ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: brendan on October 31, 2007, 01:06:21 pm
-
Australian: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
Non-Australian: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
me: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fadd451c6ae91cd751904a561969f20
-
Haha I'm in the centre :)
-
post a link to your results :P
edit: nvm i found ya : http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=897c83f7aeca47370f14d5b05262b330
i think your the complete opposite to me: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fadd451c6ae91cd751904a561969f20
-
post a link to your results :P
edit: nvm i found ya : http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=897c83f7aeca47370f14d5b05262b330
i think your the complete opposite to me: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fadd451c6ae91cd751904a561969f20
Haha thats odd :)...Family First Party =] lol
-
post a link to your results :P
edit: nvm i found ya : http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=897c83f7aeca47370f14d5b05262b330
i think your the complete opposite to me: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fadd451c6ae91cd751904a561969f20
Haha thats odd :)...Family First Party =] lol
it says to only take it seriously if you get above 80% match. The most informative scales are the 3 bottom ones: "Economic policy", "Social Policy" and "Traditional values"
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=298f0bd79755351f85b54542c93f62b1
I don't deviate much from the middle in any of them ^_^ (especially the first one xD)
I like this bit: "Do not use this test to decide how to vote at an election."
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.75&soc=-4.51
^ the other one
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=c9a735d0d4c7ca93777db62bcc8984e5
interesting. look how far left my traditional values one is! gosh. i would have thought my eco one would have been a bit more to the right
-
"Your social policy score reports the extent to which you think the state should be providing services for its citizens and protecting its citizens from making decisions that could be harmful (in social policy areas other than those covered by the traditional values score). A negative score means you believe the state should, on more issues than not, intervene in the social lives of its citizens as a force for good."
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=923292188515cb0e8fe9cb271464ca6f
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.13&soc=-1.79
I thought I was more center left lol.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6d83671ea19e8eb31dd71be9e69964e1
Either the greens or the democrats apparently (both above 80%). I found it odd that they labelled me as economically left, I thought my views have grown much more right wing since I started doing economics. Nothing else is a surprise though.
-
Either the greens or the democrats apparently (both above 80%). I found it odd that they labelled me as economically left, I thought my views have grown much more right wing since I started doing economics. Nothing else is a surprise though.
you sure are a leftie :P: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6d83671ea19e8eb31dd71be9e69964e1
-
post a link to your results :P
edit: nvm i found ya : http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=897c83f7aeca47370f14d5b05262b330
i think your the complete opposite to me: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3fadd451c6ae91cd751904a561969f20
Haha thats odd :)...Family First Party =] lol
it says to only take it seriously if you get above 80% match. The most informative scales are the 3 bottom ones: "Economic policy", "Social Policy" and "Traditional values"
Oh well im a bit of everything then :P lol
-
Heh, I have the political compass one on my Facebook.
Economic Left/Right: 6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
Lost the link for my OzPolitics one but I got around 70% for the Libs as my best match.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=8242ac4e78b7e067c2555ca4536a294a
lol, nothing I didn't already know :P
EDIT: wait, WHAT?
Greens: 72.2%
Australian Democrats: 76.4%
ooook ...
-
seems like u are pretty socially/morally conservative: "Your traditional values score is 48.8%. This equates to a ?Right? position"
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=291163f976aef6cf6449faec51ce147e
65.1% Family First
64.7% Liberal Party....
Politics stink.
If politics stinks, then I assume you probably think government should stop getting in the way of your life. Therefore, I pose to you this: let people do what they want, as long as it does not endanger the lives of other people.
The government should not make decisions for us, like whether we should be allowed to take certain drugs or not, because these can only hurt ourselves, and it was our choice. Therefore, I believe your political apathy should be turned into one that resents government intervention, and is for minimal government.
However, according to your score, you don't believe this. You want the government to maintain "traditional" values which will get in the way of freedom of life, and may very well be the reason why you (and others) believe politics stinks.
My friend (libertarian) was campaigning one day, and approached someone who immediately responded "nah mate, I hate government." My friend responded, "yeah, me too!" The guy was surprised, and he listened to hear more about his ideas. Ultimately, I agree that politics should take a small part of our lives, that government becomes so regulated and restricted that it cannot become dangerous to us, and it doesn't matter who the figurehead of the state is anymore.
-
squance.. do you mind me asking what your views are which give you such a strongly right stance on traditional views? just because its unusual, a lot of young people are often much more to the left on traditional views than older generations..
why was i like -93% to the left on that one hahahaha do i have no traditional morals?? haha nah i duno.
-
why was i like -93% to the left on that one hahahaha do i have no traditional morals?? haha nah i duno.
Well, you may very well have personal traditional morals, but you just have the understanding to allow others to decide on their own morals, rather than nationalise and standardise a concrete set of morals that everyone should follow. I mean, you might be Christian and may not ever want to be gay, because you want to uphold the word of your God, but that doesn't mean you would want to make it illegal for everyone, and plus, according to Christianity he'd be forgiven anyway.
I mean, it's very possible to believe in saving sex till after marriage, but also understanding it's a private matter and every individual chooses on their own. Your political view differs from your moral view.
-
lol, family first
don't they want to burn lesbians and such?
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=e93e845c02a40920c668d30220af7f21
-
astarael is a socialist !
-
Firstly, I don't think it's very constructive to label them socialists. I'd call them idealists. I'm an idealist too, but just with a more pragmatic approach, without conceding my values for some half-arsed goal.
It's normal for the youth to be inclined to the left. They like this idea that life shouldn't be such a struggle, that those higher than us shouldn't have it all for themselves. Somehow, they believe that they are exploiting us, and that we are losing out from them. We have this culture of disdain against our bosses and jealousy of the suppliers of essential goods. The idea that the higher are exploiting the lower is nonsense: the world is not zero-sum. There does not necessarily need to be losers if there are winners, that fallacious idea was shed long ago. Trades are mutually beneficial, otherwise the parties involved would not agree.
"Do not hold the delusion that your advancement is accomplished by crushing others." ? Marcus Tullius Cicero
The redistribution of wealth is appealing to many, but under simple economic arguments, the leftist argument no longer holds up. It destroys the necessary incentives that lead to the efficient allocation of resources envisioned by classical economists. When the rich and resourceful are taxed disproportionately by a progressive tax system, the incentive for the rich to provide and supply investment for people is reduced. Their earnings and ventures are eaten away by government. It is best to let them do what they do best: to invest in growing firms, and consequently providing jobs for workers.
Another problem with leftist economics is that despite it's vision to protect the poor, every policy designed by leftists directly hurts the poor, or inhibits their potential to transcend from rags to riches via fair opportunity. The illusion that the government tries to purport with ideas such as the minimum wage merely masks the "rags" from the poor. By simple logical principles, a minimum wage will stop unskilled workers from getting jobs. If a worker's unskilled labour is valued at $5/hr, and both parties agree, why should the government stop this trade? Minimum wage prevents the pairing of two individuals who would benefit from mutual benefits, and for no good reason! Other examples would be the taxing the rich, as explained above, would reduce investment capital, which means less jobs in the aggregate economy are available for workers. Or, even social welfare: the poor become dependent and there is simply no incentive to drive poor people to contribute to society.
The leftist belief destroys fair opportunities in exchange for "fair outcomes." Fair meaning equal of course, but equal to what? Person A might be equal to Person B, who might be equal to Person C, but what amount do all these people receive? Certainly not as much as the average wage in a free-market society. The incentives in a free-market society are the driving force for an efficient organisation of resources. The allocation of resources under a free-market rewards those who invest time and effort into innovation and labour. Would you pick fair opportunity, or fair outcome?
One concern of the youth of today is the lack of attention to civil liberties. It is an unfortunate case that the left tend to be the champions of social freedoms, and by default, the youth become indoctrinated in the left. People automatically dismiss the importance of economic freedom because they think: what would politicians know about freedom if they don't even care about rudimentary social freedoms such as the right to gay marriage? I mean, what does it matter if two people consent to a gay marriage. It doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect you, so why are we banning it?
