Subject: Well, I don't know if I'd write about it,
Author:
Posted on: 2016-10-17 09:32:00 UTC
Though I won't rule it out. A few allusions here and there, though... Maybe a vaguely clockwork snowflake on my Plort heraldry when I get around to designing it? Hm...
Several states require voter registration forms to be postmarked by tomorrow, so this might be a last-minute (or not so much) reminder to make sure your voter registration is up to date.
Please also vote in midterm and local elections. While important, a presidential race is only 1/3 at best of the national government, and far more laws that directly impact us happen at the local level!
I may have two years before I can legally vote, but I would like to remind you guys to not vote third party. As much as Hillary seems like a bad idea it can't be worst than Trump.
I really don't think this is the appropriate platform for pushing a candidate.
But... these are your choices as I see them:
-A man who manages to get more offensive every time he says or does something. That's slight hyperbole, but only slight. He's a man who is outright supported by white supremacists, and who has a long history of truly vile (<<< opinion) racist and sexist comments.
-A career politician, with all that that entails. From what I can tell, she has been cleared of significant wrongdoing in the 'scandals'/'controversies' being attributed to her. (Oh, and according to some supporters of the first candidate, she shouldn't be president because she has a nagging voice/has wrinkles/her husband cheated on her/other stuff that translates to 'she's female and we don't like the idea of a woman in power'.)
-A bunch of third parties who can't win. Not 'it's unlikely', but they literally can't in the current system. Which means that casting a vote for a third party is identical to not voting, as far as the result is concerned. Unless you literally have no preference at all between the two real candidates, you should vote for one of them.
I realise that last sounds harsh; that's because it is. In the UK, we just had a referendum where - apparently - enough people chose to protest-vote that they actually swung the outcome. Now we're leaving the EU, despite the majority of the country not wanting to.
2016 has been a truly awful year. Please don't let the US presidential election be the capstone to that.
If you disagree with my characterisation of either candidate, or of the viability of third parties, I'm interested to learn more.
hS
Something I've been wondering for a while. Or, rather, a few somethings, directed at the PPC-at-large:
1) Where do you put yourself on the political spectrum?
2) Why?
3) What does the political situation in your current country of residence look like? Who would you support, and why?
In the interest of fomenting this discussion, I'll answer those questions, too.
1) I've been saying I'm centre-left for a long time, but I think I've been moving rightward a little recently, so centre, I guess. It should be noted that in Israeli politics the main left/right divide isn't economical/social as in most countries; rather, it's more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2) On one hand I'm against being an ass to people because they're not of the right skin-colour/religion/whatever. On the other I'm also against self-flagellation (hello, Meretz), asinine revolutionism for the sake of revolutionism (hello, Merav Michaeli) and identity politics (hello everybody). I'm also growing more disillusioned as to the chances of peace as the time goes by.
3) Terrible. The sane people figure they can't achieve anything in politics so they don't bother, so all we have pol-wise are crazies (hi, Meretz), crazier crazies (hi, Bennett) and corrupt power-grabbing career pols (hi, Bibi).
So, general thoughts, which I think take me to a weird mix of socialism and libertarianism.
There's two ideas that I think make good starting points, but should not be taken too far because then bad stuff happens. The first is that people should be generally free to do whatever they'd like, as long as they're not hurting others. The second is that the whole 'market' system (people are buying, selling, trading etc. stuff, whether physical or otherwise) is a decent idea.
But this sort of obvious market libertarianism has a few big problems. One glaring issue, I believe, is that if you put a market over things that are actually necessary for life (food, water, shelter, health care, social interaction, ...), some people will get 'priced out of the market'. That is, people could (through no real fault of their own) die because of this system. That is a Bad Thing, so you have to adjust your system to avoid it. One aspect of that is a class of necessary regulations that put a "floor" on the free market. For example, a minimum wage (property implemented, which it isn't) ensures that the price of labor doesn't spiral so low that people can't make a living. Similar arguments apply to things like unemployment, welfare, and so on (they protect you from failure modes of the market). I think a basic income would be an ideal floor, but I'm not convinced we have the technical capability to implement it.
The second problem is negative externalities, such as pollution. These are things that a person (or, more commonly, a group of people) can do that hurt everyone. So you can try to patch around them by adding the notion of a crime against everyone, and you give the government (which represents everyone) the power to prevent those crimes through regulation. This also justifies antitrust bills, since big monopolies hurt everyone by closing off the market in spheres where it would be better for it to be open.
tl;dr certain pretty broad classes of regulation are necessary.
As to the current US political situation: I would have preferred Sanders, but I can't really object to Clinton. The worst-case for a Clinton presidency is that we stay more or less where we are, the best case is that scoot a bit closer to what I want. Trump is insane.
And on a specific policy note: first past the post voting is a terrible system. Implement instant runoff today! Elect the candidates everyone's mostly OK with, while providing information about actual preferences!
(and my ideal far-future would be something like the Culture. That is, there's so much of everything that the price of anything important is indistinguishable from 0, and we've found technical solutions around basically all negative externalities. Then you can drop the regulations and everything still works.)
1°) I guess I'd be somewhere on the left. I think entreprises have responsabilities beyond their bottom line and the idea of mondial regulation for finances, and taxes on transactions seem legit for me and that the state has obligations about its citizens. In the same time, I think social aides shouldn't be a crutch for people to live off the rest of society, unless they cannot reallistically apply for a job.
Now the situation in France... Oh boy. Precedent rigt president was not liked at all by the end of his term, but actual left president managed to make 'better' about this (and give up an eco-tax fairly important because a few... protesters with red caps in a region of the country didn't agree >:().
We've got elections next spring, but he still intend to run for left, despite the fact he 'promised' to not run if the situation was as ducked up as she is actually, meaning that other people at the party want the canddature at left, to the point where other just left the party to prepare their own campaign.
And the right is in the same state because the ex-president, who had 'retired' from political life, is coming for the candidature for the right, leading to another micmac like the one in the left.
Only party going well is far-right, where the daughter of the precedent leader there, who was someone with a murky background at best, has succeeded in selling her... message, when she's as much a racist as dearest daddy. She cannot win second turn of the election, but is almost certain of going there.
I'd vote for the left, provied they change of leader. If not... I'll still vote, if only for not giving their victory to the far right nutjobs vaunting the success of 'Brexit', forgetting these nutjobs jumped off the ship as soon as possible...
