Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

My transformation over time Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:

    I have found online posts on various websites of where i used to be, so i thought it would be interesting to compare how I have changed over time- 2013 was the biggest shock for me compared to where I am now. The consensus about becoming more autocratic and right wing as you age may actually be true, Although if you go year by year i defy this in 2013/2014. I know this has been done time and time again but i wonder if anyone has done a similar transformation over time.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Curious, how old are you as well if you don’t mind me asking, I’ve certainly become a bit more right as I’ve got older but I generally still stand on the left of the political spectrum
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You became older, more serious and boring basically.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dickwhittington)
    Curious, how old are you as well if you don’t mind me asking, I’ve certainly become a bit more right as I’ve got older but I generally still stand on the left of the political spectrum
    20.

    (Original post by Acend1992)
    You became older, more serious and boring basically.
    Yeah I suppose
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acend1992)
    You became older, more serious and boring basically.
    He became older, wiser and more realistic.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roasted)
    20.
    Yeah, This is where I stand now compared to about 4ish years ago, 25 btwName:  compass.png
Views: 28
Size:  8.6 KB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    He became older, wiser and more realistic.
    He became older, poorly informed and misguided.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    He became older, poorly informed and misguided.
    Go on then, I'll bite.

    A similar process has happened to me and I'm slightly more libertarian than OP but pretty similarly placed. How am I (judging from the above results) poorly informed and misguided?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The thing with that political compass test is that is is skewed towards the left libertarian quadrant. You have to be a real arse to end up in the authoritarian right part of it basically. So well done


    (Original post by Roasted)
    20.
    That isn't old...

    This forum is full of right wing pip squeaks younger than me telling me I am an idealistic leftists only due to my youth :rofl:

    Also for the millionth time. Thatcher had a lead with young people back in the day and the lead labour has with 18-25 is unprecedented. Not to mention massive support from under 40s in general. There is a unique polarisation due to age at the moment and the young are not going to the right as they get older as they are not gaining the kind of things that facilitates the move to the right, such as home ownership. Unless the economic material conditions change you should be worried if you are on the right. Tory voters are dieing off and the new voters are going Labour. This is an electoral conveyor belt of dooooooooom.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Interestingly i took my first test back in 06 in school (those with a score greater than 5 in any direction were asked to stand - i was the only one on the right, the others were commies) and got +7, +3.. over time i mainly became more socially liberal and through my economics degree a little more open to new ideas i think and so had +5, -2 however i have then got +8, -2 and +6, +3.

    Essentially you can draw a box for myself in which i shift around 5-8 on the economic scale and 3-(-)2 on the social.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  IMG_1595.PNG
Views: 25
Size:  140.9 KB

    Hmm, I've moved economically leftwards slightly it seems. I'd still want to drastically cut the state and the deficit (over time) was though so it's not that informative.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Name:  IMG_1595.PNG
Views: 25
Size:  140.9 KB

    Hmm, I've moved economically leftwards slightly it seems. I'd still want to drastically cut the state and the deficit (over time) was though so it's not that informative.
    Silly. The state is already the smallest it's been for decades as a percentage of GDP and smaller than in most European countries. It seems almost taboo to say you support a large state but I do. I want a bigger state. I believe fully that the public sector and the government are far more capable at addressing social and economic challenges than the 'free market' is.

    Just how much smaller do you want it? And why?

    Cutting the deficit at times of sluggish economic growth is bad economics. You cut the deficit during the boom and spend during the recession.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    He became older, poorly informed and misguided.
    that's just your opinion
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Silly. The state is already the smallest it's been for decades as a percentage of GDP and smaller than in most European countries. It seems almost taboo to say you support a large state but I do. I want a bigger state. I believe fully that the public sector and the government are far more capable at addressing social and economic challenges than the 'free market' is.

    Just how much smaller do you want it? And why?

    Cutting the deficit at times of sluggish economic growth is bad economics. You cut the deficit during the boom and spend during the recession.
    Pragmatic average sized state ftw
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ella_08)
    that's just your opinion
    As was the comment I had replied to:

    He became older, wiser and more realistic.

    What's your point? Are only people who accept the OPs transformation allowed to give their opinion on it?


    (Original post by Davij038)
    Go on then, I'll bite.

