Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You pulled up a macroeconomics book to prove me wrong on political theory?

I showed you the spectrum of ideologies concerning political theories as they pertain to the economy. Yeah.

No, you showed me an economist's view of the spectrum of government control over the economy and what they would label each approach. You didn't show me shit about liberalism or about socialism.

You looked at an economist's definition, rather than a political theorist's? Why would you do that, other than because political theorists don't agree with you. Really, you don't need to bother to read them just look at how the chapters are split. I mean, you can read them if you want to, but it'll just refute you in more detail.

Wow you're a coward.

Says the serial deleter. Found out where you would put corporatism?

You want to actually cite the specific pages and what they say to back up what you say? Or should I just link to the first page of an entire book and pretend like somewhere in that book it disproves what you said, making you do all the work.

As I said, just look at the chapter titles. I'm not citing anything at you because I don't need to do research for these points, I've read it over and over and over again. I'm pointing you in the right direction for political theory, instead of relying on macroeconomics books.

because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.)

It's not a "Nike report", it's a textbook. The reason the Nike "swoosh" is on it is because the book uses Nike as an example for some specific business models and business practices. However, beginning of the book, including the page I linked to, is about macroeconomics and has nothing to do with Nike. That is the source of the graph I provided. You're not doing a good job at trying to discount it as a source.

You pulled up a macroeconomics book to prove me wrong on political theory? You looked at an economist's definition, rather than a political theorist's? Why would you do that, other than because political theorists don't agree with you. Really, you don't need to bother to read them just look at how the chapters are split. I mean, you can read them if you want to, but it'll just refute you in more detail.

You've pulled up graphs that mark the level of state-ownership that is present in an economy, not graphs that represent political ideology or anything beyond that.

LOL, so policies concerning how the economy is run isn't a political ideology?

No, it's a political position, not an ideology in and of itself. The third book actually dedicates quite a bit explaining what an ideology is.

So you're saying the difference countries have in how much power their government has over allocation and distribution of wealth compared to private citizens/organizations isn't a political ideology?

Again, no. These things are shaped by and molded around (particularly in the US) a political ideology, but do not constitute ideologies in themselves.

"Liberal", by modern definition, is more inclined towards socialism than "conservatives".

In the US especially, since you bring it up, the more "left" or "liberal" the politician, the more they are in support of socialist policies like state control of healthcare and other services.

What you misunderstand (have a good look at the second book (I think) for this) is that Liberalism underwent a revolution following J.S. Mill. It was not stolen by socialists (as people such as Friedman and Hayek would claim) but made the natural progression to considering other obstacles to liberty and thus became Modern Liberalism.

There is a large margin between the fringes of communism on the left, and the fringes of capitalism on the right for socialism to fit into, so there are varying degrees.

Good argument there. You'll define both communism and capitalism at the extremes and then label eveything in between socialism - way to see in black and white. In this solely economic terminology that you are using, where is corporatism?

But it's a simple fact that you're apparently unprepared to accept. Socialism is liberal, not classically liberal, but liberal in the modern nomenclature.

No, Liberalism is liberal. Socialism is socialist. As soon as you start conflating the two terms you end up being unable to m ake distinctions between two very different positions that, while they may meet at points, approach politics in very different ways.

At 4/22/08 11:48 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 4/22/08 11:41 PM, n64kid wrote: so I'll try to text this out as best as I can...

Yeah, spacings didn't really hold.

That actually makes a lot of sense for such a simple graph. It would also require a bit of stuff in between for a "mixed economy" (like Britain had 1945-1980s) but generally good. If you then overlaid the US political spectrum (where the economic views of liberals would be represented between the two upper tiers of the graph) it would actually do a good job in clearing up what people misunderstand.

Lol, I've got another picture. I don't really know how you can get away from this one.

Check it out (pg 7).

I can "get away from this one" very easily, because you've pulled up several crap sources (such as a nike report.) You've pulled up graphs that mark the level of state-ownership that is present in an economy, not graphs that represent political ideology or anything beyond that. For example, where would Keynes be placed upon such a graph? He wasn't a free marketer, but didn't propose nationalisation. What about Corporatism? Where does that fit on your little graph? In fact, your two latest graphs offer no information about liberalism at all, they just use umbrella economic definitions and simplyify things.

