The political compass thread

[Rassah]

21 hours ago, MalletFace said:

 

It's interesting that despite my claim that the only difference between left and right is whom you want to exercise your authoritarianism against (someone who wants to fuck another dude vs someone who wants to hire another dude), and that the true line should be a diagonal from top left to bottom right, that people on this forum seem to be on a line between socialism and fascism. But, basically, the entire green quadrant can be represented by someone with the beliefs of "I don't like my boss, he doesn't pay me enough" and "I wish I could get more free stuff from the government, but I don't want government hassling me for it or for anything I do." Which covers the majority of the population. So it's no surprise.

Unfortunately, the problem with the green quadrant is that the only way to enforce it is to vote for (or end up with) a government that is in the red quadrant, since you do need strong authoritarian personality to enforce it, and that inevitably drifts into the blue quadrant as well.

[Astus]

[Kinharia]

52 minutes ago, Rassah said:

the entire green quadrant can be represented by someone with the beliefs of "I don't like my boss, he doesn't pay me enough" and "I wish I could get more free stuff from the government, but I don't want government hassling me for it or for anything I do." Which covers the majority of the population. So it's no surprise.

Just like you want free reign to be an exploitive bastard with no compassion, who doesn't care if water sources and food safety is destroyed so long as there is profit to be made.

 

See. I can make stupid statements too.

[Rassah]

56 minutes ago, Kinharia said:

Just like you want free reign to be an exploitive bastard with no compassion, who doesn't care if water sources and food safety is destroyed so long as there is profit to be made.

 

See. I can make stupid statements too.

Yeah, it was pretty stupid, considering you can't exploit people without being authoritarian. I'm not in the blue quadrant. Can't make a profit with shitty products (including food and water) either. Look at all the most profitable car, electronics, produce, etc makers. They're not most profitable for making the worst crap, they're profitable because everyone wants to buy their stuff. You can make some money by being an authoritarian government supported fascist too, of course...

 

But tell me, am I wrong that most people don't know anything about business other than not liking their boss, believing they don't get paid enough, and wanting some authoritarian to force someone else to give them more money and stuff?

Edited April 4, 2016 by Rassah

[Alexxx-Returns]

Since last time I did this I've gone right a teeny bit, and up a bigger bit but still a very little bit

Edited April 4, 2016 by Alexxx-Returns

[#00Buck]

In the blue zone.

I guess that makes sense. Water is blue.

Blub to the Glub. 

 

[Kinharia]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Yeah, it was pretty stupid, considering you can't exploit people without being authoritarian. I'm not in the blue quadrant. Can't make a profit with shitty products (including food and water) either. Look at all the most profitable car, electronics, produce, etc makers. They're not most profitable for making the worst crap, they're profitable because everyone wants to buy their stuff. You can make some money by being an authoritarian government supported fascist too, of course...

 

But tell me, am I wrong that most people don't know anything about business other than not liking their boss, believing they don't get paid enough, and wanting some authoritarian to force someone else to give them more money and stuff?

I think I would rather take an authoritarian stance if it meant defending our essential water and food supplies. If stiflung free trade ensures higher standards of living for all then yes I am all for that. Something those on the right just have no concept of is helping others for the greater benefit of society.

[Monty Grizzle]

5 hours ago, Rassah said:

Gandi was an authoritarian religious nutcase, and a hypocrite to boot, professing asceticism, decrying Western focus on things and comforts, and claiming that suffering was a holy rite... Yet going to a Western hospital when afflicted with appendicitis. Don't be like Ghandi.

Well I happen to be someone who strongly disagrees with organised religion so you don't have to worry about that with me.

Also I'm with Kinharia, if a few wealthy individuals sacrificing some of their profits means more help for those who need it the most (I.e the vulnerable, sick and disabled) then I see it as being a worthwhile trade-off.

Although said wealthy individuals are bound to disagree since people like to hold onto their wealth once they have it, much to the detriment of others.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Monty Grizzle

[Troj]

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Are you running short on other people's money?

Aside from money from family, no. I'm in the awkward position of not being on government assistance, not having any outstanding loans, and not having any outstanding debt.

No, I've probably drifted further to the Left as a result of actually witnessing the real fruits of poverty and suffering firsthand, and realizing as a result that some people suffer unjustly and unfairly for reasons that are beyond their immediate control.

You're right, though, that Gandhi didn't quite have all of his oars in the water, and had an uncomfortable authoritarian streak. He did some impressive things, but as a person, he was kind of a dick.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Troj

[MalletFace]

Added all other people that have replied. It is nearly impossible to see many names, so it better serves to be a very loose gauge of similarity - or disparity - in political opinions among the users. I might make a better graph as to play with some information. I think this is interesting despite its apparent uselessness in this setting.

