myata

By not meddling in their affairs maybe? By using open, clean and clear (and "moral") policies? And, if Osama is our "Hitler", how have we managed to diminish to such a degree, in only a few short decades?

It's certainly no secret to anybody what Harpers Tories think about the issue, and what demographics they'll be relying on in the election.

There's a lot of beef with definitions. I think that limiting "social control" to more or less economy (in the original test) is insufficient and may skew the result. E.g from that point of view, fascism, allowing some economic freedom, vs Stalin's communism would appear as quite different societies, while in my view, the difference is only in the level of suppression of individual freedom (and, of course, ideology). One way to improve it would be to attempt to make categories 1) more precise; and 2) independent from each other, as much as possible. This is another deficiency in the original methodology: "social control" is related to "individual freedom" and so makes two categories correlated, skewing the result. In my view, the individual freedom category is relatively well defined, and should stay. No matter who is talking, it's easy to draw the line at: is individual allowed, unrestricted in any way, certain activity, practice, etc, as long as it does no harm to others. I can see that qualification of "no harm" can be see as somewhat of a challenge, but otherwise, it'll measure the level of individual freedom quite precisely and unequivokely. The measure applies to all domains of individual activity, political, economical, social practices, etc. It's more of a challenge to define the other category, that corresponds to the traditional "left / right". One can vaguely feel that it should be something to do with the level of "integration" in the society. Both original test (state control) and suggested "social involvement" point in that direction. One could think about some measure that's related to individual involvement in the society - i.e all the ways an average individual can interact with the societal environment around them, no matter whether the interaction is concentual or not). In that way one'd be able to distinguish strongly integrated societies, from the less integrated ones. This needs to be understood better. Returning to the original topic, it's pretty clear that social concervatives advocate the direction of less individual freedom, and less integrated society. This is distinctly different from liberal (more individual freedom and more integration), libertarian (more freedom, less integration), and totalitarian (less freedom, more integration) concepts. And, to a large extent, the only option that hasn't been thoroghly tested in the recent history. The question is, do we want to go there?

One big difference between a Liberal minority, and the Tory one, would be, for once, a meaningful action on climate change. All parties, as majority of Canadians, agree that immediate action should be taken. Except, of course, Harpers' Conservatives, who're working really hard to make it happen - in China and India.

It does. I must have seen it somewhere already, though I can't recall taking the test. I agree with the main proposition of the "Political Compass", that the notion of "Left/Right" is insufficient (one-dimensional) to understand a political position. Credits for it belong belong to politicalcompass.org. I'd like to make some qualifications about defining the field. Those will be posted in the "Compass" thread.

Indeed. As they say in Quebec, "plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme chose". I.e. nothing's new under this Sun.

For one thing, the election will show how serious we're about real climate change action. It's obvious by now that Harpers main strategy is to talk the problem out of existence.

Oh yeah. Once again, as so many times before, poor threatened America is having its hand forced.

Right; and who'd be with the knife in that picture? While the empires only emanate prosperity and bliss. As said, there's nothing new under the Sun. Time to throw away stones and time pick them up. Build - blow up, in a forever cycle. Yawn.

Like who? The soviets? Chinese? They sure could - but wouldn't, right? With the rest, one can't be certain about the nature of the "restraint". It just could have more to do with the cost/benefit, than the morality, of the matter. The thing with "moral" restraint is, that it trades the brutal, physical power, for that of goodwill and mutual respect. Almost by the ubiquitous law of conservation. And of course, goodwill and understanding allows to combine the powers of many, rather than setting them against each other in a zero sum game. Benefitting everybody, the assumed leader included. That approach of course, requires the true courage. Not that of raining bombs thousands of miles away. The courage of letting go of the brute power. That looks so nice and shiny in its polished shells and can do so much good. The courage of contributing to, and accepting the consenus, even when it goes against our apparent immediate wishes. The courage and will to not give in to one's fears and paranoias. Oh well...