The Political Compass has a nice explaination of where US politics lie and can give you an idea of how far away US liberalism is from socialism.

At the moment, which is just before I go to bed, I have to say one thing that I will (probably tomorrow) explain.

Fuck right off. Socialism and liberalism the same thing? Socialism supporting a mixed economy? FUCK OFF. You guys seriously don't know shit about political theory if that's your shitty little argument.

Man, I've never been more angered by a picture in my life. How fucking pig shit thick are you? Seriously?

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Well...

You didn't mention anything about the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. In fact, you didn't mention anything that is to do with socialism, unless you work on the binary assumption that if something is not (narrowly-defined) capitalism, then it is socialism.....which is just plain stupid. To make an honest case you would have to present a (good) definition of socialism (something along the lines of calls for the nationalisation of a number of industries, subsidisation of a number of essential foodstuffs, the complete nationalisation of healthcare, etc) and then match up "Liberals" to these policies.

On a side note, do any Americans actually understand what socialism is and where it is located in the political spectrum? Have any of you honestly studied it?

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

So.....Liberals dislike the theory of evolution and Conservatives have been pushing for it to be taught in schools?

I was considering that. I think that liberals oppose it because it supports moral absolutes and objectivism, and conservatives support it because they see it as a form of national/social unity.

What the fuck? Liberals don't oppose the theory of evolution, I was using it as a counter-example to your claim of Liberal dislike of science. It's Conservatives who have been pushing for non-scientific, non-"objective" crappy "Crationist science".

Of course, the science shows that creation theory is wrong, but that doesn't stop people - the same way liberals still support socialism even though it has a horrific track record.

"Liberals", in any sense of the word, do not support socialism. They are two entirely different ideas that occupy discrete areas of the political spectrum.

Anyhow, I think you have to understand that people tend to support welfare not on the grounds of undermining the chances of hard-working people getting their just rewards, but instead enhancing it - they don't (rightly) believe that a meritocratic system exists and that the playing field must be levelled before we can talk of letting people "sink or swim".

Right but income is mostly determined by mental ability, and that is mostly inherited.

Income is mostly determined by what class you were born in, as the study I linked to already said. And "mental ability" is co-determined by nuture and nature.

Today we clearly have a meritocracy, since any free market system is really be definition a meritocracy.

Unless you decide that the way that a free market works is a meritocratic way, then no, you can't define it that way.

There are a few exceptions to meritocracy, like affirmative action for women and minorities, but we mostly see that it's liberals supporting these measures and not conservatives.

There are a number of exceptions to meritocracy....such as reality. America is a class-stratified society where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Opportunities for advancement are limited and social problems stem from this.

I would make actual arguments for these views, but since you seem content to simply state your views in opposition to mine without any explaination I can't honestly be bothered wasting the time.

Conversely, Liberals delve into art and literature as a way of fulfilling the power process. Since there's no objective concept of good in the arts, the power process can be relieved. A person can succeed as an artist through pure effort, the same is not necessarily true of fields like engineering and math, where there are objective standards of success.

Liberals likewise try to oppose things like objective logic and science, since it supports the natural differences between human beings.

So.....Liberals dislike the theory of evolution and Conservatives have been pushing for it to be taught in schools?

Anyhow, I think you have to understand that people tend to support welfare not on the grounds of undermining the chances of hard-working people getting their just rewards, but instead enhancing it - they don't (rightly) believe that a meritocratic system exists and that the playing field must be levelled before we can talk of letting people "sink or swim".

Conservatives:

-People who want lower taxes
-People who believe in meritocracy

Urm, Conservatives tend to think that there is a meritocracy, rather than believe it is a principle that should be moved towards. Needless to say, a belief that meritocracy already exists leads them to some very strange positions.

