Political Leanings?

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-04-25 03:10am

EXTREMELY liberal, socially... EXTREMELY conservative, fiscally.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else (you wanna shoot up heroin? Go to it! But if you hurt someone, there's hell to pay...)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-25 10:33am

Ralnia wrote:
"...How would you calculate it..."
1.When buying the stuff, pay the sales tax rate for the highest income level.
2. When tax time rolls around, people can turn in their reciepts for anything they want a refund for. For most things, a difference of a few percent (between the highest and median levels of sales tax) would only be a few cents, so the people only need to keep the reciepts for the expensive items.
3. It's not hard to figure out income, so we can give appropriate refunds for the sales tax.

Ah, okay. But if you're only going for a few percent why make a progressive sales tax at all? If you go for major differences in the levels of tax it will add up, even for relatively trivial purchases (e.g. weekly groceries). There are a lot of people who will make sure they pay as little tax as possible - your IRS is going to be swamped with people send in boxes of receipts, including things like $0.75 purchases of a candy bar.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2003-04-25 11:59am

Hmm... apparently the majority of people on this forum are moderate left. Do the right wingers shout the loudest or something? Or should I just put my vote on far left by virtue of being European?

In terms of my views:

Pro-choice until brain activity detected. Seperation of church and state. Vaguely in favour of nationalising essential buisnesses (health, power, water, gas, oil, agriculture etc.). In favour of decriminalisation of various drugs. Believe the government has a duty to provide for those who can't help themselves. Believe in progressive taxation. Think that communism was, fundimentally a good idea with a few major flaws. Don't trust market forces to sort themselves out (i.e in favour of economic intervention.) Don't seriously think my views will ever be listened to.

So am I far left or just regular left?

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-25 07:29pm

Tatterdemalion wrote:Hmm... apparently the majority of people on this forum are moderate left. Do the right wingers shout the loudest or something? Or should I just put my vote on far left by virtue of being European?

In terms of my views:

Pro-choice until brain activity detected. Seperation of church and state. Vaguely in favour of nationalising essential buisnesses (health, power, water, gas, oil, agriculture etc.). In favour of decriminalisation of various drugs. Believe the government has a duty to provide for those who can't help themselves. Believe in progressive taxation. Think that communism was, fundimentally a good idea with a few major flaws. Don't trust market forces to sort themselves out (i.e in favour of economic intervention.) Don't seriously think my views will ever be listened to.

So am I far left or just regular left?

By American terms VERY far left. By European terms pretty moderate. Funny how that works isn't it.

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-25 07:39pm

Ah, okay. But if you're only going for a few percent why make a progressive sales tax at all?

For most people, it would only be a few percent - The highest income would be fairly low, so there wouldn't be much difference between the highest tax rate and the average tax rate. That would still be enough that people would want tax returns on big-ticket items, though.

There are a lot of people who will make sure they pay as little tax as possible

Then a limit of a .03 ril (about 18 cents) refund per item - that would take care of most trivial purchases, and if you count in postage, people wouldn't bother to send in everything.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-25 07:40pm

My political compass results:

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.79

So I'm a slight leftist. Figures.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-04-25 08:10pm

Here is my Political compass stats:
Economic Left/Right: 8.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 7.03

I guess this makes me a right-wing authortarian.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-25 09:17pm

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.05

Libertarian Left. Figures

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2003-04-26 01:26am

Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.92

Well whaddaya know, I'm a communist radical, and I always figured I was more moderate than that. That'll be my hopeless student idealism there.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-26 02:30pm

Ralnia wrote:I'm the first "far left" - I'm suprised. This seems to be sentence fragment land, so I'll keep with the pattern.

While many people use sentance fragments, it is preferred that you use actual sentances for larger posts. I think I'll tackle this below:

Support abortion, strict seperation of church and state, gay marriage, and abolition of business.

