Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[Zaras]

Yeah... I did set everything to "maximum importance" because I thought I'd unbalance the thing and get a ridiculous result.

I even said, like, legalise drugs, more ecology, more regulation, easier to become a citizen, all the things.

Setting everything for the maximum level of importance might be distorting the results. You should try it with all emphases in the neutral position, see what pops out. Also, bear in mind that if you're taking the test I think you are (isidewith...) then the results aren't based on left/right positions, but rather they are a measure of your proximity to the various positions of each presidential candidate.

Hypothetically you should've ended up with either Jill Stein or maybe Rocky Anderson if you wanted a left-wing candidate in your results, so you'd have to match your positions to them. Those are about the only flavors of left-wing that running.

Okay, I retried it.

97% Jill Stein.

Hilarious, though, I ended up more left than Jill Stein on gun control! (Don't just increase gun control, ban them in general and require extensive checks and training and all that...)

I don't get why I got "95% Barack Obama" when I said reduce the US military and dismantle the CIA and NSA...

Oh, I see. I said diplomacy towards Iran, support NATO efforts to end the Sudanese genocide, end the embargo on Cuba and stay in the UN.

[Zaras]

Yes, but the political party opposed to it at the time, specifically in the South was part of the American left at the time.

nope. they were part of the conservative coalition. the parties of the time were completely fucked - large sections of the republicans were to the left of large sections of the democrats. so party ID is of no direct use in placing people left and right back then. in fact, it doesn't actually work until the conversion of southern dems to southern republicans is complete in the early 90s. the last remaining move was the drumming out of new england republicans from the newly unified conservative party, which only got done in the past decade.

Free Soviets beat me to it.

[Varijnland]

Oh, I missed this gem:

What draws the left wing to NSG? Is it because most NSGers are teenagers?

Seriously? Is that seriously how you view leftist thought?

For me it is! Spotty little teenage nerds with way too much free time on their hands.

[Marxian 1848 Utopia]

The issue of civil rights wasn't political in nature.

this is crazy bullshit. i refuse to accept that you believe it.

I do believe it. I also believe that it will never be political in nature. It is an issue that is specifically cultural and communal in nature. It is only ever attributed facetiously to political parties for the purpose of gaining, retaining, or attaining political power. The Civil Rights movement wasn't something that could be legislated into existence. It was rather produced by people's change in their worldview and at how they looked at the lives of their neighbors and those in the community.

What could be said to a degree is that the movement helped to shape politics, or supposed stances of politicians. I believe that no politician necessarily cared or does care. What he or she cares about is more specifically telling you they care to gain your vote.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yup, you just have to check out the analysis section. It'll tell you how your answers led to each result.

[Frisivisia]

Oh, I missed this gem:



Seriously? Is that seriously how you view leftist thought?

For me it is! Spotty little teenage nerds with way too much free time on their hands.

Welcome to NSG, where our 15-year-old Karl Marx fans are the same as our 15-year-old Ayn Rand fans.

[The Black Forrest]

Joseph Stalin.... ring a bell?

Oooowwww...... I forgot...... he wasn't. He just happened accidently to control a massive socialist state.

You know what I hate more than leftists? Hypocrite and clueless leftists.

URGH. READ THIS. READ IT READ IT READ IT

You are assuming he will.

[Zaras]

URGH. READ THIS. READ IT READ IT READ IT

You are assuming he will.

Pretend I yelled that in R. Lee Ermey's voice.

[The Reasonable]

Oh dear... You consider Social Democracy an extreme position? I'm Swedish, I consider our Social Democratic party, which you might recognize as having been in government almost constantly since 1931, a centre-right party under red banners. Damn it, son. "Outright socialists"? No... Just no... Neither of these are extremes.

...and this is why I get all the hate that I do on these forums- when people don't understand that I grew up in China and America, not Sweden or Finland. And I consider social democracy extreme because various positions that they hold to me, don't make sense- for example, I don't understand how welfare isn't widely abused in Europe while in the US a not-enough amount of welfare is very much abused, or how you guys think capital punishment and corporal punishment isn't fair. Or, even, you think that things will be better if everybody had the same income...but it all somehow works to the happiness of the residents there and not all European countries are financially unstable.

