Libertarian purity Test
- Thread starter Chuck Jennings
- Start date
- Status
smokemaker
Member
85- not as high as I hoped... Damn.
DRZinn
Member
I think as by far the most (perhaps, depending on your definition the only intelligent creatures on Earth, we should take pride in our ability to use our faculties to make nature work to our advantage, even when, especially when, it's not what "nature" (as if it's a being) would do without our interference.
You're perfectly OK with someone else taking what you have, as long as he's able to take it from you?
Sure, for two reasons.
1. He won't be able to do it without also taking my life, and
2. I have no delusions about life being eternal, or being meant to be eternal. Life is nice, yeah--but I wouldn't trade my liberty to prolong it as long as possible, like many people are all so bleatingly happy to do.
Just for thought, take these things into consideration also:
-Police didn't exist when this country was founded
-There was no standing military when this country was founded
-Most things WERE privatized back then (not all, but then again, I don't think all things should be)
-There was no government control of professions, workplace practices, wages, education, or most other things that people nowadays latch onto like mental children clinging to the leg of the nanny state, per the media's and Hollywood's instructions
...and the real kicker: America worked better back then.
Twycross
Member
...Indicating that you're not OK about someone taking your stuff.
Do you have a source for that?DRZinn
Member
Point by point:
Already covered by Twycross
Read my prior posts carefully and you'll notice that I never advocated trading liberty to prolong your life. I advocated a force that would prevent anyone from infringing on your liberties, or ending your life.
Courts did, and there were consequences for infringing on anyone else's rights.
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Then why are you arguing for the position that there should be no government?
Nor have I advocated any of that.
Yes. With government.
Two Replies for the Price of One!
First, I never advocated NO government. I just said the country worked a lot better when there was a LOT less of it.
Secondly, as to a source, try "A History of Police in America" by Robert C. Wadman and William Thomas Allison. It is a very comprehensive study on the advent of police, and the changes made to the structure of police departments over the centuries. FYI, police forces were "invented" in America in the 1800s.
Oh, and
for thinking I'd make that up.
Okay, third: I said I'm okay with someone taking my stuff IF HE CAN. That means if he attacks me tonight, I will defend in bring it on style. If he wins, so be it. If not...too bad for him. But I'm not going to hide behind a police state to protect myself, nor should anyone else. I can provide all the force I need to protect myself and my liberties, and thus save cops time, effort, and money. So can anyone else. Government loves me: the amiable (if frequently ranting) taxpayer who rarely uses the services.
Fourth, my examples were meant to demonstrate that a DRASTICALLY smaller government--which was what America had in place at its founding--worked far better than anything we have had since, and infinitely better than the statist, elitist bureaucracy we have now.
Then again, I get the feeling we're all somewhat in agreement here, and merely having one o' them there "communications problems."
First, I never advocated NO government. I just said the country worked a lot better when there was a LOT less of it.
Secondly, as to a source, try "A History of Police in America" by Robert C. Wadman and William Thomas Allison. It is a very comprehensive study on the advent of police, and the changes made to the structure of police departments over the centuries. FYI, police forces were "invented" in America in the 1800s.
Oh, and
for thinking I'd make that up.Okay, third: I said I'm okay with someone taking my stuff IF HE CAN. That means if he attacks me tonight, I will defend in bring it on style. If he wins, so be it. If not...too bad for him. But I'm not going to hide behind a police state to protect myself, nor should anyone else. I can provide all the force I need to protect myself and my liberties, and thus save cops time, effort, and money. So can anyone else. Government loves me: the amiable (if frequently ranting) taxpayer who rarely uses the services.
Fourth, my examples were meant to demonstrate that a DRASTICALLY smaller government--which was what America had in place at its founding--worked far better than anything we have had since, and infinitely better than the statist, elitist bureaucracy we have now.
Then again, I get the feeling we're all somewhat in agreement here, and merely having one o' them there "communications problems."
DRZinn
Member
We're in agreement there, but the argument you made was in response to my assertion that some amount of formal government is a good thing, because without it the "governing power" is whoever is stronger.
That's where you're wrong. Some cannot defend themselves. Actually most, including you and I, could defend themselves only against another individual or a very small group. What happens when, in the absence of a formally organized, democratically selected government, a gang forms for the express purpose of preying on the weak?
Not all of us. Some are arguing for no government at all, others for a minimalist government sufficient to protect the rights of the people.
You and I form a protective group for ourselves and the weak. Which is the precise idea behind a police force. The difference is, the state affords police powers that citizens don't have, and I take issue with that condition.
We have police forces now that are extremely well-armed, trained, and ready to conduct a Waco-style assault on command. Complain, and you'll get some statist with the "they need that for their job" reply.
Personally, I don't believe that police are inherently evil (though police forces quite often are, as are most power structures). I just think the power they wield should never exceed the power that citizens are able to wield. This ensures that they can beat criminals--using strength of numbers--but not beat the rest of us, thus preventing them from someday merely deciding that we are criminals and raiding our houses, no doubt with sheeple across the entire nation cheering them on per CBS's encouragement.
The day we decided that our police should be invincible against the criminals was the day we were so stupid as to make them invincible against us. We succumbed to the sad stories of the individuals dying on the job, thanks to the media and Hollywood. We were made to feel guilty for accepting protection from a government whose agents are less than omnipotent in battle. We then decided that none of them should ever die again--so they we should be better armed and armored! Meanwhile, we are ever less so.
