19, I'm pro-marijuana legalization, and I believe that when it said "vigilante justice" it meant "the government doesn't necessarily mandate morality," so I may be giving them a break there.
List of questions I said yes to: Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?
See above. Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?
Yes, though I don't think murder is always wrong. Should all drugs be legalized for adults?
Sure, but that also means regulation, as well as rules against coming into work/what-have-you too high to work/what-have-you. Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies that are rich enough to defend themselves?
Yes? Seems like it's suggesting yes from the get-go. Should the military budget be cut?
Yes, but not by 50%. Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries?
Yes. All that jazz. I hate the "Amurica is policemans!" argument for us bullying people around. Do you believe in freedom of expression for books, newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, and
so on, even for offensive and unpopular views and subject matters?
Yes, because in matters of freedom of speech I err on the side of freedom, though I might regret that later. Should all sex between consenting adults be legal -- even for money?
Yes. Should marijuana be legalized?
Yes, why not? Is government spending too high?
Yes, but I wouldn't cut it by 50%. Are taxes too high?
Yes, but again not 50%.
The US should defend countries rich enough to defend itself, because that includes Japan, and if we pull out of Japan they begin building up their military, which scares the shit out of China and Korea because of all of the bad blood there, so China and SK begin building up their military, and now Kim Jong Il has a new threat to rebuild his nuclear arsenal and generally fuck with the world (although I do admit he doesn't really need one to restart). In conclusion we have an east asian arms race that occurs between US allies which is most likely to end badly. Like, end of the world badly.
I hope that answers your question.
And I got a 14. Apparently I should explore my libertarian views. I'll get to that right after exploring lesbianism.
It seems kind of like the quiz has promoted discussion about the quiz.
Awesome.
Here's a couple of links to videos (you can also listen to the audio on podcast) featuring a libertarian, Will Wilknson, I really like. He's said a few things I disagree with in the past (although nothing springs to mind at the moment, so I don't think much was beyond the pale), he seems like a lucid, smart dude that I respect and would hesitate to call retarded and dogmatic.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
Yep, and one of the Big Libertarian Myths (tm) is that employees have enough bargaining power that if they don't like the way one employer works, they can just up and leave for a better employer. (Also, in Libertariatopia, unions are A-OK so if you don't have enough bargaining power on your own, just convince all your coworkers to strike with you.)
This is the stock answer to any law that requires employers to treat their employees like human beings: minimum wage, OSHA, FMLA, anti-discrimination, etc.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
Yep, and one of the Big Libertarian Myths (tm) is that employees have enough bargaining power that if they don't like the way one employer works, they can just up and leave for a better employer. (Also, in Libertariatopia, unions are A-OK so if you don't have enough bargaining power on your own, just convince all your coworkers to strike with you.)
This is the stock answer to any law that requires employers to treat their employees like human beings: minimum wage, OSHA, FMLA, anti-discrimination, etc.
That's part of the argument. The other part of the argument is that in a society with little or no tax burden and no hiring laws more people will own businesses, thus creating more competition both in the marketplace AND for hiring. Conceivably if a person has 1 or 2 job options on the table in a socialist society, he would have 10 options in a Libertarian society, thus driving his wage and benefits up, as well as (voluntary) safety regulations.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
Yep, and one of the Big Libertarian Myths (tm) is that employees have enough bargaining power that if they don't like the way one employer works, they can just up and leave for a better employer. (Also, in Libertariatopia, unions are A-OK so if you don't have enough bargaining power on your own, just convince all your coworkers to strike with you.)
This is the stock answer to any law that requires employers to treat their employees like human beings: minimum wage, OSHA, FMLA, anti-discrimination, etc.
That's part of the argument. The other part of the argument is that in a society with little or no tax burden and no hiring laws more people will own businesses, thus creating more competition both in the marketplace AND for hiring. Conceivably if a person has 1 or 2 job options on the table in a socialist society, he would have 10 options in a Libertarian society, thus driving his wage and benefits up, as well as (voluntary) safety regulations.
Wich is a joke of course, since there is no objective way of knowing that this golden age of businesses will apear in a Liberteratiatopia. People may be stuck with the same 2 options as before, only without the same protections.
Also whats to prevent buisnesses from cooperating, driving down wages, eroding worker safety laws? If enough of them do so, they would be able to drive any non-complying buisness out of the market. Leaving you with 9 equaly shity job offers.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
That quiz was so scary.
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
Yep, and one of the Big Libertarian Myths (tm) is that employees have enough bargaining power that if they don't like the way one employer works, they can just up and leave for a better employer. (Also, in Libertariatopia, unions are A-OK so if you don't have enough bargaining power on your own, just convince all your coworkers to strike with you.)
This is the stock answer to any law that requires employers to treat their employees like human beings: minimum wage, OSHA, FMLA, anti-discrimination, etc.
That's part of the argument. The other part of the argument is that in a society with little or no tax burden and no hiring laws more people will own businesses, thus creating more competition both in the marketplace AND for hiring. Conceivably if a person has 1 or 2 job options on the table in a socialist society, he would have 10 options in a Libertarian society, thus driving his wage and benefits up, as well as (voluntary) safety regulations.
Wich is a joke of course, since there is no objective way of knowing that this golden age of businesses will apear in a Liberteratiatopia. People may be stuck with the same 2 options as before, only without the same protections.
Also whats to prevent buisnesses from cooperating, driving down wages, eroding worker safety laws? If enough of them do so, they would be able to drive any non-complying buisness out of the market. Leaving you with 9 equaly shity job offers.
No doubt. Eliminate the laws against it and welcome to the collusion train. Hell, it goes on well enough even with the laws in place. Research Tucker cars. He had a helluva time getting the steel to make his cars because the auto companies were cock blocking him.
That's the problem with Libs, they just don't understand that it's in the best interest of big companies to kill small ones, collude, and generally fuck over their workers and consumers as much as they can to pad profit margins.
What you'll end up with is more and more desperate poor with no recourse and fabulously rich that don't care. When you have that kind of class gap with no real shot at upward mobility.... well, I don't particularly want to be around when that crime laden-pre revolution society starts forming.
I got a 32 on that test. "You will only become more extreme as time goes on..." Pfft.
I used to be a hardcore "libertarian." (It's become such a vague term. I mean like, almost an "anarcho-capitalist.") Then I realized so much of what I asked for was petty fucking idealism, and now I'm willing to make compromises.
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
I think this idea is actually what drew me to the ideology.
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
I think this idea is actually what drew me to the ideology.
I always wonder how many people do not realize that they are not exceptional and the odds are that they will end up getting extremely fucked over. (And this is not to say that you would get fucked over, just the odds most likely are not in your favor.)
I always wonder how many people do not realize that they are not exceptional and the odds are that they will end up getting extremely fucked over. (And this is not to say that you would get fucked over, just the odds most likely are not in your favor.)
In my case, it was never a question of odds. I just looked at those who came before and been fucked over, and decided that I would take steps to prevent it, as well as doing whatever I could to predict the future. I still follow this idea to an extent - "I will succeed because I will not allow myself to fail." I rarely glanced at the odds.
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
I think this idea is actually what drew me to the ideology.
I always wonder how many people do not realize that they are not exceptional and the odds are that they will end up getting extremely fucked over. (And this is not to say that you would get fucked over, just the odds most likely are not in your favor.)
I think at some point most of these people will realize they are very average people in exceptionally good circumstances. At least, I hope they reach that maturity level.
I always wonder how many people do not realize that they are not exceptional and the odds are that they will end up getting extremely fucked over. (And this is not to say that you would get fucked over, just the odds most likely are not in your favor.)
In my case, it was never a question of odds. I just looked at those who came before and been fucked over, and decided that I would take steps to prevent it, as well as doing whatever I could to predict the future. I still follow this idea to an extent - "I will succeed because I will not allow myself to fail." I rarely glanced at the odds.
That's part of the point, no one looks at the odds, but the reality is, nearly everyone would be fighting an uphill battle.
I think at some point most of these people will realize they are very average people in exceptionally good circumstances. At least, I hope they reach that maturity level.
Any ideology that encourages you to just not give a fuck about your fellow man is probably a bad one.
I'm not sure libertarianism as a philosophy does that strictly speaking. That might just be part of the gestalt of the people drawn to it.
That's a distinction I'm comfortable fudging.
Therefore Marx is bad because of Stalin; Nietchze is right out; Mao liked Sun Tzu so better burn your copies of Art of War...and I'm pretty sure the complete works of Shakespeare would be up in flames.
I think at some point most of these people will realize they are very average people in exceptionally good circumstances. At least, I hope they reach that maturity level.
And I believe that epiphany is what drew me away.
Happened for me the first time I read Ayn Rand. And I read that because of the South Park episode where Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged.
What I don't understand is this, and maybe you fine people can help me out here. People believe that the government is evil. In any country where the government is composed of and structured by officials elected by the population of the country, I can't fathom how the government could be evil (without of course taking away the people's right to vote and change the government). Anyone have anything here? Are we evil? Am I evil?
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
What I don't understand is this, and maybe you fine people can help me out here. People believe that the government is evil. In any country where the government is composed of and structured by officials elected by the population of the country, I can't fathom how the government could be evil (without of course taking away the people's right to vote and change the government). Anyone have anything here? Are we evil? Am I evil?
Yes, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing the libertarians down.
...er, because the world isn't as simple as: I think my politician is a good person therefore he is a good person. Or even better: My politician says he is a good person therefore he is a good person.
On an only minutely more complex level, where there are opposing political parties, it's quite possible for half the population to think the party of the other half, who got in, are ebil.
But largely, I would imagine it is Kafkaesque fear of the inhumanity of large bureaucratic systems. This is sometimes taken to stupid extremes, but in moderate doses pretty damn smart.
...er, because the world isn't as simple as: I think my politician is a good person therefore he is a good person. Or even better: My politician says he is a good person therefore he is a good person.
On an only minutely more complex level, where there are opposing political parties, it's quite possible for half the population to think the party of the other half, who got in, are ebil.
But largely, I would imagine it is Kafkaesque fear of the inhumanity of large bureaucratic systems. This is sometimes taken to stupid extremes, but in moderate doses pretty damn smart.
In a more concrete way, I assume that the people who think that the government is evil think that there are specific evil things that they are doing right? Well, the easy way to fix that, to make it so that the evil things are no longer being done by the government are evil, you simply elect new people to do things other than the evil things from before.
I guess that I'm willing to accept that the government is evil because an overriding majority of people who elect the officials in the government are evil, and want the government to run around doing evil things. But even then, it's not the government that's evil, it's the people in it, or the people supporting it. In any place where the government can be a reflection of the people living under it, I don't see how anyone can hate it. The government is you, and me. Granted in the US we have such low voter turnout the government might not actually be a representation of the people, but of only some of the people. Even then the solution is to have more people vote.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I kind of thought you were using 'evil' ironically. I don't think even hardcore Libertarians actually think the government is evil. Using that word actually makes your point a bit confused, since it changes the meaning to some good/bad moral issue.
Your point is pretty obvious if you replace 'evil' to 'think differently to me', because yes, the government is composed of people who think differently to other people, and it is composed of those people because they were elected by people who think the same as them.
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.
But I meant government interference on the whole, not just strictly anti-trust laws. And if not monopolies then what about oligarchies?
Posts
List of questions I said yes to:
Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?
See above.
Is bombing civilians in an enemy country morally equivalent to murder?
Yes, though I don't think murder is always wrong.
Should all drugs be legalized for adults?
Sure, but that also means regulation, as well as rules against coming into work/what-have-you too high to work/what-have-you.
Should the U.S. refuse to pay for the defense of allies that are rich enough to defend themselves?
Yes? Seems like it's suggesting yes from the get-go.
Should the military budget be cut?
Yes, but not by 50%.
Does the U.S. intervene too much in other countries?
Yes. All that jazz. I hate the "Amurica is policemans!" argument for us bullying people around.
Do you believe in freedom of expression for books, newspapers, radio, television, the Internet, and
so on, even for offensive and unpopular views and subject matters?
Yes, because in matters of freedom of speech I err on the side of freedom, though I might regret that later.
Should all sex between consenting adults be legal -- even for money?
Yes.
Should marijuana be legalized?
Yes, why not?
Is government spending too high?
Yes, but I wouldn't cut it by 50%.
Are taxes too high?
Yes, but again not 50%.
11 questions. Whee.
I hope that answers your question.
And I got a 14. Apparently I should explore my libertarian views. I'll get to that right after exploring lesbianism.
Awesome.
Here's a couple of links to videos (you can also listen to the audio on podcast) featuring a libertarian, Will Wilknson, I really like. He's said a few things I disagree with in the past (although nothing springs to mind at the moment, so I don't think much was beyond the pale), he seems like a lucid, smart dude that I respect and would hesitate to call retarded and dogmatic.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7753
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400
Fuck, libertarians actually want this stuff?
Are worker safety regulations too strict?
This one was not especially popular when I calculated the first round of results for the first 281 test-takers (61.57% said yes). Support is even lower now - just barely over 50%. Is is mainly out of paternalism (workers are too dumb to decide if a job is too risky for them)? Or is it the cultural residue of the Marxist interpretation of the wage contract as inherently biased against the worker?
Shit, I'm a potential.
Get it off, get it off.
Remember, the argument is that the exceptional individual shouldn't be limited, no matter how many people get fucked over as a consequence.
Geez, if libertarians actually answered yes to some of those questions they must be friggin insane.
Yep, and one of the Big Libertarian Myths (tm) is that employees have enough bargaining power that if they don't like the way one employer works, they can just up and leave for a better employer. (Also, in Libertariatopia, unions are A-OK so if you don't have enough bargaining power on your own, just convince all your coworkers to strike with you.)
This is the stock answer to any law that requires employers to treat their employees like human beings: minimum wage, OSHA, FMLA, anti-discrimination, etc.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's part of the argument. The other part of the argument is that in a society with little or no tax burden and no hiring laws more people will own businesses, thus creating more competition both in the marketplace AND for hiring. Conceivably if a person has 1 or 2 job options on the table in a socialist society, he would have 10 options in a Libertarian society, thus driving his wage and benefits up, as well as (voluntary) safety regulations.
Grand total = 26. I'm a little disappointed actually. Given the types of questions I thought my score would be a little lower.
Wich is a joke of course, since there is no objective way of knowing that this golden age of businesses will apear in a Liberteratiatopia. People may be stuck with the same 2 options as before, only without the same protections.
Also whats to prevent buisnesses from cooperating, driving down wages, eroding worker safety laws? If enough of them do so, they would be able to drive any non-complying buisness out of the market. Leaving you with 9 equaly shity job offers.
No doubt. Eliminate the laws against it and welcome to the collusion train. Hell, it goes on well enough even with the laws in place. Research Tucker cars. He had a helluva time getting the steel to make his cars because the auto companies were cock blocking him.
That's the problem with Libs, they just don't understand that it's in the best interest of big companies to kill small ones, collude, and generally fuck over their workers and consumers as much as they can to pad profit margins.
What you'll end up with is more and more desperate poor with no recourse and fabulously rich that don't care. When you have that kind of class gap with no real shot at upward mobility.... well, I don't particularly want to be around when that crime laden-pre revolution society starts forming.
And I had to laugh at the question if the government spends too much on higher ed. I might be biased, but I went with no.:P
Magic Online - Bertro
I used to be a hardcore "libertarian." (It's become such a vague term. I mean like, almost an "anarcho-capitalist.") Then I realized so much of what I asked for was petty fucking idealism, and now I'm willing to make compromises.
I think this idea is actually what drew me to the ideology.
I always wonder how many people do not realize that they are not exceptional and the odds are that they will end up getting extremely fucked over. (And this is not to say that you would get fucked over, just the odds most likely are not in your favor.)
Magic Online - Bertro
In my case, it was never a question of odds. I just looked at those who came before and been fucked over, and decided that I would take steps to prevent it, as well as doing whatever I could to predict the future. I still follow this idea to an extent - "I will succeed because I will not allow myself to fail." I rarely glanced at the odds.
I think at some point most of these people will realize they are very average people in exceptionally good circumstances. At least, I hope they reach that maturity level.
That's part of the point, no one looks at the odds, but the reality is, nearly everyone would be fighting an uphill battle.
:edit: also what Derrick said.
Magic Online - Bertro
And I believe that epiphany is what drew me away.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not sure libertarianism as a philosophy does that strictly speaking. That might just be part of the gestalt of the people drawn to it.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"You are a soft-core libertarian. With effort, you may harden and become pure."
How I yearn to stiffen.
Heh. Is that how the test sounds? Methinks they'd attract more people by sounding less like a cult.
Therefore Marx is bad because of Stalin; Nietchze is right out; Mao liked Sun Tzu so better burn your copies of Art of War...and I'm pretty sure the complete works of Shakespeare would be up in flames.
Good fudge.
Happened for me the first time I read Ayn Rand. And I read that because of the South Park episode where Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged.
You took that as a recommendation? I no fink i'mean what you fink i'mean.
Although there is some truth in that, I find the implications of that mindset at least as disturbing as the "I'm a special flower" one.
What I don't understand is this, and maybe you fine people can help me out here. People believe that the government is evil. In any country where the government is composed of and structured by officials elected by the population of the country, I can't fathom how the government could be evil (without of course taking away the people's right to vote and change the government). Anyone have anything here? Are we evil? Am I evil?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Yes, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing the libertarians down.
On an only minutely more complex level, where there are opposing political parties, it's quite possible for half the population to think the party of the other half, who got in, are ebil.
But largely, I would imagine it is Kafkaesque fear of the inhumanity of large bureaucratic systems. This is sometimes taken to stupid extremes, but in moderate doses pretty damn smart.
In a more concrete way, I assume that the people who think that the government is evil think that there are specific evil things that they are doing right? Well, the easy way to fix that, to make it so that the evil things are no longer being done by the government are evil, you simply elect new people to do things other than the evil things from before.
I guess that I'm willing to accept that the government is evil because an overriding majority of people who elect the officials in the government are evil, and want the government to run around doing evil things. But even then, it's not the government that's evil, it's the people in it, or the people supporting it. In any place where the government can be a reflection of the people living under it, I don't see how anyone can hate it. The government is you, and me. Granted in the US we have such low voter turnout the government might not actually be a representation of the people, but of only some of the people. Even then the solution is to have more people vote.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Your point is pretty obvious if you replace 'evil' to 'think differently to me', because yes, the government is composed of people who think differently to other people, and it is composed of those people because they were elected by people who think the same as them.
How's that for confusing?