Subject:
|
Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:55:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2500 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
> > Everyone (well most people) score as libertarians on that. Therein lies
> > it's value to the LP.
>
> Hmm. Most people who I disagree with in real life would not score as
> Libertarians on that test. In fact I have talked a few into taking it, and
> they weren't tricked into believing they were Libertarians. I think the
I've talked people into it who did answer the questions honestly, were
placed by the test as libertarians, and who were similarly not tricked
into believing that they were libertarians. It is my opinion that the
questions on the test are chosen and worded such that you have to be
kind of out to lunch to not be placed as a libertarian. I'll examine
the questions below:
Personal Issues:
1) Military service should be voluntary. (No draft)
Well, duh. I guess some people _might_ disagree, but I'm
comfy believing that they rank as out to lunch.
2) Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet.
I feel the same about this. I suppose it is slightly more
reasonable to question this since it's a complex issue, but
ultimately this is very clear to me.
3) Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults.
Along with the first one above, anyone who disagrees with this
stance is immoral.
4) Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them.
Obvious. I don't think you can find someone who disagrees with
with this anymore. (Clearly, I'm wrong but it's rare.)
5) Let peaceful people cross borders freely.
OK, I can see otherwise reasonable people disagreeing with this
due to outmoded notions of fealty and sovereignty. I agree with
the LP stance on this issue and am more extreme than this, but
this is the only one of the personal issues that I bet many
folks would disagree with.
Economic Issues:
1) Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies.
OK, I guess this is obvious to me, but anyone who has no faith
in the market would disagree with this. In fact, I think this
question doesn't belong on the test since it's likely to get
negative answers. They should change it to "farmers and business
shouldn't be paid by the government to NOT produce."
2) People are better off with free trade than with tariffs.
You have to have some basic faith in the market, but I bet most
people answer this one with a yes.
3) Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
I bet many people are negative to this as a gut reaction. I
once again agree, and I think it can clearly be demonstrated
that it's correct, but if you don't have time to explain the
how behind it, people might generally disagree.
4) End taxes. Pay for services with user fees.
Again, I think most people who don't agree with this, just don't
understand the issue. And people seem to be afraid of a few
particular privatization issues (roads and protection).
5) All foreign aid should be privately funded.
I can see again how people taking this cold (without some
discussion and explanation) would answer negatively.
So, basically, I think the personal side is well designed and the
economic side should be rewritten so that it places more people in the
libertarian camp. Even as it's set up, if you answer
Y_Y_Y_Y_M_M_Y_N_M_Y which is a reasonable answer, you fall out as a libertarian.
> Well, I have read enough of his post to think he isn't a whacko. I've
> also met enough people your circle might call whackos, and they aren't
> either.
As I suggest in an other note, a prime requisite for getting the whacko
title is wanting to legislate and dictate religion. I don't suppose I'm
willing to budge on this one.
> Thats not to say that whackos don't exist, but they are the extreme
> right of the right, maybe about 1 or 2% or less of the whole party. Whereas
I'm more generous (?) than you are. I think the extreme 10% or so of
each wing are whackos.
> in this country, most moderates (undecideds, not specifically right or left)
> are closer to the left and the left has far more whackos (extremists is
> probably a better way to put it) than the right has (1). Just my POV, feel
> free to disagree.
I don't know. In a global context, I think we're fairly conservative.
And fairly moderate. Both parties agree on more than they disagree. In
some places that's less true - as I understand it.
> > Really, it shoudl only key you into what I think. I'm not most people.
> > Please tell me what is pitiful about what you believe I think based on
> > the label I used. I mean this quite seriously.
>
> You said yourself that your circle uses that term, so its not just what
My circle is pretty small. I know a great many more netizens than fleshizens.
> you think. I agree with Scott, that you hear this particular brand of name
> calling in all kinds of media, and even in private conversations. A lot
> (maybe even most) of people in the US do think this way, whether they have
That isn't my impression. My impression is that most people in the US
are sufficiently religious that they might think those people are a
little extreme, but not whacked out. I'm willing to be wrong on this.
> given it any thought or not. It is pitiful. Its not PC to ridicule blacks
I don't think that judging people is pitiful. Is that what you mean?
Or is the implication that judging people without giving it any thought
is pitiful?
> anymore, so lets ridicule people with religion instead. Lets call them
> whackos and extremists.
Look, a black person can't be called an extremist for being black,
that's just absurd. Someone who believes extreme things (like I do) is
an extremist. Period. There's nothing wrong with that.
> 1 - In my primary education, we were told that the extremes were
> totalitarian types of government - on the right extreme there are
> authoritarians (fascists), and on the left extreme there are socialists
> (communists). From my front porch, I can see more folks bent on communism
> than fascism, today. In fact, socialism doesn't even appear to be
> considered extreme anymore.
Wow. I see it differently. I think the power of the two authoritarian
movements is roughly equal. We have a lightly liberal climate right
now, but those rabid right-wingers are ready to spring whenever they get
the chance. Socialism seems quite extreme in any kind of a pure sense.
There are certainly socialist desires in modern society, but I don't
think that you can equate that with a desire to become radically socialist.
my $.03,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Yup. There are very good reasons not to let economic refugees cross into your country freely. Most especially if you are richer than your neighbours. (...) The problem isn't that the market wouldn't provide food. It's that the market would not (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| Christopher Weeks wrote in message <3884B49F.7877B548@e...se.net>... (...) You (...) designated (...) Democratic). (...) Hmm. Most people who I disagree with in real life would not score as Libertarians on that test. In fact I have talked a few into (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
