Say Anything Blog

This is the famous ‘see if you’re libertarian’ test.  It’s quite dishonest because most people will be cast as “libertarian” without honest analysis.

For example, take this question:

“Do you favor a draft?”

I’d bet most people in this country would answer “no"--the libertarian response.  However, if the US were facing a true national emergency, I’d also bet a great majority of citizens would wholeheartedly embrace the draft.

“Do you favor drug prohibition?”

Many Americans would likely support decriminalization of pot--but they’d probably balk at unrestricted use of PCP or crack or methamphetamines.

This isn’t a socialist/libertarian quiz.  This is Gary the troll’s pathetic attempt at baiting me.  I’m surprised you linked it and fed the troll.

I’ll answer, explain and/or deconstruct as needed.

Do you favor drug prohibition?

No.  Most people in America would undoubtedly say yes.  They might say yes to marijuana decriminalization, but no to decriminalizing and/or legalizing harder drugs such as crack, heroin, and meth.

Do you favor laws which prohibit abortion?

Yes.  It’s murder in my view.  Libertarian principles hold that it’s wrong to tread on someone else’s freedom.  Abortion certainly counts as treading on someone else’s freedom.  A lot of so called libertarians, however, fail to see that it’s not simply the woman’s body, there are two or more bodies in play here.

Do [you] favor laws which prohibit particular types of adult consensual sex?

No.  Includes prostitution and pay for sex.  Most of America would disagree with me on my laissez faire attitude towards the legality of prostitution and pay for sex.

Do you favor laws which limit immigration on factors other than criminal background?

Yes.  We need measured immigration control.  This means limiting and controlling the numbers coming in from certain countries and rewarding or punishing countries to our whim.  We hold all of the cards in this subject because people want to come to America.  And, above all - immigrating to America is a priviledge, not a right.

A lot of libertarians take the fantasy view that the borders should be open and people should be free to go and come as they please.  I’d agree with this view - if we lived in a peaceful utopia.  So in theory yes, but reality?  Hell no.

Do you favor laws where the state is involved in directly or indirectly sanctioning certain types of sexual relationships?

Directly - no.  Indirectly - yes.  Reason - marriage and the “gay marriage” push.  I’m on the side of marriage, and not for debasing it’s meaning.  Libertarians take the view that the state shouldn’t recognize or acknowledge marriage.  It’s a point of disagreement I have with them.

Do you favor laws which prohibit euthanasia?

Yes.  The law can’t give a green light to this practice.  It’s too ripe for abuse.  Any moron with even a rudimentary understanding of the human nature sees this.  I should qualify this by stating that I support the idea of “ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition” in theory, but in practice it’s often used to kill the undesirables.

Do you favor laws which prohibit adult pornography?

No. Caveat that should go without saying, but I’m going to say it to cover all bases - among consenting adults.

Do you favor federal healthy and safety legislation? Or state?

I favor federal health and safety legislation in areas of our federally controlled military.  That’s it.  Everything else should be left to state control.  A lot of libertarians would go the route of no health and safety legislation, federal or state, and just it to be figured out in the marketplace.  I don’t go this far, but I do think a more balanced approach would be better.  A lot of OSHA laws and regulations, for example, are just plain ridiculous.  The laws often replace and override people’s common sense and better judgement.

Do you favor federal environmental legislation? Or state?

Federal?  No.  State?  Yes.  Within’ limits.  Not in the current land grabbing and regulate to death atmosphere.

Do you favor a draft?

When needed, in times of war.  Young men first, followed by middle aged men, followed by prayer, then women.  And if the war is on your front lawn, it’s every man, woman, and child.

Do you favor other types of coerced “public service� not related to a criminal sentence (e.g., a coerced form of “Peace Corps�-like involvement)?

In times of war, when needed.  Very judiciously.

Do you favor censorship of speech and the media in time of war (as many conservatives apparently do)?

Loaded biased question.  What is this?  A CBS poll?  Pass on the absurdity of the question’s wording.

Do you favor concealed carry prohibitions?

For convicted violent criminals and thieves.  For everybody else I direct to the 2nd Amendment and point out that I don’t see concealed carry prohibitions in there.

Do you favor warrantless searches (physical or otherwise) of American citizens?

I support this and this to the letter.  Any questions?

Do you favor warrantless searches (physical or otherwise) of non-Americans?

Loaded question.  I don’t “favor” warrantless searches of non-Americans, but I do accept them.

Do you favor racial profiling?

Loaded question.  For police and detective work I support racial profiling.  How could I not?  It’s common sense.  You don’t give a description of a burglary suspect (for example) and leave out the race.  What’s next?  A question asking if I favor hair color profiling?  How ridiculous.

Do you favor affirmative action?

Not for government employee’s, the people and/or businesses/unions that the government contracts work out to. And businesses and schools that get unConstitutional tax dollars.  Private businesses and citizens can do what they want.  That would be their freedom.

Do you favor public schools?

No.  I prefer and endorse the free market approach.  However, I’m open to compromise with some type of school voucher program to reintroduce competition back into our NEA stranglehold school systems.

Do you favor government funding of science, the arts, etc.?

The arts? Most definitely not. If you can’t hack it in the free market or make do without government money, then you’re not a real artist.  You’re simply a welfare whore.  Science?  Most definitely for military reasons.

Do you favor government funding, support, etc. - direct or indirect - of religion?

Another loaded question and one that some people get all jumpin’ ugly about.  My answer is yes.  What comes to mind immediately is our goverment paying for pastors, ministers, and whathaveyou for our troops.  I believe that the jumpin’ ugly ones that scream, “separation of church and state!!” are being assholes.

...perhaps Gary will score it for us.

Oh, that’s quite alright.  I did this for proprietary reasons, not for some dipshit to “score” it for me.

The irritating thing is that Gary used this test to test whether one was a socialist or not. But socialism is essentially an economic system, and most of the above questions are not economic in nature.

There’s a legitimate debate about the proper reach of the state, but Gary just likes calling people names like socialist and bigot. I do hope he’s not this unpleasant in real life (which is my final comment on or response to him; I’m trying to cut down on my troll-feeding.)

Likwidshoe, The only reason I posted this was for the ideas.  I realize he’s a troll, but the questions bring fourth interesting ideas, and on that point, I thought that it might have some merit.

Slarrow, I disagree that Socialism is basically an economic system.  It’s more of a mindset about the general workings of life.  The more you think about, the more you will see that Socialists put in place laws that are supposed to help the “less fortunate” but all they really accomplish is to control and suppress people’s drive to accomplish.

Seth, I think socialism is a bit more restricted than that--for the purposes of this discussion, at least. The original purpose seems to be identification, so precision of terminology is rather important.

I agree that we use “socialism” in the larger sense you mention, but I still think that’s a shorthand for another, better term. For a more detailed explanation of what I’ve got in mind, the FAQs on this quiz do a good job of defining the freedom axes as economic and personal.

More please, Seth and Slarrow.  You can’t get comedy this entertaining anywhere.

I don’t “favor� warrantless searches of non-Americans, but I do accept them.

Sometimes I wonder if Likwud is that clueless or if he’s a master of political satire.

Must...rethink...position.

Just looking at these questions exposes the problem with libertarianism—in the purest ideological form (which is what all you armchair libertarians seem to subscribe to), it is indistingushable from anarchy.

Let me add one more, to illustrate my point:

Do you favor one-way streets?

Or, with more precision:

Do you favor the double-yellow line (no passing) on two way streets?

Hey Seth.... you rock too, son.

My answers to the survey.

Do I favor drug prohibition?  Yes

Do I favor prohibition of abortion?  Yes

Do I favor prohibition of particular types of adult consensual sex?  Why is my opinion important??

Do I favor laws to limit immigration on factors other than criminal background.  yes.

Do I favor laws where the state is involved in sanctioning certain types of sexual relationships.  Yes.  Certain types… for instance..adult relationships with children and teens.

Do I favor laws prohibiting euthanasia?  Absolutely

Do I favor laws prohibiting adult pornography.  I’m on the fence on this one.  I guess the sickos need something to read.

Do I favor state or federal health and safety legislation.  Yes.  State

Do I favor federal environmental legislation.  Yes.  And State

Do I favor a draft.  Again I’m on the fence.  I think I would if things came to that.

Do I favor other types of coerced “public” service not related to a criminal sentence.  No.

Do I favor censorship of speech and the media in time of war.  YES.  Especially the media.

Do I favor concealed carry prohibitions?  Yes

Do I favor warrant less searches of American citizens.  Yes if there is good probable cause.

Do I favor racial profiling.  NO

Do I favor affirmative action.  NO

Do I favor public schools.  I always have but I’m wavering.  Too much crap being taught in public schools.

Do I favor government funding of science? Yes.  The arts?  NO

Do I favor government funding of religion.  Maybe indirectly.  The churches could play an important part in caring for the homeless and hungry.  They could be a resource for the government.

So how do I rate?  I think I’m pretty conservative.

I agree with Jadegold (*gack!* Did I really say that?)…

This is akin to the old prosecutor’s yes/no only question, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Rob,

You are confusing minarcism with anarchism.

slarrow,

No, socialism is not primarily an “economic system”; Milton Friedman has discussed why the term can be applied be things like the drug war.

And of course its also true that say the drug war does in fact effect economic relations and thus the “economic system.” This is true of bans on dildos, etc. too.  In other words, its rather artificial to claim that the nanny-state legislation favored as a rule by Republicans isn’t directed at certain outcomes that are economic in nature.

Sometimes I wonder if people read comments before responding.

Carol says, “Do I favor racial profiling. NO”

Hypothetical: You’re robbed point blank.  What do you tell the police about the robber?  Do you describe what he looks like and fail to mention his race?  Do you expect the police to go out looking for a six foot tall, big nose, black short hair, red jacket wearing, (can’tmentionracenoracialprofiling) guy?  How effective do you think that would be?

Related question: do search everybody at an airport equally and spend an equal amount of time on them at the security checkpoint?  Or do you pay more specific attention to young Arab men then you’d do for an old white lady?

"Our main conclusions about the state are that a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons’ rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right. Two noteworthy implications are that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.” - Robert Nozick

I agree with marty.  True-blue libertarians are simply too much like anarchists.

Libertarianism is just fine, when its tempered by a healthy dose of common sense.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

In essence, Gary, anarchism is more honest than minarchism.  By promising absolutely nothing, anarchists are being more honest than minarchists who promote the notion of utopia.

Well, since there is no definition of “minarchy” in the MW dictionary, i’ll supply what google has to offer:

Minarchism, sometimes clumsily called minimal statism, is the view that government should be as small as possible. Supporters argue that it continues the tradition of classical liberal philosophy in its original form.
Radical minarchists usually agree that government should be restricted to its “minimal” or “night-watchman” state functions of government (courts, police, prisons, defence forces). Some other minarchists include in the role of government the management of essential common infrastructure (roads, money); some, by what is sometimes reproached to them as a slippery slope, include quite a lot in such essential infrastructure (schools, hospitals, social security). Actually, these minarchists often accept (in a conservative rather than principled way) as valid some of current government’s domain, and consider it more urgent to stop the expansion of government than to reduce its domain to any particular size.

In other words, Minarchy can mean as much as anarchy, and as little as socialism—depending on the eye of the beholder.  If it benefits me, it’s okay—if it benefits anyone other than me, it’s oppressive.

Me. Me. Me.

Its interesting just how many folks have a problem with liberty and freedom here, despite your pretensions otherwise.

Its not that we’re against freedom or liberty, its that we realize that any society that is going to be successful must be based on certain rules.

For instance, drug laws.  While most of us could probably agree that some drugs (like marijuana, for instance) are really no worse than alcohol.  However, other drugs (like meth) are much, much worse than alcohol and should be illegal.  And anyone who says that meth should be legal is invited to live next to a meth house for a while.

This is why absolute libertarianism is such a crock.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Seth,

Apparently I am a troll with the ability to compel you by force of reason to post my quickly put together survey.

Anyway, its important to know where others are coming from when confronting the enemies of liberty. 

Carol,

You are an authoritarian from what I can tell.

Here is perhaps a more authoritative quiz:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

likwidshoe,

Quit obviously there is a difference between a APB based on the known charteristics of an actual individual and racial profiling.  That you try to conflate the two is telling. 

Or do you pay more specific attention to young Arab men then you’d do for an old white lady?

The Constitution demands that the strict scrutiny standard be applied to race, alienage, etc.  If your search technique can pass the strict scrutiny standard then I would say that you are alright.

So Gary, since you are not an anarchist, do you favor or oppose the double yellow line (no passing) on the highway?  Why or why not?

JG,

Minarchists aren’t utopian in their outlook; anarchists are.  Minarchists argue for limited government because they aren’t utopians.

marty,

Interestingly enough, your quote skewers your statement by stating that principled minarchists (real ones in other words) don’t argue for the sort of socialism you ascribe to some minarchists.

Rob,

And of course, as those involved in the issue will tell you, it invites the government to engage in corruption of both the legal system (e.g, fact bargaining is the least of these) and has provided the government with an excuse to lie to the public (e.g., the commercials concerning drug use and terrorism).

If your concern is public safety that issue can be dealt with as drunk driving has been dealt with.  Though - as we have seen with MADD - even that can be taken to non-sensical, irrational ends.  See what I mean by that last comment here:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm

Rob,

Its not that we’re against freedom or liberty, its that we realize that any society that is going to be successful must be based on certain rules.

Libertarianism doesn’t eschew rules of course (despite your dishonest and loathesome effort to imply otherwise).  But thanks for the strawman argument.

While most of us could probably agree that some drugs (like marijuana, for instance) are really no worse than alcohol. However, other drugs (like meth) are much, much worse than alcohol and should be illegal.

Much, much worse how?  A priori truth claims won’t wash. 

Much, much worse than the current system of prohibition we have in place?  Which hasn’t (a) ended drug use, (b) has created a perverse incentive for criminality (this is often the biggest beef against any government program), and (c) has lead to life imprisonment for innumerable individuals who merely continue to take drugs in prison.

Marty,

Though yours is not a serious question, I will endeavour to answer it seriouysly.

As a rule I disfavor public roads and the “public planning” systems that create, design, etc. them.  I would sell off all public roads and let market forces dictate where ned roads should be built.

Rob,

Strictly from a rule utilitarian viewpoint (forget any non-consequentialist claims) drug prohibition is an absolute disaster.  It invites more misery on the lives of individuals than the drugs themselves ever likely would.

Rob,

Well thanks for pulling one statement out of a comment and using it to call me dishonest. If you look at the whole comment you get my meaning.

*yawn* I accurately criticized your attempt to smear libertarianism as without “rules.” That you now try to deny this smear just lowers your credibility even more. 

And you’re totally missing the point with what I said with regard to drugs. Clearly I’m for the legalization of many drugs. Heck, just legalizing marijuana would alleviate many of the problems you mention.

I am not missing your point at all.  You are a drug prohibitionist.  What you pick and choose not to prohibit doesn’t take away from this fact.  Again, you are a drug prohibitionist. 

But some drugs just shouldn’t be legal. Like meth. Meth, literally, makes people go insane.

Yes, we always hear this about every prohibited drug; its the “refeer madness” trope.

This is the problem with libertarianism. There is no moderation.

No, its that my moderation differs from your nanny-state, narrow, parochial, I am going to shove my sense of what is right down your throat “moderation.”

No common ground. Heck, no common sense.

Yes, and your common sense is to create feedback loops of criminality and drug use in prison.  Great. 

BTW, rants about “common sense” based on what appear to be claims of a prior reasoning strike me as weak arguments at best.  Screaming at the top of your lungs that its “common sense” just isn’t very convincing.

Libertarianism doesn’t eschew rules of course (despite your dishonest and loathesome effort to imply otherwise). But thanks for the strawman argument.

Well thanks for pulling one statement out of a comment and using it to call me dishonest.  If you look at the whole comment you get my meaning.

And you’re totally missing the point with what I said with regard to drugs.  Clearly I’m for the legalization of many drugs.  Heck, just legalizing marijuana would alleviate many of the problems you mention.

But some drugs just shouldn’t be legal.  Like meth.  Meth, literally, makes people go insane.  There is no reason why it should be legal and anyone who says it should be legal should have to live next to a house full of meth heads.

This is the problem with libertarianism.  There is no moderation.  No common ground.  Heck, no common sense.  We can’t just legalize some of the less worrisome drugs, we must legalize all drugs.

Its craziness.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Minarchists aren’t utopian in their outlook; anarchists are. Minarchists argue for limited government because they aren’t utopians.

I disagree. But as I’ve always seen, every libertarian has his own concept of libertarianism.

it invites the government to engage in corruption of both the legal system

Perhaps one of the biggest myths of libertarianism is the notion the Govt would ‘go away’ or have minimal impact in day to day life.  In reality, though, problems of enforcing contracts and property rights would likely require more Govt--not less--in the libertarian utopia.

GG: As a rule I disfavor public roads and the “public planning� systems that create, design, etc. them. I would sell off all public roads and let market forces dictate where need roads should be built.

So all roads would be privately owned, and the owners could choose to paint lines and enforce rules and charge tolls for use, as they see fit.  Is that correct, in your view?

Marty,

So all roads would be privately owned, and the owners could choose to paint lines and enforce rules and charge tolls for use, as they see fit.

Potentially yes, but the check on this would be the consumer and profit incentive.  A road owner is unlikely to shoot himself in the foot by pissing of those who may want to use his or her road.  And of course even the concept of the road may change over time; that’s the beauty of technology. 

Take the FCC for example; in a world dominated by say narrowcasting why would it be even needed?

JG,

I disagree. But as I’ve always seen, every libertarian has his own concept of libertarianism.

Well, that’s true of any ideology.  However, so far you haven’t explain why I am wrong.

How is acceptance of the fact that some things can only be handled by a government “utopian” as opposed to the notion of left and right anarchists that all government can be done away with?  Until you offer an explanation there is no reason for me to take you seriously.

In reality, though, problems of enforcing contracts and property rights would likely require more Govt–not less–in the libertarian utopia.

That’s not really true since as any lawyer will tell you most disputes between contracting parties, etc. are not settled by the government.  The government is a final backstop not the first backstop as you erroneously claim.  So the myth lies in your claim not mine.

Marty,

I am not equivocating; note that my first statement stated I support such a policy “as a rule” or something along those lines.  Note that a “rule” customarily or generally governs acts. Quit pretending like I made some sort of absolutist claim. 

Anyway, there might be a need for a road on a military base or around public monuments, but aside from that I would favor the privatization of roads. 

Of course the interstate system is justified today under the “post roads” provision of the U.S. Constitution.  So it seems pretty clear that federal roads are constitutional.  And since the states have plenary power, unless it would be specifically prohibited by the state constitution, no prohibition exists there either.

Marty,

Bastiat (he’s the man pictured in my gravatar) emphasized the unintended consequences of government policy.  And its those unintededn consequences that are always so nettlesome since those effects will invariably undermine the benefits not foreseen by the architects of that policy.  As an example look at the horrors of natural gas regulation in this country; regulation which had the unintended effect of materially and significantly aiding the “energy crisis” of the 1970s.  I am sure that the authors of the regulation had benign intentions but their efforts turned into a disaster that they did not have to face since they were mostly long dead before the crisis hit. 

Most of Hayek’s work is an exploration of this very issue.

marty,

*sigh* I am not equivocating at all.  You have your answer.  Now ask the question.

Of course the interstate system is justified today under the “post roads� provision of the U.S. Constitution. So it seems pretty clear that federal roads are constitutional. And since the states have plenary power, unless it would be specifically prohibited by the state constitution, no prohibition exists there either.

Heh, more equivocating nonsense.  What on earth does the U.S. Constitution have to do with your “minarchist” view of libertarianism?

I cannot get to the point here if you refuse to take an absolutist position on it.  And if there is none—then what better position can you offer beyond “by the consent of the governed” or “by the people, of the people, for the people”?

You didnt quite answer the question, and are a equivocating just a bit with this:  “Potentially yes, but the check on this would be the consumer and profit incentive.”

So what are you saying, that all roads should be privately operated or not?  That some are public, some private?  Or that most are mostly private, with some level of government supervision?

I need a clear and realistic answer here, so i can ask you the next one.  The important one.

Marty,

BTW, since I never made an absolutist claim in the first place (though you strongly imply that I did and am now backing out of it), I don’t know why you have your pants in a bunch.  I suspect its because you want to make some strawman or red herring argument.

marty,

Last salvo.

Its not coercion of course.  After all, neither the landlord nor the road owner have used force to comply with their demands.  Each party is free to accept or deny the offer. 

Now the government uses coercion as does a thief with a weapon.

That’s fine, at least now i know what forms of sexual coercion are considered “legal” in Garyland… Just needed to clear up what you meant my minarchy, that’s all

PS: ignore me much sooner next time, save yourself the greif.

Fine, let’s have some fun

I own a large tract of property, straight, flat land that crosses two states.  I build a very wide road, the fastest and safest route from point A to point B.  I open it to the public for use with no speed limits, drive at your own risk—so long as they pay the toll.

The price is sex.  Someone in your vehicle must perform a sexual act with me before you may pass.  Your choice, i own the road—you don’t ahev to drive it. Market forces are what i say they are. 

Is this “legal” in your “minarchy”?

If the road toll is too abstract, consider this slight twist:  My father died and bequeathed to me an apartment building.  I raise the rent by one sexual act per week.  If you don’t pay, you will be evicted.  Legal, in Garyland?

Marty,

I’m just having a little fun with you, sourpuss.

Since you are just a troll, I think I can now safely ignore your comments.

Enjoy.

Marty,

I take lies about my statements seriously.  If you don’t like that, stop lying.

I own a large tract of property, straight, flat land that crosses two states.

We’ll call it Blackacre.

I build a very wide road, the fastest and safest route from point A to point B.

We’ll call it Blackacre road.

I open it to the public for use with no speed limits, drive at your own risk — so long as they pay the toll.

The price is sex. Someone in your vehicle must perform a sexual act with me before you may pass. Your choice, i own the road — you don’t ahev to drive it. Market forces are what i say they are.

At this point your scenario falls apart.  You are unlikely to get many travellers on such a road except for drag racers, porn stars, etc.  The consumer is unlikely, in other words, to take the high risks or pay for the admission to such a road.  Wow, the markets you apparently despise at work.  Anyway, I knew you’d create a strawman of some variety at some point. 

Is this “legal� in your “minarchy�?

Sure. 

My father died and bequeathed to me an apartment building. I raise the rent by one sexual act per week. If you don’t pay, you will be evicted. Legal, in Garyland?

Depends on the nature of the contract (K) between you the bequethed party and the tenants.  However, if the K doesn’t preclude such it would be legal.  And you are the one who impliedly introduced the issue of a pre-existing contract not I. 

Of course the point is that consumers as a rule would eschew contractual relations they dislike.

Oh gary, stop taking things so personally.  My panties are just fine, as are my red herrings (tasty!) and strawmen (not so tasty).  I’m just having a little fun with you, sourpuss.  Now quit being such a shithead and play along.

Here’s my answers. What am I and why?

Do you favor drug prohibition? No
Do you favor laws which prohibit abortion? Yes
Do favor laws which prohibit particular types of adult consensual sex? No
Do you favor laws which limit immigration on factors other than criminal background? Yes
Do you favor laws where the state is involved in directly or indirectly sanctioning certain types of sexual relationships? Yes
Do you favor laws which prohibit euthanasia? Yes
Do you favor laws which prohibit adult pornography? No
Do you favor federal healthy and safety legislation? Or state? Federal
Do you favor federal environmental legislation? Or state? Federal
Do you favor a draft? Yes
Do you favor other types of coerced “public service� not related to a criminal sentence (e.g., a coerced form of “Peace Corps�-like involvement)? Yes
Do you favor censorship of speech and the media in time of war (as many conservatives apparently do)? Yes
Do you favor concealed carry prohibitions? No
Do you favor warrant less searches (physical or otherwise) of American citizens? No
Do you favor warrant less searches (physical or otherwise) of non-Americans? Yes
Do you favor racial profiling? Yes
Do you favor affirmative action? No
Do you favor public schools? No
Do you favor government funding of science, the arts, etc.? Yes
Do you favor government funding, support, etc. - direct or indirect - of religion? No

Bruce T.,

Somewhere between statist and conservative maybe.

This test may be more accurate:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I would interested in further elaboration of your answers though.

likwidshoe,

It’s murder in my view. Libertarian principles hold that it’s wrong to tread on someone else’s freedom. Abortion certainly counts as treading on someone else’s freedom. A lot of so called libertarians, however, fail to see that it’s not simply the woman’s body, there are two or more bodies in play here.

Well, that’s one position, and I believe the wrong one.  A person doesn’t exist until a person is born is a far more reasonable way to look at the issue.

Yes. We need measured immigration control.

This invariably means a police state of course.  “Measured” immigration is behind the current Republican effort to create a national ID card for example.  In order to have “measured” immigration based on anything but simple criteria like a criminal record you are invariably going to increase the power of the state over the individual because of the bureacracy needed to enforce such a program. 

I’m on the side of marriage, and not for debasing it’s meaning. Libertarians take the view that the state shouldn’t recognize or acknowledge marriage. It’s a point of disagreement I have with them.

Yes, “debasing” the meaning.  As if marraige were some immutable thing that its based wholly on the culture who happens to define it.  If individuals want to call their union a marraige I dodn’t see why the state should be involved.  Indeed, aside from protecting in a pednatic manner the meaning of a word (where the hell did government get the power to do that), you have no substantive argument here.  Oh yes, let’s call out the word police!  The word police!

It’s too ripe for abuse.

Freedom and liberty are always ripe for abuse.  That doesn’t mean we must throw them out.  You make the perfect the enemy of the good. 

...just it to be figured out in the marketplace.

And thus avoid the waste and unintended consequences of governemtn regulation.  Aside from the moral dimension of human liberty there is the simple fact that government regulation leads to ineffeciencies that simply can’t be justified.  In the 1990s there was a great article in the Yale Journal on Regulation.  It was a detailed literature review of studies doing CBAs of regulation; across the board, except for highway safety regulation, they found that regulations were more costly than beneficial.  That means that regulation is almost invariably more trouble than its worth. 

A draft by its very essence is anti-liberty and can find no justification based on principles of liberty.  Of course there is also the fact that our non-draft experience has shown us that a non-draft military is superior to a draft military.

Loaded biased question. What is this? A CBS poll? Pass on the absurdity of the question’s wording.

Ann Coulter and a number of conservatives have claimed that there are proper limits to speech and the press in time of war.  Indeed, there was a slew of authors who condemned Seymour Hersh while at the same time calling for just such censorship.  Its not a loaded question, it asks a question re: an issue that a lot of conservatives have gotten behind. 

For convicted violent criminals and thieves. For everybody else I direct to the 2nd Amendment and point out that I don’t see concealed carry prohibitions in there.

Concealed weapons bans were common around the time of passage of the Second Amendment.  Anyway, you don’t see anything in the Second Amendment about arty, but its clear that it doesn’t cover arty because of the sort of legal prohibitions against its use by civilians in both England (where the Amendments language derives from - read Blackstone’s Commentaries) or the colonies/states. 

I support this and this to the letter.

So, you support warrantless searches, eh?  Wow.  Not a friend of the 4th Amendment it seems. 

Loaded question. I don’t “favor� warrantless searches of non-Americans, but I do accept them.

Apparently any question that forces you to make up your mind is “loaded.” Ha ha ha.

Loaded question.

How, pray reveal, is the racial profiling question “loaded?” Its not a “yes” or “no” question after all.  Now, if I had added “yes or “nor” at the end of the state question, that would be loaded.  But the question doesn’t commit you to a yes or no answer.  Maybe you ought to know what a loaded question is first.

You don’t give a description of a burglary suspect (for example) and leave out the race.

That’s not racial profiling of course.  Why you are confusing this with racial profiling I cannot say.  Perhaps to obfuscate the subject at hand?  Neverthless, its a dishonest response.

Science? Most definitely for military reasons.

Well, that’s a plausible reason, but science means much more than science to build a better bomber.  It applies to all manner of scientific endeavours, including “social science” directed at how better to sell a government program. 

My answer is yes. What comes to mind immediately is our goverment paying for pastors, ministers, and whathaveyou for our troops. I believe that the jumpin’ ugly ones that scream, “separation of church and state!!� are being assholes.

Direct and indirect funding generally refers to the promotion of a particular religion and not to equal access.  And again the question isn’t loaded.  If that were true it would force one to answer yes or no, which it clearly doesn’t. 

I did this for proprietary reasons, not for some dipshit to “score� it for me.

I’d say that you are the dipshit.  You and your word police!

Here comes the word police!

Here comes the word police!

Hey Rob, shall we all post our political compass scores too?

Gary,
Thanks for not calling me a bigot or a Socialist.

Since you asked, I’ll elaborate on my answers. If ‘maybe’ had been a choice, I would have chose maybe for probably every answer. But, in the spirit or your survey, I went with pure Yes and No answers.

Do you favor drug prohibition? No
It’s not working. And there’s no reason for it. I’m not advocating the use of Crack, or the like, but why is weed illegal and tobacco is not?

Do you favor laws which prohibit abortion? Yes
I don’t have the big of an opinion on the abortion issue, but I am definately against late-term abortion.

Do favor laws which prohibit particular types of adult consensual sex? No
Why do I care what adults do when it comes to sex?

Do you favor laws which limit immigration on factors other than criminal background? Yes
There’s got to be other reasons why you would limit immigration other than just criminal background.

Do you favor laws where the state is involved in directly or indirectly sanctioning certain types of sexual relationships? Yes
Yes, I think it should be illegal for adults to have sexual relationships with kids. NAMBLA ring a bell?

Do you favor laws which prohibit euthanasia? Yes
Have to have some laws on this or people would just kill people and say they wanted to be euthanized.

Do you favor laws which prohibit adult pornography? No
Unless it involves breaking the law, such as a snuff film. Again, why do I care what it is, as long as it doesn’t involve minors.

Do you favor federal healthy and safety legislation? Or state? Federal
First thing that comes to mind are Child Labor laws, and that falls under interstate commerce, thus Federal.

Do you favor federal environmental legislation? Or state? Federal
Federal Park system for one.

Do you favor a draft? Yes
In certain instances. WWII is a good example.

Do you favor other types of coerced “public service� not related to a criminal sentence (e.g., a coerced form of “Peace Corps�-like involvement)? Yes
Again, in certain instances.

Do you favor censorship of speech and the media in time of war (as many conservatives apparently do)? Yes
It’s called treason.

Do you favor concealed carry prohibitions? No
This was the toughest one for me. I’m all for the right to bear arms, but why do people need to walk around with a gun hidden in their coat. Be a man and carry it in a holster on your hip. Still, I don’t think there should be ANY prohibitions on gun ownership.

Do you favor warrant less searches (physical or otherwise) of American citizens? No
It’s my right as a citizen to not have illegal search and siezures done against me.

Do you favor warrant less searches (physical or otherwise) of non-Americans? Yes
As a non-citizen, you do not have that right.

Do you favor racial profiling? Yes
Why wast the time in the airport to search 80 year old ladies?

Do you favor affirmative action? No
In theory it sounds good, but it just doesn’t work.

Do you favor public schools? No
They’ve turned into a big pile of crap.

Do you favor government funding of science, the arts, etc.? Yes
Yes, of course.

Do you favor government funding, support, etc. - direct or indirect - of religion? No
I can’t think of any reason why the government should fund religion.

I didn’t get to update this yesterday, as I planned… but I just did.  Gary, How’d I do?  Am I a Socialist?