Political Orientation?

rahulkghosh
rahulkghosh's picture
Joined: 2006-09-26
User is offlineOffline
Political Orientation?

I'm a left-winger.

Answer the following survey:

Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: should be recognized
Iraq War: against
Death Penalty: depends
Abortion: support
Fiscal: low taxes, conservative
Israel: does not have the right to exist
Iran: no threat to the slightest sense


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
They're just something made

They're just something made up to describe unnatural circumstances caused by governments. Just for convenience I got Wikipedia's short list of "public goods".

"Defense and law enforcement", I believe can be provided privately.
"(including the system of property rights)", I interpret to mean courts. Those can be private too. The ideas of property rights are not what I'd consider a "good".
"Public fireworks", I consider a waste of tax dollars. There aren't any private fireworks?
"Lighthouses", which had been privately owned for centuries before the government got into it.
"Clean air and other environmental goods", which fall under "Property Rights" for me, I own the property, I'm responsible for it's environment. The government has gutted the ability for people to sue polluters of air for damages, making a private into a public good.
"Information goods, such as software development, authorship, and invention", which is stupid, I mean, GNU makes everything public anyways and Adobe makes profits, book authors sell their stuff which they privately wrote, inventors make private profits off their private inventions.

Public goods are private goods that the government collectivized because it looked like a good idea at the time.


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
what about art? or things

what about art? or things such as the Watt's Tower? without regulation(and this was obswerved to happen) they fell into disrepair as to people climbing on them.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
What about art? You'd have

What about art? You'd have to be more specific.

From what I can gather, Watt's Towers (there's more than one tower in that thing) did not fall into disrepair while it was privately owned. If you have more information please send me to it, I have other things to do than research the history of a few tacky towers.


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
yes, I know, I visited it.

yes, I know, I visited it. Brain freeze on the one tower thing. It was never privately owned. It was never legal to begin with. When it was completed, he simply left, and it fell into the hands of the state. But without charging(and this would have been true of a private art good as well) it fell into disrepair, because the government putno regulations, protections, or funding into it. Only with the regulations, such as bans on climbing does it stay 'in shape'. Same is true for environmental issues or health issues. They do not provide much benefit to each person, and thus arne't very important, but their overall non-economic benefit is great. Therefore, government funding helps to effect such goals. But I'm guessing you're going to say 'then we don't need that many regulations'?

Although I gotta say, from the outside, they don't look like much, it's only once you're inside you can tell much of anything.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
AgnosticAtheist1 wrote:yes,

[quote=AgnosticAtheist1]yes, I know, I visited it. Brain freeze on the one tower thing. It was never privately owned. It was never legal to begin with.[/quote]
I'd consider it privately owned while he was building it, whether it was legal or not. You'll find that I consider laws to be irrelevant.

[quote]When it was completed, he simply left, and it fell into the hands of the state.[/quote]
According to wikipedia it was bought for $3000.

"The property changed hands, Rodia's shack inside the enclosure was burned down, and the City of Los Angeles condemned the structure and ordered it razed. An actor, Nicholas King, and a film editor, William Cartwright, visited the site in 1959, saw the neglect, and decided to buy the property for $3,000 in order to preserve it. When the city found out about the transfer, it decided to perform the demolition before the transfer went through. The towers had already become famous and there was opposition from around the world. King, Cartwright, and a curator of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, along with area architects, artists, and community activists formed the Committee for Simon Rodia's Towers in Watts. The Committee negotiated with the city to allow for an engineering test to establish the safety of the structures."

Now, if he simply left it, that would constitute abandonment, and then anyone could take it over, state or not. If it was privately owned, the owners would have taken care of it. It did not have to become public in the first place. Whoever owns it gets to set the rules for the thing. If it's the State of California, then the State of California can set the rules for it.

[quote]But without charging(and this would have been true of a private art good as well) it fell into disrepair, because the government putno regulations, protections, or funding into it.[/quote]
Let it be privately owned and the owner will put regulations, protections, and funding into it. Except they'd be called "rules" and "admission fees".

[quote]Only with the regulations, such as bans on climbing does it stay 'in shape'.[/quote]
Then those are the rules set by the owner. Watts towers isn't a good example of a "public good". It'd consider it a private good that's owned by a public institution.

[quote]Same is true for environmental issues or health issues.[/quote]
Whoever owns the property sets the rules. That's how property works.

[quote]They do not provide much benefit to each person, and thus arne't very important, but their overall non-economic benefit is great. Therefore, government funding helps to effect such goals. But I'm guessing you're going to say 'then we don't need that many regulations'?[/quote]
I believe in having rules for property. I don't believe the government owns my property, so I don't want the government setting rules for my property. If they want to set the rules, they can buy it, however they don't want to do that. We don't need that many regulations, because we can have people setting their own rules for their own property.

[quote]Although I gotta say, from the outside, they don't look like much, it's only once you're inside you can tell much of anything.[/quote]
You mean the towers?


