Federation vs. US principles

[JarodRussell]

^ Kirk is, in some ways, the embodiment of the state.

Nah, that is overinterpreting it. Kirk was an Admiral in Starfleet and he pulled all strings possible because wanted his ship back, simple.

and where religion in general is depicted as nothing more than superstitous nonsense with no redeeming value (Who Watches the Watchers).

No no. The point of the episode was that you shouldn't blindly believe everything that is said and that you simply have to think about what happens. It was more a story about fundamentalism than a story about "religion is bad". This was repeated in Devil's Due in which Picard exposes the magic tricks of a God/Devil impostor.

Also, the Prime Directive as interpreted post-TOS is a brutal social darwinist doctrine that has no place in an ethical society.

In fact, it has a place. Europeans travel to America and find native tribes. And they decide to leave them alone to let them develop without influence. That is highly ethical.

ALL of today's problems in the world are the result of the big powers playing their games with less developed cultures and countries. Crusades, colonization, deportation.

The Prime Directive one of the best things about Star Trek.

Seriously, there's nothing to stop Cardassians, Romulans, or Klingons from interfering with a culture that the UFP had decided to leave alone to let develop.

Well, there'd be the Federation to stop them.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Good to see you back Rush, if only temporarily.

Teddy Rosevelt, I believe, was the one who started the whole "world's policeman" thing.

One could argue that it was William McKinley who started the U.S. on that path, with the U.S. involvement in the Spanish American War. Teddy Roosevelt was, however, a major figure in the McKinley Administration, eventually becoming his Vice President.

Ah. As you say.

We got stories where abortion was defended as a fundamental/unquestionable right (Up the Long Ladder).

That's what it was supposed to be?! If that were the case, then it shows an alarming lack of intelligence on the part of the writers, unless they actually were secretly pushing an anti-abortion agenda. The situation in question is absolutely NOTHING like the abortion issue, and I can't imagine anyone comparing it to abortion unless they were an ultra-conservative pro-lifer tweaking the facts and making a completely incorrect analogy in order to drive home the idea of abortion as murder.

To be honest...I also must disagree with Shran--but for far different...much less emotionaly-charged reasons.

It's worth noting that it is very doubtful indeed that the clones in question were alive, per se. I haven't seen the episode in a while...but I don't recall Pulaski saying anything about life signs.

And, as any episode with a pregnant character indicates, even the medical officers behave and speak as if the unborn baby were alive. (This, of course, was brought to full dramatic light in "The Child". Worf suggested aborting it--but Data, and eventually Deanna, shot the idea down.)

As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek constantly implies a pro-life position--or at least, it aknowledges life before birth.

The whole issue of abortion is about a person having the right to decide what happens to THEIR OWN BODY. A pregnant woman has another entity in her own body, feeding off her for 9 months, presenting a potential danger (including dying during childbirth)... A friend of mine who has an infant (which she adores and is completely devoted to) compared pregnancy to having a parasite in your body - which, when you come down to it, is basically accurate. Comparing it to someone losing a few hairs and then being infuriated that someone used it to create another lifeform out of it, is absurd and ludicrous. If you're going to make a child analogy of it, it comes off as "I have the right to kill my baby after I've given birth" or "I have the right to kill my baby after it has been removed from my body and placed in an incubator". Or maybe "I found out that this woman I had sex with has given birth; nobody asked me about it, I feel violated, so I'm going to go and kill the baby".

(Eyes bulging wide....)

"Parasite"?

No comment.

 

[TheGodBen]

After Roddenberry was kicked upstairs and new people were brought on to run Trek for the movies, these attitudes were downplayed. At the same time, he moved even further to the left. Then after he was given another chance to run his version of Trek, on TNG, we saw his leftist philosophy in full bloom. We got stories where abortion was defended as a fundamental/unquestionable right (Up the Long Ladder), the answer to drug addiction was to ignore the problem and let addicts and dealers work it out themselves (Symbiosis), and where religion in general is depicted as nothing more than superstitous nonsense with no redeeming value (Who Watches the Watchers).

You have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the left, but I suppose many on the left have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the right.

Kirk is the state?

You're thinking of Louis XIV.

