Scrotie's single-question political compass test

How do you define "deserving"? In a vacuum (truthful children, current anarchy, marginal benefit is binary rather than analog), Child A would probably be the most sensible recipient of the flute, mostly because waste is not ideal. I skimmed page 1 and maybe page 2 of the thread and probably agree that Child B would probably be the most Just because of individual property rights.

"

The one most deserving is the one who'd rather share the flute than fight over it.

Child D

If the exercise involved 3 adults and a house, would you still want them to share?

"

Vhlad wrote:

"

The one most deserving is the one who'd rather share the flute than fight over it.

Child D

If the exercise involved 3 adults and a house, would you still want them to share?

Hate to butt in but my answer is hell yes. Ain't nothing wrong with fully consensual polygamy.

This thread really hasn't gone where I'd hoped it would go. By which I mean I specifically wanted to draw attention to, and defend in debate, two key points:
1. Libertarianism is not right-wing but centrist, because libertarianism does not aim to wield government in favor of those who have traditionally performed well, and/or against the unproven, and/or against those who have traditionally performed poorly. In other words, "economic right" is a misnomer forged by a left-shifted Overton Window.
2. Although I disagree with extreme rightwing beliefs (such as ethnonationalism and national socialism), their argument has more depth than naked bigotry. They believe that those most deserving of society's resources are not the needy or even those most capable of generating new resources, but instead those best able to wield such resources -- hence their obsession with race and IQ, etc. Because this argument is rarely confronted directly, most attempts to refute far right positions are unfortunately debunkings of strawmen and therefore ineffective or perhaps even motivating to the far right.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Because this argument is rarely confronted directly, most attempts to refute far right positions are unfortunately debunkings of strawmen and therefore ineffective or perhaps even motivating to the far right.

Logic and evidence are rarely effective against extremists, anyways. From what I can tell, the best way to sway an extremist is to demonstrate the negative impact their ideologies have on those they hold dear, or if they hold nothing dear, it seems most efficient to just give up on swaying them (and instead put your attention on prophylaxis -> preventing the spread of their ideology to those that are vulnerable).

"

adghar wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Because this argument is rarely confronted directly, most attempts to refute far right positions are unfortunately debunkings of strawmen and therefore ineffective or perhaps even motivating to the far right.

Logic and evidence are rarely effective against extremists, anyways. From what I can tell, the best way to sway an extremist is to demonstrate the negative impact their ideologies have on those they hold dear, or if they hold nothing dear, it seems most efficient to just give up on swaying them (and instead put your attention on prophylaxis -> preventing the spread of their ideology to those that are vulnerable).

Logic and evidence are ineffective persuasion techniques in general. They are effective defenses against persuasion -- the natural tendency for people after they've been persuaded is to rationalize their position with whatever evidence they have on hand to convince themselves their position is justified, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias -- but most people quickly dismiss reasons that run counter to that they already believe.

The best persuasion technique by far is the incolcation of fear, which seems to be something you've stumbled upon. I completely agree that incolcating fear is, if not a necessity, the most efficient way to convince one's opponents to abandon old positions and consider new ones. However, without logic and evidence to defend their newfound positions, any converts you win will be particularly vulnerable to regression, particularly if your opponents can point to an instance of you strawmanning their position. Persuading people is one thing, but afterwards you should feed their confirmation bias if you want them to remain with you.

Telling kids to share a flute is gross as fuck and a good way to give everyone herpes.

Some issues with the child/flute scenario:
1. the item is trivial
2. there's a clear power differential (encourages tyrannical responses, like pushing the kids aside and taking the flute for yourself, or breaking the flute, or throwing the flute away)
3. the subjects are children (in need of guidance/a lesson, not knowing what's best)

Of course, elements of 1,2, and 3 can emerge in the way government employees view the populace.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Most people also readily recognize that C represents the leftwing option. In its purest form option C represents the "to each according to their need" of the Communist Manifesto.

Child A also represents a "need". That need can be met strictly through the private sector. A working flute can probably be picked up at a pawn shop for $150. If chil A can convince someone that there is money to be made by zhir* playng the flute live at shows, or even as a recording artist, the music industry is full of opportunists looking to make a quick buck, so $150 is a small investment. So thereare two private entities involved already, and so far we haven't had a single government official with a legitimate need to be involved.

Fulfilling needs is not in and of itself a bad thing, it's merely in the way you fulfill them.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Ah ok since I'm forced to answer - the producer is entitled to 100% flutes of labor. Others can buy or rent it.

emphasis on correction. and how did nobody jump on that?

*in the interests of inclusion, I used what I believe to be a gender-nuetral pronoun for this child of indeterminate sex, gender, age, natioanlity, or religion or lack thereof. If you feel I have used this pronoun in an incorrect context, please feel free to correct me.

Dont care about clever or snide bullshit, . No one is entitled to your shit even if I don't like you. The whole problem with democracy it's two wolves and a sheep deciding dinner, It's actually worst form of gov despite what advertised. Monarchy is much better - being a sovereign has incentive to leave a productive kingdom to his hairs than democracy - rather than get in get rich and cash out - which is state of affairs today in western world.

The best form of government is voluntarism. It's a lot like democracy, except whenever a vote isn't unanimous the minorities secede.