still... argentina netherlands and brazil are the form teams. well them and new zealandOriginally Posted by danthechan
still... argentina netherlands and brazil are the form teams. well them and new zealand
I'm actually hoping that New Zealand beats Paraguay (although I want both of these teams to move forward) & Slovakia either draws or beats Italy (hopefully draws to guarantee that Paraguay goes forward).
I think the penalty kick against New Zealand was a bit of "ticky-tacky" call. The guy fell down on his own, he wasn't tripped. Grabbing the shirt is basically done on every play by everyone so that doesn't seem worthy of PK to me.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I agree of course. also the solvak goal was offside.. we could easily be 6 points and +2 goal differential going into the paraguay game.
Netherlands will be tough to beat for the team that comes 2nd.
has someone tried out the political compass? it's a test on the internet that measures your political attitude. even though i partially find it somewhat constricted (e.g. it seems to postulate the existence of a state) it may work well to compare our different opinions. my score was -5.38,-7.90. i would recommend reading the introduction.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
on the world cup:
thank you new zealand. thank you circus of france. i hope i neither see france nor italy anytime after the group stage.
I'm slightly "authoritarian" and slightly left I think last time i did it. although I voted right in NZ and am left authoritarian in a very weak sense.
In NZ we set up a government run bank and it has generally beaten all the private banks. So it appears the government can outperform the private sector EVEN in banking which seems like one of the most unlikely areas.
Maybe the US government should have a look into it considering all of their banking troubles
aulso australia has compulsary super which explains why they own half of NZ...
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-20-2010 at 06:32 AM.
Ive taken it a few years ago. It seems Ive change some, and I seem to be fairly close to you. I use to be further libertarian and more centered, but now it says -6.62 Economic right left and -7.28 Libertarian/Authoritarian.
i ended up in the exact same spot as the dalai lama lol
I agree it assumes the existence of a state but it's a cool idea. Here's mine:
Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21
I think it's still somewhat unclear though as I suspect someone with similar numbers as myself might have arrived at those numbers via a completely different path. That's the issue with only single numbers for assessment. In graph theory, the path actually matters & there's no indication of one's path. I guess that would be a question of values perhaps.
I like the 4 levels of answers. I have my own personal theory there are at least 4 basic political ideas:
1. "I/we" can govern best. (the dictators, theocracies, communists, etc...).
Essentially little-to-no freedom.
2. "Big" government is "good" government. (liberal)
3. "Small" government is "good" government. (conservative)
Both 2 & 3 have some freedom but in different areas due to differing values/perspectives. Both have safety nets, in different ways.
4. No government is "good" government. (nature, anarchist)
Total freedom, no safety net.
I'd say there are great number of #1's (there are a ton of dictatorships of one form or another throughout the world), #2's, with slightly less #3's but still good numbers. #4's are a teeny minority & completely marginalized in any political discussion. So perhaps the assumption of a "state" isn't all that bad of an assumption.
Cool site though, I like the idea. It's definitely true that politics is more than a single dimensional equation.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-20-2010 at 08:12 AM.
???? it barely started.. brazil hasnt played second game, they probably will win.. they won their first one..
the usa almost won one, but when they scored the 3rd goal, it was offsides... i cant say i was angry thoughhehehe
so it was a tie for the usa..
the crowd went wild!
the political theory of anarchism is held by a teeny minority? i wouldn't base my knowledge on what i know about discontent and frustrated teenagers that like punk rock.
anyway, the state issue isn't the only one. sometimes it matters if you interpret the questions literally or if you try to reflect about what is actually intended. do i think it's a significant advantage of a one party system that democratic discussions are skipped? well i suppose this is arguable. but this is much likely not what the question is about. other times the questions are relative because no certain definition exists. you ask if there are primitive civilizations. if "primitive" means "not the way of life currently exercised by the western civilizations" (which it usually means in sciences) then i would say yes. but this, again, probably isn't what is asked. i had to do the test a few times before i reinterpreted some of this stuff.
ok nvm.. brazil just finished, they won.. 6 points..
i want Mexico to win, but i should be realistic, any top 4 spot will be fine..