How far are you going for legalization of abortion? Are you going to allow abortions at any time before birth or are you going to put some limitation on it (e.g. roughly around the time brain activity begins in ernest).

As for abolition of business, you realise the net effect of this will be the destruction of the United States economy and a massive brain-drain as people move to other countries?

Almost all politicians are completely corrupted with campaign money.

Okay, so besides that self-evident fact, what do you plan on doing with it? Cutting out campaign finance entirely?

I object to the so-called "Patriot Act".

Good person. The PATRIOT (it's an acronym) Act is bullshit, even if there are some good parts in it. Hopefully SCOTUS will knock it down.

Leaning toward limited Communism - definitely minus the anti-democracy part in the USSR.

Communism is inherently authoritarian if the system is to survive. A better alternative (that being the free-market) exists and people will vote to for that.

Transportation - Ban private ownership cars, use the money saved to fund lots of mass transit, bikes, and Flexcars if nescessary.

This is impossible in the United States. If you could rebuild every city from scratch, you could get around it, but as most suburban (and even urban) areas are designed, you must have some sort of car to get around. I find it unlikely that there will be enough flexcars to go around.

What about rural areas? Population density is not high enough to get it working - those people often must have their own cars.

Anti-copyright.

So what incentive is there to design and research in the United States if you take away copyright and patent? What incentive is there for original work if anyone may use it if they please?

The Bush regime isn't an "administration," since that implies legitimacy.

Pity, because his administration is legitimate, even if you don't like him or his policies. That's an argument for another time, however.

I also don't copy or pirate anything, since I happen to hate music.

That's a non-sequitor. You can violate copyright/IP without liking music.

Political Compass: -7.xx libertarian, -9.xx economic left.

I am around -3 libertarian, +3 economic fight.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-26 02:34pm

Ralnia wrote:
Ah, okay. But if you're only going for a few percent why make a progressive sales tax at all?
For most people, it would only be a few percent - The highest income would be fairly low, so there wouldn't be much difference between the highest tax rate and the average tax rate. That would still be enough that people would want tax returns on big-ticket items, though.

I see. Still, if the highest income level is relatively low (and presumably the lowest income level is relatively high in your proposed government/economic system) would not a flat sales tax work nearly as well?

There are a lot of people who will make sure they pay as little tax as possible
Then a limit of a .03 ril (about 18 cents) refund per item - that would take care of most trivial purchases, and if you count in postage, people wouldn't bother to send in everything.

Just curious, what is a ril?

And yes, most people would not bother to send in everything, but some will - even with your new limit. One could probably calculate fairly easily how to maximise their tax return.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-26 03:16pm

I'm sort of sprawled across the center, really. My head is slightly to the right and my crotch and legs are on the left.

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-26 10:12pm

How far are you going for legalization of abortion?

Consider where abortions happen - the developed world. Each child in the developed world takes much more resources than a child in an undeveloped country. By giving the person who would have been aborted a chance in life, you're taking away the chance of several other children, since thousands of people die of hunger every day.

destruction of the United States economy...

1. I wasn't talking about the A.E., I was talking about a theoretical country, since I learned about this forum from a nation-simulation game. However, I can still argue it-
2. The economy is just a vehicle to achieve better life. For all of our killer economy, we're still the worst-educated in the developed world - What's the point of having a killer economy if you have to destroy the country to get it?

Cutting out campaign finance entirely?

You say that like it's unreasonable. Each candidate that runs would get about $10,000, and no other donations allowed. If someone likes a candidate, they can rank them first (I support Condorcet voting), and the candidates can do without advertising.

even if there are some good parts in it (the Patriot Act)

Sorry, I missed something. What?

Communism is inherently authoritarian

How do you know? Libertarian (small L) communism has never been tried.

This is impossible in the United States. If you could rebuild every city from scratch, you could get around it, but as most suburban (and even urban) areas are designed, you must have some sort of car to get around. I find it unlikely that there will be enough flexcars to go around.

