[Nightfall]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 70%.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=600768

So, where do you land? I'd be interested to see the results of some of our THR members. :)

[greenmountaingear]

I scored as a Libertarian :)

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 80%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 90%.

[Geech]

I was on the centrist-libertarian border with a tendancy toward conservative rather than liberal.

[corncob]

80% / 80%

Right smack in the middle of Libertarian--which is strange, because I really wouldn't consider myself 100% libertarian.

[Iain]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s080_060.gif

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 80%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 60%.

Surprised anyone?

[TarpleyG]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s070_070.gif

[ReadyontheRight]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%

I'm guessing a lot of folks voted "M" or "N" on the Borders question.

I answered Y assuming that in the best of worlds, where all people in all countries had liberty and recognition/protection of their inalienable rights, crossing country borders would be like crossing state borders.

[greyhound]

Libertarian 80%/100%

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Personal 80%
Economic 100%
I just can't allow open borders.

[Pward]

map.
Find out more about:

Drug Laws
Libertarianism

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 50%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 60%.

[sm]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%

[Ian]

100%/100%
What a surprise... ;)

[Mastrogiacomo]

Centrist -- what did you expect for someone from Massachusetts....:p

[BigG]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s040_040.gif

Shows you what a poll knows, all you guys breaking your arms slapping yourselves on the back! ;)

[Preacherman]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s060_060.gif

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Preacherman, I thought you would be north of centrist!:confused:

[semf]

right smack in the middle 50/50

[Mike Irwin]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s080_020.gif


Mine keeps doing that, and I just don't understand it...:evil:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Mr. Irwin, you are joking I presume?

[twoblink]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 100%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%.

Why am I not shocked..

[Chris Rhines]

Back to back 100's, but you all already knew that...

- Chris

[MagKnightX]

www.quiz2d.com

less quick, but more comprehensive.

[MeekandMild]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 80%

[rock jock]

60%/70%

That puts me as a libertarian/centrist. I would have never guessed.

[Mike Irwin]

"Mr. Irwin, you are joking I presume?"

DOWN WITH THE WAR MONKEYS! (If you take out Corneilus and Zera first, they'll fold)

MAKE PIZZA, NOT WAR! (I'd like a slice with garlic and anchovies)

YOU CAN'T HUG ANYONE WITH NUCLEAR ARMS! (But you sure can make them glow)

FUR IS MURDER (on the wallet)!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE! (These rolling blackouts are murder on my Tivo)

NO ONE NEEDS A CAR THAT GETS LESS THAN 50 MPG! (Thank God my Chevy Subdivision isn't a car)



Actually, every time I take the test my computer clicks its disk drives and says "Mein Fuhrer!"

That I REALLY don't understand... :D

[Malone LaVeigh]

Neither a gun issue, nor a civil liberty issue.

[MarkDido]

Guess I should change parties?

[Don Galt]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s100_100.gif

I support open borders because I realize americans don't want to pick apples for $3 an hour. Immigrants to this country create jobs, more than take away our jobs. Really. Protectionism, tarrifs, and really, any attempt to distort the free market always seems to backfire.

Interesting seeing everyones scores...

[stevelyn]

80/100 on the first test and 90/90 on the second. Whoda thunk it?

:D

I don't like the idea of open borders, anyone wishing come to the U.S. can and should do so legally and prove their honorable intentions..
As for the legalization of drugs, I'm not sure how far past marijuana I'm willing to go. Marijuana afterall is rather harmless. I just don't think anyone could come up with a logical arguement in favor of legalizing crack, meth, or a whole host of other currently illegal drugs and state with a straight face that they won't adversely impact society.

[dustind]

Another 100/100 over here.

Malone: This is a political thread.

[Dorrin79]

not quite 100/100 simply because I'm iffy on 'open borders'

I think a state has an interest in keeping tabs on people coming in (although I think we should allow a lot more immigration than we do...)

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%.

[BigG]

The secret behind the interest among these different types of behavior is not whether or not it's OK for people to engage in them, it's because the ones advocating their participation want bennies, perks, and acknowledgement from others. I could not personally care less whatever kind of behavior persons choose to engage in, however, trying to obtain largesse based on such characteristics is a low and mean trick. No support from me. Call me Economic Conservative. Social couldn't give a *&^% but refuse to pay willingly for others' fun. :cool:

[Missouri Mule]

I am a borderline centrist-conservative.

Not sure exactly what that means but I sure as hell ain't no liberal!

[Dashunde]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 80%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 60%.

But my scores vary depending on what I read into each question..

[Oleg Volk]

I suspect that the test is overly simplistic, as any test with multiple choce answers would be. OTOH, it is interesting to see what kind of answers would put one into liberal/conservative corner...and if those correlate even remotely to Dem/Rep corners.

[2dogs]

I fell slightly right Libertarian .

Gee, I thought I was a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, anti-Muslim Nazi.

Oh well.

[FPrice]

"According to your answers, your political philosophy is centrist.

Centrist

Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize practical solutions to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on new issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty."

I kinda disagree with the premise of this test. I think it has too few questions and as such the end results are pre-determined to some extent by the design and philosophical bent of those who designed it.

I did not like the way a few of the questions were worded, I think this was part of the design flaw.

As an exercise it is "cute". As a serious indicator of your political position I think it :barf:

[2dogs]

As a serious indicator of your political position I think it :barf:

Uh oh.:eek:

[Dashunde]

I just took the other quiz mentioned by MagKnightX... http://www.quiz2d.com/
It's far more comprehensive (but still short & quick).

Here is what my results said:
Your views call for a bit more liberty than we currently have in the United States today.

Vote in some Libertarians into the legislatures that affect you and you will get your desires fulfilled. Note that the Libertarian Party calls for a far greater amount of freedom than you appear to desire, so you currently don't want them to have a clear majority.

But think of a tub of cold bathwater. To get it warm enough to be comfortable, you add hot water, not ideal temperature water. The Libertarian Party is made of hot-blooded lovers of liberty, ideally suited for counterracting the power-mongers who dwell in our legislative bodies.

But once you have warmed up the bath, you may find it pleasant to go hotter still. Freedom is addictive once you have experienced it.

... and I pretty much agree.

[Skunkabilly]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s070_090.gif

I always thought of myself of more of a financial conservative but social libertarian. Or something like that. Oh well, online quizzes are still fun.

[mercedesrules]

(stevelyn) I just don't think anyone could come up with a logical arguement in favor of legalizing crack, meth, or a whole host of other currently illegal drugs and state with a straight face that they won't adversely impact society.

The sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not "society". To the extent that it does not protect individual rights, that is the extent to which it is illegitimate.

I claim a right to pursue happiness. If the government denies me that right, it is the opposite of the founders' intentions. Ingesting a substance violates the rights of no other person.

MR

[LawDog]

Description
Hey! We need you in Congress! Or at least in your state legislature. Join the Libertarian Party and we'll put you on the ballot.

What? Not ready to run yourself? Well, join the party anyway and put someone of like mind into office. It is high time we kicked the envy-mongers, busy-bodies and angst-worshippers out of office.

Be forewarned that the Libertarian Party is run by people more radical than you. Join anyway, or at least support their campaigns in your area. By the time we implement the subset of the Libertarian Party platform which you favor, you may find that this liberty stuff is so good that you want more. And if not, the Democrats and Republicans will still be around to serve you if you ever find that you are experiencing too much freedom.

:what:

Whoever wrote that second test needs to lay off of the mind-altering substances.

I am most assuredly not a libertarian.

LawDog

[moa]

Darn thing would not Score for me.

Regarding open borders, I think the renowned economist Milton Friedman said you can not have open borders, and a welfare state. And we have pretty much both.

Allowing masses of uneducated, impovished, backward, perhaps diseased, perhaps criminal people to flood into America will have the end result of them sucking the marrow out of our ecomomic bones.

On the other end of that economic spectrum, we have highly educated foreign labor, who will work for less, getting the jobs that normally would go to qualified Americans. And, many of those jobs are out-sourced overseas, and those incomes do little to benefit America except for some corporate bottom line.

[Glock Glockler]

"Whoever wrote that second test needs to lay off of the mind-altering substances."

Like alcohol?

[Don Galt]

Stevelyn--

When people say "Drugs" they often think of marijuana and other recreational substances.

But the criminalization of drugs has far more serious consequences than merely preventing people from recreating-- and I'm not talking about all the damage the war does.

The fact of the matter is, that your doctor may know of a drug that has been developed, and is prescribed to thousands of people (Say to treat heart disease) that is useful for you for your illness (Say lung cancer). But it would be ILLEGAL for him to perscribe this perfectly safe drug for you, because it has not been approved for your condition.