Mexico has never won the world cup.always brazil brazil brazil... and italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup
hmm 1966 soviet union got forth place.. lol
brazil played their second game today against côte d'ivoire and won 3-1. by that they have already proceeded to the quarter final.
i really hope the us advances. i always like the underdogs. besides, i hope a successful american world cup makes the sport more popular at home. i feel a lot of good footballers are missing because 300 million people like playing other sports than football. and maybe they meet germany there. then, of course, fun has ended
I think it's a small percentage of the 6+ billion people that truly believe that no government of any kind is best. I could be wrong & maybe everyone is a closet anarchist but I doubt it.
I agree on your other comments & maybe I'll take it a few more times myself.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
rewatch the replay he has his eyes closed, its not a red card at all, for it to be red it has to be intentional , which it wasnt
Last edited by bumbumalot; 06-20-2010 at 08:52 AM.
The 2nd yellow card (which means red card) for Kaka was a complete joke. The refereeing in this World Cup makes me think that FIFA got the refs from "Refs-R-Us". Just pathetic.brazil played their second game today against côte d'ivoire and won 3-1. by that they have already proceeded to the quarter final.
i really hope the us advances. i always like the underdogs. besides, i hope a successful american world cup makes the sport more popular at home. i feel a lot of good footballers are missing because 300 million people like playing other sports than football. and maybe they meet germany there. then, of course, fun has ended
I hope the USA can pull it off. I'm still pissed about that 3rd goal being called back.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
i can't recall what it was but i remember that i was convinced he should have gotten a straight red card for that.
yes i hate when referees decide games like that. this should be obviated in the future. i am definitely for video demonstration (that's discussed regularly).
okay i just saw it again. it's obviously not a straight red but when kaka does useless things like that he takes the risk of consequences. a yellow card is defensible. i wish his opponent could get a yellow card, too, for his whining.
Last edited by ShowtekGER; 06-20-2010 at 09:22 AM.
ABC had Jürgen Klinsmann as commentator & he said the Brazilian coach should have taken Kaka out once it was 3-0 & he had his first yellow card so as to not risk a second yellow. I agree with this. It was bad coaching. As far as the call, I think it was totally bogus. I have more contact with my kids in the backyard playing soccer than that. The guy basically ran into him & Kaka simply put up his arm to protect himself, a perfectly natural reaction & the guy does a dive grasping his face to the ground. That's one aspect of international soccer that I hate. All the dives. Basically no one ever gets hurt for real, they just all try to sway the referees & every player does it. Makes me sick really.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-20-2010 at 11:28 AM.
Well anarchy is a state of existence thats almost impossible to persist in a healthy fashion, due to the fact that in order for the idea be practiced successfully, we would have to have a 0% 'crime' rate, and the people within a society lacking a government would have to be fully cooperative and, for lack of a better word, 'generous'. Spirtually and/or morally, i doubt many people are fit for this type of lifestyle, as most people would flock to gang psychology and live their lives leaching off of others in an attempt to dominate resources rather than harmonizing with those nearby and creating a system of distribution etc, leaving the others to live in state of scarcity and a heightened general level of fear. Just my thoughts anyway.
I agree with you. I've got a friend who's an anarchist but I can't join him due to reasons you mention. However, I do think simplification is a key principle/take-away from anarchy that I think is a genuinely helpful principle for thinking/architecting any system design, including political systems.
That's what irritates me when I see system designs of any kind, electronic, political, or otherwise, that are way too complicated for anyone's benefit except those that created it. The vast majority of people feel that "complexity" is "superior" or "inevitable" & it really isn't in virtually all cases. It's just that it takes more effort to actually distill things to their essence vs. just throw more complexity at the problem. Kind of like Nakamichi/Mark Levinson stereo systems (very simple & aesthetically pleasing interfaces while providing the necessary functionality) vs. Sony/Pioneer (just throw buttons at the design problem creating very "busy" interfaces & the masses will come). Anyhow, you get the idea. The vast majority of people favor complexity which can usually be 90% reduced with careful distillation to the "essence" but this requires effort & discipline. Too much to ask I guess so I'm used to being in the minority usually...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-20-2010 at 11:51 AM.
