We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → What are your politics and why?
| 31 | 9174 |
Given the success and usefulness of this thread, I decided to make a similar one for politics. What are your political beliefs and why, and also what political party you vote for, or would vote for if you could. Note that due to conflicting views as to what left and right wing are across nations, (Obama is right wing from my perspective, but not from others) taking this test would help, so we have an objective measure. Here are the scores for a variety of world leaders:
and mine:
I'm pretty left wing left wing, as a result of a combination of my wish that everyone should be free to have the chance to succeed combined with my view that without government support to create a more even playing field, this won't be the case. Being right wing is, in my view, for the selfish or naive.
Unfortunately, the UK electoral system is biased towards parties that get a lot of votes in localised areas, so voting for my ideal party of choice, the Greens (the only party in the UK to even get into the same quarter of the chart as me), would essentially be wasted in most of the country. Thus, I would probably vote Labour, because they're the biggest party which is more left wing, but not much. (Their leader is Ed Miliband, shown on the above chart. He is quite close to the main right wing leader, David Cameron.)
- 31 Replies
The problem with drugs is that the criminalisation of the addicts does nothing to fight the actual problem, the dealers. You can get more control over who gets marijuana and allow a better care of people with an actual problem (drug addiction), while continuing the persecution of illegal dealers. Also, marijuana has potent medical uses.
I've heard about studies who began finding a link between marijuana and schizophrenia, but I haven't heard about any link to cancer. Is this really a thing?
Concerning energy, with advancing technology, green energies like solar and wind energies become more and more attractive. It would be foolish to abandon them halfway through.
Besides, there is no satisfying solution to nuclear waste as of yet. And seeing how some companies run their plants, I feel relatively confident in stating that nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean in the long run.
Also, marijuana has potent medical uses.
The only "otent medical uses" I know of for marijuana is the fact that a few specific types of cancer can be slowed by it. That and the fact that it gives you an appetite makes it possibly valuable for cancer treatment programs as an additive to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. But there are pills that can do that without getting the user high, and they would only be useful in some circumstances. The rest of the time doctors are just handing out marijuana prescriptions to everyone that complains of mysterious pain because they're looking to get high and the doctors are looking to take their money.
I've heard about studies who began finding a link between marijuana and schizophrenia, but I haven't heard about any link to cancer. Is this really a thing?
Yes it is. Most of the studies for genuine medicinal use of marijuana usually focus on how it interacts with cancer. Some forms of cancer are slowed (not cured despite what pro-legalization advocates claim), others are unaffected, and some actually accelerate their growth when exposed to THC to the point that marijuana is actually more likely to cause cancer than commercial tobacco products. The main reason we don't see people dropping like flies from pot use is because we haven't had tens of millions of people smoking pot in public for the past 100 years the way cigarettes have been.
Concerning energy, with advancing technology, green energies like solar and wind energies become more and more attractive. It would be foolish to abandon them halfway through.
Halfway? The most advanced silicate compound capable of turning solar energy into electricity can't even manage a 50% conversion rate and is so difficult to produce it's impossible to manufacture on a large scale. Even the silicates that can be mass produced are so expensive that most people can't afford them and so delicate that they'd cost billions to repair every year. The far more durable solar reflector plants can only be built in desert areas where direct sunlight is frequent and produce only a fraction of the energy of standard fossil fuel plants.
Wind farms cost the agriculture industry $3 billion every year because they chase away bats that would otherwise eat pests and fertilize crops. The noise and shadow flicker also tend to be a massive nuisance to anyone living within 2 miles of a wind turbine, even being so troublesome as to chase people away from their homes. Just like solar energy, the conversion rate it extremely low and the farms produce less energy than fossil fuels and nuclear power plants.
The U.S. is already at capacity for the number of hydroelectric dams that can be built without doing massive damage to the environment. Wave power requires long cables extending out into the ocean where they can be damaged by any number of factors and we'd lose large amounts of that energy before it even reached land. Just getting from the local power plant to your house about 10% of the energy is lost, the distance it would have to travel through the ocean is much greater to properly harness. And algae power is basically semi-recyclable coal. Did I miss anything?
there is no satisfying solution to nuclear waste as of yet. And seeing how some companies run their plants, I feel relatively confident in stating that nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean in the long run.
There has been ONE major leak in the U.S. It was on 3 mile island. An unknown amount of radiation leaked, it was quickly handled, and there has never been any sign of an increase in disease or cancer rates in the area. That was in 1979. I assure you it is very safe. Nuclear power plants also tend to hire former Navy personnel who served on nuclear submarines for that added layer of caution and security. As for disposal, there's already a massive concrete and lead storage site in the Yucca Mountains that can safely contain several centuries worth of nuclear waste and nearly indestructible train cars built to transport it. If we switched to thorium the waste will already be inert by the time we start running out of room.
