What are your political views?

[Chiki]

Chile has also been adopting free market policies which lean toward economical liberalism, which is the complete opposite of Argentina, which has been adopting socialist policies that are affecting the country negatively. This is proof that socialism, when applied in moderate or large doses, is harmful to a country. This is also proof that free market policies and economy policies which are based upon liberalism work.

And since economical liberalism is the same as laissez-faire capitalism, it is also the same as saying that laissez-faire capitalism works.

Wow, incredible. I even gave you a logic textbook so you'd stop making these basic fallacies but you haven't changed at all. This is an informal fallacy known as the "hasty generalization fallacy."

Ok, first of all, we have to double check and see if you're actually right about Argentina and Chile implementing these policies. I'll assume that you're right but it's perfectly possible that you're wrong.

The main problem here is this. You're drawing a bunch of conclusions here, and each conclusion is drawn from one example. You're drawing the conclusion that socialism is generally harmful based on the assumed fact that Argentina not doing well. From just one case. This is a perfect example of the hasty generalization fallacy. You're drawing the conclusion that capitalism is good based on the fact Chile is doing well. Hasty generalization fallacy.

If socialism is so harmful, please explain why Iceland, Norway, Sweden etc. are doing so well.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Chiki

[Rapier]

The main problem here is this. You're drawing a bunch of conclusions here, and each conclusion is drawn from one example. You're drawing the conclusion that socialism is generally harmful based on the assumed fact that Argentina not doing well. From just one case. This is a perfect example of the hasty generalization fallacy. You're drawing the conclusion that capitalism is good based on the fact Chile is doing well. Hasty generalization fallacy.

If socialism is so harmful, please explain why Iceland, Norway, Sweden etc. are doing so well.

Chile started doing well since it started applying economic liberalism policies, therefore there is a relation. Argentina started going downhill since it started applying economic socialism policies, therefore there is a relation. Your only ways to refute this affirmation is by showing me how Chile would be doing well even without economic liberalism (the same applies to Argentina, but it is the inverse), or showing how the cause has nothing to do with the effects.

The nordic model manages to find a balance between socialism and capitalism. This is one of the explanations as to why they work. We can also point the fact that they have a moderate sized population as a reason why it is not so gargantuan to spend money on welfare services (therefore, I believe such a model could not work in densely populated countries such as the US). Then again, the critic that I made on my previous post was about Argentina's socialism model, not the nordic models' socialism model, which I am not capable of criticizing right now.

But this is not even a case for comparisson, because the nordic models also employ economic liberalism in moderate doses, whereas Argentina is going farther and farther from it. There are few similarities between both examples.

Socialism needs an already established solid economy in order to work. That's all there is to it.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Rapier

[Nobody]

Wow, incredible. I even gave you a logic textbook so you'd stop making these basic fallacies but you haven't changed at all. This is an informal fallacy known as the "hasty generalization fallacy."

Ok, first of all, we have to double check and see if you're actually right about Argentina and Chile implementing these policies. I'll assume that you're right but it's perfectly possible that you're wrong.

The main problem here is this. You're drawing a bunch of conclusions here, and each conclusion is drawn from one example. You're drawing the conclusion that socialism is generally harmful based on the assumed fact that Argentina not doing well. From just one case. This is a perfect example of the hasty generalization fallacy. You're drawing the conclusion that capitalism is good based on the fact Chile is doing well. Hasty generalization fallacy.

If socialism is so harmful, please explain why Iceland, Norway, Sweden etc. are doing so well.

I'd not say the problem is socialism, but rather latin american socialism. aka the state trying to take part on everything.