As is this particular gene (I wouldn't generalize on its national makeup) that prevents us from understanding, and applying, the voluntary (or call them "moral" if you like, though the word is too stretched at this time to mean anything) limits to our use of force.

Not really, Canada have't invaded Haiti and has no significant military presence there. As we haven't recently nuked other people, or educated them in democratic ways by force and against their will (that is, before Afghanistan, and after residential schools). Not that it makes us completely out in the clean - but accents should be made, for the completeness of picture. Let's also attribute kudos (of special sort) for Iraq and Afghanistan where they are due.

No, what is astonishing is that people can very well look and not see. Or, try to see, but with their ears, rather than eyes. We aren't fighting Al Quaeda, as much as establishing and supporting friendly regimes in these countries, by force and by invasion. Is it really the same thing? How and why did happen? After all the incantations, celebrations, and proclamations? Clueless Jo would sure have an answer.

Who said it shouldn't be? While it can be had? At least it's better than the alternative. There's no point in marching, petioning, jumping under tanks etc, just to draw the attention of a clueless Jo on their third hamburger. All that needs to be said, had been said already, million times. Things should be taken in historical perspective. If we won't use our brains, our concsiousness, our choices, they'll be decided for us. Eventually. By the course of nature. Vegetative existence can only last so long. Not very long, as historical times go.

Yep, right. I don't agree with Bushes global democracy conquest. I don't unquestionnably swallow their bs propaganda, and may even attempt to challenge it, even if in this forum. That's a whole lot more compared to what some 80% of American public, and some 50% of British public, and some 45% of Canadian public, who supported these wars, have ever "done". And I'm quite content with that. I'm not of the opinion that my time will be well spent on educating some clueless Joe / Jill who wont' care to turn their brain on for an extra minute more than necessary to figure out how to stuff more of useless stuff into their den. Otherwise they could have recalled that "war is bad". Something they were taught in kindergarten and being played with fanfares every year multiple times. Asked themselves, and buddies, questions about WMD. Ballistic missile threats. No, to each, their own. Over the time, and on average, everybody gets their fair due. We won't be any different, no matter how much we may want to believe otherwise.

Not true. My (and anybody's) disagreement, whether pronounced, or even silent, already absolves us of complicity in these acts. Regardless of whether we happen to live here, or not. Think of this: if most of us just bothered to use our own brains and think for ourselves what's going on, rather than eating the crap we're fed while nodding in agreement - that in itself would have meant that these wars would have never come about. And what would be the point of standing in front of Caterpillar, anyways? It'll happen naturally, a few years down, as so many times before. Remember, this is not the first needless war, and very likely, not the last one. If a bunch of warmongering boneheads can make a whole nation start a full blown war, for no reason, despite all lessons of history, all warnings, and all checks and balances, the prognosis can't be good. We only get our penny's worth, and no more.

Whatever this supposed to mean? What Al Quaeda is wrong to murder innocent civilians? No question. What we're right to invade their countries, set things to our liking, prop up governments of our liking? I won't be certain of that. It's clear who's bad. But who's on the good side? Anyone?

Yes. They had to dress into uniforms and come out in the open to pose easy targets for our remotely controlled missiles just to earn the right to fight us on their own soil. Otherwise, they're guilty of high crime of war, convicted in a kangaroo court. Don't be suprised if it doesn't make much sense. It's not supposed to. All the fussing about morality and justice is not to be taken seriously. Just another instrument in the planned strategy. Whatever works. So, sit back and relax. There will be no winners. And a few short years will show which way the ball will roll - this time around. And, there will be many more games in the years to come. War is such a cool (and benefitial, not to mention) game, after all.