The only "otent medical uses" I know of for marijuana is the fact that a few specific types of cancer can be slowed by it. That and the fact that it gives you an appetite makes it possibly valuable for cancer treatment programs as an additive to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. But there are pills that can do that without getting the user high, and they would only be useful in some circumstances. The rest of the time doctors are just handing out marijuana prescriptions to everyone that complains of mysterious pain because they're looking to get high and the doctors are looking to take their money.
Marijuana helps against muscle spasticity. I admit that this isn't what could be called 'otent use', but I've seen a report about a person with a condition (don't remember what it is called) resulting in sometimes uncontrolable muscle spasms. In his case, marijuana really helped him lead an almost normal life. It is also a pain reliever that can help patients feel less pain in some circumstances.
In a general way, criminalising drug consumption for private use has never really done any good; on the contrary, it puts people in prison (which exposes them to actual criminality) that would be better off in a treatment centre.
Take Zurich for example. Had a sad reputation because of all the junkies in the parks, and nothing could be done against the open drug scene. Until they opened up rooms and centres where the addicts could go instead of parks, and where they would also receive help. A few cities did that, and made good experiences.
Halfway? The most advanced silicate compound capable of turning solar energy into electricity can't even manage a 50% conversion rate and is so difficult to produce it's impossible to manufacture on a large scale. Even the silicates that can be mass produced are so expensive that most people can't afford them and so delicate that they'd cost billions to repair every year. The far more durable solar reflector plants can only be built in desert areas where direct sunlight is frequent and produce only a fraction of the energy of standard fossil fuel plants.
Ask the German. They are rather successful with their green energy sources (although their coal admittedly still makes a large part of their energy production, sadly; but that is not the point here).
Renewable energy in Germany
And with the integration of a global power grid, the efficacy of green power sources can be increased even further.
Green super power grid for the world
So while I admit that there are yet many issues with green energy, which is normal since it is still developing, I stay convinced that it would be a mistake to simply give up on all that progress we've made. Traditional power sources also have their incontestable down sides, and investing money in research for future technology is money well spent. Even if we do not reach the intended goal, those technologies frequently find alternative uses in other branches. And that is a good thing for the economy; an argument I guess might be more in your political interests.
that would be better off in a treatment centre.
Portugal decriminalized drugs and their drug use rates are still at the same level. They have treatment centers that use the exact same medications and therapies used by the U.S. prison system to treat drug addicts except without the criminal consequences and yet the number of addicts they have hasn't changed. Decriminalization and treatment centers might get addicts off the streets and out of sight without putting them in prison, but it doesn't actually get rid of the addiction any more effectively than criminalizing personal use. It's no different than sweeping dust under the rug, the room isn't any cleaner you've just hidden the mess.
Renewable energy in Germany
Germany is making a huge nationwide push to switch to green energy, and the companies involved are making huge profits thanks to government subsidies. That doesn't mean it's a good use of the taxpayers money or a wise investment for the future. So far they've focused on wind energy (see my above statement regarding the problems of wind farms) and biomass which is basically algae and wood. This brought my attention to the fact that the number of wind turbines in the U.S. is conspicuously difficult to find. The wiki page you list is happy to boast Germany's 21,607 wind turbines, but sources on the number of wind turbines in the U.S. don't reveal the number but instead focus on the potential energy they could produce. And, as with any discussion where the U.S. is compared to other nations, I have to point out that Germany's population and landmass is less than 1/3 that of the U.S (the U.S. is #3 on the list, Germany is #62). That has a significant impact on how much energy is needed and how far it has to travel to reach a populated area.
Green super power grid for the world
First, do you actually expect the entire world to cooperate well enough to accomplish this? The amount of international coordination and cooperation required to construct a global power grid in inconceivable in the modern world. We can't even get most of the nations in the U.N. to abide by the rules and guidelines set down by the U.N. Countries will intentionally sabotage each other for the sole purpose of stopping each other from getting what they want. Second, superconductors are still not a feasible reality for the near future so power loss is still a huge issue. It would be an even bigger issue when using an international power grid.
Even if we do not reach the intended goal, those technologies frequently find alternative uses in other branches. And that is a good thing for the economy; an argument I guess might be more in your political interests.