And I feel bad for alienating Rassah, but

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Unfortunately, the problem with the green quadrant is that the only way to enforce it is to vote for (or end up with) a government that is in the red quadrant, since you do need strong authoritarian personality to enforce it, and that inevitably drifts into the blue quadrant as well.

You say that the only way to enforce the economic programs of the green quadrant is a government in the red quadrant. Is there not equal cause to say a government in the blue quadrant is the only way to enforce the economic programs of the purple quadrant? Will not many people move left on economic issues if it is left to their will? Can you prove to me your statement? Even more - in the greatest test of honesty - can you attempt and find a way to disprove your own statement?

You have no idea how many times I have had an idea, did research, and discovered that it was incorrect, ignorant, or lacking. If I spoke as much as I do in reality and all its glory as I do here, most of my posts would begin and end with me saying, "I don't know, but I'll find out as much as I can." Obviously pointless to say here, but the online equivalent is silence and action and not bombast and inaction. You might even be surprised at how many times I have asked myself, "Rassah is right, but does he realize that doesn't mean he is the only one?"

Also, since I mentioned it, read.

Sometimes you sound like you have never touched anything but books blessed by the blood of Hayek himself, and then you recite and act your Austrian rites - luckily it seems you avoid quoting directly the parables - as you writhe from all the Keynes, Chomsky, Chicago, and the like that gets poured on you. That's just one text; though, I heard it has been blessed by the blood of Noam Chomsky...

[Zeke]

[PastryOfApathy]

27 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

And I feel bad for alienating Rassah, but...

Don't, he does it all by himself.

[willow]

hmm I thought I was a little further to the left, but I guess that's still pretty accurate

[TrishaCat]

I often like to think myself a centrist, with maybe slight left-leaning tendencies, so I guess this is fairly accurate.

[Toboe]

6 hours ago, Rassah said:

If I restrict you from making laws banning gay marriage and restricting homosexuality, am I restricting your religion?

Yes, if laws banning gay marriage and restricting homosexuality are part of their religion, keeping them from making/applying such laws is restricting them.

Forcing someone (B) to give you their property restricts them (B).

Forcing someone(A) not to force someone(B) to give them(A) their(B) property restricts them (A).

Is restricting restrictions justifiable?

 

3 hours ago, Kinharia said:

I think I would rather take an authoritarian stance if it meant defending our essential water and food supplies. If stiflung free trade ensures higher standards of living for all then yes I am all for that. Something those on the right just have no concept of is helping others for the greater benefit of society.

"the greater benefit of society"

Promises of "it's for the greater benefit" are something to be very wary of.

Yup, there is is such a things as good restrictions (No, you cant dump waste into that river. No, you can't just take whatever you want...). But there is lots off bullshit, too (Just look at the governments that called themselves communist, for an extreme examlpe).

 

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Toboe
fix: insterted missing "is restricting them".

[Kinharia]

1 minute ago, Toboe said:

Yup, there is is such a things as good restrictions (No, you cant dump waste into that river. No, you can't just take whatever you want...). But there is lots off bullshit, too (Just look at the governments that called themselves communist, for an extreme examlpe).
 

I'm pretty sure Rassah would say something along the lines of "Well a free market would mean people would just stop buying from said company who dumps in the water" What if they have a monoploy >.>

[MalletFace]

I added more nerds to the thing. I also added their inferred results for the 2016 candidates in the U.S.

It appears to match the heavy shift in politics in the past few decades even with a scarcity of users in quadrant one. If it gets any more phallic, though, I'm done.

7 minutes ago, Kinharia said:

What if they have a monoploy >.>

I'd like to see how Rassah would react to the threat of a monopsony. Imagine the source of demand having all the power! The humanity!

[Xaende]

Missed one.

[Thundeere]

[Rukh Whitefang]

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=0.0&soc=-0.51

Nearly in dead center.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Rukh Whitefang

[Newt]

[MalletFace]

More nerds:

Average of nerds:

And this is why a simple mean is something you want to be wary of. Very few users - only three so far - are in the fourth quadrant, but the whole group's average is dramatically pulled there.

[ArielMT]

11 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

And this is why a simple mean is something you want to be wary of. Very few users - only three so far - are in the fourth quadrant, but the whole group's average is dramatically pulled there.

What about the median?

If you enjoy statistics, what are the coordinates/shapes of the standard deviations?

[#00Buck]

3 hours ago, MalletFace said:

I added more nerds to the thing. I also added their inferred results for the 2016 candidates in the U.S.

It appears to match the heavy shift in politics in the past few decades even with a scarcity of users in quadrant one. If it gets any more phallic, though, I'm done.

It looks like I'm the most presidential person on the forum.

Also it is interesting that the graph is a straight diagonal line from green to blue. 

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, Kinharia said:

I think I would rather take an authoritarian stance if it meant defending our essential water and food supplies.