In the cities and suburbs, it would be relatively easy to put in bus services and light rail - note that I said "mass transit" in addition to bikes and flexcars.

What about rural areas?

Ok, I'll modify my statement to "Ban private ownership cars except in rral areas" - they'd still have to use normal cars. It would still be a big improvement over what we do currently.

anti-copyright
if you take away copyright and patent?

Where did the anti-patent come from? I said I was anti-copyright, but not anti-patent - there's a difference. Copyrights prevent anyone else from using your discovery, patents don't. I'm in favor of fees to use patented materials, but against not allowing anyone to use them.

his administration is legitimate

He won by a technicality of the 4th worst voting system in the world (after Australia, Ireland, and the other country that uses IRV). The argument over whether the regime is legitimate is fairly inimportant, though. Even Hitler was fairly elected. What we should do is switch to Condorcet voting (see www.electionmethods.org for information on Condorcet).

lowest income level is relatively high

People in rehab (or in extreme cases, jail) wouldn't earn much, but they could still buy stuff when they get out.

would not a flat sales tax work nearly as well?

Nearly, but a graduated one would be better enough to be worth the trouble.

I just had another idea for sales tax - Not based on income, but graduated by value of what you buy.

Just curious, what is a ril?

The currency of the country in the nation simulation game (see above). I'll use US$ from now on.

One could probably calculate fairly easily how to maximise their tax return

If someone was so obesses with that, they probably also take the time to figure in postage. I'd make the cost of sending in a reciept high enough that people would only gain from things more than $20. Then the reciept load would be managable.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-26 11:21pm

Ralnia wrote: Consider where abortions happen - the developed world. Each child in the developed world takes much more resources than a child in an undeveloped country. By giving the person who would have been aborted a chance in life, you're taking away the chance of several other children, since thousands of people die of hunger every day.

Seeing as though people from developed nations aren't exactly taking the food supply away from under-developed nations (do you realize how big of a food surplus the US has?), that is a dead end argument

1. I wasn't talking about the A.E., I was talking about a theoretical country, since I learned about this forum from a nation-simulation game. However, I can still argue it-
2. The economy is just a vehicle to achieve better life. For all of our killer economy, we're still the worst-educated in the developed world - What's the point of having a killer economy if you have to destroy the country to get it?

You need to actually do some research in economics and government instead of getting all your experience from a game. (BTW, point me out a succesful communist country, while you are doing your research)

Communism is inherently authoritarian
How do you know? Libertarian (small L) communism has never been tried.

You DO realize how easy it is for someone to become authoritarian in a society where no one actually rules... Again, do your research on government and economics.

In the cities and suburbs, it would be relatively easy to put in bus services and light rail - note that I said "mass transit" in addition to bikes and flexcars.

Agreed, but, people also like to get around, as in leave the city. How do you get to places that don't have mass transit or have a hub that services it? Complete abolition of privately owned vehicles in an urban area isn't likely to happen in the forseable future.

Where did the anti-patent come from? I said I was anti-copyright, but not anti-patent - there's a difference. Copyrights prevent anyone else from using your discovery, patents don't. I'm in favor of fees to use patented materials, but against not allowing anyone to use them.

Er...what?
Dictionary definitions:
Patent: A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

In other words, the same thing. Both grant the creator of a work exclusive rights to that work or product. While you are taking those government and economics courses, buy a dictionary.

his administration is legitimate
He won by a technicality of the 4th worst voting system in the world (after Australia, Ireland, and the other country that uses IRV). The argument over whether the regime is legitimate is fairly inimportant, though. Even Hitler was fairly elected. What we should do is switch to Condorcet voting (see www.electionmethods.org for information on Condorcet).

First off, Godwin's Law is enacted, you loose...

But, not taking into effect Godwin's Law, the government was legally elected, whether you like it or not. Face it. If you don't like him, then don't vote for him next year. If you don't vote, then I don't want to hear it.

