Why do no Democrats here score on the economic right?

[FerrisBueller86]

Many of us have our political compass scores in our signatures.

There are a few Republicans here in the lower half.  There's even a Republican from Pennsylvania who's even farther left (or down, on the political compass) than I am on the libertarian/authoritarian scale.

There are a few Democrats here who score on the authoritarian side of the libertarian/authoritarian scale.  There is one Republican from California who scores in the lower left quadrant, something you expect from a Democrat.

But I can't think of even one Democrat here in the right half of the political compass.

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

[Moooooo]

Got me?  I thought I would be a little further right on the economic scale and a litle further left on the social scale.   

[Gabu]

afleitch has a Democratic avatar and is slightly on the right.

[Platypus]

and I support the left over the right, but I can't stand parties so I'm an independent. I would've voted for Kerry if I could have though.

[Colin]

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

I would die a slow and horrible death before I vote on Social Issues since if I voted on Social Issues I would be a swing voter but I only vote Economic Issues so my only swing is whether I want to vote Republican or Libertarian. I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW F**KIN MEMOS. ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER A GAY PERSON CAN MARRY.

[Lunar]

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

I would die a slow and horrible death before I vote on Social Issues since if I voted on Social Issues I would be a swing voter but I only vote Economic Issues so my only swing is whether I want to vote Republican or Libertarian. I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW F**KIN MEMOS. ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER A GAY PERSON CAN MARRY.

I disagree.  I think economic issues largely go in a circle.  If the government taxes us an extra .5% and provides us with the equivilent amount of services, then the money we would have spent on those services ends up the same way.

I'm like 0-1.5 on the economic scale by the way.

[Bono]

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

I would die a slow and horrible death before I vote on Social Issues since if I voted on Social Issues I would be a swing voter but I only vote Economic Issues so my only swing is whether I want to vote Republican or Libertarian. I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW F**KIN MEMOS. ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER A GAY PERSON CAN MARRY.

I disagree.  I think economic issues largely go in a circle.  If the government taxes us an extra .5% and provides us with the equivilent amount of services, then the money we would have spent on those services ends up the same way.

I'm like 0-1.5 on the economic scale by the way.

Except using cohercion to get money to provide those services is immoral. And wasteful too. And it doesn't work because the state doesn't have the possibility of knowing where it is better to allocate resources, where the free market simply alocates them according to the consumers' needs.

[Lunar]

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

I would die a slow and horrible death before I vote on Social Issues since if I voted on Social Issues I would be a swing voter but I only vote Economic Issues so my only swing is whether I want to vote Republican or Libertarian. I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW F**KIN MEMOS. ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER A GAY PERSON CAN MARRY.

I disagree.  I think economic issues largely go in a circle.  If the government taxes us an extra .5% and provides us with the equivilent amount of services, then the money we would have spent on those services ends up the same way.

I'm like 0-1.5 on the economic scale by the way.

Except using cohercion to get money to provide those services is immoral.

Eh, I view the government as inevitable.  While you may idealize an anarchist Utopia that will never come about, I idealize a capable and effective government that can maximize our freedom (although within the statist framework, sure).

[Bono]

Are economic issues what divide the Democrats and Republicans here?  I guess too many people missed the memo that everyone else in the country got - the one about voting based on social issues. 

I would die a slow and horrible death before I vote on Social Issues since if I voted on Social Issues I would be a swing voter but I only vote Economic Issues so my only swing is whether I want to vote Republican or Libertarian. I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW F**KIN MEMOS. ECONOMIC ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER A GAY PERSON CAN MARRY.

I disagree.  I think economic issues largely go in a circle.  If the government taxes us an extra .5% and provides us with the equivilent amount of services, then the money we would have spent on those services ends up the same way.

I'm like 0-1.5 on the economic scale by the way.

Except using cohercion to get money to provide those services is immoral.

Eh, I view the government as inevitable.  While you may idealize an anarchist Utopia that will never come about, I idealize a capable and effective government that can maximize our freedom (although within the statist framework, sure).

Read my edit.
But still, if there must be a government, it should just act as a judiciary and maybe a police force, and draw revenues from tarrifs, because to impose taxation is immoral.
But still, I think people way too often let utilitarian considerations get in the way of ethics. It is possible, you know, to be a pessimistic anarchist, altough I'm not one, but  good deal of people believe anarchy is the only moral solution, they just don't think it might work.

[afleitch]

Well spotted. I'm to the right on economic issues but im a strong supporter of gay rights and abortion rights and an opponent of capital punishment...BUT...I'm for corporal punishment in Schools to restore discipline and I am anti-immigration.

My avatar is red because I support the Democrats. I do not back the Republicans becasue I believe they are socially backward and have been taken over by Evangelists.

[Lunar]

If we view the current statist framework as inevitable, then ethics are forced to operate within that (or at best passively resist) and follow still follow utilitarianism.  I don't believe in your deontological moral maxims and am willing to let a government act as a mechanism for society to serve itself.

Both state and corporate allocation of resources have flaws.  Sometimes the state can actually be more efficient (sometimes not).

