Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 I love that Lynn, from a political ideology I certainly would be the latter however the ideologies are so wrong and inept at truly accurately describing what they are attempting to describe I think we could simply call it " food liberation " regardless of the ideology. Cuz if it was up to the liberals we'd have no raw milk cuz we're too stupid to choose our own food and if it were up to the conservatives we'd either have none after they told us we would or they'd provide it for us via government contracts given to the kin of a governement official and 1 gallon would be $28 bucks. --- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...> wrote: > > And how does this relate to food, you may > > ask? Well probably in that people who decide > > to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's > > are deciding not to support the " Status Quo " > > and defying the current " food culture " , so > > you have the same liberal vs. conservative > > factors at play (whether a person considers > > themself liberal or conservative in a political > > sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at > > this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I > > think, making your own food decisions ...). > > How much does this carry into the rest of our lives, this bucking the > trend? Is it food liberalism or food libertarianism? > > Lynn S. > > ----- > Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan > The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/ > Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/ > People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Hear Hear! for food libertarianism! I never could decide who was worse a liberal or a conservative. And now I can't seem to tell the difference. AMy Food liberalism > And how does this relate to food, you may > ask? Well probably in that people who decide > to drink raw milk and not go to Mc's > are deciding not to support the " Status Quo " > and defying the current " food culture " , so > you have the same liberal vs. conservative > factors at play (whether a person considers > themself liberal or conservative in a political > sense is beside the point -- if you " do NT " at > this point in time, you are a " food liberal " , I > think, making your own food decisions ...). How much does this carry into the rest of our lives, this bucking the trend? Is it food liberalism or food libertarianism? Lynn S. ----- Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/ Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/ People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 >>>>> Cuz if it was up to the liberals we'd have no raw milk cuz we're too stupid to choose our own food and if it were up to the conservatives we'd either have none after they told us we would or they'd provide it for us via government contracts given to the kin of a governement official and 1 gallon would be $28 bucks. >>>>>Hear Hear! for food libertarianism! I never could decide who was worse a liberal or a conservative. And now I can't seem to tell the difference. ------->i'm going to make a comment about something i normally ignore on this list, but feel needs to be said, as it becomes tiresome after a while. i find both of these posts to be arrogant, and derogatory towards those of us on the list who are in fact either liberal or conservative. is this really necessary? while i don't personally take the comments to heart i think they: a) reflect poorly on a person who feels he/she needs to put down other people's choice of politics in order to make themselves appear superior cause unnecessary antagonism that serves no purpose i'm pretty sure we're all aware that the people on this list represent a broad spectrum politically, so comments like this, to my mind, seem intended to inflame. i think chris' post on this subject was an excellent example of how to discuss politics without resorting to " cattiness " . this is just my personal opinion, of course, and i may be the only one who feels this way, but i felt it was worth expressing. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Well said, thank you. Irene At 03:06 PM 9/2/03, you wrote: >------->i'm going to make a comment about something i normally ignore on >this list, but feel needs to be said, as it becomes tiresome after a while. >i find both of these posts to be arrogant, and derogatory towards those of >us on the list who are in fact either liberal or conservative. is this >really necessary? > >while i don't personally take the comments to heart i think they: > >a) reflect poorly on a person who feels he/she needs to put down other >people's choice of politics in order to make themselves appear superior > > cause unnecessary antagonism that serves no purpose > > >i'm pretty sure we're all aware that the people on this list represent a >broad spectrum politically, so comments like this, to my mind, seem intended >to inflame. i think chris' post on this subject was an excellent example of >how to discuss politics without resorting to " cattiness " . this is just my >personal opinion, of course, and i may be the only one who feels this way, >but i felt it was worth expressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 I personally think the