I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).
I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.
20.
7/155, as a moderate, market-oriented leftie. Of course, this quiz is essentially that scientologist one they give you, where if you answer yes to questions like 'sometimes i am sad, sometimes i am happy', you are a prime candidate for dianetics. Seriously, who doesn't think taxes are too high? Or that "If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?."
edit: Oh, he's from George Mason. It's like the chicago school of economics, except that you replace all of the erudite paleocons with buck-toothed neocons...
Hey man I didn't write the shit, I just quoted it.
And yeah, good luck finding a clear and fully developed definition of any buzzword in politics, Loren. And conservatism is just that nowadays. Different meanings to different people, built up over too long a time in too many different countries to get any clear definition. So much so that now they generally mean what people want them to mean when they're saying them.
I mean, I could tell you what the phrase means to me, but does it really matter? Just one more goddamn unique definition.
Although I always did like El Jeffe's, on his old blog.
Edit: Hell, just looking at the Wikipedia article on it now is a fucking quagmire. All sorts of definitions and a bunch that contradict each other.
Not to mention when the language itself is transformed, like how economic liberalism is actually championed by fiscal conservatives. Then you're just asking for a headache.
I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).
I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.
20.
7/155, as a moderate, market-oriented leftie. Of course, this quiz is essentially that scientologist one they give you, where if you answer yes to questions like 'sometimes i am sad, sometimes i am happy', you are a prime candidate for dianetics. Seriously, who doesn't think taxes are too high? Or that "If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?."
Well sure it's hardly scientific.
But that first question only gives you 1 point with a yes answer. The other sections (where the questions are a lot more extreme) give you 3 or 5. I consider myself pretty hardcore and I answered "No" to almost every question in part 3.
I anticipate most people will score low on this forum.
Edit: I'm not trying to prove a point here I'm just honestly curious.
I got a 48. It would probably be a little higher but for me not picking '...by 50 percent' on a few questions. I think cuts are necessary but that seemed like a drastic figure.
I only scored a 72/155. According to this guy I'm a moderate ;-).
I'd be interested to see how other people score if anyone would care to post their results.
20.
7/155, as a moderate, market-oriented leftie. Of course, this quiz is essentially that scientologist one they give you, where if you answer yes to questions like 'sometimes i am sad, sometimes i am happy', you are a prime candidate for dianetics. Seriously, who doesn't think taxes are too high? Or that "If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?."
edit: Oh, he's from George Mason. It's like the chicago school of economics, except that you replace all of the erudite paleocons with buck-toothed neocons...
I think I'd end up with a near zero score if the questions were more nuanced/were most than just y/n.
An internet quiz full of loaded questions? Never thought I'd see the day.
I am interested in returning to the discussion from the previous Ron Paul thread wherein Onslaught_Fei alleged that federal civil rights laws were unconstitutional, but the ones on the books were somehow permissible because those laws were already enacted.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
An internet quiz full of loaded questions? Never thought I'd see the day.
I am interested in returning to the discussion from the previous Ron Paul thread wherein Onslaught_Fei alleged that federal civil rights laws were unconstitutional, but the ones on the books were somehow permissible because those laws were already enacted.
Commerce clause you've foiled us once again.
I'd prefer to see portions of the law made into a constitutional amendment and have the act abolished.
I'm guessing the pinnacle score here is a bit (or a bunch) off what most would consider hard-core lib? I mean shit, it was pretty much blanket anarchism "let's-live-in-the-woods-and-trade-berries" kind of questions.
So, uh, wait a minute. There are people that actually answer "yes" to some of these questions?
I believe in free speech and don't have any particular problem with the legalization of MJ (not a user myself, just don't see anything wrong with it). Maybe they also snuck a few other rational questions in there on us. Unlike some, I actually read all the questions
So, uh, wait a minute. There are people that actually answer "yes" to some of these questions?
I believe in free speech and don't have any particular problem with the legalization of MJ (not a user myself, just don't see anything wrong with it). Maybe they also snuck a few other rational questions in there on us. Unlike some, I actually read all the questions
If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?
There are, obviously, some very loaded questions. Thinking the U.S. should continue to avoid civilian casualties doesn't make me more Libertarian, it makes me not an uncaring douche.
QUESTION: How would monopolies keep from forming without government interference?
Well, we never had any actual monopolies before the government formed anti-trust laws. We had big fucking companies like Standard Oil, but they never achieved 100% market share. They were actually well on the decline before they were broken up for being an illegal monopoly, and had dropped from something like a 90% market share to a 60% market share before government stepped in.
In our modern, post anti-trust era? Well, we have the NFL and the MLB, the former of which was found to be an illegal monopoly in the 80s and suffered pretty much no repercussions (and is still essentially a monopoly), and the latter of which hasn't had a successful suit filed against it yet.
So... yeah, go go anti-trust laws.
I mean, there are certainly such things as "unfair business practices", and the regulations against these are Very Good Things. But the existence of monopolies historically has pretty much squat to do with the existence of anti-trust laws.
edit: There are the phone companies, of course, but the government pretty much built AT&T into the behemoth it became in the first place, so it's sort of a screwy example.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As for Standard oil, the two largest companies to come out of the breakup were New Jersey Oil and New York Oil. These later became Exxon and Mobile, respectively. And now, hey, Exxon and Mobile are one company again. We need to get more aggressive in antitrust.
I thought the main problem in the gilded age was that while the companies remained technically independent, the colluded and formed cartels such as trusts to fix prices and eliminate competition.
I like some of the stuff in libertarianism, like the government stepping out of people's lives in a way. The war on drugs, especially the softer drugs like weed, is a huge waste of time and money. The idea of doing whatever the hell I want to as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same thing is pretty great, but that sounds a lot like how society operates right now.
The government should protect its citizens. Different people have different ideas about what exactly protection is. I think there should be national healthcare for every person in the nation, maybe paid for with taxes or something.
"The market" cannot look after itself. Hell, the government can barely look after it. I don't think businesses can be trusted to look after it either-- look at what is going with mortgages in the US right now.
Which has been denied to every other sports league, basically because everyone agrees the MLB exemption is retarded, yet won't lift it.
As for Standard oil, the two largest companies to come out of the breakup were New Jersey Oil and New York Oil. These later became Exxon and Mobile, respectively. And now, hey, Exxon and Mobile are one company again. We need to get more aggressive in antitrust.
Yes, because Exxon Mobile clearly represents a monopoly, if you completely ignore the existence of BP, Shell, Chevron, and all the others. Two companies merging is not a monopoly, or even necessarily a bad thing. And your post still doesn't address the point that we have more monopolistic behavior following the creation of anti-trust laws than we did before.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I thought the main problem in the gilded age was that while the companies remained technically independent, the colluded and formed cartels such as trusts to fix prices and eliminate competition.
Exactly - oligopoly has all the succulent, wonderful badness of monopoly.
"Should is be morally permissible to have vigilante justice, even against politicians?"
Only if you're batman.
I got 30.
And I answered that one yes, if only because it used the word 'morally.' For example, (pardon the goodwin), I would have found it morally permissible for a German in the 40s to use vigilante justice against Hitler. I would not have been surprised if said vigilante was then held to the law for his actions, but in terms of morals....sure, I can see situations where vigilante justice is perfectly permissible.
Posts
Dyscord: 0
kaliyama: 7
titmouse: 7
Thinatos: 8
AngelHedgie: 9
Sal: 9
zakkiel: 10
Derrick: 11
Smasher: 11
Kartan: 11
SolidGobi: 12
Elki: 12
Ethan Smith: 12
Picardathon: 14
The Cat: 15
Duki: 15
Kipling217: 16
ElJeffe: 17
Shinto: 17
Argus: 19
sp1ttle: 19
Loren Michael: 20
Apothe0sis: 20
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud: 23
Jragghen: 30
KungFu: 36
Fallout2man: 42
themightypuck: 43
slowroll: 44
Specularity: 47
Organichu: 48
Mithrandir86: 49
KevinNash: 72
Mace1370: 83
Onslaught_Fei: 90
Anyone else?
7/155, as a moderate, market-oriented leftie. Of course, this quiz is essentially that scientologist one they give you, where if you answer yes to questions like 'sometimes i am sad, sometimes i am happy', you are a prime candidate for dianetics. Seriously, who doesn't think taxes are too high? Or that "If it has to fight a war, should the U.S. try harder to avoid civilian targets?."
edit: Oh, he's from George Mason. It's like the chicago school of economics, except that you replace all of the erudite paleocons with buck-toothed neocons...
Hey man I didn't write the shit, I just quoted it.
And yeah, good luck finding a clear and fully developed definition of any buzzword in politics, Loren. And conservatism is just that nowadays. Different meanings to different people, built up over too long a time in too many different countries to get any clear definition. So much so that now they generally mean what people want them to mean when they're saying them.
I mean, I could tell you what the phrase means to me, but does it really matter? Just one more goddamn unique definition.
Although I always did like El Jeffe's, on his old blog.
Edit: Hell, just looking at the Wikipedia article on it now is a fucking quagmire. All sorts of definitions and a bunch that contradict each other.
Not to mention when the language itself is transformed, like how economic liberalism is actually championed by fiscal conservatives. Then you're just asking for a headache.
Well sure it's hardly scientific.
But that first question only gives you 1 point with a yes answer. The other sections (where the questions are a lot more extreme) give you 3 or 5. I consider myself pretty hardcore and I answered "No" to almost every question in part 3.
I anticipate most people will score low on this forum.
Edit: I'm not trying to prove a point here I'm just honestly curious.
I got a 12, I was really disturbed that some people would select yes for some of thoses answers....
I think I'd end up with a near zero score if the questions were more nuanced/were most than just y/n.
Libertarians aren't too bright.
Same as you, surprise surprise.
Goddamn that was a shitty quiz.
I GUESS I'M 20/160 NOT TOO BRIGHT THEN, BITCH
Um ok how about this. The LOWER you score the more AWESOME you are!! Happy now?
Everyone go take the quiz!
*does a little dance*
*makes a little love*
*is getting down tonight*
I like your style, Elki.
I am interested in returning to the discussion from the previous Ron Paul thread wherein Onslaught_Fei alleged that federal civil rights laws were unconstitutional, but the ones on the books were somehow permissible because those laws were already enacted.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Commerce clause you've foiled us once again.
I'd prefer to see portions of the law made into a constitutional amendment and have the act abolished.
A meager ration of bread and cheese from here unto the end of your days.
Don't even like freedom of expression huh? I'll add you to the scores list.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm guessing the pinnacle score here is a bit (or a bunch) off what most would consider hard-core lib? I mean shit, it was pretty much blanket anarchism "let's-live-in-the-woods-and-trade-berries" kind of questions.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
"Should we abolish worker safety regulation?"
"Should we abolish public schools and universities?"
"Should highways and roads be privatized?"
"Should all legislation be replaced by judge-made law, arbitration, and other private rule-suppliers?"
Who the fuck says "yeah, great idea!" to that kind of shit?
I believe in free speech and don't have any particular problem with the legalization of MJ (not a user myself, just don't see anything wrong with it). Maybe they also snuck a few other rational questions in there on us. Unlike some, I actually read all the questions
"Should is be morally permissible to have vigilante justice, even against politicians?"
Only if you're batman.
Eh? Eh?
Well, we never had any actual monopolies before the government formed anti-trust laws. We had big fucking companies like Standard Oil, but they never achieved 100% market share. They were actually well on the decline before they were broken up for being an illegal monopoly, and had dropped from something like a 90% market share to a 60% market share before government stepped in.
In our modern, post anti-trust era? Well, we have the NFL and the MLB, the former of which was found to be an illegal monopoly in the 80s and suffered pretty much no repercussions (and is still essentially a monopoly), and the latter of which hasn't had a successful suit filed against it yet.
So... yeah, go go anti-trust laws.
I mean, there are certainly such things as "unfair business practices", and the regulations against these are Very Good Things. But the existence of monopolies historically has pretty much squat to do with the existence of anti-trust laws.
edit: There are the phone companies, of course, but the government pretty much built AT&T into the behemoth it became in the first place, so it's sort of a screwy example.
As for Standard oil, the two largest companies to come out of the breakup were New Jersey Oil and New York Oil. These later became Exxon and Mobile, respectively. And now, hey, Exxon and Mobile are one company again. We need to get more aggressive in antitrust.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES TO THESE QUESTIONS SHOW YOURSELF RIGHT NOW!
There's a room, I need to show you it.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The government should protect its citizens. Different people have different ideas about what exactly protection is. I think there should be national healthcare for every person in the nation, maybe paid for with taxes or something.
"The market" cannot look after itself. Hell, the government can barely look after it. I don't think businesses can be trusted to look after it either-- look at what is going with mortgages in the US right now.
Which has been denied to every other sports league, basically because everyone agrees the MLB exemption is retarded, yet won't lift it.
Yes, because Exxon Mobile clearly represents a monopoly, if you completely ignore the existence of BP, Shell, Chevron, and all the others. Two companies merging is not a monopoly, or even necessarily a bad thing. And your post still doesn't address the point that we have more monopolistic behavior following the creation of anti-trust laws than we did before.
Exactly - oligopoly has all the succulent, wonderful badness of monopoly.
Apparently that makes me a soft-core libertarian.
I kinda balked at the "do you aprove of vigilante style justice, even against goverment figures" question
The presecution complexs is so much easier to understand now.
It is probably the upper limit for this forum.
I got 30.
And I answered that one yes, if only because it used the word 'morally.' For example, (pardon the goodwin), I would have found it morally permissible for a German in the 40s to use vigilante justice against Hitler. I would not have been surprised if said vigilante was then held to the law for his actions, but in terms of morals....sure, I can see situations where vigilante justice is perfectly permissible.