Show us your leanings!

[Randall Flagg]

With LTS's blessing, I thought it would be neat to get an idea of where everyone posting in this club sits on the spectrum. I'll post some links, though I probably won't get to fill mine out til later.

I like the questions (amount and freedom of exploring more nuanced takes) on this site:https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz but it doesn't give a neat and tidy spectrum like this one: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test whose questions are a lot worse and appear to be fewer. If other people have a better site then post it! 

[5th line wingnutt]

Google "world's shortest political quiz"

 

[Randall Flagg]

6 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Google "world's shortest political quiz"

 

Interesting. That tells me I'm dead center, leaning libertarian.

Here's one from the second link I posted: 

I rejected the phrasing of a lot of questions so this makes me more right than I probably am. 

[Drunkard]

No surprise to me, but I got Libertarian Lefty. -5.5 Economic Left and -5.23 Social Libertarian. I've taken the isidewith poll several times in the past and I always seem to get Bernie.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Alkoholist

[LTS]

I did the isidewith.. which I believe i have done in the past... Not sure the best way to represent it.. but here goes.

• 56% - Libertarian
• 52% - Green
• 52% - Socialist
• 50% - Democratic
• 43% - Constitution
• 42% - Republican
• 41% - Women's Equality

As for the other quiz...

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by LTS

[ubkev]

My dot sits over Noam Chomsky's face in the bottom left corner.

[That Aud Smell]

[josie]

Not too shocking I come out a lefty left. 

When it comes to actually arguing with people I know, I'm actually far more in the center (they all think centrist is a dirty word). Seems most the people I knew in college are all either super libertarian or all in on socialism... to the point that they're unironically posting pictures of Marx and defending Lenin. And I think about 99% of them have no idea what they're talking about despite having a lot to say ? 

[darksabre]

I'll be frank: I don't like these things. I can be a different thing on a different day and a different set of questions. 

[LTS]

37 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I'll be frank: I don't like these things. I can be a different thing on a different day and a different set of questions. 

True.  The general tendencies are the same.  However, pending the wording of a question I might answer differently.

But you are still Carter, not Frank.  ?

[Sabel79]

Yeah... probably about right...

 

[The Dominator]

Not surprised at all by this... 

Basically my views boil down to libertarian freedom being ideal as long as your freedom doesn't inhibit someone else's. Therefore some safety net regulation must be in place in order to limit corruption and ensure citizens have a fair chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Sabel79]

44 minutes ago, The Dominator said:

Not surprised at all by this... 

Basically my views boil down to libertarian freedom being ideal as long as your freedom doesn't inhibit someone else's. Therefore some safety net regulation must be in place in order to limit corruption and ensure citizens have a fair chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You're closer to that line than me. Libertarianism is the greatest evil this planet has had to deal with.  Congrats, White guy who loves Elon Musk.. it's a perfect circle...(not anyone specifically, even though, yeah, it's a few of you...

[North Buffalo]

Can't do this at work... but tend to be close to the middle on these things.  It depends on the issue. 

[5th line wingnutt]

8 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

You're closer to that line than me. Libertarianism is the greatest evil this planet has had to deal with.  Congrats, White guy who loves Elon Musk.. it's a perfect circle...(not anyone specifically, even though, yeah, it's a few of you...

Wait.  Libertarianism is evil.  Are you serious?  If so, can you tell us what you think is evil about libertarianism?

[Sabel79]

2 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Wait.  Libertarianism is evil.  Are you serious?  If so, can you tell us what you think is evil about libertarianism?

Libertarianism IS authoritarianism.  The logical terminus of the ideology is abject slavery for the vast majority of the population.  

With no government to keep capital's thumb off the scale, or ensure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after, or to remind us that children should not be made to fight to the death in cages for sport (extreme example, but there's precedent), things get bleak in a hurry. 

[Eleven]

19 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Google "world's shortest political quiz"

 

When I do that, I come up with a completely different quiz than what the rest of you all are showing.  Can someone post a link?

[LTS]

9 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

You're closer to that line than me. Libertarianism is the greatest evil this planet has had to deal with.  Congrats, White guy who loves Elon Musk.. it's a perfect circle...(not anyone specifically, even though, yeah, it's a few of you...

Talk about just throwing crap out there. Perhaps it might be best to not just label an entire party as being white and loving Elon Musk, especially since you do nothing to support that claim. 

1 hour ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism IS authoritarianism.  The logical terminus of the ideology is abject slavery for the vast majority of the population.  

With no government to keep capital's thumb off the scale, or ensure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after, or to remind us that children should not be made to fight to the death in cages for sport (extreme example, but there's precedent), things get bleak in a hurry. 

So, you are against personal responsibility then?  I think you might be missing the point.  It's not about no government.  It's about the proper size of government and government not restricting the way you choose to live your life.

