View Full Forums : An interesting political page.


weoden
03-24-2004, 10:22 AM
Here is an interesting political page that asks various political questions and plots your political point of view relative to other leaders and parties.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Panamah
03-24-2004, 11:03 AM
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28


About the same as the Dalai Lama. :p

Jinjre
03-24-2004, 11:03 AM
I'm in there with Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lhama. I certainly could have had worse company.

Panamah
03-24-2004, 11:05 AM
Yeah, that's where I'm at too. :p Kind of makes me feel warm inside.

Greggo
03-24-2004, 11:28 AM
Economic Left/Right: 5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00

Obviously I have to live in the real world :P

Cantatus
03-24-2004, 11:36 AM
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I'm right with you two. :)

Greggo
03-24-2004, 11:40 AM
I am pretty sure you will find that the real world rules required to give the "economic left" outcomes pretty much preclude the "social liberal" outcomes.

B_Delacroix
03-24-2004, 12:16 PM
Our race has many superior qualities, compared to other races.
This question is misleading. I assume they are seperating people's color or nationality in their meaning of race, rather than man vs. monkey or man vs. lion.

To balance the lighting, those in the Dhali Lama group are also with Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton.

I am stuck just left and libertarian of total luke warmness (0,0). I think, however, some of the questions could have been worded better as occasionally my mind was influenced by what IS and the wording of the questions which were often of the form of "should soandso be true".

Thing is, I am more partial to Ayn Rand's views but didn't fall on that side of the right/left axis.

I plan to take the test again as I have a propensity to NOT answer in the exteme. Thus all my answers were agree or disagree with few exceptions. I will go through again and reassess my degree of agreement to see what results.

Now, for those that don't care about my opinions (:)) and just want the stinking numbers...

Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.82

Jinjre
03-24-2004, 12:48 PM
I had a similar problem Baptismo. There were several questions where 'neutral' would have been the appropriate answer for me, but I had to pick agree/disagree so went with whichever I felt was the lesser of the evils. I still think I'd fall into the same quadrant, but would probably be closer to center than it turned out.

B_Delacroix
03-24-2004, 01:05 PM
I find it interesting that all political candidates were of the authoritarian and right viewpoint. Democrats were more to the midpoint of both than the conservatives. It makes sense, why would you propose to be a leader if you didn't believe in the necessity of there being some type of authority?

The other end of that is apparently most people are falling in the exact opposite side of both axes than the majority of current political candidates.

Panamah
03-24-2004, 01:20 PM
I agree, any scale should have odd number of elements so you can sit in the middle as neutral.

There were a couple of questions I just didn't have an opinion on at all!

Greggo
03-24-2004, 01:35 PM
/shrug these tests are inherently falwed, but at least I ended up per the test about where I am in reality - economically and socially liberal (although I have a feeling that might mean something different in the US)

Panamah
03-24-2004, 02:17 PM
I think a positive number in the economic area means you're more conservative in that area, doesn't it? Economic Left/Right: 5.38


In the US that means you'd be more aligned with Republicans, or perhaps Liberatarians, on fiscal issues but more aligned with Democrats (and liberatarians) on social issues.

Liberatarians are, in my way of thinking, conservative republicans on economic issues, and liberal democrats on social issues that don't involve taxes. i.e. libertarians = as close to no government as possible.

I'd classify myself as very liberal on social issues and moderate on economic issues.

Greggo
03-24-2004, 03:00 PM
Yah Panamah that would be my understanding (I live here but dont follow the politics). I am probably at the libertarian end of things, although probably a bit more pragmatic and less doctrinaire then the actual party in the US. I believe in the fundamental inequality of people but that people will pretty much do as well as can be expected if left to their own devices.

Panamah
03-24-2004, 03:43 PM
I don't think people are equal either. For instance, I'm really good at word games and my sister isn't. Obviously we're not of equal ability in that regard. However, despite my obvious superiority (/giggle), we should still have the same rights under the law.

When you start deciding some people have more rights than others, I think you're asking for one hell of a bad government. More like an oligarchy or theocracy or something. :\

Nimchip
03-24-2004, 04:50 PM
Center should be "Moderates", extreme right should be "Reactionary" (sorry i'm using a very direct translation from spanish), extreme left should be "Radicals". In between "Radicals" and "Moderates" should be Liberal (this is to the left of course). In between "Moderate" and "Reactionary" is Conservatist which defend the "status quo".

