Why do unrelated issues correlate?

Quote: AZDuffman

In Texas there is one of the most successful places on earth at saving endangered animals. It does so by allowing paid hunting.

What's the differentiating factor there? the geographical limitation? a limit on the paid permits? I thought that pretty much all (legal) hunting was paid hunting...

edit: I'm realizing that sounds a bit more assish than I'd intended. I'm actually curious.

How much is a permit to hunt Texans ?

Quote: rdw4potus

What's the differentiating factor there? the geographical limitation? a limit on the paid permits? I thought that pretty much all (legal) hunting was paid hunting...

edit: I'm realizing that sounds a bit more assish than I'd intended. I'm actually curious.

I just read about the tx place in an article by someone showing more than one way to save endangered species. Here in pa there are hunting grounds where all you pay for is the permit. Most places require some kind of permit. But the tx place in question has a fee also. I would be sure there are other places where you can pay a fee.

Quote: deadrats18

How much is a permit to hunt Texans ?

No fee. But their death row has an express lane.

Quote: AZDuffman

Now, these issues should be unrelated on the surface. But my guess is if you ask people to circle one or the other choice that most people would have one or the other column circled. Why do you think this is?

I think it largely comes down to how people view the world and what kinds of solutions they see as being most viable and/or expedient. Take the problem of the hungry man. Some would say, give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Others would say, if we don't feed him soon he won't live to learn how to fish. I think in many cases both sides want essentially the same thing but have very different ideas on how to get there.

Quote: sodawater

Basically the answer is philosophical view of the world and ideal society.

Traditionally, the two major spectrums are personal freedom and economic freedom.

Liberals tend to be in favor of more personal freedoms and less freedoms for corporations and businesses. The extreme example of this is communism.

Communists are not an extreme example of liberals. Communists tend not to have extreme freedom for the person.

Quote:

Conservatives tend to the opposite, more freedom for businesses and less for individuals. The extreme example of this is facism.

Quote:

Libertarians like more freedoms on BOTH spectrums. The extreme example of this is anarchy.

Anarchists and Libertarians are two extremes of the same coin... one believes in the power of the market, while the other believes in the power of groups self organising, both with the aim to remove government control of everything.

Quote:

Statists (which are rare) prefer less freedom on both spectrums.

I would suggest the Fascists are extreme Statists.

I do agree that there is two lanes... the fiscal lane and the social lane. The conservatives and liberals tend to clump together on both ends, which I've always found odd. The Canadian Liberals and the UK Liberal Democrat Party both have tried in the past to move into the fiscally free market, socially liberal space (not a totally extreme, but not on the central axis). The Canadian Liberals abandoned that space and got crushed between the Conservatives (free market, socially conservative) and new democrats (the opposite).

The UK Liberal Democrats managed to end up in a Conservative coalition, and sold out some of their principals to do so. Mostly because the 'orange bookers' (the wing that is much more small government) had only partial control of the party policy, while their policies do match the financial goals of the Conservatives.

-Personally- I was a Liberal Democrat voter in the UK, until recently, as the shift they've made is against some of my own views (Educations, Health Care).