 

[Rush Limborg]

After Roddenberry was kicked upstairs and new people were brought on to run Trek for the movies, these attitudes were downplayed. At the same time, he moved even further to the left. Then after he was given another chance to run his version of Trek, on TNG, we saw his leftist philosophy in full bloom. We got stories where abortion was defended as a fundamental/unquestionable right (Up the Long Ladder), the answer to drug addiction was to ignore the problem and let addicts and dealers work it out themselves (Symbiosis), and where religion in general is depicted as nothing more than superstitous nonsense with no redeeming value (Who Watches the Watchers).

You have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the left, but I suppose many on the left have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the right.

Well...there are a great deal of nutcases on both sides, to be frank. "Clowns To The Left Of Me" tend to be communist revolutionaries, environmentalist nut groups like EarthFirst!, "feminazis" (and I use the term appropriately), and secular progressives who try to take away a student's right to pray in school.

"Jokers To The Right" is usually limited to those even further right than libertarians. News flash: the Extreme Far Right is not Fascism. It's Anarchy.

These nuts hate all things government--and from them we get all the stupid conspiracies about evil Jewish (yes, they're racist--*sigh*) bankers who are taking over the world. I can honstly say that true Conservatives and Libertarians are not pleased to have them on our side of the aisle.

(As far as I'm concerned, there's only one evil superbanker to speak of--George Soros--and while he's certainly powerful and influential, he's not Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Well...not quite, anyway. )

Kirk is the state?

You're thinking of Louis XIV.

"I'm King Kirk!

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'M--KING KIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRK!!!"

 

[sonak]

Anarchism isn't specifically left-wing or right-wing.


Anarcho-capitalism is right-wing(economically at least) while anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-communism are left-wing variants.


Remember, there's both a social and economic perspective to the left-wing/right-wing axis.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Anarchism isn't specifically left-wing or right-wing.


Anarcho-capitalism is right-wing(economically at least) while anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-communism are left-wing variants.


Remember, there's both a social and economic perspective to the left-wing/right-wing axis.

As you say. Many communists and leftist "revolutionaries" view anarchy as a means to an end--but nonetheless...Anarchism as a political philosophy technically belongs on the right edge of the spectrum, as per the equation that forms the entire scale....

 

[JarodRussell]

I think people already are wrong by trying to fit Roddenberry's views or Star Trek into a single category. Guys and girls, it's possible to be on neither side. Humanity in Star Trek has grown out of its infancy, and that infancy includes black and white categorizations. So by claiming Roddenberry was a communist you are doing exactly the wrong thing.

First of all, Earth in Star Trek is utopia. It doesn't matter HOW that works, it JUST IS, and that's the fictional FACT for the Star Trek universe. At least it should be. That's what Roddenberry wanted, and I say that everyone who wants to contribute to Star Trek should accept that, or chose another franchise to mess with. I'm glad that "we don't have money" made it into The Voyage Home and First Contact, and even into DS9. That belongs to Star Trek, just like warp drive, beaming and photon torpedoes.

 

[DevilEyes]

The whole issue of abortion is about a person having the right to decide what happens to THEIR OWN BODY. A pregnant woman has another entity in her own body, feeding off her for 9 months, presenting a potential danger (including dying during childbirth)... A friend of mine who has an infant (which she adores and is completely devoted to) compared pregnancy to having a parasite in your body - which, when you come down to it, is basically accurate. Comparing it to someone losing a few hairs and then being infuriated that someone used it to create another lifeform out of it, is absurd and ludicrous. If you're going to make a child analogy of it, it comes off as "I have the right to kill my baby after I've given birth" or "I have the right to kill my baby after it has been removed from my body and placed in an incubator". Or maybe "I found out that this woman I had sex with has given birth; nobody asked me about it, I feel violated, so I'm going to go and kill the baby".

(Eyes bulging wide....)

"Parasite"?

Since she has been pregnant and given birth, and I'm pretty sure you haven't, I'm inclined to give more weight to her words on the matter.

Well...there are a great deal of nutcases on both sides, to be frank. "Clowns To The Left Of Me" tend to be communist revolutionaries, environmentalist nut groups like EarthFirst!, "feminazis" (and I use the term appropriately)

So you're referring to Magda Goebbels and Irma Greese?

Anarchism as a political philosophy technically belongs on the right edge of the spectrum, as per the equation that forms the entire scale....