Nearly, but a graduated one would be better enough to be worth the trouble.

Have you not read the arguments against it?

I just had another idea for sales tax - Not based on income, but graduated by value of what you buy.

It already is... (hint, econ classes, hint)

If someone was so obesses with that, they probably also take the time to figure in postage. I'd make the cost of sending in a reciept high enough that people would only gain from things more than $20. Then the reciept load would be managable.

So, now, your progressive tax is going to charge a flat rate for sending it in? OK, lets say that each person makes, oh, 15 purchases a year where tax is more than 20 bucks. Lets assume that half of the 350million people in the US send them in, that works out to 152.5 million, correct? Now, multiply that times 15. Big number, lots of paperwork hours spent by government workers (who would probably also be incensed already by having to give their hard earned money away so everyone would make the same amount, anyways) filing away these recepits and entering the values into computers.

It just wouldn't work.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-26 11:34pm

Couple things.

Consider where abortions happen - the developed world. Each child in the developed world takes much more resources than a child in an undeveloped country. By giving the person who would have been aborted a chance in life, you're taking away the chance of several other children, since thousands of people die of hunger every day.

What exactly are you supporting here?

1. I wasn't talking about the A.E., I was talking about a theoretical country, since I learned about this forum from a nation-simulation game. However, I can still argue it-
2. The economy is just a vehicle to achieve better life. For all of our killer economy, we're still the worst-educated in the developed world - What's the point of having a killer economy if you have to destroy the country to get it?

I suspect that most statistics indicating us to be the worst-educated in the world are skewed. May I see yours?

How have we destroyed the country for the sake of the economy?

You say that like it's unreasonable. Each candidate that runs would get about $10,000, and no other donations allowed. If someone likes a candidate, they can rank them first (I support Condorcet voting), and the candidates can do without advertising.

Free speech issues here.

How do you know? Libertarian (small L) communism has never been tried.

Because Marx's brand of communism specifically calls for authoritarianism as a means to achive the perfect end of communism.

By the way, you seem a little too enthusiastic about communism. Ever heard of the law of incentives, the free-rider problem, and supply and demand?

In the cities and suburbs, it would be relatively easy to put in bus services and light rail - note that I said "mass transit" in addition to bikes and flexcars.

You can have my car when you pry my keys from my cold, dead hands. The car is the ultimate symbol of American freedom and independence and I will NOT have it taken away.

Where did the anti-patent come from? I said I was anti-copyright, but not anti-patent - there's a difference. Copyrights prevent anyone else from using your discovery, patents don't. I'm in favor of fees to use patented materials, but against not allowing anyone to use them.

Uh, granting exclusive use of a discovery is exactly what patents do. Change it and it's not a patent anymore.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-26 11:48pm

Aww, cmon, Korr, I want him/her to respond to my stuff...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-27 01:12am

Ralnia wrote:I'm the first "far left" - I'm suprised. This seems to be sentence fragment land, so I'll keep with the pattern.

You may be the first hard leftist to reply (and from what I've read, you're to the left of just about all the posters here--all the 4-digit post counts, anyway), but you're certainly not the first person on SD.net to not totally think through his views.

Support abortion, strict seperation of church and state, gay marriage,

All well and good, though you've yet to clarify to what degree abortion would be legalized. Your argument that a child in the developed world by his existence takes food out of the mouths of 3rd world babies is laughably ignorant of how economics works and ignorant of the facts as well--the developed world as a whole, even counting nations like Japan, produces a food surplus. Food shortages in the developing world are almost entirely the result of bad economic policy and sometimes deliberate political acts. You'll notice that a relatively free country with an enormous population like India hasn't had a massive food crisis in decades while a country like Zimbabwe with a much smaller population and a much higer ratio of arable land to people but a lunatic Marxist dictator is teetering on the bring of famine.

and abolition of business.