moderate and occasional political bickering on this list is fun and adds character to the list. The criticism that the two parties have become diminished in differences comes from the left, the right, the top and the bottom (if you follow the two axis system of the libertarians ;-) ). It's really impossible to dispute in the sense that it's basically universally recognized that both parties have gravitated towards a centrist position. At the same time, anybody who's been paying attention to politics over the last few months would recognize that a polarization is taking place and this coming election the two parties will diverge a *lot* from the center, compared to the last 10 years or so. So the idea that there's no difference is becoming kind of cliche and simply rather false. Nevertheless, to someone whose views diverge much farther from the two parties than the two parties do from each other, it would be a reasonable perception, and I don't find anyone's expression of that perception to be insulting. But since there's more than one person it bothers perhaps I'm being hyposensitive. Chris In a message dated 9/2/03 6:14:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@... writes: > while i don't personally take the comments to heart i think they: > > > >a) reflect poorly on a person who feels he/she needs to put down other > >people's choice of politics in order to make themselves appear superior > > > > cause unnecessary antagonism that serves no purpose > > > > > >i'm pretty sure we're all aware that the people on this list represent a > >broad spectrum politically, so comments like this, to my mind, seem > intended > >to inflame. i think chris' post on this subject was an excellent example of > >how to discuss politics without resorting to " cattiness " . this is just my > >personal opinion, of course, and i may be the only one who feels this way, > >but i felt it was worth expressing. " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Suze you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I for one welcome it. I and others don't have any distress about such posts in that I find them simultaneously accurate and funny. You may be right about the " arrogance " of the posts however you're completely wrong about any intent to be personally " derogatory " towards people such as you liberal or conservative. If I wanted to be derogatory about " you " or anyone else I'd just come right out and do it. I respect you and even your politics even if I might potentially completely disagree with them whatever they might be. These comments while I made them with a grain of truth were made primarily in jest(others apparently were amused also). I did not make them to appear superior in that I'm intelligent enough to know that people will read it and have their own opinion and I believe most likely found the humor more than anything else. If you can't see the very less than serious side of this post then possibly " ...if the shoe fits " might be the most approprate statement to close with. DMM PS- You or anyone else may say anything they might like to about my politics anytime. I will neither be offended or confused. PPS- The takeaway here Suze is just lighten up it was in jest ;-) > >>>>> Cuz if it was up to the liberals we'd have no raw milk cuz we're > too stupid to choose our own food and if it were up to the > conservatives we'd either have none after they told us we would or > they'd provide it for us via government contracts given to the kin > of a governement official and 1 gallon would be $28 bucks. > > >>>>>Hear Hear! for food libertarianism! I never could decide who was worse > a liberal or a conservative. And now I can't seem to tell the difference. > > > ------->i'm going to make a comment about something i normally ignore on > this list, but feel needs to be said, as it becomes tiresome after a while. > i find both of these posts to be arrogant, and derogatory towards those of > us on the list who are in fact either liberal or conservative. is this > really necessary? > > while i don't personally take the comments to heart i think they: > > a) reflect poorly on a person who feels he/she needs to put down other > people's choice of politics in order to make themselves appear superior > > cause unnecessary antagonism that serves no purpose > > > i'm pretty sure we're all aware that the people on this list represent a > broad spectrum politically, so comments like this, to my mind, seem intended > to inflame. i think chris' post on this subject was an excellent example of > how to discuss politics without resorting to " cattiness " . this is just my > personal opinion, of course, and i may be the only one who feels this way, > but i felt it was worth expressing. > > > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg > Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine > http://www.westonaprice.org > > ---------------------------- > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause > heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- > Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt > University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. > > The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics > <http://www.thincs.org> > ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 