Battlefront3.net

[Matthew]

I did this test given on another message board - http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I got this result:


I'd probably place myself here though as my personal opinion:



An economy shouldn't have a free market. It should have laws to protect competition, consumers and workers to ensure fairness. I'd want to be more over to the right side to stay away from all you socialists. The test touched on public vs private sector a bit. I think the public sector should be there to maintain the economy through infrastructure (infrastructure should be open to thee private sector also) and support but mainly serve the key requirements of the population (Eg. Education and health) even though the private section should be grated access to these areas. The government should also use measures to stabilise the economy. In some cases it may require to subsidise industries or support them to benefit the population.

In summary, the government should provide necessary services by using private companies or public services because they are important but should rely heavily on private sector companies to run the economy. They should control the economy through macro management and support individual industries if there is a vital reason for doing so (Eg. Subsidies for drugs, bail-out of banks).

I think my ideas are very liberal so I'd put myself slightly down. The only things to keep me from the bottom would be laws only to ensure safety and fairness. I did mention on here before that I think the education system in the UK and more or less the entire world should be more liberal. Education should be there to grant people to ability to achieve what they want to achieve and not force people into a strict system designed to give people jobs in the most ineffective way possibly conceivable. That is an example.

[Scott]

Here's what I got:

politcalview.JPG (21.02 KiB) Viewed 282 times

I expected to more left wing to be honest. Interesting test.

[Sam]

I got:

[Arosenivai]

I knew I was relatively moderate but:


strange. There's a lot of questions that I really had no opinion on, and a lot of questions that they didn't ask (like gun laws which would've made me closer to center of the line ). Oh well.

[Scott]

You guys are all capitalists Kidding

[Matthew]

So what are your economic views since you are over to the left side?

And capitalism is a good thing in my opinion, providing their is a certain amount of regulation like I stated above.

[Scott]

So what are your economic views since you are over to the left side?

I don't want to start any kind of offensive argument here but I am strongly for socialism. I do believe that many people that use the some of the system's services do not need to be using it (such as welfare) but there are some people who genuinely can not afford to pay certain required bills. Some people physically cannot work so welfare and disability basically keep them alive, some people can't pay expensive medical or pharmaceutical bills and again, the socialist program keep them going. I have medical conditions (which do not need to be discussed) that require me to take frequent visits to specialists to make sure I'm still functioning properly. If my family was required to pay for all of the visits we would be severely poor and possibly not even able to afford it. I believe in helping those who have no means to help themselves so this is a strong reason I am socialist. If money runs the show than the weak and needy die.

[Matthew]

Socialism is more about the state control over production and the economy as a whole, I thought. I suppose you can link these views with more share of wealth to poorer people.

In a less socialist system, the government can support poorer people through welfare benefits and subsidies. I think the government should ensure basic requirements are available to everyone but should try to rely on the private sector as much as possible to do this. Only where there is competition in private markets can innovation and quality come through. If several companies compete to supply to the government for example, here will be more quality than if the government controlled it's single own means of supply for something.

Also, private alternatives to public services should fully be allowed.

[Arosenivai]

All I will say is this : I'm an economics major, if you get me started, I won't stop.

[Matthew]

This is the thread to do so if you wish. You might have to stop for toilet breaks, food, water and sleep.

[Scott]

Socialism is more about the state control over production and the economy as a whole, I thought. I suppose you can link these views with more share of wealth to poorer people.

In a less socialist system, the government can support poorer people through welfare benefits and subsidies.

Well yes because it is still a socialist system.

I think the government should ensure basic requirements are available to everyone but should try to rely on the private sector as much as possible to do this.

Regardless of what you think about socialist economics, that thought is socialist. In Canada you have the option of using the private sector if you wish although few do so as it is just too expensive.

Only where there is competition in private markets can innovation and quality come through. If several companies compete to supply to the government for example, here will be more quality than if the government controlled it's single own means of supply for something.

So you assume there is no competition to supply for the government in a socialist society? How else what a supplier even be chosen?

Also, private alternatives to public services should fully be allowed.

I agree with you there.

[Matthew]

Extreme socialism (Communism type views) doesn't have much competition because the whole market system doesn't exist. A government could use it's own bodies through the entire supply chain of their services but then there is no competition at all because they are all run by the government. If the government chose between several competing companies for supply (Or distribution or whatever, doesn't have to be supply) then the companies will raise efforts to compete with other companies. This leads to innovation and higher quality within the public services because the services uses the private sector.

This happens in the UK today. The government makes use of different private companies in public services but not in all areas and completely.

What I don't find clear is if, being reasonably far to the left on this compass refers to views that private sector businesses should be restricted heavily, which eventually happens as you move closer towards socialism or if it take socialism more lightly.

From what you have said, you don't have extreme socialist views and I hence believe the latter to be the case.

[Scott]

I don't think you should even relate communism to socialism. Yes, there may be similarities but communism is a lock down of everything economically and all forms of ideas (in it's more extreme form ie. Dictatorship, ect) while socialism is a democratic system that aims to help out people more than say, capitalism would. Regardless, I agree with allowing private corporations but still have government run foundations to help people who cannot help themselves.

[Matthew]

socialism |ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

capitalism |ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m|
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

So basically socialism is about removing entrepreneurs and replacing them with groups of people, working together at a similar wage to run a simple economy with no means of innovation and progress. Socialism can refer to state-run economies or economies run by groups of people of a whole. Communism is an extreme form of socialism. North Korea is a good current example of how bad communism is. In North Korea the only private businesses operating are retail markets. The government wants to shut them down over time and has refused any new proposals for markets. If their are no retail markets, people will starve because government rations are not enough.

Socialist countries can end up being the production slaves of richer capitalist counties. Think about the production in China. The production in China was organised in a socialist manner and capitalist companies exploited China's manufacturing from outside.

China is slowly becoming more capitalist. I'm no expert on China but more private business enterprises are becoming possible and companies from the outside are now allowed to create Chinese branches but they weren't allowed before.

Everything I've read about socialism is bad. Government welfare support and good public services is needed if done correctly, however. I wouldn't consider that to be a very strong socialist view if at all a socialist view.

[Scott]

Everything I've read about socialism is bad. Government welfare support and good public services is needed if done correctly, however. I wouldn't consider that to be a very strong socialist view if at all a socialist view.

Then you must be reading books from Bill O'Reily because that is very biased and one sided. Canada is a socialist country yet we are not slaves of a capitalist country nor do we suppress private corporations. Socialism gets a bad rap because everyone immediately assumes communism. They are two separate things.