Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
doc gonzo

Personal Political Compass...

Recommended Posts

 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf

 

that's what they said...not what is written.(well at first but once you get to the rules themselves about midway...) Behind all the legal mumbo jumbo is the FCC's now has the ability to license content. Like business sites etc...I am in IT so I took a personal interest in this one.

Devils in the details my friend....now a packet is a legal or illegal packet.

 

I read the whole health care bill too...and Sarah Palin is right about Health care Committees (death panels) There is some scary stuff about implanted chips etc...Mostly lil sneaky taxes, and lil "funds" for friends....whatever it is it isn't about insuring ppl out of the goodness of their hearts....and its not free health care...no such thing as free

 

Before the ACA was put into law (and boy is it a bad one, handouts for the companies, broken system, etc), there were already Death Panels... they just belonged in the insurance companies, denying treatment to old men and women for cancer because the cost wasn't worth it for someone so old.  The system was broken before, and it's broken in a whole bunch of new ways now.


"Darken the moon and conceal the stars; our Light will never be extinguished." - The Tome of the First Flame

LW_sig_concept_7b_lighter_zpsu0zpsinn.jp


The Lantern Watch - A Crowfall-first guild. Welcome Home. Join us @ http://crowfall.shivtr.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when Glass-Steagall was repealed, we got what Washington and Jefferson both foresaw would happen if you allow Banks to hold sway...

 

we can thank Slick Willie and Newt for that one....gg guyz...

just a symptom of a bigger illness.

 

The FED...once we left the gold standard.......


Know me and fear me. My embrace is for all and is patient but sure. The dead can always find you. My hand is everywhere - there is no door I cannot pass, nor guardian who can withstand me.

694a6f04-03a1-4af3-8e11-ddd1baa87348.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf

 

that's what they said...not what is written.(well at first but once you get to the rules themselves about midway...) Behind all the legal mumbo jumbo is the FCC's now has the ability to license content. Like business sites etc...I am in IT so I took a personal interest in this one.

Devils in the details my friend....now a packet is a legal or illegal packet.

 

I read the whole health care bill too...and Sarah Palin is right about Health care Committees (death panels) There is some scary stuff about implanted chips etc...Mostly lil sneaky taxes, and lil "funds" for friends....whatever it is it isn't about insuring ppl out of the goodness of their hearts....and its not free health care...no such thing as free

 

Before the ACA was put into law (and boy is it a bad one, handouts for the companies, broken system, etc), there were already Death Panels... they just belonged in the insurance companies, denying treatment to old men and women for cancer because the cost wasn't worth it for someone so old.  The system was broken before, and it's broken in a whole bunch of new ways now.


"Darken the moon and conceal the stars; our Light will never be extinguished." - The Tome of the First Flame

LW_sig_concept_7b_lighter_zpsu0zpsinn.jp


The Lantern Watch - A Crowfall-first guild. Welcome Home. Join us @ http://crowfall.shivtr.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting. 9/10 questions were loaded though and I don't find the use of the axis of left/right useful, why are we still comparing our current political views to 18th century france? (Or which ever century it was?) Suppose authoritarian vs. libertarian can give a general scope some fundamentally complex views, but mostly it's still not very useful, if there are going to be rules in the society, implementing them requires some degree of authoritarianism, and using the scale alone doesn't dissect the related components, how many rules should there be, how strictly they should be imposed, how are the rules formed, do they regard individuals or collectives, do you believe in society's ability to produce useful rules.. And so forth.

 

In anycase for the results:

 

6h5boz.png

 

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

argh....

 

try and keep it about YOUR viewpoints for this Thread....i am to blame as well, but i would like to try and keep specific domestic politics...especially contemporary, historical can be valuable to this Conversation...

 

just sayin'

 

this huge anti-authoritarian streak in a high sampling of humanity was one of the big things the US Constitution tried to address, in their words "in order to form a more perfect Union"

 

we may disagree on the Reasons, but that's nothing that taking the problem apart and applying empirically proven solutions can't solve....it's the wrangling in between where we seem to be having the problems....my thinking is that it always boils down to money...money bought corps being legally sociopathic "people" and that legal tender for all debts, public or private was now "speech"

 

i'm in favor of one of Australia's solutions...you have to vote, it's required...and iirc a holiday

 

hey, it's a start...


