Political Compass [Archive]

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 00:54

As I alluded to earlier, I think Jerrek prefers another version of this test, as this one doesn't do justice to his view of how political opinion is structured. (But I may be putting words in his mouth now, so I'll shut up ;) )
No, you are correct. I do not quite buy into this compass because the questions are a little weirdly phrased, nor do I fully understand how they move you around on the scale. However, as a point of reference to where I lie in respect to the rest of you (ignoring what the scale is supposed to represent), I am:

Economic Left/Right: 7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.95

However, I don't understand how I got a positive in the vertical scale since I think of myself as a anarcho-libertarian. For example, if you explore the site, you will see he puts, correctly, Ayn Rand in the libertarian right. I pride myself to be a virtually indentical match to Ayn Rand in an ideal world, yet for some reason I've ended up on the authoritarian side with William F. Buckley, Thatcher, and Buchanan.

I gave it to another libertarian friend of mine, and he got a very similar result, which leads me to believe there might be some issues with it.

However, as a relative scale it might give a clue where I lie relatively speaking.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/politicalcompass.jpg

ian@huth

14-02-2004, 01:05

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

Dave Stones

14-02-2004, 01:10

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.95

whatever the hell that means... similar segment to dubya and tony...thtas good i hope

doesnt reflect what is going on with coinage in nationstates.net really though.. :erm:

Lew

14-02-2004, 01:14

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

BBKing

14-02-2004, 01:28

Been playing mum all evening, he's just gone to sleep. Mind you, I did nearly cut the top off his thumb earlier.

Back to the political compass - it addresses something that occured to me about Jerrek's protestations that 'Hitler was left-wing' and 'I'm not a fascist' Since the definition of left and right wing have evidently swung round the compass since the 1930s it's not surprising that Jerrek has navigational problems. In fact Adolf would definitely sit in the top part of the graph on the same level as Stalin, hence Jerrek can claim that Hitler and Stalin were from the same stamp. Where he errs is in failing to recognise that on the other axis (communism to neo-liberalism) Hitler was much happier with private enterprise (in fact he relied on it and it relied on him. Who built the gas chambers? Private companies contracted to the Gestapo), anti-unions (Hitler's attitude to unions makes Thatcher look like Arthur Scargill) and therefore is on the right side of that graph.

Let's now compare Hitler with some real socialists:

Mandela - definitely a leftie this one. His views on economics in the 60s were radical and socialist, which is why he was viewed as so damn dangerous by the white supremecist South African government with their big reliance on black labour for mining wealth. He sits to the left, and I think in the 60s would have been above the fascist/libertarian line, but has mellowed and slid down now to a more relaxed liberal attitude.

From the Washington Post:

The world in the 1990s was not like the one that spawned Mandela's socialist economic views of the past. The Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries were gone. Interdependence of nations expanded trade. Mandela now embraced free-market policies and courted industry and foreign investment, striving to set the country in good stead in the international community. In addition, he told big business that they had special responsibility to help uplift the nation and committed them to programs to build schools and develop areas of poverty.

So Mandela was a radical socialist in the 60s and is now a libertarian centre-leftie in the bottom left quadrant of the compass.

Next socialist, Karl Liebknecht. German, born 1871, son of a founder of the SPD (left wing German party, equivalent to Labour these days though). Refused to fight in WWI, anti-militarist, sent to Russian front for pushing the idea of proletarian revolution, jailed for demonstrating against the war, released, after the defeat he declared Germany as a 'Free Socialist Republic', fomented an uprising in Berlin in 1919 which was crushed by the Army and the Freikorps*, who subsequently tortured and executed him. He would sit about half way up the authoritarian side, below Stalin, fairly far to the left.

That's a real German socialist of the early part of the 20th century. Now, what was Hitler (born 1889) doing at the same time?
1914 - enlisted *at once* in the German Army at the start of war.
Fought (courageously, it has to be said) on the Western Front, was wounded, gassed and won the Iron Cross. It's safe to conclude that he was a German nationalist and patriot and supported the German military, as he blamed the new social democrat politicians in Berlin for surrendering when (in his view) the Army was still capable of fighting. After the war he stayed in the Army until 1920, during which time it was employed to crush the socialist revolutions that were breaking out. He got into power partly with the backing of German industrialists who could see what would happen if a real socialist government got in (they'd lose their industry) and backed Hitler precisely because this wouldn't happen with him. He gained votes from the middle classes who wanted fiscal stability, and didn't garner support from the working classes in urban areas. On gaining power he banned the SPD and arrested trade union leaders, then after the Reichstag fire Roehm's SA attacked the labour movement and other undesirables.

*Freikorps - paramilitary organisations formed in the chaos of post-WWI Germany to crush communist/socialist revolutions. Ernst Roehm (head of the SA) and Rudolf Hoess (Commandant at Auschwitz) were in them. Mind you, Hitler had Roehm killed in 1934, partly because he was homosexual, partly because he had developed socialist leanings.

To recap
Mandela (60s)- socialist, pro-Soviet, anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism
Liebknecht - socialist, anti-war, admirer of Bolshevism, killed by the Freikorps for attempting to start a socialist revolution in Germany
Hitler - pro-war, anti-Soviet, admirer of the colonising British Empire (in its treatment of native races in particular), stayed in the Army when it was crushing attempts to start socialist revolution, subsequently teamed up with the Freikorps, helped into power by the Catholic Church and industrialists, banned socialist parties, attacked the labour movement, expelled elected communists from parliament, arrested socialist leaders and trade unionists.

Now where in that is there the smidgeon of an iota of an indication that Hitler was any where near Liebknecht and Mandela on the political compass. He was associated with the forces that killed Liebknecht and admired the attitude that kept Mandela in jail (although Hitler I'm sure would have had Mandela up against a wall in no time at all).

In short Hitler was not, ever, in any way shape or form, by deed or action, a socialist.

Graham

14-02-2004, 01:53

Ok, since I've been asked and others have now posted, here's my scores...

[Drumroll]

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.75!!

So, according to the testers, I'm basically dead centre on the politcal spectrum and *majorly* libertarian. (Actually that's more or less what I'd expected when I first took the test!)

So, is anyone very surprised by this? :)

Graham

14-02-2004, 01:59

Back to the political compass - it addresses something that occured to me about Jerrek's protestations that 'Hitler was left-wing' and 'I'm not a fascist' (snip)

There's an interesting discussion about this on the site, if you scroll down to the bottom of the "analysis" page there's this link:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Which discusses how, for instance, the BNP actually has some ideas which are way to the left of New Labour (who are currently sitting on the right hand side of the axis).

Nikko

14-02-2004, 02:40

Blimey - I am diametrically opposed to my own perceptions of myself according to this

Seems I need to book a flight to the Himalayas - whereas I had me down as fairly Capitalist - oh well

Sociable

14-02-2004, 02:52

Blimey - I am diametrically opposed to my own perceptions of myself according to this

Seems I need to book a flight to the Himalayas - whereas I had me down as fairly Capitalist - oh well

Nah, it is just that you are a capitalist with a big heart and a social conscience to match.

OK who wants to take a stab at which political party I once stood for in local elections. :)

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 03:49

So, according to the testers, I'm basically dead centre on the politcal spectrum and *majorly* libertarian. (Actually that's more or less what I'd expected when I first took the test!)

So, is anyone very surprised by this? :)
Yes. More proof it is not accurate.

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 08:25

i am heading off towards stalin is that good or bad :confused:

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 08:29

i am heading off towards stalin is that good or bad :confused:

нет товарищ

(no comrade)

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 08:30

Yes. More proof it is not accurate.

What did you expect Graham to be?

