PDA

View Full Version : Political trajectories (sf personality types)



Basil
22-05-2008, 11:05 PM
Yes, a few lefties in the list. Gunner, is there something you are not telling us? :)
Ho ho f***ing ho! :lol: I'm actually waiting for you clowns flowering human beings to wake up to yourselves. Daddy I'll be there to catch you ;) Yes, I can see the funny side :P

Axiom
22-05-2008, 11:10 PM
Ho ho f***ing ho! :lol: I'm actually waiting for you clowns flowering human beings to wake up to yourselves. Daddy I'll be there to catch you ;)
Hey Gunner i'm an ex-lefty , now trans-paradigmist ! :)

Basil
22-05-2008, 11:12 PM
Hey Gunner i'm an ex-lefty , now trans-paradigmist ! :)
It happens with age and experience. Jono and I watch you all come along nicely every day.

Axiom
22-05-2008, 11:20 PM
It happens with age and experience. Jono and I watch you all come along nicely every day.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2008, 11:33 PM
It happens with age and experience.

In my case it happened in my early 20s, and then I turned around and started going back the other way!

(but only to a certain point, which has probably now been reached with not much likelihood of further leftward drift).

Basil
22-05-2008, 11:35 PM
In my case it happened in my early 20s, and then I turned around and started going back the other way!
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Axiom
22-05-2008, 11:37 PM
In my case it happened in my early 20s, and then I turned around and started going back the other way!

(but only to a certain point, which has probably now been reached with not much likelihood of further leftward drift).
yes, i still have problems with the total free trade idealogy , and the precise level of govt intervention ( but i like the working basis of "protection from violence ,theft and fraud", but i guess that is exactly where the problems start !)

WhiteElephant
22-05-2008, 11:38 PM
In my case it happened in my early 20s, and then I turned around and started going back the other way!

(but only to a certain point, which has probably now been reached with not much likelihood of further leftward drift).

I am always moving from one extreme to the other. For example, I find I am very moved by oppressed people & poverty, but then I am a supporter of the free market. I believe there is another system which has elements of both left and right but humans have yet to discover it.

Axiom
22-05-2008, 11:39 PM
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
gunner - i think KB means the other way - towards the right ! (hmm, or maybe not , now i'm not sure ! )

Axiom
22-05-2008, 11:41 PM
I am always moving from one extreme to the other. For example, I find I am very moved by oppressed people & poverty, but then I am a supporter of the free market. I believe there is another system which has elements of both left and right but humans have yet to discover it.
yes it's being a Trans- paradigmist ! :)

Basil
22-05-2008, 11:43 PM
gunner - i think KB means the other way - towards the right ! (hmm, or maybe not , now i'm not sure ! )
No, alas. Kevin (to his eternal credit) is the one in 10,000. He actually leftified from an adult rightish position. A horrible waste of human intelligence :lol:

Time for a thread split? [done-mod]

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2008, 11:45 PM
gunner - i think KB means the other way - towards the right ! (hmm, or maybe not , now i'm not sure ! )

late teens: very (though not extremely) left-leaning
early-mid 20s: libertarian right
these days: all over the place

Basil
22-05-2008, 11:46 PM
these days: all over the place
:lol: :lol: :lol:

As I said, to you your eternal credit

Axiom
23-05-2008, 12:14 AM
Listen Gonzo ... the point is that NO-ONE veers left (more than 5 degrees) at any time, ever !!!

One is either hanging on for grim death rusted-on to the left side of things (a la pax or my in-laws) or there is a gradual relinquishing (and rightward-moving) of the mantra-shouting, idealistic, fluffy-puffy, entirely impractical dribble that one is naturally attracted to in late teens.

Sorry. *clears throat* The point: KB went backwards leftwards. FORGET THAT HE STARTED AT THE LEFT!!! THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!

That is all.
yeah thats why i deleted my post of misconstruence,
perhaps you could do likewise ;)

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2008, 12:38 AM
I am always moving from one extreme to the other. For example, I find I am very moved by oppressed people & poverty, but then I am a supporter of the free market.
There is no contradiction there. Arthur Brooks, although starting his research as a lefty, found that conservatives are more generous with their own money and even with their blood donation, and published the results in his book Who Really Cares? (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/11/28/who_really_cares) Many leftists are stingy with their own money, like the Klintons, alGore and B. Hussein Obama (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704250022apr25,1,3690658.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed), but are incredibly compassionate with other people's money.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2008, 10:22 AM
early-mid 20s: libertarian right

What is the difference between libertarian right and left?

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2008, 12:35 PM
What is the difference between libertarian right and left?

Technically true libertarianism doesn't fit as either left or right, but you often hear talk, in Australia especially, about "left-libertarians". A left-libertarian tends to be very pro-freedom not only on personal morality issues but also on issue like censorship, privacy, government surveillance, "civil liberties", education, drugtaking etc. Indeed left-libertarians are often quite obsessive and simplistic on this later set of issues. They are generally not libertarian about economics. They may have anarchist tendencies, but if so they tend to believe that anarchism (or something like it) would produce a non-capitalist economic system.

Right-libertarians will also generally have strong views that the government should get its hands off the private lives of its citizens, but they tend to be more concerned with economic freedom than with many of the "civil liberties" type issues stressed by left-libertarians.

Basil
23-05-2008, 12:38 PM
This excellent IMO, Kevin. It's like you're permanently on a life support machine and we shouldn't give up just yet!

Of course I might my be tad myopic in my assessment.

Basil
23-05-2008, 12:39 PM
This excellent IMO, Kevin. It's like you're permanently on a life support machine and we shouldn't give up just yet! Just when it appears you're going to flat line and the priest is on the way, we have to send him away again.