Hmm i think peopel prefer simplicity in the context of what they want. The reason why you get complexity isnt that people want it, it is because they system wants a large number of interest groups to think they are getting what they want, to do that it has to confuse them all a bit.
It is kind of a market for political power with imperfect information.
Usually in the complex system the average person is annoyed by it and wishes it was simpiler - just simipiler in the way that benefits them and noone else.
Political ideologies like Libiterianism and anarchy gain quite traction as a result of everyone wanting simplicity, and by keeping the result of that simplicity hiden/vague so everyone can just assume it will make things the way they want them to be.
i was actually watching this part in my english class.. for my final.. and while we were watching i was like "what!?" because when i started class it was 1 for usa and 2 for slovenia.. then.. it was 2-2 so i was oh well.. i wanted slovenia to win, because i didnt feel so usa-ee that day.. .. so i was like well its probably gonna end a tie.. and then the usa scores again, and the referee shows up.. "offsides" everyone in class cheered for the usa, but then they were mad.. lol
i felt kinda bad, i felt like i kinda jinxed something.. idk.. it felt weird.. that i was one of the few who didnt really want the usa to win..
Fair arguments for the norm, although I think Libertarianism has a better handle on some of the implementation issues than Anarchy which is essentially just wishful-thinking as Aheadatime stated. I still favor simplicity myself, in virtually every aspect of life, not just political. I generally practice what I preach. For example, economically, I generally try to spend less than I earn. A simple economic model to be sure. I got a loan for my first house & paid it off in 3 years. After that, no more loans. Seems to work pretty well & have been doing this since I was a small child. No debt today. However, it does imply some hardships along the way (like no TV, no cable, no cellphone, no furniture, no new clothes, no eating out, etc...) until you can afford such things after basic necessities are met. Even today, we still get much of what we have from garage sales (got a full piano, like-new for $250 from divorcee garage sale, etc...), Goodwill store, even curb leftovers. That's the part people don't like as you stated. However, in general, the price of simplicity, in the long-term is much less than the price of complexity which is usually hard to determine until it's too late, just as the latest economic collapse has illustrated. The globalization of economies has created a house of cards that simply gets more of a spaghetti mess over time. It doesn't make things more stable or reliable for anyone. It just complicates matters by interconnecting all of us & makes us all more vulnerable to stupidity across the globe. Just like in computer networking. When you want to create reliability, you create distributed systems w/redundancies & firewalls between them to prevent catastrophic global failures. If you don't, then you can expect your entire network to go out a few times as hackers have a heyday with it. Oh well... what can you do? Nothing really while our "betters" figure it all out for us "little people"... They are supposed to take care of us (we're all too ignorant, stupid, & simple anyhow) right?
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
True, very true. Governmental systems, social hierarchies, industrial regulations, corporate standings, theyre all way too complex and unecessarily 'large', perhaps some of them intentionally so while others sponatneously so via the evolution of their institution. Regardless, just about everything in this world can be cut down dramatically in complexity and size, but the 'norm' is a general fear of dramatic change, regardless of the benefits to said change, simply due to a general fear of the unknown, or the possibility that such a change will 'go wrong' somehow or end up 'screwing us all'. People see institutional establishments as delicate and out of their control in a way, when we as a population are in control over what we think is out of our reach, and therefore the fragility and flexibility of these institutions (governments, corporations) is what we make it to be, or the lack thereof, allowing those in the top sector of these institutions to run away with the rules and regulations, and therefore, the complexity.