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 08:37

нет товарищ

(no comrade)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: , had a feeling it might not be :D

Bex

14-02-2004, 08:49

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

i have the dahli lama and nelson mandela in my quatre

BBKing

14-02-2004, 10:36

That bottom left quadrant seems to be remarkably popular on this site - seems we're mostly lefties with a dislike for authority. No wonder Jerrek gets flamed.

[ponders plotting everyone on a chart]

philip.j.fry

14-02-2004, 10:38

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

i have the dahli lama and nelson mandela in my quatre

Yeah! Last time I took it I landed spot on with the Dahli Lama, I'm moving even further away now though:

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

:) I like it there, it's where I probably would have put myself.

philip.j.fry

14-02-2004, 10:39

[ponders plotting everyone on a chart]

Good idea!

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 10:40

That bottom left quadrant seems to be remarkably popular on this site - seems we're mostly lefties with a dislike for authority. No wonder Jerrek gets flamed.

[ponders plotting everyone on a chart]

Jerrek gets flamed because he comes out with such twaddle :D

luftys

14-02-2004, 10:54

well I got the Dalai Lama :eek:

downquark1

14-02-2004, 10:58

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

Dave Stones

14-02-2004, 11:10

downquark1

14-02-2004, 11:20

In short Hitler was not, ever, in any way shape or form, by deed or action, a socialist. Thank you for agreeing.

I think Jerrek's definition of left and right is "controlled economy" and "free market economy"
Britain's being a "mixed" last time I checked.

BBking were did you come? ;)

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 11:23

i'm in the top right corner though :cry:

*outcast

so am i by the look of it , i am up there with stalin :eek: :eek:

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 13:57

What did you expect Graham to be?
Damn. I just typed up a long, long post, and lost it. Now I'm mad. :( I will be back, but I'm now so depressed having lost a post over what libertarian is.

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 14:14

Damn. I just typed up a long, long post, and lost it. Now I'm mad. :( I will be back, but I'm now so depressed having lost a post over what libertarian is.

**** happens , i am sure you will be back with it :eek:

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 14:15

Libertarians, such as myself, advocate:

- Corruption and Campaign Reform - (1) Elimination of special rights and privileges for elected or appointed government officials. (2) Revision of any law or regulation that exempts the government or its officials from compliance. (3) Ending government funding of any political party or candidate. (4) Revision of state and federal laws to enable all candidates for elective office to be included on election ballots.

- Crime - (1) Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution. (2) Hold all criminals responsible for their actions. (3) Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending. (4) Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets. (5) Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns. (6) Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

- Drugs - (1) End drug prohibition. That will empty the prisons a lot. How many people are in jail for trafficing marijuana? (2) Personal responsibility is the keyword. Most adults are reponsible enough not to drive after drinking, and this can be applied to drugs too.

- Economy - (1) Phase out all direct and indirect subsidies to foreign nations, foreign companies, and foreign citizens. (2) Eliminate the double taxation of corporate profits. (3) Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs. (4) Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs. (5) End government economic meddling that results in depressions and recessions that destroy jobs.

- Education - (1) Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another. (2) Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools. (3) Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children. (4) Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.

- Freedom of Expression - (1) Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women; ... (2) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom; (3) Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom. ... "

- Gun Control - (1) No gun control. (2) Protection of the right to self-defense.

- Health - Privatize medicare and medicaid.

- National Defense - (1) Strong national defense, however, bring home all troops stationed in other countries (except war zones, of course). Germany doesn't need us. (2) Defending America, not the world.

- Social Issues - (1) End government welfare. (2) Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity, meaning, for every dollar you donate to charity you are one dollar less liable to taxation. (3) Privatize education. (4) Privatize social security.

- Taxes - (1) Abolish federal income taxes. (After paying off the national debt) (2) Stop subsidies. (3) End corporate welfare. (4) Stop bailing out industries.

That is libertarianism, and for some reason, I don't think Graham will like those beliefs very much.

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 14:17

can i ask , are you american or canadian , or do you just suit yourself when you want to :confused:

Graham

14-02-2004, 14:21

Yes. More proof it is not accurate.

Ok, so where would *you* put me on their scale?

I've just read your above message which I'll answer in a minute, but I'd still be interested in where you think I'd fit.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 14:29

Graham, I can't place you there because I don't really understand how that political map works. It just doesn't make sense to me, because they put me on the authoritarian side (which I'm not), and you they make a super libertarian (which I don't think you are). How do you stand on the above issues I mentioned? (Lets not debate the merits of it, just what your opinion and view is, if you don't mind. :) ) [I've had enough arguing for the week. This is my weekend, and I want to chill a bit.[

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 14:34

Libertarians, such as myself, advocate:

- Economy - (1) Phase out all direct and indirect subsidies to foreign nations, foreign companies, and foreign citizens. (2) Eliminate the double taxation of corporate profits. (3) Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs. (4) Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs. (5) End government economic meddling that results in depressions and recessions that destroy jobs.

Most subsidies to foreign nations is to get something of benifit in return.
As a christian, you should know that without Israel there can be no second comming, why do you think the US funds Israel?
Don't know about in the US, but in Europe, if subsidies were eliminated, the instant inflation on basic foodstuffs would cripple the economy.

- Gun Control - (1) No gun control. (2) Protection of the right to self-defense.

And look where that's got America.

- Health - Privatize medicare and medicaid.

So people who can't afford it are left to die or suffer?

- National Defense - (1) Strong national defense, however, bring home all troops stationed in other countries (except war zones, of course). Germany doesn't need us. (2) Defending America, not the world.

Lets roll the clock back a bit, as history repeats itself, say america didn't get involved in the european side of WW2, whether by aid or arms.
The allies would not have helped America in the pacific, Europe probably would have fallen to the Nazi's, then American would have the Nazi's and Japs fighting it, alone, with no one else because America left them to be defeated.

Social Issues[/b] - (1) End government welfare. (2) Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity, meaning, for every dollar you donate to charity you are one dollar less liable to taxation. (3) Privatize education. (4) Privatize social security.

What about the people who can't afford these things?
What if due to a technicality your insurance won't pay out?

That is libertarianism, and for some reason, I don't think Graham will like those beliefs very much.

I think he (having a better understanding of economics) will have a lot to say about that!

Shaun

14-02-2004, 14:45

snip

Is there ANYTHING you wouldn;t privatize?? Maggy would have loved you, but I'm sure even she wouldn't have gone so far as decriminalizing drugs completely and allowing everyone to carry a gun. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that if you took over our little island there would be mob rule mate.

The bit that made me laugh was this "Personal responsibility is the keyword. Most adults are responsible enough not to drive after drinking, and this can be applied to drugs too." it comes from someone who thinks doing excessive speed on a public road is o.k. (and have you never seen "worlds worst drivers" or what ever its called hosted by the dodgy American cop with the shiny white teeth?) :geez:

Another point I noticed was that you want to get more criminals of the street yet you want drug traffickers and dealers to be allowed out of prison :erm:

J I don't mean to have a go at you personally, so please don't take it that way, but you really need to grow up and get some real life experience, because the world really doesn't work the way you see it. After all why would we have invented the NHS and the welfare state (and keep them all these years) if it wasn't good for the country. Oh and have you not heard what happened to our railways when they were privatized :eek:

Graham

14-02-2004, 14:47

Libertarians, such as myself, advocate:

I presume this was taken from http://www.lp.org/issues/ ? In which case I think you should redefine that as "American Libertarians"...

- Corruption and Campaign Reform - (1) Elimination of special rights and privileges for elected or appointed government officials. (2) Revision of any law or regulation that exempts the government or its officials from compliance. (3) Ending government funding of any political party or candidate. (4) Revision of state and federal laws to enable all candidates for elective office to be included on election ballots.

Well I can agree with all of this lot, although some of it seems to be more politically motivated than libertarianism.