I'm a socialist. For more or less the reasons hS gives: I think it is hypocritical to have this national ideal that the human rights are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and yet stymie all of those. With wealth caps when given the chance - health care costs money (…life?), college costs not money so much as "the rest of your life in debt," (life, and also… happiness?), if you're arrested for nigh-on anything, the difference between liberty and bondage is just how much money you have.
And that doesn't even touch on how this impacts people of color more harshly in all cases. BUT, of course, being an historian, I'm aware the US was founded on those ideals (the difference being that pursuit of happiness was initially listed as private property rights, which included, of course, slices), with the heavy caveat being "if you are a propertied white man." Nonetheless, I think they'd be good things to have if we could get them to work for all people.
…another factor is that the US has been stuck in the Cold War for the past 60-70 years, and it may have doomed the planet, so the sooner we get out of that idiocy, the sooner there's hope for all of us.
The current political situation here, as far as I can tell, is that the Conservative party in our country, in their increasingly radical attempts to put down the left and characterize their opponents as evil monsters of in-American evil, has finally overstepped to the point where they can no longer support their own weight (because most conservatives might support laws against making insurance companies pay for birth control, but they won't support someone who brags about sexual assault; likewise, most conservatives might support immigration restrictions and racial profiling in general, but they won't go for actual Nazis), and fractured heavily. Since they'd become a huge drag on the government's ability to function lately (ie, when they were a majority they blocked the president, when they were a minority they filibustered or threatened to filibuster every time they couldn't get their way, and most recently they decided to defy precedent and law because of sheer orneriness and not wanting to lose the Supreme Court), I'm applauding. Maybe the left can finally have a chance to effect real change now.
My outlook on life is that the only real value in any human behavior is in serving our species and our planet. It's everyone's job to support each other, and to ensure the long-lasting nature of the human species and the planet it calls home.
So I have little respect for the political parties, especially the big two in the United States, because their only goals are to be self-sustaining and serve their own interests, to the detriment of average citizens. (I also have no respect for large businesses that think their only purpose is to keep amassing larger amounts of never-used money in their bank accounts, rather than to provide a quality service or product to society.) Hence, I vote based on what an individual candidate seems likely to do for the community and the people who live in it.
The current U.S. presidential election is a difficult one for me. I frankly don't want either big party candidate elected. Trump quite simply is not a leader in any way, and is likely to have any policies he puts forward influenced by his clearly bigoted and prejudiced views. The only positive thing I can see coming out of a Trump presidency is that he's not likely to send U.S. troops to deal with any random conflict that doesn't directly affect our country out of a sense of "peacekeeping," but I'm also quite worried his temper and argumentativeness will get us into another war with a far more dangerous power. Clinton will be a more competent leader, but I also feel, after the years she and her husband have spent in politics, that she's potentially in the pockets of Gan knows how many corporate interests. The couple have also left a trail of bodies behind them from cover-ups—I know some people consider that a nutty conspiracy theory, but frankly, there's just too much evidence for me to dismiss it. So even though I think she would do the job well, there's so much darkness in her past that I don't feel she deserves to be rewarded for her actions with the presidency.
For very personal reasons, I also refuse to vote for anyone in the Libertarian party, because members of that party attempted to run me over while I was walking home from the bus stop one day. (My mom was working as personal secretary to Arizona Secretary of State Jane Hull at the time, and the implied drive-by was meant as a threat to Hull's office.) So I basically have terrible options in this election overall. Green Party? Probably Green Party.
So yeah. I don't really know what to call myself, and I don't particularly care what political label applies. Again, the parties don't matter; people and planet do.
—Fun fact: The first exposure doctorlit had to Tolkien was watching the animated Hobbit film on a VHS tape in Secretary Hull's living room, because I was sick out from school, and had to go to "work" with Mom. He still has trouble watching the scene with Gollum to this day.
I am right. Very right. As in, take a long walk down to the far end of the political pier, jump off into the murky waters no one seems to know exist, and you should see me, struggling to make sense of the world.
In all seriousness, though, I'm an Anarcho-capitalist. However, since I very much doubt any of my political or social views will gain much traction in my lifetime, I pretty much just lump myself in with the Libertarian party and hope for the best.
As to the why, that can largely be summed up as, "I don't think government is moral, and I think we can manage without it."
As for my opinions on my country's current politics... It's a mess, plain and simple.
And as for who I would support, I don't know Clinton's policies well enough to have a real opinion on her, much less vote for her, Trump needs to be smacked in the face with a trout, and the last candidate to win on a third party ticket was Abraham Lincoln. So, no one. So far as I know it's too late for me to register anyway.
I mean, the whole left-right thing is a mess anyway, and varies wildly between countries. But I suggest you not say you're far-right, because that usually translates as fascist/racist/nationalist, which isn't what you're saying.
The Political Compass site instead uses a 2D spectrum: it has a horizontal left/right line, which is basically 'how much control should the government have over the market'. On that one you do come down as far-right ('entirely free market'), while I perch out on the left ('capitalists don't make people happy').
They also have a vertical social axis, which they run from 'authoritarian' to 'libertarian'; it seems to be 'how much should the government control what people are allowed to do'. On that scale, you're somewhere down at the bottom, again as you might expect.
The interesting point is that most people fall on a straight line from Libertarian Left to Authoritarian Right. The Libertarian Right (and Authoritarian Left) quadrants are usually empty.
So lookit that! You're a special snowflake. ^^
We actually played around with the Political Compass site this time last year - it seems to be an annual thing - and I ended up mapping everyone who responded to the thread. It kind of demonstrates what I just said:
The axes aren't quite the website's 0/0 lines - I was plotting people relative to each other, not to an arbitrary scale - but the spacing is accurate. You're probably swimming somewhere in the south-eastern ocean. Hope you brought a life jacket...
hS
PS:
The great continent of Plortitics is a land divided. Of course. Because they all are.
The main hub of civilisation is the great Central City, where the towns of PoorCynic, Elcalion, Phobos, Iximaz, Hieronymus, James Shields, and World-Jumper have joined together in a metropolis to astound the world. Under the protective aegis of Central City, the villages of Huinesoron, ratbrainbasher, and SeaTurtle prosper. So too do the twin port-towns of DawnFire and eatpraylove, but they do not go uncontested.
The nomads of the Great Desert have begun to band together. Trading ports have sprung up at Seafarer in the south and Sergio Turbo in the north, and there are rumours of a city to rival Central growing out in the wastes, at Desdendelle-Darkotas. Yet relations between the civilised peoples and the nomads are friendly - they are allies against other powers.
