The RPG Duelling League
Social Forums => Discussion => Topic started by: superaielman on August 17, 2009, 03:59:37 PM
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Nothing shocking here. This has been linked before in the group, and it's always an interesting test to see where people lie. Been a few years, so it's worth a relink.
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
I'm about where I always am. I vary from a 4 to a 7 on the left/right and a -1 to a -3 on the L/A scale.
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85
So I'm a libertarian left. I took this before, but I don't remember what I was.
Jihad vs. McWorld looks extremely interesting.
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Definitely drifting further left as I grow up (although to prove that the 0 point is something that would vary by where you are in the world, I did still vote for the "right wing" party in the last provincial election!). The social part's where it has always been, roughly.
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
Um, yay?
-
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +3.13
As a monarchist, this is about where I would expect to fall: supportive of a stronger government, but one built on the basis of reciprocity.
-
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95
Was kind of expecting my Libertarian/Authoritarian to be more in the negative 8-9, but otherwise I would say it represents my extreme views fairly accurately.
-
Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 9.08
I kinda dicked around on the test, but about a 3/4 would be more accurate.
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62
-
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67
And I was so close to the magic number there.
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
I have no idea what I scored last time.
-
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
Lot further left on both scales than I was four or five years ago.
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
Huh. I'd have expected those values to be reversed.
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95
So... I'm a mildly left-leaning moderate. WHO'D HAVE GUESSED?
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31
About the same as always on social issues, a lot further to the right than last time on economic ones. I've definitely gotten more conservative over time.
-
Actually, I think my old score was around -3 for left/right and -7 for up/down...not that it matters since that's back when I was an idiot freshman undergrad.
Anyways:
Economic Left/Right: +7.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian: +0.40
About the same as always.
-
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
I have no idea what this means for me, and I have no idea how I scored last time (or even if I did this last time), but here you go.
-
It means you are fairly moderate Doma.
Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Wooo Socialist with a taste for Anarchy, let us all be shocked.
-
Found last incarnation of a similar topic. July 27 2005. Scores reported there...
Super: First quiz: Economic Left/Right: 4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
Dhyer: Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
Trips: Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
Snow: Economic Left/Right: -3.38. Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.5
VSM: Economic Left/Right: 2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
Ciato: First Test: Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.41
ID: Economic: 2.13
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
Compman: Economic Left/Right: -1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
Shale: Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
Grefter: Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
PD: Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Donald: Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00
Uno: Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13
-
http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/survey Is another one from last time. I scored slightly more to the left (.6 leaning right vs .9 right) but a good deal stronger on the pragmatic scale (4 vs 2 this time).
-
That one gives you a "no opinion" option! Yay, about 1/6 of the questions on the other one I wished there was such a ground.
-
Interesting. Scored rather close to the center of that one, moderately left, slightly pragmatic. Makes sense. I thought the questions from that quiz were better calibrated to tease out idiosyncrasies.
Axis Position
1 left/right -4.3969 (-0.2647)
2 pragmatism +2.6515 (+0.1596)
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
Last time I took the test, maybe some 3 years ago, I scored ~-5.5, ~-5.0, so all that's really changed is that I moved more economically to the left.
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74
On the second one:
1 left/right -1.7591 (-0.1059)
2 pragmatism -0.0866 (-0.0052)
Right about where I've always been
-
The difference a middle ground option makes:
1 left/right -6.4662 (-0.3892)
2 pragmatism +0.3054 (+0.0184)
Feels a lot more accurate to me.
-
1 left/right +6.8528 (+0.4125)
2 pragmatism +0.4359 (+0.0262)
I didn't particularly screw around on this one.
-
The other test forces the taker to slant one way or another due to the non-existence of neutral ground, which does switch things a fair deal.
-
Meanwhile, I scored relatively the same... I guess that just means I'm more decisive or what?
-
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
-
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
Makes sense that economic moved left since I'm notably more anti-big corporation generally than I was then. Social Lib. moving right probably just means I'm more sick of people!
-
Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46
I continue my slide toward moderate liberalism. It's my reactionary reaction to the reactionary right.
1 left/right -4.0112 (-0.2414)
2 pragmatism +2.4162 (+0.1454)
Taking this test, I honestly expected to have a stronger right-leaning preference than the other test. Weird. Eerie.