However, there is a group that responds to both economic and social freedoms. They are called free-market libertarians, and they believe in both social freedom and economic freedom.
-
Fair meaning equal of course, but equal to what? Person A might be equal to Person B, who might be equal to Person C, but what amount do all these people receive? Certainly not as much as the average wage in a free-market society. The incentives in a free-market society are the driving force for an efficient organisation of resources. Would you pick fair opportunity, or fair outcome?
For a discussion as to what a "Fair Go" supposedly means see http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn04/autumn04-1.htm
"The ?fair go? is a clich?, but it is a very powerful one. Most of us would be hard-pushed to come up with a clear definition, still less to identify the criteria by which it might be recognised, but it retains enormous symbolic significance because of its association with Australian national identity. To be Australian is to believe in the ?fair go?, even if it is not always clear what this means in practice..."
It destroys the necessary incentives that lead to the efficient allocation of resources envisioned by classical economists. When the rich and resourceful are taxed disproportionately by a progressive tax system, the incentive for the rich to provide and supply investment for people is reduced. Their earnings and ventures are eaten away by government. It is best to let them do what they do best: to invest in growing firms, and consequently providing jobs for workers.
http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1676
http://www.nber.org/confer/2007/pef07/shleifer.pdf
"Our data reveal a consistent and large adverse effect of corporate taxation on both investment and entrepreneurship. A 10 percentage point increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces the investment to GDP ratio by about 2 percentage points (mean is 21%), and the official entry rate by 1.3 percentage points (mean is 8%)."
http://www.biz.uwa.edu.au/home/research/discussionworking_papers/economics?f=162134
"In the 1970s, work hours in Europe were similar to work hours in America, but today Europeans work less than Americans. Prescott (2004) attributes the decline in European work hours to an increase in the effective marginal tax rate on labour income. The Australian labour market experience confirms that the taxation of labour income is an important determinant of the decision to work."
http://www.cis.org.au/policy_monographs/pm68.pdf
"a dollar increase in government revenue ends up costing far more in real terms than the dollar paid in taxes ? While tax revenues may be spent by government on beneficial uses, these benefits have to be weighed against the ?deadweight losses? (basically the value of lost output) incurred as a result of levying the tax in the first place"
-
astarael is a socialist !
haha lol
i have marched with socialist alliance once or twice, but that was against the war in iraq - they just so happened to be organising the march.
lol, did anyone else hear about that 22 y.o. family first member who was ejected from the party after they found out he was like in a porno or something? i laughed quite hard when i read that.
-
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MENTIONING 'FAIR GO'
Example for english language of overused meaningless phrases that isn't mentioned in text books/assessment reports, and is in current-day use. I love you!
And the family first guy was a unspeakable site-er. The NSW people generally didnt like him and then a bunch of people pretended to be fangirls or something on msn in order to get pictures, and then spread them xD
So good to see chaser bag the hell out of him xD
-
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MENTIONING 'FAIR GO'
Example for english language of overused meaningless phrases that isn't
i tell you what else is meaningless the term "un-Australian"
-
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MENTIONING 'FAIR GO'
Example for english language of overused meaningless phrases that isn't
i tell you what else is meaningless the term "un-Australian"
yeah you're right :) Except that one has become overused in english language (it was even above one of the essay questions in the vate practise exam this year. Apparently it's defined in the dictionary xD)
It's so annoying, you have to avoid using examples from the text books as much as possible to show you have a greater understanding of things blah blah :[
Fair go I have never seen mentioned but!!! =D
-
raging debate with colin and some random guy: http://www.xanga.com/coblin/625058576/why-are-young-people-socialists.html
-
bump
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=60ed2f0eca3be58f9c40f40bf09ff0a0
-
thats a pretty high one nation score there :p
-
Seems like I am by far the most central on many issues.
Especially on the economic questions... I was very reluctant to go either substantially one way or the other, partly because I think both government interventions and the free market have positives and negatives and this current stage in my life I am unwilling to choose one over the other.
Edit. I think I have much more education to go through before I make my decision on economic policies and such.
-
I've always been a fan of Pauline...
Psych. :P
-
Oh.. maybe I got such a high One nation score because I put strongly agree for
"all migrants to Australia should be fluent in English" hehehe
-
well in the absence of the welfare state and hence the creation of perverse incentives, i would have complete free immigration, like the USA in the early 1900s. If there wasn't a welfare state as we have now, the only logical limitation would be denying people who have diseases or a criminal record.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=41d5cb3a8efee02031b4aa738dbd9475
-
my friend you are a libertarian/classical liberal
-
Am i ?
wow lol, i never knew :D
hehe
I was gonna vote liberal anyway
-
yup check out the wikipedia articles on libertarianism and classical liberalism.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
interesting......
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
interesting......
Give the full link mate :)
-
is this you kopite? http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=88fdfb6eac97dd62128eb03a1babcab2
-
is this you kopite? http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=88fdfb6eac97dd62128eb03a1babcab2
yeah thats the one....how do u find ppl??? i just copied and pasted the url when i finished.
-
i'm family first. DDDD=
-
"Your economic policy score score is -33.9%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position" <- leftie :P
free trade, low taxes FTW!
-
i'm family first. DDDD=
Really?
-
"Your economic policy score score is -33.9%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position" <- leftie :P
free trade, low taxes FTW!
lol only for economics though...the rest is either centre or right lol
-
I personally like this test:
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php
-
lol only for economics though...the rest is either centre or right lol
chiristian communist :)
-
I personally like this test:
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, free-trade, liberal-market kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of libertarian. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.
Individual vs Social
You scored 9 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
Theist vs Materialist
You scored 81 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
Big Government vs Small Government
You scored 100 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
You scored 69 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
You scored 100 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
You scored 86 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
-
lol only for economics though...the rest is either centre or right lol
chiristian communist :)
pfft...
EDIT: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=efd4c0a80e9a52c94d7c01b63c16b874
-
EDIT: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
That doesn't work :(
EDIT: I found yours and fixed your post. :)
-
EDIT: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/
That doesn't work :(
EDIT: I found yours and fixed your post. :)
thanks.
-
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, materialist, small-government, internationalist, free-trade, non-absolutist, liberal-market kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.
You scored 17 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
You scored 82 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate
You scored 81 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
You scored 100 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
You scored 94 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
You scored 70 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
-
I just did that quiz, what a strange result lol ...
here's the link:
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/poforesults.php
-
If you learn from yesterday's failures, then today?s successes will be many
-
If you learn from yesterday's failures, then today?s successes will be many
Random, but true :)
-
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a free-trade, non-absolutist, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist. - I'm not considered to be too much =/
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of uncategorisable theist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Morals & Ethics area.
You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
You scored 40 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
You scored 46 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
You scored 57 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
You scored 62 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
You scored 69 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
You scored 41 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
You scored 62 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
I tried to choose a lot of strong agree/disagree compared to the last quiz and I'm still in the middle >_<
-
In a few words what do libertarians/classical liberals believe? We believe that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
-
If you learn from yesterday's failures, then today?s successes will be many
hehe true :P
-
In a few words what do libertarians/classical liberals believe? We believe that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
I read it as being... there shouldnt be laws that restrict a persons free will, even if exercising that will caused harm to themselves... that a person should have the right to choose their own actions as long as it didnt harm anyone elses rights.
we oppose stupid laws like no fireworks, and helmets on bicycles lol ...
things where the govt restricts you and says theyre protecting you.
-
In a few words what do libertarians/classical liberals believe? We believe that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
I read it as being... there shouldnt be laws that restrict a persons free will, even if exercising that will caused harm to themselves... that a person should have the right to choose their own actions as long as it didnt harm anyone elses rights.
we oppose stupid laws like no fireworks, and helmets on bicycles lol ...
things where the govt restricts you and says theyre protecting you.
Well said. You both highlight the concerns of the libertarian :)
-
what about seatbelts? do libertarians disagree with seatbelts?
-
what about seatbelts? do libertarians disagree with seatbelts?
