INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on November 18, 2009, 03:13:05 PM
-
We're starting to cover politics in my philosophy class, and of course the first thing that was mentioned was the limitations of the "left" to "right" classification.
So I was thinking of a 3 dimentional method of political classification. Right off the top of my head here's what I came up with.
X Axis= Freedom, Libertarianism vs Authoritarianism
Y Axis= Social Direction, Reactionary vs Progressive
Z Axis= Economics, Socialism vs Capitalism
Do you think these 3 axeees are correct or need to be changed. Do more axeees need to be added??
-
You're thinking of making something like this, but then three-dimensional?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
-
Why not go for n-dimentional - 3 is way too restrictive.
By the way Scrap, I did Political Philosophy last year, if you want anyone to bounce ideas off, give me a shout. Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
-
ideology driven <-> pragmatic ?
-
ideology driven <-> pragmatic ?
I suppose, but all authoritarian regimes are heavily biased towards (and are the cause of) ideology.
-
You're thinking of making something like this, but then three-dimensional?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Yep, I've taken that test a few times and alway end up at moderate libertarian.
-
Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
Can be largely explained by game theory right??
-
ideology driven <-> pragmatic ?
I suppose, but all authoritarian regimes are heavily biased towards (and are the cause of) ideology.
Coming from a country with a multiple political party system, I see most parties have an ideological drive. Only a few more a pragmatic one. But it is something in gradations.
In the end, government ends up pragmatical here mainly, because it always consists of more than one party, quite often of three.
It does make a difference though, how the ratio pragmatics/ideology is, per party.
-
Took the test, just as I suspected. I'm central. :laugh:
-
Took the test, just as I suspected. I'm central. :laugh:
So, do you think the whole world revolves around you now??
-
Oh yes, because I'm the single most important person ever. I'm smart, beautiful and superior to everyone. :eyelash:
-
I'm Libertarian Left. I'm smack dab beside the Dalai Lama and hanging out with Ghandi. Not surprising at all.
-
Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
Can be largely explained by game theory right??
Nah, that is the more IR type stuff, like Richardson's arms race and MAD.
-
Oh yes, because I'm the single most important person ever. I'm smart, beautiful and superior to everyone. :eyelash:
Thank you for gracing us with your presence. ::)
:respect:
-
ideology driven <-> pragmatic ?
I suppose, but all authoritarian regimes are heavily biased towards (and are the cause of) ideology.
Coming from a country with a multiple political party system, I see most parties have an ideological drive. Only a few more a pragmatic one. But it is something in gradations.
In the end, government ends up pragmatical here mainly, because it always consists of more than one party, quite often of three.
It does make a difference though, how the ratio pragmatics/ideology is, per party.
Agin, I think that's influenced by other things. Conservative ideologies ae going to be more pragmatic than progressive ideologies.. I see ideology more as an effect and less as a cause.
-
I'm Libertarian Left. I'm smack dab beside the Dalai Lama and hanging out with Ghandi. Not surprising at all.
I doubt the Dali Lama, is in practice, libertarian left. He ran a very oppresive theocracy over there in Tibet. As bad as the Commie Chinese are, the Tibetens will probably be better off under their rule.
-
Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
Can be largely explained by game theory right??
Nah, that is the more IR type stuff, like Richardson's arms race and MAD.
Then aside from coercion, what are the driving factors of political obligation??
-
I'm Libertarian Left. I'm smack dab beside the Dalai Lama and hanging out with Ghandi. Not surprising at all.
I was in the Libertarian Left region too, but I think I was a little closer to the middle of the left/right line than you:
ec=-2.12 soc=-4.05
-
I'm Libertarian Left. I'm smack dab beside the Dalai Lama and hanging out with Ghandi. Not surprising at all.
I doubt the Dali Lama, is in practice, libertarian left. He ran a very oppresive theocracy over there in Tibet. As bad as the Commie Chinese are, the Tibetens will probably be better off under their rule.
I have a copy of the book that Ghandi wrote (his autobiography) and it was fascinating. It was a huge book (took awhile to digest as his style of writing takes longer to process which is odd for me since I'm a quick reader) and I only got through the first half of it. I need to pick it up again and finish it off. Might do that over the winter. It's one of those intense books that give you so much to think about you have to keep putting it down to think things over before you continue.
Okay, I'm done my Ghandi tangent. Carry on. :P
-
Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
Can be largely explained by game theory right??
Nah, that is the more IR type stuff, like Richardson's arms race and MAD.
Then aside from coercion, what are the driving factors of political obligation??
None really - it is a delusion manufactured by collective application of social expectations.
-
Oh yes, because I'm the single most important person ever. I'm smart, beautiful and superior to everyone. :eyelash:
Thank you for gracing us with your presence. ::)
:respect:
I was being sarcastic. :asthing:
-
Oh yes, because I'm the single most important person ever. I'm smart, beautiful and superior to everyone. :eyelash:
Thank you for gracing us with your presence. ::)
:respect:
I was being sarcastic. :asthing:
I know. I was just playing along. 8)
-
Oh. :autism:
-
Political Obligation I reckon you would find to be the most interesting part.
Can be largely explained by game theory right??
Nah, that is the more IR type stuff, like Richardson's arms race and MAD.
Then aside from coercion, what are the driving factors of political obligation??
None really - it is a delusion manufactured by collective application of social expectations.
That's a bit vague. Can you elaborate??