Where your ideology says you should live(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Where your ideology says you should live
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/17/where-your-ideology-says-you-should-live/
10 comments
Interesting, and dead-on. The zip code it chose for me is the one that borders my current zip code to the west, and happens to be the same one the article's author mentions. #3 is the one I currently live in, and #4 is the last one I lived in.
also, in case anyone cares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_(Seattle)
also, in case anyone cares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_(Seattle)
Yeah. Tweaking "I prefer urban areas" (I like both), to "Agree" also go me within spitting distance of where I was born, raised, and have retired to.
GeoIP would not seem to be a strong component, for the "Don't Include" and "Disagree" options were a long ways away (both near the state capitol, in fact), although in my Purple state with two big cities there's really a lot of areas for everyone.
GeoIP would not seem to be a strong component, for the "Don't Include" and "Disagree" options were a long ways away (both near the state capitol, in fact), although in my Purple state with two big cities there's really a lot of areas for everyone.
I got Takoma Park, MD. Looking at the stats, I guess the nickname, "The People's Republic of Takoma Park" is pretty much accurate.
The place I actually live was #3 on the list, so close enough I guess.
The place I actually live was #3 on the list, so close enough I guess.
Interesting. I got my current city as choice #2 for my state (Lookout Mountain, GA). My fiancee and I are considering moving to Greenville, which is my top result for SC.
Great. According to this I should be living in Bolinas, CA where the cheapest house currently for sale is $1,249,000. I'll get right on that.
As far as I can tell, California & Democrat = live in San Francisco. If I say "non-urban" it puts me... outside of San Francisco.
Yeah, I got Inverness. My answers were the obvious liberal ones, except gun control which I'm not fanatical about in either direction, but I don't believe increased gun control is a real and practical solution to any problem we currently have as a country.
I think I'll be staying in San Diego, though; it skews fairly conservative for California but like most places you can find plenty of people with similar views to your own here if that's what you're after.
I think I'll be staying in San Diego, though; it skews fairly conservative for California but like most places you can find plenty of people with similar views to your own here if that's what you're after.
I wonder if the data is accessible. What I'm interested in is testing my theory that people in urban areas are more pro-environment.
This doesn't seem to weight the "prefer to live in urban areas" item very highly. It placed me in a town of 207.
I already live in the zip code it said I should ideally reside in. And #3 was my previous zip code. Hm.
Small nit-pick: "Pro-gun" is not an ideology, it's a position that might flow from an ideology e.g. libertarianism, or might just be a stand-alone position.
"Pro-gun" is an utterly reliable touchstone. Granted, it doesn't say if you're e.g. libertarian or paleoconservative, the two that are reliably pro-gun (I'm some of both), but it's a really really good marker.
What's a 'paleoconservative'? (just curious)
Skimming the beginning of the article, it looks pretty good.
The origin of the name is in part in reaction to neoconservatives (the real ones, not the silly, almost meaningless epithet it's become post-9/11). They were Communists/socialists/liberals, err, the latter are now progressives again, who lost faith due to the manifold failings of the Left. There's of course a lot more to say about them, especially their attitudes towards change, the distinguishing characteristic is that paleocons never had a phase when they were on the Left.
The origin of the name is in part in reaction to neoconservatives (the real ones, not the silly, almost meaningless epithet it's become post-9/11). They were Communists/socialists/liberals, err, the latter are now progressives again, who lost faith due to the manifold failings of the Left. There's of course a lot more to say about them, especially their attitudes towards change, the distinguishing characteristic is that paleocons never had a phase when they were on the Left.
I love how names change and mean totally different things depending on the era. Just the change in meaning of the word "Liberal" could fill a book and tends to bring confusion to some current pundits.
In this case it seems to be a brand equity issue. I gather that starting with Wilson, the label Progressive---that I'll note not exactly Leftist Teddy Roosevelt self-identified as---accumulated damage, and by the time I was politically aware, circa 1970, it had for quite some time been replaced by Liberal.
By 1988 George H. W. Bush was successfully using the word to attack Michael S. Dukakis (although Bush was rather liberal, as the word was used then, e.g. anti-gun, but Dukakis was outright radical, so it worked), and now it's back to Progressive. Or is it Forward! to it ^_^?
