Political Ideology Test

[baby tuckoo]

Must be the European spelling.


As the multiple definitions indicate, "Bodega" has become fairly generic for a type of place. My reference was to the place Hemingway called "a wine shop" in A Farewell to Arms. It is there that he goes after retreating (running?) from the front. For some reason, it was open at dawn. The dialog in that chapter is among the best you'll find, if you go for that kind of thing. Frederick Henry and the Proprietor talk circles around each other in a very cinematic way.

[solicitr]

I was torn between 9 and 2- I finally was scared off by 9's 'moral wickedness'- echoes of the Religious Right- but on reflection 9 may well be a better fit than 2.

[baby tuckoo]

Soli, I wasn't happy with the "moral" wickedness terminology, for I find "morality" a slippery fish. I'd be better suited if mere "wickedness" were stated as a generic, the less defined the better.


I know it when I see it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

baby tuckoo is Potter Stewart!

[Lily Rose]

I would probably vote 1, if there was something about peaceful foreign policy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maybe we need to all start writing our own descriptions!

[Frelga]

Start?

I do hope you write yours, V. It should be well worth seeing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I did like your "No. 11", dear Frelga. I'm afraid mine follows a pretty different path than the one that Lord M set us upon:

"It is time for the human species to evolve to the point that it is defined by cooperation rather than competition."

Yes, I really am that hopelessly idealistic.

[Frelga]

I like that, Sir V.

So how do we go from here to there?

An earnest question.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

How does a species evolve? Random mutations? The hand of God? Natural selection? What I am suggesting is kind of the opposite of social Darwinism, isn't it?

[River]

Natural selection is competition I'm afraid...

I would argue that humans already tend towards cooperation as a means of survival. When you look at us, we're not exactly well-adapted physically to our environment. We've been able to compensate for that by building very complex social structures. Which isn't to say we couldn't be more cooperative, but human society isn't all cutthroat competition either.

I went with number 3. It was the peaceful foreign relations and bit about public property/services that got me. The way I see it, people in general have the same capacity for good and evil. People who are evil to the core are about as rare as people who are good to the core. Most of us are a blend, and our actions and choices over the course of our lives will reflect that. For that reason, I'd rather not peg people as good or morally wicked. Even rational might be a stretch, now that I think about it. People tend to act in accordance with their self-interest, though not always in their long-term self-interest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Natural selection is competition I'm afraid...

Yes, I understand that. That's kinda why I made the point that what I was suggesting was the opposite of social Darwinism (though I know that I was mixing metaphors).

I would argue that humans already tend towards cooperation as a means of survival. When you look at us, we're not exactly well-adapted physically to our environment. We've been able to compensate for that by building very complex social structures. Which isn't to say we couldn't be more cooperative, but human society isn't all cutthroat competition either.

True, but it is still the dominant paradigm, in my opinion. Too much so for the long term health of both the human species and the planet that we live on.

[axordil]

I would say there's a mix and a trend. The larger the scale, the more competition replaces co-operation. The main reason for this is simplicity: it's relatively easy to co-operate with one person sitting next to you, harder to do so with 10 people in your neighborhood, MUCH harder with 1000 in your city... you get the point.

It's not symmetric, though. You can compete with the person next to you relatively easily, and with neighbors, and with fellow citizens et al.

[Padme]

Where is the people are evil sheep who want, no need to be herded like orcs?

Seriously, I fall somewhere in the middle. I think people are basically good, but there are some real mess-ups out there. Most people can function somewhat on their own, but need rules. In fact I have come to the conclusion adults are nothing more than kids with big bodies. If they like what they are doing they will behave, if not they will do what they are doing for so long and then misbehave. And this is where government comes in, because it’s the parent.

However, the government as parent has to make sure everyone has a pudding cup. Because just like kids, adults are not going to share their pudding cup unless asked.

[Túrin Turambar]

Just coming back to offer some answers:

I wouldn’t get too caught up on ‘peaceful foreign policy’. I put it in as an afterthought, and should really apply to 1 through to 6, and to the others to a lesser extent. What I refer to as a ‘peaceful’ foreign policy should be more of a ‘co-operative’ foreign policy, with 1 and 2 having more of a ‘non-interventionist’ foreign policy. It may be necessary in the future to separate questions of foreign policy out entirely, or at least create a few more options.

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, options 1 through to 7 form a continuum. For example, if you’re a bit of 2 and 4, you’re probably a 3. 8 through to 10 also form a little continuum, although I haven’t been able to get them to fit in with the others, largely because they deal with separate questions.

The part about private property ensuring stability.
That's not to say that private property is harmful.
But I wonder where one could get the idea that it creates stability.

One of the principles of political conservatism is that people are made more responsible when they have something to own and protect. Owning private property, especially something like a small business, makes people less prone to radicalism and more respectful of the institutions of civil society. This is reflected in the conservative options of 8, 9 and 10.

Also, could the ‘none of the above’ people write out a little explanation of their own beliefs along the lines of the ones in the opening post? I’m always working on improving my little quiz.

Ultimately, what I think it shows that even people who have very strong partisan differences can still agree on many basic things. This is what we saw on TORC, when option 2 (although it was option 3 there, as I had an anarchist option for 1) was a favourite among many committed Democrats and Republicans. It is also helpful in that it divorces these questions from single topical issues which can distort results, and also doesn't get people too hung up on the names of ideologies.

[Northerner]

Solid 3 here. Or 2.