We don't disagree with "seatbelts," but we disagree with mandatory seatbelts. Wearing a seatbelt is in your interests, because it protects your life in the event of a car crash. If you choose not to do it, your loss.
-
We don't disagree with "seatbelts," but we disagree with mandatory seatbelts. Wearing a seatbelt is in your interests, because it protects your life in the event of a car crash. If you choose not to do it, your loss.
hm.. i duno. Seatbelts have saved alot of lives (haha i'm sure that's an ad) and people would never have embraced them had they not been made mandatory imo. When they first came out everyone hated them. And what about children? They don't really get a choice, should their parents be able to decide?
-
Well if you're in an accident and you're not wearing a seat belt and you die and the roads have to be blocked off for hours because you chose not to wear a seatbelt then it could kinda piss people off lol.
Not to mention that it would just add to the crippling health system if you had to be rushed to hospital in a critical condition.
In that instance I would say if you didn't wear a seatbelt you shouldnt have the right to health care because you made the choice to endanger your own life.
-
yeah I agree with the whole libertarian thing but I don't think government intervention is always evil.
I also don't think that if someone dies because they don't wear a seatbelt it only affects them. It affects their family, their community etc.
-
But wearing a seatbelt could cause harm too, my friend was in an accident a few years ago... she was wearing a seatbelt, and thanks to the seatbelt her intestines were squashed, she needed to have an operation..
-
In that instance I would say if you didn't wear a seatbelt you shouldnt have the right to health care because you made the choice to endanger your own life.
the right to have the taxpayer subsidise your healthcare you mean.
-
In that instance I would say if you didn't wear a seatbelt you shouldnt have the right to health care because you made the choice to endanger your own life.
the right to have the taxpayer subsidise your healthcare you mean.
Haha, yeah. Here's an example of where government intervention (social welfare) has created an economic externality, and then to fix it, we require more government intervention (which can create more externalities, and result in a vicious loop of big government).
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=f5b035107175273c3923f57312b73cd6
check it out :lol:
-
"Your traditional values score is 87.1%. This equates to a ?Far Right? position"
"Your economic policy score score is -23%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position"
:shock:
-
"Your traditional values score is 87.1%. This equates to a ?Far Right? position"
"Your economic policy score score is -23%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position"
:shock:
Oh god. :(
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=c18b082bfc1ec1cad70e9ba4782af076
-
Your economic policy score score is -25.7%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position
Your social policy score is -66%. This equates to a ?Left? position
:shock:
-
Your economic policy score score is -25.7%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position
Your social policy score is -66%. This equates to a ?Left? position
:shock:
At least she's not a socially conservative Christian communist.
-
Your economic policy score score is -25.7%. This equates to a ?Centre Left? position
Your social policy score is -66%. This equates to a ?Left? position
:shock:
At least she's not a socially conservative Christian communist.
LMAO
-
What? Her traditional values are far from conservative :)
Here is mine:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=bbfb783a85ec48b2d521ca20cb48fb89
Third time I've done it... I've lost the links to the other ones though (brendan had my first one)
-
lol only for economics though...the rest is either centre or right lol
chiristian communist :)
i'm not the one in a chinese uniform :/
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=004ae594efa7d4c08254424b2bd7d429
Greens Australian Democrats Labor Party
63.3% 61% 67.7%
Labor, baby! Kevin '07 :D
-
"Your economic policy score score is -46.4%. This equates to a ?Left? position" :?
-
It's not the most extreme.
I always knew I was a Labor kid. This just re-affirms it.
Funnily enough, my traditional values are pretty center as well. Even if slightly left.
-
Haha, they could have asked "Do you like the Chaser?" in trying to determine your traditional or libertarian values
-
"Do you like the Chaser?"
Yes!
-
"Do you like the Chaser?"
Yes!
Me too! I like it even better than Trigger Happy TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-gALplK3fs
which is saying something, although the latter is less satyrical
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=2991ee7b360c0d583658e8170f6241f7
And yes, I voted Labor today.
-
Democrats?? Don't think so
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=bd82b160b71a96f7469b93ac0486e280
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3513d21aab2e2ecd001ea87ab330bc13
pretty accurate - in the election i voted greens 1, dems 2, labor 3...
as far as other people go on this forum, looks like i was almost identical to eriny. surprised at how many people are centre right.
-
I'm centre-right, but no typical one. I have extremely "right" leaning economic values, but my traditional values are extremely to the left. Overall, I am "centre-right," but I think I am an extremist by most standards.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=3513d21aab2e2ecd001ea87ab330bc13
pretty accurate - in the election i voted greens 1, dems 2, labor 3...
as far as other people go on this forum, looks like i was almost identical to eriny. surprised at how many people are centre right.
Awesome! I voted the same, just the other way round for my 1st 2 preferences. [I voted Green for the senate.]
-
Snap. I voted Greens for the senate too.
-
Liberals - 80%
-
http://www.reformthelp.org/marketing/positioning/models.php
An article about reforming the nature of political distinctions.
Ever notice how sometimes a vehement argument can rage for hours, only to have the parties find out they were in agreement all along? Small differences in nomenclature—in definitions or logic—can make apparent bitter foes out of folk who might have been natural allies. One reason for this recurring and sometimes tragic irony is the way we take to labels.
-
Are females more likely to be more labor/greens/democrats than one nation/liberals/nationals? Just wondering...
And I didn't put Family First there as it well known it one of the worst parties to be ever created... duh... talk about Christian conservatives...
My scores were:
Greens - 89.1%
Democrats - 82.1%
Labor Party - 78.3%
And sorry for reviving this thread... thought I had posted on it and I hadn't, and I love anything to do with political preferences :)
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=c18b082bfc1ec1cad70e9ba4782af076
SNAP :D I wonder if we put exactly the same answers
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6d198b6cead95e13afa695f6f8100ac0
Liberal - 67%
Labor - 59%
Nationals - 54%
lol?
-
And I didn't put Family First there as it well known it one of the worst parties to be ever created... duh... talk about Christian conservatives...
What percentage did you get for it? I thought you only listed your top 3, but you're implying that FF was part of your top 3 and you omitted it. Just curious, please clarify :)
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6d198b6cead95e13afa695f6f8100ac0
you are a 'classical liberal'/libertarian
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6d198b6cead95e13afa695f6f8100ac0
you are a 'classical liberal'/libertarian
i have socialist friends lol (friends who became socialists, rather then friends because their socialists :P)
-
And I didn't put Family First there as it well known it one of the worst parties to be ever created... duh... talk about Christian conservatives...
What percentage did you get for it? I thought you only listed your top 3, but you're implying that FF was part of your top 3 and you omitted it. Just curious, please clarify :)
wtf? She hardly could have a high ff % with those % [which happened to be exactly the same as mine] as her top 3
-
November 12
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=60ed2f0eca3be58f9c40f40bf09ff0a0
January 24
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=666a118342b03109271ebf0ecb2a6e20
-
November 12
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=60ed2f0eca3be58f9c40f40bf09ff0a0
January 24
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=666a118342b03109271ebf0ecb2a6e20
I reckon by about April you will be a FASCIST!!!
jks
-
And I didn't put Family First there as it well known it one of the worst parties to be ever created... duh... talk about Christian conservatives...
What percentage did you get for it? I thought you only listed your top 3, but you're implying that FF was part of your top 3 and you omitted it. Just curious, please clarify :)
wtf? She hardly could have a high ff % with those % [which happened to be exactly the same as mine] as her top 3
Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, she probably chopped it off at top 3 because her 4th was Family First, hah!
-
Hey, your economic policy has moved far to the right costargh! Good stuff, but I'm worried: why are your traditional values moving to the right? Have more tolerance brother ;)
-
Haha I don't know Collin. I think its just the mood I'm in. Sick of everyone lol. I'm suprised my traditional values have changed. I was less helpful for migrants etc on the 2nd test. I don't know why.
-
Um.... when I was talking about Family First, I was talking about it in reference to where females usually align themselves politically (does anyone have any research about that?), not what I got percentage wise for it. I thought because it is such a stupid party that then I wouldn't put it in the two groups I made: greens/democrats/labor and liberals/nationals/one nation.