The northerly Grand Forest is home to woodsmen of unparalleled skill; all the technology of Central City cannot rout them from their tree-bound fastness. Their hidden refuge of Pippa's Ghost is guarded by the fastnesses of JulyFlame, Irish Samurai, and sonof_heaven176.
And far to the east, explorers in the Towering Mountains have reported two vast fortresses, teeming with warriors. None know their alliegence, but whispered rumours have assigned them names: Dark Brother and Uber Overlord.
And that is all... save, perhaps, for the peoples who live west of the Fabled River. The villages at Artell, Scapegrace, and VixenMage are small and humble... but legends tell of a vast, deserted metropolis buried at Kaitlyn, an ancient power long-since forgotten... at least, forgotten by those east of the river...
~hS
But I don't want to melt!
I'm 7.38 on the Economic Left/Right, and -1.33 on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian. I'm not as far down on the Libertarian-ness as I thought I would be; and, apparently, I'm closest to EA U in politics. Interesting. Here's me on le map.
-Alleb
If people want to Political Compass themselves up again (we've done it two years running, after all), I could be convinced to make another map/chart of us all.
This year I've apparently swung dramatically left - I'm at -8.0 Economic, whereas I was -6.75 last year and -6.50 the year before. I've also continued my slight shimmy upwards: -5.54 Social, compared to -6.31 and -6.56.
The Political Compass is right here. There's no need to be shy about posting your results. (And yes, there's no neutral option on the questions. As they say in the FAQ, "This makes it too easy for people to duck difficult issues. By forcing people to take a positive or negative stance, the propositions make people really evaluate their feelings. Often people find they wanted to select 'don't know' mainly because they'd never really thought about the idea."
If you took part last year, and want to see how you've changed, the thread is here. And the set from 2014 is around here on the Altchives.
I wonder how many people I can track across the map...
hS
A direct sequel to this one.
The great continent of Plortitics is a land divided. Still. Because of course.
The heart of Plortitics tells a tale of invasion and conquest. Over the centuries, the vast Central City of Hieronymus has extended its reach, and the advent of the railroads has accelerated the process. The villages of Huinesoron and doctorlit have been brought under the Hieronymus aegis, and vast iron towers pierce their skies. The ancient cities of nearby lands have fallen: the port of eatpraylove-DawnFire subsumed by the harbour-city Neshomeh, the desert metropolis of Desdendelle-Darkotas now the railworks at PoorCynic-Hardric.
Even beyond the reach of Hieronymus, change is the order of the day. The refugees of eatpraylove fled along the coast, conquering their rival desert port of Seafarer; in turn, Seafarer lived up to its name, setting sail as a floating slice of desert.
To the north, the retreating nomads of Desdendelle found their way to the Grand Forest. The fortress-cities fought in vain: Desdendelle rose anew in the ruins of their civilisation, and only JulyFlame survived, standing tall amid the burned lands of the war.
Invasion comes not only from the west. In the east, the mountain stronghold of the Dark Brother has fallen to a new ruler, the War-Queen Alleb. It is unknown whether she has formed an alliance with the Uber Overlord, or whether he fled from her, but his vast brass fortress has crawled across the mountains clear to the borders of the Great Desert. In its wake, insidious spiders of gleaming metal crawl across the land, remaking it in their image. The plains east of the Forest are now known only as the Brasslands.
Brasswork has penetrated the southern ocean, too. The floating snowflake of Badger421 is a bastion of order amid the choppy seas, separate by choice from the governments of Plortitics. West and closer to the coast, the steel island of Tomash stands firm amid the strongest swells, strange lights gleaming in its upper reaches.
But what of the Fabled River, traditional boundary of the Central government? Though its course has been altered close to the sea, it remains as it has always been: a gentle, clean stream, flowing down from the mountains. The long-abandoned ruins at Kaitlyn still guard its upper courses - but even in these wide plains there have been changes.
The towns of Vixenmage, Scapegrace, and palindromordnilap no longer sit on their ancient sites. Trading with Tomash, they have worked brass and steel into the very fabric of their buildings, and now they roam across the landscape, clanking through the night.
So matters stand in the vast, isolated lands of Plortitics, but more change is on the way from the north. A storme is coming, and the hawks of war flock in its wake...
hS
PS: Kaitlyn is at -8.75, -6.05, for (my) future reference.
I'm a snowflake! Made of brass! In an ocean!
I am extremely excited about this!
Do I have a navy? Do I trade with Tomash (yay, fellow metal island!) and Alleb (I am her closest neighbor)? How do I support myself out here, fishing? How does a snowflake made of brass float? Can it move? What's the Southern Ocean like, anyway? So many questions!
What you do with it is up to you. I admit I would find it absolutely hilarious if people ended up writing stories about a political compass plot with a rough map thrown over it. ^_^
hS
Though I won't rule it out. A few allusions here and there, though... Maybe a vaguely clockwork snowflake on my Plort heraldry when I get around to designing it? Hm...
Well, now I'm an island? ...I can live with that.
I've been looking for land mapmaker a for a long time for D&D campaigns - most of the ones that come up are just internal dungeons, and you're stuck with pencils and graph paper (not that there's anything wrong wih that), but the Inkarnate tool (still in beta so a bit clunky, and I don't remember the URL - it's either .net or .com or .org or something) is really, really helpful.
I was looking into mapping software before I started my current game, but I ended up just sitting down with coloured pencils instead.
Must… not… write Plort history…
This really does get more tempting every time
I see it.
For we are the Chosen People and this is our land, given to us by God himself.
Yup, out of the desert into the Land of Milk, Honey, and Angry People... #politicalcompassomancy #allofthishashappenedbefore
hS
Have you listened to some of those types? I have, and their beliefs make for interesting fantasy-world characters. Of course, they're decidedly less enticing when you have to suffer them IRL.
War-Queen Alleb's Google history:
"How to draft a constitution."
"Constitution of the United States."
"Is it legal to copy a law code verbatim."
"Flamethrowers."
"Melting temperature of brass."
"How to convince soldiers to face metal spiders."
"Cost to run railroad."
"Cost of building ships."
"How to set up trade agreements."
"How to convince floating settlements to come closer so I can trade with them."
"Relaxation spas near me."
-Alleb
Municipal Darwinist Plort!
Mountains of iron and humans grinding on great treads, blotting out the skies with thick, gleaming metal walls and spiralling plumes of smoke from enough coal to fuel a million forges, steel innards clanking and hissing under the strain of an entire city hnnnnnnnnnnnngh
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36
Not nearly as far right as I expected given my free market views. Maybe I just didn't answer quite strongly enough to swing over to the far side of the spectrum.