Maybe it's more because I grew up in a home that you would cringe at- my mom went through 3 husbands and is on her 4th, doesn't make very much, and I was neglected for most of my late childhood. Let's just say I got pretty cynical at a young age and so had to abandon my former, kind, sweet self just to avoid being bullied and taken advantage of. That's when I got more conservative- I was libertarian in middle school but went back to liberal (by US standards) in high school but with a significantly less rosy view of the world and of human nature. I was forced to learn personal responsibility very quickly- a typically conservative idea. My family is lower class, but we work hard, are not on the dole, and I'm doing well in a public school. I would oppose a cradle-to-grave safety net because I've seen too many people abuse it...but I digress.

I often feel guilty about this now, especially when perusing the NSG forums. Am I wrong to have (by European standards) center-right views? Am I wrong to not be far-left in America? Am I simply opposing the inevitable tide of history? Am I wrong in my more conservative stances? It seems if history has always proven the left correct...but it doesn't always make sense to me why. Most of the time it does, but not always- it seems to me that sometimes when liberals support something, it either demonizes prior privileged groups or incentivizes negative behavior by not punishing it severely. I guess I value fairness too much...so much that I'm willing to sacrifice equality, which you value more than fairness it seems, to attain fairness.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the positive view of human nature that many of you do, but I want a better society in spite of it. I can't adopt social democracy and socialism because it assumes the basic goodness and willingness of humans to work for a better society, which I don't believe in at all.

[Armenia Reborn]

You are assuming he will.

Pretend I yelled that in R. Lee Ermey's voice.

Isn't that the Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket?

I actually skimmed through it. I'm not sure why the speeches Marx gave during the revolutions of 1848, specifically in Paris aren't in there. Throws a whole other perspective on the subject.

[Zaras]

...and this is why I get all the hate that I do on these forums- when people don't understand that I grew up in China and America, not Sweden or Finland. And I consider social democracy extreme because various positions that they hold to me, don't make sense- for example, I don't understand how welfare isn't widely abused in Europe while in the US a not-enough amount of welfare is very much abused, or how you guys think capital punishment and corporal punishment isn't fair. Or, even, you think that things will be better if everybody had the same income...but it all somehow works to the happiness of the residents there and not all European countries are financially unstable.

China and America are crazy outliers. It's probably best if you learn to use the European political spectrum and read/research a lot.

Plus, capital and corporal punishment are barbaric.

Let's just say I got pretty cynical at a young age and so had to abandon my former, kind, sweet self just to avoid being bullied and taken advantage of. That's when I got more conservative- I was libertarian in middle school but went back to liberal (by US standards) in high school but with a significantly less rosy view of the world and of human nature. I was forced to learn personal responsibility very quickly- a typically conservative idea.

That's weird, being bullied made me become a hardline socialist. (It's, in a way, sort of easier for me to empathise with people's troubles, I guess? And I do have a tendency to feel that right-wing policies seem to be an abstract equivalent to being bullied.)

My family is lower class, but we work hard, are not on the dole, and I'm doing well in a public school. I would oppose a cradle-to-grave safety net because I've seen too many people abuse it...but I digress.

They're anomalies. People need safety nets. Don't oppose them for stupid reasons, please. One-size-fits-all doesn't work - don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I often feel guilty about this now, especially when perusing the NSG forums. Am I wrong to have (by European standards) center-right views? Am I wrong to not be far-left in America? Am I simply opposing the inevitable tide of history? Am I wrong in my more conservative stances? It seems if history has always proven the left correct...but it doesn't always make sense to me why. Most of the time it does, but not always- it seems to me that sometimes when liberals support something, it either demonizes prior privileged groups or incentivizes negative behavior by not punishing it severely. I guess I value fairness too much...so much that I'm willing to sacrifice equality, which you value more than fairness it seems, to attain fairness.

Well, at least you're questioning your own views. You'll be fine on NSG.

[Zaras]

Pretend I yelled that in R. Lee Ermey's voice.

Isn't that the Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket?

Yup, him.