With adoption of special interrogation technics (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, torture outsourcing), aren't they already making great strides toward that end? And the progression may appear alarming, to those who cares still: - WWII: nuked two civilian cities, with real opposition, having just cause, though never seriously threatened; - Vietnam: committed numerous atrocities against civilian population, with real opposition (in Soviets, of course - not Vietkong), no just cause, never seriously threatened; - Iraq/Afghanistan: started unnecessary war resulting in numerous civil casualties, and atrocities, with no real opposition, no just cause, or very doubtful cause; With couple more iterations in the cycle, the all familiar acts (invasions, atrocities) could be accepted, authorised and performed simply on a pretext. A threat. A potential threat. A possibility of a threat. The standard path of an aging empire, from glorious ideals of youth to murderous paranoias of old age.

It can be summarized plain and simple, as victor's justice. We come to your land, we fight you, we kill you, and we define the laws of justice. Even Geneva conventions, which are still a pure Western invention, were pushed aside by Bush's administration as too damaging to their purpose. At that, I wonder, why ever bother to play the comedy, just proclaim them all guilty (by executive order) and execute in the most convenient (and/or educational) way. If only that, the American public should be maintained in their confidence that they are still the most glorious, democratic, free, etc, people on the face of this planet.

I've been struggling for some time to make sense of where to place social conservatism on the political spectrum. The traditional grade, based on the measure of individual freedom, with totalitarianism on one end, and libertarianism on the opposite, won't work. Really, social conservatives want less government involvement, less regulation ie. more freedom (with qualification of course, e.g can an employee without protection of basic rights written in the law be free? or, would having no - or less - social net to fall back on make us more free? - etc). On the other hand, their stand on individual freedoms, such as gay rights, abortion, etc, goes in the 180 degree opposite direction. I.e its bad for the government to tax us to finance common social programs. That would impose on our freedoms. On the other hand, it's OK for me (with my buddies) to comment and decide on somebody else's personal preferences (in choice of partner, family planning methods, or even dressing habits). Go figure. To solve this conundrum, we'll need to add one more dimension to the analysis. I.e combine traditional interpretation of "Left/Right" (level of advocated social involvement in the society) with the spectrum of invidual freedom (libertarian / totalitarian). The resulting diagram, with "Left/Right" spectrum horizontally, and individual freedom vertically (more individual freedom higher up) would look like this: Individial freedom | Q4 (more social, more individual freedom) | Q1 (less social, more individual freedom) | Left (more social involvment) ------------------------ | ------------------- Right (less social involvement) | Q3 (more social, less individual freedom) | Q2 (less social, less individual freedom) Now it's much easier to understand who is who. In the extreme top right (Q1) we'll have traditional libertarians. Extreme bottom left (Q3) would have pure totalitarianism. Top left, combining social involvement with individual freedoms would signify the traditional liberal values (please note capitalization). And the social conservatism? It falls into the mirror opposite of liberalism, with less social involvement AND less individual freedoms. An example of that kind of society, in its pure form, doesn't easily come to mind. Maybe a kind of wild west country, where everybody lives on their own and doesn't care much about their neighbour, but peope are still prosecuted for transgressions of "common" morality with a lynch mob justice code? Certainly, this analysis should be taken in the measured perspective. In a stable society, the actual distance between political alternatives can be small to virtually insignificant. That may change if society loses its balance for any political, economical, etc reason. Things tend to develop toward extremes at these times. The extremes that, as history shows, may come with more or less social involvement, but almost invariably harshly suppress indvidual freedoms.

Is it a rethorical statement? Or a cute way to pull in unconfirmed unsubstantiated opinion? Are you saying that our society is near 100% (of technically possible) efficiency in using that particular fuel? And is there any reason, grounds, why you're saying that? Other than maybe that you want to say something that'd look like a solid foundation for your argument.

No, you aren't getting it. The requirements of high morals only apply to them, baddies. We, here, on the good side, don't need to be worried.

So, the point about "eye for an eye" still applies. Thank you.

Just as a country isn't obliged to grant it's citizenship to anybody. Other than through an established process. Whether it was following in this specific case, a court will decide. There's nothing "Left" or "Right" in this case. It's all about the law and due process.