You really do have some very strange idea of what politically 'left' and 'right' is.

I wonder what your result would be in this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

 

[Admiral Shran]

You have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the left, but I suppose many on the left have a bizarre concept of what it means to be on the right.

While I certainly understand that not all people on the left believe this way, in my experience most on the left hold these beliefs - pro-choice, lax drug laws, and at least a mild distain for religion.

Of course, not all people on the right share the same beliefs either. There are right-wingers who believe in pro-choice, lax drug laws, and are atheists.

But, in my experience, if ficition is going to present these beliefs, it says to me "left-wing."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

DevilEyes--Unlike one's own organs, though, a baby has its own separate DNA and is a separate being, so technically that's not an extension of the woman's body. As to a parasite, that's another being that invades from the outside, and which is by definition a different species from the host (like if a person gets tapeworms). The only other comparison one could possibly invoke (but which I still find to be a very incorrect comparison) would be a cancerous tumor. Cancer is essentially a perversion of one's own DNA, but one that arises either spontaneously, or through exposure to chemicals or radiation.

A baby, on the other hand, is the result of DNA from two human beings combining into a new and unique form, so the moral question at hand is not one of altering one's own body or removing an invasive other species: the moral question is whether or not it's OK to destroy a new and unique human. And for me, that doesn't sit well. I think it's fine if not everybody wants to go through pregnancy. (And I would add that there are SO many children who need to be adopted by loving families, so it's not like a desire not to get pregnant and a desire for children have to be incompatible, either.) But for me, "control of your own body" is something that can be accomplished by abstinence or contraceptives.

With rape, I do see where some questionability comes in, since you've removed consent. Now, I know some would disagree vehemently with me, though, I can tell you that I would refuse the morning-after pill. I do at least understand why others might take it, in that case. I know I couldn't, though: I know myself well enough to know it would make the trauma of a bad situation far worse.

 

[DevilEyes]

NerysGhemor - Again, I am not saying that a baby is like a parasite. I am quoting my friend, who used that comparison while describing what pregnancy was like. And from what she said, pregnancy and birth were very difficult. (And just to make it clear, she wanted the baby, had been trying to get pregnant after having had a miscarriage before, absolutely adores her lovely daughter, who is now a year and a half, and takes up most of her time.) Since she actually had that experience, I tend to take her word on it. It's kind of a big deal, having another being grow inside you for 9 months, providing all the necessities for its life and growth from your body, and then having to undergo a very painful, difficult and dangerous process of giving birth... This is why being mother is seen as something special compared to being a father, you don't just give away a few cells (as that idiotic "Up the Long Ladder" comparison would imply). And this is why I would never presume to impose it on someone and make decisions for them. I can only decide for myself, if I get pregnant. (Personally, while I don't particularly want to get pregnant, if I think I would never have an abortion if I did get pregnant. But that's a personal feeling and a personal choice. ) It would be awfully presumptuous to try to make that decision for someone else.

(In Star Trek, however - judging by ENT "Demons/Terra Prime" - abortion should be a moot point, since it is possible to remove the embryo from the uterus and have it develop normally outside the mother's body. This should mean that women can decide to have a baby the old-fashioned way, or to have it develop outside their body, with the baby being able to survive either way.)

A baby, on the other hand, is the result of DNA from two human beings combining into a new and unique form, so the moral question at hand is not one of altering one's own body or removing an invasive other species: the moral question is whether or not it's OK to destroy a new and unique human. And for me, that doesn't sit well.

It doesn't sit well with me either, but neither does the idea of forcing someone to undergo pregnancy and birth.

But for me, "control of your own body" is something that can be accomplished by abstinence or contraceptives.

Forcing abstinence on someone is denying them the control of their body.

Contraceptives are, of course, the way to go, but we all know that it doesn't always work out that way in real life, and that there are still lots of unwanted pregnancies. (And, in states where abortion is illegal, lots of illegally performed abortions - often botched and disastrous.)

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

This is why being mother is seen as something special compared to being a father, you don't just give away a few cells (as that idiotic "Up the Long Ladder" comparison would imply).