Oh hooray. Abject poverty for everyone except a bureaucratic elite. Sorry pal--I'd rather not wait in line twelve hours to get a loaf of bread to take back to the 500 square ft. apartment I'll share with my parents until I'm 60.

Almost all politicians are completely corrupted with campaign money.

And this is so much worse than corrupting them with the absolute power that comes when the entire economy is run by the government. See, "Soviet Union, Government of". I'm not talking about Stalin's atrocities, either--read up on how corrupt things got under Brezhnev or his successors. Most of those corrupt officials, by the way, ended up taking their wealth and connections and going into organized crime.

I object to the so-called "Patriot Act".

No problems here. It's a piece of shit. Ashcroft needs to be fired.

Leaning toward limited Communism - definitely minus the anti-democracy part in the USSR.

You pretty much ruled out "limited" when you decided to abolish all business. As for "libertarian communism", as soon as you figure out how to 1) make people give up everything they own, and 2) work productively knowing they have no incentive for success without pointing a gun at everyone's head, you let me know. Just write it down, tie it to a flying pig and send it to me.

Against income tax alone, and against sales tax alone, in favor of sales taxes based on income.

I'm against the income tax too, but I doubt it's for the same reason you are. What you've concocted is a system that would be enormously more complicated and expensive to admister than the current one (no mean feat, by the way) that will invite more cheating than a poker tournament for telepathic magicians. Of course, since you've abolished private enterprise, the currency is worthless and there's nothing to buy anyway, so you could pretty much determine the tax rate by dick length and it wouldn't matter all that much.

Transportation - Ban private ownership cars, use the money saved to fund lots of mass transit, bikes, and Flexcars if nescessary.

I'm not sure how you could save government money by banning private ownership of cars. Maybe things work differently on your planet. Sure, you wouldn't have to widen the freeway ever again, but you still need to pay to maintain the roads that exist, and pay for an enormous, sprawling public transportation infrastructure to service the suburbs. Not to mention, you'd have to dispose of tens of millions of cars. And speaking of expensive, how cheap will it be to put down the armed revolt that will come when you tell 280 million Americans they have to turn in their cars and give up their God-given (metaphorically speaking) right to go wherever the please when they please?

Anti-copyright.

Let's just skip the fancy arguments here. I'm a writer. I work hard and spend many hours writing. Copyright is what keeps some turd out in East Bumfuck from writing an identical story, renaming the characters, and claiming it as his own, and it means I can get paid when other people want to enjoy the fruits of my hard work for no investment of effort on their part. You'd take away that protection for whatever unfathomable pinko reason you'll undoubtedly respond with. In short, fuck you.

The Bush regime isn't an "administration," since that implies legitimacy.

I'm so glad we have a Constitutional scholar and political expert here to explain to us that the administration has no legitimacy. By the way, I checked out your site. The author is full of shit. It's the nature of the American presidency that determines the nature of the two-party system, not the voting method, and the Condorcet method has a serious mathematical problem called the No-Show paradox that the author of that site didn't address at all, so Condorcet is hardly the panacea you claim it is.

I also don't copy or pirate anything,

Well, good for you. I presume you slipped this bit in to show that the reason you'd like to outlaw copyrights is purely altruistic (or hell, the way this post has been going, maybe you mean you don't terrorize the seven seas in a Baltimore schooner with the Jolly Roger flying overhead), but that brings us back to you stripping away my legal right to be compensated for my creative work. I repeat, fuck you (odd how that pissed me off more than the thought of you taking away my car).

since I happen to hate music.

Education and common sense don't seem high on your list either.

Anti-war.

There aren't a whole lot of people in favor of it, as a general principle. Communists are especially against war (which must be why the Worker's World Party is pulling Act Now to Stop War and End Racism's strings), unless it's against decadant capitalist pig-dogs or Hungarian student demonstrators or Afghans trying to violate the Brezhnev docterine or something.

