Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:NO IT DOES NOT. It It equates a position on the Right/Left spectrum with a position on the Right/Left spectrum. He is using a one-dimensional model of political ideology, so there is no Authoritarian-Libertarian spectrum.

Gun control is independent of a Right/Left spectrum. Regardless of whether Authoritarian or Libertarian even exist, Right/Left has NO bearing on gun control. Abortion is the same. While there are associations between the two because of the Right or Left wing groups that adopt those ideologies they are NOT issues on the Right/Left spectrum

Mere validity in insufficient. You said that his view was incorrect, because it didn't align with your model.

Show me a valid model that it does align with. I was unable to find one outside of clearly partisan/propaganda sites, which arrange the political spectrum in such a way that Stalin and Hitler are magically next to (Obama/Bush) whoever they disagree with.

The (obviously intentional) hyperbolic nature of the statement has nothing to do with the model being used to express it. In the traditional Left/Right dichotomy Stalin and the Soviet communists are usually considered the furthest leftward group. Hitler and fascism are usually considered the rightmost. While this makes little sense to me, it is what it is.

Are you agreeing with me? His statement was that high gun control places the government to the left of Stalin. I criticized this precisely because even on a linear scale, that position could well occur on the far right, thus citing an ignorance of the political spectrum.

It is true that there are different axes, but such a statement is nearly indefensible and argued on perceptions used by politicians to cause fear rather than any sort of objective political study.

I'm defending his statement in any case. Only criticising yours.

Strawman. I did not say that the existence of multiple models justifies any statement, I said that the existence of multiple models renders your statement - "Please, learn your political spectrum. Left does not equal authoritarian, Left-Right and Authoritarian-Libertarian are separate scales" - invalid, because it presupposes one model as being the correct one (and Aldramelech is thus ignorant when he fails to realize this).

My statement does not in fact presuppose that one model is correct, rather it references a group of related models which separate authoritarian and libertarian issues from those of the left/right scale. This statement is not in fact a strawman argument, because your statement seems to suggest that any statement could be borne out by some model, regardless of how ridiculous it may be. Thus, I could say "King Arthur is farther to the right than Hitler and farther to the left than Mao." I have no doubt that I could find a valid model to justify this.

Also, bonus points for going back and editing this:

Orkeosaurus wrote:There is no universally accepted model of political thought. Linear, square, and cubic models have all been advocated, many of them containing different axes. Telling someone that they don't "know their political spectrum" when they use a different one from you - a very commonly used one, I might add - is stupid.

To this

Orkeosaurus wrote:There is no universally accepted model of political thought. Linear, square, and cubic models have all been advocated, many of them containing different axes. Telling someone that they don't "know their political spectrum" when they use a different one from you - a very commonly used one, I might add - is uncalled for.

Thus attempting to make my response appear more hostile than your initial criticism.

Good day, sir.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Gun control is independent of a Right/Left spectrum. Regardless of whether Authoritarian or Libertarian even exist, Right/Left has NO bearing on gun control. Abortion is the same. While there are associations between the two because of the Right or Left wing groups that adopt those ideologies they are NOT issues on the Right/Left spectrum

Wrong again. If there is only a Left/Right axis abortion and gun control are probably on it. The Left/Right axis of a one-dimensional model is not the same as the Left/Right axis of a two dimensional one.

Show me a valid model that it does align with. I was unable to find one outside of clearly partisan/propaganda sites, which arrange the political spectrum in such a way that Stalin and Hitler are magically next to (Obama/Bush) whoever they disagree with.

What are you asking for? A defense of the one-dimensional model as good representation of political thought, or proof that it is common? You keep changing your argument.

This, however, is at least a good demonstration of the amount of thought that can go into a purely Left/Right model. It is also not clearly partisan.

http://infobeautiful.s3.amazonaws.com/leftright_EU_1416.gif

Are you agreeing with me? His statement was that high gun control places the government to the left of Stalin. I criticized this precisely because even on a linear scale, that position could well occur on the far right, thus citing an ignorance of the political spectrum.

That's not a matter of ignorance of "the" political spectrum. It's a matter of using a model that represents things in very broad strokes.

My statement does not in fact presuppose that one model is correct, rather it references a group of related models which separate authoritarian and libertarian issues from those of the left/right scale.

It doesn't merely reference them, it states that if a person is not seperating them they don't understand "the political spectrum".

This statement is not in fact a strawman argument, because your statement seems to suggest that any statement could be borne out by some model, regardless of how ridiculous it may be. Thus, I could say "King Arthur is farther to the right than Hitler and farther to the left than Mao." I have no doubt that I could find a valid model to justify this.

