Only that this quiz is retarded, because I don't see myself as a liberal libertarian, but more of a centrist. And putting Hitler up there is basically a slap in the face to anyone that would score more conservatively.
YES I AGREE!
My score was 3,3 and I think that putting hitler just above me is not image I want to give off.
BS BR, there are plenty of anti-totalitarian socialists in political-history.
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
Mutually exclusive does not mean directly opposed. They simply cannot coexist.
Socialism by definition violates individuals rights by compelling individuals to support others. It removes the choice of charity. It compels charity. True Minimalist Government Libertarianism leaves all such choices to the individual.
With freedom comes responsibility. Having all of the personal freedoms but none of the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your own actions does not work. That is what these alleged socialist libertarians (using the phrase because of the test results, not because they exist) demand. You are free to do whatever you want but if you fvck up society will prop you up indefinitely. Such a belief system is a bane to progress.
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
I don't think he said anything about government either.
Have ever any utopical political theories been good in practice anyway? Real life tends to be a bit more complicated.
Mutually exclusive does not mean directly opposed. They simply cannot coexist.
Socialism by definition violates individuals rights by compelling individuals to support others. It removes the choice of charity. It compels charity. True Minimalist Government Libertarianism leaves all such choices to the individual.
Only if you presuppose the need for charity by individuals.
Only if you presuppose the need for charity by individuals.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you believe in an extensive welfare system and a universal health care system and satan knows how many other costly programs, you simply cannot score that high on the libertarian scale because forcing its citizens to fund all of those programs through taxation is a violation of the citizens' individual rights.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you believe in an extensive welfare system and a universal health care system and satan knows how many other costly programs, you simply cannot score that high on the libertarian scale because forcing its citizens to fund all of those programs through taxation is a violation of the citizens' individual rights.
Like I said, real life is a bit more complicated. But in theory, the cost of it all is just a product of greed capitalism. ( edit: The need as well, of-course).
One could argue I think, in theory, that property and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.
In scandinavian politics, we speak more of liberalism than libertarianism. So I apologize if I misunderstand some of the finer differences...
Socialism in its most basic form has nothing at all to do with compeling people to do something they choose not to do. For living under the protection of a social group and all the freedoms that come with that (say joining a union and not having to fear the loss of your job) there comes a necessary cost (the requisite social charity that BR seems to be railing against). This cost is not something that is compeled; rather, it is a part of the social contract or in this case the natural social order that it must come about. This is not to say that people within a social group cannot have all of their freedoms, it merely means that those freedoms come with a cost. Libertarianism does not mention the social cost directly (however, it is implicit that some sacrifices, not in freedoms but in some other part of ones life, must be made for this social order to work).
They are not mutually exclusive except when you try to make a government out of them at which point centralisation pulls away from the individuals choice in socialism and it removes much of the percieved costs from libertarianism.
The government has no business protecting me from myself by restricting my behavior nor should they bail me out by removing the consequences of poor decisions. Expecting me to pay for the bailing out of others is a violation of my rights.
The total lack of any current notables in the +economic -social quadrant should be enough evidence to debunk this as an accurate political compass. Surely the author could have found one example. And I'm not particularly sure how John Paul II ended up on the -economic side. My preconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church aside, that doesn't seem correct at all.
The government has no business protecting me from myself by restricting my behavior nor should they bail me out by removing the consequences of poor decisions. Expecting me to pay for the bailing out of others is a violation of my rights.
I would say that Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the m mutually exclusive pair.
My score:
economic left/right -5.88
libertarian/authoritarian -8.41
"politicalcompass.com" doesn't have much of a clue. It's a poor website with indirect questions and a generally misconstrued understanding of testmaking.
Moving on, Libertarianism should be at the bottom right corner of their grid. Therefore the opposite of Libertarian state is an authoritarian+socialist state. Libertarianism is mutually exclusive from both socialism and authoritarianism.
At least that's how the founders of the movement defined it.
Traffic laws are guidlines that help us from damaging the private property of others. Do a search for "private property" in AO. my name should come up several times. That will explain it for you.
On a completely open highway, I shouldn't get pulled over for doing 110. In most countries traffic laws are advisory, in America, the draconian traffic laws are one of the few relics from the liberal malaise that has plagued this nation since Woodrow Wilson.
I would say that Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the m mutually exclusive pair.
My score:
economic left/right -5.88
libertarian/authoritarian -8.41
Who says they are the only mutually exclusive pair? Of course, socialism by definition requires more authoritiarianism for enforcement of said socialistic practices.
Comments
Originally posted by Outsider
Only that this quiz is retarded, because I don't see myself as a liberal libertarian, but more of a centrist. And putting Hitler up there is basically a slap in the face to anyone that would score more conservatively.
YES I AGREE!
My score was 3,3 and I think that putting hitler just above me is not image I want to give off.