From a south american point of view, no country in western/north eurupe would be considered socialist. Might sound insane, I know, but that's how it is here. The fact that those countries have free market would be enough for them to be called "right winged". If you consider them socialist countries even thought their economy is completely different than a typical socialist country, then I agree socialism works pretty well. But that's me.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nobody

[dondon151]

the comparison in the first set is actually between the united states and france. i threw chile in there because i suspected that at least one of you guys would cry foul and end up missing the point. i would also like to commend both of you for ignoring the second comparison between switzerland and norway. rapier deserves exceptional praise here for using a hasty generalization fallacy despite being shown piece of evidence that could have been used to generalize in opposite way.

[Nobody]

the comparison in the first set is actually between the united states and france. i threw chile in there because i suspected that at least one of you guys would cry foul and end up missing the point. i would also like to commend both of you for ignoring the second comparison between switzerland and norway. rapier deserves exceptional praise here for using a hasty generalization fallacy despite being shown piece of evidence that could have been used to generalize in opposite way.

I never argued against you. I just pointed that the comparison with chile wouldn't work well. From what I've read from your posts, I think I kind of agree with you. I just don't call what you call "socialism" socialism. As simple as that.

Also, keep in mind that I don't agree with everything, or even most of the things Rapier is saying.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nobody

[Rapier]

the comparison in the first set is actually between the united states and france. i threw chile in there because i suspected that at least one of you guys would cry foul and end up missing the point. i would also like to commend both of you for ignoring the second comparison between switzerland and norway. rapier deserves exceptional praise here for using a hasty generalization fallacy despite being shown piece of evidence that could have been used to generalize in opposite way.

There is no hasty conclusion fallacy in saying that the socialist model applied in Argentina, which is the same applied in Venezuela, Bolívia and the rest of the countries which are part of Mercosul, is harmful because these countries have been going downhill since they started to implant said model, based on socialist policies that excludes liberalism. Note that this is an specific kind of socialism which differs from the nordic model.

I did not mean to say that socialism generally doesn't work anywhere. I meant that -this- certain kind of socialism does not work.

Basically, what Nobody is saying about latin america's notions on socialism is true. We even trace a line between socialism and social democracy because we're commonly used to more radical socialism.

i would also like to commend both of you for ignoring the second comparison between switzerland and norway.

Not commenting about it =/= ignoring.

Your comparisson is valid.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Rapier

[Axie]

I am proudly socially liberal. Economically I am not very left wing but I also don't trust big business enough. I hate the "center" labelling though, in my opinion people just kinda use it as a way to not have/say their political views.

Here in Brazil I vote for one of our Socialist parties because it's in my opinion the best option, but it's a small party and we have two big parties duelling just like in the US, so in our second round of elections I voted for the Workers Party because they are less terrible. It is Dilma Rousseff's party and she was reelected so it's all good for me (not so much for the people in my state but I hate them as a collective anyway ).

EDIT: I do agree that our ideas of left-wing and right-wing here in Brazil and I suppose the rest of Latin America are a bit different because of our realities as nations that were very poor only a few decades ago, but that's not really relevant to the discussion as to whether a model of sociailsm "works" or not.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Axie

[Chiki]

Chile started doing well since it started applying economic liberalism policies, therefore there is a relation. Argentina started going downhill since it started applying economic socialism policies, therefore there is a relation. Your only ways to refute this affirmation is by showing me how Chile would be doing well even without economic liberalism (the same applies to Argentina, but it is the inverse), or showing how the cause has nothing to do with the effects.

The nordic model manages to find a balance between socialism and capitalism. This is one of the explanations as to why they work. We can also point the fact that they have a moderate sized population as a reason why it is not so gargantuan to spend money on welfare services (therefore, I believe such a model could not work in densely populated countries such as the US). Then again, the critic that I made on my previous post was about Argentina's socialism model, not the nordic models' socialism model, which I am not capable of criticizing right now.

But this is not even a case for comparisson, because the nordic models also employ economic liberalism in moderate doses, whereas Argentina is going farther and farther from it. There are few similarities between both examples.

Socialism needs an already established solid economy in order to work. That's all there is to it.