-
Jihad vs. McWorld looks extremely interesting.
It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.
But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.
-
Can't remember what I got last time, though I still seem to be notably more right wing than most of the DL even as I sit squarely in the centre. Which, actually, feels about right.
Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
1 left/right -0.0787 (-0.0047)
2 pragmatism +0.3145 (+0.0189)
-
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
a little more libertarian than a couple years ago (I think it was -2.7 or so)
1 left/right -2.7221 (-0.1638)
2 pragmatism -0.3862 (-0.0232)
-
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90
A bit left, but the L/A feels about right.
1 left/right +0.1413 (+0.0085)
2 pragmatism -0.0008 (-0.0000)
More indicative of where I see myself - excessively moderate, ever so slightly right leaning.
-
Left/Right: +1.5074 (+0.0907)
Pragmatism: -2.3521 (-0.1416)
Huh. Although I agree not excluding the middle is all to the good, this feels somehow less accurate to me. I mean, I'm literally - in the literal sense of the word - a "reactionary" on many issues by the standards of 1909, much less 2009.
I guess my issues are so removed from modern debate that I come across as relatively "moderate" to these tests, doubly so to one that assesses how decisively I come down on modern issues. ???
-
I'm... curious. Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64
-
I'm... curious. Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?
Hereditary monarchy is the big one.
Another is decentralization from large nation-states to smaller, semi-independent sates and/or fiefdoms loosely tied by hierarchical loyalties and economic and cultural considerations.
Basically, I support post-agrarian feudalism heavily restricted by Confucian-inspired concepts of reciprocity and the Mandate of Heaven, and culturally enforced by a strong, traditional, supra-national religious or cultural body (equivalent to the role the Catholic church played in medieval Europe). I'm not especially picky on WHAT the religion is because the moral precepts of successful religions tend to follow similar lines and I'm not a believer myself; my interest is in religion as a check on excesses of temporal power and private behavior.
I also support powerful cultural disapproval of the discussion and publicization of sex, although people's actual private behaviors are irrelevant to me.
It's not a perfect match for a 1909 reactionary (hell, some of my socio-economic views already were off the table THEN, since that was the height of national centralization in tune with the second wave of the industrial revolution), but in a lot of ways it's closer to them than it would be to, say, a 2009 "conservative." Some of my issues have migrated back and forth from "right" to "left" in the last hundred years, for instance.
-
...finally, someone quite blatantly more off-the-map than my Fascist but Nazi-hating friend.
I kind of want to see you two meet.
-
Man I'm upset at my moderation and you guys' extremities. Maybe I did the test wrong (not enough Strongly Dis/Agrees)! ^^;
Edit*
It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.
But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.
Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.
-
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26
I like how my dot's right around the two for Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Works for me. But yeah, that test needs more moderate options, many of those I do not have a strong opinion on, or don't have an opinion as the question was stated.
Still sounds about right though, numerically.
1 left/right -5.0652 (-0.3049)
2 pragmatism +0.8018 (+0.0483)
Also sounds about right.
-
Man I'm upset at my moderation and you guys' extremities. Maybe I did the test wrong (not enough Strongly Dis/Agrees)! ^^;
Edit*
It was our textbook for Writing 221, I recall.
But yeah, I don't remember the numbers from last time I took this, I just remembered I synched up with Gandhi.
Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.
Embrace your moderation as I have.
-
Is it interesting? The title seems so seductively scandalous.
It was an interesting enough read. It's basically a study of reactionaries opposed with the global capitalization movement. Not all of it is necessarily about Islamic insurgents, by the way.
-
I thought it was more generally.. globalization with a bit of facetiousness. I'll see if my library has it once I'm done with these POUNDS AND POUNDS AND POUNDS of pages to read before Thursday. Dinner break time.
-
I'm... curious. Exactly what ARE the issues you care about, if they are "so removed from modern debate," and you describe yourself as a reactionary by 1909 standards?
Hereditary monarchy is the big one.
Another is decentralization from large nation-states to smaller, semi-independent sates and/or fiefdoms loosely tied by hierarchical loyalties and economic and cultural considerations.