- Crime - (1) Respect the victim's rights and make criminals pay full restitution. (2) Hold all criminals responsible for their actions. (3) Double the police resources available for crime prevention without any additional government spending. (4) Reduce the number of criminals at large on our streets. (5) Defend the most effective crime deterrent available, the private ownership of guns. (6) Create jobs, end welfare dependence, and improve education.

I can also agree with most of the above, apart from item 5 which I do not agree is in any way "the most effective crime deterrent available". Also item 4 seems to advocate just locking people up, rather than trying to re-habilitate them, which rather seems to contradict the libertarian ideal that I understand!

- Drugs - (1) End drug prohibition. That will empty the prisons a lot. How many people are in jail for trafficing marijuana? (2) Personal responsibility is the keyword. Most adults are reponsible enough not to drive after drinking, and this can be applied to drugs too.

Again, I can agree with most of this, although unfortunately the number of drink driving accidents and deaths rather gives the lie to point 2.

- Economy - (1) Phase out all direct and indirect subsidies to foreign nations, foreign companies, and foreign citizens. (2) Eliminate the double taxation of corporate profits. (3) Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs. (4) Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs. (5) End government economic meddling that results in depressions and recessions that destroy jobs.

This lot, however, again seems more politically motivated. A lot of it seems entirely unrelated to "liberty".

- Education - (1) Support a true market in education -- one in which parents and students would not be stuck with a bad local school, because they could choose another. (2) Implement measures such as tax credits so that parents will have the financial ability to choose among schools. (3) Provide financial incentives for businesses to help fund schools and for individuals to support students other than their own children. (4) Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, which spends billions on education and educates no one. The growth of this agency and its numerous regulations is a major reason for runaway costs in American schools.

Once more we see politics intertwined with "liberties".

- Freedom of Expression - (1) Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women; ... (2) Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom; (3) Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom. ... "

I can completely agree with all this.

- Gun Control - (1) No gun control. (2) Protection of the right to self-defense.

I think point 1 is a cultural issue. A culture that has the Second Amendment and a tradition of gun ownership will have a different opinion from one that does not share those beliefs. I don't think private gun ownership for "self defence" in the UK is a libertarian issue.

As for point 2, I've written at length in the past on my opinons that the right to self-defence does *not* include the right to "exact justice" by going beyond what is necessary to defend one's self or property into the realms of "kicking seven bells out of someone".

- Health - Privatize medicare and medicaid.

What on Earth has this got to do with "liberty"?

- National Defense - (1) Strong national defense, however, bring home all troops stationed in other countries (except war zones, of course). Germany doesn't need us. (2) Defending America, not the world.

I wish they would, but, once again, what has this got to do with "liberty"? This is politics.

- Social Issues - (1) End government welfare. (2) Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity, meaning, for every dollar you donate to charity you are one dollar less liable to taxation. (3) Privatize education. (4) Privatize social security.

More politics, not liberty.

- Taxes - (1) Abolish federal income taxes. (After paying off the national debt) (2) Stop subsidies. (3) End corporate welfare. (4) Stop bailing out industries.

Yet more politics.

That is libertarianism, and for some reason, I don't think Graham will like those beliefs very much.

Well you're wrong, because I like some of them very much, but others I disagree with because they are *political* aims, not *libertarian* aims.

Still, it's interesting to see where you're coming from, however I would have said, based on the above, that you'd have been a lot further down and to the left than your 1.95/ 7.88 rating.

Graham

14-02-2004, 14:50

Graham, I can't place you there because I don't really understand how that political map works. It just doesn't make sense to me, because they put me on the authoritarian side (which I'm not), and you they make a super libertarian (which I don't think you are).

Well I've just posted my response to this and on the actual "personal freedom" issues we agree a fair amount, but there seems to be a lot of politics mixed up with what you posted that I don't agree with.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 15:00

Your fundamental excuse seems to be "more politics" for all the important issues. You're not a libertarian. Libertarians advocate personal and economic freedom, and that includes freedom to own guns and freedom from government.

I'll prepare a more detailed response in a bit.

Sociable

14-02-2004, 15:03

That is libertarianism, and for some reason, I don't think Graham will like those beliefs very much.

No that is not libertarianism, that is a manifesto that would put any nation back to the time when man walked on all fours and the law of the jungle was king. Mankind has moved on a little since then it's called evolution.

Also, take care advocating such a dog eat dog world jerrek, the rest of the animals have far sharper teeth than you and most are far larger too, so this won't be in your long term "selfist" interests at all. From all you have said so far in these debates it is clear, that one as naive as you clearly are, will be one of the first lambs led willingly to your own slaughter.

BTW. That list of policies would back-fire on you faster than the bullets from all those "defensive" guns that kill so many of the innocent children of America each year by "accident".

The policies are all so fundamentally flawed at so many levels it would be impossible to cover the reasons they are complete twaddle adequately in any post here that you would be able to understand. Time and experience of the real world may just be your salvation though and I truly hope it is.

Graham

14-02-2004, 15:11

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 15:12

Xaccers, I'm not about to start discussing the merits of it. I do want to do that sometime, in a separate thread, and I'll keep this post of yours in mind and respond to it. I hope you don't mind waiting a bit for it. CLEARLY, though, you are not a libertarian, would you agree? :)

dellwear, clearly you're not a libertarian either, would you agree? :) Your attack on me is unwarranted though. Just putting an excuse "you need to grow up" and attacking my age is immature. I'll deal with the issues you raised later in another thread. I do wonder how you would attack the Libertarian Party presidential candidate though. Would you also tell him to grow up and get more life experience? Would you also attack his age?

Graham, your main response to the points you don't agree with seems to be "it is political and has nothing to do with libertarianism." That is not a valid response. If you disagree with the fundamentals of libertarianism, then you are clearly not a libertarian. You can't go around disagreeing with everything the party stands for (mainly economic issues) and call yourself a libertarian. That is a liberal. Liberals tend to allow greater personal freedom [than conservatives], while holding tigher controls over the economy [higher taxes, more regulations, more welfare]. Libertarians opt for freedom in BOTH of these areas.

Still, it's interesting to see where you're coming from, however I would have said, based on the above, that you'd have been a lot further down and to the left than your 1.95/ 7.88 rating.
*frown* Now you're confusing me even more. Left? Eh.

Libertarianism:

http://www.theihs.org/subcategory.php/44.html

The libertarian, or "classical liberal," perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary." This is the fundamental belief of libertarians such as myself.

According to American HeritageÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Â® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman
Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to MicrosoftÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â® EncartaÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â ® Online Encyclopedia 2000 ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â© 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation
Libertarianism, political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual. The doctrine of libertarianism stresses the right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to private ownership of material resources and property. Advocates oppose any form of taxation and favor a laissez-faire economic system

According to David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer, Free Press, 1997
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 15:16

No that is not libertarianism, that is a manifesto that would put any nation back to the time when man walked on all fours and the law of the jungle was king. Mankind has moved on a little since then it's called evolution.
In your opinion. In my opinion it would advance society at an unbelievable pace. The Founding Fathers were libertarians and they formed the United States in that form. In 200 years we've become the most powerful nation on earth. Sadly, we're drifting away, and other nations are now catching up (Hong Kong for example).

The policies are all so fundamentally flawed at so many levels it would be impossible to cover the reasons they are complete twaddle adequately in any post here that you would be able to understand. Time and experience of the real world may just be your salvation though and I truly hope it is.
Doubtful. Pardon me for not being a neo-commie such as yourself, but I value freedom. That is why Ayn Rand's philosophies and I get along so well.

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 15:22

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 15:25

As I pointed out that's "American Libertarians"...
Then what is UK libertarians?