And I redid the test as I thought it was a bit weird if I got the exact same results as someone - although I had already done the test, I might have pressed someone else's link. Somehow I doubt that, but then again.... I'm not that technologically able. So.... my new results were a bit less extreme and I was very annoyed that FF came 4th. :(
Here's my link:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=48d9e374c99340347c8d53bdab796fad
I'm glad that the greens came first :D
-
You have a quite attractive curve
-
Here is mine:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=bbfb783a85ec48b2d521ca20cb48fb89
You guys are fascists compared to me :) I might retake it, because I don't understand why I only got -77.5% for traditional values (should be -100%)
edit:
redid it http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=faed121cd4153b981d2a4c77d1e4a79b
-
Me in 04/05/2007
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=078e8dd0612c64dd03dd982f73849aea
Me in 24/01/2008
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=bf77d15ab3d5bae24097cbfc47a59019
"Your social policy score reports the extent to which you think the state should be providing services for its citizens and protecting its citizens from making decisions that could be harmful (in social policy areas other than those covered by the traditional values score). A negative score means you believe the state should, on more issues than not, intervene in the social lives of its citizens as a force for good. A positive score means you believe we are responsible enough to provide for ourselves and run our own lives free from excessive government intervention."
-
Where is everyone on the political compass?
-
Economic Left/Right: 7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
-
The 1st time I did political compass I occupied the same spot as the Dalai Lama; when I redid it recently I was again about -7y [libertarian] but only 1 place left of centre economically :P Maybe it was just a freak attempt, or maybe Coblin and Brendan have had an effect on me ;)
Rietie mentioning women's views made me recall US political commentator Ann Coulter saying unequivocally that women shouldn't have the vote [and she's got several worse utterances to her name], because, according to her, if only men had voted in the US, then something like only one government since 1963 would have been Democrat :o
-
Rietie mentioning women's views made me recall US political commentator Ann Coulter saying unequivocally that women shouldn't have the vote [and she's got several worse utterances to her name], because, according to her, if only men had voted in the US, then something like only one government since 1963 would have been Democrat :o
Ann Coulter is one nasty neo-conservative. I would say women tend to lean to vote liberal (in the modern corrupted sense of the word), that is: socially progressive and economically protectionist.
-
me too. i used to be left lib, and now i've been pulled to the right. i blame my psycho rightie friend, the parents, coblin & brendan =\
-
me too. i used to be left lib, and now i've been pulled to the right. i blame my psycho rightie friend, the parents, coblin & brendan =\
pulled to the right but on which scale? on social freedoms or economic freedoms?
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=b77a8a80f589b09def43ebef737fa9fd
But I already knew that ;)
-
horizontal economic axis on the facebook's political compass:
Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56
-
I am a leftie and I think I'll stay like that for the rest of my life. I'm probably that way because of a few factors:
- I come from a working class background of whom many were educators (even my great-grandmother was one and it looks like at least one of my siblings is going to be a lecturer or teacher)
- I grew up in the labor/greens district of Melbourne (north-east I think)
- I traveled when I was young, experiencing many cultures and learning that I was bloody lucky to be in the position I was a female. I also lived in another country for a couple years where English was not the mother-tongue and where other international students thought that if you came from Australia you lived in the desert or the bush. The country I lived in was also very environmentally friendly (well... very windmill friendly).
- My sister likes to influence me on all her social crap from doing Development Studies, Geography (the social aspect) and Anthropology
- Despite going to a private school, many of the students are more left wing than right wing (at least the ones I associate with) and I laughed at anyone who liked Howard or Costello (my school is in his electorate - pretty ashamed about that).
I can't think of any more points and I don't think my last one is much of a point... meh
On another point, I think males are more likely to vote for more right wing candidates as males have traditionally been the money earners and would be more interested in have a free market, boosting the economy and all that other crap. Females' primary job used to be caring for their family, and would therefore be more likely to 'care' for others less fortunate.... I dunno. Where are the people who always find research to back up their points. I need one of those people in my brain at the moment. :D
-
I was also a leftie:
* I also come from a working class background. I respect that it was the free market that allowed my parents to work themselves from rags to a modest (barely) middle class life. Now my sister and I will lead a life that is at least middle class (I don't really enjoy using classes to describe myself, but just for convenience's sake, this will do).
* I am in the strongest Labor seat in all of Australia as of the 2007 election (electorate of Batman with a 2PP of about 76%). I have lived here for most of my life, and I consider here as my home.
* I went to Brunswick Secondary College - also in a strong Greens and Labor electorate.
* I dramatically changed my economic views at the age of 17
-
Costello
http://freestudynotes.com/VCEforum/index.php/topic,27.msg1167.html#msg1167
Leftism is by nature incoherent and contradictory. Why believe only in social freedom? Why not economic freedom too? You have to take freedom as a whole. You cannot simply take one set of freedom and not the other.
Females' primary job used to be caring for their family, and would therefore be more likely to 'care' for others less fortunate....
Being a lefty has nothing to do with caring for the poor. It has everything to do with the intention of helping the poor. But whether leftist policies actually help the poor is another matter altogether.
-
Curiously, COblin and Brendan, can you /do you quantify the extent to which you support a party? Do you know the point at which Labor would be good enough economically for you to want to support them or how much your views would have to differ from the "Liberals" on libertarian issues for you to want to withdraw your support for them?
-
Well, it would be comparatively. I viewed the 2007 election's Labor team as quite socially conservative, so I figured there is little difference between Liberal and Labor on traditional values, so I obviously sided with Liberal for their economic policy.
-
Labor and Liberals are so close to each other in terms of their position on certain things. The election was basically asking if we had got sick of Howard's eyebrows yet and if we wanted a PM with invisible eyebrows, aka Kevin Rudd. I think it was less about their minute different stances on, e.g. environment. Sadly, I doubt how much change the new PM will bring no matter how much change I actually want to happen (I really wish there was a strong socialist party in Australia).
And I can't believe people decided to vote Liberal because of their economic policy. Because of how little the Liberal Party did to fixing up the environmental crisis Australia when they could tackle it head on (before it got too out of control), this is going to be a serious, life-threatening problem not only for millions of Australians, but also hundreds of millions of people around the world.... while the economy basically dies as there is nothing left to support it.
One more thing before you decide to kill me in rebuttal (which I won't know how to answer as I was never good at debating), money isn't everything. You should be voting for things that are less materialistic than wanting more money (or maybe that's mercenary?). E.g helping the environment, improving work choices, acknowledging aboriginals as the original and continuing custodians of Australia, etc, etc...
-
I really wish there was a strong socialist party in Australia
The Greens not extreme enough for you? They support the minimum wage, unfair dismissal laws and they want to make sure workers cannot sacrifice these privileges even if it would benefit them.
And I can't believe people decided to vote Liberal because of their economic policy. Because of how little the Liberal Party did to fixing up the environmental crisis Australia when they could tackle it head on (before it got too out of control), this is going to be a serious, life-threatening problem not only for millions of Australians, but also hundreds of millions of people around the world.... while the economy basically dies as there is nothing left to support it.
One more thing before you decide to kill me in rebuttal (which I won't know how to answer as I was never good at debating), money isn't everything. You should be voting for things that are less materialistic than wanting more money (or maybe that's mercenary?). E.g helping the environment, improving work choices, acknowledging aboriginals as the original and continuing custodians of Australia, etc, etc...
The environment ought to be protected, I agree. That should be done via a carbon tax: there is a cost involved in polluting in the nation, and those who choose to produce carbon should be paying a tax to repay these costs back to society. You speak as if the economy and environment are mutually exclusive. I think you lack a good understanding of the economy, because it's not about "having more money." It's about returning economic freedom to the individual, so that they are free to choose. It is not about using government-sanctioned coercion to enforce a collectivist society that imposes a set of moral values dictated by the majority. Your points of "improving work choices" and "acknowledging Aboriginals" are very vague, but I sense that there will be some sort of coercion involved. These issues can be best dealt with in a free society, not one where we have 'wise men' looking over our shoulder to centrally plan a solution (who don't even have the end goal in their incentives).