Observations of the Continuum segment of the Protectorate Belt continue to be made, as scheduled. Currently, sixteen inhabited asteroids are included in the segment.
The main cluster remains as chaotic as ever. Asteroid JulyFlame has just completed a two-year orbit around the newly-colonised Asteroid Storme Hawk, and appears to have picked up some kind of resonance with Asteroid Desdendelle. This resonance may have caused the rapid ejection of Asteroid Seafarer, which is spinning rapidly to system west.
The slow-moving Central Group - Asteroids Neshomeh and doctorlit - are continuing their stately way through space, though there are concerns that Asteroid Neshomeh may be due for a close encounter with the careening Seafarer. Of far more immediate concern is the impending collision of Asteroids PoorCynic and Hardric; the evacuation effort is ongoing, but an attempt to alter their orbits by shunting the fast-moving Asteroid HG into their vicinity has failed.
The migrant Commie Cluster continues its passage through the south-western reaches of the segment. Asteroids Vixenmage and Scapegrace form the heart of the group, while Asteroid Huinesoron has spun off towards the centre of the segment, and may become entangled in the gravitational fields there. Asteroid palindromordnilap has just recently entered the segment, and is considered a member of the Cluster; the trailing Asteroid Tomash's status is under debate.
In the far system north-east, Asteroid Alleb has recently entered the segment. It is currently being used as a staging post for extra-segment observations of the hyperaccelerated Asteroid EAIUO: this body, ejected from what was known as the Realm of Evil and Darkness, is on a beeline for the heart of the segment. If it cannot be diverted, there is a significant chance of a catastrophic collision.
Or are these axes mapped differently than in the original Compass? Because I was definitely in the Libertarian part of things.
Also, wow. I knew I was far more conservative than most the PPC, but I didn't realize by how much. It's like I sucked all the conservatism out of the rest of the Board and used it as rocket fuel to push Asteroid Alleb out into the cold reaches of space.
"LIMITED GOVERNMENT!" the Asteroid shrieks as it spins aimlessly through the void. "FREE MARKET!"
-Alleb
I randomly changed your numbers for my own entertainment.
Nah, what I've done is readjust the axes to centre around the average of Boarders' responses. We concluded last time that the Political Compass is great for letting you compare your results to other real people, but tends to shift everyone left+down compared to their calculated politicians. So the red lines aren't quite a match for the ones on the website, which I think would place everyone this year except you left-of-centre.
The average is at -5.2, -4.72 right now, which is why you're so far out there. Your adjusted economic score is 12.6(!!!); even plaindrome's is only -3.8 on the Left side.
Alternately, I messed with the numbers for giggles. ;)
hS
This Board is overwhelmingly (some variant of) leftist; people like Alleb and [EA]UO are the exception, not the rule. And any Board that has me as the third rightmost member is prooobably a bit Commie. I already have my State-approved™ hammer and sickle, get yours today!
Of course it isn't named after the Evil of Capitalism and the Darkness of the Bottom Line and I'm silly to suggest that.
Profit. Profit numbs the feeling.
(The joke, since I've just realised no-one else will remember it, is that last year EAIUO objected to (his misunderstanding of) my D&D Political Compass. I then made the second version of the chart just absolutely covered in evil. I was part of Iximaz's plan to summon demons to usurp the throne; looks like you were going to blow everyone up with volcanoes. Muahahahaha!)
hS
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
Yeah, that's shifted not a whole lot in a while. I think I used I be further right on the economic access, and certainly was a bit farther towards libertarianness earlier in my life.
Two years ago, I was -5.25 Economic and -5.49 Social.
Last year, I was -6.13 Economic and -4.56 Social.
This year, I'm -4.38 Economic and -5.08 Social. That's a fairly sizable shift in terms of economic positions. Meanwhile, my social score has pretty much split the difference. That all might not mean a thing when you consider margins of error and and issues with the quiz, but it is curious. At least to me.
Is this the "college student who's totally got it all figured out, man" section of the chart?
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
Puts me in the same quadrant as the Green party, which is the party I vote for.
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
I'm now -7.25 Economic, -3.59 Social. Apparently learning more about politics and stuff has pushed me far left on economics, while barely budging me on social issues.
I cannot find my score from last year, but I charted in as the second most conservative, this year I'm a -2.5 Economic and -3.18 Social. Social is about the same but the biggest change was economics. I think I was like 2.51 last year, so going down to -2.5 is a non-minor change.
Do you feel like you've moved from the Right to the Centre? If so, what caused the shift? Because your shift there is practically meteoric.
hS
And the answer is simple. Donald Trump. When the Republican Party nominated him, I wanted to get as far away from him as possible. I could no longer even remotely support a Republican Party that nominated him. And so that caused me to reevaluate my stances on most things. And so I determined that the Democrats were offering an infinitely more reasonable platform so I shifted accordingly. The biggest changes for me was actually Taxes and Gun Control. After San Bernardino I decided enough was enough, something needed to change.
As for taxes, I decided that right now the US Tax Code is an issue, too many people who do not need tax breaks get them, and cutting spending alone is not going to be enough to fix the budget problems. So the US needs to raise taxes and there is lot of very wealthy people who can afford higher taxes and don't pay much if at all. I also determined that on an economic scale, trimming bloat from Government Programs is a better choice than getting rid of them altogether.
The other part of it is, that with Trump's rise, I went back looking at my own personal stances on many issues, and I realized that some of my previous held arguments did not seem to hold water, and when I could not find a better reason to maintain that stance, I adjusted accordingly. And so I wound up shifting left.
I’m back at -5.88 (like 2014) on the economic scale after last year’s -5.63, and I settled on -4.92 on the social scale (between 2014’s -3.95 and 2015’s -5.18).
HG
In 2014, I was -4.00 economic, -3.75 social; in 2015, -4.25 economic, -3.08 social; and now I got -3.38 economic, -2.77 social.
Once again the test shows a definite American political bias — while it shows a rightward drift (which I've been experiencing in my opinions recently, putting me at the centre instead of centre-left), it puts me to the left of where I should be.
Last year, I had -5.63 for Right/Left, and -5.59 For Authoritarain/Liberrtarian.
New scores would be -4.38 for Eco and -5.54 for Social. Not exactly sure why I moved right in Economics like this, but they still need to add neutral answers as an option.
Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
I actually feel like I understood most of the questions this time! For some questions I wish there was a "sometimes" option, though, or a "yes, on its face, but—".
