I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!

LikeAnOcean
LikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
edited June 2007 in A Moving Train
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
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1345

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    If you disagree to everything you'll be every govt's wet dream citizen: A STATIST

    "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."
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    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)
    (")_(")
  • crittables
    crittables Posts: 342
    LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

    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...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    crittables wrote:
    LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

    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 ...
  • markymark550
    markymark550 Columbia, SC Posts: 5,216
    Interesting quiz, albeit short.

    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.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    I posted this political quiz here a couple of moths ago. Interestingly, the first time I took it, it peg me as a liberal libertarian, which was odd to me. This quiz was written with a libertarian agenda.

    http://world.std.com/~mhuben/rupright.html
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If you disagree to everything you'll be every govt's wet dream citizen: A STATIST

    "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."

    This doesn't sound like you, Roland.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    I posted this political quiz here a couple of moths ago. Interestingly, the first time I took it, it peg me as a liberal libertarian, which was odd to me. This quiz was written with a libertarian agenda.

    http://world.std.com/~mhuben/rupright.html

    - 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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:

    Agree.

    -heroin should be legal.


    heroin????
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    heroin????

    Sure. What do I care if you do heroin?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sure. What do I care if you do heroin?
    i'm sure you don't but would you care if you 14 year old daughter asked her 18 year old bf to buy some at the local grocery store?

    that drug should not be available to the general public. no?
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    - 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 ;)

    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?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Jeanwah wrote:
    This doesn't sound like you, Roland.

    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... :D
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    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)
    (")_(")
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    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?

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    i'm sure you don't but would you care if you 14 year old daughter asked her 18 year old bf to buy some at the local grocery store?

    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.
    that drug should not be available to the general public. no?

    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    I think you would agree that herion is much much much more dangerous and destructive then alcohol.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
    Auto/truck emissions are destructive to the environment, and human health. yet the very infrastructure this country exists on, oil/transportation are virtually ignored as necessary evils.
    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.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    gue_barium wrote:
    Auto/truck emissions are destructive to the environment, and human health. yet the very infrastructure this country exists on, oil/transportation are virtually ignored as necessary evils.
    Q: What's your point?

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think you would agree that herion is much much much more dangerous and destructive then alcohol.

    Sure.
    exactly. so why agree to making it easier to buy.

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Auto/truck emissions are destructive to the environment, and human health.

    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.
    yet the very infrastructure this country exists on, oil/transportation are virtually ignored as necessary evils.

    There are no "necessary evils", gue.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    A: This infrastructure is kept in place by violent thieves and murderers.

    Very much so, yes. Yet everytime I suggesting ending that thievery, people yell at me for being "selfish".

Categories