Political Compass: -7.xx libertarian, -9.xx economic left.

I'm entirely unsurprised.

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-04-27 01:15am

Since I'm not sure where it is on the scale (I always forget which way is which), I am pretty sure I'm on the right.. if that's liberal, that is..

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-27 03:04am

Seeing as how my last post has been kinda buried, I would like to remind Ralnia to reply to mine.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-27 04:11am

RedImperator wrote:
Leaning toward limited Communism - definitely minus the anti-democracy part in the USSR.
You pretty much ruled out "limited" when you decided to abolish all business. As for "libertarian communism", as soon as you figure out how to 1) make people give up everything they own, and 2) work productively knowing they have no incentive for success without pointing a gun at everyone's head, you let me know. Just write it down, tie it to a flying pig and send it to me.

As an ex-communist, I know a fair deal about that ideology and I think our socialist friendmeans that property rights should be strictly limited but not abolished completely. (but is there much difference between imposing strict limits upon property rights and abolishing them??)

I'm not sure how you could save government money by banning private ownership of cars. Maybe things work differently on your planet.

I think that his intention by banning automobiles is to increase traffic security, since a transportation system based entirely upon trams, buses and trains is much safer than one where automobiles are common, since it means that there are much fewer vehicles on the road and therefore fewer collisions.

Not to mention, you'd have to dispose of tens of millions of cars.

A communist government would probably scrap them, and recycle all materials for construction of military vehicles. That's what Trotsky or Lenin would have done. (Stalin would have done the same, and then deport all the former car owners to Siberia)

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-27 05:05am

Democratic socialist.

I like the concept of communism, but I know it ain't gonna happen.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-27 12:17pm

weemadando wrote:Democratic socialist.

I like the concept of communism, but I know it ain't gonna happen.

Not without killing a lot of innocents in the process, at least.

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-27 04:02pm

do you realize how big of a food surplus the US has?

And what do we do with it now? Let it rot?

getting all your experience from a game.

I had these opinions before I started playing it, and I haven't used anything that happened in the game in my arguments.

point me out a succesful communist country

Before the USSR turned completely authoritarian, they were first in space. There haven't been many non-authoritarian communist countries, so it's obvious that there aren't many successful ones.

You DO realize how easy it is for someone to become authoritarian in a society where no one actually rules...

Unfortunately, yes. Going authoritarian isn't a problem confined to "societies where no one actually rules", though. America has gone authoritarian, and there were people who actually ruled here.

How do you get to places that don't have mass transit or have a hub that services it?

The "flexcars" are designed just for occasions like that.

<Patent issue>

Ok, but lets get back to the issue. To restate my position: I'm in favor of fees to use materials made up by someone lese, but against not allowing anyone to use them.

his administration is legitimate

Yes, technically it's legitimate. There's a fairer voting system that would avoid any such controversy, why not switch to it?

I just had another idea for sales tax - Not based on income, but graduated by value of what you buy.

It already is...

As in, the rate (percent) increases with the value of what you buy (hint, math classes, hint).

It (the graduated slaes tax) just wouldn't work.

Still, if the highest income level is relatively low (and presumably the lowest income level is relatively high in your proposed government/economic system) would not a flat sales tax work nearly as well?

Ok, then the latter sounds good to me, as long as income level remained similar.

How have we destroyed the country for the sake of the economy?

"Destroyed" was probably a little too strong, but see "Iraq".

I suspect that most statistics indicating us to be the worst-educated in the world are skewed. May I see yours?

A National Geographic survey or 18- to 24-year olds, on http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20 ... index.html.

Free speech issues here

Are they being prevented from speaking? They just have to do it in debates, etc., not ads.

Marx's brand of communism...

It's possible to have other kinds of communism.

you seem a little too enthusiastic about communism

I did say "limited communism" in the first post.

law of incentives...