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your Political Compass
 
Economic Left/Right: -3.63 
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
 
Simply put, I don't trust the government and never will, but nor do I trust insanely large corporations.  I am pro-capitalism and business, I just like restraints because unrestrained devotion to the religion of Ayn Rand is kinda effin psychotic or oblivious or a mixture of both.  I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, but not his son, even though I don't fully agree with Ron, and my views tend to fall in line with the Green Party more than anything else.  I am anti-foreign intervention and imperialism, especially our regime-toppling and -propping past and present both in South and Central America as well as the Middle East.  You can support the troops without supporting the war effort, and unfortunately, dying overseas was not dying to protect American freedoms no matter how jingoistic you wish to be, it's simply a waste of good men and womens' lives who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that our politicians and moneyed interest could screw them over.  We have created most of the problems in the Middle East that we are dealing with today.  I love my country but despise my government, which no longer functions and will take the Herculean effort of many to fix, but I realize it'll probably have to get a lot worse before it gets better.
 
I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.  I believe a free market that is protected from monopolies and regulated for the common good (not over-regulated so as to stifle competition with bills written by corps who want to ensure their market domination) is the best economic system, and provides the most opportunity and innovation.  I believe taxes are essential for basic infrastructure and services, but also very poorly handled by runaway spending and institutionalized greed.
 
I like using movies/tv to illustrate my political views, sorry if this list scares you:
 
V For Vendetta
Fight Club
Return of the Jedi
Star Trek
 
I both hate and am obsessed with politics.  A better world is possible.  A better future is obtainable.  The only thing standing in our way is human nature.

 

You might like john doe vigilante in that case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the ACA was put into law (and boy is it a bad one, handouts for the companies, broken system, etc), there were already Death Panels... they just belonged in the insurance companies, denying treatment to old men and women for cancer because the cost wasn't worth it for someone so old.  The system was broken before, and it's broken in a whole bunch of new ways now.

sorta...You have a health care contract....they insure up to say 1 mil....once the bill reaches that mark...they are done...contract fulfilled.

(I know this because of the long period before my moms death where they spent up to 4.5 mil on my moms BCBS 1.5 mil contract)

 

Now I don't think the system before was perfect...but I knew what I was getting. Prob is most ppl think insurance should just keep going even past the contract.

 

prob I have with Obamacare health committees is that there is no contract...they can decide life and death based on their arbitrary whims. Or this years hospital budget....that's bullsh-t.


Know me and fear me. My embrace is for all and is patient but sure. The dead can always find you. My hand is everywhere - there is no door I cannot pass, nor guardian who can withstand me.

694a6f04-03a1-4af3-8e11-ddd1baa87348.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might like john doe vigilante in that case

 

Just watched the trailer.  First, Jamie Bamber, awesome.  Second, I have stated more than once that we could use a few Frank Castles in this world, if for no other reason than to get the people that the law can't seem to touch.  Yeah, that sounds interesting, especially since there is no clean answer and vigilantism becomes a very slippery slope very quickly.  For the record, in the whole "breaking the law to do the right thing" I'm a huge fan of Edward Snowden.  He exposed what most of us already suspected, and revealed the depth of our security complex's crimes to the world.  Good on him.


"Darken the moon and conceal the stars; our Light will never be extinguished." - The Tome of the First Flame

LW_sig_concept_7b_lighter_zpsu0zpsinn.jp


The Lantern Watch - A Crowfall-first guild. Welcome Home. Join us @ http://crowfall.shivtr.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and heed Doc's request and discuss some personal political views.. So let's just throw some out there and see if anyone bites in  ^_^

 

I believe most people should not have the right to own a firearm, especially concealable or automatic.

 

From this category I'd like to exclude at least shotguns, they're hard to conceal and fairly shortrange. They have a valid application for self-defense or home protection. I'd like to extend this allowance to bolt-action rifles, but still restrict them to hunting licenses. They are usable in hunting, while otherwise less usable in harming multiple humans. 

 

The reason for this authoritarian belief is mostly based on following presumptions: The more people have these devices, the higher probability that someone uses them to wreak havoc. Concealable weapons are easier to employ in criminal activity. There is no practical beneficial use for these devices, as they can only be really used to damage things around. Hobbyists and gun enthusiasts may want to collect these, practice using them, they may be interested in ballistics, compete over markmanship. And there's also military personnel and such people who might have other kinds of uses for owning them. Overall I think most people should go through a psychiatric evulation to so these mostly unnecessary things are less likely to end up in the wrong hands, while still maintaining the rights of hobbyists etc. as long as they can proove they're sane. The effect of this regulation may be less (collateral) death penalties caused by firearms. Obviously most criminals and ex-convicts would not have the ability to purchase these devices.