I said in my first post "a very commonly used one, I might add". The purely Left/Right model is not obscure. But at any rate, if you said "King Arthur is farther to the right than Hitler and farther to the left than Mao, because of how he defeated Mordred", and I then said that you needed to learn your political spectrum because his defeat of Mordred is on the Militant/Pacifist axis and not the Left/Right axis, I would be saying stupid things as well as you would be.

Also, bonus points for going back and editing this:

Orkeosaurus wrote:There is no universally accepted model of political thought. Linear, square, and cubic models have all been advocated, many of them containing different axes. Telling someone that they don't "know their political spectrum" when they use a different one from you - a very commonly used one, I might add - is stupid.

To this

Orkeosaurus wrote:There is no universally accepted model of political thought. Linear, square, and cubic models have all been advocated, many of them containing different axes. Telling someone that they don't "know their political spectrum" when they use a different one from you - a very commonly used one, I might add - is uncalled for.

Thus attempting to make my response appear more hostile than your initial criticism.

Try looking before you make accusations:

My Edit: 2010/03/30 01:50:03

Your Post: 2010/03/30 01:53:58

Ok, lets clear this one up.

Gun control in the UK is supported by both the political left (Labour, Green etc) and the Right (Conservative). Its about the only thing they agree on.

When I said "The Goverment has an attitude slightly to the left of Jo Stalin about the whole thing" The whole thing I was refering to was hunting in general, not gun control.

In this Country the Labour Party (Left wing) are dead against hunting, whereas the Conservatives (right wing) are all about personal choice on the matter. Under the current left wing Goverment of this country (called the "nanny" state by many) the Labour Party has tried to stick its nose into every aspect of a persons life. The previous Conservative Goverment didnt care what you did so long as you made loads of money.

So when we talk about the far left in this country, we are talking Jo Stalin. And if you dont think Uncle Jo ran an authoritarian regime then you need to read more history my friend.

Now if we were talking Imigration, the tables would turn. The far right want to ban it and you could compare their attitudes to say Adolf Hitler. The Far Left and the Far right in this country are both authoritarian in their own ways on different subjects.

P.S. Who took the Jam out of your donut pal!

.. let's just drop this current, fascinating, diversion away from the original topic please. ta.

If only we could hunt the heards of chavs that are currently exploding their populations all across the Uk...

My friend goes shooting in the UK every so often, and owns a couple of shotguns. He has to jump through all sorts of hoops for them, and from what I can remember he said it was quite expensive to hunt.

He has also been told to unload and put down his shotgun by our secret service when one of the royal family was having a look round the show he was shooting targets at

Can I ask almost the reverse of your question? I've always wanted to go hunting, and have thought about heading over to the USA to do it... how easy is it for someone from the motherland to go out and blow stuff away?

Do you need any particular special permits? Or can you essentially just tag along with a group of locals and borrow one of their guns?

[/steals thread slightly]

Well I have only gone hunting in my home state, and I'm a citizen so I know its cheaper for me to hunt here,than say someone from Idaho. As for someone from another country, I'd imagine that its no different than someone from another state cost-wise. For me it costs about $50-100 dollars a year to fund my hunting expeditions, depending on how many tags I buy. According to this year's hunting regs it was $39.60 for a residential deer tag, and a whopping $396.00, (jeez!) for a non-resident. For a resident its $72 bucks for a combination deer, bear, elk and cougar tag, where as its $726.00 for a non resident.

Before I could go hunting,I had to go through a hunter education and saftey course, which was a lot like a class at a school. Alot of it was common sense type of stuff, don't point the gun/bow and arrow at anything you don't intend to kill, don't drive with loaded guns etc. Felons cannot hunt with a gun over here too. To be honest, its not real hard to aquire a firearm here as long as you dont have a criminal record and you take that safety course I mentioned, I believe it takes a few days for background checks etc. My Dad bought me my .270 for around $200.00, and it's served me relieably for years.

If you ever get a chance to go hunting in the states, I could recommend Washington. Game is fairly abundant, and the landscape is breathtaking in some places. Lots of green lush forest on the west side of the state, over here on the east side we have lots of praries and coniferous forest. Although we have places like the scablands too, which are not very pretty to look at. I imagine finding a guide wouldn't be hard at all. We have lots of sportsmen here who enjoy taking newbies. My Dad went hunting for Havelina in Texas a few years back with some guys he met on a hunting forum. He said Texas was everything people like Frazzled claim it to be lol, and the guys he went with were friendly and helpful.

I've always wanted to go hunting in the US. The huge tracts of wild land are just so tempting. And way less desolate than say, the Wesht of Ireland.