Fascinating. Lets see the policies of the British Libertarian Party:

- The British Libertarian Party would maintain the inflation target instituted by Gordon Brown and allow the Bank of England to be independent. In addition, a British Libertarian government may seek to privatise the central bank and permit private citizens to create distribute their own money. The role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be lessened to allow free markets to regulate themselves.

- Taxes under a British Libertarian government would be greatly lessened. We would in time seek to eliminate taxation altogether and provide funding for governmental services via user fees. We feel that a British Libertarian government should expect tax receipts of 25% of GDP per annum, until taxes are eradicated.

- At this present time, the UK is faced with the decision on whether to join European Monetary Union. We fully support a referendum on the issue once the 'five tests' have been realised. Nevertheless, we fully oppose British entry of EMU, as it would seek to destroy Britain's economic sovereignty. We aim to review the UK's entry into the single currency after the lifetime of two parliaments.

- As British Libertarians, we naturally believe in a minimum state. The privatisations undertaken under the Thatcher/Major/Blair governments are welcomed though are not wholly sufficient. A British Libertarian government would abolish the licence fee and fully place the British Broadcasting Corporation into private hands. The state would also sell its share of Channel Four. Royal Mail would also be fully privatised and be encouraged to compete in a free market with other delivery organisations. We seek to sell off Network Rail, though employing a method similar to the privatisation of the Japanese railways. State owned museums, libraries, parks, etc. would all ultimately be sold to the private sector.

- As stated earlier, we wish to eventually replace taxation with user fees. Until that occurs, taxes would be greatly reduced for all payers. The basic rate of income tax would be 8%; the highest being 27%. National Insurance is to be abolished.

- The British Libertarian party would repeal the minimum wage, as such a thing is prone to increasing unemployment. We believe that all should receive the market rate for their labour. We would also cease subsidies to all companies and combat protectionism.

Health and Education.
The NHS is a supposed pride of the nation. Nonetheless, we do not believe it to be the state's role to protect the health of the country. The British Libertarian party would lessen and eventually end the government's role in health provision and education. Healthcare and schools are better served by access to a free market.

Defence
The Cold War has been over for some time. Britain no longer needs to have an extensive foreign policy. Germany (a larger economy than ourselves) possesses the ability to defend itself; do we truly need to have thousands of military personnel there? A British Libertarian government would seek to refrain from interventionist foreign policies. The defence of the nation against direct attack should be paramount.

Europe
We support enlargement of the European Union, as we feel as many nations as possible should seek to co-operate with each other across the continent. However, we oppose the creation of a federal superstate as this will lead to a total loss of sovereignty.

Law & Order
Many complain about a supposed 'lack' of police. This is not necessarily true, as police numbers are at there highest for some time. What we propose is to lessen the red tape surrounding police work and allow police officers to do their job in maintaining public order. We shall also repeal victimless crime legislation.

Electoral and parliamentary reform
Coalition governments are detrimental to strong government. A British Libertarian government would retain the first-past-the-post system. Nevertheless, we also endorse reform of the House of Lords. Whilst it is imperative for the House of Commons to remain the primary chamber, the notion of hereditary peers involved in the legislative process is feudal in nature. We believe that 65% of members of the new second chamber should be elected.

Wider Society
Social freedom is of great consequence to British Libertarians. Ergo, we feel ALL in society must be free to live as they please without infringing on others rights'. We would fully legalise gay marriage and allow homosexuals to marry. All narcotics would be legal under a British Libertarian government in addition to people being free to offer euthanasia for the terminally ill. Actions between consenting adults are not the business of the state, so prostitution would be decriminalised; brothels would be permitted to trade in a free market with one another.

Constitution
New Labour has been inconsistent and schizophrenic regarding its attitude towards the rights of the people. It has introduced the Human Rights Act (which we will retain) but seeks to abolish trial by jury. ALL of the freedoms granted to British people within our unwritten constitution would be upheld.

Sure sounds very much like "American" libertarianism to me. (except for the flat tax part)

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 15:26

I'm a Tory, no idea where that puts me, but if lebertarians are the economical suicides you've described, then I'm certainly not one :D

As for what dellware said, he was commenting on your lack of real world experience of having a career/home/kids/pension/job worries/mortgage/financial worries, and not attacking you at all.
And um, how is it that he can critique me? Is he drawing from his pool of vastly more experience of 1 year?

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 15:35

And um, how is it that he can critique me? Is he drawing from his pool of vastly more experience of 1 year?

Perhaps he is speaking from the experience of someone of a similar age as you, knowing that at that age most people don't have mortgages/children/careers/employment worries/pensions etc

Sociable

14-02-2004, 15:47

Ahhh I think I finally have a handle on one key element missing from your thinking jerrek.

The concept you ignore is that at times it is necessary to restrict some freedoms to preserve others in a constantly changing balance that reflects those injustices which become apparent.

Sadly the much misused ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œright to bear armsÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â is a perfect example of this.

Btw, I assume you know enough about your own constitution to appreciate that amendment was never about the right for individuals to carry guns at all, but simply passed on the right to communities to form militia at times of great peril.

In this case the introduction of gun control is about preserving the right of individuals not to be shot by anyone not just criminals. It is restricting one freedom but only for the sake of preserving what are seen as higher freedoms that also need to be given respect.

As one moves through the rest of your manifesto you will find many such areas where, when you tease out the detail, a degree of control of one freedom is in place to provide a balancing preservation of another freedom elsewhere.

Perhaps this is where we in the UK are fortunate not to have a written Constitution. Here we donÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢t give an absolute right to anything but choose a different way of protecting the freedom of the individual by arriving at a balance between often conflicting rights.

There is no absolute right to free speech as such, but what we have is a set of rules governing the restrictions to the right to say what you want effectively identifying what canÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢t be said and why rather than allowing everything without consideration of its impact on other freedoms.

A good example of this in practice is provided by the very T.O.S. for this forum. The concept of free speech is accepted but subject to civilised and agreed rules of behaviour that protect other important rights and freedoms for members.

EDIT: Perhaps what might help you most jerrek is to stop thinking about labels and start looking at the effect policies would have rather than the rhetoric. You want freedom but the policies you advocate would actually have the reverse effect not least for yourself.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 16:25

Real fascinating. Perhaps you should read what the Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution said?

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"A free people ought...to be armed...." - - GEORGE WASHINGTON

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - - THOMAS JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, June 1776. 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - SAMUEL ADAMS

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually." - GEORGE MASON - Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

I just sunk your "only for militia" statement, and the Supreme Court of the land agrees with me. However, you make some valid points.

The concept you ignore is that at times it is necessary to restrict some freedoms to preserve others in a constantly changing balance that reflects those injustices which become apparent.
I agree, but which freedoms do you have a gripe with?

There is no absolute right to free speech as such
We disagree, and that is one reason why we moved out of Europe.

A good example of this in practice is provided by the very T.O.S. for this forum. The concept of free speech is accepted but subject to civilised and agreed rules of behaviour that protect other important rights and freedoms for members.
That isn't free speech. That is decency and a rule we all agree to when we joined. Free speech relates to government control. If the government starts regulating what you can say and can't say, that is bad. I can understand controls to where you can state something, such as yelling fire in a theater, but not telling me what to think.

You want freedom but the policies you advocate would actually have the reverse effect not least for yourself.
How do you figure?

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 16:34

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - - THOMAS JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, June 1776. 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

I think that backs up what Sociable was getting at rather well.
The "forefathers" gave the right to bear arms in order to prevent a tyranical government abusing unarmed civilians, not so you can get hold of a gun and hold up a 7/11 with it.
The "forefathers" set up your consitution with the "tyranny" of british rule fresh in their minds.

Shaun

14-02-2004, 16:36

dellwear, clearly you're not a libertarian either, would you agree? :) Your attack on me is unwarranted though. Just putting an excuse "you need to grow up" and attacking my age is immature. I'll deal with the issues you raised later in another thread. I do wonder how you would attack the Libertarian Party presidential candidate though. Would you also tell him to grow up and get more life experience? Would you also attack his age?