-
Curiously, COblin and Brendan, can you /do you quantify the extent to which you support a party? Do you know the point at which Labor would be good enough economically for you to want to support them or how much your views would have to differ from the "Liberals" on libertarian issues for you to want to withdraw your support for them?
I support individual freedom and that is it. To the extent that a party supports individual freedom, i will support that party to that extent.
-
Curiously, COblin and Brendan, can you /do you quantify the extent to which you support a party? Do you know the point at which Labor would be good enough economically for you to want to support them or how much your views would have to differ from the "Liberals" on libertarian issues for you to want to withdraw your support for them?
I support individual freedom and that is it. To the extent that a party supports individual freedom, i will support that party to that extent.
Yes, but sometimes Liberal supports individual freedom by allowing you to negotiate with your employer about your wage contract, while some other party (perhaps Greens) would support individual freedom in the form of decriminalised drug use. I guess it depends then, on which policies of individual freedom benefit you the most personally. However, I would also give careful thought about what policies are eroding general individual responsibility, and I would like to see those policies repealed first (so the society can grow back some individual responsibility).
-
I have no idea what you've just said....
But I'm young... I've got time to try to get the gist of what geniuses are saying :D
-
I have no idea what you've just said....
But I'm young... I've got time to try to get the gist of what geniuses are saying :D
Oh you remind me of me when I was young :smitten: (with myself, not you :P)
-
Aah... vanity. Don't you love it when you love yourself.... awesome times :D
Umm... sorry for rambling before. I'm a bit of an idealist and have no idea what I'm talking about. Hopefully that will change when I go to uni. And if that doesn't happen, I can pretend I can understand what people are saying, and stand there looking cool :D
-
Aah... vanity. Don't you love it when you love yourself.... awesome times :D
Umm... sorry for rambling before. I'm a bit of an idealist and have no idea what I'm talking about. Hopefully that will change when I go to uni. And if that doesn't happen, I can pretend I can understand what people are saying, and stand there looking cool :D
lol. I think we're all a bit idealistic :D
Well, it would be comparatively. I viewed the 2007 election's Labor team as quite socially conservative, so I figured there is little difference between Liberal and Labor on traditional values, so I obviously sided with Liberal for their economic policy.
May I ask why? (just out of curiosity). IMO their economic policies are very similar too, the only real difference is WorkChoices.
-
(I really wish there was a strong socialist party in Australia).
You should be voting for things that are less materialistic than wanting more money (or maybe that's mercenary?).
Would you rather have people be slaves to the State in the name of socialism?
-
Well, it would be comparatively. I viewed the 2007 election's Labor team as quite socially conservative, so I figured there is little difference between Liberal and Labor on traditional values, so I obviously sided with Liberal for their economic policy.
May I ask why? (just out of curiosity). IMO their economic policies are very similar too, the only real difference is WorkChoices.
WorkChoices is it. If a party's attitude to WorkChoices is that it must be repealed, then I do not trust it's economic policies in other areas either. I did not really mind the ALP being elected, as the government needs to pay more attention on education, although I am dubious of their policies. Bringing these issues in to the spotlight is a good step though. I think as a voter, I would rather to keep the economic liberalisation of WorkChoices than to gamble on education policy reform (could go in a harmful direction).
-
Would you rather have people be slaves to the State in the name of socialism?
[/quote]
I believe that's communism.
Socialism, obviously, is less extreme, and is working quite well in Scandinavia, where some very rich countries just happen to be situated (rich in comparison to their population). And I happened to live in one of those countries. And it was bloody awesome. Which is probably why I have these political views.
-
Would you rather have people be slaves to the State in the name of socialism?
I believe that's communism.
[/quote]
Well communism is a subset of socialism. Socialism is a philosophy that is inherently anti-freedom. The socialist state philosophy is at its very foundation a philosophy of aggression and coercion.
Furthermore what about the socialist states of East Germany, the Soviet Union, China and North Korea? Are they awesome too?
-
They were communist not socialist. Socialism is less extreme and they were extreme.
-
They were communist not socialist. Socialism is less extreme and they were extreme.
Socialism is the government ownership and control of the means of production. They all called themselves socialist. And communism is simply a subset of socialism. The lessons of history have clearly showed that socialism has been a symbol of tyranny, oppression and coercion.
-
Ummm... I don't think Denmark and Sweden have tyrants ruling over their countries with the countries' populations being oppressed. Socialism changes to communism when a dictator comes into play. Or where there is one party. You can see that in North Korea and China, etc....
-
Is taxation not a form of coercion? Also, strong market regulations in the labour market and other sectors are paternalistic, and assume that the individual is too inept to make a sound decision for him/herself, and hence restrict their choices to the "good" ones. Here there is an opinion being imposed on the individual, that is oppression.
-
Ummm... I don't think Denmark and Sweden have tyrants ruling over their countries with the countries' populations being oppressed. Socialism changes to communism when a dictator comes into play. Or where there is one party. You can see that in North Korea and China, etc....
I think you are confusing things. Do you know the definition of socialism?
-
I have studied politics and therefore, I do know what socialism is.
-
I have studied politics and therefore, I do know what socialism is.
Alright what is it?
-
Wow.... we've gone way off topic.
Anyway, I'm tired as I've had 6 hours sleep and my lower back muscles have been cramping up all day so I'm grumpy, so I decided to do a shortcut and look in my old politics notes (that were for my exam) for a definition... and realised it totally and utterly sucked. Here it is:
Socialism: similar to communism, however is more mid-left wing on the political spectrum. It is more gradual than communism, and its goals are realised by winning elections and passing socialist laws as opposed to violence and bloodshed. Socialism believes in the government playing a significant role in providing for its citizens. Some of the key beliefs include public health care, public education, public control of utilities and a strong welfare system. Example – countries in Scandinavia and Venezuela.
I'm off to find a better one and then to construct my own.
-
Socialism believes in the government playing a significant role in providing for its citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community...an economic system characterized by state ownership of the means of production and distribution"
-
Hmmm...... I think I would prefer maybe socialism with a hint of capitalism. Although I still believe in way more taxation, especially of the upper and middle classes and cars, to pay for health, better education (make tertiary education free!), better public transport and funding research for finding more renewable and sustainable energy sources.
Apart from that, I'm admitting defeat. I feel like I'm arguing with my brother, i.e. I always lose. :(
-
What makes you think the upper class will exist (or will not run away) with such high taxes?
What are your brother's political views? :)
-
Umm.... he's the same as me in political views. We argue about other crap and he wins, of course.
In answer to the upper class question, I've seen it with my own eyes, that there is a tiny upper class when the population of a country is taxed quite heavily. The lower class is also minimized by this. The only really rich people I saw when I saw all this (this sentence sounds strange), were all the diplomats... whose children I coincidentally hung out with.... um... yeh. Couldn't help who my parents were.
-
Umm.... he's the same as me in political views. We argue about other crap and he wins, of course.
In answer to the upper class question, I've seen it with my own eyes, that there is a tiny upper class when the population of a country is taxed quite heavily. The lower class is also minimized by this. The only really rich people I saw when I saw all this (this sentence sounds strange), were all the diplomats... whose children I coincidentally hung out with.... um... yeh. Couldn't help who my parents were.
what makes you think that this "upper class" would stay in your country? unless of course you want to build a wall around your country and shoot them if they try to leave like in east Germany and north korea.
-
Brendan, here is the response (look 1 post above):
Umm.... he's the same as me in political views. We argue about other crap and he wins, of course.
In answer to the upper class question, I've seen it with my own eyes, that there is a tiny upper class when the population of a country is taxed quite heavily. The lower class is also minimized by this. The only really rich people I saw when I saw all this (this sentence sounds strange), were all the diplomats... whose children I coincidentally hung out with.... um... yeh. Couldn't help who my parents were.