Driving people from their homes, increasing the cost of food, costing the government billions of dollars every year in maintenance and construction, and the numerous failed projects (a solar vehicle that can only go 15 MPH?! where can I get one? *sarcasm) are not what I would consider good for anyone. Even if other industries found enough uses for green energy technologies to offset what's already being wasted on them, we can get more immediate and far greater long term benefits by switching to a technology we know works and still has a great deal of potential for improvement. Edison supposedly failed thousands of times trying to improve the incandescent lightbulb. As an individual he's considered an example of perseverance, but imagine if a company spending billions of dollars every year on this project failed for 2 years. The amount of man-hours, resources, and money wasted would bankrupt the company. Except this isn't a single company now, it's our government subsidizing dozens of companies as they work and fail year after year at coming up with an improved lightbulb. That's not good for the economy, it's not good for the government, and it's not good for the taxpayers.
Portugal decriminalized drugs and their drug use rates are still at the same level. They have treatment centers that use the exact same medications and therapies used by the U.S. prison system to treat drug addicts except without the criminal consequences and yet the number of addicts they have hasn't changed. Decriminalization and treatment centers might get addicts off the streets and out of sight without putting them in prison, but it doesn't actually get rid of the addiction any more effectively than criminalizing personal use. It's no different than sweeping dust under the rug, the room isn't any cleaner you've just hidden the mess.
Putting them in prison is just another way of sweeping it under the rug. And why do you incarcerate addicts if it makes no difference?
While some may have criticised the same point, that it just takes the problem out of sight, this is not an argument against such addicts centres; it is still better than before. The parks are clean again and parents don't have to fear that their children find a syringe. Addicts are taken care of, which even if it doesn't reduce the number of addictions, still helps them be less excluded and better handle their addiction.
First, do you actually expect the entire world to cooperate well enough to accomplish this? The amount of international coordination and cooperation required to construct a global power grid in inconceivable in the modern world. We can't even get most of the nations in the U.N. to abide by the rules and guidelines set down by the U.N. Countries will intentionally sabotage each other for the sole purpose of stopping each other from getting what they want. Second, superconductors are still not a feasible reality for the near future so power loss is still a huge issue. It would be an even bigger issue when using an international power grid.
International cooperation may be a problem, but is that a valid reason not to invest into solutions? Also, the study in the grid link I posted has been done by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. I cannot imagine that they did not take energy loss into account, and yet they think it is technically feasible.
Lot of liberalism here i see. Sory guys, im taking Ghandi's side.
This test is really bad made... TBH, it needs at least 200 questions more.
I am at right, slihtly up of the line.
But in some cases I am not at right because there are also some good things on left.
But what does means to be right or left? and Why are they called "Right" and "Left"?
Of course, the USA-way simply not covers this diagram. They instead of libertarian/authoritarian have republican/democrat, which means changing the system (democrat) or not changing/keeping the traditions.
I also don't see this left/right thingy for me, but one thing is obvious: I am against religion.
The thing is, the Dhalai Lama (or Ghandi) on the chart officially. both are heavily authoritarian-supporters, just not the current one. Being religious leaders, they don't even have a choice than being a total control freak. In one aspect. While being a liberator on other.Just tellin'.
Here are my results:
I think that this chart, while not perfect, is pretty reasonably accurate, it was pretty obvious to me that I'd be in the bottom left square
Nowdays there is nobody who goes into left upper squair. But there are people who goes into right and upper squair because right is kind of traditional so they change very very slow.
Btw, an interesting statistic about the chart is the when you look at the right many of the world leaders are there, and all of them are more than 5 blocks to the right, however, when you look to the left, the world leaders there are all less then 5 blocks to the left, and when you look at the top, all of the world leaders are at least 3 blocks up, and all of the world leaders on the bottom are all less then 3 blocks down, and also, the bottom right corner is empty, there are 10 world leaders in the top right corner, 4 in the top left, and 4 in the bottom left
the bottom right corner is empty, there are 10 world leaders in the top right corner, 4 in the top left, and 4 in the bottom left
authoritative people like, as you have guessed, to have rules.
right winged people need rules, for their ideas to be become reality.
thats why so many are in that top right corner, and non in the bottom right corner.
left winged people are more open for change and freedom. they can either manage their ideas into reality with or without rules.
thats why the top left and bottom left are evenly divided.
the sad thing about this all is that the left winged people (who i support more) are often fighting each other over how to keep things working. all the while are the right winged people more a pack. what in my eye's can be dangerous.
the sad thing about this all is that the left winged people (who i support more) are often fighting each other over how to keep things working. all the while are the right winged people more a pack. what in my eye's can be dangerous.
Agreed
And thanks for clearing things up
http://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-5.75&soc=-3.85
You must be logged in to post a reply!