Uh, look, this doesn't prove anything. Chemotherapy usually works well for most people but there might be some cases in which it fails. But those cases in which chemotherapy fails doesn't mean that you can generalize to every case in which someone uses chemotherapy and say it's bad. Because we know it's not bad for everyone; it helps most people. Basic reasoning.

And your argument doesn't prevent the possibility that Argentina is implementing socialism (if it is) wrongly.

Your reasoning ability is so lacking that I'm just going to give up on you.

[Rapier]

And your argument doesn't prevent the possibility that Argentina is implementing socialism (if it is) wrongly.

Which is what I meant with my previous posts. The specific model which they are using is wrong. I made a mistake on generalizing the model Argentina is using as if it were an universal model - this is not the case, since it differs from the nordic model. But then again our definition of socialism on our region usually refers to its more radical side, and this led me toward this confusion. Sorry about that.

Besides, saying "the socialist model which is applied in Argentina is harmful" is different from saying "the socialist model, which is applied in Argentina, is harmful". I stated the former. You're studying Linguistics, so you must know the difference.

Note that this is an specific kind of socialism which differs from the nordic model.

But this is not even a case for comparisson, because the nordic models also employ economic liberalism in moderate doses, whereas Argentina is going farther and farther from it. There are few similarities between both examples.

as I said

Your reasoning ability is so lacking that I'm just going to give up on you.

I've a feeling that this time the issue at hand is the divergence of definitions. This post should serve as an explanation for them.

Then again, my argument with regards to Argentina implementing an specific bad socialist model can only be, at the very best, valid. It is not good, because I show no good reasons for the premisses to be taken as true. It is repairable, but I am not capable of reasoning enough in order to fix it.

In short, you're right. Have my King, until I can get it back (which I assume will take five years or so?).

[Chiki]

The specific model which they are using is wrong. I made a mistake on generalizing the model Argentina is using as if it were an universal model - this is not the case, since it differs from the nordic model.

Not even that follows. Argentina's model may be bad for Argentina, but it doesn't follow that Argentina's model is bad for every other country. For all we know, it might be good for India or whatever.

I can even prove to you that the "hasty generalization" fallacy is not a mere informal fallacy but also a formal fallacy (a flaw in logic). Suppose that, for some x who had chemotherapy, taking chemotherapy was bad for that x. We can't show that, for all x, taking chemotherapy is bad for all x. Because it's true solely for that x.

[Rapier]

Not even that follows. Argentina's model may be bad for Argentina, but it doesn't follow that Argentina's model is bad for every other country. For all we know, it might be good for India or whatever.

Argentina's model (by the way, this term is misleading... this model is not from Argentina, but taking place there) is not exclusive to Argentina, unfortunately. The same model taking place in Argentina is the one which is taking place in Venezuela and, if memory serves, Bolívia. It is what we call 'bolivarianism' in Latin America.

Let us suppose a new kind of medicine was discovered. The first three voluntaries (let's suppose humans can be experiments) showed negative effects or died after drinking this medicine (a single google search about Venezuela and Argentina's current situation will show how badly things are going down there). Which would be your conclusions? Would you accept to be the fourth? It's true that it can work with the fourth person, but for how long must we play with other people's lives until we reach a positive test?

Can you honestly say I am being stupid because I stand up against this specific socialist model when I see what bolivarianism is doing to Venezuela and Argentina? No, I can't see how I'm wrong about the bolivarian model.

--

And that's all. I just wanted to make this point clear. Sorry about the mess.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Rapier

[Chiki]

Argentina's model (by the way, this term is misleading... this model is not from Argentina, but taking place there) is not exclusive to Argentina, unfortunately. The same model taking place in Argentina is the one which is taking place in Venezuela and, if memory serves, Bolívia. It is what we call 'bolivarianism' in Latin America.

