Political Quiz

[arensky]

Made in the USA, but probably applicable anywhere. For non- USA people the Libertarian Party (very small but growing) advocates complete governmental non-interference in almost all aspects of citizen's lives and an isolationist foreign policy. They are generally considered to be conservatives in the USA but some of their views are "far left".  "Statist" is not an American political party.

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[prometheus]

Ok, in the US political terms have been 'destroyed' for the sake of political gain, a bit how Orwell described in his essay on the topic.

US = the rest of the world

libertarian = liberal
liberal = socialist
socialist = communist
communist = terrorist

Of course this is a bit crude but you get the idea.

I am a liberal socialist, which means libertarian socialist in the US. And don't let people tell you the two don't work together.

It's the far left idea that strongly opposes the other far left idea of Marxism. It can be called anarchism.

Ok, I have done this one before and I remember everyone agreed that this one was bad. Now all quizes are going to be 'bad' but this one really is. Not only is it very crude and simple, without any nuance, it is also focussed on the US.

So I am a liberal according to this test, hanging towards libertarianism. But I really can't agree with the US form of libertarianism. I don't like capitalism, for example.

[contrapunctus]

I am a liberal socialist, which means libertarian socialist in the US. And don't let people tell you the two don't work together.

Libetarianism is a near opposite of socialism. In Socialism there is no private property, no free market, etc. Libertarians want a free market and a very small government that keeps up the police and fire departments, etc.  Libetarians and Socialists cannot work together.

[arensky]

As I knew before I took the quiz, I am a centrist. A social liberal and free market fiscal conservative. 

[Barbosa-piano]

 As I would have guessed, I am a conservative, but I do not think we should classify ourselves anything when it comes to a republic. You want the best for the people, and in a republic, the people is the key factor. I think it is important for a country to:

Have a strong military (to denfend your way of life, freedom, and belongings);
Have a strong government that understands the need to defend the so called unalienable rights;
Impose morality in a soft way;
Support education, especially scientific studies;
Provide for the welfare, including a successful medical system.
I am satisfied with the American government, but I wonder why governments of countries as for example, the U.K. are so equally successful.
In Brazil, great part of the politics are centrists or center-leftists (liberals), and a few resemble conservatives.

 One thing I dislike in the American government today is the telephone wire-taping- Although it can be effective on fighting terrorism- I believe that it is an abuse of our rights, the same thing would happen in the Soviet Union, or other such governments.

[arensky]

Ok, in the US political terms have been 'destroyed' for the sake of political gain, a bit how Orwell described in his essay on the topic.

US = the rest of the world

libertarian = liberal
liberal = socialist
socialist = communist
communist = terrorist

Of course this is a bit crude but you get the idea.

I am a liberal socialist, which means libertarian socialist in the US. And don't let people tell you the two don't work together.

It's the far left idea that strongly opposes the other far left idea of Marxism. It can be called anarchism.

Ok, I have done this one before and I remember everyone agreed that this one was bad. Now all quizes are going to be 'bad' but this one really is. Not only is it very crude and simple, without any nuance, it is also focussed on the US.

So I am a liberal according to this test, hanging towards libertarianism. But I really can't agree with the US form of libertarianism. I don't like capitalism, for example.

Oh boy, an anarchist! How cute!

Anarchy is a utopian daydream. It cannot exist. External authority will always arise, to quell the inevitable fighting between the different factions that will arise out of the complete freedom that anarchy would engender. Someone or something will always be taking charge. End of anarchy. End of subject.

[arensky]

I am satisfied with the American government, but I wonder why governments of countries as for example, the U.K. are so equally successful.

 One thing I dislike in the American government today is the telephone wire-taping- Although it can be effective on fighting terrorism- I believe that it is an abuse of our rights, the same thing would happen in the Soviet Union, or other such governments.

Of course you are satisfied with the American government! You are in Brazil! 

The American system is based on the English parliamentary system, without the Monarch and the Prime Minister. The American President combines their functions and duties into one branch of government. Except for technicalities the two systems are virtually the same.

Yeah wire tapping is bad, but it was probably going on anyway. And in most other countries. It would be foolish and naive to think otherwise.... 

[cosine]

It puts me as a Libertarian. Now, economically I am, socially I'm a little more conservative, and morally I'm a pretty strict conservative. Usually my moral views are enough for people to say I'm conservative, not libertarian.  I get Libertarian on the quiz though becasue it doesn't really quiz you of your moral views.

Just thought I'd point out a little "weak spot," so to speak, in the quiz.

[Barbosa-piano]

Of course you are satisfied with the American government! You are in Brazil!

The American system is based on the English parliamentary system, without the Monarch and the Prime Minister. The American President combines their functions and duties into one branch of government. Except for technicalities the two systems are virtually the same.

