Modern liberals decided to give up on economic freedom to promote material equality. I wouldn't agree with the word "growth". I'd say that modern liberals have regressed from the enlightenment ideal of individualism towards the ancient practice of statism. Ok. You have dibs on the bullshit.
You really don't get what modern liberals want do you? we want equal oppertuanity with in reason. So you don't consider recognizing the failing of an idea and try to rectify them growth? and there is nothing statist about modern liberalism.
I'm all for equal opportunity. But liberals don't seem satisfied with that. For example, if minorities fail to perform and succeed on the same level as others, liberals demand "affirmative action". How is that equal opportunity? It's state sanctioned racism. To be fair, you have to remember that I believe the idea was correct in the first place. I understand that modern liberals no longer hold to the tenents our nation was founded upon. But I don't consider that "growth". I consider that a corruption of the greatest system of government ever devised by man. Hmmm. I'm suddenly struck by the urge to begin chanting: USA! USA! USA!
If you have to ask you will probably never get it. when people get more chances or inflated chance because of connections gained due to racism how is ensuring its skill alone that makes opurtunity racist? no it isn't. Ideas aren't correct or wrong they work, don't work, or have unintended effects that run contrary to the reason. The economic part of classical liberalism falls under the third. Just because you don't want to recognize how hands off capitilism reduces freedom in the lower classes doesn't mean it doesn't. Than you don't understand at all. So your against improving ideas? and I consider protecting the ability of the powerful to control the less powerful a corruption of the american system of government but for the most part I don't claim that those who support that like you do don't hold to the tennets of consititution. congrats than because that jingoistic chanting that were the greatest is the single biggest thing wrong with the States.
Well congratulations to me, I got 100%. I am both a capital-L Libertarian by politics (voter registration) and a small-l libertarian by philosophy. I haven't read much about the libertarian movement in other countries. This is a substantially different test than the American version. Ours hits on issues that are hot buttons over here: Peaceful people have the right to emigrate and immigrate freely. Japan, Israel, Egypt et al. should pay for their own defense. Consenting adults have the right to do anything they choose to do with, to, or into their own bodies. The question about taxation looks pretty strange to an American libertarian, since we believe the income tax should be abolished and is in fact unconstitutional in peace time anyway. That applies to most taxes. If the government can't support itself by charging a fair market rate for its services then it should let them be performed by someone who can. (And don't raise the red herring of welfare; Americans were the most charitable people on earth before the government started confiscating 30-40% of our income and using it to pay people to sit around all day and "administer" each other.) But that is historically accurate. The goal of the liberal movement in the 19th century was to reduce government power and grant the citizenry more freedom. This was based on two premises: 1. It's the honorable thing to do. 2. Civilization will make more progress if individuals are free to make their own social and economic decisions. The American left wing co-opted the word "liberal" and twisted it into something quite different, something that would make Thomas Jefferson, the quintessential liberal, throw up. American left-liberals actually want a government that has an unprecedented level of power, one that in the 19th century would have been inconceivable under a democratic system. Until recently, American left-liberals wanted the government to ensure social freedom, while the right wanted economic freedom. A shorthand definition of "libertarian" in the last century was "socially liberal and economically conservative." That of course has changed now. The left-liberals curtail free speech and the conservatives added a zero to the national debt. Both are on a course toward full-blown statism, which is the opposite of libertarianism. It's where Stalin on the left and Hitler on the right meet in a paradise of iron-fisted state control of everything.
It isn't. But admitting less qualified minorities over people who are more qualified but of the wrong race is racist. Throwing out the results of a test because a certain minority group didn't do well enough on it is racist. Racial quotas are racist. The government should pay no attention whatsoever to race, to do so is racist. That idea is incorrect. Who are the "lower classes"? You talk as if we have a caste system. My grandfather came to this country with absolutely nothing, and did very well for himself. I'm the son of a steelworker and now among the top 5% of income earners in the US. Anyone not suffering from mental retardation or gross physical defects can rise as far as they want if they put in the effort. It's economic freedom that allows for that kind of social mobility. It's that same freedom that created the vast wealth we enjoy. Stop saying that. Just because I don't agree with liberalism doesn't mean I don't approve of innovation. For the most part, your "protection" does more harm than good. Two points. One, I love my country and calling me jingoistic is no insult. Two, if only that was the biggest problem we were facing!
Jingoism is more about an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy than it is about love of one's country. I scored 70%. Not a very useful test IMO though.
I will be honest I am not sure what you mean when you say "they adapted while others didn't libertarians". Are you saying that libertarians didn't adapt or something completely different? Either way, there is nothing that can be done to "ensure the maximum amount of freedom" economically. Yet, what does that even mean? Do you mean that not everyone will have the maximum of money they could/should have? If so, who determines what those amounts would be? Do you mean they should never have to pay debts and always make personal profits? Again, who determines who that should apply to and how will debts get paid if the individual doesn't carry his own weight? What possibly does this statement mean? Rand is dead you do know that, right? I don't need her approval for my opinions and ideas. Last, this entire statement smacks of one who is furious that someone dare disagree with you. Consider the misspelled words, a sign of haste which in turn shows a sign of anger. That is the point modern liberals are anything but liberal. They are primarily statists. In what historical era has this ever been associated with liberal? Since they are no longer liberals they have crossed over to what? I want them to stop desecrating a beautiful word. In the beginning there were two basic thoughts, federalists & anti-federalists. One was concerned with having more centralized power, while the other feared it. In the early republic the battle was greater centralized power, with an eye towards being as restrictive as possible in that power, and as little centralized power as possible with an eye towards civic duty to keep that power block from building. In the end the compromise was individual freedom. Modern times fail to resemble this nuanced battle. Today the battle is modern liberalism (which isn’t true liberalism) which states strong centralized power, not in the founding sense, and intense more extensive centralized power something along the lines of fascism/Marxism. The compromise is strong centralized power. This is the trouble with contemporary times. Far too many people believe in state power and have no idea what the alternative is, because they have trained well by our public educational system. I give you exhibits 1,2, & 3 of the failures of public education. There is no where else in the world one could believe this unless one actually lived in the Soviet Union, or under the fascist regimes. According to my sources, you are still at home and in your mid 20's. And yes, quotas are racists. When you are 180 degrees from where you started are you still where you were? No, modern liberalism hasn't grown in its liberalism it has become something else other than liberalism. I now am entering exhibit 4. We are the greatest country in the history of the world. Have we made mistakes, yes. Are still making them, er new ones, no doubt. Do we learn from them, absolutely.
