Topic: Online quiz to see if you are more "left, right, Authoritarian or Libertarian" - page 3. (Read 12337 times)

Out of curiosity, how many people are just now finding out they're libertarian?  Really, I think most people, especially those who don't want to involve themselves in popular politics, will find they're libertarian; anyone who simply believes in being and letting be counts as a good person to me.  The only difference is whether the person self-identifies as libertarian or not; considering the amount of dissenters toward the increasingly authoritarian America, it is quite easy to see, we at least generally agree that we don't want what's become.

Anyhow, here's how I scored:



LIBERTY!!!


In libertarian socialism (i.e. anarchism), private property is considered tyranny and hierarchies in business are viewed as unwanted, just as hierarchies are viewed in government.  Though I personally believe this is a natural shift, it really depends on the society in question; a person can consider their land as personal property (as opposed to private property), and will consider trespassing on said land as an aggression against him; this is the right.  On the other hand, the left will believe that the earth belongs to everyone, and to attack a person who enters the land he owns (which is all of it, collectively) will be an aggression against him.  This is a classic distinction, no matter if it's libertarian or authoritarian.  I have two minds on this matter: I believe forcibly taking control of an area of land and then paying people to work it is unfair, because those people could've worked it on their own without someone owning the land; it is only a method for the wealthy to remain wealthy, which I believe is perfectly fine if the person is deserving, but not when he's setting up a situation where he deprives his peers of wealth to increase his own; in this way, I see working the earth's natural resources as something which can be done together, not as one owner with wage slaves.

However, I also believe people should be able to have their private space, such as a house; I can see we'll not get along well if we can't have the right to privacy, which naturally entails owning an area of land on which to live on.  So now we must figure out what "my house" is, since we can technically define all of the USA as the state's "house" with us as guests living upon it (it's funny thinking about this; the only true free people are those behind government, the rest of us live off this fantasy of authority.)  The way I see it, whatever you can afford to protect is fine; I see this as naturally limiting what a person can consider his home (no more than his vision can carry anyway), while also making large spots of land where one might work unfeasible for one owner to protect reliably; if we can define even the smallest space of personal property as the one we're currently existing in, then I see no reason why we cannot reserve a certain amount of space to work, while allowing others this same right; I see no reason for the ownership of large swathes of land here, so even capitalism, in its most natural form, is naturally self-limiting without the subsidies to protection provided by the state.

Frankly, the way I see political standing is as a triangle; the top two points lead to authoritarian right and authoritarian left, but the closer you get to liberty, the less it really matters what you believe in since we can't enforce it anyway; we naturally move toward the best system for us, whatever it may be; it's hard to say since I don't live in such a society.  The distinctions between right and left make perfect sense now, but I believe, once in a state of freedom, these distinctions melt away, else we resort to authority again to ensure these distinctions remain (e.g. "I don't like those socialists, let's get 'em!", followed by "Well I don't like those fascists, let's get 'em!")

I'm not sure but I think the guys in the green quadrant are, generally speaking, for social freedom but against the free market.   People in general, and the makers of this quiz, don't see what a contradiction that is.   If the market is simply people trading with each other, buying goods and services from each other, then the free market equals freedom.  Govt control of the market is not freedom and, by definition, will result in an erosion of social freedoms.  Which is exactly what real world evidence shows us.

That's not authoritative. Me telling you not to destroy or take my stuff is not me telling you how to live. You telling me what I am and am not allowed to do with my stuff is.

Perhaps anything to the right requires authoritative types to enforce property rights.

Here's another ruling class trick: corner the market on Libertarians with your own shills, then associate the party with extreme right-wing stuff. This happened in France with the Le Pen people, Ron Paul somehow went after racist vote in 2011 nominations, and now in Britain with UK Independence Party.

Again, how does this make sense? You have the furthest "left" right wingers that are also simultaneously the most extreme "right" right-wingers? It only makes sense if you want to de-rail the underlying concept. The political classes are terrified of decentralised, self-sufficient political ideologies, it means no power center for them.

