Libertarian Purity Test

[Craig234]

No, sorry, actually Praxis1452 is onto something with the tragedy of the commons. It's a pretty well understood economics thing, hell it is probably in every Econ 101 textbook. There is tons of research and books that talk about the idea.

You may want to personally consider it as nonsense, but economists will find sense with it.

I didn't say he claimed the Earth was flat. Such a thing is more than just a phrase, it's how it's applied, how far it's universalized, what people leave out when mentioning it, etc.

If Praxis said "He who hesitates is lost", and I replied "Not always, sometimes look before you leap", you aren't adding much by posting "no, really, the hesitates thing is widely quoted."

The discussion is more than that. I provided an example where it isn't 'tragedy of the commons' IMO. I'm not saying there isn't SOME legitimacy to the idea.

But I am saying that it can be used too widely and to support actually bad policies by people being simplistic and/or ideological about it.

There's a hell of a lot to the theory of 'the commons' where PRESERVING the commons, where the public having some recognition of the community interest in the commons, the existence of some amount of 'public' and 'government' and taxes to pay for the policy are better than not having them, to the ideologues who are blindly anti-government. (I'm not saying that describes Praxis, we didn't talk much.)

For example, "the ownership society" is a right-wing propaganda phrase with something to it.

Maggie Thatcher's government, I've heard, made a point of noting that in response to the more liberal approach of providing housing resources to the needy, who had a high rate of treating them badly which is expensive to maintain, if people 'owned' the housing, they took good care of it, saving a lot of money, and opened up the policy discussion - maybe you can pay for a lot of the assistance with the savings of helping people own a place, from the reduced maintenance.

I might have the info wrong, but the point in theory remains just fine - this would be a legitimate 'conservative' point under the label 'ownership society'.

But the phrase can also be abused, not only to simply oppose any assistance instead, but to create rules 'good for owners' without any concern that oh by the way, the rules are also being changes to benefit a small ultra rich part of society and impoverish a lot more people (think Latin American oligarchy, where a few own pretty much all the land and the peasants are lucky to work it for barely enough to eat).

So, your point 'he's on to something' is not helping. I didn't say he has NO point.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

53.
You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Full Libertarianism is a bit too anarchistic for me, although every "full" view tends to be a bit crazy in my opinion.

 

[Craig234]

81 but I took it with only the Federal gov't and the Constitution in mind. Clearly it was slanted towards an anarchist style of libertarianism which would be as bad as the socialist/statist gov't the left embraces.

Translation for the sane would note that it's more 'anarchist style of Libertarianism would be highly harmful just like any significant form of Libertarianism would be', and that 'the left' in the US is generally not what he means by the vague phrase 'socialist', a word misused enough to attack Obama who is far from any such thing, or 'statist' as if they're the USSR.

In short a bundle of words misused saying nothing but 'poopyhead' and defending his wrongheaded ideology from the 'less government' side instead of the 'more' this time.

 

[mav451]

Got a 49. Hrmm...

 

[Craig234]

53.
You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Full Libertarianism is a bit too anarchistic for me, although every "full" view tends to be a bit crazy in my opinion.

The purpose is to try to get you shifting the center of your left-right scale, so that utterly insane becomes the new 'right', and extremely right-wing Libertarianism becomes the middle.

And those Democrats? Why, they're way to the left it'd be crazy to listen to those commie nuts!

That's sort of the effect of this nonsense, that encourages, as I said before, for you to start thinking you agree to a point with Libertarians.

It's been said 'everyone agrees with Libertarians on something, but almost no one agrees with their 'real' list of policies.'

It's a bunch of nonsense that tries to get people to get frustrated with something, and provide a 'solution' that's not so good.

Communists could do the same thing. "Aren't you resentful of those big banks, who have too much influence and keep you poorer with their abuses? Vote communist!" They could make up some little quiz where you agree with them on SOME things, and say you are sort of communist. Works for anyone.

 

[bamacre]

The purpose is to try to get you shifting the center of your left-right scale, so that utterly insane becomes the new 'right', and extremely right-wing Libertarianism becomes the middle.

Or, Craig, perhaps this isn't some kind of conspiracy to change peoples' beliefs. Perhaps libertarianism is just a collection of ideas and or beliefs based upon liberty. And perhaps people generally are in favor of liberty in many ways.

What I'm attempting to say, Craig, is social liberalism doesn't belong to the Democrats. Nor does anti-war sentiment. And I understand you didn't say these ideas did, but regardless, whether you know it or not, you are implying it. And it's wrong, and I'm pointing it out to you.

 

[ShawnD1]

The purpose is to try to get you shifting the center of your left-right scale, so that utterly insane becomes the new 'right', and extremely right-wing Libertarianism becomes the middle.

And those Democrats? Why, they're way to the left it'd be crazy to listen to those commie nuts!

That's sort of the effect of this nonsense, that encourages, as I said before, for you to start thinking you agree to a point with Libertarians.

Libertarians are sort of a combination of democrats and republicans in such a way that the government stays out of everything. The democrats take more of a slack stance on personal issues such as supporting gay marriage (ie not making it illegal), supporting weird kinky sex, not being as strict against drugs, etc. The republicans take a more slack stance on financial issues such as allowing banks to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back then sell the bond to some sucker who takes a loss on it (it's illegal to do this in most countries), de-regulating prices on utilities, removing anti-monopoly laws, and removing or reducing minimum wage laws. Put those two together and you have a libertarian. Libertarians support gay marriage because the government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with. Libertarians are against minimum wage because the government should stay out of this. Libertarians are pro-drugs because we don't need a nanny government to protect us from ourselves.

Libertarians can't be put on a 1-dimension scale and compared to democrats and republicans. You need a 2 dimensional chart.
social freedom + financial freedom = libertarian or "classic liberal"
social freedom + financial regulations = democrat or "hippy liberal"
authoritarian + financial freedom = republican
authoritarian + financial regulations = soviet union

It's been said 'everyone agrees with Libertarians on something, but almost no one agrees with their 'real' list of policies.'

It's very strange why this happens. Personally, I think the libertarians are more realistic than the republicans. Both the republicans and libertarians support a bunch of crazy shit like de-regulated utilities, which we know for a fact causes the prices to go through the roof (fucking retarded republicans are idiots). What redeems the libertarians from being labeled as complete retards is the fact that they don't want to ban every damn thing in the universe. Republicans support the massive waste of money known as the War On Drugs; libertarians realize this is bullshit and want to end it. Republicans support the massive prison system that makes the US have the highest prisoner rate in the entire world; libertarians are against this one too because they are against the war on drugs. Republicans in Texas are seriously trying to make blowjobs illegal, no I'm not joking; link, video. Libertarians and democrats actually enjoy sex, so they don't pull shit like this. Republicans in Texas also made marriage illegal, not just gay marriage but all marriage; video. In the 2008 election we saw most of the republicans running on some form of pro-war campaign. McCain said he would stay in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it took, Guiliani said a bunch of bullshit about nation-building (government sponsored terrorism), and the others seemed to agree with that mentality at least to some extent. The one libertarian up there, Ron Paul, was the only guy running as a republican who seemed to be against war and nation building.

So there's your spectrum of least crazy to most crazy.
Least crazy, IMO, would be the democrats. They support oral and anal sex, they like regulated (cheap) utilities, and they support safety nets so people don't get too poor.

In the middle would be the libertarians. They enjoy sex as much as the democrats, they support making every drug OTC so I don't need to hound my doctor every 3 freakin months just to refill a prescription for a drug that I need to stay alive, but they smoke too much weed and expect the free market to not act in a socially irresponsible manner.

Most crazy would be the republicans. They don't just hate sex, but they'll go as far as making blowjobs illegal so you can't enjoy it either. They're proud that the US is #1 biggest prison state in the world. They'll gladly de-regulate your electricity so the price goes from being the lowest in the nation to being the highest in the nation within just a few years (read that article about Texas electricity prices). They support drug companies that sell amphetamine (dexedrine, adderall, desoxyn), but they will throw you in jail for 20 years if you take amphetamine. They mysteriously allow banks sell mortgage bonds, which encourages banks to give bad loans without checking your credentials. Republicans allow banks and insurance companies to leverage themselves by as much as 50 to 1 which brings a ridiculous amount of instability to the market. How the hell is this party bigger than the libertarian party? It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Craig234]

Or, Craig, perhaps this isn't some kind of conspiracy to change peoples' beliefs. Perhaps libertarianism is just a collection of ideas and or beliefs based upon liberty. And perhaps people generally are in favor of liberty in many ways.

What I'm attempting to say, Craig, is social liberalism doesn't belong to the Democrats. Nor does anti-war sentiment. And I understand you didn't say these ideas did, but regardless, whether you know it or not, you are implying it. And it's wrong, and I'm pointing it out to you.

Well, I agree it's not a conspiracy, and acknowledge that the way I put it implied it is more of one. I was talking more about the effects than the conspiracy and didn't edit it to try to make that issue laid out much. It's not uncommon for behavior to be very similar to as if there were a conspiracy to do something, when there isn't, but it looks like there is a motive.

For example, opponents to liberals love to make the accusation that aid for the poor is a conspiracy for the purpose of creating voters who owe them and will vote for them.

IMO, this is wrong, and these people are just uninformed about how the motives are to help people for less Machiavellian reasons.

But I admit it 'looks that way'. I don't think the people who make these quizzes necessarily - maybe sometimes - set out with the intent to make them 'recruitment propaganda', but that doesn't change the fact they have that function IMO. So, I'm not saying that was the conscious intent.

On your second paragraph, you correctly say I didn't say those things, and they are not my opinion. I disagree with your statement my post implied them.

Where did I say anything implying Libertarians are or are not not 'anti-war' or that they are or are not 'socially liberal'? (I think Libertarians have some on both sides for what it matters - I can find self-described Libertarians who love the drug war, who are big 'support the troops' supporters of our wars, and so on, and others on the opposite side).

And oh by the way, you did the thing you said I did, IMO - implying that Libertarians have a monopoly on 'liberty' as an issue.

Sorry, I'm for 'liberty' and think the Democrats are better for 'liberty', a term we'd obviously need to define to discuss.

Unfortunately, a lot of Libertarians - not referring to you - tend to discuss these things along the lines of when I make my case why legalizing crack cocaine seems like a bad idea, I'm suddenly in favor, they say, of any number of restrictions to liberty, regardless of my positions. For them it's all or nothing, and I don't find many open to hearing why you might have a better situation, with more liberty really, with a mixed approach. I think Libertarians often don't understand the implications of some of their positions.

I think in part that's because Libertarians are born into a system with a more liberal government providing a lot of benefits and they take them for granted, not understanding how if you remove some things, harm ensues. There's this 'rugged individualist without bureaucrats stealing their money' myth they love, just as some love 'the old west' or 'revolution' or other largely mythical things.

A lot of politics are more to do with what people hate than that they're for, and IMO Libertarians often hate bureaucrats and tyrants, and will excuse a lot to oppose them.

We haven't had robber baron tyrants in a long time, and so they aren't too worried about them. Not learning from history and all that.

To be fair, someone like Ron Paul, as much as I disagree with him, might do better on some of these issues than most Libertarians, but many wouldn't.

Take the Fed many Libertarians hate. It was created in response to the economic crisis caused by excessive freedoms and power of private finance. But while Libertarians oppose the Fed's flaws in cases, are they really in favor of a better system for the public to reign in big finance - or are they so deregulatory as to let big finance come back and cause problems? Even if - and I'm not saying they do - the leadership has a better answer, most Libertarians I see would do just that mistake.

 

[bfdd]

blowjobs illegal? WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO!?!?!

 

[IronWing]

32 and that was a very odd test, sort of, almost, like, like, like maybe it wasn't designed by libertarians at all but more like it was designed by someone making fun of libertarians.

 

[JS80]

I got a zero

You don't even pretend not to be a fascist. Pretty rare quality in fascists to admit they are one.

 

[JS80]

84

 

[Vic]

I scored a 70-something, but the test is whack. Here's why.

All authoritarian ideology is based off collective fear. In other words, whenever there is an "us" and a "them," and the story is that "they" are trying to harm "us," then your ideology is authoritarian.

Libertarianism is the opposite of the authoritarian mindset. To the libertarian, "us" and "them" are fictions. There are only individuals. Individuals may claim certain group affiliation or even act collectively from time to time, but that's it. While the notion of collectives themselves is really this primitive relic to justify homicidal sociopathy, "i.e fear the others and kill them before they kill us." So you could say that libertarian philosophy is the absolute rejection of the mob and mob rule (whether the mod is run by kings or democrats) in defense of the rights of the individual.

So this notion of a "libertarian purity" test is about an un-libertarian as anything possibly could be.