What is Digg?111 Comments
- jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -10/+75Who is going to answer disagree to questions like "Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more" and "End corporate welfare. No government handouts to business?"
Democrats & Republicans. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32toosickvan: Taxes pay for wars, government waste, a bloated bureaucracy, spying on US citizens, aid to foreign countries & despots, and on and on. How about we cut all that?
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Well, whatever y'all do, don't admit you have even the slightest Libertarian leaning. People might think you agree with Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. You might have to squirm a little when you start to give up all the comfortable and comforting pap your Party Leaders and Presidents-in-Chief feed you and begin, at long last, to truly think for yourselves. Oh no, Mr. Clinton! Oh no, Mr. Reagan! I'm beginning to have real self-esteem; I'm beginning to think about NOT killing my fellow man; I'm beginning to be the man/woman I was intended to be, and one I can respect. Oh...
- mindwalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15It's not a biased quiz. I have given the quiz to people I suspected were not libertarians and the results clearly showed that they weren't. It is a good indicator of where one stands on the political spectrum; more importantly, it is a much more accurate indicator than the traditional 1-dimensional spectrum. People aren't really stupid, and those who want more government services would not answer yes to a question about cutting taxes 50%.
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Libertarian. And I'm willing to guess that lots of people here are, as well...
Who knew? - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well, recognizing that you have a problem is the first step :)
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Where do I get a membership card for being part of the libertarian party?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Cl1mh4224rd
No, those are just the number of the people who have taken the test on the website, which also likely includes a LOT of people "experimenting" to see where they would show up.
The really interesting results you see in this is when you see this test adminsitered in real life, and when the colored dots are put on a REAL chart.
I did a quick search on the web and found this...
Here's an image (and it looks relatively legit) of what appaears to be the results of the test taken at some apple festival by the Colorado LP. http://www.lpcolorado.org/photos/2005applefest/2005applefest-01.jpg
There's no messing around... I have administered this test personally at the Local Sarasota Gay Pride Fest.... It's pretty interesting what happens... especially when talking with people and listening to their preconcieved notions. Especially when you reveal a far righter at the pridefest... and the liberals they do scowl. It's also interesting when you have to listen to far left homesexuals talk about how they believe if they can just vote for that *one* official...suddenly government will magically stop treating all of them as second class citizens, or that if they could just get that ONE magical politican in office, that suddenly the nations largest polluter (the U.S. Government) will suddenly start making all sorts of new environmental regulations and save the world with it's wondrous benevolence.
If there's ONE thing though, that I have really learned by administering these tests, its that most people don't have any ***** clue what a Libertarian is, but a lot of people DO understand that they just want to be left the hell alone.
If you want to see and hear some really good and legitimate libertarian answers on the issues... check out http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/
and of course listen to Free Talk Live. (Yes I am a whore) - neglesaks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Good luck with that. :p
- praxcelis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I've seen various flavors of this quiz, and not all from Libertarian websites. Whether or not they have an obvious bias--and most of them do--they do serve to highlight one very important point. The entire two-dimensional "left" vs. "right" mindset that has been scripted, packaged and force-fed to us is nothing but fodder to continue the status quo--which is just what the two power blocs want.
Pragmatism and common sense have no place in the political landscape of FUD. The quiet voices urging a retreat from the abyss are drowned out by the shrill circus performers we are forced to endure every day.
And yes, this site is a Libertarian site. Big "L" Libertarianism has long since fallen prey to the same partisan trap that the two major parties long ago succumbed to--the party has become more important than the people it once purported to serve.
If there were a Common Sense party, I'd join up in a heartbeat. Personal accountability, transparency in ALL facets of government, pragmatic cold logic in affairs internal and external, a return to the idea that the job of the State is to ensure the well-being of it's constituency, NOT the other way around...where is that party? - Y2JCrisis, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15I'd cut police service funds in a heartbeat. They don't do anything useful for me. I still like the fire department though.. if you're ever in trouble, it's the fire department who will help you out. If you're hurt, your house is on fire, your kitten is stuck in a tree....
If you are ever in the kind of trouble you need police for, it'll be 15 minutes before you can get one to put down his doughnut and come check it out. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@shirosamurai
Good example of what I mean by "preconcieved notions" of what being a Liberarian is all about.