Being a father is its own type of special, and I do not believe it to be less than motherhood in any way. I see it as far more than just "giving a few cells away." Interestingly, though it's only now beginning to be understood, the man does go through physical and hormonal changes as a result of impending fatherhood--changes that can help prepare them to bond with their children. It's not like actually carrying the child, to be sure, but men are designed to react to the pregnancy and care for and bond with their child. That isn't something I'm willing to be dismissive of.

(In Star Trek, however - judging by ENT "Demons/Terra Prime" - abortion should be a moot point, since it is possible to remove the embryo from the uterus and have it develop normally outside the mother's body. This should mean that women can decide to have a baby the old-fashioned way, or to have it develop outside their body, with the baby being able to survive either way.)

That is actually a technology I suspect would become the abortion alternative, in the Trekiverse, AND I think couples that couldn't have children might also have the embryo implanted (similar to what's done today, but doable at later stages of development).

I actually saw a very interesting fanfic dealing with such a technology (they referred to it as "donating a baby"). It's an AU, and the choice still was very difficult, but here it is:

http://www.adastrafanfic.com/viewstory.php?sid=151&chapter=1

I wonder how much research is being given to the forerunners of that sort of abortion alternative.

But for me, "control of your own body" is something that can be accomplished by abstinence or contraceptives.

Forcing abstinence on someone is denying them the control of their body.[/quote]

I never said anything about forcing anybody--especially since I did suggest a second option. I presented it as one of two options (and it is, of course, the 100% certain option, one that would only "fail" in the case of rape). And if you want a 100% chance of never having a child, it's the only way that will give you that absolute guarantee.

Contraceptives are, of course, the way to go, but we all know that it doesn't always work out that way in real life, and that there are still lots of unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, anyone who has sexual relations knows there's a probability, however small, of contraceptive failure. I think that's a risk that should be taken into account before having sex, if one is 100% unwilling to have a child.

(And, in states where abortion is illegal, lots of illegally performed abortions - often botched and disastrous.)

First, there is actually no state in the US where abortion is illegal (the situation differs in Mexico and Australia, but I assume you're thinking of the US).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png

Certain states do impose requirements that have to be satisfied before the abortion (mandatory counseling, waiting periods, and parental consent for minors), but once those are satisfied, you can get an abortion in any state, even though you may have to travel to a major city in that state, in certain states. There have been states that tried to pass laws to ban it, but they have failed. (South Dakota's temporarily passed, but was repealed on a referendum.)

The one odd exception is Louisiana, whose laws work like no other state. They have a law on the books that is essentially "waiting" for Roe v. Wade to be overturned: until that case is overturned, it cannot come into effect, but if that case IS overturned, it will come into effect immediately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_US_State_by_State

Anyway, now that that's established, I'll move on to the second point.

Believe it or not, I am not actually for a total ban. In that sense you could say I am "pro-choice," but I very, very much encourage choosing against it. I don't think changing the legal system--other than banning late-term/partial-birth abortions--is going to accomplish anything. I would love more than anything for people to change their minds on their own.

I think that working on the adoption/foster care systems are critical, as well as changing public attitudes towards adoption, so that people who are unable to raise their child don't have to worry that their child is going to go through orphanage/foster-home hell, but will instead be raised in a loving home. I would like to see adoption not be "just plan B if we can't have our own kids," but become much more common. What I would like to see is for social attitudes and perceptions to turn.

 

[iguana_tonante]

As far as I'm concerned, Star Trek constantly implies a pro-life position--or at least, it aknowledges life before birth.

I don't think anyone ever implied that a foetus isn't alive. Just that its rights as non-sentient, non-sapient being does not override the sentient, sapient mother's rights about her own body.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ No, I did not mean US states. I meant state as in country, sovereign political entity, where abortion is, or was illegal at earlier times.

I didn't mean to diminish fatherhood, and I am sure it is special to know that one is going to have a child, that they have created new life, which biological fathers and mothers feel; but then there is also another meaning of 'motherhood' that consists of carrying a baby to term... (Which is why I can never understand how people can take surrogacy so lightly and presume that a woman who will carry a baby, even if it's not from her DNA at all, will have an easy time giving it up, but that's another story.) That's as far as biology goes - of course, I maintain that the most important thing about parenthood is taking care and bringing up the child AFTER it is born (which is really an even more difficult and a lot longer task), and that those who brought you up are your true parents, no matter if they're your biological parents or not... but again, that's not the subject...