Let us suppose a new kind of medicine was discovered. The first three voluntaries (let's suppose humans can be experiments) showed negative effects or died after drinking this medicine (a single google search about Venezuela and Argentina's current situation will show how badly things are going down there). Which would be your conclusions? Would you accept to be the fourth? It's true that it can work with the fourth person, but for how long must we play with other people's lives until we reach a positive test?

Can you honestly say I am being stupid because I stand up against this specific socialist model when I see what bolivarianism is doing to Venezuela and Argentina? No, I can't see how I'm wrong about the bolivarian model.

--

And that's all. I just wanted to make this point clear. Sorry about the mess.

None of the arguments you bring up follow. Here's what it takes for an argument to be valid: it is not possible, in any case, for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Even if the medicine is bad for 3 people, and even if the model is bad for 3 countries, it doesn't follow that it's bad for all entities in the domain. It could be due to bad luck that the medicine is bad for those 3 people. In that case, the premises could be true, and the conclusion would be false, so the argument is not valid.

That doesn't mean we should keep giving people the medicine. The probability of having bad luck like that is pretty damn low. So it's smarter not to take that risk and keep giving it to other people. But we can accept that and still accept that the argument doesn't follow from the premises, because the probability that the conclusion is true (that the medicine is bad) is higher than the probability that the conclusion is false (that the medicine is good).

Even the following conclusion doesn't follow from the premises: the sun has always risen in the east in the past, therefore it will always rise in the east in the future. The sun may have risen for billions of years in the past, but just because it's true in the past doesn't mean it's true in the future. It doesn't prove that the sun will always rise in the east in the future. This is known as the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction'>problem of induction."

Similarly it would be pretty stupid to think that the sun won't rise in the east tomorrow. The probability of it rising in the east is extremely high. But the probability is always there that it won't, so the argument doesn't follow.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Chiki

[Excellen Browning]

Don't forget Germany, the Netherlands, great Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Belgium as far as successful states more socialist than the US go.

[Life]

I'm center-right. That being said, left in Israel is considered loving Palestinians to the point that we should apologize for them wanting to kill us and right wing is wanting them to be killed entirely.

Also, kibbutzim in Israel used to be (and some still are) socialist.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Samal Rishon

[Black Dynamite]

I'm a libertarian, I believe that emphasis on personal freedoms and responsibility are crucial in society and that large government harbors far too much corruption without politicians being held accountable for their actions. I think that there are far too many rules and regulations in the United States, especially in terms of civil liberties. I think reducing the size and power of the government is crucial to addressing this problem in the long run.

[Sasori]

I would say i'm in the center when it comes to my country's political views. That would probably be left compared to the bigger American view though.

Anyway i'm not yet old and independent enough to completely say what I want from the goverment, but generally speaking I think they need to step in to correct the failures of the market. There need to be safety nets for people to fall back on and I believe a goverment should at the very least guerantee a mimum for a dignified life, if they are able to do so. Enough food, a roof over your head, clothing, proper healthcare and a little bit extra so people can enjoy themselves at times.

I'm all in favour of the tired old saying that the strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest weight. They should still be able to live comfertably and in wealth of course, but they can stand to miss just a bit more if that money can help out. In general I do think success should be rewarded, but up to a point.

[Team Alucard]

I'm very liberal. Its difficult for me to even justify voting because I feel there is no party that leans even a little bit to the left.

We have a centre-right party and a far-right party, but no party that is willing to embrace real and significant liberal policy.

The democrats talk big game from time to time but they have no backbone whatsoever.

[Ansem]

I respond socially progressive RL when asked this question and usually get a "huh" in response. Great to see more of us here.

posted june 24. i'm proudly registered as independent. its nice not being tied down by any parties. we cant vote in primaries but eh. the democrats usually get the independence party nomination but that doesnt stop me from voting republican when i want to.

[Splodge]

I don't know if anyone has posted this here before but I'll post in anyways http://www.politicalcompass.org/, this is great because it work on two axis'. It gives a much better idea of where you stand. Here's mine;

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=2.63&soc=-2.51

Just scroll down about halfway to see it. I link it because image extensions and what have you.