There is a libertarian party ffs! Don't vote for democrats or republicans, they both suck. Seriously, if there would be a libertarian party in my country I might take the effort to vote once in my life ....

Good questions.  Unfortunately in the US there's only really 2 parties, and so we need far fewer questions to find out if you're republican or democrat.

Do you like guns?  Or do you want sick people to get heath care?
Do you like religion?  Or do you want to try and preserve our environment?
Do you like bankers?  Or do you think everyone should have enough money to buy food and shelter?

left libertarian here. 

My guess is that even the green one, or pretty much anything to the left, still requires authoritative types to"enforce" the social ideas.

Let's change our biology and live a different way! If we breathe nitrogen, there will be more usable air for respiration! Progress is the best!

We don't do that because I like to live. NOT because it is the way is has always been

(I agree about the global warming BS too. We are both right-wing nuts! ). I don't think the Earth's elliptical orbit is responsible for the seasons, that's actually due to the 23 degree axis tilt... anyway I'm picking examples of simply anything we want maintained, I don't really care about the details.

Lets remove all the oxygen in the air! That's a stupid conservatism if ever there was, things have gotta change round here, let's not let the whole mammals breathing oxygen thing getting in the way of progress!

Nope, it's an arbitrary day to have a celebration. I don't think I ever celebrated it on the day I was born in the last years and would have no issues not celebrating it and having another random party instead and it could be at a completely different date. I like parties though


I like summer. I like traveling. I like not working.


I would like the Earth to start rotating at a fixed distance. At the moment the curve is elliptic causing the seasons. I like a mono season (summer) so would like a circular orbit, slightly closer to the way it is now (there is no global warming).


See what I did? I pointed out the reasons I like things and sticked with those. The just traditions are just suboptimal ways to a achieve a subset of my desires

Do you like your birthday? Summer holidays? I'm quite fond of the way the Earth is rotating around the Sun at a fixed distance, but maybe you progressives might want to start a movement to increase the distance to mitigate the effects of global warming!

There's no point to saying you're either strictly progressive or strictly anti-conservative, there are benefits to changing some things and there are benefits to keeping some things the same.

Yes, and the original reason was that socialists sat on the right bench and the capitalists sat in the left bench, I know this already. There is no underlying logic to this, the reason is arbitrary, based on the behavioural habits of intelligent ape creatures in a legislative chamber hundreds of years ago.

What if the chamber had a circular seating arrangement? Would we now be arguing about North and West? I'll have you know, I'm politically 172 degrees! You 317 degree people need to GTFO and learn about your politics!

I'm against conservatism for the sake of keeping things the same and rejecting change. It's unlikely

Oh and I severely dislike tradition. If tradition is the best reason you can come up with for doing something, please stop and do something productive! (Or really think about why you are doing something. Often traditions came into existence for a reason. See whether this reason is still valid and proceed from there. Don't call it tradition however).

Edit:

Another reason why left/right division is blatantly wrong is that they aren't opposites. How is xenophobia the opposite of socialism for instance? There are many xenophobic socialistic regimes in history.

Well, it's not completely arbitrary.
It's history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#History_of_the_terms

Explain what Left and Right mean, not what scale they're projected onto. Why is left social and right market? Why can it not be the other way round? The answer is, of course, because it's completely arbitrary, and that can only be possible if they are meaningless political concepts.

Perfectly describes the paradox of this nonsense left/right scale. Socialism is far left and xenophobia is far right, except we supposedly live in centrist political system in the West. And yet, we experience bizzare extremes of socialist policies (e.g. bank bailouts) and very blatant xenophobia from centrists governments (British government started an "Immigrants Go Home!" publicity campaign).

Re: conservatism. Everything in it's place, IMO. I'm conservative when it comes to traditions and good principles. Just not conservative when it come to businesses and technologies that don't make sense any more.

Good explanation.

BTW: I am Thomas Paine.