J, I have commented on your attitude before, I believe that you have one of the biggest chips on your shoulder I have EVER seen, and your arrogance prevents you from seeing this.

I don't know you, I certainly don't know what sort of up bringing you have had or what sort of person you are to meet, but from your comments posted on this site, I have created a mental picture of you (like we all do of people we chat to on forums like this) and to be frank, its not very nice.

I didn't attack you in my last post but I certainly am now. :mad: I have spent most of my life looking after my mum and brother (after my dad died) during this time I have gained much knowledge of how the world works and how people behave. I'm not saying that I have a perfect understanding but from what you have said in this and other threads I can see that I have more of an idea than you.

And um, how is it that he can critique me? Is he drawing from his pool of vastly more experience of 1 year?

I wasn't commenting on your physical age, I was mearly pointing out that the world doesn't exist in the way you think, some of your comments are similar to the sort of things that my peers came out with at school :rolleyes:

As for what dellware said, he was commenting on your lack of real world experience of having a career/home/kids/pension/job worries/mortgage/financial worries, and not attacking you at all.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there mate, I currently live in a house of my own, I have done since I was 18, doing so I have had to deal with times when I have been ill and unable to work, and all the stress that comes along with it. I have had financial worry and had to help my family when they have been ill. This is why I find some of Jerrek's ideas so repugnant and his arrogance astounding, if I can become ill and unable to work for a period then it sure as hell can happen to him, and if some of your his ideas were implemented I would be living in a cardboard box somewhere now. :rolleyes:

In your opinion. <snip>

People on here have tried to explain their point of view yet you still say they are wrong and they ideas are flawed, or they haven;t come back with a valid argument. Well I hope you can get the message from this post. :geez:

I honestly feel sorry for you, because as someone else in this thread said life will come back and bite you on the ass sometime soon and when it does you are going to be so unprepared. I pity the day that you loose your job and can't find yourself another (just one example) because from what you have posted you will have such a low opinion of yourself that you will probably curl up and die. :(

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 16:39

I think that backs up what Sociable was getting at rather well.
No. I do not see how you can say that. Read it again.

The "forefathers" gave the right to bear arms in order to prevent a tyranical government abusing unarmed civilians, not so you can get hold of a gun and hold up a 7/11 with it.
Now that is a very silly example, but how do you know that they did not intend that?

What about the slew of other quotes that you conveniently ignored?

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 16:45

No. I do not see how you can say that. Read it again.

Now that is a very silly example, but how do you know that they did not intend that?

What about the slew of other quotes that you conveniently ignored?

The other quotes which say the same thing but give no reason.
Well I've pointed out the reason, you don't like it, well it's your forefathers who came up with it,you showed that with that quote of yours.
Now you're saying that the forefathers and their consitution are silly? Wish you'd make your mind up.

Compare gun deaths in the US with countries where guns are illegal, all deaths, accidental, illegal, self defence, bet the US comes out worst of all.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 16:47

J, I have commented on your attitude before, I believe that you have one of the biggest chips on your shoulder I have EVER seen, and your arrogance prevents you from seeing this.
Real fascinating. Becuase you disagree with me, I'm now suddenly arrogant.

I don't know you, I certainly don't know what sort of up bringing you have had or what sort of person you are to meet, but from your comments posted on this site, I have created a mental picture of you (like we all do of people we chat to on forums like this) and to be frank, its not very nice.
Because I stand for personal and economic freedom as all libertarians does?

I didn't attack you in my last post but I certainly am now. :mad: I have spent most of my life looking after my mum and brother (after my dad died) during this time I have gained much knowledge of how the world works and how people behave. I'm not saying that I have a perfect understanding but from what you have said in this and other threads I can see that I have more of an idea than you.
Well, I'm very sorry about that (not sarcasm), but I too have experience to draw from from living in several different countries and first handedly seeing how apartheid, fascism, a theocracy, and republics work.

I wasn't commenting on your physical age, I was mearly pointing out that the world doesn't exist in the way you think, some of your comments are similar to the sort of things that my peers came out with at school :rolleyes:
Of course, the world exists exactly as you think. My opinion is less valid because you don't agree with me.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there mate, I currently live in a house of my own, I have done since I was 18, doing so I have had to deal with times when I have been ill and unable to work, and all the stress that comes along with it. I have had financial worry and had to help my family when they have been ill. This is why I find some of Jerrek's ideas so repugnant and his arrogance astounding, if I can become ill and unable to work for a period then it sure as hell can happen to him, and if some of your his ideas were implemented I would be living in a cardboard box somewhere now. :rolleyes:
I do feel sorry for your trouble, but my point stands. I firmly believe charities, religious institutions, and other people can do a much better job than the government. I have never turned anyone away that requested food from me. I do lots of volunteer work (paramedic) in order to help society. I also donate to charities. I have issues with the government setting up the welfare and social care shop though.

People on here have tried to explain their point of view yet you still say they are wrong and they ideas are flawed, or they haven;t come back with a valid argument. Well I hope you can get the message from this post. :geez:
Its just hilarious how you and others have done exactly the same thing in this thread.

I honestly feel sorry for you, because as someone else in this thread said life will come back and bite you on the ass sometime soon and when it does you are going to be so unprepared. I pity the day that you loose your job and can't find yourself another (just one example) because from what you have posted you will have such a low opinion of yourself that you will probably curl up and die. :(
So you too are telling me I'm going to end up on welfare? Real fascinating. How do you conclude that? Because I don't like government and consider it a necessary evil?

Second, I don't plan on working for anyone.

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 16:49

Real fascinating. Becuase you disagree with me, I'm now suddenly arrogant.

No, because you're arrogant he is calling you arrogant

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 16:50

The other quotes which say the same thing but give no reason.
Well I've pointed out the reason, you don't like it, well it's your forefathers who came up with it,you showed that with that quote of yours.
Now you're saying that the forefathers and their consitution are silly? Wish you'd make your mind up.
It isn't that I don't like it, it is that you're not understanding it. He said "the strongest" reason. There are other reasons.

He didn't even mention militias. How do you read militias into it??

Compare gun deaths in the US with countries where guns are illegal, all deaths, accidental, illegal, self defence, bet the US comes out worst of all.
Lets compare gun deaths in Switzerland (where it is mandatory for all families to own assault guns).

In fact, there are less accidental gun related deaths in the U.S. than accidental medical related deaths in the U.S. or Britain.

As for illegal... Countless illegal people drive cars and make accidents, often killing others, each year. We should, of course, ban cars right now.

downquark1

14-02-2004, 17:00

Wait, wait, wait. You support all that libertarian stuff yet support the support of Israel and the right of the state to deny gays marriage and launch anti-sex campaigns.

"selfist" That's Ayn Rand's "objectivism"

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:00

http://www.constitution.org/bor/vir_bor.txt

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;
that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to
liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:05

Wait, wait, wait. You support all that libertarian stuff yet support the support of Israel and the right of the state to deny gays marriage and launch anti-sex campaigns.
You apparently missed post 145 in the marriage thread.

Xaccers, nice quotes. But what about them? Give your opinion.

Sociable

14-02-2004, 17:06

How do you figure?

Ok First I will deal with your last point.

The freedoms you so carelessly give others can impinge on your own freedom as they exercise those freedoms against you it's as simple as that.

As for the Right to bear arms, you are forgetting the context in which most if not all of those statements were made. They are largely about the right of communities to protect them from outside attack without having to go through the process of forming an official army. The amendment was brought about to allow militia to be formed legally for defence against external threats which were relevant at that time but not now.