Interest replaces greed as a motivating force - Would you rather flip burgers or be a doctor? There are some people who would choose the former, but they'd probably do the same under capitalism. In fact, (one of) the good thing(s) about the USSR was its research program - the scientists seemed well-motivated enough...

the free-rider problem

Again, I said "limited communism" - Wages are just about the same, but you still have to work to get those wages.

supply and demand

Again, limited communism.

car is the ultimate symbol of American freedom and independence.

and overconsumption, and laziness.

granting exclusive use of a discovery is exactly what patents do...

Ok, ok, but that sidetracks the discussion from the original issue. I've modified my statement, see above.

I want him/her to respond to my stuff...

Him, not her.

All well and good, though you've yet to clarify to what degree abortion would be legalized

As I said above, I'm male, and I'll well justified in really debated the issue of abortion the moment I get pregnant.

And this is so much worse than corrupting them with the absolute power...

Again, I said I was leaning toward libertarian.

Abject poverty for everyone except a bureaucratic elite

1. Is that any worse than "Abject poverty for everyone except a corporate elite"? We're going toward that now.
2. Um, the main part of communism that I support is income near-equality.
3. I said "abolition of business" just after reading Fast Food Nation, now I'm back to a more normal "heavy regulation of business."

No problems here. It's a piece of shit. Ashcroft needs to be fired.

What's the current news on Patriot Act 2? Hopefully it's dead by now.

"limited" when you decided to abolish all business

See above.

1) make people give up everything they own

Why would they need to do that. Again, limited communism.

work productively knowing they have no incentive for success

In capitalism, people work for greed - they do whatever gives them the most money. In communism, people work at what they're interested in. If they don't work, they don't get paid (again, limited communism).

I'm not sure how you could save government money by banning private ownership of cars.

Studies put the government subsidy of cars at about $5 a gallon - about $660 billion/year. http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp has links to several studies.

tell 280 million Americans they have to turn in their cars and give up their God-given (metaphorically speaking) right to go wherever the please when they please?

See "flexcars" and "feet". They're only giving up their right to drive everywhere, no matter how short the distance, in cars that could fit 8 people, not one.

and it means I can get paid when other people want to enjoy the fruits of my hard work for no investment of effort on their part

As I've said several times now, the "turd out in East from writing an identical story..." could do so, but you'd still be paid.

Condorcet method has a serious mathematical problem called the No-Show paradox

Ummm, apparently you haven't really looked at that site - a similar voting method, IRV voting (the worst system actually used) has that problem, but Condorcet does not. If you'd looked beyond the first page, you'd know that.

Constitutional scholar and political expert

You're not one either.

you stripping away my legal right to be compensated for my creative work

I've stopped counting how many times I've said this, but you'd still get paid.

Education doesn't seem high on your list either.

While we're on the subject of education, do you want a math problem?

Political Compass: -7.xx libertarian, -9.xx economic left.

Since then, I've moved to -6.xx libertarian, -9.xx economic left.

Seeing as how my last post has been kinda buried, I would like to remind Ralnia to reply to mine.

I only come on once every day or two, so if I don't reply quickly, don't worry.

I'm on the right.. if that's liberal, that is..

Liberal is left.

A communist government would probably scrap them, and recycle all materials for construction of military vehicles.

And I'd scrap them, then recycle all the materials for other stuff.

I think that his intention by banning automobiles is to increase traffic security,

That and anti-pollution.

Not without killing a lot of innocents in the process, at least.

As if communists are the only ones who have killed lots of innocent civilians - see "the firebombing of Tokyo" and "A-bombs".

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-27 04:19pm

Ralnia wrote: And what do we do with it now? Let it rot?

No, the government pays farmers not to farm huge tracts of unused farmland to keep from flooding the market.

I had these opinions before I started playing it, and I haven't used anything that happened in the game in my arguments.

Just making sure... But I still say you need to study some economics and government.