Thomas Jefferson, however, said it far better than I ever could: "The government that is big enough to provide everything you need is big enough to take away everything you have." Ours is now approaching the fulfillment of both conditions.
DRZinn
Member
As in "we should have the powers the cops have" or "they should have only the powers that we have?"
I'm perfectly comfortable with the existence of special teams with abilities beyond normal police officers. There are some very powerful bad guys out there. I think the problem is that ordinary cops look at them and want the same training and equipment, and that administrators look at the special teams and the "up-trained" cops and believe they need to use them, even when it's not necessary.
Autolycus
Member
131 Over here Kids.
The test is not a very good one. It does not address a lot of some of the more serious issues in a realistic manner.
The test is not a very good one. It does not address a lot of some of the more serious issues in a realistic manner.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
137
psychophipps
Member
I got a 17. Not really surprising to me, really. Libertarians have excellent points but their 'all or nothing' approach leaves me outside of their ranks. This test would be a better example if the examples given were not so extreme.
Of course, I also tend to vote Democrat even though I refuse to be a party member of those liberal weenies, am a Christian, disagree with abortion on moral grounds but feel that women should have the right to choose for themselves, have a CCW and think that Death Row should end after six months with a 230-grain aspirin at around 850 ft/sec.
My friends find me amusing as I accept almost all points of view to a point but set my own standards of conduct fairly high,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
Of course, I also tend to vote Democrat even though I refuse to be a party member of those liberal weenies, am a Christian, disagree with abortion on moral grounds but feel that women should have the right to choose for themselves, have a CCW and think that Death Row should end after six months with a 230-grain aspirin at around 850 ft/sec.
My friends find me amusing as I accept almost all points of view to a point but set my own standards of conduct fairly high,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
Only a 78
I think of a lot of the stuff already in place and how gutting a huge part of our government would benefit us all immensely.
However, I think a government is a naturally occurring "evil," if you will, that grows simply out of the congregation of a lot of people working together, which becomes a society.
We used to fend for ourselves, hunting and gathering for our families, then we started working together and hunting less, and using agriculture more. To successfully feed the village, we needed to work together....then the politicking began as did the corruption when all the private agendas took over the commitment to the people.
Now, our politicians and corporate captains vote for their own raises and lifetime full salaries for retirement whille they offer the workers who made them rich a very small percentage by comparison. Our federal representatives do not pay into the same systems that we do, so there is no motivation for them to fix it if they have nothing at stake for themselves. They take the money from the many, squander much of it on themselves, and say there's not enough left to share with the people that actually supplied it.
I believe our founding fathers would revolt against our current government too. I mean really, how is joe politician helping any of us. I see roughly 40% of my money go to the government between the fed and the state. How is that fair when this very government is purposely putting us so deep in debt that our grandchildren will still be paying for their squandering. Current Bush administration as a blaring example.
Maybe I should take the test again, I answered a lot of questions in the governments' favor due to the size and power of the corporations that don't mind completely raping our natural resources all in the name of a buck. The same corporations that don't care for the health or safety of the workers that conduct this work for them.
jeepmor
I think of a lot of the stuff already in place and how gutting a huge part of our government would benefit us all immensely.
However, I think a government is a naturally occurring "evil," if you will, that grows simply out of the congregation of a lot of people working together, which becomes a society.
We used to fend for ourselves, hunting and gathering for our families, then we started working together and hunting less, and using agriculture more. To successfully feed the village, we needed to work together....then the politicking began as did the corruption when all the private agendas took over the commitment to the people.
Now, our politicians and corporate captains vote for their own raises and lifetime full salaries for retirement whille they offer the workers who made them rich a very small percentage by comparison. Our federal representatives do not pay into the same systems that we do, so there is no motivation for them to fix it if they have nothing at stake for themselves. They take the money from the many, squander much of it on themselves, and say there's not enough left to share with the people that actually supplied it.
I believe our founding fathers would revolt against our current government too. I mean really, how is joe politician helping any of us. I see roughly 40% of my money go to the government between the fed and the state. How is that fair when this very government is purposely putting us so deep in debt that our grandchildren will still be paying for their squandering. Current Bush administration as a blaring example.
Maybe I should take the test again, I answered a lot of questions in the governments' favor due to the size and power of the corporations that don't mind completely raping our natural resources all in the name of a buck. The same corporations that don't care for the health or safety of the workers that conduct this work for them.
jeepmor
Don't Tread On Me
Member
You know, I am a pretty radical Libertarian. I answered all those questions honestly and scored a 137. You'd think with all these people scoring around that and HIGHER that a lot of the ideas and discussions in these threads would flow a little differently...THR feels more like a GOP playground, not an anarcho-capitalist ultra-libertarian place..
Maybe I'm nutz hehe
Maybe I'm nutz hehe
CletusFudd
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 70
only 120! Who knew.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Only an 83. I didnt understand some of the questions, and some of them were all-or-nothing type questions. Oh well.
chas_martel
Member
88
phoglund
Member
33 for me. There were in the past times when no government existed...I think those were the times defined by life being. . . worst of all, (in) continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'
Too much government is certainly a bad thing, no government is worse. A society where personal responsibility is expected and rewarded and infringement on the rights of others is shunned and punished with support for those who though accident or infirmity cannot care for themselves seems the goal.
Too much government is certainly a bad thing, no government is worse. A society where personal responsibility is expected and rewarded and infringement on the rights of others is shunned and punished with support for those who though accident or infirmity cannot care for themselves seems the goal.
- Status