I have a generic question... Why does NT called for dried fruit when making a fruit butter, see pg 110? I have been offered some apples and since I'm not into peeling, slicing and dicing, particularly if it's not as nutrient rich, I'm not interested. And then there is the option of drying them first. If I do that, my oven does go down to 150, how long do I leave them in the oven? This is sort of new for me, so excuse the ignorance of this question. And a second question, if I'm eating saurerkraut 2 times a day, would doing the rejuvalac still be a good idea? I'm also doing raw whole milk (about a cup or so a day), and attempting to do kefiili (not sure if that's what I have now) about 1/4-1/2 cup, and hoping to start kefir or whatever with the grains soon. Another thing, I'm amazed at all the people with such knowledge on this forum. I happily join the likes of the food libertarins or whatever I might be called. Janice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 >I personally think the moderate and occasional political bickering on this >list is fun and adds character to the list. For what it's worth, I really didn't mean to start a political debate, I'm kind of thinking out loud, which was why I was using historical examples mostly, not current ones. The current political debate is kind of odd and has me very confused, so I'm trying to think through my OWN positions on some of this stuff. Like, I used to think I was conservative, and now I find that I am defined as a liberal! What I was kind of thinking is that the two are forces, kind of like yang and yin, male and female, fight or flight -- that exist in each person and kind of are exemplified by certain groups. For example, in my own life I am a " rigid conservative " in some areas (i.e. I live by unthinking obedience to certain rules I learned as a kid and will not tolerate any change to those rules) and in other areas I am very " liberal " (open to change, thinking through all the issues). I think both states are necessary and societies waffle between the two ... usually when a system is working well, people get " conservative " and " follow the rules " that have been shown to work. When the current system is not working well, then people (some of them) flip to " liberal " mode and start trying out all these new ideas, MOST of which DO NOT WORK and are really stupid. But one or more of those ideas MIGHT work and eventually, that becomes the new rule. We need both states because no human being can THINK about everything all the time. Usually we work via RULES, we make some and we follow them, and those rules resist change. The rules I am currently changing happen to relate to food, the other ones are pretty much the same as I grew up with. Usually the rules we are following are the same ones all our peers are following, so the normal human state is pretty " conservative " . People like Ben lin lived most of their lives questioning those rules, so I'd tend to put him on the side of " liberal " . People on this list are kind of self-selected to be the ones that are THINKING about the " food rules " . If we come up with a set that work, we can stop thinking about them so much and become " food conservatives " . Anyway, there is no social issue that is consistantly " liberal " or " conservative " -- the prototypical example is long hair -- sometimes " long hair " denotes a conservative, sometimes, a liberal, depending on the political climate. Most of the current political debate is rather dysfunctional, though I was pleased to hear the author of " The 2% Solution " talk on the radio today, he actually has some sense! -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 > I'm trying to think through my OWN > positions on some of this stuff. Like, I used to think I > was conservative, and now I find that I am defined > as a liberal! If modern political definitions interest you, you might want to take the quiz at http://www.politicalcompass.org Pat (down in the libertarian-left quadrant, a bit south of Mandela) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 >I personally think the moderate and occasional political bickering on this >list is fun and adds character to the list. ---->i don't mind it myself, although it often bores me, since the same underlying themes often seem to be repeated. of course, this is a different issue than the one i raised in my other post. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 >>>>PPS- The takeaway here Suze is just lighten up it was in jest ;-) ----->ha! funny...i told myself to expect *precisely* this classic dismissive reply to being called to task - the ol' " lighten up i was just joking " response, as if i'm some sort of hyper-sensitive, hyper-serious (me of all people! LOL) person who should find humor in your remarks because *you* do. it's not really about " lightening up " DMM, because, as i mentioned, i didn't take your comments personally in part because i just don't care all that much what people think of my politics and in part because my own politics are pretty nebulous at the moment, anyway. sheesh...i think i even find at least one camp of libertarianism intriguing. however, imo, it's common courtesy to not make disparaging comments about other people on_the_forum, and surely there are plenty of liberals and conservatives among us, who are not so amused by a recurrent pattern of similar comments. not that we all feel exactly the same way about such comments, but my whole point was that it *might* be worth considering your audience before making such comments. i fully realize not everyone shares my view, and that some probably feel your comments and the other one i quoted were perfectly appropriate for a public forum on nutrition. but, i'll happily dissent, if for no other reason to remind that this group is diverse, and not everyone finds humor in the same things.*i* constantly joke on this list and certainly wouldn't be offended if you didn't find humor in *my* jokes, and i certainly wouldn't dream of telling you to " lighten up " if you didn't ;-) bottom line...i think it's common courtesy to consider your audience before making remarks that may be disparaging to some of them, whether in the form of a joke or not. it's actually not that single comment i was responding to in any case, but the two different ones quoted, and i wouldn't have even bothered to comment if they were the only ones ever made. but there seems to be a recurrent pattern, which gets OLD after a while. and btw, i'd say the say the same thing goes for liberals and conservatives - i would hope i'd make a similar remark to them if there was a similar pattern of comments to yours and the other one. if there is, and i missed it, i apologize. anyhow, don't worry, i didn't lose sleep over it, it doesn't particularly affect me one way or the other, aside from being a minor annoyance, but i felt it was worth taking the time to urge a respect for the diversity among us :-) having said that, i'm open to off-color jokes *off-list* if anyone has any good ones! LOL. even ones about liberals and conservatives, or better...libertarians! <weg> or...or romans....or gay bishops...or pauline...or silly people who take up list space with OT comments when they can just bang their head against a brick wall and get the same results ;-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Takeaway lesson is still the same Suze ;-) > >>>>PPS- The takeaway here Suze is just lighten up it was in jest ;- ) > > ----->ha! funny...i told myself to expect *precisely* this classic > dismissive reply to being called to task - the ol' " lighten up i was just > joking " response, as if i'm some sort of hyper-sensitive, hyper- serious (me > of all people! LOL) person who should find humor in your remarks because > *you* do. it's not really about " lightening up " DMM, because, as i > mentioned, i didn't take your comments personally in part because i just > don't care all that much what people think of my politics and in part > because my own politics are pretty nebulous at the moment, anyway. > sheesh...i think i even find at least one camp of libertarianism intriguing. > however, imo, it's common courtesy to not make disparaging comments about > other people on_the_forum, and surely there are plenty of liberals and > conservatives among us, who are not so amused by a recurrent pattern of > similar comments. not that we all feel exactly the same way about such > comments, but my whole point was that it *might* be worth considering your > audience before making such comments. > > i fully realize not everyone shares my view, and that some probably feel > your comments and the other one i quoted were perfectly appropriate for a > public forum on nutrition. but, i'll happily dissent, if for no other reason > to remind that this group is diverse, and not everyone finds humor in the > same things.*i* constantly joke on this list and certainly wouldn't be > offended if you didn't find humor in *my* jokes, and i certainly wouldn't > dream of telling you to " lighten up " if you didn't ;-) > > bottom line...i think it's common courtesy to consider your audience before > making remarks that may be disparaging to some of them, whether in the form > of a joke or not. it's actually not that single comment i was responding to > in any case, but the two different ones quoted, and i wouldn't have even > bothered to comment if they were the only ones ever made. but there seems to > be a recurrent pattern, which gets OLD after a while. and btw, i'd say the > say the same thing goes for liberals and conservatives - i would hope i'd > make a similar remark to them if there was a similar pattern of comments to > yours and the other one. if there is, and i missed it, i apologize. > > anyhow, don't worry, i didn't lose sleep over it, it doesn't particularly > affect me one way or the other, aside from being a minor annoyance, but i > felt it was worth taking the time to urge a respect for the diversity among > us :-) > > having said that, i'm open to off-color jokes *off-list* if anyone has any > good ones! LOL. even ones about liberals and conservatives, or > better...libertarians! <weg> > > or...or romans....or gay bishops...or pauline...or silly people who take up > list space with OT comments when they can just bang their head against a > brick wall and get the same results ;-) > > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg > Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine > http://www.westonaprice.org > > ---------------------------- > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause > heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " - - > Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt > University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. > > The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics > <http://www.thincs.org> > ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 >>>Takeaway lesson is still the same Suze ;-) --------->touche ;-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Nice to meet you Pat I am near by and apparently will be voting for the Dalai Lama in the next election. Ha, that was fun. Amy Re: Food Liberalism > I'm trying to think through my OWN > positions on some of this stuff. Like, I used to think I > was conservative, and now I find that I am defined > as a liberal! If modern political definitions interest you, you might want to take the quiz at http://www.politicalcompass.org Pat (down in the libertarian-left quadrant, a bit south of Mandela) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 > >>>Takeaway lesson is still the same Suze ;-) > > --------->touche ;-) =========Suze that's personal, please do not discuss my behind thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 > >>>Takeaway lesson is still the same Suze ;-) > > --------->touche ;-) =========Suze that's personal, please do not discuss my behind thank you. --------->zounds! my " butt-ophilia " is exposed! <hanging head shamefully> <weg> Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 To any and all, I'm sending this message again because I didn't received any response. Not sure why. But if anyone has something to offer I would be most appreciative. Janice > I have a generic question... Why does NT called for dried fruit when making a fruit butter, see pg 110? > >I have been offered some apples and since I'm not into peeling, slicing and dicing, particularly if it's not as nutrient rich, I'm not interested. > > And then there is the option of drying them first. If I do that, my oven does go down to 150, how long do I leave them in the oven? This is sort of new for me, so excuse the ignorance of this question. > And a second question, if I'm eating saurerkraut 2 times a day, would doing the rejuvalac still be a good idea? I'm also doing raw whole milk (about a cup or so a day), and attempting to do kefiili (not sure if that's what I have now) about 1/4-1/2 cup, and hoping to start kefir or whatever with the grains soon. > >Another thing, I'm amazed at all the people with such knowledge on this forum. I happily join the likes of the food libertarins or whatever I might be called. > >Janice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: " The Lucey-Weinhold Family " <lucewein@...> > > I'm trying to think through my OWN > > positions on some of this stuff. Like, I used to think I > > was conservative, and now I find that I am defined > > as a liberal! > > If modern political definitions interest you, you might want to take the > quiz at > http://www.politicalcompass.org I've taken that test before, and I think it's horribly flawed. First of all, " libertarian left " is a misnomer. They're not libertarians--they're socialists, and socialism is decidedly antilibertarian. Libertarianism is not just about the right to drugs, sex, and rock and roll; property rights are just as important, if not more so (in fact, I would argue that the former depends on the latter), and the defining characteristic of the so-called " libertarian left " is that it denies the importance of (and in fact strongly opposes) property rights. Also, the test was clearly designed by a self-styled " libertarian leftist, " and there are some heavily loaded questions designed to push scores to the left. For example: 1. " If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. " Who can disagree with that? Of course, the question is flawed because it assumes that the two are necessarily at odds. 2. " Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily respect the environment. " I would agree with this, but that doesn't mean that I support stronger environmental regulations, only that I think that corporations should be vulnerable to lawsuits (and perhaps criminal charges against those directly responsible) from those whom (or whose property) they damage. 3. " Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. " Sure, but I'm talking about the government, and he's talking about the stock market. 4. " The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. " Of course not. They should also obey the laws. But that's not what he's talking about. Also, there were questions that had nothing to do with politics, such as the definition of art, the relative importance of businessmen and writers, the morality of extramarital sex, the validity of astrology, multiculturalism, etc. I have some conservative social and cultural views, and that pushed me quite a bit to the north, even though I don't believe in imposing them on others. In reality, I'm a very strong libertarian, which puts me very close to the lower-right corner. On this test, I came up around 5.5/-2.5. This put me slightly left (and quite a bit south) of W. Bush (which is a joke, because he's fairly moderate on economic issues). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 I was going to write a reply to your post on this but I decided that " me too " was sufficient. DMM --- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " The Lucey-Weinhold Family " <lucewein@e...> > > > > > I'm trying to think through my OWN > > > positions on some of this stuff. Like, I used to think I > > > was conservative, and now I find that I am defined > > > as a liberal! > > > > If modern political definitions interest you, you might want to take > the > > quiz at > > http://www.politicalcompass.org > > I've taken that test before, and I think it's horribly flawed. First of > all, " libertarian left " is a misnomer. They're not libertarians-- they're > socialists, and socialism is decidedly antilibertarian. Libertarianism > is not just about the right to drugs, sex, and rock and roll; property > rights are just as important, if not more so (in fact, I would argue > that the former depends on the latter), and the defining characteristic > of the so-called " libertarian left " is that it denies the importance of > (and in fact strongly opposes) property rights. > > Also, the test was clearly designed by a self-styled " libertarian > leftist, " and there are some heavily loaded questions designed to push > scores to the left. For example: > > 1. " If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve > humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. " > > Who can disagree with that? Of course, the question is flawed because it > assumes that the two are necessarily at odds. > > 2. " Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily respect the > environment. " > > I would agree with this, but that doesn't mean that I support stronger > environmental regulations, only that I think that corporations should be > vulnerable to lawsuits (and perhaps criminal charges against those > directly responsible) from those whom (or whose property) they damage. > > 3. " Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate > money and contribute nothing to their society. " > > Sure, but I'm talking about the government, and he's talking about the > stock market. > > 4. " The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a > profit to its shareholders. " > > Of course not. They should also obey the laws. But that's not what he's > talking about. > > Also, there were questions that had nothing to do with politics, such as > the definition of art, the relative importance of businessmen and > writers, the morality of extramarital sex, the validity of astrology, > multiculturalism, etc. I have some conservative social and cultural > views, and that pushed me quite a bit to the north, even though I don't > believe in imposing them on others. > > In reality, I'm a very strong libertarian, which puts me very close to > the lower-right corner. On this test, I came up around 5.5/-2.5. This > put me slightly left (and quite a bit south) of W. Bush (which is > a joke, because he's fairly moderate on economic issues). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Thank you, , for putting so clearly and concisely into words what I felt about the political compass test. I also came out a conservative libertarian, but much closer to the center than I would have thought. I knew I felt uncomfortable with certain questions (the same ones you mentioned), because I felt like if you were a decent person you had to answer one way because of the wording, even if the answer didn't truly reflect your politics. I also felt the morality questions skewed the results, because as a religious person, I am morally very conservative, but as a libertarian, don't believe the state should impose morality on its citizens. I also felt libertarianism and liberalism were incompatible, and that extremely idealistic people would test in the lower left quadrant. How can you want the government to stay out of your business and grant extreme freedoms, and also want business tightly regulated and the weak taken care of by the government? It sounds like an ideal world... nobody tells you what to do, and all your needs are provided. But who owns those corporations but people whose freedoms are being restricted? In order to give the government the power to take care of you that way, you have to give up a great deal of freedom by necessity. And governmental systems cannot be trusted not to use that lack of freedom to do things you never intended. By my understanding of human nature, it's an either or proposition. Be free and have to take care of yourself and your loved ones, or trade your freedoms for the goverment's social protection. Obviously there is a spectrum between these two things, but I'd much rather err towards too much freedom. By the way, this isn't a criticism of those of you who tested in the lower left quadrant. Just that the label given you isn't really accurate. , ditto to your " me too. " I probably didn't need to add anything to 's message either ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 I'm new to this list, and so probably shouldn't be jumping into an O.T. thread between long time friends on the list, but... I just had to jump in on this one. I'm also a libertarian and agree with . I remember the first time I heard Noam Chomsky refer to himself as a " libertarian socialist " . I nearly choked, and assumed that this was just an odd label coined by Chomsky himself, and used only by himself. I was later appalled to find out that many characterize themselves as such. As indicates, " libertarian socialist " is an oxymoron. Libertarianism places the individual and his/her rights above the interest of the state, or any other collective. It's the exact opposite of socialism. " Libertarian " is being used differently by the designer of this test than by most libertarians. In any case, to be able to properly design such a test, the designer would his/herself need to be free of any political bias of any sort. Where do you find such a person, and what do you call _them_?! --- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...