Basically, I support post-agrarian feudalism heavily restricted by Confucian-inspired concepts of reciprocity and the Mandate of Heaven, and culturally enforced by a strong, traditional, supra-national religious or cultural body (equivalent to the role the Catholic church played in medieval Europe). I'm not especially picky on WHAT the religion is because the moral precepts of successful religions tend to follow similar lines and I'm not a believer myself; my interest is in religion as a check on excesses of temporal power and private behavior.
...You can't be serious.
EDIT: Just culled the quote to make it more clear what ideas I find so utterly ridiculous that Cranbud MUST be trolling. It's still a lot.
-
...finally, someone quite blatantly more off-the-map than my Fascist but Nazi-hating friend.
I kind of want to see you two meet.
National Socialism is a different beast than Fascism. Your friend is more on the ball there than you realise. The gap isn't huge, but it is something different and that is enough for some people (you know, the kind that is reactionary enough to be a fucking Fascist).
Edit - Well not so much different beast, but not specifically the only species of that kind of beast. Point kind of stands.
-
I thought it was more generally.. globalization with a bit of facetiousness. I'll see if my library has it once I'm done with these POUNDS AND POUNDS AND POUNDS of pages to read before Thursday. Dinner break time.
As I recall, there's a couple pieces in there that I really didn't care for. One in particular, you can almost imagine the guy jamming his head up his own ass as he goes on and on about how he looks down his nose at people who eat fast food, ever. But it's generally a not-terrible piece of reading.
-
National Socialism is a different beast than Fascism. Your friend is more on the ball there than you realise. The gap isn't huge, but it is something different and that is enough for some people (you know, the kind that is reactionary enough to be a fucking Fascist).
Edit - Well not so much different beast, but not specifically the only species of that kind of beast. Point kind of stands.
Oh I know there's a gap, it's just that most people publicly supporting Fascism seem to always wind up being Neo-Nazi to some degree or another.
Sweeping generalizations are bad, whatever.
-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
1 left/right -4.2066 (-0.2532)
2 pragmatism +3.2514 (+0.1957)
Am I the most pragmatic person in the RPGDL? I guess this wouldn't surprise me too much--I pretty much turn up my nose at idealism these days (whether it be environmentalist idealism or religious idealism or whatever).
-
Nope, I got a 4ish on pragmatism.
-
Nope, I got a 4ish on pragmatism.
That...makes sense now that I think about it >_>
-
...You can't be serious.
EDIT: Just culled the quote to make it more clear what ideas I find so utterly ridiculous that Cranbud MUST be trolling. It's still a lot.
Nope, neither unserious nor trolling. I'm flexible on the specific structures but a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist.
-
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85
1 left/right -1.6468 (-0.0991)
2 pragmatism +3.0165 (+0.1816)
Tentatively the first test is making me out to be more economically conservative than I actually am, probably because I don't want to crush capitalism or anything like that and thus was forced to disagree with a lot of "leftist" propositions, but would be more than happy to "guide" the market in all sorts of ways. Both surveys have a lot of "never," "ever," and so on questions which... well, the FAQ says outright that the questions ARE slanted, but a lot of those needed a "not true 99.9% of the time but is possible to concoct situations where they are correct." No idea how the second test is determining pragmatism vs. idealism; I can think of questions I'd ask for a test like that (say, "Should a harmful activity be banned even if it is very difficult for the government to actually prosecute it, meaning that the vast majority of people who break this law will go unpunished?") , but they weren't on it.
Nope, neither unserious nor trolling. I'm flexible on the specific structures but a dyed-in-the-wool monarchist.
See, that just generates more questions. What kind of monarchist? There are such things as modern monarchists, but you're describing yourself in a very old-fashioned way, and the rationale for monarchies in history is very very different than the kind one might propose today. To put things another way, there's a big difference between "God put Juan Carlos on the throne to lead Spain and defying this is defying God," "I think that raising someone from birth to rule, taught by their experienced parents, is the genuine best way to train a good leader of a country," and "We shouldn't mess with tradition, and monarchies are a source of social stability." Are you in favor of monarchy in general? How should the royal family be picked if there currently isn't one? Are you in favor of Dune-style futuristic eugenics to ensure "proper" rulers, or is this Plato-style "anyone smart so long as they're trained the right way from birth," or did God really just happen to pick some families for greatness, coincidentally decided by whoever was leading the revolting army at the time?