The criminalization of drugs, in this case exercised by the FDA instead of the DEA, says that the government has the right to interfere in your relationship with your doctor and prevent you from getting the medicine you need! And the beuracracy of the FDA in their "approval" process kills thousands of people a year who could have gotten drugs that would help them, but were prevented because the approval process took too long, or was too expensive for the drug company to go into because the disease is rare enough that it isn't profitable.

I say, all a Doctor should need is the patients consent to use drugs that are considered experimental, not the federal governments.

People tend to focus on what they percieve as societal ills that laws are "protecting" them from.... but the reality is, that the fundamental principle that government has the right to regulate what you put in your body is the issue. The government does not have that right.

A doctor has liability if he screws up, but he shouldn't be facing jail time, or loss of license for trying to save his patients life.

[Moparmike]

Huh. Not only did my computer click its disk drives and say "Sig Heil!", but so did the 50 others in the lab. Odd. :scrutiny: :neener:

Open borders, maybe. Still iffy, but if all the publicly funded reasons (ie handouts) ended so illegal immigrants would come here to ONLY work* and not expect a free ride, maybe.

Ending tarriffs? Well, I dont know about that. Maybe.
Ending minimum wage? That is alittle hard to swallow. It would take a lot of convincing.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?postid=602868

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 80%

[Don Galt]

People felt this quize was too small, so I dug up a better one (or more detailed at least!)

Its economics focused (which is what this stuff is really all about, imnsho)

http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=4


RE: Aliens

Yeah, no welfare for them. Get rid of welfare totally. Private charity is much more effective, and if people put %1 of their tax savings into private charity, we'd have far more coverge from it than we do with their %100 tax payment.

Minimum wage: Destroys jobs. Minimum wage creates poverty. But this is an economic argument, and to understand it, you have to read the economics behind it, which I'm not capable of doing. But I suggest you look around www.mises.org a bit and find one of the free books by Mises or Rothbard if you're interested (about libertarian economics in general, but likely they will hit the minimum wage as an example in one of the books you pick up there.)

www.mises.org is a great service for ALL Capitalists.

[TheBluesMan]

Minimum wage: Destroys jobs. Minimum wage creates poverty. But this is an economic argument, and to understand it, you have to read the economics behind it... No you don't. Just try this little mind experiment.

The minimum wage is there supposedly to establish a "living wage" for unskilled workers. If you want to get rid of poverty, make that minimum wage something that people can live off of... comfortably. Say, $25 per hour. That would equal out to about $52,000 per year. A single mother or a high-school dropout would be able to live rather comfortably off that wage, I would say.

But what would happen to the economy?

Skilled personnel would demand more money for their higher performance and better education. Wages would have to be increased across the board to keep ahead of the new minimums. Employee related expenses would expand and profits would plunge. Businesses would close by the thousands, driven into bankruptcy by the new minimum wage. The unemployment rate and the crime rate would skyrocket. The entire national economy would collapse, leaving the vast majority of people unemployed and living in poverty because nobody could afford to hire them.

The results with a minimum wage of $5.50 per hour are the same, but just take longer to notice.

www.mises.org really *is* a great site. It's not just for capitalists anymore!

[CaesarI]

100-90 (not quite into 0 taxes)
on the more comprehensive test, I was a "radical Libertarian" once again differing on complete elimination of taxes.

And yeah, I'm into Austrian Economics. Big time. No self-respecting economist believes in minimum wage, or tariffs. There's a few radicals, but on those two issues there's VERY little disagreement.

Greenspan supported and still supports the Gold Standard, yet most econ. Profs think its a joke. I think Greenspan's prolly smarter than the Economists.

Edit: 90/100 on the Mises Quiz, all my points of disagreement were from the Chicago school. Occasionally I'd choose either Mises, or Chicago due to one being "more correct" than the other, though still not quite right.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s070_010.gif
This should be under the economic heading, IMHO:
"People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose."

[Brian Dale]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s100_090.gif

[Don Galt]

CaesarI-- are not taxes an initiation of force?

But I won't really quibble over that, if you did not hold to at least some minimal state (and the taxes to support it) you'd become an anarchist. But I am unable to find support for the state in objectivism.

Is it possible that you think the alternative is no structure, pure chaos, and that is why you support a minimalist state? Or have you evaluated the alternative (Say, in "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman) and found an error in it?

I'm not attempting to start a big argument, I've just never been able to get a real answer to this issue from any of the objectivists I've asked. So, I'm perplexed.

[stevelyn]

Don Gault, mercedesrules.

My position isn't based on government protecting society. I wholeheartedly agree that govt's ONLY legitimate role is to protect individual liberty and provide for the common defense.
My position is based on costs and who is paying for some idiot who wishes to OD and for what ever reason gets 'saved' by the medical/public safety services and continues the same type of behavior.
I completely agree whatever a person ingests into their own body is their business as long as it dosen't affect me (this from a DARE officer). But govt will try and find a way to make the rest of us pay for the genetically defectives to continue 'recreating'.

[BigG]

My position isn't based on government protecting society and and provide for the common defense I guess this is called a "Yes, but..." defense of the heretofore indefensible grand anarcho-libertarian scheme to take over the world? :scrutiny:

Remember, if you try to hold two conflicting views you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up. :uhoh:

[BryanP]

Hmmm. I'm not entirely surprised. I got 80% / 70% The quiz is too short to get a reasonable reading.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s080_070.gif

[moa]

Howard Dean For President, on this Board? Cannot believe I saw it!

Dean does not have a clue about firearms issues or the Constitution. He thinks gun control laws should be left to the individual States. I guess he never heard of the 2nd Amendment (RKBA) and the 14th Amendment (equal protection), just for starters.

I guess Dean wants a situation where you can probably cross some unmarked State border line as a gun owner and go from being perfectly legal to committing a misdemeanor or even felony, depending on the law. We already have enough of that crap now without encouraging it to become an epidemic of an endless hodge-podge of gun control laws not under Constitutional restraints.

[Don Galt]

stevelyn--

So, will you support ending the criminalization of drugs and medicine if I support ending government subsidizing the healthcare of drug users? I think we have a deal. :D

I certainly dont' think its morally correct to be taxed to pay the healthcare of people who damage themselves. Including, for instance, smokers. (And I'm not someone who's never had that habit.)

[Black Snowman]

I scored the same as greenmountaingear 80/90, Lib. just like it says on my voter registration card :D

[Bob41081]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 70%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 40%

Right on the line between Left Liberal and Centerist which is strange my family says I'm conservative.

Bob

[TimH]

40%
100%

[Highland Ranger]

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%.

didn't know I was a libertarian.

not sure i want to be one.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Everybody is a libertarian to some extent. That is where we came from. That damn socialist gene keeps splicing in, though. Well, that moral authority gene may also worm its way in from time to time.

[CaesarI]

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. -Ayn Rand, "Brief Summary," The Objectivist, September 1971

Anarchism is deeply tied to Socialism, Rand is aware of this, Anarchists in Europe later adopted the term "Libertarian" in order to hide their name. The American Libertarian Paty was not founded until the early 1970s, and is largely a result of Ayn Rand, rather than having any ties to old Anarchist movements (Anarcho-Capitalists notwithstanding).
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. - Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" Philosophy: Who Needs It

The fundamental different between Anarchy (complete absence of government) and Capitalism as view by an Objectivist is that Capitalism has laws, and rules these must be enforced by a government. Rand fully endorses the concept of the state having a monopoly on the use of retributive force for a given geographic zone. Rand proposes such could be funded on a voluntary basis... personally I don't think this is realistic, even with a minimalist government.

In this regard I differ and side rather with the view of the founding father's: that one surender's some rights in order to preserve others. Their method of funding was through tariffs (though designed to maximize revenue, rather than protecting any industry), and it is notable that they also believed Tariffs as such would be progressive in their taxation methods.

Objectivists quite passionately despise Anarchists, and hate being confused with them.

One of the citizens in Galt's Gulch is a judge, if you want evidence from her fiction that Rand supports the existence of a minimalist state. It is worth noting that Rand often didn't discuss "good government" as she was rather concerned with the vital battle against "bad government". In this I agree. I'll worry about the differences between Objectivists, Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, and anyone else after we defeat the Socialists/Communists/Collectivists. And I'm also willing to form as many temporary alliances with members of major parties as is necessary.

I was raised a Liberal, and one habit of a Liberal I take with me (having objectively evaluated contemporary Liberalism and found it contradictory and wrong) is the Liberal's passion for politics. Rand likely wouldn't approve. But I'm not a pure Objectivist, nor am I a pure Libertarian. But i get along with both ;) (and most Republicans too).