At 4/17/08 04:51 PM, TheMason wrote: AI6200, there are also classical definitions of those terms as well...something modern ideological discourse is moving away from and going into a morass of perjorative and ambigiousness.

Classical Conservativism
This is a belief that the individual should not be trusted with government. This was the dominant political philosophy of fuedal Europe. This is an ideological philosophy no longer seen in democratic societies in the West.

Urm, what? "Classical" Conservatism could refer to any number of different ideas. You seem to be taking a Burkean view - that human nature is inherently bad and that without government life would be "nasty, brutish and short" and thus government is necessary - but while that may be seen as influential on Conservatism, Conservatism itself has defined itself as pragmatic and working on the basis of tradition (which represents the wisdom of our forebears and, as such, should not be trifled with lightly.)

Classical Socialism
This is really the dominant ideology of Europe's left. This ideology holds that the government should intervene to "level the playing field". It is really a combination of Classical Conservativism and Liberalism. The government is not all pervasive and it is representative democracy. However, the government needs to step in and right social wrongs and inequalities.

Urm.....no. "Classical" Socialism (again, a broad term) was revolutionary and represented a different strand of thought than both Conservatism and Liberalism. Socialism, in its "classical" form, could actually be said to have started with Marx and it was much later when it became less revolutionary than him.

Children's upbringing is more problematic for atheists, agnostics and other secularists. Any atheist who abhors religious indoctrination of children, is painfully aware that it would be just as bad to raise your children as atheists.

I wouldn't have a problem. It's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in UFOs, it's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in the yeti. It could only be considered indoctrination if what you are teaching your children is a belief and atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief.

I'm not saying I would push my views, but I wouldn't avoid the subject if my kids asked and even if I did slightly push my views it wouldn't be quite the same as religious intdoctrination (y'know, with the whole book, church and celebration thing.)

My understanding of the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the fetus should be granted personhood at some period before it is born.

Sorry, but the "scientific evidence" will depend on your definition of personhood. Anyone want to sort out a definition of a person that includes a fetus, but (using the same criteria that is not based on arbitrary discrimination between species) not include a dolphin? Remember that pesonhood is a moral attribute, not a scientific or properly defined attribute.

At 4/16/08 06:18 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 4/15/08 11:01 PM, Grammer wrote:

As I stated in the thread in General forum before it died, it has been scientifically proven that violent media, including video games, increase aggressive tendencies.

You can't actually prove anything in science, hard proves are generally only reserved for mathematics.

If you want to go down this philosophical road....... "Proof" in Mathematics only works within the boundaries of the axioms that form the basis of the subject. It's a glorious mindfuck to think of these things. Mainly because people rarely look at them.

I'm not sure about the US, but it's relatively easy to start a Uni society (my sister started a conservation society and my brother a poker one.) You could always try that.

Is anything that suggests that there is some relationship between primates and humans considered to be a anti-religious remark in the US?

Stop oppressing me with your scientific theories!

You say they have no blood there....yet most families have been living there for over a century. Is America not a nation then? Because the people have no "blood to the land"? Or are you going to invent a new idea of nationhood?

No, I'm saying most arabs didn't even have belonging there until the late 60s with a mass influx of arab immigrants after the war in '67.

"The modern "Palestinian" was designated as such as a propaganda tool by the arab league in 1967 so people assume that they were from palestine. This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire."

Yawn. Can't even keep to your own story?

The majority of arabs living in that land would be in what modern day Jordan is, and therefore have no real claim to historical times.

Buuuuuuuuuulllllllllllllllllllllllssssss sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt ttttttttttttttttt.

The part that was Israel was mostly desert and uninhabitable. During the late 1800s to early 1900s, the Jews drained the swamps, irrigated the deserts, and turned Israel to what it is today.

Oh please. Stop trying to claim that it was empty land - a desert that was turned into a paradise.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

It proves that Jews were palestinians prior to Israel's birth. And if you cannot follow that, the illogical person be you.

No, it proves that there were Jews that lived in Palestine prior to the birth of Israel.....and what does this prove? What is the point of saying this? Has anyone here disputed that there has been a small number of Jews that have lived in the region for god knows how many years? Or that there were a number of Zionist Aliyahs prior to 1948?