The statements you quote most certainly were not supporting the right of fellow citizens to shoot each other and were not aimed at personal 1-2-1 defence the way so many choose to reinterpret the amendment now.

The amendment itself came from problems with the way the earlier limitations on the formation of such militia in the constitution restricted the possibility of having such an "unofficial" civil defence. It made perfect sense at that time given the way such militia had proved so vital in the ongoing War of Independence.

200 years have passed since then though and the old arguments no longer should have any bearing on the issue of gun controls designed to protect individuals, not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to possess firearms.

Interesting question for you jerrek.

Do you happen to know the statistics for people shooting themselves with their own guns in the US so as to make a comparison as to how much more likely you are to shoot yourself or a member of your family or friends than be shot by a criminal?

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:11

You apparently missed post 145 in the marriage thread.

Xaccers, nice quotes. But what about them? Give your opinion.

Ok here's an opinion, Sociable was right when he said the right to bear arms is in relation to militia, and you don't appear to know much about your own bill of rights beyond what you might have heard on a TV show.

I also noticed you missed my point about Israel in one of my earlier posts.
If the US stopped funding Israel, it wouldn't be able to defend itself against any invasion, would crumble and cease to exists.
Then the second comming wouldn't be able to take place.
Bit of a bummer for you I would guess.

downquark1

14-02-2004, 17:11

You apparently missed post 145 in the marriage thread.

Xaccers, nice quotes. But what about them? Give your opinion. How do you explain Israel and the anti-sex campaigns then?

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:18

The freedoms you so carelessly give others can impinge on your own freedom as they exercise those freedoms against you it's as simple as that.
Agreed, but you'll need to elaborate.

As for the Right to bear arms, you are forgetting the context in which most if not all of those statements were made. They are largely about the right of communities to protect them from outside attack without having to go through the process of forming an official army. The amendment was brought about to allow militia to be formed legally for defence against external threats which were relevant at that time but not now.
I disagree.

The statements you quote most certainly were not supporting the right of fellow citizens to shoot each other and were not aimed at personal 1-2-1 defence the way so many choose to reinterpret the amendment now.
I disagree with this too.

The amendment itself came from problems with the way the earlier limitations on the formation of such militia in the constitution restricted the possibility of having such an "unofficial" civil defence. It made perfect sense at that time given the way such militia had proved so vital in the ongoing War of Independence.
And it still makes perfect sense, which is why I am in a militia. (Yes, we have militias in Canada, and you can bet I'll join one when I go back to the U.S.)

200 years have passed since then though and the old arguments no longer should have any bearing on the issue of gun controls designed to protect individuals,
I disagree once again.

not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to possess firearms.
Lets rephrase that:

"ot least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to possess cars."

"ot least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to smoke."

"ot least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to drink."

"ot least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to [insert bad thing here]"

And I can go on. So lets ban cars, alcohol, smokes. Lets ban everything that is harmful to society. Yeah. So much for individual freedom.

Interesting question for you jerrek.

Do you happen to know the statistics for people shooting themselves with their own guns in the US so as to make a comparison as to how much more likely you are to shoot yourself or a member of your family or friends than be shot by a criminal?
Yeah I do. I'll have to go find it in my favorites list at home. I'll post it here later tonight.

I want to type more, but the firealarm just went off at work (first round, warning) and I have to prepare to evacuate. GRRR.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:23

Ok here's an opinion, Sociable was right when he said the right to bear arms is in relation to militia, and you don't appear to know much about your own bill of rights beyond what you might have heard on a TV show.
Resorting to insults?

And no, I respectfully disagree. That clause did not refer to militias, and I've shown you plenty of quotes from the founding fathers (which you conveniently ignored). The one you choose to look at you interpret in a different way. *shrug* Disagree, we are.

I also noticed you missed my point about Israel in one of my earlier posts.
If the US stopped funding Israel, it wouldn't be able to defend itself against any invasion, would crumble and cease to exists.
Then the second comming wouldn't be able to take place.
Bit of a bummer for you I would guess.
You really don't know a lot about Christianity, do you? Where does it state that Israel needs to exist for the second coming to take place?

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:25

How do you explain Israel and the anti-sex campaigns then?
Israel is an ally, a real ally, and has requested help many times. As for the same sex marriages, please see post 145 in the marriage thread.

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:25

I disagree.

You dissagree with the 2nd amendment because it doesn't say what you want it to say?

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:26

You dissagree with the 2nd amendment because it doesn't say what you want it to say?
I disagree with you. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:29

See post 83 in this thread.

downquark1

14-02-2004, 17:31

Israel is an ally, a real ally, and has requested help many times. As for the same sex marriages, please see post 145 in the marriage thread. WHY ARE THEY AN ALLEY? I never understood that.

Also I'm referring to Bush's government producing anti-sex in teens campaigns - you supported it if I recall

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:32

Resorting to insults?

No, giving you an honest opinion, if you are insulted by that, then there's not alot I can do.

And no, I respectfully disagree. That clause did not refer to militias, and I've shown you plenty of quotes from the founding fathers (which you conveniently ignored). The one you choose to look at you interpret in a different way. *shrug* Disagree, we are.

How many times do I have to post the second amendment?

Article the fourth [Amendment II]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Shaun

14-02-2004, 17:33

<snip>

I'm not going to bother commenting in this thread anymore J because there is no point, your right, end of :) :zzz:

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:35

Xaccers, get it in your head. Phrase 1 = militia, phrase 2 = right of people to keep and bear arms.

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:36

Also I'm referring to Bush's government producing anti-sex in teens campaigns - you supported it if I recall
*shrug* Same argument. There is no libertarian government in place, and when choosing between spending milliions of dollars to give out free condoms, or to encourange abstinence, the latter is the better bet. It is a choice between two evils, and I picked the lesser one.

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:37

WHY ARE THEY AN ALLEY? I never understood that.

Cos they're long and narrow with walls either side? :rofl: sorry I couldn't resist :)

But I have to ask the same question.
Why is israel an ally?
Why does that make a difference to what you said Jerrek, with regards to not giving military presence/subsidies to a foreign country?
Germany is an ally (they actually helped in the first gulf war, did israel?) so why not keep giving them military support?

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:37

I'm not going to bother commenting in this thread anymore J because there is no point, your right, end of :) :zzz:
:ghugs: Hah. But you'll have a beer with me?

Jerrek

14-02-2004, 17:38

Germany is an ally (they actually helped in the first gulf war, did israel?) so why not keep giving them military support?
Because they do not want us there. :)

Xaccers

14-02-2004, 17:45

Xaccers, get it in your head. Phrase 1 = militia, phrase 2 = right of people to keep and bear arms.

It's all one sentance Jerrek, therefore the same subject. You cannot have a militia if the people cannot have guns in order to arm it.

Had it said:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

Then it would mean what you want it to, but it doesn't.
As a legal document, the wording is extremely important to meaning, therefore unless you are saying that the forefathers were gramatically incompetent, it can only be in relation to a militia, which is the point which Sociable was making.
As for your quotes, well if you didn't notice, two of your quotes are from the same piece, that being the Virginia article.
One simply uses the phrase about being able to bear arms, the other is the full quote, putting it in context.
That is why I ignored your incomplete quotes.

Because they do not want us there. :)

Based on what?

And why is Israel an ally?

Sociable

14-02-2004, 17:46

Agreed, but you'll need to elaborate.

I disagree.

I disagree with this too.

etc etc etc.

Re your reply jerrek perhaps the simplest way to respond is to suggest you apply your first principle to the next 5 responses.

"I disagree" is not a debating argument please explain why you disagree.

As for that first one let me try again to break through the fog you are obviously in.

Just for arguments sake you decide that everyone should be free to drive at any speed they like. (A view I seem to recall you hold)

Following your logic you also believe your right of way must always be paramount. (Again at least implied by your posts)

It is just possible that you could one day meet another "libertarian" on some dark night on the same single track road.