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, I meant the towers. I

Yeah, I meant the towers. I think you're misinterpretting the meaning of a public good. There are two types of public good.

Excludable goods which are non-rivalrous, and non-excludable goods which are non-rivalrous. The nature of a public good is that somebody else's consumption does not prevent your own. For example, if we are at lunch and have a loaf of bread(we're at one of those italian restaurants) and i eat it, you can no longer eat it. Something like air on the other hand, is non-rivalrous. When your benefit affects nobody else's, in the short run, there is no Marginal benefit for the well-being of that object. Say for example, Watt's Towers. There is no marginal cost to climbing it for any given person, but over time it causes structural problems. Therefore, the marginal benefit to marginal cost ratio is positive, and the action will continue, and the only way to solve this is to make it excludable, and fund the heck out of it, and put regulations on it. That could be taken care of privately, for some things, like Watt's Towers, but... as you said, it goes by who owns it: who owns the air? Who can privately regulate the air? The water?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I own the air on my land/in

I own the air on my land/in my apartment/in my lungs. If you pollute my air and don't stop when I tell you to, I should legally be allowed to sue you. Air is not a public good unless made so by government refusing to hear suits about pollution. Water can be owned just like land can. In fact, if water was privately owned, it'd be better distributed.


JoshHickman
JoshHickman's picture
Joined: 2006-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Such a system could work. I

Such a system could work. I think I was converted to Near Anarchocapitalism after I saw America: From Freedom to Fascism, which is a documentary on the economics of 1913. Everyone should know that year, and what happened. And it is true!!! It is not a conspiracy stunt. I asked MANY people, and everyone who looked said it was correct.

I hate to spoil the astounding truth, but here it is if you don't want to watch it. The federal reserve (the gov's bank) is privately owned and in direct opposition to the constitution. It is an entity for the wealthy to give themselves more wealth, and otherwise control the politics of America (Including the media, which everyone knows is controled by a handful of big corps anyhow). There is NO LAW that requires you to file a 1040 (or pay your federal income tax), and the whole IRS and the 16th amendment are direct affronts not only to the constitution, but to "Taxation without representation is tyranny". BTW, the 16th amendment never even passed, and the secretary fudged the votes on purpose to switch the result.

Hell of a movie


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
JoshHickman wrote:Such a

[quote=JoshHickman]Such a system could work. I think I was converted to Near Anarchocapitalism after I saw America: From Freedom to Fascism, which is a documentary on the economics of 1913. Everyone should know that year, and what happened. And it is true!!! It is not a conspiracy stunt. I asked MANY people, and everyone who looked said it was correct.

I hate to spoil the astounding truth, but here it is if you don't want to watch it. The federal reserve (the gov's bank) is privately owned and in direct opposition to the constitution. It is an entity for the wealthy to give themselves more wealth, and otherwise control the politics of America (Including the media, which everyone knows is controled by a handful of big corps anyhow). There is NO LAW that requires you to file a 1040 (or pay your federal income tax), and the whole IRS and the 16th amendment are direct affronts not only to the constitution, but to "Taxation without representation is tyranny". BTW, the 16th amendment never even passed, and the secretary fudged the votes on purpose to switch the result.

Hell of a movie[/quote]
Banks own shares of the Federal Reserve corporation in their particular region. It's not owned by a bunch of extremely powerful bankers or stuff like that. It's owned by banks. That's my understanding. The Federal Reserve's income goes to the Treasury, not the owners.

There is a law that requires you to pay taxes if you are liable. Tax code says something like "All persons liable are required to fill out a 1040 and pay income taxes." However "person liable" is a "word of art" which is not defined anywhere. And "person" is defined in such a way as to exclude actual people. Asking an IRS agent what makes you a "Person liable" and not a mere "person" should keep them busy for a while. Cases have been thrown out for this. That's why there's an emphasis on the word liability in tax resistance.


Sir-Think-A-Lot
Sir-Think-A-Lot's picture
Joined: 2007-01-08
User is offlineOffline
Gay marriage:The state

Gay marriage:The state should allow it. Whether the church will is for them to decide.

Iraq war: We should not have entered(certainly not when we did) but sadly now we cant leave, without making things a lot worse.

Death penalty: generally for.

Abrortion: The real issue isnt abrotion per se, but the inadquacies in our welfare system, and the lack of avaliability of contraception to poor women. If we can fix these problems(especially welfare) abortion will be a non-issue.

Fiscal: dont know, dont really care

Isreal: We're in a catch 22 here. We support them and Muslims hate us, withdraw our support and we risk plunging hte Middle east into chaos. I dont know what the right thing to do in regards to them.

Iran: They're definetly supporting the people we're fighting. Whether they're enough of a threat to take military action against I dont know.