From Conservatist to the left, if one applies to one of these, should have a Progressive Change mindset (as in, wanting to change things to newer methods, newer ideas) . The "Reactionary" type though, has a kind of "rewind" mindset... usually thinks that older ideas, laws that were used in the past are better, or simply that everything was actually better in the past.

Hope i make some sense, since it's so hard to explain in english, hehe.

Anyways, I scored:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

hehe can i join the club? :)

Chenier
03-24-2004, 04:56 PM
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

I'm honestly kinda surprised...but a lot of the questions I would have added a "sometimes" but they were too general, which probably would have shifted me.

Tiane
03-24-2004, 06:13 PM
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

Right there with Gandhi!

And yeah that "race" question was misleading... I decided it meant "human race" as compared to another species, say, dolphins or chimps, over which we do have one or two advantages. 8)

Panamah
03-24-2004, 07:05 PM
What a bunch of lefties! :p

Tiane
03-24-2004, 07:58 PM
Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Help, help! I'm being opressed!

Lowger
03-24-2004, 08:28 PM
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

Oldoak
03-24-2004, 10:00 PM
Did this on my old server board previously (where the the predominant climate is more conservative)...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-24-2004, 10:09 PM
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26

Kind of surprised there.

I don't think that is a fair representation of my views.

I am very hawkish, which would tend to skew the libertarian axis the wrong way a tad. I am so libertarian I scare the **** out of some people, but my hawk side keeps me from actually joining the Libertarian party. Heinlein-Jeffersonian is how I tend to describe it. Rand for some controversial flavor.

I would think that my economic would be more right as well. Corporate concern for social issues should not be predicated upon namby pamby feely goods, but pure and simple greed, Marshall Plan model. And the questions did not allow for that.

Fun site nonetheless.

Panamah
03-24-2004, 10:44 PM
Hmmm... I'm not surprised at your top number, Fyyr, but the bottom one does. Maybe you're a closested conservative republican? :)

weoden
03-25-2004, 08:55 AM
I took the test as well and I had questions that I saw as not yes or no but "here is how I would address this issue". I also think that the axis could be named gov't control and property rights. Fascisms/Anarchy would be gov't control and Collectivism/Libertarianism would be property rights. I disagree with this spectrum but it does give insight.

I posted this site because of my past posts and I thought it was funny that I pegged in very very close to Pope John Paul II, heh.

Nimchip
03-25-2004, 09:27 AM
well the test is for analyzing your way of thinking or "paradigm" towards mainly political issues... not as in Yes or No you will do something.

I also think that the axis could be named gov't control and property rights. Fascisms/Anarchy would be gov't control and Collectivism/Libertarianism would be property rights.

I disagree with this... the test is not trying to measure whether you're more inclined to Property rights and Government control... these are mere aspects, views and traits of each category.

Iilane SalAlur
03-25-2004, 10:07 AM
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

It seems like quite a large number of us druids have similiar thoughts! Hmm...

Deller
03-25-2004, 10:52 AM
My numbers were
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18

This seems a little strange to me since I veiw myself as a conservative republican and I work in Law Enforcement.

Oh well it looks like I am a moderate Leftist/Libertarian. Now I have to go wash out my mouth for just saying that. lol

Deller

weoden
03-25-2004, 11:09 AM
well the test is for analyzing your way of thinking or "paradigm" towards mainly political issues... not as in Yes or No you will do something.



I disagree with this... the test is not trying to measure whether you're more inclined to Property rights and Government control... these are mere aspects, views and traits of each category.

I think this is the place where we will agree to disagree. Fascisms/Anarchy can be summed up as a spectrum of governement rules and controls where Fascisms is the complete supremecy of the governement and Anarchy is the absence of. Collectivism is the lack of individual property rights and libertarianism is the absolute control of property rights. The term "property rights" I see as is not only physical possesions but possesion of free will and ones choice to do what others disagree with.

This is probabably why I scored leaning toward authorianism(governement control) and collectivism( a subserviance of the individual to the greater majority). I, however, scored very close to the origin. I was much closer than others point of view to the origin, even the Pope's but still in the 4th quadrant.

Stormhaven
03-25-2004, 11:13 AM
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.44

I still consider myself a Republican more than anything else (not really affiliated with any party). No questions on gun control was surprising though. And considering that I answered some of the questions like "Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support." as Strongly Agree, it's weird that I ended up so "median." From what I can figure, anyone stuck in the middle is basically going to be disappointed in any type of candidate - because no one's going to have everything you want.

