Political compass

Sambostar · October 2014

Agreed. They should ask more pertinent questions like:

You survive a shipwreck in the North Atlantic in midwinter and you see a four man lifeboat, but immediately discover you are accompanied by four strangers, the only other survivors of the wreck, with you in the water. Whilst having only seconds to muster the strength to save yourself.

Do you:

A: Climb aboard pushing others out the way if necessary;

B: Climb aboard using others heads as a platform to gain some purchase;

C: Climb aboard punching anyone else that interferes with you; or

Tread water and spend your last few seconds waiting to drown or die of hypothermia, imagining that somehow the other survivors will have the strength and presence of mind to figure out a way to save you, or at least be content in the knowledge that you gave your life so that other bastards, more selfish and greedy than yourself would be saved.

Congratulations! YOU voted D. You are a libertarian.

You see, the problem is with libertarians is that, aside from the fact they blatantly lie, for example what they do in reality does not reflect what they say they do and they preach tolerance until the day it affects them personally, is that if there was a worldwide disaster, we would all die out as a species.

Evilmags · October 2014

Right libertarian. The compass is deeply flawed as libertarian left is a contradiction in terms, as liberty is impossible under socialism.

Skipped · October 2014

Does this mean that the forum - or even just one thread on this forum - has an over representation of Bleeding Heart Liberals or are some of us not telling the truth?

Evilmags · October 2014

I would also state that the only functions of the state are those needing privitised or abolished. The whole apparatus is one of coercion and brainwashing. People put up with ridiculously expensive products and services precisely because of the very state intervention meant to make life easier. The first thing I would privatise is money.

Sambostar · October 2014

Questions are meaningless. Actions speak louder than words. I was kind of joking in the post above.

I was roughly about 6 across and 7 down in the green zone, but I got bored on the third page, so I am nice and civilised really, in theory, on paper.

I agree, the way the questionnaire was phrased, it would be hard not to be a lefty libertarian. It is probably designed for hedge fund managers or something.

Evilmags · October 2014

I repete, socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed viewpoints. The questionnaire is vapid rubbish.

Sambostar · October 2014

I think we should mount cameras in our cars. That would really give us a fairer view on who is a libertarian lefty or not.

I always let traffic out when in a queue or the spaces grants it safely.

I rarely let traffic out if I know they have taken a shortcut through a housing area.

I never let traffic in that I damn well know has undercut me.

I don't feel like my journey is anymore important than anyone else's and that we all pay for and share the road.

I don't tailgate ever.

I do accelerate towards drivers who sit in the chevron area of a narrow junction, when their light is red, just to make them reverse onto the kerb in a panic.

I do think idiots who think they own the road and endanger other road users deserve a good hiding.

I will give it to them

ICBM · October 2014

Evilmags said:

I repete, socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed viewpoints. The questionnaire is vapid rubbish.

I would say that attempting to balance the two is what makes us decent and civilised people. It also depends greatly on the degree of both - total socialism excludes liberty (and vice versa) but mild socialism does not.

(I also agree that many of the questions are deliberately leading, by the way.)

Evilmags · October 2014

ICBM;377102" said:
Evilmags said:

I repete, socialism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed viewpoints. The questionnaire is vapid rubbish.

I would say that attempting to balance the two is what makes us decent and civilised people. It also depends greatly on the degree of both - total socialism excludes liberty (and vice versa) but mild socialism does not.

(I also agree that many of the questions are deliberately leading, by the way.)

Socialism requires coersive action by the state. Libertarianism is based upon voluntary action and evolving social institutions. Socialism always has a tendency towards tyranny. No libertarian would concede the state the right to take 50% of the economy each year.

The state itself is just an evolution of the gang. It claims to protect its people, but in reality they pay for protection from it. The road to serfdom is probably the easiest analysis to understand on this topic.

Skipped · October 2014

I am always asking questions in an attempt to understand my fellow man.
For example...... people who constantly question Immigration and Asylum. It has finally dawned on me that they have compassion which is based on Geography.
I am not saying they are wrong!
I just want to understand their position!