-
Took the second test:
1 left/right -4.1191 (-0.2479)
2 pragmatism +1.9515 (+0.1175)
-
See, that just generates more questions. What kind of monarchist?
Like I said, I'm flexible on the specific structure, provided the executive is chosen by heredity (with possible quality controls from an independent body, as in Saxon England) and raised to the position from a young age.
I'm inclined toward an 'elector counts' structure, where MULTIPLE potential monarchs are raised to lead semi-independent states, and choose one of their number to fill a 'first among equals' role.
There are such things as modern monarchists, but you're describing yourself in a very old-fashioned way, and the rationale for monarchies in history is very very different than the kind one might propose today. To put things another way, there's a big difference between "God put Juan Carlos on the throne to lead Spain and defying this is defying God," "I think that raising someone from birth to rule, taught by their experienced parents, is the genuine best way to train a good leader of a country," and "We shouldn't mess with tradition, and monarchies are a source of social stability."
I suspect my use of the phrase "the Mandate of Heaven" is throwing some people, because it SOUNDS like a religious term. It essentially isn't. It's a Confucian concept that the monarch's right to rule is grounded in, and his rule strengthened by, right conduct and right governance. In western sources you occasionally run across the idea of noblesse oblige, and the idea of divine right (whether literal or figurative); the Mandate of Heaven makes the latter contingent on the former. Of course, whether one reads it as LITERALLY the will of heaven or not depends on whether one reads Confucius as secular or not. It works as either a theological or historical theory.
My support of monarchy stems from a LOT of different angles (one of which is Confucian philosophy).
I think that a person raised and educated to perform a specific function has a significant edge at performing that function. Doing this within a family avoids the psychological trauma of, say, IDing likely candidates at a young age, taking them off to a high-intensity training course and raising them apart from their parents. Plus, by keeping it in the family the future monarch can observe first-hand how his predecessor handles the job and assess accordingly.
I think that elective governments create a sense of responsibility (both to interface with the electoral process and for the results of that process), but do not actually give real agency to the electorate. If you are voting for President in a country the size of the US, your impact is 1/5,000,000 greater than zero. Giving people 'false agency' seems both disingenuous and undesirable to me. The only non-elective, non-hereditary methods of choosing a leader I'm familiar with, however, tend to result in violent takeover and extreme aggression, if not outright oppression, from the executive.
I think that the process by which elected leaders achieve power is inherently harmful. It actives encourages internal strife among the electorate, offers ample opportunity for interest groups to infiltrate, if not outright dominate, the government, and selects for ambition. Leadership by conquest involves violence and turmoil by default and is even more likely to lead to factional strife, which is in turn likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence. Hereditary rule provides for a smoother transition of power and can work to reduce factionalism.
There are other reasons but those are the big ones.
Are you in favor of monarchy in general?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but... yes, if I'm reading you right. I'm not in favor of a bad monarch over a good president, but I am in favor of a good monarch over a good president or a bad monarch over a bad president. If you accept the possibility of a good dictator, I'd be inclined to favor even a bad monarch over one of those.
How should the royal family be picked if there currently isn't one?
I have no freaking clue. :P
Are you in favor of Dune-style futuristic eugenics to ensure "proper" rulers, or is this Plato-style "anyone smart so long as they're trained the right way from birth," or did God really just happen to pick some families for greatness, coincidentally decided by whoever was leading the revolting army at the time?
The Platonic one, although Aristotle made a more convincing case for monarchies specifically. I'm not sold on it being terribly important WHO the monarch is provided he is properly raised and educated. I'm a bit uncomfortable with Dune-style eugenics (or any style of eugenics) because it would tend to increase separation between monarch and populace, eventually to the point of them being separate sub-species, which I think is an undesirable outcome.
Keep in mind, although I'm in favor of powerful organized religion, I don't actually see any evidence for an involved, personal god. (I'm somewhere between a deist and an agnostic; I believe a pre-universal First Cause is the most likely explanation for certain physical phenomena, but do not presume to know anything about the First Cause's nature or intentions, if such concepts can even be ascribed to it.) In any case, an omnipotent entity could manipulate election results or the outcome of factional strife just as easily as it could genes, so one can as easily posit divine right for any form of government.
-
1 left/right -2.4969 (-0.1503)
2 pragmatism +1.0336 (+0.0622)
About where I figured I'd be, really.