    A similar process has happened to me and I'm slightly more libertarian than OP but pretty similarly placed. How am I (judging from the above results) poorly informed and misguided?
    Without providing specific opinions/policies it would be difficult to answer that question. As above, I gave my opinion on what has happened with the OP as have others in this thread.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Silly. The state is already the smallest it's been for decades as a percentage of GDP and smaller than in most European countries.
    I think the understandable achievements of 1945 labour are no longer fit for purpose in 21st Britain and that better, less bureaucratic options exist as alternatives - e.g. The Negatibe income tax Proposed by the Adam Smith Institute could replace our mess if a welfare system and 'cut' the size of government

    It seems almost taboo to say you support a large state but I do. I want a bigger state.
    Do you live in a libertarian commune or something? My experience is the polar opppsite.,

    I believe fully that the public sector and the government are far more capable at addressing social and economic challenges than the 'free market' is.
    I think that the government is far more likely to make social and economic challenges worse- in the long term.






    Just how much smaller do you want it? And why?
    Here's somethings we could get rid of:

    Devolved parliaments (stupid labour idea)

    PCCs (stupid Tory idea)

    Anything to do with equality and diversity (stupid idea)

    Cut foreign aid massively

    Halve the HoL

    Sell off about half of our crap universities

    Make the NHS similar to the Swiss model

    switch as I said above to a universal basic income set below min wage with additional provisions for vulnerable people (this may cost more incidentally)

    Get rid of trident but keep a nuclear deterrence
    Of some form.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think the understandable achievements of 1945 labour are no longer fit for purpose in 21st Britain and that better, less bureaucratic options exist as alternatives - e.g. The Negatibe income tax Proposed by the Adam Smith Institute could replace our mess if a welfare system and 'cut' the size of government



    Do you live in a libertarian commune or something? My experience is the polar opppsite.,

    I think that the government is far more likely to make social and economic challenges worse- in the long term.
    I used to be quite Blairite but as i've gotten a bit older and actually experienced the working world, i've moved further to the left. The crux of my argument is that I believe that economic structures in reality are all authoritarian. That includes 'free-marketism', just as it does socialism. Under free-marketism, we are no freer than we are under socialism (Atlee style socialism, not Chinese style). The only difference is that with the former, it is huge multinationals and CEOs who hold the power, not elected officials and governments. So to me, the question is less about whether I want more or less freedom, the question is about whether I want the state or CEOs with the ultimate power.

    Of course the state isn't perfect, of course you get awful politicians, but overall I simply do not share your cynicism of the public sector. The free market is run on a profit basis and therefore it is simply not capable of addressing social challenges for which their is no profit motive. Feeding the hungry, or providing free at point of use social care, or investing in education in poor areas is something the free market will not do. Put it like this, there is more than enough food in this country so that no one should go hungry, yet hundreds of thousands do.

    I do believe in government and the role of government in making people's lives better. I do believe people go into government and work in the public sector for the right reasons. I do not understand why you think the state creates greater problems and greater inequalities than a free market system does. I don't want the government to stand by as people are homeless and starving. I want the government to be building houses, to be investing in run down areas, to be investing in healthcare and skills training etc.

    Libertarianism strips people down to productivity machines, removing any need for qualities such as honesty, integrity, loyalty or kindness. It creates a society where people's sole worth is on their 'wealth-creating' potential. It fails to tackle any social issue that can't be solved with a profit incentive and it creates huge losers. That's not the society I want to live in.





    Here's somethings we could get rid of:

    Devolved parliaments (stupid labour idea)

    PCCs (stupid Tory idea)

    Get rid of trident but keep a nuclear deterrence
    Of some form.

    Halve the HoL
    Agreed.

    Anything to do with equality and diversity (stupid idea)

    Sell off about half of our crap universities
    Possibly.
    Cut foreign aid massively

    Make the NHS similar to the Swiss model

    switch as I said above to a universal basic income set below min wage with additional provisions for vulnerable people (this may cost more incidentally)
    Disagree.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I used to be quite Blairite but as i've gotten a bit older and actually experienced the working world, i've moved further to the left. The crux of my argument is that I believe that economic structures in reality are all authoritarian. That includes 'free-marketism', just as it does socialism. Under free-marketism, we are no freer than we are under socialism (Atlee style socialism, not Chinese style). The only difference is that with the former, it is huge multinationals and CEOs who hold the power, not elected officials and governments. So to me, the question is less about whether I want more or less freedom, the question is about whether I want the state or CEOs with the ultimate power.
    No- two big differences.