So I'm a right wing libertarian. My strongest belief is that people should be completely free from the state, and through extension of this, people that have the ability to do a task better then others, deserve that more then people who can't. The rights of the person are more important then the rights of the people sum up my views pretty well I think. Obviously, there are aspects of both sides that I disagree with. Right wing beliefs about marriage and other races irk me, and I believe that certain rules and regulations need to be in place to stop society from spiraling out of control, ie. criminality.

Though as you can see, the majority of my beliefs fall under right wing and libertarianism ideals.

[Radiant head]

Yeah in my ideal utopia, those are my political views. No money, just a huge community working together and working to their strengths for preservation.

It won't be that ideal, but I feel like this might actually happen. With automation, I think the whole concept of the job economy is going to fall out, and society is going to need a new way for people to earn.

[Life]

I pulled Authoritarian Left (ever so slightly on both, however). The Authoritarian part was to be expected but I'm surprised about getting center left than center right. Always viewed myself as more of the right wing fellow.

[blah the Prussian]

I'm a monarchist. Didn't expect that, eh?

[Rehab]

As in a neoreactionary?

playing and spectating Crusader Kings had done more to ruin for me of the idea that we'd be better off reverting to a hereditary monarchical form of government than any blog post ever could

Edited February 21, 2015 by Rehab

[blah the Prussian]

As in a neoreactionary?

playing and spectating Crusader Kings had done more to ruin for me of the idea that we'd be better off reverting to a hereditary monarchical form of government than any blog post ever could

I'd call myself more of an enlightened absolutist. I favor hereditary monarchy because I think it is the best way to encourage consistency in terms of power. Monarchies are much less likely to become corrupt than democracies, as a monarch has much less of an incentive to be corrupt, as they have more from the start. Also, monarchs are less likely to subscribe to revolutionary ideologies such as Fascism or Communism, as their education tends to be moderate or conservative, or mildly liberal. The type of monarchy displayed in Crusader Kings is Feudal Monarchy, and as far as I know there is no feudal monarchy currently in existence, and has not been since Tsar Alexander II abolished Serfdom in Russia in the 1860s. There are many other reasons for why monarchy is good, but none of them contradict the idea of the people having rights, such as freedom of expression, abortion (I won't get into whether or not this is a good thing) or gay marriage (I think most on SF support it). Essentially, as long as you are not engaging in or advocating for violent overthrow of the government, you're okay. I believe something like this exist in democracies, too. To be clear, I am not advocating monarchy in places that never had it, like the USA, because Republican tradition is too deeply rooted in the country. However, I support restoration attempts in countries where a monarchy was overthrown, particularly in Korea, because anything's better than the Kim's, and Brazil, because the last emperor was overthrown by former slaveholders who were pissed at him for banning slavery. I mainly think the idea that monarchy is outdated is childish. Feudalism is outdated, not monarchy. Hell, there have been feudal republics (looking at you, Venice!).

[Rehab]

Interesting. I don't think I understand how (absolute?) monarchies are resistant to corruption, though. Power presumably being the hands of one person seems like it would give them special interest in wanting to make sure people obey them and don't waste their money, but I don't get what would give them any particular leg up in enforcing their will. That is, how they obviously can't be everywhere at once- I'd think it impossible for nations of modern average sizes, certainly not as big as the bigger ones to handle governing at all without using bureaucratic armies to handle every administrative duty. Strong civil service, rule of law, clean institutions, prevention of small parties becoming entrenched interests, etc. don't immediately jump out at me as things any single form of government, or at least not monarchies, would really obviously do better than another.

I also wonder how to actually find evidence of their contrasting abilities, given a lack of nominal modern absolute monarchies. Ones that do still exist don't seem to top the anti-corruption indice, though.