> wrote: > > I've taken that test before, and I think it's horribly flawed. First of > all, " libertarian left " is a misnomer. They're not libertarians-- they're > socialists, and socialism is decidedly antilibertarian. Libertarianism > is not just about the right to drugs, sex, and rock and roll; property > rights are just as important, if not more so (in fact, I would argue > that the former depends on the latter), and the defining characteristic > of the so-called " libertarian left " is that it denies the importance of > (and in fact strongly opposes) property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 , Boy, Noam Chomsky just can't win! He usually calls himself an " anarchist " but most or lots of the American anarchists hate him and consider him a " reformist. " Then he calls himself " libertarian " and... lol! Anyway, Chomsky is using the term " libertarian " from a very old American tradition of libertarian socialism. It goes back almost to the foundations of the country. One of the first users of the word was one of the ones hung over the Haymarket affair whose father fought in the revolutionary war. So it's certianly not a modern usage. What probably confuses it more is the use of " socialist, " as I'm sure Chomsky's idea of socialism and your idea of socialism are pretty disparate. Anyway, the proper term for what you and espouse would be " liberalism, " not " libertarianism, " which is of course confounded by the modern Democratic hijacking of the phrase. But either keep the cake or eat it-- the words should either be used in the modern American emasculated devoid-of-historical-context ways, or in their traditional ways in which they honestly reflect the traditions they came from. Chris In a message dated 9/3/03 11:40:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, liberty@... writes: > 'm new to this list, and so probably shouldn't be > jumping into an O.T. thread between long time friends > on the list, but... I just had to jump in on this one. > I'm also a libertarian and agree with . I > remember the first time I heard Noam Chomsky refer to > himself as a " libertarian socialist " . I nearly choked, > and assumed that this was just an odd label coined by > Chomsky himself, and used only by himself. I was later > appalled to find out that many characterize themselves > as such. As indicates, " libertarian socialist " > is an oxymoron. Libertarianism places the individual and > his/her rights above the interest of the state, or any > other collective. It's the exact opposite of socialism. > " Libertarian " is being used differently by the designer > of this test than by most libertarians. In any case, to > be able to properly design such a test, the designer would > his/herself need to be free of any political bias of any > sort. Where do you find such a person, and what do you > call _them_?! " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 In a message dated 9/3/03 5:34:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kristenchavez@... writes: > I also felt libertarianism and liberalism were incompatible, and > that extremely idealistic people would test in the lower left > quadrant. How can you want the government to stay out of your > business and grant extreme freedoms, and also want business > tightly regulated and the weak taken care of by the government? > It sounds like an ideal world... nobody tells you what to do, and > all your needs are provided. Regardless of whether you *want* to live in such an environment, hasn't Sweden more or less accomplished this? I've talked to people who live/have lived in Sweden, and it sounds very close to the " ideal " libertarian left. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Thanks for the reply, Chris! I know next to nothing about Sweden, so I can't really respond... but you've piqued my interest. I'm definitely going to learn more about how the country works. It's hard for me to imagine that they haven't given up a lot of economic freedoms in exchange for a more " socialist " (if that's what they are) government. I've changed my mind enough times in my life to have learned not to be too dogmatic about certain things... especially politics! I'll try to keep my mind open (at least a crack!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:46:53 -0700 " Berg " <bberg@...> wrote: > > 3. " Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate > money and contribute nothing to their society. " > > Sure, but I'm talking about the government, and he's talking about the > stock market. > ROTFLMAO!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.