The common misconception of course being by most liberals, is that somehow allowing BUSINESSES more freedom, means CORPORATE takeovers.
The ignorance comes when Lefties forget the fact that a CORPORATION is a GOVERNMENT entity created to give INDIVIDUAL rights... to a GROUP.
Libertarians... really really don't like that.
Libertarians believe in being held accountable, and that, with FREEDOM... comes RESPONSIBILITY.
If by "corporate takeover" you mean "mom and pop businesses suddenly being able to freely compete with mega companies in an environment where they cannot be forced out of business by Government, because Governments role would be to only use force to stop those who would try to harm or steal from others, (including assisting the prevention of megacompanies trying to take the law into their own hands to create monopolies through force) while not being paid off by corporate lobbyists who want create books of unreasonable regulations that only corporations that are "protected" from them can afford to deal with "
Then, ok... you are correct. I doubt that's what you were saying though... I think you probably just oversimplfying by virtue of not knowing what you were talking about.
Don't worry, at least you have the heart to *want* to stop the corporations from doing what they are doing... JUST like the Libertarians, you just give the power to do it to the people that are causing the problem in the first place. Think about it next time you are staring at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condie on TV... and remind yourself of the fact that Republican controlled Congress is are the same people that have been promising smaller government and less taxes for decades... and then remember that the Democrats don't even do that. Sure, the conservatives are liars, but the liberal left will straight up tell you that they are going to tax the crap out of you to do a whole huge list of things that the government WILL SCREW UP.
Want a laugh... watch the movie "The Pentagon Wars" based on a true story. Stars Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes. Great flick.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144550/
http://videodetective.com/sideplayer.asp?publishedID=883922&customerId=97135 - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It wasn't biased. Most people do indeed believe in greater individual liberty for themselves.
What lots of people, including you it seems, don't like is liberty for others. - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I like this test simply because it exemplifies one thing which I have been screaming into the darkness.
Politics is not black and white, it's several million different shades of gray.
Stop thinking Democrat vs Republican, or Liberal vs Conservative, its highly counterintuitive...if people would stop ***** voting just so they wouldn't piss of their respective parties, things would ***** work better.
Oh yeah, and before I get labeled a ***** liberal, or a nazi-neocon or any ***** like that let me say I'm VERY MUCH a centrist (and I knew that long before this test)
come on in people...the water's fine. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8goodoldharris: you're joking, right? The politicalcompass test is probably _the_ most biased test I've ever seen.
Theadvocates quiz isn't great, but it's not _bad_; _bad_ doesn't begin to describe the politicalcompass one. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ goodoldharris
"The statements are not at all designed to encourage a particular result. The test is not at all a disguised ad for a political party. If you think otherwise, tell me, what result or what party is the political compass test slanted toward?"
This question was directed at Misean rather than me, but I would have answered it in my earlier post if I had seen it earlier.
The statements may not be designed to encourage a particular result, but they are so slanted by the attitude that government can do no wrong that anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by 12 years in the government school system is frustrated by their lack of logic. Where the small quiz makes straightforward statements like "government should do X -- yes, no or maybe," your "test" makes statements like "government would benefit more people if it did more of X and less of Y -- agree or disagree." Of course, government would benefit more people if it didn't do any of either X or Y, but that isn't a choice on the test.
This test is not an ad for Democrats or Republicans. It may even be intended to be "unbiased" toward left or right, but it is written in a way to sell the message that government is good and the only difference between political positions is disagreement about which wonderful things we want government to do for us. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What joybran said!
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ shirosamurai
"Join the libertarian cult! Abolish government regulation and let corporations run rampant and free!"
Did you not notice the "end corporate welfare, no more handouts to business" statement? The only power corporations have comes from the special favors granted them by government. Libertarians are opposed to corporatism and merchantalism. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The reason they object to being called Libertarian is because they cannot abide other people being free.
What? Let other people have guns? No! I'm a Democrat!
What? Let other people smoke dope? No! I'm a Republican!
etc.
What they don't understand is that the problems they fear are caused by government. If not for government subsidies and grants of limited liability, protectionist tarriffs and various prohibitions, corporations and drug cartels wouldn't have the kinds of power they have.