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Gay Marriage: I fail to see

Gay Marriage: I fail to see why the state should even be involved with marriage in the first place.
Iraq War: Against. Leave them the fuck alone.
Death Penalty: Courts need to be privatized and I don't think many market courts would impose it. I personally would impose it only in certain cases.
Abortion: Pro-choice.
Fiscal: Free markets, absolutely no taxes.
Israel: Can be a country if they want, I don't care.
Iran: Leave them alone.


P-Dunn
P-Dunn's picture
Joined: 2007-01-09
User is offlineOffline
I think I'd call myself a

I think I'd call myself a moderate.

Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: There should be no restrictions on it, since the only somewhat decent arguments against it are religious in nature.

Iraq War: Was and is a mistake that seemed like a good idea initially.

Death Penalty: For it.

Abortion: Strongly against it as a form of birth control. I think it should only be used in cases of rape.

Fiscal: l lean conservative in this way...Low taxes.

Israel: I'm Pro-Israel. I think they have just as much of a right to exist as we do.

Iran: They seem like they're rather dangerous.


AgnosticAtheist1
AgnosticAtheist1's picture
Joined: 2006-09-05
User is offlineOffline
gay marriage: should be

gay marriage: should be legal. I don't see why it matters to people who aren't going to get one?

Iraq: while I never thought Iraq was a good idea, I do agree the world is better w/out Saddam Hussein, just not sure we've replaced it w/ much better

Iran, I am worried about. Especially after learning about their government in Comparative Government. Far too theological. Far too extremist and fundamentalist.

And Israel, I suppose it ought continue existing at this point. But at the time of its creation, I'd have definitely opposed someting like that.

Death Penalty: I support it, although after researching the philosophical arguments behind it, I admit my argument for it is rather weak.

Abortion: I strongly disagree with most situations involving abortion because I think it shows a great irresponsibility on the part of people, when birth control would definitely suffice, if only people were responsible. However, I don't find the action of abortion before neural connections to be inherently wrong.

Fiscal: I'm pretty moderate fiscally. I believe in pretty low taxes because of incentives and such, but I do believe in a progressive tax rate. I also believe in a rather high inheritance tax. On an ideological level, I'd believe it should be 100%, but from a more practical level, I believe in a high one. How high...meh, I'm an economics major, my economics beliefs are currently suspended until I learn more.


BeliyVolk
Joined: 2007-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Thoughts on... Gay Marriage:

Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: no reason not to already have it everywhere
Iraq War: still can't see a good reason for it to continue
Death Penalty: kill the real psychos
Abortion: only with consent of the mother
Israel: For the most part it may be messed up, but the place i grew up was ideal communist style (not the Stalin kind). So its not all bad


HeliosOfTheSun
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Gay Marriage: More power to

Gay Marriage: More power to the next couple to be miserable
Iraq War: Was stupidiest thing. Ever.
Death Penalty: You have one live, only one. Tough what you do, I dont go by the "eye for an eye"
Abortion: Depends on what the mother wants
Israel: Donest need to be a country
Iran: Should be closer to us


Dave_G
Dave_G's picture
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you on almost

I agree with you on almost all these issues, but i consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

Thoughts on...
Gay Marriage: should be recognized
Iraq War: Just come home
Death Penalty: depends
Abortion: I'm not a doctor so i cant really say
Fiscal: low taxes, conservative
Israel: Don't think we should get involved
Iran: no threat to the slightest sens


Noor
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Liberal-conservative isn't

Liberal-conservative isn't the only spectrum there is. A social liberal and fiscal conservative would be a libertarian.

And you don't need to be a doctor to have a view on abortion.


Oonerspism
Joined: 2008-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Gay Marriage: I'm pretty

Gay Marriage: I'm pretty anti-marriage anyway, but gay marriage should be recognized (however, churches shouldn't be forced to perform them).

Iraq war: Neutral

Death Penalty: In extreme cases

Abortion: I don't like the idea of getting an abortion, but I would never want abortion to be outlawed.

Fiscal: I don't really know enough to have an informed opinion here.

Israel: Would have opposed its creation, but it's too late now.

Iran: Neutral.


Hrkman
Joined: 2008-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Gay Marriage: The government

Gay Marriage: The government should give them the rights of every other married couple in the country, for to do otherwise is bringing religion into the government.

Iraq War: Was, and is, a mistake that should never have happened.

Death Penalty: Against. It's morally unacceptable to kill a man because he's killed many men, it's called hypocrisy. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Abortion: Support wholly, regardless of if I should have a say in it simply because I'm not a woman. It's a woman's right, and I have yet to hear a good argument against it.

"It's a potential living person!". Why have abstinence then? Every time you're NOT having sex, you're denying a possible life! Monsters.

Fiscal: Well, not being a tax paying adult, I don't have a very strong opinion on it.

Israel: I personally don't like them simply because they are a nation built solely upon religion, but I guess they have the RIGHT to exist, regardless of if I like them or not.

Iran: No threat whatsoever, and If we're lucky, Bush is out of office before he declares war on Iran too.