By 1988 George H. W. Bush was successfully using the word to attack Michael S. Dukakis (although Bush was rather liberal, as the word was used then, e.g. anti-gun, but Dukakis was outright radical, so it worked), and now it's back to Progressive. Or is it Forward! to it ^_^?
I don't think I ever met anyone who was "pro-gun" but not about individual liberties.
Are there many people who are not about individual liberties? I mean that as an honest question.
Interestingly, yes, quite a lot actually. Oh, they say they support the individual, but they are the first to cry "Think of the children". Bloomberg is one of the poster children.
The general position is safety and forced health on everyone. It is a basic control of person issue. You cannot do anything that I don't approve of. It is quite a pain in the US with all the petty tyrants running city or school boards.
The general position is safety and forced health on everyone. It is a basic control of person issue. You cannot do anything that I don't approve of. It is quite a pain in the US with all the petty tyrants running city or school boards.
Ok - I understand, now. You mean the people (with power) who impose rules on others (without power). They, by imposing rules, are working against _other_ people's individual liberties.
Yeah - I can buy that.
But, most people (because most of us don't have power) are generally for more liberties, right?
Unfortunately, where there is power, there are people who want to impose rules. And, like you, I hate rules.
But, how do we get rid of power? People have tried to do that for ages (with often monstrous results).
The democratic republic system seems best, in theory: A bunch of people without much power, individually, band together and grant their aggregate power to a trustworthy person to act on their behalf. That sounds pretty awesome.
But, it doesn't work too well in practice. The powerful just end up electing themselves (or their proxies).
Yeah - I can buy that.
But, most people (because most of us don't have power) are generally for more liberties, right?
Unfortunately, where there is power, there are people who want to impose rules. And, like you, I hate rules.
But, how do we get rid of power? People have tried to do that for ages (with often monstrous results).
The democratic republic system seems best, in theory: A bunch of people without much power, individually, band together and grant their aggregate power to a trustworthy person to act on their behalf. That sounds pretty awesome.
But, it doesn't work too well in practice. The powerful just end up electing themselves (or their proxies).
As you note, we don't get rid of power. Sounds flatly impossible, not to mention dystopian as you note (insert here any one of several SF works that e.g. make the healthy and fast wear weights so they're slow).
The partial answer I prefer is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) and a well armed citizenry. It puts a ceiling on the tyranny the "powerful" can impose, by allowing empowerment of the less powerful.
For the most recent recognition of this concept, note that one of the many, many rules ISIS is imposing is that nobody else can own guns: http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2014/06/totalitarian-gove... (link to a blog so you won't use up your Torgygraph monthly quota; the author is very reliable). Even the anti-gun US authorities, when occupying Iraq, allowed each household to own one AK-47.
Before you have to resort to that, note e.g. Heinlein's advise that you can almost always vote against someone. As long as the system allows negative votes to oust the powerful, they too are working under a ceiling, although of course they frequently don't realize it until it's too late, e.g. ask Eric Cantor, the first House Majority leader to lose an election since the office was created in 1899. Cost the powerful power, and they'll change their ways or continue to lose power.
The partial answer I prefer is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) and a well armed citizenry. It puts a ceiling on the tyranny the "powerful" can impose, by allowing empowerment of the less powerful.
For the most recent recognition of this concept, note that one of the many, many rules ISIS is imposing is that nobody else can own guns: http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2014/06/totalitarian-gove... (link to a blog so you won't use up your Torgygraph monthly quota; the author is very reliable). Even the anti-gun US authorities, when occupying Iraq, allowed each household to own one AK-47.
Before you have to resort to that, note e.g. Heinlein's advise that you can almost always vote against someone. As long as the system allows negative votes to oust the powerful, they too are working under a ceiling, although of course they frequently don't realize it until it's too late, e.g. ask Eric Cantor, the first House Majority leader to lose an election since the office was created in 1899. Cost the powerful power, and they'll change their ways or continue to lose power.
> But, most people (because most of us don't have power) are generally for more liberties, right?
Most people are for liberties that they want to exercise in the way they want to exercise them. I would say the number is much closer to 50/50 on things they don't want to exercise. There are quite a few busybodies out there.
Most people are for liberties that they want to exercise in the way they want to exercise them. I would say the number is much closer to 50/50 on things they don't want to exercise. There are quite a few busybodies out there.
I got Lester, IA which apparently has an off the charts population density of 464,912 people per square mile! Total population is only 294 though...