Those who are not libertarians object because they think liberty for others means they will be abusive. Of course, they themselves would not kill, would not rob, would not put LSD in the water supply. Oh no, but everyone else would if the Sword of Damoclese were not hanging over their heads in the form of Government Regulation. - econofast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, this is a libertarian website. As their logo implies, it's "better" to be a pure libertarian. For the record, that's pretty much where I fall, but this is a very clear example of leading the witness...
- mlorrey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12and of course, when they score 70% on one scale, and 80% on the other, and you say, "hey, you're a libertarian",
and they say, "great! when can I join the party?"
You then say, snootily, "But you aren't libertarian ENOUGH to join MY Libertarian Party."
Yeah, thats the way to recruit em, get their hopes up, then shut em down with the litmus test... - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's not the test. Most people who call themselves "moderate" are liberals. It's like calling Bill Clinton a "moderate".
It's not the test that's out of balance, it's that the "center" has shifted to the left over the years. Mostly because of the vast majority of the media being leftist, and they report leftist causes as if they are centrist. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Government is like a fire. Fire has it's place... in the case of the government, that place is the Constitution. When fire starts to burn out of control and completely unchecked... You need to stomp it out.
Government, like fire, if left unchecked will attempt to consume everything it can.
Our current government is out of control. It needs to be stomped back into place.
Good example. New London Vs. Kelo in the eminent domain case. Look it up, and then wonder how long it will be before the government takes your home, or your families home so that they can build something "for the common good" (Is Pfizer really all that good?) - neglesaks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8tooslickvan:
"Not only is this the world's smallest political quiz, it's also has the world's most biased questions. Who is going to answer disagree to questions like "Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more""
Democrats and Greens.
" and "End corporate welfare. No government handouts to business?""
Republicans (friends of the Fat Cats (tm)). - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If they say "when can I join the party?" it's obvious that they're not libertarian enough :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8What? Are you just mad because you thought you were hardcore conservative and tested flaming liberal?
- jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That okcupid test is an even bigger waste of time. I scored Anarchist which they equate with the Unibomber.
- neglesaks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Ususai:
"Libertarians don't recognize the benefit of sacrifice for the common good."
So, Urusai... mind if we sacrifice you? For the common good, of course...! - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Far more biased and unanswerable questions, anyway.
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@rancemo
Not the first time, not the last. Although, I stand by the notion that political labels are useless. - jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Digg is a decentralized phenomenon and so are libertarians. Both reject central control.
- Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even though I am a libertarian...the questions are way too broad. I do recommend political compass....but some of the questions are really hard to answer for libertarians like myself. Like issues on religion. I frankly do not care...but somehow...it determines if it makes you a libertarian or not.
I'd also like to say that south park is neither liberal nor republican. I've seen their "pro-freedom" in the episode concering big gay al and the boy scouts. The boy scouts kicked him out because he was gay. The town got mad and protested against the boy scouts. Using the power of GOVERNMENT, they got big gay al back into the scouts. But Big Gay Al did not like how this happened. He said that these people know the boy scouts better than the public. They know who is best for it and who is not. He wishes for them to allow him back in....but he wants them to do it voluntarily...not through a court order(or law).
Even their wal-mart parody shows a "libertarian" solution to wal-mart. Simply do not shop there you *****.
Thomas Jefferson was pretty libertarian. I agree with him on the constitution and how it should be STRICTLY interpreted. But even I have my objections to it. Mainly....the supreme court having the FINAL say on how it is interpreted.....the "general welfare" clause.....and the elastic clause.
"I like this test simply because it exemplifies one thing which I have been screaming into the darkness.
Politics is not black and white, it's several million different shades of gray.
Stop thinking Democrat vs Republican, or Liberal vs Conservative, its highly counterintuitive...if people would stop ***** voting just so they wouldn't piss of their respective parties, things would ***** work better.
Oh yeah, and before I get labeled a ***** liberal, or a nazi-neocon or any ***** like that let me say I'm VERY MUCH a centrist (and I knew that long before this test)
come on in people...the water's fine."