-
I suspect my use of the phrase "the Mandate of Heaven" is throwing some people, because it SOUNDS like a religious term. It essentially isn't. It's a Confucian concept that the monarch's right to rule is grounded in, and his rule strengthened by, right conduct and right governance. In western sources you occasionally run across the idea of noblesse oblige, and the idea of divine right (whether literal or figurative); the Mandate of Heaven makes the latter contingent on the former. Of course, whether one reads it as LITERALLY the will of heaven or not depends on whether one reads Confucius as secular or not. It works as either a theological or historical theory.
My personal disagreement with this approach is that it still sounds like it has the problems that a typical theocracy does--which is to say a really strong mandate.
This really harkens back to "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." In most western governmental systems we've pretty much drawn a line in the sand and said "the government can't cross this line". If, however, you base the principle of government on divine right instead (whether secular or not) suddenly there really isn't an aspect of life in which the government can't interfere. This has a lot of implications...
* If the divine leader finds a piece of entertainment offensive (Harry Potter and Xenogears jump to mind as two that religious groups have objected to) they can just ban the book/game.
* If the divine leader finds certain fairly private actions offensive (say, interracial marriage and blow jobs--two things that used to be illegal) they can just ban those actions.
* If the divine leader wishes to influence the children, they can directly affect curriculum (for example, prayer in schools and teaching Intelligent Design in Science class being two that religious groups keep trying to push for).
Basically, such a mandate opens the door to a level of governmental interference that I, personally, would find unpleasant.
-
(Apologies, the interest in the previous post was more in finding out your position rather than starting a debate, but since metroid has already jumped into that arena...)
Cranbud: I see. Okay, good to hear then, as you've basically made about the only remaining argument for monarchy that doesn't either require futuristic yet expensive genetic engineering or dictates from God. It's an okay argument in the abstract, and certainly one that was used as late as the 1930s... just... it's an argument that has absolute reams of evidence against it. The evidence is in, and all the fears about democracy they had in 1850 - that mediocre idiots who curry favor with the unthinking masses will be elected - have proven overblown, while monarchies have for the most part continued to fail it up. This is especially true if only mature democracies are studied - that throws out cases like Chavez or Hitler.
Your complaints about elective democracy have merit, but I suspect this is a case of being able to spot the practical flaws in the system you know while comparing it against another system at its theoretical optimum. Meanwhile monarchy falls way short of its optimum all the time - plenty of nobles only learn how to party in their youth rather than how to rule, and that's been true for a long time. Charismatic rabble-rousers at their worst are bad leaders, yes, but few reach the insanity of a "bad son" in the succession. And so on.
I think that elective governments create a sense of responsibility (both to interface with the electoral process and for the results of that process), but do not actually give real agency to the electorate. If you are voting for President in a country the size of the US, your impact is 1/5,000,000 greater than zero. Giving people 'false agency' seems both disingenuous and undesirable to me.
But... the people do have agency. True, "I personally am mad at President Bush" changes little. But "I am mad at President Bush because he appointed cronies, failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina properly, and mismanaged Iraq..." well, so long as other people think like you do, the result is unpopular actions get you kicked out of office. Which is the whole point.
The only non-elective, non-hereditary methods of choosing a leader I'm familiar with, however, tend to result in violent takeover and extreme aggression, if not outright oppression, from the executive.
Really? There's "appoint a successor" (granted, this often turns into monarchy; see the Julio-Claudians) and "a council picks" notably. The Politburo picked a new General Secretary of the USSR pretty consistently without bloodshed after Stalin. Same with the General Secretary of China, since they arrested the Gang of Four after Mao, it's flipped Secretaries several times peacefully. Same in Vietnam. Checking Wikipedia... the SLORC in Burma/Myanmar have done one succession without bloodshed, and unfortunately I suspect they'll be able to do more if they decide to continue to keep power.
You'd have more of a point before 1700, when this really was true and the death without an heir was an invitation for a kingdom to split up and for every disconnected town to go their own way. Of course, that was back when travel/communication was bad and stopping the ambitious Duke from arming himself and contesting the throne was hard. That's not really an issue anymore. (Also, some of the better monarchies did in fact have councils or traditions like this - the original Islamic Caliphate picked a successor based off councils for awhile, even if the successor was usually related to Muhammad, and the same with the Mongols.)
I think that the process by which elected leaders achieve power is inherently harmful. It actives encourages internal strife among the electorate, offers ample opportunity for interest groups to infiltrate, if not outright dominate, the government, and selects for ambition. Leadership by conquest involves violence and turmoil by default and is even more likely to lead to factional strife, which is in turn likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence. Hereditary rule provides for a smoother transition of power and can work to reduce factionalism.
The key word here is "can" work to reduce factionalism. For example, let's take Syria, where King "President" Assad, in an amazing coincidence, happens to be the son of the previous "President" Assad. Assad is an Alawite, a minority of about 10% of Syria. Do you think that Alawites fill roughly 10% of government posts? Or do they fill like 50-80%, because they can be counted on to be loyal, as they're getting a way better deal by having this government be in power and thus would lose out majorly if the government fell? And don't get me started on the Saudi monarchy. This is nothing new, either. The Castilian-raised Spanish monarchy from 1700 or so forward economically ignored Catalonia/Aragon/Valencia due to their funny dialect, poor economy, and habit of allying with the French when Spain and France fought.
I would propose that democracy does run into serious problems if 60% of the electorate is of one faction and capable of consistently voting together (see: Shiites in Iraq), hence Madison's famous desire for a multitude of factions to cancel each other out. Just... with monarchies, sure, maybe the monarch will be even-handed, but maybe they won't be. And when that 60% supermajority doesn't exist, any democratic leader who blatantly pandered to too small a part of the population would get kicked out.
I suspect my use of the phrase "the Mandate of Heaven" is throwing some people, because it SOUNDS like a religious term. It essentially isn't.
Nah, I'm familiar with the concept. I was just more raising the fact that the stated grounds for monarchy back in the day tended to be something along the lines of the Divine Right of Kings. Glad to hear you don't actually buy into that (though it sounded like that anyway when you said that the nature of the religion didn't matter - a hardcore Christian Monarchist, for all that they're nearly extinct now, certainly would think the religion matters a lot.)
Are you in favor of monarchy in general?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but... yes, if I'm reading you right.
I meant "monarchy for everyone" rather than "I support the Xian monarchy specifically, and maybe they should even rule the world because that family is just that awesome."
If you accept the possibility of a good dictator, I'd be inclined to favor even a bad monarch over one of those.
Monarchy vs. Dictatorship is a more interesting proposition. If you're stuck with that form of government, I'd probably prefer a dictatorship? But monarchies tend to produce utterly incompetent leaders and get themselves overthrown, so the monarchy might be better after all (if for the "wrong" reason).
Eh. Didn't mean for this to go on so long. Don't feel obligated to debate or anything, was just curious before.... but... yeah, monarchism is a proposition I feel has a whole lot of problems in the modern situation, even if we were to adopt the other parts of your platform - monarchy is still a bad idea in a 1900 agrarian society.
-
Met: to my knowledge, states that had oral sex laws on the books have never actually repealed them, so it's still illegal! Just unenforcable.
-
Met: to my knowledge, states that had oral sex laws on the books have never actually repealed them, so it's still illegal! Just unenforcable.
Nah, they were struck down by supreme court ruling in 2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
-
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
On the first test. Didn't really know what to expect, but I am a life-long northeasterner.
-
Axis Position
1 left/right -1.6867 (-0.1015)
2 pragmatism -2.8409 (-0.1710)
moderate again. :[
-
Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54
Axis Position
1 left/right -9.2124 (-0.5545)
2 pragmatism +2.1343 (+0.1285)
No real surprises. I'm a lefty even in Canadian terms, go figure. I've got a fair bit of sympathy for the utilitarian benefits of strong authoritarian governments, but kinda feel that they're outweighed by the risks/historically demonstrable rarity of actual benevolent dictators. (China has had a few, but they are enormously outnumbered by incompetent sadistic clowns)
-
Met: to my knowledge, states that had oral sex laws on the books have never actually repealed them, so it's still illegal! Just unenforcable.
Back in HS there was a rather high profile sodomy case in Massachusetts (nonconsentual biting by a local TV personality, as I recall). It kinda raised eyebrows, but as my math teacher memorably explained, "Nobody wants to run for reelection as the guy who voted yes to sodomy."