Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:June:26 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2005/6/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:38303 Activity:high
6/24    Libertarian purity test.
        http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi
        Feel free to post scores/interpretation.  -- ilyas
        \_ Alarm bells should go off in your head any time some ideology starts
           trying to measure and compare the "purity" of its adherents.
           Reasonable people do not measure their politics or philosophy on
           a linear scale.
           \_ Dear GOD, man.  Is being a geek an ideology too?  They have a
              purity test.  How about being gay?  How about you get that
              stick out of your ass? -- ilyas
              stick out of your ass?  The 'purity test' tradition is
              an ancient part of Internet culture. -- ilyas
        \_ 16.  It called me a "soft-core libertarian", which I guess
           is true in the same way The Princess Bride is soft-core porn.
           If you score zero (meaning you approve of the current U.S.
           system of government), it calls you a Nazi nut.
           \_ Ditto here, with 30 points.  The test is bunkum, as it makes, as
              as with most such silliness, no allowance for shades of gray.
              Plus, "anarcho-capitalist?"  Nobody who calls him/herself a
              libertarian that I know of would describe themselves as even
              close to that.  Bzzt, sorry, try again.  -John
              \_ It may be bunkum to you, but I find it useful as an estimate
                 (it's unbelievably fashionable among some people to proclaim
                 social liberalism and economic conservativism).  For
                 \_ Does that make the stance any less valid?  I don't see the
                    problem with "mind your own busineess and be responsible
                    when spending other peoples' money".  -John
                    \_ Sure, but that quote you have in quotes is uninformative.
                       I have found when talking politics with my friends that
                       almost everybody sounds the same (reasonable).  This is
                       because people have a tendency to not start with the
                       more controversial components of their beliefs when
                       discussing politics.  This is why tests like this are
                       useful.  John and I might sound superficially the same
                       when we start talking, but there's a huge difference
                       between a 30 and a 76. -- ilyas
                       \_ Why is it uninformative?  I find that, no matter
                          how many shades of gray you have between extremes,
                          there's always a tipping point at which the majority
                          of educated individuals making up the center bit of
                          any bell curve will no longer see a certain bit of
                          politics as matching a given quality--this being
                          something like "responsible", "frugal", whatever.  I
                          refuse to be drawn into a discussion of "one should
                          always do xyz", where "xyz" is some predefined
                          action like "cutting taxes by 50%".  I believe that
                          it's the duty of said educated individuals to make
                          decisions and choices based on a well thought-out
                          moral and ethical foundation, and in careful
                          consideration of a particular situation.  Otherwise
                          we could replace the constitution with some all-
                          encompassing decision matrix, couldn't we?  I just
                          happen to have come to the conclusion that what I
                          put in quotes above works for me in most
                          situations.  -John
                       \_ It's no more uninformative than that test is
                          an accurate measures of your political beliefs.
                          What I put in quotes above works for me most of the
                          time as a common-sense litmus test for most
                          political issues, while still letting me take into
                          account the particular situation.  And frankly I
                          haven't found a "determine your political color"
                          test yet that I didn't find in any way valid or not
                          full of horseshit.  -John
                          \_ That's because a real political test would
                             be extremely long and read like a philosophy
                             paper.  At any rate, the 'purity test' might not
                             be a serious political test, but you can't compare
                             the information you get from it to your vague
                             platitute of:
                             "mind your own business and be responsible
                             when spending other peoples' money".  Don't forget
                             to mention something about not eating kittens.
                                -- ilyas
                             paper.  -- ilyas
                             \_ Why not?  It's a basic "gut test" for looking
                                at politics, as opposed to an attempt to
                                simplistically quantify a wide range of topics
                                in a binary manner, which simply doesn't work.
                                I have a few fundamental ideals that I believe
                                in, which I consider when analyzing various
                                political situations.  I find that gives me far
                                more satisfying answers than "should we sell
                                the federal government?  Yes/No (if you answer
                                No, you need to work on your answers.)"  -John
                                \_ Why not?  Because that line has a wide WIDE
                                   set of interpretations, many in conflict
                                   with each other.  At least with yes no
                                   answers you get a rough idea of where you
                                   are willing to bite the bullet.  With what
                                   you said, I get _no information_. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Ilya, we're arguing on two different
                                      levels here.  Of course my tenet is no
                                      more than a "wide" political ideal.  You
                                      will not be able to divine how I will
                                      vote on Prop X. from it.  However, I
                                      think it's entirely fair to state it as a
                                      basis for making political decisions, as
                                      opposed to a bunch of absolute answers
                                      to nonsensical questions with no context
                                      given whatsoever.   To be honest, I think
                                      that people who claim to have absolutely
                                      sure and immovable convictions about such
                                      topics without even bothering to consider
                                      surrounding "real world" factors, border
                                      on fanaticism.  -John
                calibration, my score was 76.  Point about libertarians
                 vs A-C people, the test ought to be more properly called
                 the 'anti-government purity test.'  If it wasn't obvious,
                 this wasn't a serious test, much like other purity tests.
