I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!
LikeAnOcean
Posts: 7,718
I know these quizzes have come up before, but I always thought of myself as a centrist. A few years ago I thought I was a centrist who leaned Republican..
I guess the main question I'm pointing at is,.. has anyone else had a change of political views throughout their life?
Here's the quiz I just took..
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I guess the main question I'm pointing at is,.. has anyone else had a change of political views throughout their life?
Here's the quiz I just took..
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"STATISTS want government to have a great deal of power
over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently
doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom
are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust
the free market, support high taxes and centralized
planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles,
and question the importance of civil liberties."
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
excpet i'm not so much for the significant government control of the economy...
and conservatives throw this label around like it's the plague ... just goes to show how fucked up people think ...
I took a similar quiz back in 2000 before the election and was a right-leaning Libertarian. Seven years later, I'm still a Libertarian, but now my beliefs lean to the left.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/rupright.html
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
This doesn't sound like you, Roland.
- The military should not be allowed to draft soldiers, even in times of national emergency.
Agree
- Government should not restrict the flow of pornography across the airwaves and internet.
Agree
- Prostitutes are entrepreneurs. Don't legally restrict their trade.
Agree.
- PCP and heroin should be legal.
Agree.
- Let impoverished foreigners compete for our jobs.
Agree.
- Government should not help industries or farms at risk of failure.
Agree.
- We are better off when our products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.
Agree.
- Employers should be allowed to pay people as little as they can.
Agree.
- If people need help from a government program, let them pay for it.
Agree.
- Our government should not support struggling democracies, but rich individuals and corporations can support rebels who would overthrow these democracies.
Umm...this is a two part question. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.
Still works for me
But his points are definitely spot-on. The "quiz" is a Libertarian marketing tool.
heroin????
Sure. What do I care if you do heroin?
that drug should not be available to the general public. no?
Why would you disagree with the second part? Remember, selfishness is a virtue to you, so if these rebels support your bottom line, then why not?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I was just playing around rigging the vote to see what the election would be like...
I'm what one would call one of those damn hippies...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So the best way to support my "bottom line" is to enable a bunch of violent thieves and murderers??? That sounds like an excellent plan.
A "bottom line" implies something of value. There is no value possible in destruction and violence.
Of course. The same way I'd care if my 14 year old daughter asked her 18 year old boyfriend to buy some from the local gangs.
Of course it should. Alcohol is available to the general public. I wouldn't want my 14 year old daughter to be buying that either. Regardless, heroin is already "available to the general public". The laws just make it more expensive, harder to buy, and much more dangerous to acquire.
exactly. so why agree to making it easier to buy.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
A: This infrastructure is kept in place by violent thieves and murderers.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Sure.
For a lot of reasons. First, what right do I have to make it harder or easier for you to buy something? Secondly, why is it a good thing that heroin is hard to buy? Above, you invoke "dangerous and destructive" -- do you ignore the fact that the barriers to purchase contribute heavily to other dangerous and destructive activities? When's the last time you heard about kids gunning each other down in the streets over cigarettes? When's the last time entire towns were destroyed by the alcohol trade?
Shockingly, many things are "easy to buy", yet I've never bought them.
Certainly pollution is an aggressive act and people have every right to reject it. I have a hard time blaming only "rich individuals and corporations" (as the original question implied) for auto/truck emissions, however.
There are no "necessary evils", gue.
Very much so, yes. Yet everytime I suggesting ending that thievery, people yell at me for being "selfish".
I disagree. I think the "dangerous and destructiveness" of the drugs itself (to the human body) far outweight the dangers of the illegalness of the drug. if that makes sense?
never, because the effects of each are very different.
hehe yea same here. but herion, from what I have read, becomes addictive the first time you use it. and has devastating effects on the body and mind, immediately. I just have a hard time "agreeing" it should be legal.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That certainly gives me the right (and you the right) to say anything we'd like about heroin or its legality. But it doesn't give the right to lock up someone for doing heroin in a 4x4 cell.
It make perfect sense. And that's a great argument to not do heroin yourself. But you don't own my body, friend, nor do you own anyone else's. So to make decisions for me, or for someone else, about what they can do to their own body is probably a road you don't want to go down, if you value your own.
No, the legal situation around them are very different. If an addict could buy heroin at Wal-Mart for it's actual value (pennies), you would have much less violent crime surrounding heroin use and trade.
Totally. But cigarettes match the above standard, as do lots of things.
That would imply that the value of being taken seriously on a Pearl Jam message board outweighs the value of my lifestyle. It doesn't.
Well, it seems personal values aren't worth much then, coming from you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Worth much to whom?
You said this: "- We are better off when our products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.
Agree."
And what if these 'foreigners' are under the control of 'violent thieves and murderers'?
If these rebels are in a position to exchange goods with you, which benefits your goals which you place value on, then why not? You answer 'agreed' to the other perspective I mentioned above.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What if? That's not part of the question. The more likely event, in actuality, is that our wages are relatively higher because of violence and thievery here. Regardless, we are not better off if we are using slave labor, nor are we better off as slaves. That isn't the question, however.
I agree that we are better off when out products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.
You're simply assigning new qualities to these questions that aren't contained in their text.
I would not exchange goods with a rebel who was attempting to overthrow a democracy because exchange would imply an honest dealing with another. What honest dealing can I have with a violent criminal?
I know -- the original question, however, did.
Ok. Challenge away.