Gunny Burlfoot
03-25-2004, 08:50 PM
Let me be the one to buck the trend here :)

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.82

There.. too many negative numbers, time for some positive numbers to balance it out! And yes, I answered truthfully, and wasn't trying to skew the figures any. If there HAD been issues such as gun control, or right to assisted suicide, or other really fun issues, I'd be even more on the right.

Of course, if they had more enviromental questions, I'd probably closer to the left. Love camping and want it to be enjoyable for many generations to come. I just want the right to shoot the bears if they attack! :p

Fenmarel the Banisher
03-25-2004, 10:24 PM
Silly people. You don't need a test to tell you where you stand politically.

jtoast
03-26-2004, 12:26 AM
hmmm.....strange.

4.88/0.41


I expected the second number to fall squarely in the negative range.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-26-2004, 12:49 AM
"Love camping and want it to be enjoyable for many generations to come."

I just don't see how that is left or right issue.

Or a lot of them.

There was one question "Is Abstract Art, art?" I'm like no ****in way; but what's that got to do with anything? 99.9% of it is useless crap, fodder for 'civic center forum' tax dollars; Only reason they spend money on the crap is because it is so meaningless(has no meaning) that no one can get offended by it.

There was this guy in SF, who created the ultimate in functional civic art. He got all the specs on freeway signs. And saw a need for a more clear exit from one of those bay area cloverleaf merge thingies. He created the sign and commando installed it, took Cal Trans like over 6 months to figure it out that some guy(people, I remember it being a group effort) just hung some sign over a major freeway intersection. And iirc they were very impressed with his attention to specs and details. Forget what exactly happened, but if anyone can find the link, much appreciation. (But then again, I have a friend of a friend who does ninja civic art, I dig it what can I say).

And the sole abortion question was stupid too; poorly worded and asked-ambiguous even.

Aidon
03-26-2004, 01:21 AM
Well, it put me a little less extreme than I figured it would be.

I'm pretty close to being a communist economically =P

I'm fairly libertarian socially though.

Individual freedoms are good.

Business's need to be regulated, however, to protect the populous and the workers from abusive corporate entities.

erm

Долго Поживите Революцией!

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-26-2004, 02:51 AM
The problem with communism(or liberalism at all) is that it says that the most basic form of interaction between humans is corrupt or bad.

That is to say...

"I will trade you this piece of salmon jerky for those three clam shells".

I don't like either the chief OR the tribe saying that they get one of the shells and a piece off the jerky, just for playing nice and not beating us/me up.

If the American workforce were to pay their own taxes, I think you would see a lot more Libertarians, or at least a lot more fiscal conservatives. The fact that the government forces me to collect taxes (for the government) without being paid for it is bad enough...But when the employee does not even realize that the taxed money is/was theirs (and not the goverment's) you have a serious con going on.

The differences between feudalism and communism is very slight to me. The tactics are the same, and the results are the same. The main difference is that every once and a while you get a retarded warlord/king(self interest normally keeps them in check), the masses are always retarded. Just look around you, hell even TV, you want those people telling you what you have to do with your salmon or clam shells?

Not me. They can't even fish, or find clams themselves, they certainly do not deserve mine.

Aidon
03-26-2004, 06:20 AM
I'll be the first to admit that Communism doesn't work currently. Mankind isn't socially or morally advanced enough in most cases. Especially on a large scale.

In a perfect world, Communism would work. Unfortunately, we do not yet live in one. We live in a world where corruption abounds.

However, a pure Free Market economy, in my opinion, is as barbaric as the Fuedal modal you mentioned. It brings to mind the bad old days here in America where the "peasantry" labored 10+ hours a day for horrible wages, with no protections or benefits.

Unfortunately, American business over the years has proven again and again that without governmental oversight, they will abuse their workers and customers.

As for "telling you what to do" with your fishes and clamses...I'm a firm believer in the notion that the most telling sign of a civilization is how they treat the poor, handicapped, and disadvantaged. While it is true there will always be those who abuse the benefits and privledges a society gives, ultimately it is something which must be accepted. To punish those unable to work for whatever reason for the actions of those unwilling to is uncivilized.

It is the same idea, in my mind, as the concept of "Better 100 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be unfairly punished", that our society seems to be moving away from in the social liberties milieu.

I will be the first to admit our welfare system needs an overhaul. Its horrible. It doesn't provide for re-education very well, and doesn't provide a very good sliding scale of benefits based on obtaining some work. Instead, it perpetuates a system where those who fall into welfare find themselves trapped there, all too often.