As the two cars hurtle towards each other I can just imagine the self satisfied grins each of you will posses having proved the liberating value of personal freedom which disregards the potential ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œImpactÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â ¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â on others.

As the famous quote goes:

"Give me liberty or give me death"

Sadly being so "libertarian" in your attitudes may just ensure that one day the former gives rise to the latter in that quote.

DrAwesome

14-02-2004, 17:55

In 200 years we've become the most powerful nation on earth.

Since when has Canada become the most powerful nation on earth?

paulyoung666

14-02-2004, 17:58

Since when has Canada become the most powerful nation on earth?

i think he is american again , i just wish he would say whether he is american or canadian or what , instead of bouncing around between the both as it suits him :(

Nikko

14-02-2004, 18:00

As the two cars hurtle towards each other I can just imagine the self satisfied grins each of you will posses having proved the liberating value of personal freedom which disregards the potential ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œImpactÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â ¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â on others.

Brings a whole new meaning to 'Head-on-istic' Soc!

Sociable

14-02-2004, 18:02

Because they do not want us there. :)

Can we use the same excuse please?

downquark1

14-02-2004, 18:56

*shrug* Same argument. There is no libertarian government in place, and when choosing between spending milliions of dollars to give out free condoms, or to encourange abstinence, the latter is the better bet. It is a choice between two evils, and I picked the lesser one.
why? :confused:

Surely if people are responsible and free they would be able to use a condom responsibly? I would have thought trying to convince them to be abstinant would fall under mild authoritarianism.
But that's my opinion.

and don't give a red rep for a simple misunderstanding.

Graham

15-02-2004, 02:17

Graham, your main response to the points you don't agree with seems to be "it is political and has nothing to do with libertarianism." That is not a valid response. If you disagree with the fundamentals of libertarianism, then you are clearly not a libertarian.

Jerrek, it's ironic that you have repeatedly accused others of having a "cookie cutter mentality" and then come out with statement like these!!

"This is Libertarian. That is Liberal. If you disagree you can't be a Libertarian...!" I'm sorry, but Real Life (tm) is simply *not* as black and white as you seem to want to think it is.

You can't go around disagreeing with everything the party stands for (mainly economic issues) and call yourself a libertarian. That is a liberal. Liberals tend to allow greater personal freedom [than conservatives], while holding tigher controls over the economy [higher taxes, more regulations, more welfare]. Libertarians opt for freedom in BOTH of these areas.

I am not *interested* in what any political party might claim. They do *not* hold the only set of keys to the truth!

*frown* Now you're confusing me even more. Left? Eh.

My apologies, I think I got that wrong, because I was thinking too much about some of the "left leaning" policies in the Libertarian list you posted and forgot to note that there were equal counter-balancing "right leaning" policies. Certainly down, but not necessarily to the left.

Graham

15-02-2004, 02:45

Then what is UK libertarians?
Fascinating. Lets see the policies of the British Libertarian Party:
[SNIP] Sure sounds very much like "American" libertarianism to me. (except for the flat tax part)

Except that, as I've already mentioned, I have *NO INTEREST* in what Political Parties may claim! (Especially one that bills itself as "The United Kingdom's true liberal party"!)

That is a *manifesto*, but, if you look a little closer it has contradictory statements such as "We fully support a referendum on the issue once the 'five tests' have been realised. Nevertheless, we fully oppose British entry of EMU, as it would seek to destroy Britain's economic sovereignty."

Now how the *hell* can they be both *in favour* of a referendum *and* opposed to entry of the Euro?? They're bending so far over backwards to be "libertarian" that they risk biting themselves on their own backsides!

Another example: "Coalition governments are detrimental to strong government. A British Libertarian government would retain the first-past-the-post system."

So they want "minimal government", yet, at the *same time* they want "strong government"! Surely their ideals are that people should be able to make up their own minds *not* have a "strong government" tell them what to do!!

The point is that personal freedom and liberty have responsibilities as well as rights and you cannot blindly follow a "libertarian agenda" if responsibilities get lost under the rights you allow.

Your opinions seem to be that 1) "if you let people do what they want, they'll behave responsibly", but, with all due respect, my experience of life has demonstrated that you *cannot* simply rely on people to behave in a responsible way, and 2) If you take off all the brakes, things won't run out of control. Unfortunately that's just unrealistic.

It's all very well saying that "privatise everything" is a "Libertarian" matter not a *political* matter, but the fact is that private/ state control *is* a political matter.

Personally I am in favour of *most* things being in private hands, however *not* utilities such as water and gas, nor public transport systems like buses/ rail etc, this is why my "political axis" tends to be virtually in the centre because one balances out the other.

In a similar way my attitudes on Welfare, tax and Medical Aid are not, as you assert "Liberal" because: "Liberals tend to allow greater personal freedom [than conservatives], while holding tigher controls over the economy [higher taxes, more regulations, more welfare]. Libertarians opt for freedom in BOTH of these areas."

I am not in favour of higher taxes or more regulations, far from it! However I do agree with a degree of social responsibility towards your fellow citizens (and, indeed, fellow citizens *of the world*!) in that it's a good idea to have a system that can help those who need it because, some day, it may be *you* that needs the help!!

In closing I will say that you seem to have a particular view that "This is Libertarianism" to the extent that you want to deny me *my* right to hold a view of Libertarianism that disagrees with it! Shurely Shome Mishtake!!

Jerrek

15-02-2004, 22:27

So if you're libertarian, what does that make me?

Paul

15-02-2004, 23:56

Your political compass ;

Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49

Basically one up, one right. :)

Graham

16-02-2004, 01:00

So if you're libertarian, what does that make me?

Someone who has a different opinion on what Libertarianism is! (Did you look at the FAQ file on the Political Compass site? It may be interesting!)

But the point is that the symbol is *not* the referant. If I say "house" I may be thinking of a one bedroom bungalow whereas you may be thinking of an eight bedroom mansion, however both are entirely valid uses of the word.

You have an idea of what, for you, Libertarianism is, I have a different one, although it was interesting to note that, apart from the elements which I consider to be political, there were quite a few elements on that list you posted that you and I agreed on.

For me Libertarianism should be, as far as possible, divorced from political ideology, eg I think that public utilities should be publicly owned, not privately controlled. Now that would usually be defined as a "left wing" position, but, at the same time, I am in favour of as little government interference in business as possible (whilst ensuring that people have sufficient cover to stop them being exploited, either as workers or customers) which would be definitely be considered "right wing".

What I do think, however, is that people should be held responsible for their actions, be it the burglar or the householder who may want to "exact revenge" on them. If the burglar wishes to abuse their "liberties" to break into someone's house (causing them "harm") they should be punished. If the householder abuses their liberties by seeking revenge on the burglar they should *also* be punished because two wrongs *do not* make a right.

(Oh, and, as certain people may have noted, yes, I *am* using the word "punish", however that's simply "short-hand", I still maintain that criminals should be rehabilitated if at all possible, not just locked up etc, but that would have made the above paragraph even more unwieldy!! :) )

I think (although I may, of course, be wrong) that, given the results you gave for the Political Compass test, that you, unconsciously have a more authoritarian position than you realise and that also extends to your political ideals that move you to the right.

Actually, having just said that, I've done the test again (the previous figures I quoted were from having done it a year or more ago) and it's come up with...

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05

Which rather implies I've moved to the left and an even more libertarian position, although it's interesting to note that some of the questions seem to have changed, eg I don't recall "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism" being in there before.

I'm not sure about that "move to the left" because I think it's too much dependant on a few questions and their interpretations, but it implies that my politics are still pretty much "down the centre" (which I prefer to refer to as "balanced"!) and I'm ok with that.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 02:23

Someone who has a different opinion on what Libertarianism is! (Did you look at the FAQ file on the Political Compass site? It may be interesting!)