The point is, the only element of parenthood that actually matters for the abortion issue is the issue of carrying a baby in one's body. That's what the whole abortion issue revolves around. "Up the Long Ladder" ignores that and makes an absurd parallel, arguing that a person has the right to kill a fully formed being created from their DNA. That's more akin to infanticide than abortion.

 

[TheGodBen]

Well...there are a great deal of nutcases on both sides, to be frank.

True, but there's a great deal of divergence on both sides. As sonak said, there is at least two aspects to one's political position, a good example being the political compass test:

I'm left-wing economically and socially liberal. If you were to ask me which area I'd have more in common with, the red area (communist) or the purple area (libertarian), I'd say that I have more in common with the purple area. I don't agree with right-wing economic views, but I do agree that there are valid points on that side and advantages provided by such systems. But on the authoritarian side, I have a harder time coming to terms with those people because they prefer state intervention in personal liberty, and that's one area that I'm not comfortable with.

So, yes, I'm left wing, but I personally feel closer to right-wing libertarians than communists or socialists or people of that ilk (but I'm closer to both than I am to economic and social conservatives).

While I certainly understand that not all people on the left believe this way, in my experience most on the left hold these beliefs - pro-choice, lax drug laws, and at least a mild distain for religion.

My problem was with the way you characterised these things.

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but that does not mean that I consider abortion a fundamental right. I don't like abortion, I could never justify it to myself, but I'm not comfortable legislating my sense of morality upon others. I have moral objections to adultery too, but I don't want to outlaw it.

Yes, I'm in favour of drug legalisation, or at least decriminalisation. We're not winning the so-called drug war, we never will, all we accomplish by maintaining it is the effective criminalisation of addiction, which has a negative effect on treatment. I don't want to ignore the problem, and I certainly don't want to leave addicts at the mercy of dealers, I want drugs legalised precisely so that we can regulate the sale of addictive substances to protect users. What I want to see is what happened in Portugal: they decriminalised drug possession in 2001, since then drug use has fallen, deaths are down by more than 50%, and people seeking treatment for drug addiction has doubled.

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-religion, I know that religious organisations have many good points as well as many flaws. What I oppose is legislation based on religious values, I strongly feel that church and state should be separate. But if people want to go to church or pray to God, I've got no problem with that, it's their time to spend how they see fit. So long as I can continue to spend my time playing violent video games and masturbating, I have nothing to object to.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

^ No, I did not mean US states. I meant state as in country, sovereign political entity, where abortion is, or was illegal at earlier times.

Ohh...I understand now. In America, it is generally assumed when you refer to "the states" that this refers to the American states. Typically to refer to countries, we might use that word, or say "sovereign states" (as opposed to the non-sovereign states of the Union), exactly because of that easy potential for confusion. "The state," on the other hand, gets two different usages. It either refers to the government of the US state you live in, OR it's used in what's most often a dystopic sense to refer to an oppressive nation's government and its agencies. (Which is why when used on the American government by Americans, it tends to not be a flattering term.)

Given that on matters the federal government hasn't ruled on, that our states often DO have very different laws (just look at our driving laws!), I assumed you thought that the US states had laws even more divergent on abortion than what they actually have.

I didn't mean to diminish fatherhood, and I am sure it is special to know that one is going to have a child, that they have created new life, which biological fathers and mothers feel; but then there is also another meaning of 'motherhood' that consists of carrying a baby to term... (Which is why I can never understand how people can take surrogacy so lightly and presume that a woman who will carry a baby, even if it's not from her DNA at all, will have an easy time giving it up, but that's another story.)

And conversely I also think that what men go through when there's a miscarriage or an abortion is badly overlooked. One of my male co-workers recently lost his child to a miscarriage, and I saw him just a few days after he found out. He was holding it together, but you could easily tell that he was devastated.

True, some men walk out on their kids, but guys often take it VERY hard when they lose their child, even though society often forces them to hide the pain. And they take it worst of all when the decision for an abortion is made without them, and they wanted the child. Losing a child strikes a cruel blow to a man's natural instincts as well as his soul.