    Choice and Power. There is only one state to choose from and it's got the power to arrest you if you don't pay for its services- which for instance you may not want or need or even agree with.

    Of course the state isn't perfect, of course you get awful politicians, but overall I simply do not share your cynicism of the public sector. The free market is run on a profit basis and therefore it is simply not capable of addressing social challenges for which their is no profit motive. Feeding the hungry, or providing free at point of use social care, or investing in education in poor areas is something the free market will not do. Put it like this, there is more than enough food in this country so that no one should go hungry, yet hundreds of thousands do.
    But at the same time, free market capitalism has Precisely done far more to solve hunger worldwide than any socialist system. We may have poverty in the uk but we do not have third world poverty where people are starving (except in some extreme criminal cases). I should add I have actually found myself in this situation and this was in 2009!

    As for education- my aunt and uncle work as private teachers out in China. Many of the students come from real poverty but their families pay the school because they know the service is better than the state sponsored alternative.

    As for the food example. It's a paradox. But, that's one of the things that I've experienced which has shaped my (right wing) beliefs- people don't work the way you expected them to.

    Brighton illustrates this perfectly: in an attempt to increase recycling rates, the green council increased fines for those not recycling properly twofold. It failed spectacularly and recycling rates spiralled.

    I do believe in government and the role of government in making people's lives better. I do believe people go into government an work in the public sector for the right reasons. I do not understand how you can possibly think the state creates greater problems and greater inequalities than a free market system does. I don't want the government to stand by as people are homeless and starving. I want the government to be building houses, to be investing in run down areas, to be investing in healthcare and skills training etc.
    The state can obviously do some things to make peoples lives better but ultimately it's down to the individual. That's not necessarily anything to do with capitalism but could be families, churches or individual charity.


    Libertarianism strips people down to productivity machines, removing any need for qualities such as honesty, integrity, loyalty or kindness. It creates a society where people's sole worth is on their 'wealth-creating' potential. It fails to tackle any social issue that can't be solved with a profit incentive and it creates huge losers. That's not the society I want to live in.
    Hmm, I'm not a libertarian but I would disagree- libertarians want to treat everyone as individuals who should decide what to with their live's - and their money.

    In some sense your view of libertarianism is oddly similar to my view of socialism:

    Socialism strips people down to an atomised collective, removing any need for qualities such as personal responsibility, community or kindness. It creates a society where people's sole worth is on their 'Rights ' (voting potential) and which demonises the successful, often whipping up social 'issues' as a way of dodging it's own failings. Most of these social issues are also as a result Of their protectionist policies/ usually this comes with more power and money to those at the top from people who know best and it creates huge losers usually among the people they were meant to represent . That's not the society I want to live in.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The state can obviously do some things to make peoples lives better but ultimately it's down to the individual. That's not necessarily anything to do with capitalism but could be families, churches or individual charity.
    or unions

    Libertarian socialists would probably agree with a lot of what you said with (if they were being honest, the need to defend the idea of socialism might stop them).

    I don't know how this stripping down of responsibility and community is unique to socialism. It seem more a consequence of insane division of labour and civilisation in general. People get broken down into classes and live in a large society that is incredibly connected yet you feel so totally cut off from it as you have to just focus on your given task. This increased massively with the advent of capitalism, we have things like the internet that can potentially connect us to every other human on the planet. Yet I am totally alienated. Had I lived as a serf I may have been sharing a holdfast with several peasants and would have been tide to the land and very much reliant on those who I live around. But I live in a suburbia and hardly talk to my neighbours. All I need to live is a job and the ability to walk to a shop. I may as well not exist as far as they are concerned. This has nothing to do with state socialism. Neoliberalims hasn't brought back lost communities.

    Communism was about trying to get to back the humanity we lost using the technology of industrialisation. A communist society is a libertarian one. It is miles apart from some cold machine like of a society that is state socialism (or state capitalism, whatever you want to call it). Most of what you are are describing about socialism fits into the Marxist definition of alienation which is rife in capitalist society.

    If something resembling communism is not possible, then your dichotomy between a cold inhuman state socialism and a warm human capitalist market is a false one. Both are equally mechanistic, army like and alienating to live in. Both destroy human community. In that case I would rather live in a mixture of both. If I'm going to live an alienated existence I would rather live one where the government provides me with healthcare, or I get paid more due to state intervention. I also want to be able to able to have access to markets that provide luxuries. The state and capitalist labour armies are all the same to me.