As a society it behooves us to provide education for our citizens, especially those outside who are unable to provide for their own education. A man cannot support a family flipping burgers, or selling CDs at Media Play. We need to provide the means for him to take care of his family while he further educates, or re-educates, himself.

All too often I see the view of "He shouldn't have had children if he couldn't afford them". While that is all fine and good to say, the fact remains he has children. Are we to punish them for the lack of foresight of their father? Are we to doom him and his children to a cycle of poverty?

In order for any system to work, society must operate on the premise that the average person is willing to work for the opportunity to better their situation. Its when you remove the opportunity for betterment that people give up hope, and decline into "abusing the system".

That, ultimately, was the downfall of Soviet Communism put in a very simplistic form. Your prospects for advancement were based on political factors, rather than your "industriousness".

As much as we like to say that America is the land of opportunity (and indeed, it is for many people), there are those who never have a chance to grasp that opportunity. Especially as we move away from industrialization. It is getting harder and harder for anyone to succeed in America without a college degree, and it is getting more and more difficult to obtain one, due to costs. It is also getting more difficult for small businesses to grow due to that shift from industrialization and the growth of large corporations into the various service industries.

You don't see many cases where an "uneducated" man can succeed anymore in America, and its getting harder and harder to become educated.

To go back to the fishes and clamses...the civilized man must be willing to give up some of his catch to those who are unable to fish while they learn how to fish for themselves. And those who are unable to learn how to fish, must be taken care of.

Unfettered, laze faire, free market economies create a class system that should be untenable to the liberal (in the literal sense) man.

Nimchip
03-26-2004, 10:13 AM
I think this is the place where we will agree to disagree. Fascisms/Anarchy can be summed up as a spectrum of governement rules and controls where Fascisms is the complete supremecy of the governement and Anarchy is the absence of. Collectivism is the lack of individual property rights and libertarianism is the absolute control of property rights. The term "property rights" I see as is not only physical possesions but possesion of free will and ones choice to do what others disagree with.

This is probabably why I scored leaning toward authorianism(governement control) and collectivism( a subserviance of the individual to the greater majority). I, however, scored very close to the origin. I was much closer than others point of view to the origin, even the Pope's but still in the 4th quadrant.

Alright seems that you and i are on the same page as far as understanding the test goes, however you seem to disagree on how the graph was made and how each axis was labeled by.. so i guess i misunderstood what you were saying.

Greggo
03-26-2004, 01:34 PM
I cant imagine a world under communism that could be described as "perfect". It sure as hell wouldnt work for me.

Aidon
03-26-2004, 01:47 PM
Perhaps I should call it Collectivism, then, so that our American bias doesn't interfere =P.

There are instances where it works, but only where personal greed and social ambition are self-subjugated. The Kibbutzim in Israel, for instance.

To work it on a large scale, however, is beyond humanity at the moment, for there will always be those seeking to expand their personal worth and power, even at the expense of others. There will always be favortism.

Thus we have free markets, but with legistlative and judicial oversight to attempt to limit the abuses of industries, and the constant wrangling between the "Factions".

Panamah
03-26-2004, 02:13 PM
I think there's a huge disconnect in companies between the need to make a profit and the good of society as a whole. Business isn't motivated by concern for the individual or society, they're motivated by profit. There are a few notable exceptions, but not many.

The bigger the company, the bigger the disconnect. You see it all the time in software when they release a product before it is even really usable, games before they are really playable, simply because you gotta show a profit for the stockholders.

And then you get into the enormous corporate scandals like Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and so on. Would cars be as safe to drive as they are now without pressure from government to make them so? Would pollution emmissions have been reduced? I think not. Because the free-market forces say "make it as cheap as you can". The regulation by government says "make it reasonably safe and pollution free".

I think that balance between free-market free-for-all and social responsibility is one the government needs to play a role in. How much of a role they play depends on who is in office. :p

The problem with communism(or liberalism at all) is that it says that the most basic form of interaction between humans is corrupt or bad.

Naw! I would say that it acknowledges that individuals and corporations have completely different motivations and it makes sure that corporations and the free-market don't trash the lives of the individual. Obviously I'm not talking about communism since communism doesn't really include the concept of free-enterprise.

Is this sometimes harsh for people wanting to make profits? Oh yeah. Its like a swinging pendulum really. Sometimes it goes too far one way, sometimes too far the other.

Jinjre
03-26-2004, 05:47 PM
Would cars be as safe to drive as they are now without pressure from government to make them so?

