More RWE survey questions by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

More RWE survey questions

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2006 07:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2007
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:55 AM

The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?
Which is more important (security, freedom)?
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?
The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?
The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?
My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:26 AM

AGENTROUKA

Whee, survey! Opining is fun. *g*

The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)? government. At least it's theoretically not just out for profits.
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)? Done to extremes both are harmful, but equality first.
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)? A few rigidly enforced rules.
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)? Both? Mainly need, though. Merit-type benefit should be private or business, not governmental.
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)? This is too vague. Depends entirely on context. Gut reaction: variety.
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)? Supplied by the system, if that means it's the natural offer/demand thing.
Which is more important (security, freedom)? Freedom, freedom, freedom. The kind that ends where another's begins.
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)? We haven't tried the first one, yet, have we, and the second has been volatile in past centuries. War war war. Time will tell.
The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)? Diplomacy.
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)? How is this either/or? The second serves the first.
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)? The less bureaucracy the better, so large all-purpose? ETA: I thought this applied to regulating bodies, but apparently it's the actual participating companies, so I change my answer to many small ones.
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)? If there's a better one, I haven't seen it yet.
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)? Again, entirely context-dependent. Generally, the people who were there first.
The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back? Cut back, everyone. More space programs, dammit! *g*
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway? By definition, negotiation aims for compromise, no?
My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out? Mostly consistent. I think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?

Yes, and people too.

Quote:

Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?

Yes.

Quote:

Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?

So long as I am that hand...ok.

Quote:

To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?

Both, after all communism don't work. Or I should say, needs based economics does not work. If I have my need met regardless, there is no incentive for hard work (or any work) and no incentive for innovation.

Quote:

Should society has (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?

Variety is both good and bad. For example, the military relies on uniform disipline and rigd adherance to doctrine, yet success on the battlefield is often an a measure of improvisation and initiative. The same applies in court where everyone follows rigid rules, yet applies creative endeavor to make their arguments.

Quote:

Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?

This question doesn't make sense. What about skilled positions working for the government?

Quote:

Which is more important (security, freedom)?

You can't have one without the other.

Quote:

The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?

Both. How about a collection of soveriegn states joined in a common government...like the United States.

Quote:

The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?

Military Conflict. I believe Mr. Heinlen and I agree that more issues have been resolved with violence then by any other means. Perhaps we can hear from one of our fellows in Carthage for a different opinion. Or look at Isreal v. Lebanon-Hezbollah (Lezbollah?) and you see that the diplomatic solution has merely prolonged the conflict by forcing a conclusion without settling the issue. Had the war continued one side would have won and it would have been much more settled then it is now.

Quote:

It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?

People and their works are as natural as geese and their works so promoting the interests of people does serve the enviroment. In other words people are natural.

Quote:

The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?

Both, because the economy is best served by competition.

Quote:

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?

Benevolant monarchy (or a philospher king with absolute power) is the best possible system, but it has a fatal flaw in that such enlightened dicatorship cannot be sustained and gives way to corruption and tyranny. That leaves American Democracy (not Western, cause clearly Europe would be completely non-functional if America wasn't around to help out) as the second best and better then all the rest.

Quote:

Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?

How about the people who own it? I was born in a house in West Virginia...but I don't have some kind of clain to that land just because I was there before the present owners. And would you really give up your house to some family that comes along now and says, we have ten children and you have none, so your house belongs to us now? I think not.

Quote:

The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?

Tell you what. If everybody else disarms, then we will disarm too (mostly).

Quote:

Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?

Depends. Would you negotiate away your right to free speech or perhaps the lives of a few million Jews? Some things cannot be comromised on.

Quote:

My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?

Its an evolution of ideas. Hell, 25 years ago I was an eight-year old Democrat. Twenty-five years from now I might end up a 60 year-old communist, let's just wait and see.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:45 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?

That leaves American Democracy (not Western, cause clearly Europe would be completely non-functional if America wasn't around to help out) as the second best and better then all the rest.

Excuuuuse me ever so much. Since you see it necessary to include insults in your answers, how's about explaining what that is supposed to mean?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually, although counting down to a flame war (we all see if coming, and yet cross our fingers in the hopes that we are wrong) these threads DO show that even those most diverse and willing to bang heads together, there is still common ground somewhere.

Ergo, in hopes that we can all find at least ONE thing that we agree with someone else on, and thus common ground enough to get along, by all means continue.

To the questions...

The future is safer in the hands of(goverment, corporations)?
Children, and better children we have not destroyed all that is good and decent in and turned into warped and bitter adults who will in turn warp their own kids.

Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?
I do not understand the question, each society would find an appropriate balance, wouldn't it ?

Society is best run by a set of rules which are(rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?
Nonexistent, the moment you make rules, someone abuses them, and the cycle continues - unspoken common sense is best.

To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?
Need, within reason, I would give up some of my luxuries to feed a starving divorcees children, sure, but it should be a choice, not an order.

Should society has (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?
Erk - man you phrased that badly... erm, There is no "One Right Path", never was, never will be, each to their needs and desires at the limit of infringing others.

Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?
Crush outsourcing and this problem goes away.

Which is more important (security, freedom)?
Freedom, true security is impossible - if your time has come, it's come.

The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?
Confederacy of societies, nations are governments, and that's ALWAYS trouble.

The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?
Personal Vendetta, it limits the scale - with Diplomacy as an option at any time.

It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?
Kind of a non-issue, if we make this place uninhabitable.

The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?
Monopolization leads to exploitation, competition breeds diversity and ingeniuty.

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?
And you ask an Anarchist such a thing ?

Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?
The people on it, but historically folks have always bungled co-existance with the natives of any land they tried to settle on.

The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?
I'm all for the elimination of anything that isn't personally portable, but I dun see it happening.

Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?
Only when the other party is willing to compromise, negotiation is always preferred.

My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?
There is no "One Right Way" for anything, show a better or different one, and let people make their own decisions about it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:06 AM

DREAMTROVE

My answers to my own questions, and maybe some clarification of not-too-well-thought-out ambiguities

Each of these were meant as a priority. X is more important than y, even if y is important.

Quote:
The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?

Corporations.

Quote:
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?

Preservation of a way of life.

Quote:
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?

Guiding hand.

Quote:
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?

I'm a let-them-eat-cake-r. Merit first.

Quote:
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?

spice of life

Quote:
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?

Skilled people should work, unskilled people should learn skills, society shouldn't have to employ the unskilled. I meant this as a competition system, vs. a universal employment one. A lot of european and latin american systems aim for having everyone employed at some level.

Quote:
Which is more important (security, freedom)?

Freedom, security can go by the board for all care.

Quote:
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?

Smaller nations, i'm a Taft man, not a Wilson-ite.

Quote:
The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?

Diplomacy. It may be slow, but occupations usually breed hatred.

Quote:
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?

Protect the Earth first. If some people don't make it, that's life.

Quote:
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?

I view large all purpose institutions as a threat to competition and the free market. Smaller ones are better. I'd probably support a size limit, depends on the specifics.

Quote:
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?

I'm sure there are better ones. Probably that have been historically tried. Democracy created Pericles, and does so again and again.

Quote:
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?

Whoever was there first. It's not their fault that the other people could contol their population.

Quote:
The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?

Cut back, we're way over-bombed.

Quote:
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?

Negotiation is always compromise, but some things can't be compromised. I think that sometimes you probably have to stick to your guns on, but you can compromise elsewhere to make up for it. I don't think "you have to do it my way" is generally an acceptable position. Except maybe "you have to stop genociding and leveling the Earth."

Quote:
My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?

I think I'm getting pretty consistant. It's just probably not going to be consistant with an existing political party. Maybe the GOP of several decades ago. Perhaps there's a party in some other country for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:13 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)? Power to the People!
Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)? Both. Or neither.
Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)? Both
To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)? Both. I think a healthy society needs a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)? Both
Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)? Both
Which is more important (security, freedom)? Freedom
The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)? Collection of smaller nations.
The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)? Depends on who you are disagreeing with (some people you just can't reach: Cool Hand Luke).
It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)? If the people are gone, who's there to care about the environment?
The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)? Both
Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)? Benign Dictatorship would be best, but...
Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)? Ahhh, the first one, maybe the second, xylophone.
The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back? We're gonna' kill each other anyway, the size of the explosion doesn't matter. Dead is dead.
Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway? Both
My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out? Issues, issues, issues...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Opining IS fun. But these questions are worded in a way to react to DT's opining, I think. A lot of dichotomies here that don't make sense to ME.

The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?
Neither. My future is safer in my own hands. Everyone's future would be safer in his/her own hands.

Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?
Are these mutually exclusive? What way of life do you mean? Can we have a way of life that includes equality?

Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?
Depends on the rules. But generally, if you're going to have rules, then have very, very few and make them count (rigorously enforced).

To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?
Benefits provided should be voluntary. If benefits are voluntarily given, people giving can decide why they want to give--based on need or merit or no reason at all.

Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?
Ways of doing what? A society does have to some some consensus to function properly. It is convenient to have everyone driving on the same side of the road. But it doesn't mean everyone needs to drive on the "same side of the road" in all other areas. Both consensus and variety have their places.

Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?
Don't understand. Why would employment be available to workers who can't do the job?

Which is more important (security, freedom)?
Freedom.

The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?
As much anarchism as people will allow.

The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?
It depends. Sometimes one is more effective in the long run, sometimes the other.

It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?
Is the environment threatening to kill the people? If the environment is dangerous, we fix it--but isn't that usually called conservation? Not sure what this question means.

The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?
Power is better broken down into smaller denominations. Less potential for abuse.

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?
I personally prefer USA back when it was founded. If there is a way to keep that system from degenerating into the huge mess we have now, it would be a better system.

Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?
Land should belong to people who were there first (and didn't leave). But that never happens. It always goes to people who can take that land.

The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?
Not bigger weapons, better weapons. I want to see a war weapon that would assassinate heads of state first, and then down the line. Then we'll see how many wars we get into.

Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?
"By definition, negotiation aims for compromise, no? " LOL. Thank you, AgentR.

My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?
We all think our ideas are internally consistent. Our ideas always make sense to ourselves, that is why we hold them. Am I always right? NO. Can I be corrected? Yes.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:18 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Excuuuuse me ever so much. Since you see it necessary to include insults in your answers, how's about explaining what that is supposed to mean?

The traditional weakness of the western Democracies has many examples and case studies I could cite but I'm to busy laughing at the mighty French Army sending its crack "twelve guys in rubber boat" division to end the war in Lebanon and bring peace to us all.

European Democracies lacked the will to stand up to Hitler, the Soviets, the Serbs, the Islamafascists, and in France's case, a little blind girl with a poodle and a wheel of cheese, without the US to hide behind and protect them.

Lets face it, Europe's biggest contribution to world peace is adding "or else" to any demands made by the Security Council.

(Note: England and its really big Anglo-Saxon balls, is not a traditional Western Democracy. Mainly because of the afformentioned large balls...which odly the rest of Europe seems to lack in any size.)

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:37 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

European Democracies lacked the will to stand up to Hitler, the Soviets, the Serbs, the Islamafascists, and in France's case, a little blind girl with a poodle and a wheel of cheese, without the US to hide behind and protect them.

I find it very interesting that you seem to equate democracy with military power. (Or, hey, the concept of will with military power. Very rational.) I thought we were talking political system?

Not to mention, you conveniently seem to forget that the history of democracy in Europe is a very different one to the U.S. and its stability, yes, was fragile for a good long time. But things particular in Western Europe have been fairly stable for a good while now. You can't, for example, remotely compare the German democracy of 1918-1933 with the post-war one.

Quote:

Lets face it, Europe's biggest contribution to world peace is adding "or else" to any demands made by the Security Council.

Again I ask: How does this define the entirety of European democracy as non-functional without the aid of the US?

If we're counting world peace as the one deciding factor, then I do raise my eyebrows at why you're considering the U.S. the cream of the crop.

Quote:
(Note: England and its really big Anglo-Saxon balls, is not a traditional Western Democracy. Mainly because of the afformentioned large balls...which odly the rest of Europe seems to lack in any size.)

Oh. Forgive me. I was going to take you seriously, but apparently I missed all the obvious signs that this was a locker room contest between thirteen-year-olds.

My bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:42 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Read a study once and the Slavs have the biggest balls.

Or at least the heaviest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:56 AM

TWILIGHTJACK

Additionally, Hero, how do you know that it is the Anglo-Saxon portion of their heritage that contributes to Britain's great big bollocks? It could just as easily be the Norman (read: French), Gaelic, or even Roman blood coursing through the veins of many of the United Kingdom's inhabitants.

As a point of interest, do you know who else has insanely large testicles? Male cattle. Bulls. Of course, cattle are not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, and I certainly wouldn't want one running my country, no matter how big his balls.

So on two levels at least, your lauding of British government, based upon "big Anglo-Saxon balls," is completely fallacious and unsupported (which incidentally, I don't recommend for those with ponderously big balls, especially when engaging in vigourous activity).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:11 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Ooh, another survey!

The future is safer in the hands of (government, corporations): Compassionate people who don't want to go around killing anyone; but, if I had to choose... government

Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)? Universal equality

Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)? Both, depending on the rule/law

To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? i.e. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)? Both, in that order

Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) i.e. Variety is (spice of bad, spice of life)? Most spices are good

Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)? Available to any willing to work

Which is more important (security, freedom)? Freedom

The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)? Collection… that way someone has a chance to get it right.