-Morgan, equal parts idealist, and pragmatist

[Don Galt]

Thanks Morgan. I've seen that quote from Rand on many occassions.

She is fallible, but she really shot her self and the objectivist movement in the foot in her later years. And it shoudl be offensive to objectivists, in my mind, that she should redefine the libertarians to suit her argument so dishonestly.

But its worth noting that these are not arguments. In fact, no arguments against anarchism or libertarianism can be made by an objectivist. This is because libertarianism is the belief in the non-initiation of force-- a principle objectivists hold as well. And anarchism is the ultimate expression of objectivism.

She denounced them because Murry Rothbard-- a friend of hers and one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement-- was married, and his wife, while being a libertarian and thus, somewhat an objectivist, was also a christian. Unless Ms. Rothbard renounced Chrsitianity, Ayn Rand was going to withhold her sanction. Rothbard told her what the appropriate place to put her sanction was, and thus was born the quote that gives objectivists everyhwere an excuse to hate their libertarian brothers.

Anywa,y I'm glad to see you see the practicality of working wiht us to defeat socialism. While there are socialists who claim to be anarchists, this is pretty absurd on its face, right? You can't have socialist control without a government. On the other hand, mans natural state is to be capitalist. Without government, capitalism woudl be the norm. I can see why people believe that government is necessary to arbitrate disputes--- as you pointed out ther was a judge in Galts Gulch. But when I read that book, I was certain the judge didn't work for Mulligan. He didn't work for the "government" in any way-- he was a man who's calling was reconciling disputes. And parties would pay him to adjucate him and agree with his judgement--- the would do so freely because its in their best interests to settle that way, and an intermediary can often find agreement that is not obvious to the parties. I never assumed he was a functionary apointed (in an initiation of force) and granted a monopoly over judgement.

Anyway, you've answered my question. I think there simply is no objectivist argument against libertarianism or anarchism. Note that there is a distinction between what Rand thought and what objectivism says. Rand's opinion that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force is in direct conflict with objectivism-- as such a monopoly requires the initiation of force. She tired to get out of it by calling for voluntary support to fund it, but ignores the fact that the creation of a monopoly by the state is an initiation of force-- it makes everyone live for another by giving up their right to self defense, at least partially.

If you do want to debate this with me, feel free to PM me a response. Or you can post it here. I'm willing to continue, but the rest of the viewers may have reason to be annoyed with us.

[Don Galt]

Highland Ranger--

The quize defines axises as "libertarian" and "authoritarian" and represents blends between the two.

But they could just as easily be labled "Capitalist" and "socialist". The authoritarians are socialists (to a man, even the Nazis were socialists). Those who are for liberty, on the other hand are capitalists.

At the most basic level, capitalism is about free choice and socialism is about state control over free choice.

On economic issues you got a perfect score-- you came down on the side of capitalism on every one of them. On social issues you didn't score as high-- sometimes you came down on the side of social engineering, or socialism. But not a majority. That's not too bad, and I'm assuming this is the first time you've taken the test.

So, ask yourself this: Do you think a man should have to get permission-- government permission-- to paint the inside of his house, decide how many kids to have, decide whether to keep asparin and iburprofen in this medicine cabinet, or to have a gun?

I assume your answer is no. So, going further, do you think this same man should be allowed to marry a black woman (assuming he's not black)? Or do you think the governmetn should have the right to say he cannot marry her?

I assume you think its none of the governments business, right?

Wll, these are all social engineering issues-- they are all instances of free choice-- the halmark of capitalism-- and free association. Socialism says you can associate with who the government allows and you can do business only with the state.

I think if you look at your answers on the personal issues section, you'll find that everywhere you said "maybe" or "no" was an area where you weren't certain that the government didn't have the right to say who you can associate with, or the nature of that association.

I submit to you that in each case, its a choice between socialism and capitalism. Here's some arguments:

Military Services should be voluntary:
Socialists believe that the state owns everyone, and so they endorse conscription. Capitalists believe in the free market, and trust that people will defend the country when needed without having to be forced to join the military.

Censorship of radio, TV and internet:
Socialists believe all the mass indoctrination mediums need to be well controlled. Capitalists believe you have the right to go to another competitor if you don't like the service. Capitalists believe you should be able to choose your cable provider because they don't allow pornography, or because they do. That having the government arbitrarily decide how much offensive stuff should be allowed on TV is a violation of free choice.

Regulation of sex between consenting adults:
Socialists believe that everyone is owne by the state, and therefore sex should only be for reproductive purposes. Capitalists believe that everyone has the right to determine their sexual relationship amongst themselves, not to have the state say that the woman must remain clothed at all times, etc.

Druglaws.
Capitalists believe it is between you and your doctor what medicines he can perscribe to you. (Yes, this is part of the drug laws) Socialists believe the state has the right to apporve what drugs, and even what doctors you see. Capitalists support free choice in medications-- if you're dying of cancer, what benefit is it that the FDA says you can't try an experimental drug, and will send your doctor to jail if he gives it to you?

People should be free to come and go accross borders.
Capitalists believe in free association. Hire who you want or don't hire them. That everyone competes in a market, and by doing so, it benefits everyone. Socialist believe they can regulate the economy efficiently and therefor should be able to say who is allowed to hire whom and when and howmany.


In each case, the capitalist argument-- the one based on free association is consistent with the libertarina argument. I'm not saying you're a socialist, just that some of the social engineering ideas have snuck into your political ideology.

This is pretty easy, they are being advocated by people from both parties and in wall to wall TV coverage. You're a pure capitalist on economic issues, and if you look into it, I think you'll see how the social issues have the advantages when a capitalist approach is used.

One of the primary ones is that the state cannot regulate social issues... when they try, people ignore them, and all it does is damage the country. Look at how many people were in gulags in the soviet union. (WE recently passed them in percentage of our population incarcerated.)

[voilsb]

I took the short quiz, and it placed me on the border between liberal/democrat and libertarian. I took the more detailed one posted later in the thread, and it said I'm a right-leaning libertarian.

The latter of the two better describes me.

[w4rma]

But they could just as easily be labled "Capitalist" and "socialist".capitalism and socialism are opposite ends of an axis. (Labeled Economic Self-Government on this graph.)
democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis. (Labeled Personal Self-Government on this graph.)

A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):

“Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” -- Benito Mussolini

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

A state can be totalitarian and socialist (communism).
A state can be democratic and capitalist.
A state can be democratic and socialist.
A state can be anywhere inbetween the two axis. The U.S. has both capitalist policies and socialist policies.

Here is a list of some of the socialist ones:
socialized armed forces
socialized water
socialized police
socialized fire department
social(ized) security
medicare
road building/maintanance
public waste and water treatment
public schools

[Cactus]

This is frightening! I completely agree with w4rma's last post.:what:

[Stevie-Ray]

PSG=30%
ESG=60%

Right Conservative but since it's on the centrist line.............

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Don't fret cactus. It is a rare moment of coherency.

[Delmar]

Find out more about:

Libertarianism

Your Personal Self-Government Score is 60%.
Your Economic Self-Government Score is 100%.

[Daedalus]

I always score on the North-Northeast of these quizzes. I like a lot of what the Libertarians have to say about economic and social freedoms but differ with some of their more extreme positions on the national borders and porno over the airwaves.

[CaesarI]

democracy and dictatorship/monarchy are opposite ends of another axis.

Democracy does not equal Freedom, nor is it a substitute word for "Libertarian". Democracy is rule by the mob, or the tyranny of the majority. 51% will always be able to deny any rights they choose to the other 49%. Should your right to bear arms rest on the will of the majority? Wanna bet a demagogue could steal your whole country in less than a month?
A state can be totalitarian and capitalist (fascism):
No, state that practices capitalism can ever practice totalitarianism. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services, people trade value for value to mutual benefit. Running a business no more makes you a Capitalist than being in a hospital makes you a doctor. Businesses that go whining to the government everytime they lose out to a competitor are not Capitalists.

In order to prove that Capitalism can co-exist with fascism you quote Mussolini and FDR. :scrutiny: That's kinda like quoting Milton Friedman on Marx.

Besides, if Fascism is "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." what do you call a government run by one man, a dictator in all but name, like FDR?