Another quick question, can anyone explain a concept of nationhood, which does not rely on statehood, that would support the idea of Israelis as a people, but not Palestinians? The reason for excluding definitions based on statehood is because, in theory, a nation legitimately deserves a state and trying to reverse this makes no sense.

You misinterpreted me entirely. The Palestinians never had control of what Israel is today.

You missed the point entirely - what is nationhood and what is the definition of a "people"?

And don't confuse Palestinians with arabs or it shows that you don't know that much about your middle eastern history.

Not all Arabs are Palestinian, but Palestinians are Arabs.

Of all the arguments about Israel that there is, this is by far the most stupid. Trying to assign (and deny) nationhood on the basis of very sketchy history just isn't a good argument.

The modern "Palestinian" was designated as such as a propaganda tool by the arab league in 1967 so people assume that they were from palestine. This is NOT the case as most do not have any blood to the land. In fact, most are arabs who were dumped there in the late 1800s to keep the jews a minority by the Ottoman empire.

You say they have no blood there....yet most families have been living there for over a century. Is America not a nation then? Because the people have no "blood to the land"? Or are you going to invent a new idea of nationhood?

I've already said that I've seen the cover of a Jewish prayer book, one not used by muslims, and on the cover it says The Palastinian Haggadah (jewish prayer book for passover). Date? 1937. You might notice countless newspapers from Palestine. I've seen them as early as 1908-1948. What language are they? They're all in hebrew. In fact, the only people prior to 1967 that were ever considered palestinians were Jews.

Err....what? Your "evidence" doesn't even lead to your conclusions, unless you honestly consider seeing things in hewbrew proof that there weren't things in other languages (in which case you need some major major lessons in logic.)

Another thing you need a lesson in is the history of political ideas. Prior to the 19th Century there was NO idea that people belonged to a land - that nations (with geographical boundaries) existed. There was rulers and subjects, no citizens, no nation-states, nothing. It is historical fiction to project modern ideas on to ancient history (please also note that ancient Israel was an empire - land was taken by force and claiming legitimacy from the ancient ownership of the lands is the endorsement of the idea of might is right.)

Another quick question, can anyone explain a concept of nationhood, which does not rely on statehood, that would support the idea of Israelis as a people, but not Palestinians? The reason for excluding definitions based on statehood is because, in theory, a nation legitimately deserves a state and trying to reverse this makes no sense.

Quick question: when did the suicide bombings and general (that is to say, widespread) terrorist operations by the Palestinians begin?

Follow-on question: In light of this information, does anyone want to change their narrative of Israel's history and the supposed intentions of the Palestinians?

At 4/1/08 09:13 PM, MarioBegins wrote: They don't have to pay the taxes so they should stay off the U.S. internet and keep their far-left opinions to themselves.

So many different ways to go. I mean, I could point to, say, my sign-up date and compare with yours. Which would be based on the view that its users and not the owners who actually make a forum and a kind of "I was here first, so fuck off" type argument. I could also point to the fact that US taxes have nothing to do with this forum (unless you want to posit the argument that this is, in fact, a government funded website (I know that Wade's views tend to coincide with the views of the government/fox news.) Or I could even point to the fact that most users on the forums dont yet pay taxes...even if they are American.

There is no negotiating, no diplomacy, these people can only be met with the bayonet, not the olive branch.

It's true. I'm still under constant fear of attack by the IRA. The British Government failed to wipe them out and I have to suffer the ever lasting threat of people who hate my way of life and want to kill my babies.

I'm also afraid of the threat of Eztel - I was in a hotel just the other day!

You are the sheriff in a town where there is racial tension. A black man rapes a white woman, which results in race riots. White mobs start assaulting and killing black people. They are set to kill hundreds. You have the power to stop the killings by picking a black man you know to be innocent and lying to the mob about his guilt. If you lie to them they will hang him.

What do you do and why?