Before the USSR turned completely authoritarian, they were first in space. There haven't been many non-authoritarian communist countries, so it's obvious that there aren't many successful ones.

Again, ignorance rears its ugly head. The Russians were authoritarian WAY before their space program started. Heck, Stalin inherited an authoritarian society.

Unfortunately, yes. Going authoritarian isn't a problem confined to "societies where no one actually rules", though. America has gone authoritarian, and there were people who actually ruled here.

America has gone authoritarian? Huh? I somehow missed that one...

The "flexcars" are designed just for occasions like that.

I am curious, tell me more about these 'flexcars'

Ok, but lets get back to the issue. To restate my position: I'm in favor of fees to use materials made up by someone lese, but against not allowing anyone to use them.

Uh...riiiiiiiight... So, you don't think someone has the right to sell their creations?

Yes, technically it's legitimate. There's a fairer voting system that would avoid any such controversy, why not switch to it?

A fairer voting system? How, exactly do you get much fairer? Other than abolition of the electoral college, I can't see much of a way for it to get fairer and still be effective. BTW, need I remind you of the little Godwin's Law incident? Technically, you have already conceded the argument, but, I guess we can let it slide this time.

As in, the rate (percent) increases with the value of what you buy (hint, math classes, hint).

Er...I guess I see what you are saying, and, yes, it makes sense, but, it would be hard to implement, seeing as how prices fluctuate so often.

I want him/her to respond to my stuff...
Him, not her.

Sorry. I'll keep that in mind next time.

BTW, I am curious as to what you think about the rest of my reply..

Ralnia · Post by **Ralnia** » 2003-04-27 04:47pm

No, the government pays farmers not to farm huge tracts of unused farmland to keep from flooding the market.

Yep, another really ridiculous thing we do - like pumping oil into the ground in Texas.

you need to study some economics and government.

I will.

The Russians were authoritarian WAY before their space program started. Heck, Stalin inherited an authoritarian society.

Before the communists took over, Russia was completely authoritarian. When they took over it still was. Leading up to their downfall, they were too. However, for a little section in the middle, "the Communist government increased freedoms, and the Russian people enthusiastically responded by putting a man in space,..." (from a book on Russia).

America has gone authoritarian?

Sorry, "is going". See Patriot Acts I and II.

tell me more about these 'flexcars'

Cars are parked around the city, owned by the Flexcar company. When someone in the Flexcar program needs to go on a trip, go to some small town for a funeral, etc., they can put their name on the list to have the flexcar then. Instead of keys to the car, there's a keypad into which you enter a password, and people have a limited amount of Flexcar time per month. The cars are hybrid gas/electric, making them very fuel-efficient, and if you could use mass transit to commute to wrok, you wouldn't even need a regular car.

So, you don't think someone has the right to sell their creations?

I think that they have the right to be paid for their inventions, but not the right to hoard them - excessive patentingprevents research.

Technically, you have already conceded the argument

I've conceded that one, now it's an argument about voting systems.

A fairer voting system?

Condorcet voting. (if math scares you, skip to the next quote) In it, you rank the candidates in order of your preference (before you make the same mistake as RedImperator, no, this isn't IRV). Then, the order is put into a matrix, i.e., A, then D, then B, then C would be:

A B C D
A - 1 1 1
B 0 - 1 0
C 0 0 - 1
D 0 1 1 -

The matrices for each voter are added, and you look at the 1v1 votes. If one candidate beat all of the others, he wins. It's not perfect, since it's possible for unfairness to arise in the tiebraker. You can see www.electionmethods.org for more details, as well as one of Martin Gardner's books with an Easter Egg on the front (if I can find it, I'll tell you the title).

it would be hard to implement, seeing as how prices fluctuate so often

Not much harder than what we have now - it's currently so complicated that IRS help lines got 25% of the question wrong.

the rest of my reply...

Did I miss something? If so, what?