This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 5/03/2010I guess. When I take those 'plot your politics on a graph' tests they usually puts me slightly of center on the x axis, but extremely anti-authoritarian on the y axis

Not real familiar with that. Would that mean slightly liberal fiscally and very liberal socially?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Since when did universities make things about Republican vs. Democrat?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

that is what they teach us. The current system. The one that everyone believes is currently running the country.

Creilman implied that there were some people who "Actually" run the country.

I didn't imply that, I wrote it in black and white.

Did you go to college, study political science or history? I can assure you, the field is a shitload more complicated than R vs. D.

Also, you're butchering Creilman here...are you doing it on purpose?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Socially, sure, I wouldn't dispute either a 'very liberal' or a 'libertarian' label. There isn't much difference between them on at the margins. Pro-pot legislation, pro-gay marriage, all that stuff. People, as adult individuals, should be allowed to mostly do whatever they want with their social lives.


That would mean I would have that label as well.

Fiscally, I bet I would be off the charts conservative, but who knows. My philosphy on that is as little to no government intervention as possible and as little government as possible.

I don't dispute that philosophy... I just draw the 'little as possible' line differently than you probably would.

Take the oil spill as an extreme example. BP as a corporate entity made a calculation: either spend $X on precautions and fail-safes against spills on their rigs, or save that money and risk a Y% chance of having to spend $Z on damages and penalties in the event of a spill.

But that Y% chance doesn't just mean bad things for BP; it also means catastrophe for the ecologies and economies along the Gulf coast. It's not BP's job to worry about them; their only legal responsibility is to their shareholders. So by default, it kind of has to be the government's.

Hmmm...serious, intelligent, respectful discussion between disagreeing parties up in here...

At least BP will still foot the bill, or so they claim.

I can't imagine them footing the "real" bill if the worst predictions come true...I mean, they can't pay for an entire industry lost for a decade.