Ford Pinto. For those of you not old enough (or not American) to remember, Ford knew they had a problem with Pinto's exploding. They had been successfully sued for wrongful death several times before the government stepped in. During the investigation, lo and behold, what should be discovered but a cost analysis determining whether it would be more expensive to have people die and settle the law suits or more expensive to fix the design flaw causing the cars to blow up. The cost analysis showed it was less expensive to let people die.

I never have trusted big business to make decisions for the good of society. Their primary concern is the almighty dollar.

It's always been an interesting ethical question to me though: if I take a gun, shoot someone and kill them, I get charged with murder. If Ford makes a car they KNOW will kill people, sell it to them anyway, do a cost analysis on the issue thereby confirming that they know their product kills people, they get charged with wrongful death and not premeditated murder. How much of a difference is there between the two scenarios? The DC sniper was about as random as Ford was in who he killed, but he wasn't charged with wrongful death.

Not pushing any agendas here or anything, it's just something interesting that pops into my mind now and then.

Anka
03-26-2004, 06:25 PM
I came out near Nelson Mandela which is just fine by me.

There are problems with questions like "Good parents don't need to smack their children, yes or no?". I'd probably have given a different answer if the question was "Average parents don't need to smack their children, yes or no?".

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-26-2004, 08:49 PM
"Kibbutzim"

From what I see in that, it is relatively like one of the most natural human groupings, clans.

The main problem with communism itself is the disjointed feeling of accomplishment. If your farm is highly productive, and that productivity is shared with people in another state, then you lose your motivation.

If that productivity is shared with your 'clan' then the individual can easily see(see, feel, and taste) the rewards of that system. I can see how that could make it successful.

"To go back to the fishes and clamses...the civilized man must be willing to give up some of his catch to those who are unable to fish while they learn how to fish for themselves." Yes, nps, the others should be motivated to teach as well, and the willingness to learn and do from those who do not.

The moment that the idea goes from "I am accepting the hard earned fish from those around me, I should respect that" to "Cool, free food!" Someone needs an attitude adjustment.

weoden
03-27-2004, 09:58 AM
I agree that a company’s function to make a profit and they compete with other companies that may or may not share the same good will. This is not to say that individuals are necessarily bad but the decisions that owners are forced to make for the success of the company do not accept full responsibility for decisions made.

Kibbutzim is the same problem but for opposite reasons. The choice to not work causes damage but this damage can be summed up as morale.

In my opinion, both of these problems can be summed up as a person’s tendency to sin. Greed and sloth are considered deadly sins. Problems in society can never be solved or evolved out of fully but dealt with vigilance and recognized for what they are.

Panamah
03-27-2004, 11:27 AM
I think the reason that small scale communism works, or collectivism, is because of peer pressure and because of recipriprocity. For instance, my parents were farmers before I was born, they grew up in a farming community.

All the farmers would help each other bring in the crops each harvest time. The women would all gather and make enormous meals, the men would all go to work harvesting. The thing that made it work was knowing you'd be helped when your time came around. And also, I'd imagine someone that didn't help would be viewed as something of a parriah.

However, it takes a small community to do that. I think the peer thing is a huge part of that.

Jinjre
03-27-2004, 02:59 PM
I agree with that Panamah. Once a community gets so big that being a parriah has no real consequences, that's when the model breaks down. Taking EQ as an example, probably every server, and Tunare for sure, had one person who was such a twit that eventually everyone on the server wouldn't play with them, and no guild would accept them.

But each server only has what? 4-5k people on it? If the server had 4-5M people on it, the parriahs can effectively hide in the crowd.

I don't think communism/collectivism can work on a large scale.

weoden
03-28-2004, 12:02 PM
I agree with that Panamah. Once a community gets so big that being a parriah has no real consequences, that's when the model breaks down. Taking EQ as an example, probably every server, and Tunare for sure, had one person who was such a twit that eventually everyone on the server wouldn't play with them, and no guild would accept them.

But each server only has what? 4-5k people on it? If the server had 4-5M people on it, the parriahs can effectively hide in the crowd.

I don't think communism/collectivism can work on a large scale.

Corporations work on the opposite point of view. A monopoly corporation can force others to purchase only their products at their prices. In other words, they are the only "game" in town. Which could be related to over dominate guilds on select servers.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2004, 02:08 PM
"A monopoly corporation can force others to purchase only their products at their prices."

How do they force you?

weoden
03-28-2004, 03:43 PM
The force is passive in nature. Don't want to do bussiness with the electric company? Tough luck.

