwinism.
Page 4, statement 1 ) Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter terrorism. My answer: Strongly Agree. Full body scans, aggressive pat downs of citizens of the United States, who have done no wrong. I getting my bags sniffed when I walk through the Ferry terminal when there is no threat. NSA wiretaps of citizens who are unaware of those taps. The Fisa revision essentially destroying the 4th amendment. Ya, we have issues. Terrorism has given government the reason, capacity, and justification to steal freedom in the name of security. And we sit here doing nothing….
Page 5, statement 4) Some people are naturally unlucky. My answer: Disagree. No bad day lasts forever, trust me, I’ve had a few. Luck has nothing to do with anything. Ever. So quit the bullshit.
Page 6, statement 2) A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. My answer: Agree. The key statement is “stable, loving relationship”. Single parents are allowed to raise children, and I’ve met parents who were drunks, we can’t stop them from being parents, and shouldn’t want to, much as I disagree with it. It’s that freedom thing. If we really believe in freedom, why stop 2 people in a stable relationship from adopting? There are no real reasons that don’t stem from personal discomfort about the lifestyles of the people involved. Drunks are more an issue that gay people, and make more of a mess in this world.
And just for information purposes, I was, not surprisingly, fairly far left. As a matter of fact, I was about as far left as Gandhi and the Dalai lama.
Damn, I’m good. Go to sleep America