The most vulnerable should be looked after by those who want to look after them.  No one should be forced to care for another person.  By allowing people to freely form organizations that can achieve those goals without being bound by government bureaucracy and inefficiency it allows organizations to excel at what they do. 

As for children fighting to the death in cages... what the hell are you even talking about?  If you are going to throw that around in here you should at least support your "precedent" with something.

For the record, authoritarianism, as defined, is literally the opposite of what libertarians want.  Authoritarianism defined: "the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"  Personal freedom is the underpinning of libertarianism.  

Do not tell me what to do.  I will not tell you what to do.  You do not harm me, I do not harm you.  The most authoritarian governmental designs are the ones that force people to give up their money, their personal freedom, to work to make others better without asking the others to make themselves better. 

Please bring more to the conversation on this.  Right now you've accused Libertarians of being white, slave drivers, who want children to fight in cages.  None of the libertarians that I know are racist, some are black, and as far as I know none are holding underground fight clubs for children.

Edited July 6, 2018 by LTS

[darksabre]

1 hour ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism IS authoritarianism.  The logical terminus of the ideology is abject slavery for the vast majority of the population.  

With no government to keep capital's thumb off the scale, or ensure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after, or to remind us that children should not be made to fight to the death in cages for sport (extreme example, but there's precedent), things get bleak in a hurry. 

Not that our government is even doing the best job of that right now, but your point remains valid.

Libertarianism is to me the modern equivalent of Soviet Communism. A whole bunch of people like to say and maybe even believe they are left-libertarian, but they're actually all right-libertertarian, because the "I want what is mine" part of being a Libertarian always wins out. 

[LTS]

10 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Not that our government is even doing the best job of that right now, but your point remains valid.

Libertarianism is to me the modern equivalent of Soviet Communism. A whole bunch of people like to say and maybe even believe they are left-libertarian, but they're actually all right-libertertarian, because the "I want what is mine" part of being a Libertarian always wins out. 

So, what you are saying is that greed will ultimately overtake the thinking of a libertarian?

Curious how does that work?  Greed is a trait only libertarians have?

[darksabre]

19 minutes ago, LTS said:

So, what you are saying is that greed will ultimately overtake the thinking of a libertarian?

Curious how does that work?  Greed is a trait only libertarians have?

No, but when you take all of the coercive social structure out of the mix, it becomes hugely problematic because people will ultimately resort to just worrying about themselves over anyone else. Greed is a trait everyone has, Libertarianism just enables it most effectively. 

Every liberertarian I've ever met is just mad that they have to pay taxes. So they say "if I didn't have to pay all these taxes, I could be more involved in my community! I would donate more to charity! The Gospel!" 

But they're full of shite. They really just want to build a 12 foot wall around their property and stuff their money under the mattress. 

I should add that I am sure I have Libertarian views. But I would never identify as Libertarian. Anyone who comes before me and says "I'm a Libertarian!" immediately tells me that they're only worried about themselves. They may talk a lot of talk otherwise, but I don't believe them. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by darksabre

[ubkev]

51 minutes ago, Eleven said:

When I do that, I come up with a completely different quiz than what the rest of you all are showing.  Can someone post a link?

It's the second link in Flagg's opening post.

[North Buffalo]

Poltical points of view tend to be circumference in nature not a linear continuums.  The extremes or opposites on both liberal v conservative and authoritian v libertarian meet on the opposite ends of the spectrum and mimic each other in view points making them almost indistiguishable.

[LTS]

8 minutes ago, darksabre said:

No, but when you take all of the coercive social structure out of the mix, it becomes hugely problematic because people will ultimately resort to just worrying about themselves over anyone else. Greed is a trait everyone has, Libertarianism just enables it most effectively. 

Every liberertarian I've ever met is just mad that they have to pay taxes. So they say "if I didn't have to pay all these taxes, I could be more involved in my community! I would donate more to charity! The Gospel!" 

But they're full of shite. They really just want to build a 12 foot wall around their property and stuff their money under the mattress. 

So, I donate money to charity and I don't even have a fence.

Would I donate more money to charity if I was paying less taxes?  I'd like to think the answer is yes.  I can't say for sure because I don't have that money to give.  Instead I pay school taxes into a failing education system.  I pay sales tax to help support the corrupt NYS government.  I pay Social Security into a system that is going bankrupt and the $300 that was taken out of my paycheck in 2000 will be worth exactly $1.50 when I am able to collect it.  My federal income tax supports the largest army in the world and the industrial complex behind it that is used to cater to the business whims of people who transcend political parties.

This is why I hate paying those taxes.  The money isn't being used to improve the country I live in.  It's being used to support the business dealings of those who control government officials.  Those officials being both Republican and Democrat.

You cannot legislate humanity.  You cannot legislate caring.  Those who want to segregate themselves from others will always find a way to do so.  You can't prevent it.  The best course of action is to work to shrink those groups to the point where segregation makes no sense.

So if some guy wants to build a 12 foot wall around his property.  Let him.  It's his right.  He gets to live the lonely life.  As for stuffing the money under their mattresses... they have to earn it first.  Making money requires performing services for others.  If people who don't want to support a guy who lives in a house with a 12 foot wall don't support him.  He won't have the money to build his wall or at the very least maintain it.

Not buying stuff, not supporting things is tough.  It takes personal responsibility.  It's usually at that point most people don't want to have to blame themselves for their own weakness and they want the government to intervene.  

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/626090518/faa-to-scrunched-passengers-sardine-seats-won-t-be-regulated?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180705

As I was perusing the news I came across that link.  I think it's a good subject on which to digress.

I don't think the federal government should be bothered with regulating seat sizes.  I think the general public should publicize which airlines treat customers right and which do not.  They should choose to not support those who mistreat customers. If your local airport supports that airlines, then don't support that airport.  Encourage advertisers to not support that airport.  At some point an airline executive is going to think, wow... if we charge a bit more for a slightly larger seat I bet we would get a lot of passengers.  They'd probably be right.  All of this is tough.  People don't like the concept of not flying (in this case) or not supporting a cell phone company, or anything else.  Because we are so materialistic in this world and we feel like we HAVE TO HAVE things.

We are trained to try and live beyond our means.  Why do credit cards even exist?  How often have you heard someone say, "I can't live without X".

The key to all of this is to tell you that you now know at least one libertarian who doesn't want a 12 foot wall around his property and donates to charity. Just because I want the freedom to choose how to live my life and where I spend my money doesn't mean that I won't support others who struggle to live their lives.  It does mean that I don't have to... just as I would not expect someone to support me in a time of need unless they wanted to do so.  Of course if we live our lives working to make those around us better then there's a greater chance someone wants to help in a time of need. 

[darksabre]

14 minutes ago, LTS said:

So, I donate money to charity and I don't even have a fence.

Would I donate more money to charity if I was paying less taxes?  I'd like to think the answer is yes.  I can't say for sure because I don't have that money to give.  Instead I pay school taxes into a failing education system.  I pay sales tax to help support the corrupt NYS government.  I pay Social Security into a system that is going bankrupt and the $300 that was taken out of my paycheck in 2000 will be worth exactly $1.50 when I am able to collect it.  My federal income tax supports the largest army in the world and the industrial complex behind it that is used to cater to the business whims of people who transcend political parties.

This is why I hate paying those taxes.  The money isn't being used to improve the country I live in.  It's being used to support the business dealings of those who control government officials.  Those officials being both Republican and Democrat.

You cannot legislate humanity.  You cannot legislate caring.  Those who want to segregate themselves from others will always find a way to do so.  You can't prevent it.  The best course of action is to work to shrink those groups to the point where segregation makes no sense.

So if some guy wants to build a 12 foot wall around his property.  Let him.  It's his right.  He gets to live the lonely life.  As for stuffing the money under their mattresses... they have to earn it first.  Making money requires performing services for others.  If people who don't want to support a guy who lives in a house with a 12 foot wall don't support him.  He won't have the money to build his wall or at the very least maintain it.

Not buying stuff, not supporting things is tough.  It takes personal responsibility.  It's usually at that point most people don't want to have to blame themselves for their own weakness and they want the government to intervene.  

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/05/626090518/faa-to-scrunched-passengers-sardine-seats-won-t-be-regulated?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180705

As I was perusing the news I came across that link.  I think it's a good subject on which to digress.

I don't think the federal government should be bothered with regulating seat sizes.  I think the general public should publicize which airlines treat customers right and which do not.  They should choose to not support those who mistreat customers. If your local airport supports that airlines, then don't support that airport.  Encourage advertisers to not support that airport.  At some point an airline executive is going to think, wow... if we charge a bit more for a slightly larger seat I bet we would get a lot of passengers.  They'd probably be right.  All of this is tough.  People don't like the concept of not flying (in this case) or not supporting a cell phone company, or anything else.  Because we are so materialistic in this world and we feel like we HAVE TO HAVE things.

We are trained to try and live beyond our means.  Why do credit cards even exist?  How often have you heard someone say, "I can't live without X".

The key to all of this is to tell you that you now know at least one libertarian who doesn't want a 12 foot wall around his property and donates to charity. Just because I want the freedom to choose how to live my life and where I spend my money doesn't mean that I won't support others who struggle to live their lives.  It does mean that I don't have to... just as I would not expect someone to support me in a time of need unless they wanted to do so.  Of course if we live our lives working to make those around us better then there's a greater chance someone wants to help in a time of need. 

You're not a Libertarian bud. You're just a liberal who wants a better ROI for his tax dollars.