Why not have authoritarian provided food and water then? We already have government providing water in many areas and making it mandatory for us to pay for it (California with droughts anf Flint with leaded water come to mind). But, for some reason, I can't get anyone who claims government is necessary for our most essential things to admit they would want government to provide us with all our food. Is it because USSR demonstrated what a shit show that would be? Or because you don't actually trust government with something so essential, especially when you like having such a wide variety to choose from?

6 hours ago, Kinharia said:

Something those on the right just have no concept of is helping others for the greater benefit of society.

Something those on the left just have no concept of is the awful side effects that programs "for the greater benefit of society" have, and only those on the right actually care enough about others to make sure their policies actually help instead of hurt others.

 

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

And I feel bad for alienating Rassah, but

Don't. I'm not ashamed for being a literally outstanding member of society

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Is there not equal cause to say a government in the blue quadrant is the only way to enforce the economic programs of the purple quadrant?

You can't enforce the economic programs of the purple quadrant, because the purple quadrant is against enforcing anything. At most, the economic programs would be defended against those who try to enforce their own ideas. Unlike green, red, and blue quadrants, which all require active effort and money expenditures to enforce and maintain, the purple one just exists on its own, only requiring force if someone threatens it (which, now that I think about it, also makes it the least economically wasteful of the four).

 

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Will not many people move left on economic issues if it is left to their will? 

Probably. That's what largely happened over time, at least in US, which started very much in the purple quadrant, but has shifted much further up and to the left in the last century.

 

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Can you prove to me your statement? 

I can show you the ever increasing amount of business regulations that started to grow in early 1900's, an ever increasing number of people dependent on government support, severe lack of economic and financial education, drift in economic policies towards more and more centrally planned or managed private monopoly businesses, increase in nationalism, wars, surveillance, general domestic spying, corporatism, and other things that show our country has been drifting first into the red, then into the blue... Much of that is common knowledge though.

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Even more - in the greatest test of honesty - can you attempt and find a way to disprove your own statement?

 

Disprove the statement that "the only way to enforce [the green quadrant] is to vote for a government that is in the red quadrant, since you do need strong authoritarian personality to enforce it?" Well, you would need a group of people who are career politicians, who support left economic policies of strict economic controls, but do not seek their positions of power for the sake of actually enforcing those economic control ideas. If people in general were OK with restricting themselves, and found pleasure in seeking out bureaucracy, filling forms, and paying fees, doing such voluntarily, so that there is no need for a red quadrant authoritarian figure to enforce those things, that would disprove it. Likewise, if people were not greedy, and "absolute power corrupts absolutely" was not a common trait of our society, where those in the red quadrant become greedy and exercise actions in the blue contract for personal gain (such as by passing corporatist regulations), that would disprove it too. There may be some countries in Europe that might fit the bill, where politicians don't have a tendency to become corrupt or self-serving.

 

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Also, since I mentioned it, read.

Downloaded, but will have to get to it later. Slogging through Mises's Human Action, which I should've read much earlier, but it's 900+ pages, compared to this 174.

4 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Sometimes you sound like you have never touched anything but books blessed by the blood of Hayek himself, 

Unfortunately I haven't even read enough of those. I'm just struggling by on my econ and business education, experience in jobs in private sector and government, and personal experience and experience of friends and acquaintances dealing directly with (or rather against) governments around the world. That, plus my excellent logical and deductive intellect Honestly, after you learn the basics of how things work and how people behave based on their personal self-interests, the rest pretty much falls into place (admittedly I got through much of my later high school years too, where while dealing with severe depression I never did any homework or studied for exams, but still got A's and B's in math and science classes by simply deducing the answers right on the spot during the exam).

 

3 hours ago, Toboe said:

Yes, if laws banning gay marriage and restricting homosexuality are part of their religion, keeping them from making/applying such laws is restricting them.

Forcing someone (B) to give you their property restricts them (B).

Forcing someone(A) not to force someone(B) to give them(A) their(B) property restricts them (A).

Is restricting restrictions justifiable?

Restriction is not force. Yes, restricting someone from forcing you do to something against your will is justifiable. In your later examples, if they are dumping waste into their own river, they aren't forcing or hurting anyone else. If they are doing it to water others use too, they are forcing their waste into other people's property. You are not forcing them to not apply waste to your property, you are restricting them from forcing it into yours. The easy way to tell is "who started it." Who initiated the force.

3 hours ago, Kinharia said:

I'm pretty sure Rassah would say something along the lines of "Well a free market would mean people would just stop buying from said company who dumps in the water" What if they have a monoploy >.>

Then it would be trivially easy for a new company to take over and destroy that monopoly by showing how it's more responsible and stealing all the customers.

Monopoly is not a permanent thing. They don't actually happen in free markets, and companies that come close to it loose that position within a few years. Unless they are government protected monopolies, but that's the green quadrant.