I actually skimmed through it. I'm not sure why the speeches Marx gave during the revolutions of 1848, specifically in Paris aren't in there. Throws a whole other perspective on the subject.

You'll have to ask OTFST.

[The Reasonable]

China and America are crazy outliers. It's probably best if you learn to use the European political spectrum and read/research a lot.

Plus, capital and corporal punishment are barbaric.

And the crimes that people do to get those sentences are usually even more barbaric. It seems fair that a serial killer or rapist forfeited his right to life because he took the life of another.

That's weird, being bullied made me become a hardline socialist. (It's, in a way, sort of easier for me to empathise with people's troubles, I guess? And I do have a tendency to feel that right-wing policies seem to be an abstract equivalent to being bullied.)

It turned me conservative because I lost faith in humanity and so opposed the liberal ideas that everyone is good at heart and that they just need rehabilitation and education- it doesn't work that way. I also learned not to trust people because of that.

They're anomalies. People need safety nets. Don't oppose them for stupid reasons, please. One-size-fits-all doesn't work - don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

People need safety nets only if they are in tough times and can't provide for themselves for the time being. It's not meant to be a permanent way of life. I won't ever think of ditching a safety net but it needs to be means-tested.

I often feel guilty about this now, especially when perusing the NSG forums. Am I wrong to have (by European standards) center-right views? Am I wrong to not be far-left in America? Am I simply opposing the inevitable tide of history? Am I wrong in my more conservative stances? It seems if history has always proven the left correct...but it doesn't always make sense to me why. Most of the time it does, but not always- it seems to me that sometimes when liberals support something, it either demonizes prior privileged groups or incentivizes negative behavior by not punishing it severely. I guess I value fairness too much...so much that I'm willing to sacrifice equality, which you value more than fairness it seems, to attain fairness.

Well, at least you're questioning your own views. You'll be fine on NSG.

That's what happens when I get hated on from both left and right- the center is a lonely place.

[Zaras]

And the crimes that people do to get those sentences are usually even more barbaric. It seems fair that a serial killer or rapist forfeited his right to life because he took the life of another.

Okay, then, if you're so pro-capital punishment, you execute the condemned yourself.

And practice explaining to a family that you accidentally executed an innocent person. Repeatedly.

It turned me conservative because I lost faith in humanity and so opposed the liberal ideas that everyone is good at heart and that they just need rehabilitation and education- it doesn't work that way. I also learned not to trust people because of that.

Yeah, it does work that way. Then again, i didn't lose faith in humanity, I just ended up thinking my classmates were shit.

People need safety nets only if they are in tough times and can't provide for themselves for the time being. It's not meant to be a permanent way of life. I won't ever think of ditching a safety net but it needs to be means-tested.

Pfyeah, like people in Europe enjoy being unemployed. Newsflash: they don't. Nobody likes being unemployed.

[Trotskylvania]

People need safety nets only if they are in tough times and can't provide for themselves for the time being. It's not meant to be a permanent way of life. I won't ever think of ditching a safety net but it needs to be means-tested.

It's the means test that makes that all possible.

One of my closest friends from high school end up marrying a woman with serious congenital health problems that left her pretty much disabled. But that didn't matter, because he loved her. Well, as it turns out, a lot of the aid they got raising two kids, and for her health expenses was means tested. He got promoted at the local convenience store, and it nearly left him destitute. For every dollar of additional earnings he got, he easily lost three in terms of benefits.

He has literally no incentive to ever do anything with his life, because any step forward will cost him far more in terms of very necessary benefits and aid.

Means tested aid is bureaucratically complicated, inefficient, and creates traps like this. If you want to make a social efficiency argument, people would be much more productive if everyone got a certain level of housing or food benefits regardless of their wealth. Not only would the bureaucracy and enforcement be simpler, it would also mean that no one would have a disincentive to earn more.

[Armenia Reborn]

Means tested aid is bureaucratically complicated, inefficient, and creates traps like this. If you want to make a social efficiency argument, people would be much more productive if everyone got a certain level of housing or food benefits regardless of their wealth. Not only would the bureaucracy and enforcement be simpler, it would also mean that no one would have a disincentive to earn more.