I'm off to have a shower, I'm feeling sticky from today's heat, but I may come back to add my own comments.
-
This 'upper class' could leave the (my) country if they wished, but if they stayed, they wouldn't exist due to taxes lowering their incomes significantly to make them the lower-upper class/upper-middle class.... or have I already answered your question or have you already interpreted something to answer that question? meh. I somehow doubt I would ever be in a place of such political power to bring lots of change.
Instead of you both putting me in the hot seat, here's a question to both of you:
If you were ever the Prime Minister or President (if we ever became a republic - that would be damn nice) of Australia, what changes would you bring about? Or is everything perfect the way it is or was it perfect under Howard?
-
I would abolish a lot of bureaucracy and regulation. Gradually of course.
-
Abolish all tariffs, quotas, subsidies. Try to implement my education reforms
-
You wouldn't do anything exciting?
-
Well abolishing tariffs, quotas and subsidies is pretty exciting to me.
-
You wouldn't do anything exciting?
LOL, what is that supposed to mean? Okay, I'll decorate it with political rhetoric, this is what I will do:
I am sick and tired of this war between the left and the right: the right believe in a government that sleeps with big business, and the left believe in a government that sleeps with unions. I will sever the prostitution of the government with big business and unions, and replace it with the individual - I will not support any special interest group. I will give power to the Australian consumer by removing tariffs. I will make the country fair: everyone to be treated by the law equally. I will not treat Aboriginals as second-class citizens, they will be treated like any other Australian. I believe the government ought to stay out of your life, in economic and social decisions: what does every other Australian care if you choose to marry a partner of the same-sex? We don't. I will pledge to make sure the government never embarks on paternalistic challenges that compromise the trust between the government and the individual, I will guarantee a freedom of speech, and will remove all forms of censorship - the Australian public are not stupid, they are clever enough to decide for themselves, clever enough to choose freely.
-
That's more like it :D :D :D
-
Umm.... he's the same as me in political views. We argue about other crap and he wins, of course.
hah. sounds about right... you give up too quickly when you argue, riet. and you never try to see it from the other person's point of view. always useful.
but yeah, my view's are pretty similar to riet's. economically i'm for high taxation, so that the state can fund public health, transport, and environmental care. but my political views are highly skewed towards social issues than economic, and i'm rarely interested in even discussing my economic views because although i'm certain of where i stand, there are always people out there (read: coblin and brendan) who have a strong understanding of economic theory and are much more passionate about their cause than i am. socially, however, i'd always take a stand.
-
I'll say one thing: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The government cannot give without also taking. There is no money fairy, you simply cannot get something for nothing. The empirical evidence shows also that government always takes about 25% more than it gives, and the rest is simply burnt as wastage and inefficiency.
Gerald Ford once said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/ford.html
-
I'll say one thing: There is no such thing as a free lunch. The government cannot give without also taking. There is money fairy, you simply cannot get something for nothing. The empirical evidence shows also that government always takes about 25% more than it gives, and the rest is simply burnt as wastage and inefficiency.
Gerald Ford once said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/ford.html
economically i'm for high taxation
it's true that governments do have serious problems with efficiency; the cost of bureaucracy seems awfully high for its benefits. i guess it's just symptomatic of the democratic system that in order to give us what we want, we have to spend more than it's worth to get it.
-
Fairy? Who's the fairy? What fairy? Huh?
-
I believe he meant: there is no money fairy.
-
I believe he meant: there is no money fairy.
yeah typo ><
-
Oooh..... I thought you were calling someone a fairy - I skim read your comments. I thought it would be a pretty weak insult. :D
-
bump
my last go:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=6906275bf6b6dd5a7fd02a0e8632b519
Oooh..... I thought you were calling someone a fairy - I skim read your comments. I thought it would be a pretty weak insult. :D
lol
Moderator Action: Copied in the correct link
-
My results:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=b45136e49d8ae959e75c9297d0444290
-
"Your economic policy score score is -59.9%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position"
boooooo
-
"Your economic policy score score is -59.9%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position"
boooooo
I agree. How can you justify the intervention that you're condoning?
-
http://www.orgburo.com/pofoquiz/pofo.php
My results for Defier's test:
Individual vs Social
"The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."
Individual
Social
You scored 32 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
* 12% of test takers were more individual than you.
* 87% of test takers were more social than you.
Theist vs Materialist
"The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."
Theist
Materialist
You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
* 50% of test takers were more theist than you.
* 48% of test takers were more materialist than you.
Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."
Big Gov
Small Gov
You scored 84 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
* 92% of test takers were more big government than you.
* 7% of test takers were more small government than you.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."
National
International
You scored 75 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
* 83% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
* 16% of test takers were more internationalist than you.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Protection
Free-Trade
You scored 70 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
* 74% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
* 24% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."
Absolute
Non-Absolute
You scored 59 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
* 57% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
* 39% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."
Controlled
Liberal
You scored 69 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
* 85% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
* 14% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.
Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."
Marxist
Non-Marxist
You scored 47 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
* 47% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
* 50% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=df2b38d45740fba83f0b3e9e95c9f5a0
Can someone tell me what this means in layman terms? Background info: I'm a man of science and reason. I don't have any religious beliefs but I believe I have a pretty solid moral code and I respect others' beliefs. My family isn't too well off so some of my views are slightly biased, however, I think my economic views are centre-right or so.
Also, I would like to know the major differences between the Democrats and the Labor party, if anyone could tell me. Thanks.
Moderator Action: Copied in the correct link
-
heres mine
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=a228b477bbdfcb0c0efc14e1af942c54
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=df2b38d45740fba83f0b3e9e95c9f5a0
Can someone tell me what this means in layman terms? Background info: I'm a man of science and reason. I don't have any religious beliefs but I believe I have a pretty solid moral code and I respect others' beliefs. My family isn't too well off so some of my views are slightly biased, however, I think my economic views are centre-right or so.
It looks like you're much like a libertarian, or a classical liberal. Your traditional values suggest that you don't believe the government should intervene with personal values, while your social and economic policy scores indicate that you believe minimum government intervention in the economy is required.
Unfortunately, we don't really have that choice in Australia, hence the confused choice between Democrats, Liberals and the ALP on your score result. We have to choose between an economic regulator (the ALP) versus a traditional values regulator (the Liberals).
-
"Your economic policy score score is -59.9%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position"
boooooo
I agree. How can you justify the intervention that you're condoning?
I assure you, despite trying hard to consider and listen to your pro-capitalism arguments, I remain completely unconvinced. I just don't think a system of capitalism with no regulation would work in practice (nor does it work in theory). I have my views. I am for a system of capitalist welfare (if that makes sense? Pretty much what we've got now.) I believe part of being a democracy is that everyone should contribute financially to the improvement and expansion of a country they inhabit, and should assist with the care of its citizens for a healthier and more productive society.
Perhaps you could have an 'opt-out' system for tax, however, the individuals who do opt-out will have to pay on the spot to use the roads, pay a lot more to use the public transport, fork out lots of money for health care, pay for full university fees, pay for full school fees, use of libraries etc. I don't know.
Government will end up JUST trying to appeal to the big business and such. And capitalism will not magically help poor people. If you really hate the way the system is structured, go exercise your democratic right and move to a different country.
I respect your point of view, so please respect mine and everyone else's. Your views aren't necessarily the correct ones.
Anyhow.
p.s. Please take the fact that I didn't have any sleep last night into account when reading this post ;)
-
^ True. Many libertarians commit the exact crime that they condemn, which is that they seem to believe that they are wiser than others on all matters political and economic. I think that some forget that there are compromises inherent in any political ideology, and thus you can't possibly say that one is better than the other. Though, frankly, if people with next to no financial resources don't have to rely on the whims of their richer counterparts saving them in matters that are potentially life and death, then I think the political system can at least be said to be ethical.
e.g. person lives in outback Australia, is very sick, cannot afford healthcare. Nobody around can afford his healthcare either. Richer people in the big cities do not know that this person even exists. Person is denied access to medicine, person dies. Is this okay? Is it okay for someone who is poor to die merely because the free market mixed with geographical location demands it? I really wouldn't like my life valued by the supply and demand curve, even if the results were in my favour. I would not choose personal valuation in such crude terms.