    If all of this is down to the individual, there is nothing stopping individuals in a society where the state hands out provision to use their imitative and do things to build communities. Like for example, if I was given free money I would spend time volunteering in conservation work as I like being in the countryside with other people getting physical exercise.

    I'm a libertarian, but a libertarian that knows what the problem is. I'm a socialist because its an attempt to reach out to other humans in a reaction to the crumminess of capitalist alienation. If some form of social-ism can't work then sixths is just how things are. We can either live as none alienated hunter gatherers or we can have the fruits of civilisation, but at a cost. We cannot have both and we couldn't go back even if we wanted to. It may be too late for me anyway, I have grown up in the system and have social anxiety.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    No- two big differences.

    Choice and Power. There is only one state to choose from and it's got the power to arrest you if you don't pay for its services- which for instance you may not want or need or even agree with.
    I disagree that under a free market system that we have meaningful choice or power. If I want to get the train, there is no choice about the provider. If I want to get broadband, I have to pay BT. Water companies are given local monopolies, big businesses drive smaller enterprises out of business etc. There's no alternative to Royal Mail, nor the National Grid. There are so many industries in which natural monopolies exist. Where that is the case, the state should own the industry and reinvest all profits back into the service.

    Also i'd argue that 'choice' is relative. To someone who couldn't afford healthcare in America pre Obamacare, then you may say they had a 'choice' of provider, but if all those choices are so expensive, it becomes rather meaningless. It's a bit like telling a homeless person he has the freedom and choice to stay in a Five star hotel, so long as he pays for it. So this notion that greater economic freedom increases 'choice', is not true in the way it is claimed. I'd rather have guaranteed healthcare than a choice of options I couldn't afford.

    But at the same time, free market capitalism has Precisely done far more to solve hunger worldwide than any socialist system. We may have poverty in the uk but we do not have third world poverty where people are starving (except in some extreme criminal cases). I should add I have actually found myself in this situation and this was in 2009!
    It hasn't. Free market capitalism makes sure that we keep food surpluses which are never used to keep prices high. Free market capitalism means certain supermarkets decide to throw out unsold food rather than give it to homeless people. Free market capitalism means that we produce enough food to feed the world yet ensure that it not the case. The UK's economic development is not a result simply of free market capitalism, despite what some say.

    As for education- my aunt and uncle work as private teachers out in China. Many of the students come from real poverty but their families pay the school because they know the service is better than the state sponsored alternative.
    The answer to that is to increase funding for the state sector. I want an education system which doesn't just benefit the wealthy.

    The state can obviously do some things to make peoples lives better but ultimately it's down to the individual. That's not necessarily anything to do with capitalism but could be families, churches or individual charity.
    I disagree. There is such a thing as society and we are not just individuals. Like any other species we form societies, work in tandem and look after each other. Or at least we should.

    The state has always been the best way of tackling social issues. It was the state in the 40s and 50s that dragged the UK, USA and much of Europe out of despair. It was the state who invested in infrastructure, healthcare, jobs, education and created the golden age of capitalism. The public sector is and has always been far better at tackling these challenges than the private sector has.


    Hmm, I'm not a libertarian but I would disagree- libertarians want to treat everyone as individuals who should decide what to with their live's - and their money.
    They don't. They want a system in which they pay less tax.

    In some sense your view of libertarianism is oddly similar to my view of socialism:

    Socialism strips people down to an atomised collective, removing any need for qualities such as personal responsibility, community or kindness. It creates a society where people's sole worth is on their 'Rights ' (voting potential) and which demonises the successful, often whipping up social 'issues' as a way of dodging it's own failings. Most of these social issues are also as a result Of their protectionist policies/ usually this comes with more power and money to those at the top from people who know best and it creates huge losers usually among the people they were meant to represent . That's not the society I want to live in.
    Socialism doesn't demonise the successful, that's right wing nonsense. Socialism does not necessarily equate with protectionism either. However, protectionism has been used very successfully in the past. Many of the tiger economies used protectionism to grow their industries to great effect. Note when I say socialism, it is Attlee or FDR type socialism, not communism. Do not conflate the two.

    Attlee's Britain did not create huge losers. The post-war consensus made Britain a more prosperous and more equal country with higher growth than it had seen before or after.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.