I also think that the fact that some men aren't...well...MEN enough to be involved with their children doesn't invalidate their importance. And there are cases where the woman takes the life of the baby without considering a father who would have been interested and could even have been a capable single parent if it was the woman who didn't want to be involved. (We know that women can be capable single parents when they have to be. So can men. And I think despite our cultural conditioning to think otherwise, to think of men as less than caring and less than wanting to be involved, that this situation happens a lot more than we think.) And these men have no real recourse to stop what's happening to a child that is every bit as much theirs as the mother's.

Sorry...fatherhood and father's rights are something I feel very strongly about because it often seems that very few people think about or try to speak up for men when they get hurt. (Or even acknowledge that they can be hurt as a woman can be.)

But even when it's the father who is refusing involvement, I still think there are alternatives for dealing with this other and separate life, if the mother is also not able to raise the child. (Which is, again, why I care so deeply about adoption.)

The point is, the only element of parenthood that actually matters for the abortion issue is the issue of carrying a baby in one's body. That's what the whole abortion issue revolves around.

The problem is that we're not dealing with a clone or a tumor with no other source but one's own DNA, and that's where I think a lot of analogies (to include idea of equating "Up the Long Ladder" with abortion) break down.

 

[Admiral Shran]

My problem was with the way you characterised these things.

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but that does not mean that I consider abortion a fundamental right. I don't like abortion, I could never justify it to myself, but I'm not comfortable legislating my sense of morality upon others. I have moral objections to adultery too, but I don't want to outlaw it.

Yes, I'm in favour of drug legalisation, or at least decriminalisation. We're not winning the so-called drug war, we never will, all we accomplish by maintaining it is the effective criminalisation of addiction, which has a negative effect on treatment. I don't want to ignore the problem, and I certainly don't want to leave addicts at the mercy of dealers, I want drugs legalised precisely so that we can regulate the sale of addictive substances to protect users. What I want to see is what happened in Portugal: they decriminalised drug possession in 2001, since then drug use has fallen, deaths are down by more than 50%, and people seeking treatment for drug addiction has doubled.

Yes, I'm an atheist, but I'm not anti-religion, I know that religious organisations have many good points as well as many flaws. What I oppose is legislation based on religious values, I strongly feel that church and state should be separate. But if people want to go to church or pray to God, I've got no problem with that, it's their time to spend how they see fit. So long as I can continue to spend my time playing violent video games and masturbating, I have nothing to object to.

Didn't mean to offend.

I'd actually agree with many of the stances you listed above.

I'm also in favor of drug decriminalisation. It's obvious that we're not winning the War on Drugs, and never have been. All it does, at least here in the U.S., is needlessly bloat the size of the government and infringe on personal liberties. All I was saying is that I don't agree with stance presented in Symbiosis - which seems to be "just deal with it yourselves because it's not our problem."

Concerning religion, I'm of much the same mind as you, but from the other side. I'm a practicing Catholic, but if someone wants to be an atheist, I'm fine with that - it's their choice, not mine. What bothers me is when one side insists that the other is either stupid, unthinking, or somehow backward. Theists shouldn't force religion on atheists and atheists shouldn't force atheism on theists. And that's exactly what I think Trek was doing in Who Watches the Watchers - it was forcing an atheistic perspective on theist viewers by ridiculing religion.

(Coincidentally, one of the reasons I'm glad I converted to Catholicism is that no matter how often I polish the bishop, I can always have the Bishop offer me God's forgiveness. Ah, the wonders of confession. )

As for abortion, I used to be think just as you do. As Bill Clinton said - "Pro-life personally, pro-choice politically." Here lately, however, I'm having a hard time seeing a fetus as anything but a living being. So, I guess I'm moving more and more to the right on that issue.

Just FYI - I took that Political Compass test and my scores were....

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

 

[Rush Limborg]

Yes...I've already taken the "political compass" test, and to be frank, the entire premise of the thing is to reconcile the American left/right scale with the European scale.


The European scale--from which we get the concept of "fascism on the right" and "right-wing dictators"--is, quite simply, based on the seating arrangement of the Parliaments. Traditionally, the military dictatorships sat in the far right of the chambers, and the radical revolutionaries sat in the far left, with all the other parties seated somewhere in between.

With the Founding Fathers, a new scale was developed--a more scientific scale, which puts "complete rule by the people" (true Anarchism, or "radical capitalism") on one end (the far right end), and total government rule (the police state, fascism, centralized socialism, Marxism) on the other end (the far left). The scale is determined by the amount of government control--and, coincidently, economic freedom--a society has.


