How Libertarian Are You?

[Cutlass]

The government does not exist to make you happy. It may exist to serve you in the highly general sense, but this is far and away from obey your every whim. Similarly, you don't get to just stop paying taxes when you disagree with the purpose they are being used for, or else society wouldn't function at all. The relationship between the government and the citizens has to be mutual, it cannot just be one making demands of the other. As it stands American democracy is already an increasingly one way street, where the citizens elect politicians who obstruct the process of government and the passing of legislature to fulfill the desires of their special interests.

In other words, there is a certain extent to which yes, government does know what's best for you. It exists to serve your interests, but not your whims.

Ahhh, but what you don't understand is that the universe exists, even god exists, to serve his every whim.

 

[Angst]

I think libertarianism (as I understand it) would be perfectly fine, provided a sufficiently large majority of people were sufficiently responsible.

cough marxism cough

 

[Traitorfish]

Urge... to lecture... rising...

 

[Antilogic]

Urge... to lecture... rising...

If it lasts for more than four hours please consult one of the government-paid physicians in your country.

 

[Angst]

Urge... to lecture... rising...

Was this directed at me?

 

[Traitorfish]

It best if I could register disagreement without actually having to bore anyone with an explanation, yeah.

 

[Borachio]

cough marxism cough

I'm sorry?

I don't know what you mean. Do you mean, I'm a marxist, you're a marxist, I should be a marxist, I shouldn't be a marxist? Or something else?

I'm not a marxist. I have attention deficit syndrome.

 

[bhsup]

Gotcha.

If the constitution was amended to give the federal government a lot more power over the states than it already has, and that become law, would your support for "states rights" disappear?

Sorry, Warpus, I missed this earlier.

Given that it takes 3/4th of the States to approve an amendment, I would accept the change since that is clearly the will of the people in a super majority of the States. Mind you, I wouldn't support it and might work to get it changed back, but I would accept it as the new law of the land.

Bear in mind, my acceptance is based on the fact that I don't think you're talking any crazy over the line stuff here. Like I would not accept or support or bow down to having the States dissolved, replaced by federal regions that the President gets to choose viceroys to rule over. And so forth

 

[Angst]

I think >INSERT IDEOLOGY HERE< would be perfectly fine, provided a sufficiently large majority of people were sufficiently responsible.

Traitorfish knows I understand his position but I'm actually actively attempting to avoid taking an ideology upon myself; rather I usually criticize the extremities.

I assume my tendency is left-leaning of course as I sympathize with many socialist opinions and methods, I do however not take socialism as a brand upon me but rather attemp to mix the good stuff in with the horrible evilz that is private property.

Also, Marxist economic theory, if anything, is really severely applicable in a lot of places and influences, like, every economic article I've stumbled upon.

Which does not stop me from poking fun at the commies every once in a while.

 

[illram]

Honestly the most accurate portrayal I have ever seen of a Libertarian utopia is Bioshock. Yet another reason that game was awesome.

 

[Traitorfish]

Traitorfish knows I understand his position but I'm actually actively attempting to avoid taking an ideology upon myself; rather I usually criticize the extremities.

I assume my tendency is left-leaning of course as I sympathize with many socialist opinions and methods, I do however not take socialism as a brand upon me but rather attemp to mix the good stuff in with the horrible evilz that is private property.

Also, Marxist economic theory, if anything, is really severely applicable in a lot of places and influences, like, every economic article I've stumbled upon.

Which does not stop me from poking fun at the commies every once in a while.

To be honest, I'm with you in being suspicious of ideological Marxism. I think that any worthwhile Marxism has to be critical, negative, rather than offering any positive ideology or vision.

Honestly the most accurate portrayal I have ever seen of a Libertarian utopia is Bioshock. Yet another reason that game was awesome.

That was more strictly Randian, wasn't it? Whole heroic industrialist shtick.

 

[illram]

That was more strictly Randian, wasn't it? Whole heroic industrialist shtick.

Yeah I guess. There was a lot of free marketeering in the storyline, i.e., everything is bought and sold and everything is a commodity. Anyways I associate Rand with libertarians these days, Rand's own criticisms to the contrary aside.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Cheezy-

Ferchrissake sake, that's called democracy.

How a socialist of all people would defend democracy is beyond me (Not because I think socialists are dictators, but because I thought you considered yourself an anarchist...)

Democracy is simply, possibly, the lesser of the evils we've got, but its still total crap.

Its like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

For the record, I do understand why you consider the free market oppressive. I disagree of course, but I understand it. If you don't believe in private property rights (Disbelief in property rights is pretty much the basic point of socialism, isn't it?) I don't really expect you to agree with me that voluntary trade of property is anything but exploitive.

I don't understand, at all, why something that is wrong magically becomes right if the almighty "Majority" sanctions it, however. Where are individual rights?

If you reject private property rights, should the government arbitrarily protect properrty for specific people because the 51% said so? What if the 51% voted to take all of the land for themselves and leave the 49% with nothing? Obviously such an extreme scenario is absurd, but any just government would tell the 51% to screw themselves.

I was thinking about making a thread discussing where you (Not you specificaly, "You" in general) draw the line on democracy, since we obviously all think the 51% should be told to screw themselves if they are sufficiently malicious.

 

[Crezth]

Democracy is simply, possibly, the lesser of the evils we've got, but its still total crap.

Its like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Oh yes, please ape more quotes from ill-tempered racist imperialists!

 

[sophie]

Democracy is simply, possibly, the lesser of the evils we've got, but its still total crap.

Its like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Which is why we don't have a direct, unfettered democracy.

 

[JollyRoger]

I was thinking about making a thread discussing where you (Not you specificaly, "You" in general) draw the line on democracy, since we obviously all think the 51% should be told to screw themselves if they are sufficiently malicious.

I would think a more perfect union with checks and balances between an executive branch, a majoritaian legislative branch, a countermajoritarian legislative branch, a judicial branch, and sub-national branches of much the same might be a good starting point. That or leave it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Your Libertarian Purity Score

Your score is...

49

What Your Score Means

0 points: You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are probably not even a liberal or a conservative. Just some Nazi nut, I guess.

1-5 points: You have a few libertarian notions, but overall you're a statist.

6-15 points: You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them.

16-30 points: You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure.

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?

131-159 points: You are nearly a perfect libertarian, with a tiny number of blind spots. Think about them, then take the test over again. On the other hand, if you scored this high, you probably have a good libertarian objection to my suggested libertarian answer.

160 points: Perfect! The world needs more like you.

Doubtful my views will get higher. As inefficient and horrible as it is, we do need government for some things.

 

[Borachio]

I find these tests quite interesting in themselves.

It's really very easy to just go with the flow, and say well OK, on this premise the answer is obviously such and such.

Alternatively, you can answer them starting with a different premise.

I don't believe there's much meaning in any political thinking.

 

[Global Skeptic]

I find these test quite interesting in themselves.

It's really very easy to just go with the flow, and say well OK, on this premise the answer is obviously such and such.

Alternatively, you can answer them starting with a different premise.

I don't believe there's much meaning in any political thinking.

Well, to me it appears to be the opposite - politics is nothing but 1st person meaning.

 

[Borachio]

Why then, I mean nothing.