Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by kurt_borglum, Apr 11, 2014.
I, too think this one is very flawed.
About where I usually end up.
Exactly. I don't like welfare, but how realistic is it that the government would have no role whatsoever? I mean, the Romans had welfare. Think it's just a necessary evil in a civilized society.
Also, while I'd like to see a smaller and more efficient government, 50%? Bit of an extreme number that, IMO, doesn't represent reality.
mine was on point
All the people taking this probably already know how to answer the questions to get the answer they already know. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Libertarian in the corner near centrist and liberal.
damn lacuna we are pretty close
Never really figured myself for a libertarian, but...diametrically opposed to Big Brother...'er, big govm't/statism...yeah, that's about where I belong. I'll take it.
Yes, it was. You didn't even need to tell us that.
I am--that is, I'm positively shocked that you didn't score--left of (and completely off) the whole damn grid.
no that would be shab, asure, and most definitely maryland and 108
One problem with the quiz is that everyone scores libertarian. This cannot possibly be the case as Americans who promote liberty across-the-board are scarcer than hen's teeth.
That's because the survey doesnt ask people to make trade-offs like in the real world.
trade-off being another name for coercion.
Trade-off meaning they are faced with an actual choice of giving up something to obtain something, not an abstraction where they are required to give up nothing to get something.
... none of which has anything to do with libertarianism. Although it does hearken to the is-ought fallacy.
Sure it does. Surely in a given policy scenario, an actual libertarian would be willing to trade-off "security" for "freedom." The quiz just asks "do you want freedom?" Of course most people are going to pick "freedom" when there is no threat or loss to themselves to consider.
No, an actual libertarian will not trade freedom for security. Now, a coward might.
I think most rational people want some measure of security, even libertarians.
"The government should be as small as possible" is still a trade-off of some freedoms.