[Kinharia]

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

Why not have authoritarian provided food and water then? We already have government providing water in many areas and making it mandatory for us to pay for it (California with droughts anf Flint with leaded water come to mind). But, for some reason, I can't get anyone who claims government is necessary for our most essential things to admit they would want government to provide us with all our food. Is it because USSR demonstrated what a shit show that would be? Or because you don't actually trust government with something so essential, especially when you like having such a wide variety to choose from?

With the correct government then yes I would have the government supply the water. I would have water also paid for through general taxation, if semi-private companies want to manage it then they must do so to certain standards if not then the government could be more than capable of managing the supplies. Rassah your views towards the USSR I will forgive you on (heck you lived it) but just note that not every government on the left has to replicate it. When it comes to food then the government can protect the farmers that supply our food by ensuring that private investers who are simply looking for real estate land can be prohibited from taking them over. The EU already provides grants to the farmers of my region thus ensuring that our food (which is surprisingly of high quality but feeds mainly local business, our exports to the US were halted during the Mad Cow Disease Outbreak of the 90s. No remenants of the disease) is safe. Sometimes you need to look beyond business and profit and make a rational choice, at the end of the day you can't eat money. A Farm could be consistently providing high quality food but the only people they can sell too will want to give them horrendously low prices for their food (As our farmers are currently facing) thus, even though they are of higher standard to the foreign imports they stand no chance of survival. Therefore it makes perfect sense for the government to support these farmers through subsidies to ensure their survival.

 

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

Something those on the left just have no concept of is the awful side effects that programs "for the greater benefit of society" have, and only those on the right actually care enough about others to make sure their policies actually help instead of hurt others.

Those on the Right have proven time and time again that they have complete disdain for the poor and disabled and would gladly let them die (As the Right Wing government of the UK has proven since it took power, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths)

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

Don't. I'm not ashamed for being a literally outstanding member of society

I have no actual hatred for you, I admire the fact you defend your position. But yes you are outstanding :V

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

Then it would be trivially easy for a new company to take over and destroy that monopoly by showing how it's more responsible and stealing all the customers.

Monopoly is not a permanent thing. They don't actually happen in free markets, and companies that come close to it loose that position within a few years. Unless they are government protected monopolies, but that's the green quadrant.

So in the meantime we lose the watersource. Good job Rassah on your rational thinking :v

 

No a monopoly is not a permanent thing, but the damage one can cause whilst it has free reign is the problem. You must know that the free market is a horrendous idea when it comes to Humanities long term survival as it is currently destroying our planet in the name of profit. We need to think Long Term and not Short Term or else we're fucked.

[Astus]

You people can argue all you want but no system is perfect; government needs to change with the needs of the people along with their policies. There is a 100% chance that you will not make everyone happy with your choice, someone is always going to lose.

[Troj]

13 hours ago, Kinharia said:

I'm pretty sure Rassah would say something along the lines of "Well a free market would mean people would just stop buying from said company who dumps in the water" What if they have a monoploy >.>

My worry is that by the time that company is meaningfully affected by people boycotting it, we've already got poison in the well.

Here's the core dilemma, as I see it: Allowing people and/or groups unfettered and complete freedom can ultimately result in decreased freedom across the board for everyone. What's the point of being able to buy anything you want if you live in the Mad Max-verse? What's the point of saying that you can use the Kindergarten art supplies any way you want, when Jimmy Snodgrass ate all of the paint yesterday, and encased the paint brushes in a shell of glue?

So, in order to ensure the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people, you have to put some restrictions on behavior, so that the actions of a few don't end up spoiling the party for the many.

But, the trick is finding that optimum "sweet spot" between allowing too much and restricting too much.

Well, and in response to the claim that you have to become authoritarian to get people to agree to a social contract, I don't think that's necessarily true. You can use all manner of persuasion, peer pressure, advertising, data and information, propaganda, incentives, and/or other tools to steer opinions and motivate behaviors. Some might argue that even these techniques are manipulative or coercive in their way, but they certainly allow for more freedom than if you were to absolutely compel someone to act or not act in a certain way, under threat of punishment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_%28book%29

Edited April 5, 2016 by Troj

[#00Buck]

Rassah should run for president of the USA.

He can put his massive text walls along the Mexican border. 

[Rassah]

3 hours ago, Kinharia said:

When it comes to food then the government can protect the farmers that supply our food by ensuring that private investers who are simply looking for real estate land can be prohibited from taking them over.

I was asking, if food, like water, is a critical need, then why not have government take it over completely? Like it has with water, police, firehouses, etc? Why risk food to the market and not have the government grow, manage, and provide all of it? So you not trust the government enough to do that? Surely it can do just as well as the market with regards to quality and variability.