Unfortunately, we don't really have that choice in Australia, hence the confused choice between Democrats, Liberals and the ALP on your score result. We have to choose between an economic regulator (the ALP) versus a traditional values regulator (the Liberals).
Actually, in one of my pols classes the lecturer labeled the ALP as 'Capital's B Team', citing their reduction of tariffs and lowering of minimum wage as examples of this. ALP can actually get away with deregulation much more easily than the Liberals because they don't have any ties to business and they can sweet talk the unions.
I did the Defier test:
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, internationalist, free-trade, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of borderline internationalist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the International Relations area.
You scored 71 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are more likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
You scored 55 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
You scored 78 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
You scored 67 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
You scored 77 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
You scored 29 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
You scored 40 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
-
True. Many libertarians commit the exact crime that they condemn, which is that they seem to believe that they are wiser than others on all matters political and economic.
There is a difference in believing that you are right, and believing you are right and hence making a decision for everyone. Every other ideology requires you to believe you are right (otherwise, why would it be policy), but also requires you to enforce it upon everyone. Libertarianism does not enforce values onto others.
I really wouldn't like my life valued by the supply and demand curve, even if the results were in my favour. I would not choose personal valuation in such crude terms.
This is another way of saying that you would like to control other people's values.
-
Government will end up JUST trying to appeal to the big business and such. And capitalism will not magically help poor people. If you really hate the way the system is structured, go exercise your democratic right and move to a different country.
What do you mean by this? I'm not necessarily in favour of big business. My policies do not necessarily support them. The growth of business size (in all industries) has rapidly increased since countries like the US started to regulate, actually. So regulators are really the fans of big business in a lot of cases.
In the US, health services are one of the most heavily regulated industries. Yet, it is the bane of America. If they adopted the (almost) free-market system that they have for a lot of other industries, the resources committed to healthcare would increase. My argument is that a lot of regulation harms these services.
I am willing to make compromises. Some regulation is useful, but so much regulation has unintended consequences. We should discuss these on a per policy basis.
-
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, free-trade, kind of person.
I really need to form an opinion on some of these issues :S Perhaps I shall do some reading on politics.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q189/xplosiv26/PoliticsForumQuizv20.png
You'll have to save it and zoom in :S
-
I really need to form an opinion on some of these issues :S Perhaps I shall do some reading on politics.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q189/xplosiv26/PoliticsForumQuizv20.png
You'll have to save it and zoom in :S
Haha, that doesn't have enough detail for me to read it after zooming in.
If you want some biased videos, YouTube John Stossel on Education, who was a major influence in my transition from neutral (after being socialist) to libertarian. That worked for me, but I also know reading www.mises.org (Austrian economics webpage) worked for others.
If you want some neutral books that will educate you on unintended consequences of policies (introduced by left and right), read things like Freakonomics, and The Undercover Economist (pop economics books).
Uhm... influences before I was neutral? No one really. I would have Wikipedia'd things like anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Noam Chomsky...
-
I really need to form an opinion on some of these issues :S Perhaps I shall do some reading on politics.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q189/xplosiv26/PoliticsForumQuizv20.png
You'll have to save it and zoom in :S
Haha, that doesn't have enough detail for me to read it after zooming in.
If you want some biased videos, YouTube John Stossel on Education, who was a major influence in my transition from neutral (after being socialist) to libertarian. That worked for me, but I also know reading www.mises.org (Austrian economics webpage) worked for others.
If you want some neutral books that will educate you on unintended consequences of policies (introduced by left and right), read things like Freakonomics, and The Undercover Economist (pop economics books).
Uhm... influences before I was neutral? No one really. I would have Wikipedia'd things like anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Noam Chomsky...
Thanks Coblin!
-
No problems.
John Stossel on Greed (6 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVRoLLhb3E&feature=related
I actually disliked John Stossel, from my first impression, but somehow he grew on me... :D
-
Loving the procrastination material lol. Ohh man I should start studying for exams =/ ... One of these days.
-
e.g. person lives in outback Australia, is very sick, cannot afford healthcare. Nobody around can afford his healthcare either. Richer people in the big cities do not know that this person even exists. Person is denied access to medicine, person dies. Is this okay? Is it okay for someone who is poor to die merely because the free market mixed with geographical location demands it? I really wouldn't like my life valued by the supply and demand curve, even if the results were in my favour. I would not choose personal valuation in such crude terms.
This, among a few others such as uncontrolled monopolies, are the few failings of a completely libertarian society.
A bit welfare would ensure this person will get back on track and contribute to society again. However, there is the true consideration that the government ought to not take my money forcefully (through taxes).
In this sort of situation, I believe the government's role is to act only as a facilitator - to create the means for those able and willing to contribute to welfare to do so. Perhaps an opt-in system to take a bit more tax for this very purpose?
-
Yep, I'm still a centrist.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=73bd187e47031b2ee67bbc7fb6240f94
-
This, among a few others such as uncontrolled monopolies, are the few failings of a completely libertarian society.
Government ought to have an umpire role, not a player role. It is to help in minimising the failures of markets: externalities and monopolies. But just because there are externalities in energy, or monopolies in transport, it doesn't mean the government should necessarily be the key player in those industries. They should merely be the referees, setting up appropriate law and order to provide the necessary incentives for a market mechanism to do the job properly.
A bit welfare would ensure this person will get back on track and contribute to society again. However, there is the true consideration that the government ought to not take my money forcefully (through taxes).
In this sort of situation, I believe the government's role is to act only as a facilitator - to create the means for those able and willing to contribute to welfare to do so. Perhaps an opt-in system to take a bit more tax for this very purpose?
Private loans would do, if there was really so much potential to be unlocked in these people.
-
Yep, I'm still a centrist.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=73bd187e47031b2ee67bbc7fb6240f94
I would prescribe you the libertarian philosophy based on your results. They are more strongly pronounced than sxcalexc's results, who I also suggested was a libertarian.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=dcc8ed5fd558c23c02ff3b5571fcca21
Expected. Yay.
-
12 Novermber 2007
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=60ed2f0eca3be58f9c40f40bf09ff0a0
25 September 2008
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=0056499b0d99d8d9d4dc33f393e12286
hmmm
-
Haha, what can I say? Economics has had an influence on you.
-
That was the first thing I realised after I compared my results. I think economics has sort of had the same effect on me as it has for you... it like makes you realise everything going on around you and makes you less ignorant to propaganda and media sensationalism
-
Here's my update:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd1b12e9b18869fee2ba0be5bc011702
My traditional values score moved closer to the centre (significantly). This is because I no longer agreed with the "harm reduction" statements. I am in favour of lifestyle choices, but not subsidising them. I don't wish to install safe injecting rooms at the expense of the taxpayer, or condom vending machines in high schools, unless it was through voluntary action.
I had a clear view on every question except the two harm reduction questions and the question about parties refining policy positions based on public polls. I don't necessarily believe in a democracy as much as I care about a constitutionally restricted government (although I guess this should be installed democratically).
-
GRN DEM ALP FFP LIB NAT ONP Pol Econ Soc Trad
30.4 45.6 51.3 57.5 68.4 59.9 88.8 31.2 17.8 33.3 9.1
Woah, yeah Pauline Hanson ! :S...LOL...
And just to let you know, i'm a Liberal through and through..
-
GRN DEM ALP FFP LIB NAT ONP Pol Econ Soc Trad
30.4 45.6 51.3 57.5 68.4 59.9 88.8 31.2 17.8 33.3 9.1
Woah, yeah Pauline Hanson ! :S...LOL...
And just to let you know, i'm a Liberal through and through..
I dug up your results by looking at the history: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd8bcdf7531a15346553ea6b9871eb1b
-
mine: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=d735353695ce7eead7206120062f4b75
-
GRN DEM ALP FFP LIB NAT ONP Pol Econ Soc Trad
30.4 45.6 51.3 57.5 68.4 59.9 88.8 31.2 17.8 33.3 9.1
Woah, yeah Pauline Hanson ! :S...LOL...