Wow, the glories of Socialism are:
-Social Security, a government run Ponzi Scheme (http://skepdic.com/pyramid.html)
-Medicare, an HMO that will arrest you if you refuse to patronize them.
-public roads, which are always crowded during rush hour, and have enough pot holes that an SUV is a requirement, as opposed to the privately maintained roads which are quickly repaired, and never jammed.
-and public schools, whose primary function is to follow the will of teacher's unions, and which you are required to pay for even if you choose to attend other institutions.

What a great system, I wanna give up my freedom to choose how to best spend my money in order to get less quality and arrested if I ever try and stop paying for them!

-Morgan

[stevelyn]

Don Gault,

So will you support ending the criminalization of drugs and medicine if I support ending govt subsidizing the healthcare for drug users?

Absolutely! Agreed. And may Darwin Rule.

:D

[Spieler]

Mmm...

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=607247

[mercedesrules]

Don Gault,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So will you support ending the criminalization of drugs and medicine if I support ending govt subsidizing the healthcare for drug users?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely! Agreed. And may Darwin Rule.

Count me in!
:cool:

MR

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Oh, if it could, but it will never happen. Low-lifes always get free medical care because of that "moral" thing

[Don Galt]

Actually drug users don't need free medical care. As a class, the average drug user is middle class, white, well employed and has insurance.

And if somebody gets free medical care from charity, who are we to complain? Its government finding that's the issue, in my opinion.

[Don Galt]

W4RMA--

You're giving us the standard issue liberal weltanshaung (worldview) and its really twisted.

Fascism involves absolute government control over the businesses of the country. The distinction of ownership is silly-- ok, so the owners get some profits-- the profits the fascists let them have and get to run the business, but when the government has absolute control over the business, calling that capitalism is absurd to the point of being dishonest (or ignorant, which can be remidied.)

Socialists-- wanting state ownership of the means of production, often try to make the "Fascism is capitalism" connection because they know fascism is discredited and they want to discredit capitalism.

I've seen your exact argument from leftist who, in the next breath, advocated the green party platform (Which would have shut down every business in the country larger than 100 people-- I'm not saying that the effect of their policies, I'm saying that was their goal-- to end "big business" by forcing such companies to liquidate.)


%100 Personal and Economic freedom is capitalism.

%0 personal and economic freedom is totalitarianism.

Totaltitarianism goes by many different names-- fascism (National Socialism), Communism (State Socialism), Dictatorship (even when its "of the proletariat"), and, it can in fact, go by the name "Democracy" when the democracy has been perverted.

IF you look at this country-- "A republic, if you can keep it"--- You'll notice that we aren't a democracy, but we have been devolving towards one, and becoming more totalitarian over the last 30 years. This is by design of a group called the fabian socialists. The Fabians weren't a conspiracy organization, more they are a philosophy. Their philosophy is to take the democratic parties and turn their ideals towards socialism.

They have had a lot of success in this country. For the last 70 years, Democrats and Republican parties have been turned towards socialism, without their members even recognizing it. Yes, the republicans have been turned toward Nationalist Socialism more than State Socialism, while the Dems are more State Socialists. But they have.

The idea of a "living wage" is straight socialism. But more importantly, the hatred of the corporations is a technique of socialism designed to get people to forget about the quality of jobs Russia had and to hate their employers for minor slights even though all things considered Jobs in america are some of the best in the world and in history.

Thus you have constant barrages of attacks from the democrats on anything having to do with success, and having to do with "the rich". They lie and say a tax cut that is larger for the poor is a "tax cut for the rich" (I refuse to believe they are that incompetant at math, any gradeschooler can tell the lie.) Etc, etc, etc. I shouldn't spend too much time bashing democrats, suffice it to say democrats are out advocating socialist ideas without even realizing they are advocating them.

A state cannot be free and socialist. Socialism is the opposite end of freedom-- both economic and social.

Look at the issues.

On drugs, communist russia and china criminalize them and crack down hard. In america, both parties advocate the same thing.

On Taxes, in communist countries, taxes are %100. In america, the democrats want this, but the republicans want to keep it at its current state- %50.

On Gay Rights-- in communist countries gays are persecuted. In the US the republicans want to persecute gays.

On Free Enterprise-- in communist countries free enterprise is forbidden. In America, the democrats want to make it impossible.

The dems and the repubs are socialist on different issues, but they all vote for each others issues and they never undo anything they've done.

Hell, look at social securty. A program that has taken peoiple's money by force, and then given them a pittance back. IF the person had the ECONOMIC FREEDOM to invest that money themsleves, they would be multi-millionaires. (For someone retiring in 2000, when I did the analysis, who worked for 40 years). Instead they are forced to barely get by on a Social Security stipend. In other word, the governent took the money, and its really just a scam. Yet democrats scream bloody murder about "what about the poor old people"? Ignoring that those old people wouldn't be poor if they hadn't been paying %15 of their income into a pension scheme that never returned what they'd earned!

But how many people actually look at that reality? How many go and do the researhc that took me 2 hours to work out what it would have been like for people if the money had been invested in the DJIA? or Bonds? Never seen a reporter do that. And never seen a democrat who would even have an argument after being presented with that research. Yet they continued to advocate social security. Obviously, Social Security for them isn't about helping people.

They have another reason-- they wnat control. They want to subjugate people. Yes, they claim its about helping people, but if that was the case, they would advocate what would actually bring the most benefit to people. But they do not.

You have been given some twisted ideas about what socialism, and what capitalism is. I think you have broken free when it comes to gun rights, recognize that you need to break free with other areas as well.... and that doesn't mean escaping to the republican party. They are just as bad.

How you vote is your business, but I want you to recognize the scam thats been perpetrated on you, and all the rest of us.

[ahenry]

Actually drug users don't need free medical care. As a class, the average drug user is middle class, white, well employed and has insurance. Did you really type that with a straight face? I can only think of a couple of reasons you would describe the "average drug user" in such a way and none of them are all that complementary so I’ll keep them to myself. Suffice it to say you need to come up with some proof before I (or probably any other half-way intelligent reader) will believe you. I’ll wait for that proof with bated breath...

[Don Galt]

Uh, if you look at them as a class, that's what they are.

This idea of drug users as being poor people being ravaged by drugs isn't even widely held. Hell, simply because they are the majority of the population, most users are white. And drugs are not cheap, so you have to be middle class to do cocaine. And the most popular drug, marijuana is the drug of choice of middle class teens.

The average drug user in america is exactly as I described.

By the way, if you disagree, show some evidence to disagree, or make an argument for why I'm wrong.

But calling me stupid, or a liar, or "things you won't mention" is taking the low road.

[Glock Glockler]

Aaron,

Most people that I know who use drugs use marijuana, and that goes for all classes and races. The ones that use extasy and coke do tend to be white and middle to upper class. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, are used by everyone.

Just my observations.

[pax]

By the way, if you disagree, show some evidence to disagree, or make an argument for why I'm wrong.
Don, you made an assertion, so the burden of proof for that assertion is on you, not on the other person.

Truthfully, I'd like to see some stats for that too, if you've got 'em.

pax

[w4rma]

Don Galt--

Fascism is tyranny by one or relatively few corporations which are more powerful than the government. Communism is tyranny by the government which nationalize buisnesses. I support neither.

I support our democratic-republic. I wholehartedly support buisness and I wholehartedly support competition in the market.

I support social security, medicare (or a single-payer health care system if we had it), our armed forces, our police, our fire departments, our public school system (which I would like to see expanded and better funded), our road mainanance programs and our public libraries.

I support the minimum wage (I would support a living wage, also). I support any efforts to curb our trade deficit as it represents American resources being redirected out of our country.

I support environmental regulations to prevent folks from from becoming wealthy off of shortcuts that kill, maim and make folks sick. I support becoming wealthy, as I'd like to do that one day myself. I support progressive taxes and oppose regressive taxes.

I support our civil liberties. I support the NRA (www.nra.org/) as they fight to protect the 2nd amendment. I support the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/) as they fight to protect the rest of the amendments. I support the expansion of civil liberties.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Then you support socialism. How can you take money from me at a point of a gun (government) to fund all of your projects, such as social security, medicare, ans national health care, as well as expanding police/fire/roads, and be for expansion of civil liberties?

Have you explored the models that you are building? European socialism leads to a stagnant economy and inflation. Health care, excluding the corrupt Medicare, accounts for 15% of our economy, and you want the government to absorb it? Do you want the government deciding what drugs are developed? Who they are adminstered to? Who gets what treatment, and when it is rationed?

I consider my health a civil liberty that only I can provide for, not some bureacrat deciding whether I live or die.

[w4rma]

7.62FullMetalJacket--

If you drive on the roads, that costs money (to build and for maintanance). Would you support a toll booth on every road instead?