 

Quote

The EU already provides grants to the farmers of my region thus ensuring that our food is safe. Sometimes you need to look beyond business and profit and make a rational choice, at the end of the day you can't eat money. A Farm could be consistently providing high quality food but the only people they can sell to will want to give them horrendously low prices for their food (As our farmers are currently facing) thus, even though they are of higher standard to the foreign imports they stand no chance of survival. Therefore it makes perfect sense for the government to support these farmers through subsidies to ensure their survival.

This is a perfect example of those awful side effects I was talking about. Farmers grow too much food, because there's too much competition on the market (too much food offered for sale), food prices become very low. Farmers get subsidies from government. Farmers use subsidies to grow even more food. Even more competition makes food prices even lower. Farmers demand even more subsidies. The side effect of a downward spiral, where money is literally wasted to grow food that will never be sold and gets thrown away, is being completely ignored. All because 100 years ago some farmers went "Oh woes me, what will I do to survive? Someone give me money."

Here in US it's not much better btw. Our farmers literally get paid to NOT grow food.

 

Quote

Those on the Right have proven time and time again that they have complete disdain for the poor and disabled and would gladly let them die

Right wing authoritarians/fascists/republicans (here in US)? Maybe. Right wing with regards to business and economic policy? Not at all. It's the left wing that has been championing policies that creates poor, and keeps the poor poor and dependent on government. Right wing (economic) has complete disdain for the policies that create poor and keep them there, not for the poor themselves.

Quote

So in the meantime we lose the watersource. Good job Rassah on your rational thinking :v

Good example is when large parts of US experience a disaster which cuts off access to clean water. Immediately trucks from Walmart, Target, Coca-Cola, and other large companies speed to that area, filled with water bottles. Usually given out completely for free. Unfortunately, a lot of times government stops those trucks and prevents them from delivering to those areas for various regulatory reasons (there was a big stink about this after Hurricane Katrina). So, no, if it's something you need, there will be plenty of people willing to provide it.

Besides, it's not like in your example the water source will suddenly disappear. Take the company to court for polluting it. Stop buying whatever products it makes that result in dumping in the water. Protest anyone who does business with them. Or start a company that makes what they make without having to dump in the water.

 

Quote

No a monopoly is not a permanent thing, but the damage one can cause whilst it has free reign is the problem. 

Maybe. But the damage could be something like causing unemployment in an area (like Walmart). If you're focusing on environmental damage, monopolies are still subject to lawsuits (unless they're protected by government's environmental agency, which happens often). What was the last monopoly you can think of, and what kind of damage has it caused? I'm thinking of Microsoft, Kodak, and Bell Labs. Can't think of any serious damage.

Quote

You must know that the free market is a horrendous idea when it comes to Humanities long term survival as it is currently destroying our planet in the name of profit. 

Socialist and communist governments have destroyed our planet WAY WAY WAY more than the free market. Look at the state of the environment in China and much of South America. Free market respects private property, and requires inventing sustainable methods to continue to profit. Things like wood and paper companies developing methods to grow their own trees faster, fishing companies raising their own fish, agricultural companies growing crops with fewer fertilizers and livestock with less land and waste (since waste takes up land too), etc.

On the other hand, communist countries like China promote factories to output as much as possible regardless of how much they pollute the surrounding property, to support the government's goal of becoming the world's top exporter, and socialist governments in South America give a pass to corporations to exploit their land just so the government can make more money.

And that isn't even including the worst polluting industry in the world which the free market doesn't do: waging war. That socialist government supported action renders entire swaths of land toxic, radioactive, and barely inhabitable.

So, if you're concerned about humanity's long term survival, go after the entities that are actually creating pollution or protecting polluters.

Quote

We need to think Long Term and not Short Term or else we're fucked.

Businesses think long term: Invest in a creation of a new idea, develop it, maintain it, and try to make a profit by selling it to customers for as long as possible. Governments think short term: Create a five year plan, of which no one cares about the last three, since they're just a guess, and do whatever some politician thinks is needed, without regard for whether it's sustainable, since there will always be tax dollars to pay for it, or any regard to long term damage, since the politician won't be in office for very long anyway.

@Troj Don't forget that Mad Max was a dictatorship, with three dictatorial governments exploiting the people and environment for everything they could without regard for any consequences. There was no anarchy or free market in those movies at all. Only Mad Max and Furiosa were somewhat anarchists.

Regarding "the trick" of putting restrictions, there are many ways of doing it. To me the question isn't how much restriction, but how to implement it. I just think that a free market combined with a strong private legal system is much better at creating these restrictions than a small group of unellected people who have complete power over their segments of the economy, and are corruptible. Because in that case, it doesn't matter how much restriction YOU think is necessary, if you have no say in what they do, or how corrupt they become.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Rassah

[CETME]

[Troj]

25 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Businesses think long term: Invest in a creation of a new idea, develop it, maintain it, and try to make a profit by selling it to customers for as long as possible. Governments think short term: Create a five year plan, of which no one cares about the last three, since they're just a guess, and do whatever some politician thinks is needed, without regard for whether it's sustainable, since there will always be tax dollars to pay for it, or any regard to long term damage, since the politician won't be in office for very long anyway.