Especially when you consider the fact that this network of economic gears are turning at the hands of a select few, as the people generally feel overwhelmed by the complexities at hand and tend to shy away from accepting responsiblity of just about anything, until things go wrong, that is. Then they feel as if their voice should be heard lol, ugh.Fair arguments for the norm, although I think Libertarianism has a better handle on some of the implementation issues than Anarchy which is essentially just wishful-thinking as Aheadatime stated. I still favor simplicity myself, in virtually every aspect of life, not just political. I generally practice what I preach. For example, economically, I generally try to spend less than I earn. A simple economic model to be sure. I got a loan for my first house & paid it off in 3 years. After that, no more loans. Seems to work pretty well & have been doing this since I was a small child. No debt today. However, it does imply some hardships along the way (like no TV, no cable, no cellphone, no furniture, no new clothes, no eating out, etc...) until you can afford such things after basic necessities are met. Even today, we still get much of what we have from garage sales (got a full piano, like-new for $250 from divorcee garage sale, etc...), Goodwill store, even curb leftovers. That's the part people don't like as you stated. However, in general, the price of simplicity, in the long-term is much less than the price of complexity which is usually hard to determine until it's too late, just as the latest economic collapse has illustrated. The globalization of economies has created a house of cards that simply gets more of a spaghetti mess over time. It doesn't make things more stable or reliable for anyone. It just complicates matters by interconnecting all of us & makes us all more vulnerable to stupidity across the globe. Just like in computer networking. When you want to create reliability, you create distributed systems w/redundancies & firewalls between them to prevent catastrophic global failures. If you don't, then you can expect your entire network to go out a few times as hackers have a heyday with it. Oh well... what can you do? Nothing really while our "betters" figure it all out for us "little people"... They are supposed to take care of us (we're all too ignorant, stupid, & simple anyhow) right?
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
most of us are so used to live under a state that we don't accept the possibility that it is this artificial, confining construct that produces animosities and crime. what have rules brought us other than war and harm? there are no absolute rules that we can enforce on all humans. i won't say that i know the solution to our problems but i'm sure states don't secure a satisfying lifestyle. a perfect life would be one in which crime and other hostilities don't need to come up. which i think can be found in an anarchist reality. how exactly that may look i don't know.
"You attein perfection, not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing, to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Traduction from: La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer.
QFT, well-said. In mathematics, it's called necessary & sufficient conditions. Ahhh, the beauty of perfection.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
yeah, no.
anarchist state = lawless = rule of the guy with the big guns (or the money to buy the big guns). sure there's no crime (no laws to be broken) but that's not going to help with human nature and the drive of some people to take something they want from someone else. (be it the poor from the rich, etc etc)
back to FIFA...
ok, north korea got spanked and might as well go home now.
Chile vs swizterland.. chile goes offside way to much, ref likes to card people.
though, the guy did deserve the red card. hitting 2 people in the face within a few seconds and what looked like a dive right after that. he shouldn't be surprised.
lol. maybe you guys get over your civic imagination of "anarchism" and check out some political science. google it. to equalize anarchism with a total survival of the fittest animal like entity is just nonsense. there's a broad variety of anarchist philosophies which may be remotely summed up by a wish of absolute freedom which requires the removal of arbitrary authority.
i think if his opponent wouldn't have fallen so theatrically no red card would've been given. just give them both a yellow one IMO.back to FIFA...
ok, north korea got spanked and might as well go home now.
Chile vs swizterland.. chile goes offside way to much, ref likes to card people.
though, the guy did deserve the red card. hitting 2 people in the face within a few seconds and what looked like a dive right after that. he shouldn't be surprised.
chile just scored. the swiss will hate the referee.
yes, I know poli sci. survival of the fittest is what happens when there's total freedom and no one being a 'ref'. More civilized versions of it are the Libertarians, who would just have the .01% richest people determining everything for the masses through their 'free market' methodology (which as a theory sounds nice, but hasn't been properly put into practise due to the sad reality that the masses don't participate as the theory says they should - due to the marketing style of the same people espousing free market theories asking them not to) but in the end, no limits to actions (and thereby some 'stick' for doing the undesirable actions) just degenerates into survival of the fittest.
total free market/minimal to no gov. is equivalent to the left's farcical utopia's. neither can or will happen due to human nature.