Hmmm. Wouldn't it also mean that no one would have a incentive to earn more if they are permanently assure certain things regardless of what they contribute to society? That however then falls into the trap of who determines what constitutes "contributing to society". (The rich most likely.) I've heard various ideas on what would be most socially efficient but they always seem to have one basic flaw; a large sprawling centralized government with vast power to ensure said social efficiency.

Bureaucracy by its nature is never simple nor efficient. The more a bureaucracy/government is responsible, the more inefficient and subject to corruption it becomes. Might I suggest another notion? Localized and state safety nets?

From what I've seen just in the last few years, people have abused safety nets quite profusely in every aspect from food stamps to essentially feigned disability. People are finding ways to abuse the system. That right there is the issue. We need accountability and transparency for every single person on any kind of social program/safety net. The best way to do this in my opinion is locally. You know if your neighbor is abusing his foodstamps, or at least you have some idea. You don't however regarding the person who is a thousand miles away.

Even Europe is plagued by this same problem; the moochers/people who abuse the system. They must be kept in check in order to make sure that those who truly need help actually get it. On a national scale, it seems we are just asking for problems. (Note that I'm not sure how much I actually would support any tax-payer safety nets in my own local area, but I firmly believe that every local area and states should be able to decided on matters such as this for themselves.)

[Sailsia]

A few reasons:

- Mostly young people on NS (young people tend to be more liberal).
- I have found that usually those on the Left are more politically active or interested in government.
- A good deal of conservatives are older and therefore not on internet forums.
- NationStates is a promotion for the book Jennifer Government, which is a satirical novel about a world in which the American economic bloc is run almost entirely by corporations.
- The American Right is extremely right-winged. A vast majority of citizens in the industrialized world would be considered American Liberals. You may not realize it, but compared to Europe the United States' political system has made a dramatic shift to the right. (even Obama is considered right-wing on the political spectrum by most)
- Remember those "librul euro-pee'ns"? A fair chunk of NSGers are from Europe.

[NERVUN]

What can I say, the fact I understand your meme shows I am rather internet savvy. I have had a computer of sorts constantly for 11 years, I know my way around the internet, I'm not your average 'silver surfer' so to speak. I could fofl, if you'd like, but I prefer to lmao.

Welcome to the Internet ? Son Im 38 I wwebsite as on the internet when you were a sperm in your daddys balls and before it was the internet, thanks for the welcome to message wurd up. Grow up you look like a complete child bro. I Don’t have my controller so im gonna cry to the world … Really ?? Hey take that free time and do something more productive. All you had to do was check the like everyone else , people have inquired but you’re the douchiest of them all

There, I've fixed your text, grampa.

You know what, while we allow some 'fixed', this crosses the line into outright flamebaiting. *** Warned ***.

Have some bloody respect you foreign, leftist scum.

Baited you may have been, but that and this:

I think, while not an extraordinary life, it is an achievement none the less, and a lot more than any of you have or will ever achieve.

is flaming and baiting, you too are *** Warned ***.

[Cancerous Conservatism]

More armchair liberals than armchair conservatives.

Hehe...armchair

[Sondstead]

...and this is why I get all the hate that I do on these forums- when people don't understand that I grew up in China and America, not Sweden or Finland. And I consider social democracy extreme because various positions that they hold to me, don't make sense- for example, I don't understand how welfare isn't widely abused in Europe while in the US a not-enough amount of welfare is very much abused, or how you guys think capital punishment and corporal punishment isn't fair.

I grew up in America too, and I don't understand how social democracy can be considered extreme, or, honestly, how people can think capital punishment is unfair. One innocent life taken by the state is too many to justify exacting some modicum of "Justice". Further more, I think you might be overstating the prevalence of abuse of welfare; the figures I found indicate the Department of Labor recorded 8.2% of all unemployment insurance expenditures were the result of overpayments, of which less than a quarter of that (1.9% of the total) was the result of fraud. [1]

And a lot of rhetoric about welfare in the United States is based on racialism; an assistant professor of political science at Yale, Martin Gilens, stated "white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare". [2]

Sources;

[1] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/hu ... 11find.htm
[2] Wikipedia, sourced to Gilens, Martin (1996). "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, p. 516

...Of course, I grew up in Taxachusetts. God bless her.