~Neshomeh
Death to the capitalist oppressor, &c. My social position has apparently moderated by a tenth of a point, though, so maybe that's indicative of something. =]
Seriously, 2016 has me in a very Left state of mind. It's a sucky year. :(
hS
What is, exactly, Anarcho-capitalism? Why is government immoral? Why do you think we can manage without government?
Okay, so first off, Anarcho-Capitalism is pretty much just the belief that government is immoral, and can be replaced by voluntary cooperation and free market systems. I realize that's a bit vague, but I'm not sure how to fix that given how varied it can be and my rather unimpressive ability to explain those variances, so... Yeah. If you've got more specific questions I can try to answer them, but there's no guarantee I'll actually have a decent answer. Still learning myself, actually.
I'm fairly sure there are a few websites out there that go into the philosophy behind anarcho-capitalism (the one that springs to mind being the Mises Institute,) but I really don't know much about them, so I've no idea if they'd be at all helpful.
Now, as for why I disagree with the morality of government, that's a bit complicated. The basic principle for me is that I think it's wrong for people to force others to do things by force or threat of force, and I don't consider the government to be anything more than just people. If the individuals who make up a country do not have the right to dictate the lives of others, then I don't think they can delegate that right to others.
And getting by without government, that's the part I'm shakiest on. I personally think that if the government is nothing more than people, why couldn't everything the government does be done voluntarily? Crime and infrastructure are some thorny issues, but there are possible solutions to them, and I think they'd work.
Right then, hopefully I've managed to write something useful rather than just vaguely nattering for four paragraphs. Let me know if you have any more questions. I might not have useful answers to said questions (and I might not convey them well if I do) but I will do my best.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's very practical, for one big reason: humans are jerks.
You say that you think it's wrong for people to force others to do things by force. That is, in my opinion, a fantastic thing to believe - I'm sure most people here believe something similar - but there are some people who just don't care about morals. They'd do what they wanted, because there'd be no risk of punishment. The only way to put a stop to it would be to force them to stop by force.
On government: the way I see it, a government is an organisation (non-profit, which might be anathema to your capitalist ideals, but bear with me) which has the purpose of making life better for the people living in the area it administrates. Yes, sometimes it uses force or implied threats to force its citizens to act in specific ways, but, in general, it only does this for situations where the actions of a person or group of persons would infringe on the well-being (/rights) of another - which, to my mind, is the exception to the "forcing people to do things is wrong" rule.
So I really disagree with the idea that government is immoral. Do you have any thoughts on any of my points? I'd love to hear any solutions your philosophy might provide.
I'm not used to discussing this stuff through text, hence why it's taken so long to respond.
So, to your first point, it's not entirely accurate to say an anarcho-capitalist society is one without consequence. There are a few ideas I've come across but the one I think would work best would be a system of contracts. Everything you do is built on contracts: Water, power, heating, internet, food, business transactions, etc. So, if you do something immoral, say, fraud, you'd most likely be breaking a contract. Include a clause in the standard contract that stipulates maliciously violating the terms of a contract allows other parties to break their contracts with the offender, and/or some form of compensation agreement, and there you go, consequence.
Of course that system has problems (a profound lack of data being a glaring one), but so does every system, at least this one is voluntary.
To your second point, yes, not every action government takes is violent, but all are built on the first initiation of force that is collecting taxes and enforcing law. There's never any agreement to be bound by US law, there's no option to say no. If you're born here then as long as you have an income the government will hound you for a piece of it, and as long as you live here they will fine or imprison you if you violate its decrees. The threat of consequence you never agreed to is always there. That's not something I can accept as moral.
Hope that was helpful to you. As I mentioned, really not used to discussing this stuff over text, so I apologize if I'm not being clear. Thanks for the questions, though. It's interesting to see what people think of this stuff.
I think Nesh brought up my main objection to the contract thing: someone who wants to (insert violent crime here) somebody isn't going to sign a contract with that somebody saying they won't (insert violent crime here) them unless constrained to.
The other thing, though, is this: who enforces the contract? If you're a weedy nerdy person like me, and you sign a contract with a group of big and strong but not terribly bright people to do their brainwork in exchange for them giving you money and muscles, and you fulfill your side, but they don't fulfill theirs, what can you do in your system to gain recompense? Because they won't be able to solve it on their own.
This ties in to how I see government (and I see you brought up taxes - score!): the government puts in place the laws agreed on by the people alongside infrastructure for mediating breaches of said laws. In exchange for this service, anyone expecting protection under these laws pays the government to provide that protection. (This, actually, is what we call the social contract - everyone agrees to follow the government's laws in exchange for not having to tidy up all their own disputes with others, among other things.) If you don't want to follow a specific country's laws, fine - you have the option of changing country.
tl;dr: Government provides services and thus expects to be paid; government is the ultimate extension of your system of contracts.
If everything is based contracts, does that mean that you have to sign an agreement with every single person you meet that you won't murder them and take all their stuff? And if you don't have a contract with them, is it totally okay in your world to murder them and take all their stuff?
Legit question; you talk about morality, but then you focus on utilities and business, saying nothing about what happens when someone actually harms another person, which is usually the heart of any conversation about morals. This confuses me very much. Methinks you are maybe confusing ethics and morals?
Also, what about children? What's their ability to give informed consent to any kind of contract? Are their parents allowed to discipline them, or what? Do they have to sign a contract saying they agree to feed, clothe, and otherwise nurture that child, or they're allowed to beat them, starve them, and otherwise abuse/neglect them all they want? Is anyone allowed to tell them that's wrong and they should stop it? Do they have any recourse at all if the parent says "make me" and pulls a gun or something?
If someone, say, signs a contract with their local coal mine saying it's okay to put their child to work down a dark hole all day, that's perfectly acceptable?
Can we, like, ask everyone to sign a contract with the planet promising not to pollute it to the point that we can't live on it anymore?
~Neshomeh
When it comes to violent crime like robbery or murder, the options are pretty much the same as under government: protect yourself and your property to the extent you deem necessary or seek protection from an outside agency. A rather important exception to the "don't compel others by force" rule that I completely forgot to mention is self defence and defence of others. There are even some people who advocate for including prisons in the list of things carried over from government, though how they square that with the whole "right to life, liberty, and property" thing I have absolutely no idea.
Now, as for why I was focusing on consequence through contract when replying to Seafarer, that was simply because they mentioned people doing whatever they wanted without fear of punishment, rather than something specific like in your post (still getting to that, by the way).