As for the scale...observe how, on the chart, the terms "Left" and "Right" aren't exactly defined. "Authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" are more specific. They refer to ideologies. "Left" and "Right" are just there, as if we should already know what their "true" definition is. Never mind that on the American scale, "Libertarianism" by its very nature belongs on the Right, and "Authoritarianism" on the Left.

Now, I am aware that the scale claims that it uses Left/Right in the economic sense--but Capitalism, the economic "Right", requires by its very nature a limited government ("Libertarianism"), whereas Socialism, the economic "Left", requires a powerful government to redistribute the wealth and determine the means of production ("Authoritarianism").

It can get confusing at times, with people invoking the European scale without transition from the American. But to be frank...Hitler was a far leftist on the American scale.

 

[iguana_tonante]

With the Founding Fathers, a new scale was developed--a more scientific scale, which puts "complete rule by the people" (true Anarchism, or "radical capitalism") on one end (the far right end), and total government rule (the police state, fascism, centralized socialism, Marxism) on the other end (the far left). The scale is determined by the amount of government control--and, coincidently, economic freedom--a society has.

Absolutely wrong. As you can easily see with the insistence of the Right to legislate morality and curb social freedoms. This is why you need both a social and economic axis.

Never mind that on the American scale, "Libertarianism" by its very nature belongs on the Right, and "Authoritarianism" on the Left.

Again, wrong. You can't get more authoritarian than "with us or against us", and guess who used that slogan recently?

Your faith in the American exceptionalism is very naive.

 

[DevilEyes]

With the Founding Fathers, a new scale was developed--a more scientific scale, which puts "complete rule by the people" (true Anarchism, or "radical capitalism") on one end (the far right end), and total government rule (the police state, fascism, centralized socialism, Marxism) on the other end (the far left). The scale is determined by the amount of government control--and, coincidently, economic freedom--a society has.

I wasn't sure I knew where I stood economically, until had a very extreme economically liberal teacher at my post-graduate studies ("Democracy and Transition in South-East Europe") who kept talking about "economic freedom". I am very grateful than he made decide I was a social democrat. I kept thinking "I'm sorry, whose freedom?" I was so annoyed with reading his articles that were full of talk about things like national income and growth, but kept ignoring real life consequences on individual people. If 'freedom' is about the freedom of the individual, I saw none of it in his theories. Isn't the obsession with a country's economic growth in abstract terms a very collectivist concept, with the idea that this economic growth and national income that is going to happen as a result of 'economic freedom' is somehow magically going to benefit every member of the society, in itself... Even though real life tells us that this is blatantly not true? (In fact, he gave 'positive' examples of countries such as South Korea, which, at the time, severely curtailed workers' rights, made workers work 16 hours a day on small salaries, put union leaders in prison etc. before they managed to have the economic growth the country needed. That was meant as an example to be followed, an example that transition is tough but that sacrifices have to made on its altar [yes, this is my wording] ... He never mentioned anything about people losing jobs, families having no income, desperate people committing suicide after losing their jobs... It's all about the Big Picture, I guess. That's very authoritarian, isn't it? A lot like the old communist mantra of working and making sacrifices for the 'better tomorrow', when everything is going to be rosy...)