Or, even, you think that things will be better if everybody had the same income...

That is emphatically not a social democratic belief. Income inequality is a problem though, and when you actually poll Americans on it, they agree that the rich control too much of the wealth and that when you came up with an average number from what percentage of the national wealth respondents said the rich should control, it ends up being smaller than the percentage of the wealth of Sweden controlled by the Swedish upper classes. And again, if society is so starkly divided between an underclass with almost nothing and an overclass with almost everything, who buys the goods and the services the upper classes control and profit off the production of?

That's what happens when I get hated on from both left and right- the center is a lonely place.

Social democracy is a centrist ideology really. All states mixed economies by definition, and social democracy is a compromise between minimalist (right-libertarian) and maximalist (socialist) mixed economies.

(Strangely though, if you go past either extreme, you get pretty much the same stateless place.)

[Trotskylvania]

Means tested aid is bureaucratically complicated, inefficient, and creates traps like this. If you want to make a social efficiency argument, people would be much more productive if everyone got a certain level of housing or food benefits regardless of their wealth. Not only would the bureaucracy and enforcement be simpler, it would also mean that no one would have a disincentive to earn more.

Hmmm. Wouldn't it also mean that no one would have a incentive to earn more if they are permanently assure certain things regardless of what they contribute to society? That however then falls into the trap of who determines what constitutes "contributing to society". (The rich most likely.) I've heard various ideas on what would be most socially efficient but they always seem to have one basic flaw; a large sprawling centralized government with vast power to ensure said social efficiency.

Bureaucracy by its nature is never simple nor efficient. The more a bureaucracy/government is responsible, the more inefficient and subject to corruption it becomes. Might I suggest another notion? Localized and state safety nets?

From what I've seen just in the last few years, people have abused safety nets quite profusely in every aspect from food stamps to essentially feigned disability. People are finding ways to abuse the system. That right there is the issue. We need accountability and transparency for every single person on any kind of social program/safety net. The best way to do this in my opinion is locally. You know if your neighbor is abusing his foodstamps, or at least you have some idea. You don't however regarding the person who is a thousand miles away.

Even Europe is plagued by this same problem; the moochers/people who abuse the system. They must be kept in check in order to make sure that those who truly need help actually get it. On a national scale, it seems we are just asking for problems. (Note that I'm not sure how much I actually would support any tax-payer safety nets in my own local area, but I firmly believe that every local area and states should be able to decided on matters such as this for themselves.)

You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. That's all an artifact of means testing. If all citizens got a card that had a certain amount of money that could be used for food/housing and other necessities, then there's really be very little that could be done to cheat. People cheat means tested programs by faking eligibility. How can you fake eligibility if you're already entitled to it, the same way you're entitled to use a public sidewalk?

Besides, you need a whole lot more than just food and shelter in order to have a decent life.

[The Reasonable]

People need safety nets only if they are in tough times and can't provide for themselves for the time being. It's not meant to be a permanent way of life. I won't ever think of ditching a safety net but it needs to be means-tested.

It's the means test that makes that all possible.

One of my closest friends from high school end up marrying a woman with serious congenital health problems that left her pretty much disabled. But that didn't matter, because he loved her. Well, as it turns out, a lot of the aid they got raising two kids, and for her health expenses was means tested. He got promoted at the local convenience store, and it nearly left him destitute. For every dollar of additional earnings he got, he easily lost three in terms of benefits.

He has literally no incentive to ever do anything with his life, because any step forward will cost him far more in terms of very necessary benefits and aid.

Means tested aid is bureaucratically complicated, inefficient, and creates traps like this. If you want to make a social efficiency argument, people would be much more productive if everyone got a certain level of housing or food benefits regardless of their wealth. Not only would the bureaucracy and enforcement be simpler, it would also mean that no one would have a disincentive to earn more.

Oh the poverty trap? I apparently misunderstood what means testing meant. Perhaps though that guaranteed level of housing and food benefits only comes if someone's employed or on temporary unemployment insurance or doing something to better himself (training program, school, etc)...that may get rid of the lifelong kind of welfare recipient/abuser. I apologize.

[The Reasonable]

It turned me conservative because I lost faith in humanity and so opposed the liberal ideas that everyone is good at heart and that they just need rehabilitation and education- it doesn't work that way. I also learned not to trust people because of that.

Yeah, it does work that way. Then again, i didn't lose faith in humanity, I just ended up thinking my classmates were shit.

Do you honestly believe that everyone is good at heart? From my experience, I learned that people fuck you over unless you stood up for yourself and not trust everybody blindly- that's why I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because they condone fucking people over like that.

People need safety nets only if they are in tough times and can't provide for themselves for the time being. It's not meant to be a permanent way of life. I won't ever think of ditching a safety net but it needs to be means-tested.

Pfyeah, like people in Europe enjoy being unemployed. Newsflash: they don't. Nobody likes being unemployed.

Oh really? Apparently some of my former stepfathers liked it- they either stayed out of the labor force entirely or only searched for jobs when my mom pressured them into it.

Like I said, social democracy just seems...too much based on the assumption that people want to improve and better themselves and not want to be dependent on state support.

[Sailsia]

Ugh. Ya, that's it. Time for my annual abstinence from NSG. This thread shows the worst of NS I'll be avoiding NSG for as long as I can bight my tongue without it bleeding. Seriously guys, stop it with these personal back handed posts.

[The Reasonable]

...and this is why I get all the hate that I do on these forums- when people don't understand that I grew up in China and America, not Sweden or Finland. And I consider social democracy extreme because various positions that they hold to me, don't make sense- for example, I don't understand how welfare isn't widely abused in Europe while in the US a not-enough amount of welfare is very much abused, or how you guys think capital punishment and corporal punishment isn't fair.

I grew up in America too, and I don't understand how social democracy can be considered extreme, or, honestly, how people can think capital punishment is unfair. One innocent life taken by the state is too many to justify exacting some modicum of "Justice". Further more, I think you might be overstating the prevalence of abuse of welfare; the figures I found indicate the Department of Labor recorded 8.2% of all unemployment insurance expenditures were the result of overpayments, of which less than a quarter of that (1.9% of the total) was the result of fraud. [1]

And a lot of rhetoric about welfare in the United States is based on racialism; an assistant professor of political science at Yale, Martin Gilens, stated "white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare". [2]

Sources;

[1] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/hu ... 11find.htm
[2] Wikipedia, sourced to Gilens, Martin (1996). "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media." Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, p. 516

...Of course, I grew up in Taxachusetts. God bless her.

Or, even, you think that things will be better if everybody had the same income...

That is emphatically not a social democratic belief. Income inequality is a problem though, and when you actually poll Americans on it, they agree that the rich control too much of the wealth and that when you came up with an average number from what percentage of the national wealth respondents said the rich should control, it ends up being smaller than the percentage of the wealth of Sweden controlled by the Swedish upper classes. And again, if society is so starkly divided between an underclass with almost nothing and an overclass with almost everything, who buys the goods and the services the upper classes control and profit off the production of?

That's what happens when I get hated on from both left and right- the center is a lonely place.

Social democracy is a centrist ideology really. All states mixed economies by definition, and social democracy is a compromise between minimalist (right-libertarian) and maximalist (socialist) mixed economies.

(Strangely though, if you go past either extreme, you get pretty much the same stateless place.)

1. I know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are white, and that welfare abuse is not that high of a percentage. However, it happens and a lot of it isn't caught. The trick is to disincentivize staying for extended periods of time on welfare without a good reason (economic recession, disability, illness, etc) while getting help to those that need it.

2. As for income disparity, some inequality is inevitable- not everyone has equal earning potential- and making sure everyone is equal isn't even fair. However, everyone should be entitled to education and healthcare- the former being important for social mobility and the latter because illness can happen to anyone. There's also a balance between complete inequality and equality- with complete inequality nobody has money, while with complete equality nobody has enough to create businesses of any significant size and scope to provide goods and services for large numbers of people.