Of course I might my be tad myopic in my assessment.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2008, 03:44 PM
Technically true libertarianism doesn't fit as either left or right, but you often hear talk, in Australia especially, about "left-libertarians". A left-libertarian tends to be very pro-freedom not only on personal morality issues but also on issue like censorship, privacy, government surveillance, "civil liberties", education, drugtaking etc. Indeed left-libertarians are often quite obsessive and simplistic on this later set of issues. They are generally not libertarian about economics. They may have anarchist tendencies, but if so they tend to believe that anarchism (or something like it) would produce a non-capitalist economic system.

Right-libertarians will also generally have strong views that the government should get its hands off the private lives of its citizens, but they tend to be more concerned with economic freedom than with many of the "civil liberties" type issues stressed by left-libertarians.
In this case "left libertarian" is not a libertarian at all.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2008, 04:59 PM
In this case "left libertarian" is not a libertarian at all.

Not in the American sense. But most Australians don't know what a real "libertarian" is, hence that Australian usage.

Indeed the Australian version of the "libertarian" is closer to the American "liberal", but that term doesn't make sense in Australia because we have a Liberal Party that is generally not liberal at all but closer to Tory/Republican.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2008, 07:32 PM
Not in the American sense. But most Australians don't know what a real "libertarian" is, hence that Australian usage.

I don't think Australians libertarian society's meaning of the term differs from American one

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2008, 07:44 PM
I don't think Australians libertarian society's meaning of the term differs from American one

No, it doesn't. Genuine libertarians in this country usually use the word for themselves in the same way as US libertarians, while left-libertarians tend to call themselves "civil libertarians" and not just "libertarians".

However the media remain very ignorant about the difference - although after the Liberty and Democracy Party contested the last election I did see more examples of correct usage in the popular media.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2008, 09:05 PM
However the media remain very ignorant about the difference - although after the Liberty and Democracy Party contested the last election I did see more examples of correct usage in the popular media.
Ignorant they are. I heard a remark on the radio once:
"Libertarians - group of social conservatives....."

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2008, 01:29 PM
Peter Schweizer: Liberals Are More Selfish Than Conservatives (http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html)
Monday, June 2, 2008 1:51 PM
By: Ronald Kessler


Contrary to the image they try to project, liberals are less compassionate and more selfish than conservatives, according to a new book by Peter Schweizer.

Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer’s “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less … and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” which comes out this week, says liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others.



Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.

Conservatives are selfish, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary, has said, and “they pander to the worst of us.”

Sen. Charles Schumer said on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time,” “There are some, you know, there are some anti-Semites in this county, but most of them would vote Republican anyway.”

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said conservatives and Republicans are “evil,” “corrupt,” brain-dead,” and “not very nice people” who have “never made an honest living in their lives.”

If Schweizer’s book is a ground-breaker, it also raises the question of why Schweizer’s findings may come as a surprise even to conservatives. Schweizer cites ample evidence that the media have ignored good news about conservatives and have helped perpetuate the myth that liberals are more compassionate and caring.



Schweizer balances these findings with a few issues where liberals come out ahead. He says liberals are more likely than conservatives to be open to new experiences in travel, art, and music. But Schweizer exposes hypocrisy at the core of liberal beliefs. While liberals claim to be compassionate and to care about the poor, conservatives are much more likely to donate their time and money to charitable causes.

When Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, his tax returns revealed income of more than $1 million, but he contributed just $2,714 to charity, or less than 0.3 percent.

Ned Lamont, the anti-war Democrat who ran against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, is worth $200 million and made $2.8 million in 2005. He has talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy are not doing enough to help those in need. Yet in 2005, he donated only $5,385 to charity, or less than 0.2 percent of his income.

In contrast, George Bush gave 10 percent of his income to charity in 2005. In 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million, or 2.5 times what Bush made that year, but gave the same amount to charity as Bush did. That same year, Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity.



Finally, liberals try to paint conservatives as dumb — Clark Clifford called Ronald Reagan an “amiable dunce.” Schweizer shows that while John Kerry scored in the 91st percentile on a military IQ test, George Bush scored in the 95th percentile. Contrary to misrepresentations in the media, Bush also had slightly higher grades at Yale than Kerry.

Schweizer attributes liberals’ bleaker outlook on life to their deep-seated victim mentality.


This feeds a view that they cannot help themselves and encourages them to be passive. They are far more likely to say that luck or fate plays a role in their lives, as opposed to citing the need to take action themselves.

The victim mentality, in turn, makes them more likely to become depressed, suffer from a nervous breakdown, attempt suicide, be chronically angry, throw something in a fit of anger, seek revenge, and have a bleak outlook on life in general.

In one survey, 34 percent of liberals said the problems of life were just too big to cope with, compared with 19 percent of conservatives.

“Liberals often feel overwhelmed by life’s problems because they are waiting for the government to fix them,” Schweizer says. “”When it doesn’t, liberals blame others (and ‘society’) for their misfortune.” Thus, liberalism “often damages its own adherents the most,” Schweitzer says.


“Modern liberal ideas consistently encourage bad habits and destructive behavioral tendencies,” says Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Schweizer says liberalism is appealing because it gives lip service to lofty ideals but demands little action. Liberalism considers as noble those who complain about personal difficulties and display anger or denounce our “money-making culture,” but liberalism does not stress taking personal responsibility and action.

Thus, “While liberals tend to be much more fixated on money, they convince themselves that if they hold the belief that our society is too obsessed by money, the money culture doesn’t influence them adversely the way that it does other people,” Schweizer says.

“Modern liberalism is a wonderful tool to kind of avoid having to make much change in your life,” Schweizer says. “It’s kind of in my mind the equivalent to carbon offsets. You don’t need to change anything in your life, you simply have to sort of stamp this document or pay this minor price, and the problems in your life just sort of go away.”