What 'freedom' are we talking about, if it in reality exists only for rich businessmen and big corporations? For people with almost no money struggling to survive, for unemployed people, for people in badly paid jobs, people who are at the mercy of their employers and working all day and all year because their boss makes all the decisions and they are desperate not to lose the job (and these are all things that are happening right now in my country, in the name of transition to the market economy... We're now at the stage comparable to the darkest days of 19th century capitalism... There's no child labor, but a lot of other things are there...), "economic freedom" means squat. In real life, abstract freedom means nothing if people's economic position is such that they have little choice. They are not free. To be free, they have to be guaranteed the basic necessities to make a decent living - enough welfare benefits to be able to have food, housing, clothes and other basic necessities (and I mean decent living, not awful homeless shelters), free health service, education, and real help in trying to find a job. Many people might take these things for granted, but they still don't exist in quite a few countries, or exist in a very rudimentary and inadequate form (e.g. in my 'transition' country, there is no such thing as the dole. You're unemployed and without income, who cares. And unemployment is very high.) And these are the things that government, IMO, must provide. It's what it's there for, IMO. But strictly speaking, this is "interference in economy". You must collect taxes in order to secure welfare. To claim that the state should not interfere in economy at all because it would allegedly curtail "freedom" is akin to claiming that there should be no police and no penal system because it curtail "freedom"... When in fact, this would only mean freedom for the strongest to oppress the weak. The state must interfere to protect freedom and keep in check the powerful individuals and groups who would endanger the freedom of others. And just like the authorities have the duty to stop bullies and gangsters from endangering physical freedom and life of others, so it has the duty of preventing powerful businessmen from gaining and abusing too much power and endangering economic freedom of others. Any talk about freedom in today's world would be incomplete and delusional if it didn't include the consideration of the fact that the unchecked power in many countries comes not from the government, but from the richest individuals and groups, who have a huge influence and control over the economy and politics, and often the de facto rulers behind the scenes.

Didn't mean to offend.

I'd actually agree with many of the stances you listed above.

I'm also in favor of drug decriminalisation. It's obvious that we're not winning the War on Drugs, and never have been. All it does, at least here in the U.S., is needlessly bloat the size of the government and infringe on personal liberties. All I was saying is that I don't agree with stance presented in Symbiosis - which seems to be "just deal with it yourselves because it's not our problem."

Concerning religion, I'm of much the same mind as you, but from the other side. I'm a practicing Catholic, but if someone wants to be an atheist, I'm fine with that - it's their choice, not mine. What bothers me is when one side insists that the other is either stupid, unthinking, or somehow backward. Theists shouldn't force religion on atheists and atheists shouldn't force atheism on theists. And that's exactly what I think Trek was doing in Who Watches the Watchers - it was forcing an atheistic perspective on theist viewers by ridiculing religion.

(Coincidentally, one of the reasons I'm glad I converted to Catholicism is that no matter how often I polish the bishop, I can always have the Bishop offer me God's forgiveness. Ah, the wonders of confession. )

As for abortion, I used to be think just as you do. As Bill Clinton said - "Pro-life personally, pro-choice politically." Here lately, however, I'm having a hard time seeing a fetus as anything but a living being. So, I guess I'm moving more and more to the right on that issue.

Just FYI - I took that Political Compass test and my scores were....

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

My results in the Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

Incidentally, all my friends who took the test are in the green square (Left Libertarian), and I know a person who is at the far end, the 'leftest' most 'libertarian' stance possible. But I find that there are issues where people of those leanings have very diverse views. One such issue is prostitution. Many 'libertarians' are in favor of decriminalization of prostitution, while others (particularly some of the feminists I know) are very much against, considering it a form of sexual slavery. I am in the second camp - claiming that it is "consensual" and "voluntary" ignores the economic realities (yes, I am sure that there are people who are in that business because they like it, but I am also sure that the vast majority is in it because they really need money), I am very much for having the prostitution illegal but I support the Swedish approach: instead of prosecuting and punishing the prostitutes, go to the root and cause of the problem - prosecute and punish the johns. Help prostitutes reintegrate into society without being considered pariahs.

As for decriminalization of drugs, it depends on which drugs we're talking about and what its harmful effects are. I definitely think that marihuana should be legal, it's harmless compared to some legal substances like alcohol or tobacco, and the fact that in so many countries alcohol is legal but marihuana is not, is a cultural thing more than anything. Generally, I'd say, decriminalize those that are less potentially harmful than alcohol. With psychedelic drugs, for instance, I'm a bit vague (and I admit I don't know enough on the issue, as I don't know anyone who's taken them on any regular basis); I suppose, from what I know, I wouldn't make them completely illegal but use should be limited and careful. But hard drugs like heroin and cocaine are a whole different matter. Anyone who thinks heroin should be legal is not in their right mind. I had friends who were addicted to heroin and I know how harmful it is, one of my friends died of overdose. I cannot imagine why anyone who had a real understanding of what it is would want to try it. There is no way to keep the use of heroin moderate and relatively harmless, there are no positive effects to outweigh the bad, it definitely leads into an awful addiction and screws up people's lives and psyche, and yes, it kills.