 

So this produces a 3 layer regulation:

 

1. Shotguns - mostly unregulated

2. Bolt-action rifles - hunting license

3. Concealables and automatic weapons - psychiatric evaluation

 

Recap of arguments

  • Less deaths related to firearms
  • Provably sane people can still obtain their firearms for whatever reason and some degree of lethal force is still available for home protection
  • Concealable weapons are easier to use in criminal activity
  • Automatic weapons potentially cause much more harm than more restricted weapons without providing particular extra benefits

Anyone disagree? And why do you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try another one.. How about laws and legal system?

 

Precedents in the legal system are resource ineffective and support an unnecessary culture of unfair trials

 

Precedent is a presolved case usually employing the hierarchy of courts of law. They are resource effective in delegating difficult cases to higher courts, thus allowing the distribution of human capital based on quality, so that more skilled experts are placed at the higher steps of the hierarchy.

 

A law is a general solution to all problems it governs.  A precent is a solution to a special case, an example of a general case.

 

The use of precedents in the legal system are resource ineffective:

  • The actual amount of study required to be able to predict and understand the legal system increases the more precedents are used relative to actual law text.
  • The above decreases the efficiency of human capital related to solving conflicts and cases, increases the demand for this capital and also increases the costs for each individual having to go through court

The above results to an unnecessary culture of unfair trials:

  • Cases may become dependent upon the quality of the related human capital like the lawyer's expertise, which produces an unfair judicial system, that produces skewed verdicts in the favor of those who are willing and/or capable of paying for it

Therefore it would be more resource efficient to adjust the general laws so that less precedents are required. This increases the actual volume of plain lawtext, but decreases the total amount of information required to produce proper verdicts

Edited by Kaiho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol this ones easy

 

less deaths...if your ideas worked DC, Chicago, and NY wouldn't have the gun crime much less lead the nation in gun crime. Because all those cities have the most strict gun laws around.

 

provably sane?...by who? (be careful its a trap)

 

conealable weps...: considering most weps used in street crime are cheap china .22, 9mm,  and are not bought legally anyways, these are not large guns anyway so they are already easy to hide Especially in the large baggy thug wear that's currently popular. The avg thug isn't walking into a 7-11 with a huge Kimber 1911 .45acp. with the 6 inch barrel.

 

automatic weps...: are already illegal, and to own one requires quite a bit of hoop jumping and $$ for licenses. None of which the avg criminal will do. I know news and tv like to harp on assault weps etc...but again most gun crime comes from small cheap illegal handguns .22, and 9mm in caliber. Its extremely rare for criminals to sport a rifle size wep like a ar15 m4 or a ak47. 

 

so your laws would only affect legal purchases and the non criminal class of citizens.

 

also the 2nd amendment is for more then home protection. Its so the people have a means to resist tyranny foreign or domestic.

an armed populace is hard to invade.

an armed populace can resist and overthrow a corrupt government....there will be no Auschwitz in Merica!..not without a fight!

Edited by hillbilly

Know me and fear me. My embrace is for all and is patient but sure. The dead can always find you. My hand is everywhere - there is no door I cannot pass, nor guardian who can withstand me.

694a6f04-03a1-4af3-8e11-ddd1baa87348.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

less deaths...if your ideas worked DC, Chicago, and NY wouldn't have the gun crime much less lead the nation in gun crime. Because all those cities have the most strict gun laws around.

 

Correlation does not imply causation. It is fairly possible that the stricter gun laws have been imposed to reduce the problem, that does not mean stricter gun laws don't work. This could easily be a typical case of for an example Simpson's Paradox.

 

provably sane?...by who? (be careful its a trap)

 

The exact manner of testing is topic for further discussion, but with the goal in mind, that people who  are most likely to use these weapons improperly, will not be able to buy them legally.

 

conealable weps...: considering most weps used in street crime are cheap china .22, 9mm,  and are not bought legally anyways, these are not large guns anyway so they are already easy to hide Especially in the large baggy thug wear that's currently popular. The avg thug isn't walking into a 7-11 with a huge Kimber 1911 .45acp. with the 6 inch barrel.

 

This particular logic is flawed. Failure to impose laws is an argument against all laws, not just the good ones.

 

automatic weps...: are already illegal, and to own one requires quite a bit of hoop jumping and $$ for licenses. None of which the avg criminal will do. I know news and tv like to harp on assault weps etc...but again most gun crime comes from small cheap illegal handguns .22, and 9mm in caliber. Its extremely rare for criminals to sport a rifle size wep like a ar15 m4 or a ak47.

 

So my view is consistent with this part regarding the current laws?