I watched the replay a few times and he did hit both guys in the face. that's good enough for a red card in most matches.i think if his opponent wouldn't have fallen so theatrically no red card would've been given. just give them both a yellow one IMO.
chile just scored. the swiss will hate the referee.
s'ok. the swiss are being extra cheezy this game. one chilean player got yellow carded because the swiss guy on the line hit him and he pushed him (chest) with the swiss guy acting like he smacked him in the face.
and yeah. Chile was offside on that goal as well (though it did get counted this time, unlike the first goal)
these two teams are rather aggressive with each other. kind of a fun match but the ref has likely handed out more yellow cards than any other so far.
lol...
the chileans can't do much if they continue to be offside all the time.
the swiss had a great chance to tie the game right at the end, but totally blew it.
Ok, I smell straw again. Explain. Last time I checked everybody participates at their grocery store, the clothing store, car dealers, electronics stores, websites, sporting events, etc... which is the very embodiment of a "market". So the idea that masses don't participate in markets sounds like exaggeration & misrepresentation but I'd like to hear what you're trying to say.
Oh, post your scores from the political compass website. That might be enough to explain it...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
The theory is based on the fact that human are rational being. They buy the product that is the cheapest and that they (don't know in english valorise, valorize???) the most for that money. One of the biggest problem (plus the other one I've expressed in other post, that you never answered about) is the lack of information. To have a pure market, information should be free and accessible to everybody at anytime, it's impossible. The marketing is adding to this problematic, by giving false value to product. A business could offer the best product in the world at the best price, if the consumer don't know it, it won't buy it. It's not present in the traditional economics theory.
Let's be honest also. Human are not perfectly rational.
So he didn't say, they didn't participate in a market, he said that they aren't participating the way as the theory said they should.
Last edited by SVPM; 06-21-2010 at 01:47 AM. Reason: I've always dreamed to be an editor.
did others post theirs? (wasn't watching the thread much for a bit). I love that site, much better view of political leanings.
Oh, post your scores from the political compass website. That might be enough to explain it...
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
I can't remember off hand, but I think I was -3,-4 (slight Libertarian centre-left) or something like that. I'm fairly 'center' but I have odd views on some things that don't line up too well for the point on the grid.
edit: and SVPM answered for me I guess
(@ SVPM: I think you were going for something like value? Or concept of value-add for the cost?)
yes, the 'theory' for Libertarian free-market doesn't gel with the lack of knowledge and marketing practices that are out there.
granted, the Neo-con version of free markets is closer to what exists, but it's not the same as the Libertarian version (see, marketing. someone just uses the 'free market' label but changes what it means)
Last edited by MadDjinn; 06-21-2010 at 02:39 AM.
Oh, I get it. Because life isn't perfect, markets can't or don't work. This is simply a smoke-screen/straw-man.
The problem is you're asserting (or implying or trying to imply) that the market economic theory is less valid (minority of truth) rather than more valid (majority of truth) (it's either one or the other), otherwise you're talking about a secondary/tertiary effect rather than primary. If you're asserting that market economics is invalid, then I don't think I need to respond as that's simply absurd.
If you're talking about secondary/tertiary effects, then obviously markets do exist & primarily do function according to market theory. Also just because people are also irrational does not imply that irrational factors can not be taken into account in order to predict market behavior.
You are both promoting perfectionistic ideals as the rationale for rejecting market economics. Yet as long as these factors are not primary (are you telling me people don't consider cost as a major factor in purchasing decisions? I hope not especially not in a recessionary economy...) yet market economics has never claimed to be the perfect economic model (is there such a thing?). However, if there's a better model to describe human economic behavior over human history, I'd be suspicious. People naturally behave like current flow which by definition is similar to market-oriented concepts. Supply/demand, cost/benefit are real factors, not just imaginary straw men based on perfectionistic premises & idealized notions that we are all ignorant sheep incapable of independent thought (the basic collectivist premise: individuals are unable to govern themselves).