The best long-term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)? Diplomacy.

It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)? We can do both. I don’t see that as particularly difficult.

The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)? Smaller ones… because Wal-Mart scares me (assuming I interpreted the question correctly, that is).

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)? Are you kidding me? There has to be something better.

Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)? How about land shouldn’t belong to anyone, it should belong to everyone?

The world needs bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back? Eliminate them all together, and let people who want to argue hurl stones at each other or get in a fistfight.

Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway? Compromise.

My ideas are internally consistent, or I have some issues to work out? There are definitely still a few issues.

---

Go to http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/ and vote Firefly!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:48 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTTS,

Actually, spin was not the goal. I've divided the world into two basic camps on what I see as the core philosophical differences. People will probably fall on one side, not necessarily all the way at the end, of each issue, if they think about it enough, I suspect.

Other standard issues like the Death Penalty don't define a philosophical position. You heard likely one side of the argument, and so were convinced, often at the age of ten or something. But it's not a deep felt belief.

The whole question set was meant as, when it comes to a breaking point between these two ideas, I fall on the side of...

So my pro-PWL statement was not an opposition to equality, it was simply saying, I'm not sacraficing my way of life to make sure society is egalitarian.

Maybe this was to abstruse for most people

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:17 PM

MISBEHAVEN

The future is safer in the hands of (goverment, corporations)?

Between these two, I would say the government. Preferably, a small government with minimal interference.

Which ideal is more important (Universal Equality, Preservation of a way of life)?

Universal Equality would be the ideal. Preservation of life is usually attained by exploiting those who are weaker, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.

Society is best run by a set of rules which are a (rigidly enforced, guiding hand)?

Both, I think. You're not going to have a sustainable society without some law.

To each according to his needs, or Let them eat cake? ie. Benefits in a society should be based mainly on (need, merit)?

It's always important to help those in need, but if you expect a society to function properly, then merit is an absolutely essenital component.

Should society have (one way of doing things, or are there many equally valid ways,) ie. Variety is (spice of bad,spice of life)?

Depends on the thing in question, but generally there are many ways. In my opinion, variety enhances a society.

Positions of employment (supplied by the system, available to skilled workers)?

The job needs to go to the person who's most qualified regardless of ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.

Which is more important (security, freedom)?

Freedom. I'm sure a police state would be secure, but I don't want to live in one.

The world is better as (A global one world govt., a collection of smaller nations)?

The best one is the one that governs least. Both systems have the potential to raise humanity up, or grind it into the ground.

The best long term effective way to settle disagreements is (military conflict, diplomacy)?

Diplomacy. Military conflict should only be a last resort option.

It's more important that we (protect the people, conserve the environment)?

I don't think these are mutually exclusive of one another. You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger tree-hugger than me. I think most people's attitude towards the environment is shameful, but there needs to be balance. The relationship between people and the environment is symbiotic, it's give and take. The problem right now is that people are mostly taking, and far to few are giving anything back.

The economy is better served by (Large all-purpose institutions, a large number of smaller ones)?

Small businesses are the key to the economy, and freedom of choice. I don't want one phone company, one cable company, one food corporation etc. I prefer to go to the farmer's market and other local businesses, not a Wal-Mart superstore.

Western Democracy is the (best system possible, there are probably better ones)?

There's probably a better system, but I haven't seen one. The problem is that any form of government is susceptible to corruption.

Land should belong to (the people who were there first, the people who there are more of)?

Ideally, the people who were there first, but we all know how that works out.

The world needs more bigger weapons, or should we try to cut back?

I'm for mutual disarmament, but it'll never happen. War is big business.

Negotiation should be settled by compromise, or my way or the highway?

Compromise would be best, but some people are simply unwilling to compromise at all.

My ideas are internally consistant, or I have some issues to work out?

They vary. Some of my ideas are consistent, and others are open to different possibilites.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation."
-Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:57 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I've divided the world into two basic camps on what I see as the core philosophical differences. People will probably fall on one side, not necessarily all the way at the end, of each issue, if they think about it enough, I suspect.

Maybe you can just elaborate on what you see as the core philosophical differences? And then I can tell you what side I fall on.

Forced choice questions are always tricky to pull off. The wording of the questions is critical--people have to understand very clearly what the 2 forced choices mean. Most of the time, I just didn't understand your choices.