                 A real test would be a moral philosophy test.  -- ilyas
                 \_ A 76?  Did you say we should abolish everything?  I only
                    managed a 17 and I consider myself a conservative with
                    libertarian tendencies. -emarkp
                    \_ The only things I am _sure_ the government ought to
                       be responsible for is the army and the justice system.
                       I am also thinking about dbushong's idea of 'commons
                       rent,' which the government collects and uses to maintain
                       the commons.  For instance, charging individuals
                       proportionally to the pollution they cause.  -- ilyas
                       \_ What about government funded basic research?  We
                          are still benefiting today from basic research done
                          at the Royal Society two hundred years ago, or for
                          that matter from Archimedes' research that Syracuse
                          paid for two thousand years go.  Were they all
                          Looters as well?  Are you a Looter?
                          \_ We're also benefitting from having wiped out the
                             Indians and seized their land.
        \_ 7 -moderate
        \_ 38 -nivra
        \_ another 16.  I hadn't remembered what a bunch of nutcases
           the libertarians were.  I *like* having regulators inspect
           elevator safety, and don't trust the "marketplace" to take
           care of that in the long run.
           \_ 17. agreed.
        \_ 12. Which system of philosophy advocates chemical castration and
           utterly transparent financial records for all elected officials?
           'Cos I'd vote for that. --erikred
        \_ I find it ironic that the anti-government party uses a government
           owned statue as its symbol. I got a 22, btw. -ausman
        \_ 20. I am intrigued at how these guys expect some of the schemes to
           work. I have heard of some of them but I'm not clear on for example
           abolishing the state altogether and having private law and money.
           Seems like this would involve joining private security groups, which
           would probably end up being bullied by larger conglomerates. Anyway
           libertarians seem to ignore certain realities such as environmental
           concerns. Air and water pollution, and open space preservation for
           example. Private entities might conceivably run a place like
           Yosemite, but to maximize their profit they might do undesirable
           things. I wonder what the monetary value of such places is. If
           enough people interested in outdoors pooled resources they might
           conceivably claim ownership I guess. But in general the wealthy
           would be able to wield more power such as blocking the public from
           various lakes etc.
           As far as international involvement goes, sure it sounds good to
           withdraw from everywhere but kind of ignores the possibility of
           foreign states bent on empire. -- a moderate
           \_ Did you read my post about 'commons rent?'  Commons are an
              acknowledged problem for _me_, I am sure it is for other
              libertarians. -- ilyas
        \_ No offense intended, but from the discussion above, it's apparent
           that this is more aptly called the ilyas Purity Test.
           (the closer you are to 76, the more you agree with ilyas)
2005/6/26-28 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:38304 Activity:nil
6/26    How can I definitively tell the difference between a pressed
        pirate CD and a pirate CD-R with a nicely done label?
        \_ The pressed CD will be a pressed CD.  The CD-R will be a CD-R.  Look
           at a CD vs. a CD-R (not the label side).  If you can't tell the
           difference, try again.
2005/6/26-28 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:38305 Activity:nil
6/26    Germany to bulldoze Checkpoint Charlie museum on 4th of July
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431117/posts
        \_ http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,1564,1382207,00.html
           It seems like they want to tear down this monument, not the
           museum.  From this article, it sounds like they're already
           past the lease date, anyways.  I do agree that taking down the
           museum would be a big mistake, though.  It was one of the most
           personally touching places I saw in Berlin when I went there.
           \_ Speaking of the commercialism of memorials, I really liked how
              the path of the wall was marked with a double row of bricks.
              Understated, powerful. I hope, if CC is taken down, that it's
              transplanted somewhere. --scotsman
2005/6/26-27 [Uncategorized] UID:38306 Activity:nil
6/26    where is this?
        link:tinyurl.com/9r5gr
        \_ photoshop
2005/6/26-28 [Recreation/Humor] UID:38307 Activity:nil
6/26    funny, http://www.flickr.com/photos/hep/21765956
        might be too gay for your workplace. - danh
        \_ why is it funny? I see something similar all the time.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:June:26 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>