@Troj Don't forget that Mad Max was a dictatorship, with three dictatorial governments exploiting the people and environment for everything they could without regard for any consequences. There was no anarchy or free market in those movies at all. Only Mad Max and Furiosa were somewhat anarchists.

Regarding "the trick" of putting restrictions, there are many ways of doing it. To me the question isn't how much restriction, but how to implement it. I just think that a free market combined with a strong private legal system is much better at creating these restrictions than a small group of unellected people who have complete power over their segments of the economy, and are corruptible. Because in that case, it doesn't matter how much restriction YOU think is necessary, if you have no say in what they do, or how corrupt they become.

Humans as a species tend to think short-term, and that includes the organizations that comprise humans, like governments and businesses.

That America's founding fathers were as forward-thinking as they were is very unusual and atypical.

Businesses have a bad habit of thinking only of immediate trends or profits, which is why they pillage, pollute, and engage in corrupt business practices to drive up revenue in the short-term; produce and push products with an obviously-limited shelf-life or appeal; and utterly freak out when new technologies or trends even *potentially* threaten to render their products obsolete or unprofitable.

It's been a while since I've seen all of the Mad Max movies. But, my impression of them is that the warlords and dictators we see are people who rose up and seized power in the vacuum that was left following the collapse of civilization. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all.

34 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I just think that a free market combined with a strong private legal system is much better at creating these restrictions than a small group of unellected people who have complete power over their segments of the economy, and are corruptible.

The problem is, either way, you're dealing with fallible and corruptible human beings and the systems they create, whether you rely on government or the market.

Liberals and conservatives just disagree fundamentally on who's is likely to be more corrupt or incompetent here.

[Snagged]

2 hours ago, #00Buck said:

Rassah should run for president of the USA.

He can put his massive text walls along the Mexican border. 

Who needs Trump when we have Rassah? 

And why did @Rassah have to bring his pro-liberatarian views to this thread -.- 

 

You are a strain to my mouse scroll wheel

[Kinharia]

@Rassah my own experiences with Right Wing governments will lead me to politefully disregard what you said as wishful thinking that does not look at the realities of what Right Wing politics produces.

[Toboe]

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

Restriction is not force. Yes, restricting someone from forcing you do to something against your will is justifiable. In your later examples, if they are dumping waste into their own river, they aren't forcing or hurting anyone else. If they are doing it to water others use too, they are forcing their waste into other people's property. You are not forcing them to not apply waste to your property, you are restricting them from forcing it into yours. The easy way to tell is "who started it." Who initiated the force.

It's not force if it is acceptable/fighting back? Makes sense with definition 5, althouth i'd say 4 and 2 is more what one would imagine force as in this context.

edit: When talking about dictionary definitions one should remember to include the link... http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force

Well, restricting someone from making laws banning homosexuality is still restricting their religion their religion, if that religion tells them to restrict homosexuality. And it is an example of good restriction.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Toboe

[MuttButt]

I mean...Is anybody really surprised? Hippie doge reporting.

I dunno. I just think that in an ideal world we would all look after each other, and the well being of our fellow man would be the first priority above all else. I know that's not how we're programmed though, so there has to be some kind of regulations in place to prevent certain people from abusing the system for their own personal gain at the expense of others. Brotherhood of man, make pups love not war, yadda yadda

[Onnes]

On 4/3/2016 at 1:02 PM, Toboe said:

could use a multi-user graph, so we could go like ...

http://onnes11.github.io/compass/

The data file is also linked on there. Data was parsed by scraping the thread and running the posted images through a python script to pull out the grid boundaries and the marker.

Didn't intend to duplicate MalletFace's work, but once I started on the image side I couldn't not carry it through.

[Toboe]

21 minutes ago, Onnes said:

http://onnes11.github.io/compass/

The data file is also linked on there. Data was parsed by scraping the thread and running the posted images through a python script to pull out the grid boundaries and the marker.

Didn't intend to duplicate MalletFace's work, but once I started on the image side I couldn't not carry it through.

Cool work! Any chance for an option to show all names and show them on mouse over? (And labelled axes?)

[Onnes]

11 minutes ago, Toboe said:

Cool work! Any chance for an option to show all names and show them on mouse over? (And labelled axes?)

I'm planning to fix up the visuals a bit. I can't show names on all points simply because they'll either severely overlap or will be displaced too far from the point they refer to. So my idea is to have a click(mousedown) display all names within some radius of click location and non-overlapping.