This is a bit of a weak situation because it gives you a situation and one choice. So, while I do have the power to stop the killings by picking a black man I know to be innocent, I could just pick one who has always been a bit of a bastard, in and out of jail - that sort of thing.

Which is what I'd probably do, come to think of it. If I couldn't actually stop the rednecks (which is my first choice) then I'm in a situation where I have to think openly and pragmatically.

Have you got to the Indian/South American prisoner situation yet?

I'm not sure about most else that you guys have been discussing (as in, my mind is not made up on the issue) but i certainly think the British/European way of specific degrees is better than the major/minor system. I got the latitude of the US system in my first year (when it counted for very little) and then the depth of the British system in the past few years. I haven't "majored" in politics, I've just studied it, and only it, for the past three years. I don't want to fuck around with other subjects (except related ones that we kinda cover anyway.)

I supose its a bit different when you haven't been chopping down subjects since you were 16. I mean, I studied Politics, Philosophy and (Modern American and British) History between 16-18.

I think an independent, appointed cabinet is one of the advantages of presidentialism over parliamentarianism. One of the things about a parliamentarian "cabinet" is that those positions are typically filled by members of parliament and are subject to party censure. This is problematic when the executive is relying upon ministers (or cabinet secretaries) to give independent advice and management of their respective agencies.

I disagree with this point on the basis of knowledge of the foremost parliamentary system of government - Britain. While the cabinet is held to the principle of collective cabinet responsibility (which means if they don't agree with a decision and vote against it they are expected to resign from the cabinet (like Robin Cook did)) they are allowed to advise the Prime Minister freely during the time spent as a cabinet and express opposing opinions during this time - they offer independent advice.

This debate could be fun, so I'll throw this out there. Do you not think that a cabinet appointed by a single individual (rather than indirectly influenced by the opinions of the public) would be liable to be subject to ideological blindness? Would a cabinet selected by most individuals give a singular answer, rather than an array of answers? (This is slightly related to neo-conservatism in the current American administration.)

I thought about and I have decided that I would left it. I don't think its right to sacrifice someones life to save five other people. Even though you are saving more lives, your intervention killed an innocent person who shouldn't have died, had I not been there.

Obvious point here - you were there and your inaction let 4 more (innocent) people die. I wonder, what would you say if there wasn't one person on another track - it was empty - but there were still 5 people on the track and you are able to divert the train. If you didn't do it, would you hold yourself responsible, would you feel you had killed them?

Is the idea that the rights of the individual should be respected a good idea? Yes.
Also, is the idea that the rights of a group can trump the rights of an individual a good idea? Yes.
Is there a tension between these two ideas? Yes.
Do I have a problem with this tension? Nope.

I would. Five lives or one life.....I go with five on the basis of the sanctity of life :)

At which point does the fat man come into it?

There is very little to understand about subject like these. History: All you need is a good writing mind, but the rest is honest to god memory.

I'll agree with you on biology, economics and geography (particularly economics), but history? History is about creating a narrative - about connecting the dots. You do require a fair amount of memory, but its based more on the creation of a good argument. Half the "debates" on this forum are about conflicting views of history and historical events.

Can you think of a better way than this memory test on a way to check someones aptitudes in other aspects. Yes. They're called DATs. A general aptitude test that shows in detail someones qualities in a intellectual aspect, but will it surfice for the education system?

It has to be a memory test. Please discuss, It has me driving up the wall!

I had a quick look on google and the Irish system looks very similar to the English system (although at 18 we only do three subjects.) Based on this, I disagree with your view that the exams are "memory tests". While I accept that a large part of the marking is about having remembered certain facts, the other part is based on your analysis and use of the facts (and, in a number of subjects, writing style.) For example, maths exams that involve memorised formula/methods still require you to understand (based on your analysis) which formula/method to apply to which question.

And then there is also the part of your grade that is made up by coursework.

As for IQ tests, I don't think they would be a good idea. This is because they don't reward hard work and effort, just natural abilities. I know that if IQ tests were how they decided grades/whatever that I would have done even less work at school and got a better result in the end - clever people who tend towards being lazy are not pushed at all and can breeze through, whereas hard-working people of normal intelligence are not rewarded.