If you live in America you are 365/24/7 being protected by our police, fire and military institutions. Do you support a fee based system for police and fire departements, where they can refuse service to you if you cannot pay? How would you pay for our military? Would you support a feudal system where barons/CEOs fund their own militaries?

Do you have any proof that Britain, Canada and France are in a worse recession than we are? It is my understanding that Canada's economy is doing great, right now. I admit that I haven't researched the state of Britain's or France's economies though.

[Feanaro]

http://www.allnightgamer.com/images/Liber.gif

As you can see, I'm almost a total Libertarian. I have trouble with total eleminating taxes though...

On the second test I was only a square away from being a total Libertarian, with a tiny, itty, bitty leftist bent.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

POTUS should have no sway over local issues such as roads/police/fire. These issues are best dealt with locally. We do pay a toll calculated using property taxes and sales taxes. Some of us pay more than others.:D

The military is another question. Funding is adequate. National Defense is the primary function of the federal government and POTUS.

Both France and Germany are in melt down with strikes, rationing, unemployment and inflation. Sweden is no longer a 1st world country because nobody works any more (70%) tax rate, but everything is FREE.

No comment on poverty? Sociliazed medicine?

Personally, I am bailing on my HMO because rates have increased 15-20% per year (which is another discussion). I am going with major medical and I have arranged to actually pay a local doctor for services at less than 50% of the insured cost (no paperwork or adminstration costs).

I think it is great that Dean is an MD because he can stimulate a debate about healthcare, but I think he is a socialist.

[w4rma]

7.62FullMetalJacket--

I only wanted to show that you had some socialist tendancies.

I consider myself both a socialist and a capitalist.

[Bill Hook]

If you drive on the roads, that costs money (to build and for maintanance). Would you support a toll booth on every road instead?

Gas taxes already are directed toward infrastructure.

If you live in America you are 365/24/7 being protected by our police, fire and military institutions. Do you support a fee based system for police and fire departements, where they can refuse service to you if you cannot pay?

Property taxes take care of this. However, let's get one thing straight - I don't consider this protection, for the large part. The police will come and arrest (maybe) the guy who steals my car, rapes my SO, or murders me, but seldom will they be there to prevent such actions; only in a collective sense are we protected. Fire protection is also an after-the-fact occurance and the protection is going to be for my neighbors, rather than me, should my house burn.





Do you have any proof that Britain, Canada and France are in a worse recession than we are? It is my understanding that Canada's economy is doing great, right now. I admit that I haven't researched the state of Britain's or France's economies though.

Ignorance is often why people adopt leftist leanings on economics, so read up. TANSTAFL.

http://www.idis.gr/people/pelagidis3.html

http://swopec.hhs.se/iuiwop/abs/iuiwop0481.htm

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Thank you, Mr. Hook.

[w4rma]

The existence of a watchful police institution provides protection as their very existence acts as deterrence which is a form of protection.

Fire departments also stop fires from spreading to your whole home and they also help provide information about prevention of fires altogether.


Gas taxes already are directed toward infrastructure.I don't consider these taxes to be regressive taxes. If you can afford to drive a Hummer, you'll use more gas (and cause more damage to the road).

What is your point on the unemployment research?
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/02/business/03JOBSch450.gif
Jobless recovery lasting longer than economists expected (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm)

[Bill Hook]

The existence of a watchful police institution provides protection as their very existence acts as deterrence which is a form of protection.

The Death Penalty isn't a deterent, so why should the police be a deterent? Besides, only in a Stalinist State would there be enough police to actually make this feasible.

I don't consider these taxes to be regressive taxes. If you can afford to drive a Hummer, you'll use more gas (and cause more damage to the road).

Who said they were progressive or regressive? I simply stated that infrastructure is already paid for with use taxes, which gas taxes are, by and large. Hence, tolls are double charging.




BTW, something is fishy about your graph, which depicts greater job growth under Carter than during Reagan or Clinton. We're all familiar with the "economic miracle" of the Carter Era. :rolleyes:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

You are missing the point. Presidents do not hire people, they do not create jobs. That is the fallacy of the Clinton legacy. If you worship CLinton, then I bet you believe that raising taxes helps the economy. If that is so, then you are delusional.

The government can develop POLICIES which promote job creation (lower taxes, less regulation) or promote job loss (higher taxation, more regulation). George Bush did promote a tax cut (several) which were approved by the CONGRESS (representatives of the people). Those tax cuts are now generating job growth. GWB did not hire these people, but he HELPED to promote a better business environment (by letting people spend their money). 67-70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending. The economy is now growing at a 7.2% annual rate. Employment is always the last indicator to improve.

I think you are proposing that we have a dictator that can generate 5 year plans. Stalin or Mao? Hitler had a great employment plan.

Finally, since before GW took office, we have had a slow economy. Then 9/11 happened, which sent a large shock through the economy. I suppose that GW engineered 9/11 to put people out of work. :rolleyes:

Again,

low taxes + less regulation = growth
high taxes + more regulation = contraction

Howard Dean = high taxes + more regulation

[w4rma]

something is fishy about your graph…
In fact, the number of jobs has continued to erode through the recovery. This has brought lost jobs to 2.7 million since early 2001
…
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm

Yup. The negative number next to Bush's name should be at least -2.7 (million jobs) instead of the -2.37 (million jobs) that the graph shows.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Let's see how it looks next summer when it will politically count.

[w4rma]

Let's see how it looks next summer when it will politically count.The jobs created by Bush's tax cuts, primarily targeting the ultra-wealthy, are being created in factories in China and in accounting, IT and engineering firms in India. Unfortunately, the job loss will continue for Americans, IMHO.

[mantispid]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s100_100.gif


Heh, hardly a surprise. I've been a 100/100 Libertarian for years now. I had a lower score before that, but over the years I've seen significant convincing evidence of the merits of individual enterprise and free will to push me up to the top of the chart.



Oh, a friend of mine visiting China said that corporations are building roads and infrastructure as long as they are allowed to name the roads and advertise as much as they want.

So, there is a case where you don't even need taxes or government to maintain roadways (at least major ones).

Turns out the corporate roads are kept in pristine condition while the government ones continue to erode.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

So China is allowing a better model than we have? And I hear Russia's economy is growing and tax compliance is up after they went flat tax. Hmmm. Why do our enemies always come back so...better?

[Bill Hook]

In fact, the number of jobs has continued to erode through the recovery. This has brought lost jobs to 2.7 million since early 2001

Uh, actually I meant that your graph must have a fundamental flaw, since it rates Carter better than Reagan or Clinton, both of whom were POTUS during economic booms; Carter was president during high inflation and an economic bust. Obviously, this graph doesn't represent the whole story, but merely takes figures out of context then reifies them into a nice little graphic.

[CaesarI]

No Corporation can force anyone to do anything. Economic power is NOT in any way, shape, or form comparable to political power in a Capitalistic system. If there's a "wall of separation between government and business" then businesses would not "buy" politicians, because what could a politician sell them? The "flaws" that exist in our system exist precisely because the government got involved. EVERY failure of business you've listed can be traced DIRECTLY to government involvment.

Taking a graph, and charting the jobless rate during various presidencies is nonsense, Hoover was as much responsible for the Great Depression as I spoons are responsible for Rosie O'Donnel being fat, or guns are for crime. I've told you before correlation != causation Statistics 101. Additionally, the measurement for "joblessness" has always been fuzzy at best, were you aware FDR didn't count people on welfare as being jobless? Further the implication is that Bush is somehow a representative of Laissez-faire Capitalism, he sure as Milton Friedman ain't.

3 MAJOR factors in the current recession:
1. TSA: the "increased" security at airports created an indirect cost on the rest of the economy measured in wasted hours that could be put to more productive use, as well as the creation of jobs that would be better off in other sectors where they would produce wealth. The direct costs of putting an armed guard on every flight would be greater, but would save on the order of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars to the general economy.
2. The Microsoft Trial was the catalyst for the whole debacle. Every billion dollars MS spends defending itself against absurd claims of monopoly is a billion dollars they can't spend creating new wealth (which in turn results in new jobs).
3. Steel Tariffs: we spend, as mentioned by me in a previous thread where we discussed how you don't know economics, $128,063 per job we "save" in the steel industry. It would be cheaper to just write them a check for the rest of their lives, than it is to impose protective tariffs.