[Toboe]

6 minutes ago, Onnes said:

I can't show names on all points simply because they'll either severely overlap or will be displaced too far from the point they refer to.

Can already see that problem with mallet, though having everything on screen can help navigation.

10 minutes ago, Onnes said:

 So my idea is to have a click(mousedown) display all names within some radius of click location and non-overlapping.

Maybe include a side-list with the names of the users, on mouseover, colour that users button differently?

[ArielMT]

It's been forever since I took a statistics class, and I used Microsoft Excel's functions, so I could be wrong about everything below.

Using the data set by Onnes, I computed the median value, which is (-3.47,-2.395), and which is between the two median results represented by WolfyAmbassador and Terminal7:

I also computed the average and standard deviation values.  The average is (-2.745,-2.815), nearest to PastryOfApathy's result, and the standard deviation is (4.487733977,2.672140996).  Thanks for the unnecessary precision, Excel.  Anyway roughly 68% of us fit within the box, within one standard deviation of the average, and roughly 95% of us are within two standard deviations of the average (for which I didn't draw a box twice as big):

[Rassah]

10 hours ago, Troj said:

Businesses have a bad habit of thinking only of immediate trends or profits...

"Businesses" are just people. So hypothetically they would think the same way other people do, wanting instant gratification and thinking sorry term, as you said. So, hypothetically you'd be right. But there are two things that separate business people from the rest of the people. First, business people generally have some business knowledge, education, or experience, and that generally focuses on how to build a strong foundation that will last, as opposed to just grabbing as much cash as you can while driving your business into the ground. Don't forget that a lot of businesses are someone's personal idea that they cultivated and worked hard to develop. They would generally treat it almost like their own baby, rather than abuse and exploit it. And second, even if that isn't the case, remember that businesses have investors, and investors rarely bother with get rich quick type business schemes. Some do, but such businesses are extremely risky. So even if the business owner just wants short term profits, generally his investors would not fund his idea, or only fund it if he could give them a steady long term return.

Also, how many business owners and entrepreneurs are there compared to other people? Maybe business people are just different, and the businesses you hear about that do exploit for short term profit are just the loud and visible exceptions. Think about it, how many businesses do you deal with on a daily basis, and how many of them pillage, pollute, or engage in short term profit seeking?

BTW, regarding new technologies threatening them, the biggest ones typically dismiss it, thinking they're so big they can't be unseated by something like that. That's why monopolies die.

 

10 hours ago, Troj said:

It's been a while since I've seen all of the Mad Max movies. But, my impression of them is that the warlords and dictators we see are people who rose up and seized power in the vacuum that was left following the collapse of civilization. Nature abhors a vacuum, after all.

Why do you believe that nature abhors a political vacuum? If the people don't like to be ruled, wouldn't they just throw out whoever tried to rise up and seize power?

 

10 hours ago, Troj said:

The problem is, either way, you're dealing with fallible and corruptible human beings and the systems they create, whether you rely on government or the market.

Liberals and conservatives just disagree fundamentally on who's is likely to be more corrupt or incompetent here.

The problem isn't who is likely to be more corrupt. Either one can be just as corrupt. The problem is what we as people (and the market, which in this case is synonymous) can do about it. If the one corrupt is a regulatory agency employee, our option is to vote for a politician who will promise to get rid of corruption in that agency. There are no guarantees the promises will be kept, or that the politician will be elected. If the one corrupt is a business owner, we just stop buying their products. That's it. We vote instantly and directly with our money.

10 hours ago, Snagged Cub said:

And why did @Rassah have to bring his pro-liberatarian views to this thread -.- 

You are a strain to my mouse scroll wheel

Sorry, I was told that I have to keep my typing speed above 50 words per minute, or I will explode.

10 hours ago, Kinharia said:

@Rassah my own experiences with Right Wing governments will lead me to politefully disregard what you said as wishful thinking that does not look at the realities of what Right Wing politics produces.

Fascist governments. Those are awful and I'm not defending those. They are a very bad problem here in US too. They're also the opposite of right wing non-government. Comparing that to that would be like comparing green quadrant socialism to Stalin's planned economy that led to millions starving.

[Rassah]

That all aside, HAH! I'm not alone in the deep purple any more! Welcome to an apparently very exclusive club BlitzCo.

Seems most of the other new results keep coming in within green. Kind of expected. Pretty much expected. But I wonder... OpenBazaar just launched, which allows anyone to sell anything directly, and if needed anonymously (think eBay mixed with BitTorrent mixed with Silk Road). If those if you in the green got togerher with a friend and started your own business crafting and selling something, would you stick to your own principles: apply for expensive permits, wait for weeks for them to be approved, get your products and work areas inspected, pay for and wait to receive the required licences, register your friend as an employee, do all the requored background checks on him, set up tax accounting tracking services, apply for all the required insurances and permits needed to keep him as an employee, and then when you finally start selling your products, take about a third of the money you make as set it aside to pay for various taxes? Or would you not even think about that and just start selling stuff together as friends, keeping all the money (knowing no one will know you owe any taxes on it).