You haven't been keeping up with the thread. The liberal movement in the 19th century was exactly what libertarianism is today: less government, more individual freedom, put up with the consequences. In the 20th century the leftists grabbed the name "liberal," so the old movement was renamed "classic liberalism." That got too confusing so the term "libertarian" was coined. It's a really stupid word, and I don't think anyone has stepped forward to take credit for creating it.
I scored 90%, and I agree the thing is very poorly phrased - lots of misleading questions hiding questionable assumptions. No you aren't. You are in favor of whatever distribution of opportunity is left over from the politics and crimes and accidents of the past, and you want that distribution enforced by the State. Everyone can rise to the upper 5% income bracket?
Fraggle Rocker: If you agreed with the Ayn Rand philosophy, would you call yourself a Liberal? Perhaps I should have said "Liberal & libertarianism are not considered to be equivalent when discussing modern politics."
Care to back that up? I assume your complaint is over the fact that I don't support institutional racism to "make up" for past institutional racism. Equal opportunity doesn't mean favoring group X because group Y had an advantage in the past. It means treating individuals as individuals. All equal before the law.
Not the "leftists". Hubert Humphrey was being slagged, not welcomed, by the leftists at the 1968 Democratic Convention - when they called him a "liberal". It does, however, mean recognizing when group X has a disadvantage in the present, because group Y enforces its advantages left over from the past.
No. Taxes should be equal above a certain minimum. Otherwise, you're saying "hey work hard and take risks so you can reap great rewards" and then "not so fast there bucko, we'll take that thanks." That is robbery, and it's wrong. This is the basis for the economy as I see it, and should not be fucked with. I'm not totally against a slight curve upward at the top end of income, so long as it doesn't inhibit people striving for personal success. It's a private arrangement between two private parties. None of anyone else's business. It artificially inflates prices of goods and services. No. Unfit entities die off and the rest feast on their entrails. Such is nature. No. I'm not a big gun fan because I think many people are too stupid to have them, but that's why lots of smart people should... though I'm too lazy to bother. You can't make all the guns go away, so responsible people representing a threat to the wreckless should work as a deterrent. Don't know if it actually does. I think in some cases yes, in some no. I feel it retarded to pretend it's not happening, so deal with it. I don't like it, but yeah. Preaching hate is well, fundamental it seems - sadly. I think attempting to suppress it is worse, and it's the same thing really. The cost of free speech is having to listen to assholes. Directly? No, indirectly? Well they will if they decide they want to. What they can't ask for it? Yes, it's wrong. What? Uhm... weird question perv, but yes you can have your videos weirdo. Keep them off my lawn. (i'll dl my own thanks) No I don't think so. I don't think it's right either. International politics is a game of pimps and hos. Sometimes a pimp gotta put another pimp out of bitness. No. I'm not necessarily against it in certain cases, but generally speaking, no. If their shit works for them, cool. Exceptions of course, when a pimp gotta put another pimp outta bitness.
I believe it was Noam Chomsky who said something like "If you don't believe in free speech for your enemies, then you don't really believe in free speech at all." Free speech, according to the Battista (pbuh :sleepPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, is probably the most fundamental and important right of all. If you have the right to vote, but not the right to speak your mind freely, you'll generally end up with a one-candidate election year after year. Besides, I love to hear outlandish, racist, bigoted views! Am I the only one who finds listening to "assholes" to be a form of entertainment? It really is invigorating, actually.
"p1219 of course not tis not Ayn Rand approved. My suggestion to you is not to base you ideology on the wrintings full of logical fallacies.” Is Ayn Rand considered a deity by some? Are there people who come close to worship in their admiration for her? Is she really that great? I didn't take this particular test, but I recently did around half a dozen or so political spectrum quizzes, including one on the Nolan chart website (which told me I was libertarian, though people have suggested that the questions tend to skew the results towards libertarianism). Several told me I was libertarian or something thereabout. One told me I was moderate. One told me I showed promise, but I just hadn't "seen the light" yet. A few were more Republican/Democrat oriented, 2 sided and kind of boring. The two major parties (the only parties?) are ridiculous, divisive, and distractive, in my opinion. The best test I took had around twenty questions or so, allowed 5 choices from least to greatest in agreement, and also had a scale to give more importance to answers depending on how you rated the importance of each individual question. It gives a graph of the results in a quadratic chart. I rated moderately libertarian, not quite half-way towards libertarian, and slightly to the left of center. It was pretty detailed and I think was the most accurately constructed due to the number of questions, range of choices, and personal importance assigned to each one. However, the weighting scale may have thrown off the results a bit, because I don't think I properly used it in each context. I tend to have a lot of libertarian ideals, though I like to keep an open mind and maintain a bit of moderation. I find taking political or philosophical ideas to the extreme to be generally distasteful and unwise. Extreme libertarianism is basically anarchy, and I just don't find that to be a tenable system in most circumstances.