Limiting choice and this term "force" can be similar. Patents, exclusive access to public land to build poles, and copyrights are limitations that force the consumer into a yes or no choice of using the good or not.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2004, 04:08 PM
You use the word much lighter than I do.

You are forced to pay your taxes.

If you do not pay them. The government will come to your house. They will ask you to come with them. If you do not. They will force you, they will try and grab and take you physically. If you resist, they will shoot and kill you.

That is force.

If I chose not to install Windows XP on my machine(or drink Coke or buy Nikes, or even buy electricity), no one will shoot me if I don't. The government will force you to pay for trash collection and sewer, but that is for violation of health codes.

Force is never passive, hidden yes, passive never. Neither is coercion, which is less than force. "Limited choice" is not even on the same radar scope. And considering that most of us have done without, or could do without, the consumer goods or services that you think we are forced to buy, the 'NO' choice(even when limited to only yes or no choices) is completely acceptable for me.

No one is forcing you to be a mindless materialistic consuming automaton powerless to the machiavellian machinations of Madison Avenue. That is your choice. If you end up under a free-way bridge(or even loving Fight Club) because you choose not to be one, and the government tells you to move, that is force.

weoden
03-28-2004, 05:04 PM
Windows XP - not a monopoly
Coke - not a monopoly
Nikes- not a monopoly
buy electricity- what if you have a house heated by electircty, the temperature is neg 20F and no other forms of heat are allowed due to environmental reasons?

What if the penalty for burning is a jail sentence?

Trash collection - may or may not be a monopoly and burning is still allowed in some areas.

Sewer - some still have their own sewer pits.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2004, 05:22 PM
"what if you have a house heated by electircty"

I have had solar panels on my house.

I have lived on only wood(wood that I had to cut and split) heat in winter. If you are living in an community that does not allow you to burn wood for heat, MOVE!!!(it may be too far gone if you have let it get there, Strap the rat-cage on your face, Winston!). Alaska is still very libertarian, not only can you burn wood for heat, you can cut the trees on YOUR land for it.

I have gone through winters with the gas shut off, and had to take cold showers every morning.

I have lived on well water with no electricity. Hooked the Generac up, and made some coffee. Don't have a Generac?, drink something else.

I have lived in a home with a septic tank. Had it back up once even, out of commission for 3 days. You get very resourceful when that happens, especially with 2 adults and 4 girls.

Not trying to get into the old 'walk to school in the snow, with no shoes' thing(which is what it sounds like now after I wrote it). But if you don't like it, do something else.

Edit:
Ok, I reread your stuff. What Evil Corporate Monopolies are you actually talking about, then? "Corporations work on the opposite point of view. A monopoly corporation can force others" This implies you view all or most corporations as bad. Then you counter my post of typical evil corporations, and I have to infer that you are saying that they are good. I am not following you.

Jinjre
03-28-2004, 06:07 PM
I am not following you.

Oh good. I thought it was just me.

I'm not following what corporate monopolies have to do with communism/collectivism, except that the two are essentially opposites of the political spectrum.

weoden
04-01-2004, 10:47 AM
Oh good. I thought it was just me.

I'm not following what corporate monopolies have to do with communism/collectivism, except that the two are essentially opposites of the political spectrum.

Heh, your right.

collectivism is to a large server population as a monopoly corporation is to a large overly dominate guild.

Simply, (heh, bear with me here) this conversation is partially about collectivism and Authoritarianism. While a server population that is large can hide rogue individuals, a single guild can become sufficiently large enough to reveal the rebels! Alternately, 4 or 5 guilds can "talk" to each other and root out a specfic individual not meeting their "standards". So, while the statement that one could hide on a large server population is true, this is relative to the ability of guilds to "talk" to each other and identify the "poor group members".

Which is to say that if the ability to communicate is sufficient, a server population can be very large and "poor group members" can still be identified.
So the situation can arise that an individual might be singled out by an influencial individual and prevented from participating in the game. The motivation might be a personal grudge that has little to do with the game but singles that person out.

Monopoly corporations can play similarly nasty tricks that limit choice. Some areas of the country have limitations on what the individual can do. This is generally related to population density. I understand that most areas of AK have low population densities and the restrictions are very different relative to someone living in the bay area or NYC. These restrictions may be greeted by a monopoly as being good for business. Especially if that corporation has the people to meet that challenge or fill the requirements of a specific restriction. This can, also, eliminate competition via politics and regulation.

Ok, now that I made it obvious! *snicker*