For example. They are sitting on the beach with their back to the water and hear a man screaming. Do they turn to the person next to them and say: "Is he on the beach? I must go help him! But if he is in the water - It is none of my freaking business!"
If they go to help...... and the person moves from "In the United Kingdom" to "In the Sea" as they are move towards them....does the helper now face an agonising moral dilemma?
How difficult must it be...... to be that particular "Good Samaritan".
:-O

ICBM · October 2014

Evilmags said:

Socialism requires coersive action by the state.

So does the rule of law.

Total libertarianism would be a very bad thing, just as total socialism would be.

Evilmags · October 2014

ICBM;377123" said:
Evilmags said:

Socialism requires coersive action by the state.

So does the rule of law.

Total libertarianism would be a very bad thing, just as total socialism would be.

The rule of law does not require a state, indeed law was seperate from the state during much of the Román empire. In medieval times law came from church (canonical law) and markets. The Italian jurist Bruno de Leoni covers this in great depth.

Law is a social institution which has been nationalised. Most libertarian scholars are deeply respectful of natural laws, ite those arrived at through jurisprudential discovery and lawlessness is not a part of any of the works of scholars like Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Kirzner, Huerta de Soto (My own professor) ect.

Libertarians do not suggest lawlessness, just laws based on property rights and a principle of non violence. And no state granted privilege for any groups.

Evilmags · October 2014

Google the crisis of statism and the way out on you tube, excellent presentation of a libertarian viewpoint by Professor Huerta de Soto. The guy is the world's leading Austrian school economist and is a genius to boot.

ICBM · October 2014

Evilmags said:

Libertarians do not suggest lawlessness, just laws based on property rights and a principle of non violence.

The problem is getting people to respect the property rights (and other rights) of non-violent others without the state to make them.

Evilmags · October 2014

ICBM;377141" said:
Evilmags said:

Libertarians do not suggest lawlessness, just laws based on property rights and a principle of non violence.

The problem is getting people to respect the property rights (and other

rights) of non-violent others without the state to make them.

Why should the state have a monopoly on security?

VimFuego · October 2014

that's pretty much how the state came to be, one group of armed thugs were strong enough to subdue all the other armed thugs then gave themselves a nice name to legitimise what they took. Then to stop the people they beat from rebelling they give them things to keep them quiet and biddable.

ICBM · October 2014

Evilmags said:

Why should the state have a monopoly on security?

That's a good question. I think it may come down to whether you believe it should or not. But I don't see it as *inevitably* leading to totalitarianism, although it certainly can.

littlegreenman · October 2014

Evilmags said:
Why should the state have a monopoly on security?

It doesn't. Round my way the gangs do, the state and the police are an irrelevance with regards to our day to day safety. Pay them or keep under their radar are your only options. Very sad, but true

VimFuego · October 2014

littlegreenman said:

Evilmags said:
Why should the state have a monopoly on security?
It doesn't. Round my way the gangs do, the state and the police are an irrelevance with regards to our day to day safety. Pay them or keep under their radar are your only options. Very sad, but true

it's interesting, but we are starting to see a retraction of what may be normally termed the role of the state. So with security, we are starting to see the police retreating. For example, round here if you are the victim of a non violent burglary the police now basically state they will not investigate and their advice is to trawl the local car boots sales and free ads to see if you can find your stolen gear.

I kinda wonder if the job of governing a modern nation is actually getting too big and complex for the system we have. Think this is why I favour smaller and more localised government, its more flexible and accountable.

Evilmags · October 2014

If you take public security, and you had competing police service providers that people could choose locally. Locally funded policing would tend to go for the crimes that actually annoy people, rather than easy non violent offences. The fact that if they did not deliver they could be replaced would motivate and focus them on what locals cared about.

Monopolies are not efficient in any provision of service. Security should not be any different. It is worth noting that in the US citizen intervention in crime has a much lower error rate than the police do.

If you look at US police militarisation it is pretty clear that it is deeply undesirable.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Political compass

Comments