And as for the children, that's one of the areas I mentioned where I just don't have an answer. Not a particularly compelling one, anyway.
You could put together community contracts establishing certain moral standards, but unlike with utilities, goods, or services, there's not really much inventive to sign them. You could rely on people being moral enough to refuse service to people who don't treat their children well enough, but that has far too many holes to be anywhere near reliable and does nothing to actually stop it. You could work into a community contract provisions for removing a child from an abusive home (come to think of it, that might be how some people justify the prison system I mentioned. Hmm.), but again, there's no reason to sign it, and if they don't agree it's no different from government. Lastly, you could rely on individuals to act themselves to remove the child, but then they themselves would be initiating force and infringing on the rights of others.
Maybe one of these or other solutions would work, but without data and a whole lot more thought, I just don't know.
And as for a child's ability to give informed consent on things like security, I honestly don't know how to answer that. Maybe someone else does, but I don't. As I mentioned, I'm still learning. Questions like that are why I try not to present anything I say as a certainty.
The thing is, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because I think it's a perfect system, far from it. I'm an anarcho-capitalist because it's the best alternative to government I've found so far. Maybe there's an answer to your question that squares well enough with my philosophy, maybe there isn't. If there is, I may never find it. All I know is that I cannot countenance statism, and I trust humanity to find alternatives.
It is, "what is the purpose of government?"
Another question that needs asking is "what is government?" because "a system of contracts" would fall under "government", in my opinion — it's just a bad one that relies on people's goodwill.
Seafarer said: "a government is an organisation (non-profit, which might be anathema to your capitalist ideals, but bear with me) which has the purpose of making life better for the people living in the area it administrates."
Neshomeh said: "I consider the role of government to be enforcing the will of the people it governs—ideally with full consideration of human rights for all and for the world we all share. [...] to uphold the rights of women, black people, gay people, Muslims, etc., when certain vocal and powerful groups would silence them, subjugate them, or even kill them for the offense of not being straight white Christian men."
Badger421 hasn't framed it precisely, but this makes their idea pretty clear: "If the individuals who make up a country do not have the right to dictate the lives of others, then I don't think they can delegate that right to others. [...] not every action government takes is violent, but all are built on the first initiation of force that is collecting taxes and enforcing law. There's never any agreement to be bound by US law, there's no option to say no. If you're born here then as long as you have an income the government will hound you for a piece of it, and as long as you live here they will fine or imprison you if you violate its decrees."
My interpretation of the above is that they feel governments exist to enforce their own laws, and to fund themselves through taxes - something of a self-sustaining system where the purpose of a government is to go on being a government (much like a corporation).
For myself, I mostly agree with Seafarer: the purpose of a government, or any political/country-management system by any name, is to improve the lives of its people, and ultimately to make the world a better place. Whether it does that by representing those people (per Neshomeh, and per democracy as a whole), or by some other means, depends on the government. So I guess that's my answer to 'what is government?', too: any system or setup which attempts to carry out the purpose of government. It may be wildly ineffective (the king sits in his castle and issues orders which no-one listens to), but it's still (a) government.
hS
I also believe that it's wrong to force your beliefs on others... but I consider the role of government to be enforcing the will of the people it governs—ideally with full consideration of human rights for all and for the world we all share. It's not some external body coming in from outside and pushing us around for lulz, and I think it's very necessary to uphold the rights of women, black people, gay people, Muslims, etc., when certain vocal and powerful groups would silence them, subjugate them, or even kill them for the offense of not being straight white Christian men.
I'm wondering, how does your philosophy answer a situation like somebody bombing an abortion clinic? I think we would both agree that women should have the freedom to seek that service, and that no one should be allowed to enforce their will on them, but what do you do about it without rule of law and a government to enforce it? Isn't any action another person would take against the bomber also enforcing their will on the bomber? Hurting others is clearly wrong, but how does your philosophy reckon with preventing someone from doing it, or punishing them when they do, if no one can enforce their will on anyone ever? And—let's just make it thornier while we're at it—does the unborn fetus also get consideration in this? Does it have a right to exist, even if the mother can't feed it, or love it, or safely bear it to term?
... Feel free not to answer that. I picked a tricky issue on purpose, to shine a bright light on the problems I see with what you say, but I don't want to put anyone in a situation where they're not comfortable speaking.
~Neshomeh
But anarcho-capitalism makes me think of Shadowrun, omae. And I don't think that's a fantastic model, even without the cyberpunk and fantastic elements.
More seriously, I don't think that's a so great idea. Free market only believe in one thing, the bottom line, like the precedent and current crisis proves it. At the very moment there will be no other actors that them around, you can be sure that profit will very quickly become their only concern, and the rest will go down the drain. Sorry, but I don't believe man is enough of a grown up for going without governements of some sort, even the ones from today and their many, many duck-ups.
But Shadowrun and, to a much lesser extent, the modern (and past, for that matter) world aren't really fair comparisons to anarcho-capitalism. There are some pretty significant differences, the most relevant being that big corporations like in Shadowrun often gain (or at least maintain) their monopolies through government. Lobbying for excessive fees and regulations that smother new businesses, artificially securing a monopoly on products through intellectual property law, things like that.
The idea of regulation through capitalism is to vote with your wallets, essentially. If a company is doing something immoral you don't forbid them from doing it, you just buy from someone else. If an unscrupulous company isn't sufficiently moral for the buying public, another company with take its place. Competition is everything, and competition favors the business practices that most satisfy the consumer public.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I don't have data to back it up (not entirely sure how one would gather data on this, either), it's just my interpretation of my own observations. I may be wrong, or I may be right. Or I could be varying degrees of both, draw your own conclusions.
I think you underestimate the extraterritoriality's status in Shadowrun, making the megacorps their own 'nations', owing nothing to no one. There are plenty zones where the abscence of government lead to the worst. And even in zones with government, they pretty much do their own thing.
And that leads me to my actual point. People worshipping the bottom line, who already failed at all levels in self-regulation, like the current crisis proves it, can litterally cannot be trusted.
If one these companies decided to do something ammoral like storng-arming me to buy their products or anything like this, I'd have absolutely no answer. and forget about voting with my wallet, these dudes will have taken it a long time ago.
There would be nothing stopping them to do that, and even if they didn't use actual violence, indiret pressures can do the job pretty quickly. Competition with some rules already crashed pretty hard, it's a no-brainer that competition without rules will end with an even worst result.
You're right, competition is everything. Thing is, once all the rules are gone, morality is one of the first things thrown under the bus. And the rest follows very quickly.
Something like the census. People won't feel as pressured into agreeing with the majority opinion, and if they hold a minority opinion, won't feel as if they have to speak for everyone who shares their views. We can get a better idea of the full diversity of PPCers that way. Even the quiet ones.
--Key is making a Google Form as she types
We've just seen Alleb cheerfully declare that she's twice as far right-of-centre as the most right-wing result we've ever seen. People may be inclined to argue and disagree with her, and even try to persuade her she's wrong, but no-one's going to attack her for it, or assume she speaks for everyone. (Heck, look at me and ScapeDownWithCapitalismGrace disagreeing over stuff when we're hanging around on the far left together - it would be rank hypocrisy to say 'you must share everything with other people in your region!' after that!)
hS
Take a wild guess. =]
That the Tories look like Corbyn, compared to you. :P
1) I'd say left-leaning center.
2) Because though I'm all for LGBTQ+ rights and stricter gun laws and access to contraceptives, I don't want to ban guns outright or force religious institutions to perform gay marriages. I've heard some really far-left people I know say religion ought to be banned entirely, which I think is stupid. Just because you yourself aren't religious doesn't mean you have the right to tell other people what to (not) worship, kthx.
3) Now that Bernie's out of the running, I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping Trump doesn't get into office. Still, even with Hilary in the White House, the Republicans are almost guaranteed to get people into the majority of the House and the Senate, and we'll be stuck in another political gridlock. Woop-de-flipping-do.
And whatever else you might think of them, Republicans are excellent at marching in lockstep, regardless of whether or not it's in their interest. However, forcing the Republicans to switch gears so drastically is going to take money they might not have and time they definitely don't, so I don't think there's going to be as much of a gridlock as people think.
Put it this way: Trump's presidential campaign is such a lost cause that he might lose Utah to a local independent. This is a good thing. However, WE CANNOT BE COMPLACENT. Complacency is how Brexit happened. Get out the vote. Make people vote for Clinton. Don't let another Nader issue happen again. Don't follow the pattern established by Maine's last two gubernatorial elections. Please. For the sake of the rest of the planet, vote Democrat this year. Mass action doesn't work if the people don't mass, and the easiest way to delay mass action is to appeal to individual disengagement, to convince people that no, their vote does not matter. Your vote matters, your vote counts. Vote for who you want, but please, I implore you to vote for Clinton. Vote for someone who will appoint left-leaning SCOTUS judges. Vote against a posing, grunting dictator who belongs in a banana republic.
I realise Scape is our vocal socialist on the Board, but I'm out there too. I'm the one who voted no to Brexit on /principle/, rather than evidence.
Why? Because I don't believe anyone is less important than anyone else. I want everyone to get a fair and positive existence - even if they live outside my country. Our goal should be to help /everyone/, not just the rich or the English.
Right now, Britain kind of sucks at that. We have a conservative party in power, gleefully privatising everything they can get their mitts on while dragging us out of the continental union. We have a left-wing leader in Labour, elected to the position by a landslide - but every politician in his party hates his guts. We have a far-right nationalist party who got /15% of the vote/ in the last election. Racism, nationalism, and isolationism m are rife, and we have no functioning Left.
So yeah. 2016 sucks, please don't make it worse America.
hS
Trump isn't just supported by white supremacists, though, he's also hired one as campaign manager. (Breitbart News does one thing, y'all.)
And also, on top of promising to jail his opponent if elected, he's been on and off telling his supporters to respond with violence if he loses, because "polls are showing" he can't lose. That's not even true - no polls that I've seen have put him ahead of Hillary. So… this should be pretty clear-cut.
This guy is telling things like this? No wonder the Republicans are trying their hardest to distance themselves from this madman.
How could people vote for that wreck?
And I thought elections in France next spring were going to be ugly...
"The only way we can lose is if they cheat" and "someone should shoot her" are… uh… hard to misconstrue?
Thank the electoral college system; I live in a very red state, and I have a feeling that most people here are going to vote by party rather than by candidate. Plus, the Republican VP used to be our state governor.
I guess I'm just sick of the constant pressure to "pick a side" from both parties. Politics is something I just do not have the energy for, neither candidate is appealing in terms of personality, and I don't feel like I have enough understanding of their plans to improve the country to vote on that. And given that my parents fall to one side and most of my friends fall to the other, I feel like I'm constantly being pulled both ways at the same time. It doesn't help that everyone seems to act like it's an issue of morality. I feel like I have to defend a side I don't agree with because otherwise people I care about are being demonized.
It's just really stressful, and I just want to get away from it. Nothing I do will make a difference one way or another, so why do I have to feel awful about it?
Especially in this election, where members of both parties are refusing to vote for their candidate (because they hate Trump/won't vote Democrat without Sanders). I'm not saying you should argue for either side, or even say which one you're voting for - we fought hard for secret ballots, y'know! - but you should make your vote count, not throw it away.
hS
The liberal candidate I actually wanted says Clinton is the next-best thing. Works for me.
I also heard the Libertarian VP candidate basically admitted they can't win and declared he's throwing all his efforts into blocking Trump. I find this significant. Also, while in theory I'd like to vote for the Green Party, the news from their quarter has been pretty weird of late. {= /
Maybe next election, with the Republican party having basically torn itself into shreds, there might be room for third parties.
~Neshomeh
I'm with them on environmental issues and certain of their animal rights messages (I cannot in good conscience condone scientific animal testing, because while alternatives are being developed they are nowhere near ready for mass production yet), but less so on their endorsement of homeopathy and other fringe pseudoscientific beliefs. Like, the belief that a statistically insignificant drop of onion juice can cure your ills is very much the tip of the iceberg here.
To be precise, a lot of people seem to ask "which is the best candidate?" and then go and protest-vote because the best one doesn't exist.
I think that's the wrong thing to ask; one should ask, "which candidate is the least-bad one?"; that way, you don't waste your vote on some ineffectual bum that has zero chances of being elected, and don't (passively) help the Really Bad Guy™ to get into office.
(Of course, this doesn't work when all of the Not Terrible Options are equally crazy like they are here.)
Because we're all reasonable people who don't flame (and if we come close, we apologize), so it's a way to actually learn about the other sides' points of view while still seeing them as decent people.
I would vote for Hillary Clinton if I were old enough to vote and would definitely like to hear from other sides of the issue. Email is clickable if you don't want it to be a public discussion.
--Key
Possibly because US politics is my current obsession. But mostly because hS is the most rational person ever and I love reading his opinions on things. ^_^
(I wanted Bernie, but Clinton is the only nominee who I feel has any connection with my views. But who cares - I'm not American! *grabs popcorn*)
He's maybe too idealistic. For example, he supports California Proposition 61, a mess of a proposal whose positive effects rely entirely on big companies doing the ethical, supportive thing -- and if the big companies behave the way big companies are known for behaving (selfishly), lots of patients will lose access to potentially lifesaving drugs. And I'm scared it'll pass because of Bernie's endorsement -- he's pretty popular here.
--Key
By which I mean, he needs to accept that the modern left is a post-nationalist, globalist effort that cannot and should not favour economic protectionism; letting drug companies dictate the prices of their medicines is forcing the sick and the dying to negotiate with people who have everything to gain. Without a single buyer like the NHS, drug companies hold all the cards; with a single buyer, the patients can get the care and medicine they need without breaking the bank (or, for instance, being forced to pay hundreds of dollars to hold their baby after giving birth to it what is wrong with you people). That, I think, is what he should be advocating for rather than this proposition.
Additionally, while it's a supremely unpopular position in the US, I would personally like to see massive cuts to the insanely bloated defence budget - but I would counter the bad PR of this with an expansion of veterans' benefits. I'm a pacifist; I do not believe that war is even slightly necessary, and while I have the greatest respect for those who choose to enter military service, militarism and those services have been running roughshod over the political landscape for far, far too long. The United States, with a population somewhere north of three hundred million people, is the only country in which military personnel constitute a voting demographic, and the existence of such an enormous military bothers me considerably. I reiterate that my problem is not with the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and everyone else; my problem is with the scale of their budget and the interventionist hawks who shout from the rooftops that the US military must be deployed anywhere and everywhere someone said a mean thing about America/Americans/McDonalds/Nike/Coca-Cola (delete as appropriate).
I recognise that that's idealistic. That's the thing about idealism, though; it's about aiming for the moon and hitting a star instead.
In my case, a red star. =]
The protectionism question in the Political Compass always trips me up. I answered "agree" to that one thinking "sure, sometimes we penalize countries who are doing awful things by making it harder for them to sell their stuff here, so yes, sometimes," but reading your post, I'm not entirely certain that's a correct interpretation...?
(And yes, everyone should have access to decent health care, and yes, our military could stand a fair reduction in budget. Even they don't want all the stuff they keep getting, AFAIK. And if we could all just quit with the nukes, I'd feel a lot better. Agree with hS that, until everyone gets on board, getting rid of the military entirely isn't a choice, though.)
~Neshomeh
Part of your answer is that the questions are often deliberately ambiguous: they want to know not just your answer, but (by way of that answer) what you think the question means.
I actually 'agree'd with that one too (sorry, Scape!); my thought process is that outsourcing and importing can lead to far bigger crashes in domestic industry than it benefits the other countries. A related thought - though one that I admit I didn't have at the time - is that a major reason companies operate overseas is that regulations are weaker there. If your clothing company can manufacture in Bangladesh, they can skimp on both wages and safety for the workers. 'Protectionism' - in the sense of encouraging domestic manufacture rather than trade - seems to me to be (partly) an anti-sweatshop technique.
hS
Wikipedia* says "some commentators, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, see developed countries [sic] efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism."
I... kind of raise my eyebrows at that. On the one hand, I kinda get how it could be seen as keeping the little man down, since developed countries may have had more opportunity to come up with technologies and approaches that are more labor- and environment-friendly, where as developing countries may not have the same resources... but on the other hand, if the developing countries of the world can skip ahead to better practices, that sounds like a good idea? Can we maybe help with that?
* or at least someone who edited Wikipedia once
~Neshomeh
"Protectionism" is "setting up tariffs and whatnot in order to protect local producers from cheap competition from abroad"?
I agree unreservedly with the first point. When it comes to human rights - and I think health is pretty high on everyone's list of those - allowing corporations to free-market their way into charging vast amounts for them is just... wrong, in my view. Which is why I view the current ongoing sale of chunks of the NHS to private corporations with abject horror. A National Health System is one of the best and greatest things ever to come out of the UK, but for decades now it's been whittled away. The Cameron/May governments have just been accelerating that.
The military, though... while I would also call myself a pacifist, I disagree that war is unnecessary. It's unnecessary if everyone agrees it is. If the world consisted solely of North America and Western Europe, then absolutely: throw out the weapons and invest in a dove factory (disclaimer: I have no idea how they build doves). But it doesn't. We have North Korea. We have ISIS. We have Russia, which seems worryingly inclined to revert to conquering swathes of territory (anyone remember the Crimea? It's still Russian, these days, and Ukraine can't do a thing about it).
We don't live in a world where you can scrap the military, both because it's a deterrent against other people acting, and because sometimes the only way to help people outside your borders is to get down there and shoot - or at least threaten into submission - the people who are ruining their country.
Is the US military oversized? Probably! Probably so is ours, actually; I would be happy to see both reduced to some extent. But right now, in this world, they need to exist. (Though if we could get a proper strong UN Peacekeeping Force in play... no? No? Dang.)
hS
I think that giving the UN the keys to a proper strong peacekeeping force is a bad idea. Their peacekeeping forces around here — UNIFIL and UNDOF — have done a shockingly bad job of keeping the peace. Further, I wouldn't trust the UN with a lemonade stand, much less an army, since it seems to have all the worst qualities of governments without any of the redeeming features.
and knows very little about anything in particular: what would you say are the big issues with the UN? All the bollocks they get wrong? All that peacekeeping they do a bad job of, and whatnot.
Basically, the UN should be "let's all work together toward making the world a better place for everyone", right? Except it's so full of politics it doesn't do that. The Arabs use it as a tool to bully Israel, the stronger states (Russia, US, China, etc) veto stuff they don't like, and so on and so forth. "United Nations" is a misnomer. "World Council of Arguing" fits better.
I think I needed a bit of extra punctuation: I want a strong-UN peacekeeping force. That is, I want us to make the UN an actual force for positive change that can make decisions and make them stick.
And then I want to give it all the soldiers.
hS
So we'll all be able to sail to Aman. Same chances of success, in my humble opinion.
I do my best, though I have been known to fail spectacularly.
(Right now I'm all kind of fuzzy and 'yay someone expressed an unprompted positive opinion of me as a person' inside. The 'thank you' was very much sincere.)
hS
Thank you for the reminder!
But thanks for the last-minute public service. This may have been one of the screwiest election seasons to date, but it's nonetheless imperative that we get out and vote.
#i'mwithher, all the way