And just to let you know, i'm a Liberal through and through..
I dug up your results by looking at the history: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd8bcdf7531a15346553ea6b9871eb1b
Your point?
-
This is the way I look at the political spectrum at the moment. I don't see the major political differences between that would traditionally be associated with left and right wing politics. I really find it hard to find that line that distinguishes labor and liberal parties nowadays. The best example I have seen recently of the differences being highlighted was when Howard introduced the Workchoices legislation to give more power to employers and Rudd opposed it. He abolished AWA's but has instead introduced the Individual Transitional Employment Agreement (ITEA) which holds striking resemblance to AWA's except there are more rights protected under ITEA's and there isnt a dramatic push to abolish awards etc in Rudd's government. Rudd wants to modernise awards which I'd like to see the outcome of.
Just in my opinion, politics isn't as clear cut as it used to be because Labor has in some ways changed their economic policies to reflect the policies that would more often be associated with liberal policies. Eg. Rudd's proposed taxation reforms.
-
GRN DEM ALP FFP LIB NAT ONP Pol Econ Soc Trad
30.4 45.6 51.3 57.5 68.4 59.9 88.8 31.2 17.8 33.3 9.1
Woah, yeah Pauline Hanson ! :S...LOL...
And just to let you know, i'm a Liberal through and through..
I dug up your results by looking at the history: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd8bcdf7531a15346553ea6b9871eb1b
Your point?
None. Just so that people can see your breakdown of scores (economic, social, and traditional)
-
GRN DEM ALP FFP LIB NAT ONP Pol Econ Soc Trad
30.4 45.6 51.3 57.5 68.4 59.9 88.8 31.2 17.8 33.3 9.1
Woah, yeah Pauline Hanson ! :S...LOL...
And just to let you know, i'm a Liberal through and through..
I dug up your results by looking at the history: http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd8bcdf7531a15346553ea6b9871eb1b
Your point?
None. Just so that people can see your breakdown of scores (economic, social, and traditional)
Fair call.
-
Here's my update:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=cd1b12e9b18869fee2ba0be5bc011702
My traditional values score moved closer to the centre (significantly). This is because I no longer agreed with the "harm reduction" statements. I am in favour of lifestyle choices, but not subsidising them. I don't wish to install safe injecting rooms at the expense of the taxpayer, or condom vending machines in high schools, unless it was through voluntary action.
I had a clear view on every question except the two harm reduction questions and the question about parties refining policy positions based on public polls. I don't necessarily believe in a democracy as much as I care about a constitutionally restricted government (although I guess this should be installed democratically).
hmm, I may have misinterpreted those "harm reduction questions." I read them as "do you think condom vending machines are a good idea?" and hence put "strongly agree"
However, your stance seems rather rigid. Are you aware of the benefits vs costs of installing those two facilities? What if the benefit was huge and the cost was minimal, would you still be against taxpayer funding?
Saying "taxation is coercion, hence undesirable" is saying "'A' is really bad." A good argument that it is undesirable would need to be comparable, saying "A is worse than B".
-
But if the benefits actually outweigh the costs, then it would happen by the market mechanism. You wouldn't need coercion to do it. That is, if condom machines were going to be used to benefit the high school (prevent the cases of teenage pregnancy, or even the profits from sales), then the high school should be free to choose whether to install it or not. I am not the expert, and neither is the government. The experts are those running the schools, those with the incentive to keep its reputation and funding high.
-
i have absolutely no idea about economics but go free markets! lol yes wateva ron paul says...
-
i have absolutely no idea about economics but go free markets! lol yes wateva ron paul says...
Haha, dude. You should try to understand them if you really think he's so amazing. A wise man once said that if you're convinced by what you see on video, you're not really convinced. Someone of the opposite persuasion can simply convince you on another evening. What you really need to do is explore the ideas yourself, re-read the ideas, and let the ideas simmer and ferment in your mind.
"The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions."
-
yeah i know but still .... ron paul is the best
-
i have absolutely no idea about economics but go free markets! lol yes wateva ron paul says...
Haha, dude. You should try to understand them if you really think he's so amazing. A wise man once said that if you're convinced by what you see on video, you're not really convinced. Someone of the opposite persuasion can simply convince you on another evening. What you really need to do is explore the ideas yourself, re-read the ideas, and let the ideas simmer and ferment in your mind.
heh, interesting response, not what I was expecting :)
-
yeah i know but still .... ron paul is the best
If you need help finding resources, here's a start:
YouTube John Stossel on Education and John Stossel on Greed, read mises.org
Read Capitalism and Freedom, Read Free to Choose (or watch the PBS series) - both by Milton Friedman. You can Google all of these. They are all relevant to the message of Ron Paul. You can start with watching the video resources, but if you're still really passionate, it would be beneficial to borrow one of the books, and read it on the way home or something.
-
ah ok that john stossel i think ive seen him in some video -stupid in america i think brendan posted it a while ago... i think
-
Yeah, that was the Education one :P
-
I assure you, despite trying hard to consider and listen to your pro-capitalism arguments, I remain completely unconvinced. I just don't think a system of capitalism with no regulation would work in practice (nor does it work in theory). I have my views. I am for a system of capitalist welfare (if that makes sense? Pretty much what we've got now.) I believe part of being a democracy is that everyone should contribute financially to the improvement and expansion of a country they inhabit, and should assist with the care of its citizens for a healthier and more productive society.
Perhaps you could have an 'opt-out' system for tax, however, the individuals who do opt-out will have to pay on the spot to use the roads, pay a lot more to use the public transport, fork out lots of money for health care, pay for full university fees, pay for full school fees, use of libraries etc. I don't know.
Government will end up JUST trying to appeal to the big business and such. And capitalism will not magically help poor people. If you really hate the way the system is structured, go exercise your democratic right and move to a different country.
I respect your point of view, so please respect mine and everyone else's. Your views aren't necessarily the correct ones.
Anyhow.
p.s. Please take the fact that I didn't have any sleep last night into account when reading this post ;)
LOL
I thought I dreamt posting this 3 nights ago...
-
my results:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=9be1fd0e708ae116a36ac160b2a0d66d
-
Velox!
You are a libertarian! Cool.
-
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=e3c78329b295d07adba7e1b4a529116c
11 months ago I got http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=298f0bd79755351f85b54542c93f62b1
It's amazing you can change a lot in regards to this stuff (overall I am a more extreme version of my past self, when beforehand I barely knew of coblin, brendan, dcc etc and wtf 'libertarian' is)
-
Yeh they have pretty persuasive arguments and what they say makes sense!!!
Is it wrong to be a libertarian but not wanting to vote liberal? lol
-
Yeh they have pretty persuasive arguments and what they say makes sense!!!
Is it wrong to be a libertarian but not wanting to vote liberal? lol
No. You really have to ask yourself who will make the least concessions on liberty. Liberal is not necessarily that party.
-
hmm. yeh well I haven't been able to identify massive differences between labor and liberal so I guess I'll just have to keep that in consideration and try and identify it.
-
well, i voted Liberal.
-
depends on the other parties, it might have to be your least disliked party you vote for
-
How did people who voted last year, vote on the Senate ballot slip?
Anyone vote underneath the line (to try to prevent another Steve Fielding coming in)?
-
Yep, I did.
-
Yeh they have pretty persuasive arguments and what they say makes sense!!!
Is it wrong to be a libertarian but not wanting to vote liberal? lol
Nothing wrong with that at all. While originally the Liberal party was founded as a Libertarian party, lately (particularly the last 10 years) it has become a de facto conservative party :(
Velox!
You are a libertarian! Cool.
It is cool, very cool.
-
bump
Curious to see recent members' results
ok......I'm cheifly interested in Chavi's
-
LOL hidden away there
this was done on here and
here http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,16349.0.html and here http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,21525.0.html
recent... ill do it again later...
-
Quite a good test