 

* so your laws would only affect legal purchases and the non criminal class of citizens.

 
also the 2nd amendment is for more then home protection. Its so the people have a means to resist tyranny foreign or domestic.

an armed populace is hard to invade.

an armed populace can resist and overthrow a corrupt government....there will be no Auschwitz in Merica!..not without a fight!

 

* This isn't precise enough. It would only affect the legal purchases of individuals who would be at high risk of using the weapons improperly, thus your argument fails.

 

2nd Amendment is specific to the United States.

Argument that armed populace is harder to invade doesn't make sense it comes to the US. Might be applicable to some other countries.

The assumption that more guns leads to less corrupt government, or less persecution, seems pretty unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of those questions should be thrown out.  Specifically "Are the rich taxed too much" (or w/e it was).  "The rich" is a very subjective description.  Anyway:

 

Economic Left/Right: -0.75 
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

IC/Founding Member - Team X Gaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A number of those questions should be thrown out.  Specifically "Are the rich taxed too much" (or w/e it was).  "The rich" is a very subjective description.

 

It's intended to be. It is trying to judge your subjective opinion. Your gut reaction to incendiary topics. It isn't intended to be "fair" but to elicit a response.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 1.0 
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

 

 

Many of the questions are leading, and many of my answers would be more in depth than just "agree or disagree"


-Draconic Warlords, Usual Suspects, Freaks of Nature, Disturbed Forces, The Hate Crew, TSCCC-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 1.0 

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13

 

 

Many of the questions are leading, and many of my answers would be more in depth than just "agree or disagree"

Again, see my post above yours. That is the intention.


I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation does not imply causation. It is fairly possible that the stricter gun laws have been imposed to reduce the problem, that does not mean stricter gun laws don't work. This could easily be a typical case of for an example Simpson's Paradox.

in this case it does. Sorry You advocate for laws that exist in these cities, and the gun crime has not subsided. It has increased. Its an argument based on the premise that criminals(who by definition already disobey the law) will adhere to the new gun laws.

 

This particular logic is flawed. Failure to impose laws is an argument against all laws, not just the good ones.

 

No the logic is sound. Failure to impose duplicate, useless, and bad law is good law. I reject the idea that we can sit on high and decree a law and poof lawbreakers will all of a sudden walk the straight n narrow. Nor do I support the idea of punishing the lawful in order to potentially stop the unlawful.

 

 

 

* This isn't precise enough. It would only affect the legal purchases of individuals who would be at high risk of using the weapons improperly, thus your argument fails.

 

2nd Amendment is specific to the United States.

Argument that armed populace is harder to invade doesn't make sense it comes to the US. Might be applicable to some other countries.

The assumption that more guns leads to less corrupt government, or less persecution, seems pretty unreliable.

What is improper?...to you...to what standard...this is vague and subjective...which makes for bad law.

 

And yes the 2nd admendment is American (F'Yah!)

1: And yes it was just a few decades ago during the cold war that soviet invasion was a real valid concept. It might be academic today. But it hasn't always been, or will be. 

2: Tactically its virtually impossible to subdue an armed populace. (see Afghanistan)

3: No, more guns don't lead to less corrupt gov. Apathy and moral decay lead to corrupt gov. Yet eventually as gov assumes more power it will inevitably begin to subjugate the populace. There will be a point when the people will need to resist. violently....that normally lessens the persecution.

 

checks n balance...the courts can check the congress/prez...the congress can check the courts/prez (cept if you have a weak kneed John Boener)and the prez can check the courts/congress. and the people can check the government either by voting...or by force.2nd admendment

 

America was philosophically founded. Based on the belief that All men are created equal, and have the right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Including the right to personal property. The 1.5 acre of land my house sits on is my lil section of the world. I own it. And am free to do on it as I please. (within the law of course). As long as I am not infringing on your rights I can have a tank and nuke missile in my house. I have the right to free speech. I can sit on the street corner and spout racist, bigoted, insulting political speech all day long.

 

yall euros just don't get it.

Edited by hillbilly

Know me and fear me. My embrace is for all and is patient but sure. The dead can always find you. My hand is everywhere - there is no door I cannot pass, nor guardian who can withstand me.

694a6f04-03a1-4af3-8e11-ddd1baa87348.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel like i should chime i here, since i am one of those Lefties that is FOR the Second Amendment...

 

that being said, i also think the "Wyatt Earp" rule is valid....a Community can set the regulation of firearms as they see fit for public areas, but not in a person's Home

 

when thought of reasonably, and with remembering the "well regulated militia" portion of the Amendment's language...my opinion is that it's a valuable Right in a free society...just not for the reasons many others might think....


FIQw0eP.png

let the Code build the World and it's Laws....let the Players build the rest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...