No, real political philosophies need to be tested with science - hence the major political SCIENCE.

There's a huge debate about whether politics can be studied as a science. While it is the case that since the Behaviouralist revolution of the 1950s Americans have adopted the position that you can study politics as a science, the British remain unconvinced - which is why I have a degree in Government and Politics Studies, not Political Science. And while it is the case that some areas of politics lend themselves to scientific methodolgy (particularly election and voting studies) I have never seen a scientific approach to political philosophy and ideology.

Of course, you can't usually isolate variables or perform experiments the way one can in a hard-science, but political scientists still try to follow the scientific method with the information that they have.

You know, there is only one "law" in political science (Duverger's) and even that doesn't always apply. Its really not a scientific subject.

Also, if by philosophically valid, you mean "proven", then you're hopelessly off-base, since it's much harder to prove something with logic than it is to support it with evidence.

I didn't mean that. By philosophically valid I meant that from their premises their conclusions follow - there are no gaps in logic. It doesn't have to be (and never actually is) proven, just consistant.

So if we're to use your standards, then socialism is either perfect or real socialism doesn't exist, your theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not scientifically valid!

Scientific validity.....in Political Philosophy?! Get out of here.

Seriously, what political philosophy is scientifically valid and since when has that been the aim of political philosophy? I was always under the impression that it aims to be philosophically valid.

Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

I love how people never qualify their statements when it comes to economics and politics. It's never "I believe so and so" it's always "This is the case." Take the sentence for above. Is there any explaination of the premises of belief (such as a belief in human nature, the invisible hand, etc, etc) that produce such a dogmatic statement? Nope, just a statement of belief, plain and simple.

Would you feel better if I said that markets are USUALLY a lot more efficient than governments. I mean, it's a qualified statement.

I would feel better, there still would be bones of contention.

Or would you rather I said that a study of the past 5,000 years of economic history, beginning with the ancient Egyptians and encompassing every major civilization including the present-day nation states leads me to the conclusion that markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments?

I would rather you didn't say that. I mean, there would be methodological issues with seperating the subject of investigation from the normative assumptions that underlie the investigation. Plus, there would be huge historical and political issues when it came to classifying governments and government action. Lastly, there would also be a relative paucity of examples of government economic action prior to the last century or so, with the exception of times of warfare.

But hey, if you want to gloss over those rather basic problems, it's not me you have to satisfy.

Or would you rather I say that, based upon the consensus of modern economists, markets are USUALLY more efficient than governments, with a few, well-defined and irrelevant to the current conversation, exceptions?

Again, I wouldn't be happy relying on the "consensus" of economists. Mainly because economists try to obscure (through the use of maths and models) the fact that the basis of their analysis is predicated on a certain set of highly contestable beliefs.

And is it a sufficiently qualified statement that I believe it is USUALLY the case that if someone knows enough to make a passing reference to the invisible hand during the course of a discussion on economics, that I believe that person should have the intelligence to realize that statements that a layman may consider to be dogmatic are, in fact, implicitly qualified when written in the context of a fairly knowledgeable forum?

In my quite considerable experience of debates and conversations about politics the vast majority of people have not implicitly qualified their statements with such things as "I believe", as for them it is not a matter of belief, but of fact.

And that when said person decides to cry "DOGMA!" despite the fact that it has been obvious that the participants of the discussion are fairly intelligent, that it is my OPINION that said crier is a CUNT?

My my, aren't we aggressive? In my own experience it is people who are intelligent who are most likely to not wish to discuss their underlying system of beliefs. It tends to realy grate at people that however much they want to believe that their arguments are rational (and, more to the point, true) they realise there are some things which they just believe in (and, also,

Markets are a lot more efficient than governments.

I love how people never qualify their statements when it comes to economics and politics. It's never "I believe so and so" it's always "This is the case." Take the sentence for above. Is there any explaination of the premises of belief (such as a belief in human nature, the invisible hand, etc, etc) that produce such a dogmatic statement? Nope, just a statement of belief, plain and simple.