But the point is that the symbol is *not* the referant. If I say "house" I may be thinking of a one bedroom bungalow whereas you may be thinking of an eight bedroom mansion, however both are entirely valid uses of the word.
Except in this case, when I say house, I think of a house, and you think of a car.

For me Libertarianism should be, as far as possible, divorced from political ideology, eg I think that public utilities should be publicly owned, not privately controlled.
IMO, not Libertarian. Libertarians seek to minimize government, and maximize personal and economic freedoms. What you're believing here is traditionally liberal and socialist territory.

I think (although I may, of course, be wrong) that, given the results you gave for the Political Compass test, that you, unconsciously have a more authoritarian position than you realise and that also extends to your political ideals that move you to the right.
How do you figure? As I've said, I seek to minimize government interference in every respect.

That test is screwed. I view myself as a very pure Libertarian, by the dictionary definition, but you and I don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, which makes it impossible for me see you vote for a party that follows libertarian ideals, such as the Libertarian Party. It isn't a matter of interpreting things differently, because I'm standing with a definition. There isn't a lot of ground to move around on.

You may have some principles that are libertarian oriented, but, the important part of maximizing economic freedom and minimizing government size and influence seems to be "political" issues for you and not core to the libertarian philosophy. Which it is actually, by definition.

I'd classify you as a liberal (and please don't take offense). You defended welfare, social services, higher taxes, and public ownership of utility companies, for example, while advocating relaxing drug laws. From what I read you write, you'd be more inclined to vote Democrat or Green.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 02:24

And sadly, you've refused to do the other political test, just so that I can get some perspective on a field that is more familiar to me. :(

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 02:33

And interestingly enough, it puts Libertarian at the bottom, and Libertarianism on the right. /confused

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

Graham

16-02-2004, 14:00

And interestingly enough, it puts Libertarian at the bottom, and Libertarianism on the right.

Which is, I think, really where we differ.

I am not interested in an "-ism", I am interested in an ideal and there are noticeable differences between the two, eg in the political aspects.

BTW I have done the other test before, it put me in "Centre ville" ie "happy with the current situation", which was complete nonsense.

Xaccers

16-02-2004, 14:10

downquark1

16-02-2004, 14:13

So Jerrek is a liberal?
But hasn't he used "liberal" as an insult before?
He's come across as seriously anti-liberal for their pecieved lax attitude to crime and punishment etc

:confused:
He says he is a libertarian which means few laws but harsh punishments for criminals (as he describes it). Also 0 public sector.

Although by the sound of it he wants a libertarian state where everyone freely chooses to be a puritan :D

danielf

16-02-2004, 14:14

So Jerrek is a liberal?
But hasn't he used "liberal" as an insult before?
He's come across as seriously anti-liberal for their pecieved lax attitude to crime and punishment etc

:confused:

PS I'd still like to know a valid reason for Israel being an ally

I think he calls himself a libertarian rather than a liberal.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 15:59

danielf

16-02-2004, 16:02

I do, and I classify Graham to be more a liberal, however, this test shows the opposite. Also, if you look at where it puts the Democratic nominees for president, there is no way in hell they're all bundled up on the authoritarian right side.

Something here is fishy.

I don't know. It's where I would put the Democratic Nominees...

The center in US politics would be perceived as right wing by a lot of people here.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 16:03

You really think that most of the Democrats are authoritarian right? Hmm...

I mean Dean... He is a very, very left guy. I would definitely not put him two blocks away from Bush.

danielf

16-02-2004, 16:07

You really think that most of the Democrats are authoritarian right? Hmm...

I mean Dean... He is a very, very left guy. I would definitely not put him two blocks away from Bush.

I don't know, its a bit of a generalisation, and I don't follow US politics that closely, but I do think that, in general, the center in US politics would fall nearer the right over here.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 16:58

No wonder you guys think I'm sort of fanatical radical right-wing super extremist. Over here, I'm just considered very right, but hardly out of the ordinary. I'm not quite up to the level of some of the militias.

downquark1

16-02-2004, 17:00

I do, and I classify Graham to be more a liberal, however, this test shows the opposite. Also, if you look at where it puts the Democratic nominees for president, there is no way in hell they're all bundled up on the authoritarian right side.

Something here is fishy.
I think it may be that the test equate patriotism with authoritarianism (not sure) also I think your attitude on abortion and same-sex marriages are a little unusual for a libertarian.

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 17:01

Go read that post I made. I'm tired of posting the same thing over and over again.

danielf

16-02-2004, 17:02

<snip> Over here, I'm just considered very right <snip>

We just consider you very wrong :pp :D

Xaccers

16-02-2004, 17:05

I think he calls himself a libertarian rather than a liberal.

So in english rather than american, what's the difference?

downquark1

16-02-2004, 17:07

So in english rather than american, what's the difference? Liberals are soft on criminals, libertarians aren't.

Also libertarians can pick on technicalities to avoid legalising things ;)

SMHarman

16-02-2004, 17:18

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

or left 1 down 2 - thats pretty much on the fence?

Chris

16-02-2004, 17:18

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

Almost the same as Ghandi, apparently!

Graham

16-02-2004, 18:56

You really think that most of the Democrats are authoritarian right? Hmm...

I mean Dean... He is a very, very left guy. I would definitely not put him two blocks away from Bush.

He's on the left of American politics, but, as the joke has it, in America you can vote for the Right Wing party...

... or the *really* Right Wing party!!

Jerrek

16-02-2004, 19:10

Dude, he is more liberal than your liberal party! What exactly would it take to move to the left side of the vertical axis? Singing praises to Lenin only once a day, as opposed to 2 to get to the left-most axis?

Graham

17-02-2004, 02:46

Dude, he is more liberal than your liberal party!

He's more liberal than Bush, but there again, so was Attilla the Hun! :D :D

SMHarman

17-02-2004, 09:58

Nah, it is just that you are a capitalist with a big heart and a social conscience to match.

OK who wants to take a stab at which political party I once stood for in local elections. :)

SDP?

Sociable

17-02-2004, 10:57

SDP?

Nope.

Though one of its founders was a politian I respected as one of the best constituency MP's from any party.

SMHarman

17-02-2004, 12:49

<snip>

Lets rephrase that:

"not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to possess cars."

"not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to smoke."

"not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to drink."

"not least of all innocent children and adults, harmed by the over reliance on the right to [insert bad thing here]"

And I can go on. So lets ban cars, alcohol, smokes. Lets ban everything that is harmful to society. Yeah. So much for individual freedom.

<snip>
(and an edit for spelling)

Cars - their usage is restricted. Speed limits imposed (not that you look at them). Traffic calming is used in areas where lots of children are. The school near my Mother in Law has a 20 mph limit on the road outside between 6-6 on weekdays. The rest of the road is 40-55 mph. Your country discourages the use of cars in some respects better than Europe. The School bus gets many many minivans and suvs off the road each morning and night as the parents do not need to drive to school to collect their charges and risk harming them and others in the process. Lets also remember you get the book thrown at you if you dare pass a stationary school bus.

Smoking - well its banned in public in New York and California. This includes Bars, I'd say thats a restriction on peoples freedom. Chewing Tobacco what was it Skool Bandits or something - they got banned pretty quickly when the instance of oral cancer shot up.

Drinking - Well in the US this freedom is banned until your 21 - you can vote and fight for your country before you can drink! Pretty big restriction IMHO.

Guns - well we've banned them (though you might not belive that in certain parts of South London).

<snip>
I want to type more, but the firealarm just went off at work (first round, warning) and I have to prepare to evacuate. GRRR.

Excercise your personal right to stay and post through a fire. :D