Sorry, these arguments are weak. Cost/benefit is a larger factor in how people determine purchasing decisions, especially in a recessionary economy, than advertising/marketing. No advertising/marketing campaign can make up huge cost deltas between equivalent products in such an economy. A 10-20% difference? Perhaps. But 2x or more? No way. As far as information access, how one can argue that people have less access to information in the Internet age is beyond comprehension. The Internet has given information access to a much wider array of people than at any other time in human history. No longer is the populace unable to read/write/speak Latin, etc.... & must only be fed by their "betters" although the collectivist mentality believes that's still the applicable & best model (which is my primary issue w/collectivist philosophies/practices, they presume incapacity on the part of the individual).
People are not that irrational nor that ignorant, especially as the cost increases beyond a trivial portion of their spending income in a recessionary economy. They will take more time & do more research before spending their money so now the fundamentals of cost/benefit become even more critical.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 06-21-2010 at 03:05 AM.
You really put at the extreme what I'm saying. I've never said that market is bad or evil. I think market is what is best (at the moment and for a long time already) for the allocation of most ressources. I'm saying, because market is imperfect and can be improved (because of externalities), the States should intervene by reglementing market where there is lots of negative externalities and offer services/products in market where there is lots of positive externlities. (That part you never answer).
Ok for the prices of product, but...
You want to eat. there is 2 products at the same price. One has written on it, good for the brain of your child. Most parents will buy this one, because the source of information they have access to is what is written on the box. In fact, those products can be full of fat and sugar.
A normal individual can't assume the cost (in time...) to inform himself about the good value of food and products in general. Here again government or para-public organization are the best to reduce the cost of access to that information. An ONG or university can classify products and sells it to supermarket, this way consumer can be informed at least cost. If it's a private company it's too easy to have problems, because the goal of it would be to make profit. Like credit notation company for example (Standard's and Poor...).
I'm not promoting perfectionist or idealistic or utopist notion. Where have I done that? It's your opinion about socialism that makes you give me that etiquette. In fact, you are doing that by saying things, like There will always be a private-run organisation that can do better than the public to produce... This is an absolute statement. I haven't done absolute statement. Where have I spoken of collectivism?
I agree with you that the Internet is an important improvement in the reduction of the cost of information.
Somewhere you spoke of the governement having so many employees working for them that could produce something more efficient for the economy. I agree in part on that, the new technology should and are, reducing the number of employee to produce more information and services. I think also, that the 7% GDP used in health in USA over the other developped country could really be used in a more productive way, than caring about sick people. Invest 1-2% of that in prevention and the cost will drop highly (yes there is a lots of study proving the good return-rate of investment in prevention). Also, the GDP growth in USA is due 2/3 from the consumption, so the bureaucrat as you call them are a good and stable economy driver in your country, they are less affected by the variation so healps the country go out of recession and prevents it from dropping even more.
Damn, I wanted to make it short...
Spain are going to win that one, even if their governement has spend too many money... ; )
this was my point, and to an extent, his. he mentioned that a perfect world would be one in which crimes dont need to be happening, he didnt say that crimes wouldnt exist due to the lack of law and the terminology game that lies within that statement. he meant that if people were harmonized under a general consensus rather than a body of laws being governed within a state, that anarchy would work to our advantage. however, my earlier point argued that we as a race are not ready for such a dramatic lifestyle change, as most people are so conditioned to think and perceive life as an organized hierarchy, that when if this hierarchy were to diminish, theyd simply cower in a ball or resort to gang pyschology. this is man's fault, not the theory of anarchy's fault. the flaw lies within the practice, not the theory.
An idea whose time has come
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."
This was probably deemed too obvious for the founding Fathers to put into the Constitution. It is past time this was dealt with.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote