Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by kurt_borglum, Apr 11, 2014.
Then I doubt they are libertarians.
If they believe government should exist, but be small, they have already made one trade of freedom for security to get there, but that still seems perfectly in keeping with being a Libertarian.
"There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults."
What if you don't think people should be having sex in public? Wouldn't that count as a "law regarding sex?" I'm just curious if people actually said "Agree" to this one.
"Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet."
There must be limits, for instance, you can't slander somebody and call it "free speech" - do any of you actually believe that people should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequence?
I would be curious to hear from those of you who actually said "agree" to either of these.
this quiz is way to confining.
That would make them a minarchist.
This of course presupposes that the only consequence one can envision is to marshall the guns of government against people who have sex in public and who lie about you.
So, basically a libertarian that is fond of neologisms.
No, between the two of us, I'm the guy who takes terms seriously.
Is it cowardly to fear a communist or otherwise totalitarian [foreign] governmental authority, more than our own US federal government?
That's why I said I never fashioned myself a libertarian. I have a libertarian streak, but I also appreciate the benefit of a strong federal government--primarily for defense of our boarders and national security, but also for infrastructure, currency, regulation of commerce (much less than what we have now, but still...), and a handful of other areas.
Perhaps what your arguing, is 'pure libertarian', or complete/absolute libertarian.
Guilty as charged.
I didn't think it through as thoroughly as you did. Took the questions in generalized terms (since there were only 6 or so of them), rather than as absolutes--even though that's how they were written.
btw: No sex in public is a great example. Good call.
Same for free speech; some limits are necessary ('fire' in a movie theater, being the most obvious that comes to mind, as it was actually referenced in a landmark SC opinion--upon recollection; been a while...).
No, I'm saying that either people favor freedom or they don't.
Let's be honest, folks, libertarianism is like the new Irish or Scottish. Everyone thinks they're Irish or Scottish. Somehow no one is English anymore.
damn phil-you and I ended up in the same spot-oh my gosh
Well, my questions/comments only applied to those who believe in the concept of public property.
But I would be interested to read your alternatives on how the situation might be handled without a government.
Haha you and me on the same spot...
Yeah, that seems rather odd
It's flawed I say darn it.
That's always the problem with these types of quizzes. You're not supposed to really think about the questions, just give them your knee jerk answer.
I didn't take the test. I read the posts and it was enlightening, although not shocking what most of the scores were located on the spectrum. If I had to guess my place, it would be in the Libertarian side but kind of close to the Centrist border. I have a thing for liberal causes but over time you realize that government isn't the elixir that liberals want to believe in. So I am pragmatic about the opportunities for solving our social evils.
Is this your coming out party? You can't deny your wiring. Go ahead and say it.
Here, let me help you...
See? It's easy!
Our differences are generally on the veracity of sources and the quality of tactics, rarely on what the end goal is.
Unfortunately, it is easy to see any disagreement as complete disagreement and cast those who disagree as being opposite in all ways