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, ArielMT said:

It's been forever since I took a statistics class, and I used Microsoft Excel's functions, so I could be wrong about everything below.

Using the data set by Onnes, I computed the median value, which is (-3.47,-2.395), and which is between the two median results represented by WolfyAmbassador and Terminal7:

I also computed the average and standard deviation values.  The average is (-2.745,-2.815), nearest to PastryOfApathy's result, and the standard deviation is (4.487733977,2.672140996).  Thanks for the unnecessary precision, Excel.  Anyway roughly 68% of us fit within the box, within one standard deviation of the average, and roughly 95% of us are within two standard deviations of the average (for which I didn't draw a box twice as big):

That's looks exactly like I'd expect it to. 

I guess a little closer to the middle than I thought. 

Can you do another average for all of us weirdos who don't land in the green zone?

I'd like to see the average of the Trump-kins on the forum.

[Endless/Nameless]

COUGHNERDSHACHGH

[ArielMT]

6 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

COUGHNERDSHACHGH

[LazerMaster5]

Ayy lmao

[Troj]

22 hours ago, Rassah said:

"Businesses" are just people. So hypothetically they would think the same way other people do, wanting instant gratification and thinking sorry term, as you said. So, hypothetically you'd be right. But there are two things that separate business people from the rest of the people. First, business people generally have some business knowledge, education, or experience, and that generally focuses on how to build a strong foundation that will last, as opposed to just grabbing as much cash as you can while driving your business into the ground. Don't forget that a lot of businesses are someone's personal idea that they cultivated and worked hard to develop. They would generally treat it almost like their own baby, rather than abuse and exploit it. And second, even if that isn't the case, remember that businesses have investors, and investors rarely bother with get rich quick type business schemes. Some do, but such businesses are extremely risky. So even if the business owner just wants short term profits, generally his investors would not fund his idea, or only fund it if he could give them a steady long term return.

Also, how many business owners and entrepreneurs are there compared to other people? Maybe business people are just different, and the businesses you hear about that do exploit for short term profit are just the loud and visible exceptions. Think about it, how many businesses do you deal with on a daily basis, and how many of them pillage, pollute, or engage in short term profit seeking?

BTW, regarding new technologies threatening them, the biggest ones typically dismiss it, thinking they're so big they can't be unseated by something like that. That's why monopolies die.

Why do you believe that nature abhors a political vacuum? If the people don't like to be ruled, wouldn't they just throw out whoever tried to rise up and seize power?

Businesses are not people. They comprise people, but a group acts very differently from a lone person. Small businesses also act very differently from massive corporations. A lot of it has to do with how the people in the organization draw the "tribal boundaries."

You've described how a smart, rational business owner would ideally act.

The first problem is that lots of people aren't rational, and even a lot of rational people have irrational moments.

The second problem is that people can be incredibly rational, reasonable, and pragmatic, while also being psychopathic and cruel. They can be particularly cruel towards those outside of their particular "tribe," however they've defined that.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/12/13/The-Ten-Largest-Global-Business-Corruption-Cases

http://list25.com/25-biggest-corporate-scandals-ever/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/union-carbide-and-the-bhopal-disaster/27161

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_myopia

http://gawker.com/5784025/the-18-most-suppressed-inventions-ever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/big-oils-big-lies-about-alternative-energy-20130625

http://blog.salsify.com/5-companies-that-didnt-adapt-to-new-technology...and-then-went-bankrupt

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/companies-went-bankrupt-innovation-lag.asp

I say that nature abhors a power vacuum because when the power is up for grabs, someone will ultimately grab it.

History has shown that people usually need a pretty powerful incentive to rise up against their rulers, because the average person doesn't want to rock the boat for nothing.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Troj

[Onnes]

So I had a go at estimating parameters along the lines of a product of two normal distributions.

The red line is from linear regression, with the "X" marking the mean of the data. From there, I can fit normal distributions parallel and perpendicular to linear fit to get the bivariate normal distribution, which is shown in the blue and green ellipses which have axes representing one and two standard deviations, respectively.

The data really aren't a great match to a normal distribution along the linear fit direction, although the fit is quite good along on the perpendicular.

Parameters:
mean = (-3.53, -2.66)
slope = 0.45
intercept = -1.08

Bivariate Normal:
(Assumed zero correlation)
sigma_parallel = 3.93
sigma_perp. = 1.82

Edited April 6, 2016 by Onnes
Wrote the mean in the wrong coordinate system

[#00Buck]

Moar Graphs.

This is my fetish.