[opebo]

I scored on the economic right when I took that test.  But I consider economic issues relatively unimportant compared to social ones.  For two reasons: 1) the Democrats are quite right wing now, and would hardly change anything - just a few percentage points difference in any tax or program.  And 2) I'd much rather pay a 50% tax and have more personal freedoms than pay 25% and live in a theocracy.

[A18]

Economic freedom is the ultimate personal freedom.

[opebo]

Economic freedom is the ultimate personal freedom.

Ok.. but it isn't significantly threatened by the Democratic party.

[A18]

You don't consider a $15 an hour minimum wage a serious threat to economic freedom, so it's clear that you don't care at all about any kind of freedom.

[opebo]

You don't consider a $15 an hour minimum wage a serious threat to economic freedom, so it's clear that you don't care at all about any kind of freedom.

I never said anything about whether it was a threat to economic freedom.  I did say it makes sense for working class people - the great majority of the population, and even of the electorate - to vote for a much higher minimum wage.  And $15/hr sounded to me like about the minimum anyone could live on, realistically.

Sure it limits economic freedom a bit.  I just can't see why anyone other than the top 10% - which I guess includes you and I Philip - would care.

[Lunar]

You don't consider a $15 an hour minimum wage a serious threat to economic freedom, so it's clear that you don't care at all about any kind of freedom.

Is economic freedom all that damaged by a reasonable minimum wage?  Free-market advocates would argue that people would end up making at least enough for sustenance anyway (What $5.10 is barely capable of doing).

Note: I'm not saying 15 dollars is a reasonable minimum wage.

Of course, I believe in a minimum wage because I feel a "race to the bottom" ultimately hurts choice in the end.

[A18]

yawn. The great majority of the population does not make minimum wage, and have no interest in seeing it raised.

I don't make any money; I'm a teenager, so I'm obviously not the top 10%. As for my father, no employee gets paid minimum wage.

[Lunar]

yawn. The great majority of the population does not make minimum wage, and have no interest in seeing it raised.

I don't make any money; I'm a teenager, so I'm obviously not the top 10%. As for my father, no employee gets paid minimum wage.

So how does the minimum wage have a significant impact on our economic freedom then?

[opebo]

yawn. The great majority of the population does not make minimum wage, and have no interest in seeing it raised.

I don't make any money; I'm a teenager, so I'm obviously not the top 10%. As for my father, no employee gets paid minimum wage.

What do you mean?  No employee where he works gets paid minimum wage?  If so that's great!  

But the largest private employers in the US by far are things like Walmart, McDonalds, and temp services.  A very large percentage of their workers make minimum wage.

As for those who are currently lucky enough to make more than minimum wage, it is in their interest to see it raised, for the obvious reason that they could easily find themselves working for the minimum in the future.  It is normal for companies to lay off older workers when they are dangerously near retirement, or to lay off anyone as soon as they can move production to China or India.  Yesterday's middle class breadwinner becomes tomorrow's WalMart Greeter!

[opebo]

yawn. The great majority of the population does not make minimum wage, and have no interest in seeing it raised.

I don't make any money; I'm a teenager, so I'm obviously not the top 10%. As for my father, no employee gets paid minimum wage.

So how does the minimum wage have a significant impact on our economic freedom then?

He mean's WalMart's freedom to pay however little the market will bear.

[A18]

Well, it's just an awkward concept. It violates "natural rights" to say that you can't work, with your employer's consent, for whatever you're willing.

I don't just mean WallMart's freedom. There may be two people who want the same job at WallMart. One of them is going to miss out. It infringes upon the right of the loser to offer to work for less.

It can also drive up prices, or lower wages of other workers.

[opebo]

Well, it's just an awkward concept. It violates "natural rights" to say that you can't work, with your employer's consent, for whatever you're willing.

I don't just mean WallMart's freedom. There may be two people who want the same job at WallMart. One of them is going to miss out. It infringes upon the right of the loser to offer to work for less.

It can also drive up prices, or lower wages of other workers.

All good points Philip, nevertheless the end result of these freedoms are inevitably extremely low wages.   I would agree that a higher minimum would probably very slightly increase unemployment, but that needn't be a problem with a generous welfare state.  As for driving up prices or lowering wages of others.. the former is possible but I think probably a minor effect, the latter I think very unlikely.

[Bono]

If we view the current statist framework as inevitable, then ethics are forced to operate within that (or at best passively resist) and follow still follow utilitarianism.  I don't believe in your deontological moral maxims and am willing to let a government act as a mechanism for society to serve itself.

Both state and corporate allocation of resources have flaws.  Sometimes the state can actually be more efficient (sometimes not).

If you try and argue that coercion is necessary in society for pragmatic reasons, we stick the Austrian and other laissez faire economists up where the good Lord split ya.

[Lunar]

If we view the current statist framework as inevitable, then ethics are forced to operate within that (or at best passively resist) and follow still follow utilitarianism.  I don't believe in your deontological moral maxims and am willing to let a government act as a mechanism for society to serve itself.

Both state and corporate allocation of resources have flaws.  Sometimes the state can actually be more efficient (sometimes not).

If you try and argue that coercion is necessary in society for pragmatic reasons, we stick the Austrian and other laissez faire economists up where the good Lord split ya.

Since humans are flawed, yes, I view coercion as necessary.

Your property-rights Utopia uses a highly armed populace a form of coercion.