Yeah wire tapping is bad, but it was probably going on anyway. And in most other countries. It would be foolish and naive to think otherwise....

     I am sorry, I probably didn't make it clear... I have been living in the United States for almost 3 years. And you made a good point, this wire-taping has probably been going on for a while.
     I am quite disapointed with the elected president of Brazil. His foreign policy is a joke. He chased for friends at the U.N. by leading the invasion of Haiti and overthrowing the rebelious government with his allies, after the president of Haiti desperatly seeked for help. This is very good, but Brazil never got anything in return, and just wasted money on the war, on a time that such is unthinkable.
     His project, Zero-Hunger, has proven to be a success, but all it does is to feed the starving people, not make them self-sufficient.
     Perhaps the best thing he did, was to invest on the training of the first Brazilian astronaut, who just came back from space on a Russian Soyuz. This could mean the true begining of Brazilian space exploration.
     Well, there will be another election.

     

[prometheus]

Libetarianism is a near opposite of socialism. In Socialism there is no private property, no free market, etc. Libertarians want a free market and a very small government that keeps up the police and fire departments, etc.  Libetarians and Socialists cannot work together.

Why can't there be no private property and a free market? I mean, if everyone shares everyhing what kind of restrictions do you have?

End of anarchy. End of subject.

First of, even if this is impossible it doesn't mean I can't prefer it. No one says they don't want world peace because it is impossible.

Secondly, it has worked in the past on a small scale. The only way it was destroyed in those cases was because of outside sources.
Some people have claimed that capitalism is the only natural thing to develop with total freedom. But this is not true according to many people. First of, we don't have capitalism today, we have something that can be called neo-capitalism; capitalism is flawed. Furtermore, capitalism requires laws. Corporations are legal entities. They have more rights than people and they are immortal. If we abolish these laws then we will have a different system than we have today.

It is also very silly to claim democratic govermental power shouldn't exist but tyranic private power should exist. Power always have to be justified. If you have a power that is to help the weak then you have a good justification. But if you have power because you have money and to make more money, often at the cost of others, then this is not a justification of power.

Anarchy wil just be complete democracy. So I will support it, even if humans cannot do it. And frankly I am not sure if it will ever work.


I was also shocked to see that someone thinks that the government should impose morality. Why oh why should they do that? Isn't the government just a tool of the population to organise some things nationally? Aren't they there to serve their people in those fields they are needed?

[lisztisforkids]

Anarchy is just silly  .

[prometheus]

Strong argument.

[lisztisforkids]

I do not wish to jump into a argument about Anarchy. Anarchy is just a completely silly notion in todays age, and a uttelry impossible one... Interestingly though, im a Libertarian.

[ahinton]

I am satisfied with the American government, but I wonder why governments of countries as for example, the U.K. are so equally successful.

In the light - and the manner - of another contributor who has already answered your Brazilocentric view of the  "American government", I must wonder if in fact you are not actually in Brazil at all but on some other planet altogether if you believe that the UK government is "successful"...

Best,

Alistair

[fencingfellow]

Why can't there be no private property and a free market? I mean, if everyone shares everyhing what kind of restrictions do you have?

If there is no private property, there is no free market because nobody has any goods to sell.
In fact, there is no market at all, because everybody already shares everything.

[johnny-boy]

If there is no private property, there is no free market because nobody has any goods to sell.
In fact, there is no market at all, because everybody already shares everything.

All of the above sounds like a bloody nightmare to me. Without property rights there are no rights.

John

[prometheus]

It may not be a market in the way economics like to define it but surely you will have a market of people willing to share stuff with each other.

Also, property is theft.
In an anarchistic utopia people have no reason to want to own anything. It means denying something from other people. Why would you want to do that?
This doesn't mean you won't have a house. It just means there isn't a law supporting you when you want to deny something from someone else. Something that happens all the time in a 'real' free market.
You can still have people buying and trading stuff. It is just that you have no legal reason to claim something for yourself. It does not mean people aren't willing to pay any money for what you have. Really, it is not fundamentally different from anything one could imagine. It is just unrealistic that people will behave that way.

[lisztisforkids]

In an anarchistic utopia people have no reason to want to own anything. It means denying something from other people. Why would you want to do that?

Rubbish.. Anarchy is every man for himself.

[fencingfellow]

You can still have people buying and trading stuff. It is just that you have no legal reason to claim something for yourself. It does not mean people aren't willing to pay any money for what you have. Really, it is not fundamentally different from anything one could imagine. It is just unrealistic that people will behave that way.

In this environment you describe, this is not possible.  In a complete anarchistic society, as you have defined it, all people have free access to all things.  We can thereby assume there is no money, as nobody would need to buy anything since they can just take it.
People always want to claim things for themselves, it is base instinct of our species to claim ownership.  Money is one thing society has developed to combat this, but there would be no money in this society anyway, so everybody would have no reason to *not* claim things for themselves, absolutely.

Sorry, I am sure the argument for such a society can be convincingly made, but yours has too many holes!   

[johnny-boy]

It may not be a market in the way economics like to define it but surely you will have a market of people willing to share stuff with each other.

Also, property is theft.
In an anarchistic utopia people have no reason to want to own anything. It means denying something from other people. Why would you want to do that?
This doesn't mean you won't have a house. It just means there isn't a law supporting you when you want to deny something from someone else. Something that happens all the time in a 'real' free market.
You can still have people buying and trading stuff. It is just that you have no legal reason to claim something for yourself. It does not mean people aren't willing to pay any money for what you have. Really, it is not fundamentally different from anything one could imagine. It is just unrealistic that people will behave that way.

Fine if you want to live this way (join a commune), but if anyone tries to shove this idiocy on me they won't take me alive.

As far as denying others of what I have; let them earn it the same way I did - with hard work.

John

[prometheus]

Rubbish.. Anarchy is every man for himself.

That is non-sense. It is the opposite. Capitalism is every man for himself. Plus, there are undemocratic tyranic power enities who make the game unfair. Look at what Jonny-boy said. That is what capitalism teaches. If you complain, work harder, or cheat more.

In an archanistic society like I describe it, from the libertarian socialistic point of view, there is no law that forces you to share everything. There is no law against money or trade just as there is no law to protect it. How society turns out depends enterely on the community we are talking about. So saying there can be no money is not true. It is perfectly possible to pay someone money for something.
So to say there is no property is not correct. There is property as long as people repect it, that means as long as it is justified. So this prevents abuse of property supported by the law which we see in almost all existing societies.

This way it protects abuse of power like we see in other types of societies. The only problem is that it is not realistic. But if that is the only flaw it stands pretty strong.

it is base instinct

Surely it is also a basic instict to share. Actually, one could made a case that our society tells us we want to own things through commercials and thus the behavior we see now is not that natural.

but if anyone tries to shove this idiocy on me they won't take me alive.

The beauty is that this is the only form of society where no one is forced to do anything. In all other societies we are forced to do something. In communism it is active enforcement. In capitalism, or that what we incorrectly call capitalism today, it is passively enforced.

As far as denying others of what I have; let them earn it the same way I did - with hard work.

There are many many people in the world that work harder than you and have less. So this logic doesn't work. Furthermore, I don't see how you can still justify denying something essential from someone just because you work harder. The only reason people believe in this is because it is good for the economy. That is not an ethical argument.

[contrapunctus]

To Prometheus:

As a member of the Homo sapiens species, I realize that all human life is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things. Our life span is so small compared to how old the universe is that we cannot possible be of any consequence to anything. Our life is a useless waste of stardust.

So, you may as well enjoy your little life to the fullest. Even if that means exploiting others and taking what they have because life doesn't matter, whatsoever.

Whoever is the best at manipulation of others gets to live the best life, even though it is all an illusion anyway.

Poor people make good cannon fodder.

[fencingfellow]

Poor people make good cannon fodder.

 

Compassion?

[ahinton]

Poor people make good cannon fodder.

Only if there are also sufficient wealthy people to manufacture and fire the cannons...

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

some of them i said maybe because im not american, randomly

but i guess im a left leaning centrist, i believe in freedom, with some boundaries, and i believe that being 'liberal' and having 'good moral values' arent disparate qualities, in fact, more to the contrary.

[arensky]

To Prometheus:

As a member of the Homo sapiens species, I realize that all human life is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things. Our life span is so small compared to how old the universe is that we cannot possible be of any consequence to anything. Our life is a useless waste of stardust.

So, you may as well enjoy your little life to the fullest. Even if that means exploiting others and taking what they have because life doesn't matter, whatsoever.

Whoever is the best at manipulation of others gets to live the best life, even though it is all an illusion anyway.

Poor people make good cannon fodder.

You are a sick little ****

[arensky]

Why can't there be no private property and a free market? I mean, if everyone shares everyhing what kind of restrictions do you have?


First of, even if this is impossible it doesn't mean I can't prefer it. No one says they don't want world peace because it is impossible.

In the first statement above you contradict yourself. In a market we buy or trade stuff that we NEED. It becomes OURS, we can share it if we wish. It is property. If you say you have to share, and there is no private property, THOSE ARE RESTRICTIONS!!!

In your  property free "utopia" there would have to be a warehouse or central building where the commodities were kept. Someone (are they honest?) would have to oversee the comodities to make sure that no one took more than their fair share, and the amount of the fair share would have to be determined, and the arguements/fighting will start, end of utopia. You do not understand human nature, it is very obvious.

Get it? Your views are flawed. You have been indoctrinated by who knows who or what. They are lying to you. Your lala land does not and never will exist. You can prefer what you want, but that doesn't make it possible. Your societal construct is artificial, and will remain in the realm of fantasy.

[prometheus]

Uuh, your view is flawed. There is no fundamental difference between that utopian society and our society, except that there is no law to protect property and therefore there is no denying of something. Nothing more. So only the abuse of property is removed. The rest is the same.

Property is not the most important point of libertarian socialism. The dismanteling of institutions of power; the government and private power, not private property. This means no one can own the means of production. No one can own a factory. The factory belongs to the workers in the factory. It is a bit silly to say that someone needs to work harder to own a car if that person is building your car. This is what happens today. Corporations are tyranic. Everyone is suspicious and critical about the power of government. But no one is critical about private power, which are getting more powerful than nations. How can you say a society is democratic when the most powerful institutions in that society are runned as dictatorships?

When I talk about property you need to think of property of land, factories, labor etc. Not about your food or your car. The 'problem' arises when you have two cars and your neighbour has none. Then you can talk with him and make an arrangement. But if you don't then nothing happens. Just as in this society.
The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that made the statement "Property if theft." also made the statement "Property is freedom." There is nothing against 'individual ownership' or 'use rights' in this way of thinking.

[johnny-boy]

Socialism has always tried to make every one equal. But it doesn’t work. We aren’t equal. We all have different degrees of intelligence and talent. The free market rewards those accordingly – and rightfully so.

In your perfect society a bum that has no desire to improve him/herself and does the least amount of work he/she can get away with would be equally rewarded (even more so). What incentive would the ambitious, hardworking souls have to advance in their fields?

Socialism’s philosophy; “each according to his/her needs”. Which means some irresponsible couple could pump out several children they can’t support and be rewarded with a bigger slice of the “collective” pie. While the hardworking responsible man would be penalized in the name of helping his collective brothers and sisters. It wouldn’t take long to kill the spirit of the ambitious, talented, and intelligent ones.

Remember, material commodities don’t grow on trees – they have to be produced. What incentive would these manufacturers have if they had to give their product away?

It’s hard to believe people are still buying into this failed philosophy. I guess the under-achievers see this philosophy as a way of gaining something they could never have competing in a free society.

John

[ahinton]

Socialism has always tried to make every one equal. But it doesn’t work. We aren’t equal. We all have different degrees of intelligence and talent. The free market rewards those accordingly – and rightfully so.

This - and much of the rest of what you write - may come across as plausible enough but, speaking as a composer, I am obligated to argue that "the free market" does NOT necessarily reward anyone "accordingly" – or "rightfully so"; this is at the heart of one of the grave errors of understanding perpetrated by - and during the régime of -  UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s - which is that not everything is economically profit-driven or profit-capable. This kind of "thinking" fails dismally to recognise that there are some things that, when run properly, are capable of generating profits and should therefore do so and some others which, however they are run, are not. You are absolutely right to state that none of us is "equal" in any sense to any other one of us, but this does not mean that everything can therefore be financially profitable as long as it is organised and run with the utmost efficiency. Just try making and realising an intrinsic financial profit out of a piece of piano music - or rather don't. I am not seeking to undermine the rest of what you write - merely to point out that life is not quite as simple in these matters as you may perhaps believe it to be. There are those who are capable of creating substantial profits in business - and there are those of us who need to tap into parts of those profits in order for there to be funding for that we do what we do as artists; the profits need to be spent on something, so I do not see this as intrinsically immoral. This fact, however, does not catapult us composers into the "bum" class to which you draw attention (not that I am claiming that you suggest that it does, of course).

Best,

Alistair

Best,

Alistair

[johnny-boy]

"Just try making and realising an intrinsic financial profit out of a piece of piano music - or rather don't." - Alistair

I have, and it takes determination and hard work.

I don't think of musicians as being bums - only if they're sponging off of society. If a musician can't make a living with his/her music, then in the mean time he/she should find other ways to support him/herself - not steal it from other hardworking stiffs.

Too many people use and abuse the system to collect the unearned.

Best, John

[ahinton]

"Just try making and realising an intrinsic financial profit out of a piece of piano music - or rather don't." - Alistair

I have, and it takes determination and hard work.

And even then, it cannot be guaranteed to work successfully, however good the pieces may be - but then that is not a "whinge" or complaint but an acceptance of the fact that not everything fits into the neat, albeit generally useful and valuable, profit-making scheme of things.

I don't think of musicians as being bums - only if they're sponging off of society.

I'm sure that you don't. But then you write

If a musician can't make a living with his/her music, then in the mean time he/she should find other ways to support him/herself - not steal it from other hardworking stiffs.

...which could be seen as a little short-sighted in some instances, since the ability or otherwise of certain musicians to make a successful living out of what they do may have nothing to do with laziness or lack of ability.

Too many people use and abuse the system to collect the unearned.

Too true - but, at the same time, that is not necessarily the whole story where musicians are concerned.

Best,

Alistair

[johnny-boy]

Yes, there are no guarantees in a free society - only opportunities and possibilities (which doesn't exist in a "slave" society - Socialism).

I don't see the short-sightedness in my statement: If a musician can't make a living with his/her music, then in the meantime he/she should find other ways to support him/herself - not steal it from other hardworking stiffs.

I think it is rather to the point. Because there are no guarantees in a free market one may have to use other means to support oneself - rather than one's chosen field/hobby. Why does society owe a person a living in his chosen field?

Best, John

[BoliverAllmon]

As I knew before I took the quiz, I am a centrist. A social liberal and free market fiscal conservative. 

same here

[ahinton]

Yes, there are no guarantees in a free society - only opportunities and possibilities (which doesn't exist in a "slave" society - Socialism).

Of which, believe me, I am no advocate.

I don't see the short-sightedness in my statement: If a musician can't make a living with his/her music, then in the meantime he/she should find other ways to support him/herself - not steal it from other hardworking stiffs.

I think it is rather to the point. Because there are no guarantees in a free market one may have to use other means to support oneself - rather than one's chosen field/hobby. Why does society owe a person a living in his chosen field?

If you cannot see it, that is up to you; I am not trying to undermine it altogether - far from it - it is its balance and particularity which seems to me to sell your idea short. "Society" (to the extent that there is such a thing) does, as you imply, owe no one a living - but if certain members thereof work at something which, however good it may be, is simply by its very nature incapable of generating a financial profit in and of itself, some might argue that the fallout of a capitalist "society" is a necessary and a good thing to be available for that person to tap into in order to make it work so that such activity can continue. After all, when profits are made in a capitalist "society", they have to be spent on something; much of what is thereby spent may well constitute investment in the furtherance of what has generated that profit in the first place - but some people might also want, or at the very least not be averse, to directing some of it towards the products of artists because they want them on the walls of their mansions or performed in their theatres or concert halls.

You write about "stealing it"; do not forget that there are plenty of people around who believe that what composers do ought to be in the public domain from the word go and that there is in place some kind of divine or otherwise universal right to go and scan their work and distribute it all over the place without recourse to - let alone payment of - those composers; where do you stand on this? In any kind of "society" it must be accepted that some people will steal to get what they want but, if a certain fraternity finds its work routinely stolen, why should it not expeft all the more to tap into someone else's profiteering in order to make up for the losses occasioned by such theft? It's very much a dog-eat-dog world out there and, whilst I am not necessarily complaining about that for the sake of so doing, acceptance of that situation helps to prepare certain people who do what I do to be as economical with certain of their morals as may at any given time appear to be necessary or prudent in order to keep going. "Doing something else" in order to keep going may be one way; playing the thieves and the rest at their own game in order to carry on doing one's chosen thing may be another - and a considerable degree of ingrained hypocrisy would surely be an essential prerequisite for this latter course to be deprecated by supporters of a capitalist "society"...

Best,

Alistair

[arensky]

Uuh, your view is flawed. There is no fundamental difference between that utopian society and our society, except that there is no law to protect property and therefore there is no denying of something. Nothing more. So only the abuse of property is removed. The rest is the same.

Property is not the most important point of libertarian socialism. The dismanteling of institutions of power; the government and private power, not private property.The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that made the statement "Property if theft." also made the statement "Property is freedom." There is nothing against 'individual ownership' or 'use rights' in this way of thinking.

You are now contradicting yourself, as I knew you would.  So now private property is OK? This is a slip-slide that would make George W. Bush Sr. proud! You may continue to post. I will not respond. I refer you to marik's signature...

[prometheus]

It's not my 'contradiction'. It is part of the ideology. If you can't understand it, fine.

[johnny-boy]

if certain members thereof work at something which, however good it may be, is simply by its very nature incapable of generating a financial profit in and of itself, some might argue that the fallout of a capitalist "society" is a necessary and a good thing to be available for that person to tap into in order to make it work so that such activity can continue. - ahinton

How will it be determined who benefits from the “tapping”? If a product (which music is) is incapable of generating a profit that means there is little or no demand for the product.

The creator of such a product is always free to sell his product on his/her own (or find voluntary investors) – but why should he/she saddle the hardworking chumps with such a dead horse. 

I’ve seen this “tapping” process in progress where a small elite group can achieve their personal dreams by forcing others to pay for it.

Best, John

[ahinton]

if certain members thereof work at something which, however good it may be, is simply by its very nature incapable of generating a financial profit in and of itself, some might argue that the fallout of a capitalist "society" is a necessary and a good thing to be available for that person to tap into in order to make it work so that such activity can continue. - ahinton

How will it be determined who benefits from the “tapping”?

It won't have to be "determined"; the beneficiaries will be those able to attend performances or purchase recordings that wouldn't have been respectively given or made without that funding have been made available in the first place.

If a product (which music is) is incapable of generating a profit that means there is little or no demand for the product.

Not true. Of course there is a small amount of music capable of generating a profit, but what I am addressing here is the vast majority which is not so capable; the vast numbers of ticket sales for public performances of music and the millions of CDs purchased is hardly indicative of "little or no demand", but it remains a fact that, without exterior funding for much of this kind of activity (especially in the field of public performances), the majority of such activity would simply not occur. Why else do you suppose that so much of this activity is so heavily dependent upon all the private and public subsidy it can get from wheresoever it can attract it?

The creator of such a product is always free to sell his product on his/her own (or find voluntary investors) – but why should he/she saddle the hardworking chumps with such a dead horse.

That's up to the individual or crporate investor, not you. In the field of music that we are considering, it is far more often concert managements, opera companies and other entities rather than the creators themselves that go looking for the financial backing for performances. If you don't like this kind of thing going on, I presume that you would seek to outlaw arts organisations, charitable trusts, private and public corporations and the rest from doling out funds to contribute towards the cost of performances, especially in view of the fact that the taxpayer has eventually to meet part of the bill as a consequence of the tax relief offered to such donor organisations; just watch most of the public performances of "classical" music disappear under such a regimen. In UK, BBC funds several orchestras and there are quite a few other non-BBC orchestras in UK as well; who funds their very existence? Of course one would like net revenue from ticket sales to more than cover all the costs involved in public performances, but expecting this to happen in practice would be hopelessly unrealistic.

I’ve seen this “tapping” process in progress where a small elite group can achieve their personal dreams by forcing others to pay for it.

Well, I'm glad that you've "seen" this, but, believe me, we're not just talking about "small, élite groups" here - it's anyone and everyone that chooses to get in on the act of getting people and organisations to cough up as much money as possible - and there never is enough. There are literally hundreds of thousands of living composers alone all clamouring for attention - and that's just the composers! Imagine, for example, booking the Wigmore Hall in London (a well respected venue with a capacity of about 550) for a concert and you sell every seat; by the time you have paid the hall's costs alone you will likely suffer a loss unless you have subsidies, grants, etc. to help to back your venture - then there are the artist/s performance fees and, of course, if any music on the programme is by a composer who died less than 70 years ago, there are also royalties to be paid - and all this is before you have spent a penny in PR, publicity and marketing, newspaper and journal listings, etc. So the "demand" issue is really not the problem.

Best,

Alistair

[johnny-boy]

Alistair, we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this.

To sum this up in a “bottom line” fashion; you think it’s alright to take someone’s property (in this case money) without their consent, to use for another person’s/group’s pet project, where I don’t think a person’s property should be forcibly taken from him to support others’ dreams that they can’t achieve on a voluntary/charitable basis.

If there aren’t enough interested people to support such projects, then their dreams should be downsized to a manageable degree without extorting money from victims that have absolutely no interest in their projects.

You may wish to sum this up in a different fashion, but the above is what you’re advocating.

It’s been an interesting debate, but I think it’s time to make our concluding statements.

I’ll let you have the last word on this. It’s been interesting.

Best, John

[thalbergmad]

I’ll let you have the last word on this.

/quote]

He usually does.

[ahinton]

I’ll let you have the last word on this. It’s been interesting.

Yes, it has - and is - but (and I apologise to you here for upending your post in my responses to its individual paragraphs) please understand that I do not at all wish you to feel that anything I am about to say is - or is intended to be - the "last word" on the subject.

Alistair, we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this.

Please read on - and then let's wait and see...

To sum this up in a “bottom line” fashion; you think it’s alright to take someone’s property (in this case money) without their consent, to use for another person’s/group’s pet project, where I don’t think a person’s property should be forcibly taken from him to support others’ dreams that they can’t achieve on a voluntary/charitable basis.

Your summation is, I fear, quite incorrect. Like yourself, I have absolutely no interest in - nor do I or would I condone - the taking of anyone's property without their consent, either for the purpose of "another person’s/group’s pet project" of for any other purpose. What I have written on this subject, however forthright, does not advocate theft, embezzlement or anything else of the kind, as I am quite sure is already amply clear.

If there aren’t enough interested people to support such projects, then their dreams should be downsized to a manageable degree without extorting money from victims that have absolutely no interest in their projects.

Again, the kind of "coercion" of which you write is simply not on my agenda; in the kind of capitalist "society" that I assume you to advocate, it is up to those seeking funding for what you call their "pet projects" to put their cases for that purpose and to that end, as effectively as they can - and then hope to extract as much money as possible from whomsoever they have accordingly approached - i.e. not from unwilling "victims" (as you suggest) but from parties that they have managed successfully to convince of the virtues of making the donations sought. What you are talking about is extortion; what I am talking about is persuasion.

You may wish to sum this up in a different fashion, but the above is what you’re advocating.

I do indeed wish to sum it up in a different fashion to that which you appear erroneously to have understood, which is precisely why I have just done so as above, because what you claim I advocate is not at all what I advocate (as also explained above).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

To Thalbergmad:

I surmise that your phrase "He usually does" was not intended by you to be encapsulated in the quote that you intentionally made from "johnny-boy" but displayed as your own response to his post; as you will see, I have made clear in my response to him that I do not at all share his apparently avowed desire for me to have "the last word" on this subject - and, indeed, I hope that it doesn't become such.

But - never mind any of that - what do YOU think about this, Thal, mon cher?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

To Thalbergmad:

I surmise that your phrase "He usually does" was not intended by you to be encapsulated in the quote that you intentionally made from "johnny-boy" but displayed as your own response to his post; as you will see, I have made clear in my response to him that I do not at all share his apparently avowed desire for me to have "the last word" on this subject - and, indeed, I hope that it doesn't become such.

But - never mind any of that - what do YOU think about this, Thal, mon cher?

Best,

Alistair

Being the forum idiot, i do not understand anything about politics, nor do I wish to.

I wouldn't mind having a go at being Prime Minister, coz I would like to ban caravans.

Regards

Thal

[ahinton]

Being the forum idiot,

Who says so? Other than you, that is...

i do not understand anything about politics,

Does any one of us? - really?...

nor do I wish to.

Does any one of us? - really?...

I wouldn't mind having a go at being Prime Minister, coz I would like to ban caravans.

Now - that one is possessed of a degree of subtlety that manages quite successfully to escape the comprehension of the real forum idiot who's writing in response to you now - so a little elucidation wouldn't come amiss (especially as I suspect that quite a few other readers might also fail to understand your refeence here)...

Never mind that - Thalbergmad for UK Prime Minister, anyone? Yes, I can just see it - in 2035 or thereabouts, people will be reminiscing and saying things like "ah! - do you remember the good old days when the present Lord Thalbergmad was just plain Mister Thalbergmad during his Prime Ministerial term in the final days of the British monarchy? - yes, those were the days - and, sadly, we shall almost certainly never see their like again!..."

Or some such...

You really should at least put a toilet (even if only an outside one) in that remote Scottish Highland cottage tucked away in the other thread in which you mentioned it (it doesn't by some grave mischance happen to have a caravan with an immovable sitting tenant in its back garden, does it?...)

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You really should at least put a toilet (even if only an outside one) in that remote Scottish Highland cottage tucked away in the other thread in which you mentioned it (it doesn't by some grave mischance happen to have a caravan with an immovable sitting tenant in its back garden, does it?...)

Best,

Alistair

A toilet would ruin it.

A caravan could not get within 8 miles.

I post a picture of my secret hideaway in the safe knowledge that nobody knows where it is.

[ahinton]

A toilet would ruin it.

A caravan could not get within 8 miles.

I post a picture of my secret hideaway in the safe knowledge that nobody knows where it is.

OK - forget the toilet, if you must (although if the outward appearance of one might offend, you could always consider excavating to make an underground one); maybe a roof would be a better idea - at least for those times when the Scottish weather (of which, as well you must know, there is an awful lot, just like there's plenty of heather as well) is less clement than your delightful photograph of that pre-Prime Ministerial bolt-hole somewhere within an hour of Achnasheen shows...

Best,

Alistair

[letters]

i was a liberal

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%

[pianistimo]

was?  what are you now?

ok.  here's my take.  voltaire was clever with money as well as with words (quote fromsome book), and he gradually became an independently wealthy man.  in 1726, however, he ran intos ome trouble.  voltaire had already established himself as the wittiest and most brilliant conversationalist of his time.  he lacked, however, the modesty which some french aristocrats felt was appropriate for a commoner.  this led to a public dispute between voltaire and one such aristocrat, the chevalier de rohan, in which voltaire's wit got him the better of the verbal fighting.  soon afterwards, however, the chevalier had voltaire beaten up by a group of ruffians and, later on, thrown into the bastille.  voltaire was soon released from jail on the condition that he leave france.  he therefore went to england, where he stayed for about two and a half years.

i forget my point.  anyway - politics is really whoever has the army to back up their intentions.  too bad that wits and common sense don't really matter in a terrorist or revolutionistic situation.  not saying that people shouldn't revolt when the government becomes intolerable - but, it happens anyway whether people say they like it or not.  perhaps the only government that will solve things peacefully, is the government of God.  which can only come after a lot of fighting, if the bible is correct.  (imo, it seems to be heading exactly as prophecy said it would).  but, as others say - we can't just throw up our hands and say - here 'take us.'  defending a countries property and rights of freedom is as essential as a family defending it's individual members.

[pianistimo]

continuing with the saga of voltaire;  his stay in england proved to be a major turning point in his life.  he learned to speak and read english, and became familiar with the works of such famous englishmen as john locke, francis bacon, issac newton, and william shakespeare.  he also become personally acquainted with most of the leading english thinkers of the day.  voltaire was impressed by shakespeare and by english science and empiricism; but what most impressed him about the english was their political system.  english democracy and personal liberties presented a striking contrast to the political conditions which voltaire knew in france.  no english lord could issue a 'lettre de cachet' and thereby have voltaire summarily thrown into jail; and if for any reason voltaire were to be detained improperly, a writ of habeas corpus would soon get him released.

when voltaire returned to france, he wrote his first major philosophical work, the lettres philosophiques, usually called letters on the english.  that book, which was published in 1734 marks the true beginning of the french enlightenment.  in the 'letters on the english,' voltaire presented a generally favorable description of the british political system and of the ideas of john locke and other english thinkers.  publication of the book aroused the anger of the french authorities, and voltaire was again forced to leave paris.

he spent the most of the next fifteen years in cirey, in eastern france, where he was the lover of madame du chaltelet, the brilliant and educated wife of a marquis. () in 1750, a year after her death, voltaire went to germany at the personal invitation of frederick the great of prussia.  he spent three years at frederick's court in potsdam.  at first he got along well with the brilliant and intellectual frederick, but eventually they quarrelled and in 1753, voltaire left germany.

after leaving germany, voltaire settled on an estate near geneva, where he could be safe from both the french and prussian kings.  however, his liberal views made even switzerland a bit dangerous for him.  in 1758, therefore, he moved to a new estate in ferney, near the french-swiss border, where he would have two possible directions in which to flee in case of trouble with the authorities.  he stayed there for twenty years, pouring out literary and philosophical works...voltaire had always been a strong believer in religious toleration.

however, when he was in his late sixties, a number of particularly horrifying instances of persecution of protestants occurred in france.  aroused and outraged, voltaire dedicated himelf to an intellectual crusade again religious fanatacism.  he wrote  large numbers of political pamphlets opposing religious intolerance.  also, he took to ending all his personal letters with the words 'ecrasez l'infame' which means,'stamp out the infamous thing.'  to voltaire, 'the infamous thing' was religious bigotry and fanaticism.

(funny thing is that when he died on may 30, 1778, because of his outspokenness on anticlericalism, he could not receive a christian burial - but he was dug up thirteen years later and reburied in the pantheon in paris).  his main thrust was that he was opposed to any form of hereditary rule.  it is therefore not surprising that most of his followers came to favor democracy.

anyhew - many things are being challenged in america's democracy today.  our forefathers never saw the time that we would actually be at a 'breaking point' in how far freedom can sustain the masses that come here seeking freedom.  the economy has a hidden base (not taxed), and yet seems very necessary.  on the other hand, it seems not fair that those who are not taxed would have medical care by those who are taxed.  we, in effect, would be paying for those who are not citizens (but coming illegally into the country).  terrorists can also enter via these means.  so, we are in effect - faced with a dillema.  to continue to have wide open arms - or to slowly close the arms and become  more careful with our goods and services.  i personally favor allowing a certain time period (probably the as long as it takes to build the rest of the border wall in arizona) and warn people that after such- and-such a date they will need to prove application for citizenship to remain here legally.  if they can prove they have been productive members of society (jobs here) for the months they have lived - i think they should be able to stay -provided that they apply for citizenship.  if they have been unable to work, but have been seeking employment/education - i feel that their family members have a responsibility to get them on their feet (until they are citizens) and not the government.  if they are criminals - they should be shipped back.  i don't mean stealing a piece of bread to eat - but, car theft, etc.

we have had disaster after disaster in our country - so we cannot afford to pay for our own citizens AND those who are not interesting in becoming citizens.  we have to make it attractive (that they will know they will not be shipped back if they do prescribed things within a prescribed time limit).  this has been the american way ever since our country was founded.  that everyone gets an equal chance if they attempt to fit into the society and maintain law and order. 

that's how i feel about democracy.  i'm glad there are several parties because they balance each other out.  if we didn't have democrats, the republicans would go wild.  if we didn't have republicans, the democrats would go wild.  if we didn't have libertarians, the environment wouldn't matter.  if we didn't have conservatives, morality wouldn't be an issue.  (i don't think morality is dictated any more than what has been done in the past regarding legal issues and how they are solved).  to me, having definate differences and still getting along is the american way.  of course, it may not be soon - but i don't really know what will make things better.  civil war has never worked to solve things immediately - and with all the natural disasters- who needs a war between hispanic/american or any other form of civil war between parties who do not feel heard.  each should take their turn when their respective leaders come to power.