Government creates jobs? Pfff, FDR didn't do a darned thing to stop the depression, if you read the latest scholarly research on it, FDR is coming out with egg all over his face. Dozens of economists, including 2 nobel prize winners have identified all sorts of problems with FDR's new deal. Even the TVA was a waste.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

… actually I meant that your graph must have a fundamental flaw, since it rates Carter better than Reagan or Clinton …Wow! You are correct. I never really paid attention to the "Annual Gain/Loss" number that you are referring to. But I am now and it seems to me that their calculations are wrong, unless they are refering to the most jobs gained/lost in one single year.

If, however, it is average jobs gained/lost per year over the period of their presidency:

Carter should have an average annual job gain of: +2.59
Reagan should have an average annual job gain of: +2.01
Clinton should have an average annual job gain of: +2.84

But here's the kicker:
Hoover should have an average annual job loss of: -1.93
Bush should have an average annual job loss of: -1.04 (using the -2.7 (million jobs) number from the article cited below the graph (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/6497474.htm) and divided by 2.6 years.)

No Corporation can force anyone to do anything.lobbyists with bundles of cash and golden parachutes to give out + Media Consolidation (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediaconsol.html) = things like getting the big bucks to rebuild Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/defenseaccount.html)

[CaesarI]

K... even if I grant (for the sake of argument) that lobbyists managed to persuade the government to pay them to do what they cannot do themselves.... and totally ignore that the companies involved are not very big ones.... this doesn't prove that a business can force anyone to do anything.

If the Senator didn't give them the money would the company have the power to arrest the Senator? Suppose the Senator still says no, what can they do then? No matter how you slice it the Senator has a LOT more choice than I do over whether or not I want to participate in the Social Security scam.

-Morgan

[w4rma]

what can they do then?Not give the Senator that golden parachute when he/she retires. Help fund the Senator's opponent to get a friendly Senator in there. Dig up dirt/make up dirt and pay for television ads smearing the Senator. Ask a friendly propagandist on the radio or TV to smear the Senator. etc. etc.

Halliburton says KBR unit revenue profit, sales soar

HOUSTON, United States (AFP) - US oil industry services giant Halliburton said Thursday its Kellogg Brown and Root unit's profits rose four-fold and sales leapt 80 percent, boosted by work in Iraq.

Profits from the unit's operations soared to 49 million dollars in the three months to September from 12 million dollars a year earlier, helped by "government services activity in the Middle East," Halliburton said.

KBR, the engineering and construction division that netted a no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry, also posted an 80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars. "
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031029/bs_afp/us_oil_iraq_halliburton_031029181531

House Nixes Anti-Profiteering Penalties in Iraq Spending Bill (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031031/180/5qfao.html)

[CaesarI]

Profits from the unit's operations soared to 49 million dollars
Big money we're talkin' about huh? Wow, $49 million. Big change for you and me, but in the real market, that's chump change.

No option you gave this hypothetical business involves the use of force.

Wanna list examples in which a company has actually used ANY of the options you're discussing? Or is this just some crazy left-wing-radical-conspiracy theory? :rolleyes:

-Morgan

[w4rma]

Big money we're talkin' about huh? Wow, $49 million. Big change for you and me, but in the real market, that's chump change.
…
KBR, the engineering and construction division that netted a no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry, also posted an 80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars.
…

Maybe $49 million is chump change, but what about 1 billion dollars from their (note the no-bid government contract) engineering and construction division?

Calculation:
2.3-2.3*(1/1.8)=~1.02

[CaesarI]

"80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars."

Sales != profits. I love how people pretend like we're just giving them the money. We're buying their services, services which, incidentally, they are better at providing than anyone else.

This of course fails to prove that businesses use force.

-Morgan

[mantispid]

Businesses sometimes *want* to use force... of course they can not do so directly. Getting legislators to pass laws that stifle competition is one way business brings force to bear. Granted, they had to bribe a legislator to do it. I'd say the legislator is more to blame, but if the desire wasn't there, it wouldn't be satisfied. (Of course, ultimately everyone loses out, because restricted competition slows down the rate of real economic growth... and that means technology advances more slowly.. and we all lose out on what could have been.)

Also, LLC's benefit from government extention of soverign immunity. They aren't true 'free market' entities. So in that regard, any business that is an LLC does have the power to bring force to bear, at least in terms of shielding themselves from total liability. Again, it is something that is 'granted' by government, so technically the business isn't doing it, but rather taking advantage of what the government is willing to provide.

[ahenry]

By the way, if you disagree, show some evidence to disagree, or make an argument for why I'm wrong.
You first.


In case you weren’t aware, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion…that’s you.

[ahenry]

Most people that I know who use drugs use marijuana, and that goes for all classes and races. The ones that use extasy and coke do tend to be white and middle to upper class. Alcohol and cigarettes, however, are used by everyone. There is a whole lot more to drug use than “marryjane” and even counting that there is a lot of non “middle class, white, well employed, and self-insured” abusers.

[Glock Glockler]

Yes, that was one of my points. Folks that are addicted to ok'ed drugs like booze, nicotine, and prescription meds are not counted as being part of the "drug problem". As far as the illegal stuff is concerned, it's just been my experience that marijuana makes the lion's share of it.

[Don Galt]

Pax--

I disagree. This is not a scholorly debate... I have made an argument, not an assertion. I have backed up that argument. Those who demand statistics are not, generally, willing to engage in debate-- they are ignoring debate by making a counter assertion and demanding that I put up statistics (Which they will then ignore, call irrelevant, or whatever.)

I've been in enough debates to know that the demand for statistics is usually a waste of time.

But here's an article with some citations that back my statements:
http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~ltripp/nicholas-ertz.htm

[Don Galt]

w4rma:
"I consider myself both a socialist and a capitalist."

I commend you for your honesty. This makes it much easier to discuss with you, because I don't have to try and prove you are a socialist.

Unfortunately, socialism is a system that is diametrically opposed to capitalism.

I believe you when you say you are both-- you recognize the power of capitalism, and you want to harness it to socialist ends. That is consistent with your positions.

Unfortunately, this is a contradiction. Rather than try and show the contradiction here (Which would be very difficult because of the nature of these discussions) I would like to make a proposal to you.

I will give you a name of a book and ask you to read it. You can do the same for me. In fact, we'll each read roughtly the same number of pages of argument (in case my book is longer than yours, you can give me a couple). At the end of reading these arguments, we can come back to the subject and debate it-- in any form or forum you choose.

I believe after reading the book I suggest you will either change your mind-- or you will be able to formulate arguments that will have a chance of changing my mind. And possibly the book you give me may do the same thing.

Are you willing to do this? We both are assured of having better arguments coming out of it, I believe.

Don

[Bill Hook]

you recognize the power of capitalism, and you want to harness it to socialist ends.

This is called "killing the goose that laid the golden egg." :rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

w4rma--

Your graph is very interesting! It shows, to me, that we are still paying for the Roosevelt administration.

Yes, he did grow jobs... but an interesting thing to see woudl be that graph along with one showing total federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP for those same periods.

I think you will find that in the Great Depression, Roosevelt made a lot of "jobs" in make work projects, but did massive damage to the economy in doing so. (The money that the feds collected would have produced far more jobs had it been left in the economy.)

It would also be interesting to see a version of that graph that breaks these things down by year, rather than presidency.

Did you get it from a stats site that could produce such graphs for us?

Don

[Don Galt]

Here's a good article that shows the bad math behind the "Tax cuts for the rich" argument:

http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html

[Don Galt]

"There is a whole lot more to drug use than “marryjane” and even counting that there is a lot of non “middle class, white, well employed, and self-insured” abusers."

Well, then, show some evidence that marijuana is not the most common drug, or that middle class people are not the average drug user.

After all, you made an assertion (quoted above) so the burden of proof is on you.

:neener:

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Don Galt:

By the way, part of my point which seems to have been missed by everybody is, that if you believe in the constitution, your answer to all the questions in the smallest quiz would be %100 libertarian.

I have to disagree with this comment. One of the questions in the quiz related to immigration policy, where the "correct" libertarian answer is to allow free and open borders to any who wish to work in the US.

If the Constitution defines any governmental function explicitly it defines the power of the Federal Government to control trade accross our borders through customs duties and tarriffs, and defines the power of the Federal Government to control immigration through defining criteria of citizenship.

A strict constructionist view of the Constitution does not imply a Libertarian political view.

The people who vote for republicans or democrats do so only because they either have no principles or think that they have to vote against the guy from the other party

Not true. There are as many "principled" Republican Party voters as Libertarian, and many "principled" Republican Party politicians. Former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) for example. There are plenty of Libertarian voters who vote on bone-headed principles such as no Federal income tax for example. I don't like them either but nobody is going to fund even NASA on tarriffs let alone the DoD. Or perhaps the Libertarians have some utopian ideas regarding no need for an armed force to defend this country.

There is some percentage of the population that is completely irrational-- they are totalitarian or anti-liberty for reasons that are not based on reason. They make up %30 of the population. Religious Fundamentalists are a good example.

This is the such the exact opposite of the truth that it could have been written by Michael Moore. The religous "fundamentalists" in the US are the ones who broke ground for the rest on home schooling for example.

[Glock Glockler]

There are plenty of Libertarian voters who vote on bone-headed principles such as no Federal income tax for example. I don't like them either but nobody is going to fund even NASA on tarriffs let alone the DoD

So it's bone-headed for me to actually wan to keep what I earn and not have a modified police state poking into my finances looking for things to hang me on?

Do your homework next time, the income tax accounts for approx. 1/3 of Federal revenues. We could easily eliminate it but we'd have to cut spending, are you ready for that?

[ahenry]

Well, then, show some evidence that marijuana is not the most common drug, or that middle class people are not the average drug user.Don, Don, Don, I never made the assertion that some other drug (or even a collection of other drugs) was abused more commonly than Marijuana. I’d be the last person to suggest that. What I said, was that there is a lot more to drug use than marijuana. Meaning a lot of other drugs are used in this country other than just “green leafy substances” and a whole lot of users that do more than smoke pot and eat cheatos. I’ll say again, you made a claim, you back it up.

[Bill Hook]

http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/ethnic/ethn1013.htm


I'd go out on a limb to say that non-crack cocaine, prescription drugs, and marijuana are the primary (illicit) drugs among middle and upper-class users. Total percentages, as the link above shows, would indicate drug users are more likely to be impoverished than not.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Thanks again, Mr. Hook.

I did not know that "licit" was a word:rolleyes: , as opposed to "illicit."

[Bill Hook]

Neither did I. I won't be using it, nonetheless, as it sounds like a word that only an academician or govt. wonk would use.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Bill Hook, PhD, REHS, HMS, PDQ................
Nah, just doesn't look right.
Plain old Bill Hook for a plain speaker and straight shooter.
:)

[Don Galt]

ahenry--

I already backed my claims. I note that you choose not to back yours, and repeat your demand that I do mine.

I think responding to your demand for citations was a waste of time.

[Don Galt]

Cool Hand Luke--

Sure the constitution defines citizenship. But that does not mean the government has the power to prevent non-citizens from living here.

People who's principles require that the constitution be respected who vote for the republican party are violating thier principles. Or they are ignorant. The republican party certainly doesn't respect the constitution. Same thing with people who vote democrat on those same principles.

Religious fundamentalists have worked for homeschooling, but they are still authoritarian. That does not disprove my point.

Oh and if you want the defense of this country to be a priority, you would take all of NASA's funding and give it back to the taxpayors.

IF we'd never created NASA, we'd have vacations in space by now. NASA is the primary impediment to space travel in this country-- they want to protect their funding, and so they will not approve launch for any commercial endeavors that threaten their monopoly on space travel. And if you've been told that without NASA there wouldn't be any space travel--- don't fall for it. The early rocket pioneers in this country were private citizens. Just like the airline industry developed without government help-- in fact, despite government hassles--- the space industry would have as well.

Also, look at the firearms industry. From 1800-1930 there was a lot of private development in arms. Now there are almost none. The 1934 NFA put a stop to that.

Government regulation and taxation UNDERMINES the security of this country.

Nothing that government does can ever provide more benefit than its costs.... because much is lost in the process, and money is redirected from economically valuable investment to non-economically valuable investment--hurting the economy. IF the economy were not damaged by this activity, it would grow and throw off far more funding than is necessary, or even taken b y the government, for such defense.

For example, if we didn't have welfare and welfare taxes, the charities that picked up the slack would be well funded and able to do a better job. There would be MORE money for welfare in the hands of private charities... because the economy would grow, and while people would give less (As a percentage) of their income for welfare, the result would be much more in terms of dollars.

[Don Galt]

Bill Hook---

The report you cite-- at least in conclusions-- does not even address the percentage of drug use among whites or middle class. They are not even mentioned in the conclusion as I can see.

And even so, since it is on a different topic-- percentage of a given ethnicity that use drugs-- rather than percentage of drug users that are a given ethnicity, it cannot address the question here. Furthermore, it talks about ethnicity, not socioeconomic status.

Simply given the demographic breakdown of this country, most drug users are likely to be white.

[CaesarI]

The government stats are biased towards government arrests. Any statistic claiming to accurately report the number of people doing illegal activity is bound to be unreliable.

Claims that somehow drugs automatically make a person a criminal are easily disproven by the number of successful and famous people who were addicts/users in the late 19th century. Sigmund Freud comes to mind. Let's also not forget that Rush Limbaugh managed a rather successful career, and still maintains a very sharp intellect despite his abuse of prescription pain-killers.

"Crack babies" don't exist, for those of you who thought they did, the studies making the claims all had one thing in common: they were observation studies. As such, they can only prove correlation, not causation. Later someone pointed out that most women who abuse crack also abused other drugs... like alcohol. All of the claimed effects of "crack babies" are explainable through the mother's abuse of alcohol.

Regardless, I missed the chapter where the constitution gave the federal government the power to regulate chemical substances that are used in human consumption. Care to list it for us? Or is it totally, utterly, and wholly unconsitutional?

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Don Galt:

I agree with most of what you have written with a few points of difference:

1) I still think that based on my reading of the Constitution that the Federal Government has the power to determine residency status as legal or illegal by virtue of the power to define standards for citizenship and the power to require loyalty oaths for citizenship. It's there implicitly also by the grant of power to levy tarriffs and customs duties which implies control over travel and trade accross the US border by non-citizens.

A strict constructionist view of the Constitution for most of our history was antiethical to the positions taken by most Libertarians. Anti-sodomy laws are a good example. At the time of the writing and signing of the Constitution every State had anti-Sodomy laws on the books, and did so for 200 years after 1787. Depending on your view of those laws one could argue that the Libertarian view is more progressive and gives more freedom to the individual than does the US Constitution.

2) There are somethings so big and costly that even the pooled resources of a lot of big private corporations won't provide sufficient funding IMO. The Super Conducting Super Collider and also the accelerator facility at CERN are good examples. The space program is another story and you're right about the Federal Government's involvement having skewed all efforts to big ticket programs that ultimately have slowed us in our move out into space. Apollo was a good show but it set back development of space plane(SSTO) development by 25 years.

[Bill Hook]

The report you cite-- at least in conclusions-- does not even address the percentage of drug use among whites or middle class. They are not even mentioned in the conclusion as I can see.

And it won't, lest someone become offended. :rolleyes:

[Don Galt]

Cool Hand Luke--

I think I have to concede point one-- the feds probably do have the right under the constitution to restrict immigration. Which is relevant to my statement that if you support the constitution, you support libertarian ideals. Here's a situation where you can support the constitution and not support a libertarian ideal. So I agree my statement was overbroad.

Regarding state Sodomy laws, its true the states had them, but the constitution does not allow them, as the supreme court recently ruled. So, while the situation you describe is probably correct, it seems you're showing an inconsistency in the country. It took quite a long time for the supreme court to get aroudn to ruling them unconstitutional, and in the mid 80s they ruled them constitutional because of "a thousand years of christian tradition"! Dont' remember seeing the mention of christian tradition in the constitution. Things were not perfect when the constitution was written, and I've had it pointed out to me that the constitution itself is a document for big government (though not the leviathan government we have)...

At the bottom of all this, and behind the Bill of Rights is the concept of self ownership. IF you own yourself-- your own body-- and not the state, then you can be an individual and make your own decisions for how to treat your body. This is where all human rights come from--self defense, free expression, religious rights, and very importantly, capitalism. I think the bill of rights was trying to get this concept across, assuming everyone understood that in america you were not subjects, but people who own themselves-- individualists. So, while the country has had many violation of this principle--- conscription for Vietnam being a good example, and even the Civil War (the south had the right to secede) -- it is endorsement of this principle that libertarians hold true, and the bill of rights attempted to restrict the federal government from violating it, without enumaerating all the rights in minute detail.

Finally, on the space program, part of your argument for government, it seems, is that we need them to be able to pull money from everyone in order to have the big budgets necessary to go into space. But I think you're missing an important point. IF the government wasn't doing it, a big budget would not be necessary!

The government didn't fund the development of the airline industry. Private entities did. That's why a Jumbo jet only costs $90M, instead of $90B. Without government waste, we would be in space now, and it would be the major airlines flying us there.... NASA simply won't allow it. Theres a prize for spurring development of space travel called the X Prize. There are a couple dozen teams working to be the first one to fly a passenger into the edge of space, return them safely, and then make the same trip within 14 days-- demonstrating commercially viable space travel. All the teams put together don't have more than $10M in budget, and I think most of the teams-- teams with viable programs-- have budgets in the half million dollars range. I could be wrong, but they are all competing for a $10M prize.

Thing is, I doubt NASA will let any of them be successful-- it has sabotaged all previous private efforts, and in the end they can simply deny launch permits.

Don

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Don:

Thanks for the comments on the philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism. I haven't looked at it since the first time I voted back in 1976. It looks like the Libertarian school of thought has evolved towards a more sophisticated canon over the past 30 years. I see a lot of similarities between the Libertarian concept of "ownership" of self and Christian principles.

I disagree with you that there isn't at least a very strong implicit reference to christianity in the DoI or Constitution. Both speak of inalienable (i.e. devinely endowded) rights of man, as for example the enumerated rights in the BoR.

I must not have been clear in my previous post. I agree with you on Federal funding of the space program. It's done more harm than good despite the big Apollo show. There is a very strong profit motive that would drive private enterprize to develop space technology. Governmental involvement has done more to retard that then anything else. Given the cold war I don't see how this was aviodable however.

My point is that there are some fields where the profit motive is too vague or absent entirely to motivate private concerns to undertake them. Yet they are still worthwhile and should be funded. Basic reserch into particle physics is such an area. I don't see private enterprize as funding the SCSC or CERN facilities. Perhaps they would find a cheaper way of conducting such research.

[Don Galt]

Cool Hand Luke--

I see your position better now. Regarding particle accelerators, I still disagree. I actually believe that if the government was not socialist-- if we had pure capitalism going on here, there would be so much profit and so much wealth in this country tha the Texas Superconducting Supercollider would have been built by the Time-Life "Boys Science Club".

Capitalism, when let loose, generates so much profit and causes an economy to grow so fast that the costs of things are drastically out of proportion to the way they are now. So what is "too expensive" to be done by private agencies, becomes very cheap for them to do--- both the costs go down, and the funding availible goes up.

The government destroys massive amounts of value in the economy every year. Just look at how well this country has done compared to slightly more socialist countries. Imagine what it woudl be like if we were free of government regulation, and other government burdens?

I don't see the DOI or constitution endorsing christianity. "God given" is not a phrase that bothers me. I'm not a christian, but I see it as the approrpriate way of saying "universally endowed" or "necessary by objective reality". Or, put another way, human rights can be argued for without relying on the bible. That doesn't mean you can't use the bible to argue for them from your perspective. But that means that all the positive rights-- springing from self ownership-- we should probably agree with. I would call this objectively defined morality as universal morality. It is common among most religions, all rational philosophies and does not rely on faith to derive it.

Where we would disagree, and wher you would probably disagree with libertarians, is on christian beliefs that are not derived from the self-ownership or objective morality. Best example I can think of is that a christian might endorse a law that prohibited sex outside of marriage, whereas a libertarian would not endrose such a law.

Self ownership gives the right of self defense (to defend what you own) and free association (to develop what you own, etc). Free association confers the right to have sex out of wedlock.

Now I don't know where you come down on that issue-- but there is a percentage of americans who would say that their religious faith is more important than the objective morality, and would endorse such a law. Certainly there are many religious people who think that the intentions of the law may be good, but it is not the governmetns right to pass it, or that such things are choices that indivdiuals have to make for themselves. These latter people are not the onese I'm calling religious fundamentalists.

The ones that I grouped into the authoritarian group (along with non-religious marxists) are the ones who put their religion before objective morality-- the ones who will violate human rights when human rights (eg: self ownership) comes in conflict with their religion.

The marxists, who have a religion of a different sort, an economic religion, will also readily violate human rights to achive their goals.

Clearly most christians are not among that %30 I was talking about, or it would be more than %30.

Don

edit: typos

[Glock Glockler]

Don,

To a someone that claimed to be a Christian and endorsed such a law, I'd ask them why they think they should even be allowed by law to be a Christian if someone else's religion forbade it. If I'm breaking God's law that's between me and God, I sincerely doubt God is in need of them to do his work.

Just a wee tip, you'd probably have more success by pointing out to Christians the similarities between their faith and your belief in individual rights than to refer to them in less-than complimentary terms. Something about flies and honey...

[Don Galt]

I've been trying to delineate between groups of christians. Which is why I used the term "Fundamentalists" I assume most christians don't think that would apply to them.

I don't know of another way to distinguish between the two groups of christians, since they both call themselves christians. I'm happy to hear of better terms.

[pax]

I've been trying to delineate between groups of christians. Which is why I used the term "Fundamentalists" I assume most christians don't think that would apply to them.
Dangerous assumption. Trust me on this one.

"Fundamentalist" has a really negative implication in common culture, yet among some Christians (and not necessarily the types you were referring to), it is simple shorthand for "those who believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith." The fundamentals being the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, atoning death, and coming return (some add inerrant Scripture to that list).

Anyway, the upshot is that it's not really useful to use the word "fundamentalist" to separate one group of Christians from another group if you are using the word in the common-culture sense -- because to many Christians it has a different meaning and connotation entirely.

pax

[CaesarI]

In general I find that Christianity and Libertarianism can co-exist as long as Christians are willing to allow the laws of men, and the laws of god to be different. They are of course, under no obligation to obey laws that would place their faith in jeopardy. I find significant support for the separation of church and state in the bible, among them the famous line, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" which occurs almost verbatim in 3 different sections of the bible.

The "wall of separation between church and state" was placed there* as much for the protection of religion as it was for the protection of the state. Of course Waco violated this separation as much as Jerry Fallwell.

-Morgan
*-I'm aware it does not occur in the Constitution.

[Don Galt]

Ok, what's the term to use christians who think that the government should violate the first ammendment and start passing laws purely based on biblical teachings?

Or as Morgan put it, the ones who are unwilling to keep seperate the laws of man, and the laws they follow for themselves.

The ones who believe the government is a "christian government" and that it should criminalize everything the bible condemnse *because the bible condemns* it.

This is not a characteristic particular to a specific church. Or any other delineation I can think of. But there are people like that out there, and the only term I've heard for them is fundamentalist. I'll be happy to use a different term, please give me one. :D

It would be nice to be able to talk about positions held by some christians without every christian in earshot taking offense.

[pax]

Don,

The technical and precise term you're looking for is "theonomist."

Unfortunately, no one knows that word.

pax

[Don Galt]

Maybe I should just make one up: Theocratists. Theocratics. Theoaddicts? :-)

Theocracy advocates-- parsable and I think close enough.

[BigG]

Christian people who try to combine religion and government are not supported by the bible, imho.

Why would it be referred to as "this present evil world" if it was supposed to be governed by some people who also headed up the state religion. Again, did it not say to obey rulers (gov't) as they are a minister of God (appointed by God) to thee and bear not the sword in vain; i.e., are ordained by God to punish transgressors.

[Aleko]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/s070_070.gif

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

BigG wrote:

Christian people who try to combine religion and government are not supported by the bible, imho. Why would it be referred to as "this present evil world" if it was supposed to be governed by some people who also headed up the state religion. Again, did it not say to obey rulers (gov't) as they are a minister of God (appointed by God) to thee and bear not the sword in vain; i.e., are ordained by God to punish transgressors.

I think that the vast majority of Christians in the US agree strongly with your view. Most abhor the thought of a "State Church" even if Christian. They oppose it on principle and based on thier view of how it works in countries that try it; Italy, Russia, the Scandanavian countries, UK, etc.

Most Christians would be satisfied with a general recognition that the founding fathers grounded the governing principles of our republic in Christian thought. And that's not to claim that those principles are held exclusively by the Christian faith.

As for government involvement in the Church, most Christians would like to see it limited to the greatest extent possible. For example they don't think that use of thier own money to pay for tuition at parochial schools is a "State subsidy" of their church nor do they want the Government breathing down their necks dictating the curriculum.

As for Church involvement in Government, most would limit it to voting for candidates that hold positions that jibe with their own and, overall, don't seek to impose thier values through legislation on very many issues beyond some fundamental ones like abortion or gay marriage. Ralph Reed acknowledged this before leaving the CC and stated that he didn't think Christans would be successful in fighting the culture war through involvement in Government.

Reed finally acknowledged something that gun owners are coming to realize: that the Republican Party will not stand by or promote conservative values.

[Roper]

80-80

[MicroBalrog]

Economical Freedom: 50%
Political Freedom: 100%:D