For example, people or the environment. I would have probably worded it like this. "If one had to be sacrificed for the other to survive, which would you choose to sacrifice: humans or the environment?" Then I would understand first of all, that it WAS a forced choice question, and secondly, what my 2 choices were. Even then it would be hard, no painful, to answer.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:36 AM

DREAMTROVE

CTTS

Okay, you got more or less what I was trying to do.

people vs the environment, I think there's a trend here. If you have to choose complete the loss of one, it's harder, but then consider the half loss. The world loses 1/2 its people, or half the earth/life/species. It's like pakistan, or reptiles?

The curious thing was that most people didn't fall on one side, maybe nobody fell on one side.

AgentRouka gave what I thought was the most solidly one-sided stance, which was all left wing except for "people who were there first."

Logically, if you think about it, people who were there first is a conservative preservation of a way of life position, ireland for the irish, etc. The counter position would be, overpopulated nations should export their people to less populated ones, which is actually not as far out as it sounds, it's a base principle operating the mainstream left of the US and EU.

Some of the questions weren't meant to be left-right, but authoritarian-libertarian, and not surprisingly, a bunch of firefly fans tended libertarian.

I thought the fact that people weren't solidly on one side was the most interesting thing to come out of it. In both surveys, no one is party line.

It opens up political possibilities. It's entirely possible, under our political system, that a politician, who matches the majority of positions with the majority of one side, who is in the majority, that the elected platform would include positions that are not supported by a majority of the people, or even close.

Perhaps the system would work better if all issues were put to a referendum.

Ben franklin said "democracy is a a lamb and two wolves deciding what to have for dinner."

I think that actually, ours may be more like the team of wolf-lamb is a majority, and so beats out other-lamb, and then decisions are made within wolf lamb, and a compromise is reached in the party whereby platforms are passed, inspite of vehement objections of half the party, and so wolf-lamb's platform decides on daisies *and* lamb as fair game for dinner. Wolf then leads wolf-lamb to a stunning victory over other-lamb, and lambs eat daisies and wolf eats lambs.

The trick here is that the formula has changed, wolf and two lambs sit down and decide to have lamb for dinner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:22 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I find it very interesting that you seem to equate democracy with military power. (Or, hey, the concept of will with military power. Very rational.) I thought we were talking political system?

One measure of the viability of a particular system of government must be its ability of sustain itself in the face of foriegn aggression. You can have the best form of government the world has ever known, but if it lacks the power to withstand an assault by a foriegn power, then its all meaningless.

Quote:

Not to mention, you conveniently seem to forget that the history of democracy in Europe is a very different one to the U.S. and its stability, yes, was fragile for a good long time. But things particular in Western Europe have been fairly stable for a good while now.

I agree. Since World War II European democracy has been very stable. Why? The United States. Our money reconstructed Europe's economic and social infrastructure. Our leadership gave Europe direction. Our military power was a shield against Communist aggression. Likewise it was the absense of the United States that many rightfully blame for the failure of the League of Nations after WW1 and was a major contributing factor to WW2.

Quote:

Again I ask: How does this define the entirety of European democracy as non-functional without the aid of the US?

Europe has in recent years taken a much more active role in world affairs and has decided in many cases to forgo American advise and leadership. Economically they formed the EU whose goals I agree with, but whose member states are suffering very poor economic growth compared to the United States. Old Europe has a great deal of social and political instability beneath a brave facade, instability that periodically manifests itself with examples such as the riots in Paris last year or Spain's overnight capitulation to terrorists. Militarily they took the lead in Bosnia and nothing was accomplished till US forces began to arrive years later. The French have traditionally stood by while people are slaughtered on their doorstep in places like Rwanda and it was a largely European contingent that waved at passing Hezbollah forces as they entered Isreal to kidnap Isreali soldiers on July 12, starting the recent war and now it is Europe which promises 15,000 troops to end the fighting and sends a couple guys and a dingy.

In short all of Europe's efforts, promises, and pretense at world leadership have amounted to little or nothing unless and until the United States steps in to make it all better.

Quote:

If we're counting world peace as the one deciding factor, then I do raise my eyebrows at why you're considering the U.S. the cream of the crop.

US policy kept the peace for fifty years. And we stand ready for peace today. If all the terrorists laid down their arms today then the war on terror would be over. If Saddam had surrendered peacefully, there would not be a US presense in Iraq. If North Korea would quite being a hostile and aggressive nation determined to build and use a capacity to deliver WMDs to American, Korean, and Japanese cities, Korea would have peace. Peace with the US is easy, its peace with the terrorists and hostile powers that seems to be hard.

