OK...Take the test.
Dick Muhfukkin Bagswing
Darrien
"Dick Muhfukkin Bagswing" <la...@my.nuts.wouldja?> wrote in message news:bog6fn$hev$1...@nn-tk102.ocn.ad.jp...
> Which side of the post are you on?
>
> According to this I am a "centrist".
>
How centrist?
It may be biased, but it's the only one I've taken that was accurate.
Libertarian, 90% 90%. Which makes sense because I vote Libertarian.
I still can't figure out how this <http://www.politicalcompass.org/> one
put me in the center. Even with questions as slanted as those, I would
have thought that my political beliefs were strong enough to break
through the crookedness.
Michael Cash
<la...@my.nuts.wouldja?> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Which side of the post are you on?
>
>According to this I am a "centrist".
>
> theadvocates.org
Me too. But close to the border on the right-hand side.
Looking at the results page, why do I feel as though I've just gone
through the political equivalent of being offered a religious tract
from a JW?
Drew Hamilton
>According to this I am a "centrist".
>
> theadvocates.org
Me too, but very close to liberal. Strange, I would never have thought of
myself that way.
Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 30%.
- awh
Digy
yazdı:bog6fn$hev$1...@nn-tk102.ocn.ad.jp...
I'm somewhere between Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
Weird, I though I's libertarian, but I guess I'm collectivist-anarchist?!?
I'll go buy some Proudhon...
Marc
"Dick Muhfukkin Bagswing" <la...@my.nuts.wouldja?> wrote in message
news:bog6fn$hev$1...@nn-tk102.ocn.ad.jp...
Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
- no, national defense is a public duty. Citizens should participate in a
time of emergency, otherwise we are just hiring mercenaries. I heard the
argument once that democracies marshal the most lethal military forces,since
ordinary citizens are genuinely willing to die for their country. It helps I
suppose that democracies tend to be richer.
Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
agree, and few democracies do
Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
agree, and few democracies regulate sexual activity, except for
prostitution.
Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
disagree, it would only lead to increase in drug abuse
People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where
they choose.
disagree, it would lead to chaos.
Economic Issues
Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
absolutely agree - few other industries get this amount of subsidies, it
distorts economic incentives, it is unfair to the developing world, it is
maintained for political reasons (votes in farming states)
People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
agree.
Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
maybe. not sure what the economic consequence is - yes, a minimum wage
probably reduces the number of people employed, but it is hard to abide
paying people pennies for labor. maybe it is a tradeoff between subminimal
wage sweatshops and hard-core unemployed welfare lifers.
End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
no. this would mean that the poor would get even fewer services, since
they could not afford them. Taxes are of course a form of income
distribution, but this is Christian ethics in action. We all benefit from
society, and if one is rich it is not simply due to one's own efforts.
Especially if you are a real estate agent. Therefore one has a debt to
society, and this includes helping the poor.
All foreign aid should be privately funded.
No. foreign aid is an instrument of national defense and it makes up less
than 1% of the national budget. Would be nice to find a way out of perpetual
billion dollar funding of Israel and Egypt though. In a libertarian world,
they would just be left to their own devices, which means they would kill
each other, and god would sort it out. That's kind of the whole problem with
a hard-core libertarian philosophy - people left to their own devices will
let their neighbors starve. I always thought it was the other way around,
but it occurs to me that liberals must believe that people are evil and need
government intervention to prevent them from wreaking their evil on the
powerless, whereas conservatives must believe that people are inherently
good and can be trusted to do the right thing. The liberals are surely right
on this one.
But few people fit the Limbaughesque definitions of liberal, conservative,
libertarians etc. I get tired of hearing of these categories. More
typically, people are liberal or conservative on some issues and different
on others. I would rate myself Reaganesque conservative on economics and
defense but Clintonesque liberal on health care and social issues. I get
tired of the pigeonholing stereotypes about people's political views, as if
people are so single minded and simple that they can be summed up as some
rating in an index of their "conservativeness" or "liberalness". It is more
cheering for the home team than political discussion.
That's the problem with quizzes like this one. But for what it is worth, I
came out:
Centrist
(yeah.... go centrists!!!!)
Darrien
"Marc" <box5...@spamtrap.net> wrote in message news:AZ_qb.101005$mZ5.675526@attbi_s54...
>
> "Dick Muhfukkin Bagswing" <la...@my.nuts.wouldja?> wrote in message
> news:bog6fn$hev$1...@nn-tk102.ocn.ad.jp...
>> Which side of the post are you on?
>>
>> According to this I am a "centrist".
>>
>> theadvocates.org
>>
>
[snip]
> it occurs to me that liberals must believe that people are evil and need
> government intervention to prevent them from wreaking their evil on the
> powerless
>
So the government isn't people?
I *knew* that wasn't a meteorite.
Dick Muhfukkin Bagswing
>
> How centrist?
Dunno....maybe because I ain't a dem and I ain't a repub either.
Brian
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
>
>
>
> agree, and few democracies regulate sexual activity, except for
>prostitution.
Well, there goes adultery as a grounds for divorce.
Rafael Caetano
> than 1% of the national budget. Would be nice to find a way out of perpetual
> billion dollar funding of Israel and Egypt though. In a libertarian world,
> they would just be left to their own devices, which means they would kill
> each other, and god would sort it out. That's kind of the whole problem with
> a hard-core libertarian philosophy - people left to their own devices will
> let their neighbors starve.
Yeah, if there was no government intervention and massive foreign aid,
millions would be starving in Africa. Or North Korea.
Rafael Caetano
Marc
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:navpqvsfsna1c4eg4...@4ax.com...
yeah, is that good news or bad?
In any case, this is not "regulating" sexual activity.
Marc
"Rafael Caetano" <rcae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94a6da7.03110...@posting.google.com...
certainly more would be starving. Several governments have provided food and
energy assistance to N. Korea.
Marc
"Darrien" <Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lg0rb.600016$Of.8...@news.easynews.com...
I don't think that sentence is suggesting the government is not the people.
One could substitute "society" for government I guess.
Darrien
"Marc" <box5...@spamtrap.net> wrote in message news:RRarb.104069$mZ5.696011@attbi_s54...
>
> "Darrien" <Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Lg0rb.600016$Of.8...@news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Marc" <box5...@spamtrap.net> wrote in message news:AZ_qb.101005$mZ5.675526@attbi_s54...
>>> it occurs to me that liberals must believe that people are evil and need
>>> government intervention to prevent them from wreaking their evil on the
>>> powerless
>>>
>>
>> So the government isn't people?
>
> I don't think that sentence is suggesting the government is not the people.
> One could substitute "society" for government I guess.
>
So people are evil, therefore, they need more evil people in the form of
government or society to help them be less evil?
Marc
I was ascribing a belief to others, not making assumptions myself about
whether people are inherently evil or not.
But if I take this as a rhetorical question, no .... most people are not
evil. But some are, and it only takes a few. So you need the majority of a
community, with laws, etc. to curtail the excesses of a few individuals. I
think this stating the obvious ...
I only mentioned the point, because usually people say it is conservatives,
not liberals, who believe that people are inherently evil and need some
larger social structure or religion to keep them behaved.
But as I said before, I don't put a whole lot of stock into categories of
liberal and conservative.....