Originally posted by BR
The test is inherently flawed. Socialism and Libertarianism are by definition mutually exclusive.
BS BR, there are plenty of anti-totalitarian socialists in political-history.
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
YES I AGREE!
My score was 3,3 and I think that putting hitler just above me is not image I want to give off.
Of course just because it isn't the image you want to give off doesn't mean it isn't grounded in reality.
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.87
Originally posted by New
BS BR, there are plenty of anti-totalitarian socialists in political-history.
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
Originally posted by BR
Of course just because it isn't the image you want to give off doesn't mean it isn't grounded in reality.
I am a very right winged person. That is that.
My political orientation is a product of growing up in a small town, where most if not all were on welfare, and some (most) were abusing the system.
Now I live in Toronto and still think a lot of right could help the community.
The right is right, not wrong.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
Mutually exclusive does not mean directly opposed. They simply cannot coexist.
Socialism by definition violates individuals rights by compelling individuals to support others. It removes the choice of charity. It compels charity. True Minimalist Government Libertarianism leaves all such choices to the individual.
With freedom comes responsibility. Having all of the personal freedoms but none of the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your own actions does not work. That is what these alleged socialist libertarians (using the phrase because of the test results, not because they exist) demand. You are free to do whatever you want but if you fvck up society will prop you up indefinitely. Such a belief system is a bane to progress.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I don't think BR said anything about totalitarianism. I agree that to a large extent, a governmental socialism is inherently opposite to a governmental libertarianism, however, on a personal scale these two political theories (which have never been good in practice) are far from directly opposed.
I don't think he said anything about government either.
Have ever any utopical political theories been good in practice anyway? Real life tends to be a bit more complicated.
Originally posted by BR
Mutually exclusive does not mean directly opposed. They simply cannot coexist.
Socialism by definition violates individuals rights by compelling individuals to support others. It removes the choice of charity. It compels charity. True Minimalist Government Libertarianism leaves all such choices to the individual.
Only if you presuppose the need for charity by individuals.
Originally posted by New
Only if you presuppose the need for charity by individuals.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you believe in an extensive welfare system and a universal health care system and satan knows how many other costly programs, you simply cannot score that high on the libertarian scale because forcing its citizens to fund all of those programs through taxation is a violation of the citizens' individual rights.
Originally posted by BR
What the hell is that supposed to mean? If you believe in an extensive welfare system and a universal health care system and satan knows how many other costly programs, you simply cannot score that high on the libertarian scale because forcing its citizens to fund all of those programs through taxation is a violation of the citizens' individual rights.
Like I said, real life is a bit more complicated. But in theory, the cost of it all is just a product of greed capitalism. ( edit: The need as well, of-course).
One could argue I think, in theory, that property and libertarianism are mutually exclusive.
In scandinavian politics, we speak more of liberalism than libertarianism. So I apologize if I misunderstand some of the finer differences...
They are not mutually exclusive except when you try to make a government out of them at which point centralisation pulls away from the individuals choice in socialism and it removes much of the percieved costs from libertarianism.
Originally posted by BR
TSocialism and Libertarianism are by definition mutually exclusive.
I would say that Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the m mutually exclusive pair.
My score:
economic left/right -5.88
libertarian/authoritarian -8.41
Originally posted by BR
The government has no business protecting me from myself by restricting my behavior nor should they bail me out by removing the consequences of poor decisions. Expecting me to pay for the bailing out of others is a violation of my rights.
Do traffic laws make sense to you?
Sometimes they do for me. Sometimes they dont...
Originally posted by sammi jo
I would say that Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the m mutually exclusive pair.
My score:
economic left/right -5.88
libertarian/authoritarian -8.41
"politicalcompass.com" doesn't have much of a clue. It's a poor website with indirect questions and a generally misconstrued understanding of testmaking.
Moving on, Libertarianism should be at the bottom right corner of their grid. Therefore the opposite of Libertarian state is an authoritarian+socialist state. Libertarianism is mutually exclusive from both socialism and authoritarianism.
At least that's how the founders of the movement defined it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Do traffic laws make sense to you?
Sometimes they do for me. Sometimes they dont...
Traffic laws are guidlines that help us from damaging the private property of others. Do a search for "private property" in AO. my name should come up several times. That will explain it for you.
On a completely open highway, I shouldn't get pulled over for doing 110. In most countries traffic laws are advisory, in America, the draconian traffic laws are one of the few relics from the liberal malaise that has plagued this nation since Woodrow Wilson.
Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31
Originally posted by sammi jo
I would say that Authoritarianism and libertarianism are the m mutually exclusive pair.
My score:
economic left/right -5.88
libertarian/authoritarian -8.41
Who says they are the only mutually exclusive pair? Of course, socialism by definition requires more authoritiarianism for enforcement of said socialistic practices.