Quote:

Oh. Forgive me. I was going to take you seriously, but apparently I missed all the obvious signs that this was a locker room contest between thirteen-year-olds.

Don't hang around here much, do ya?

My eloquently stated point is that England is not a traditional part of Europe. They have always sought to stand apart from the continental types. One way they have distinguished themselves is by having balls...another way is by having shows like Doctor Who.

Likewise I find myself with great admiration for the French people. France however is a piece of shit pansy nation that hasn't the balls to play a decent game of tennis much less stand up and be a world leader. Its kind of a French tradition. Strong people, crappy govt.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:24 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Read a study once and the Slavs have the biggest balls.

So thats why they walk so funny...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:33 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
Additionally, Hero, how do you know that it is the Anglo-Saxon portion of their heritage that contributes to Britain's great big bollocks? It could just as easily be the Norman (read: French), Gaelic, or even Roman blood coursing through the veins of many of the United Kingdom's inhabitants.

Point taken. Saw Braveheart and King Arthur so you could be right.

I note that Golf is a Scottish game that involves hitting little white balls, much like they did when the Anglish invaded...

Quote:

As a point of interest, do you know who else has insanely large testicles? Male cattle. Bulls. Of course, cattle are not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, and I certainly wouldn't want one running my country, no matter how big his balls.

Have you ever driven by a dairy farm and noticed all the cows standing together and having some kind of meeting. Perhaps they are discussing public policy much like one of those round tables that they show on CSPAN3 at 2am.

Cattle can provide many useful things:
Milk, good.
Leather, good.
Beef, good.
Plan to revitalize American domestic rail transportation infrastructure by utilizing a hybrid program of deregulation and tax incentives, good.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:44 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Read a study once and the Slavs have the biggest balls.

So thats why they walk so funny...

H

Yeah, it was in Ball Aficionado Magazine...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:13 AM

TWILIGHTJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:
Additionally, Hero, how do you know that it is the Anglo-Saxon portion of their heritage that contributes to Britain's great big bollocks? It could just as easily be the Norman (read: French), Gaelic, or even Roman blood coursing through the veins of many of the United Kingdom's inhabitants.

Point taken. Saw Braveheart and King Arthur so you could be right.

I note that Golf is a Scottish game that involves hitting little white balls, much like they did when the Anglish invaded...
Quote:

As a point of interest, do you know who else has insanely large testicles? Male cattle. Bulls. Of course, cattle are not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, and I certainly wouldn't want one running my country, no matter how big his balls.

Have you ever driven by a dairy farm and noticed all the cows standing together and having some kind of meeting. Perhaps they are discussing public policy much like one of those round tables that they show on CSPAN3 at 2am.

There's an old Far Side cartoon to this effect.

Quote:
Cattle can provide many useful things:
Milk, good.
Leather, good.
Beef, good.
Plan to revitalize American domestic rail transportation infrastructure by utilizing a hybrid program of deregulation and tax incentives, good.

H

I'm with you right up until the last one, since I've not been a fan of deregulation in other arenas (Clear Channel scares me like the Hearst Empire). In fairness, however, I've not examined the specifics of the dairy industry, so I can't comment on any specifics.

In any event, we've now veered hideously off-topic, so let's bring it back around to the effects of gigantic testicles on the qualities of public policy within European democracies. I submit that the ponderous nature of one's jewels has ultimately no effect upon their ability to effectively guide social policy. If it did, then the members of AC/DC would have been the premier statesmen of our time, having--as has been repeatedly stated--"the biggest balls of them all!"

Game. Set. Match.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:30 AM

DREAMTROVE

I can't help but feel that hollywood is f^&king with history.

Mel, I have some respect for, but the latest king arthur with the hot hottie kiera knightly I saw. It was like celts fight romans, but they love mixing with romans, and anglo-saxons were always nazis. I don't buy it. I think hollywood is playing race politics with celtic myths.

I've seen a fair number of these because I'm a fantasy fan, and I've noticed this pattern. But I mean, objectively, the celt separatists eat this stuff up. The hidden message would be: you, celts, are basically like italians, intergrationist, etc. unlike the evil nazi germanic people. Which doesn't bug me except from the position that it's just not accurate. The celts were a pretty separatist group historically, and recently, they were mostly axis sympathizers in wwii, and the whole N.I. issue is not because the celts (ie. catholics) are such hard core integrationists.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE