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.

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.)

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

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.

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?

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

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!