Dude, I don't get how this makes you a liberal or even a neo-con(which is the same ***** thing if you ask me.) I'm guessing you find a little both of the anti-freedom and pro-freedom arguments good and mix them together...correct(is that a centrist?) I think my girlfriend is a centrist....or a moderate(I think they are the same thing). Still, I shall convert her to the libertarian side.
To all libertarians....our best bet to convert are the liberals....NOT the conservatives. The conservatives are run-dry. The liberals are showing their hate for government. I used to be a liberal before I turned libertarian. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's not that bad. Certainly better than the politicalcompass one. But I had trouble answering some of the questions. All these tests have biased questions that I'm not sure how to answer honestly - e.g., one from this test was "only literate people should be allowed to vote" - it seems to me that a "disagree" answer will be taken to mean that I believe anyone should be allowed to vote and will be counted as more or less "leftist", whereas an "agree" vote will be counted as some sort of "right-wing" neo-Nazi psycho. I don't believe in the legitimacy of voting at all, so I want to say "disagree", but I'm pretty sure that will screw up my score. (Same with the one about people who don't much use government services paying less taxes - it implies that people should pay taxes)
[There are also several badly-worded questions like "the life of one American is worth the lives of several foreigners" - what if the test-taker is not American?]
And then the summary says " You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness", drawing my "dot" over the Unabomber's face... - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ goodoldharris
"There's an infinitely better test at http://www.politicalcompass.org
It's a real quiz, well-designed, and unbiased. It provides good information about political divisions and spectrums, with current and historical examples for perspective. The FAQ's also answer a lot of questions about the test's methodology. It's about 1000x more interesting than the "quiz" linked to here. Best of all, it's not a disguised sales pitch for anything."
I took your "infinitely better" test. Although it landed me in the correct general area, it wasn't anywhere near as accurate as the little ten question quiz. It was much longer and more complex, and the statements were more slanted than the small quiz because they require you to accept certain assumptions before you can even decide whether you agree or disagree. In those cases where you don't accept the underlying assumption, you still have to agree or disagree rather than give a neutral answer, as in the small quiz. The only way it would be more interesting than the small quiz is if you had the chance to talk about why you think the statement is so flawed you can neither agree nor disagree with it. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So?
Perhaps you think if they hid their own political leanings the test would be more accurate, or something? - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ah, another who votes for evil. It's only the lesser of two evils, but still evil.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Misesian,
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
The first question of this supposedly "unbiased" test was one I could not answer because it was so biased. It assumes slavery, either to government or to "corporations", which would therefore be governments anyway.
What is government other than a big corporation that sells coercion? The fact that cities are "incorporated" is a big clue.
That maybe a quarter of the questions are able to be answered in a non-governmental fashion does not make an unbiased quiz, since the other three quarters of my answers must support government by definition.
The reason people object to the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz is that they end up being told they're Libertarian, and they don't like that. Ya see, the questions are personal, and everyone likes personal liberty.
...They just don't like OTHER people having liberty. - mindwalker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Libertarians are the true progressives.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lots of dudes are Libertarians, most Libertarians are dudes. ;)
Unfortunately ;( - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I generally agree. Primarily Libertarians need to focus on minorities and immigrants.
People who want to work hard, and are getting screwed OVER AND OVER and OVER by the government.
IE: Who pays the most in Social Security?
Who never collects it?
African Americans. 'Nuff Said.
Minimum wage laws?
Well, if you are not worth minimum wage... (IE crippled, or possibly an immigrant)
Then you may likely be hired illegally... and what will your wages and working conditions be THEN? Who protects you when the whole system is designed to make it so that you have to hide?
Who pays the most in taxes? It ain't the rich. They barely even feel the taxes they pay, if they haven't found a way around paying them.
Poor people take the brunt of taxes... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/us/19poor.html?ex=1310961600&en=b2cfde0060d81ec5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Add up all the taxes... and it becomes obvious...
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines
(indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
(FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
(42 cents per gallon) (And you think the oil companies are gouging us bu asking for 10?)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges
(tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties
(tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax!
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer registration tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
How many of these do you pay.. even when you do not even use the service?
Do you think over 50% of your paycheck after mostly FICA, SS, Medicare, Food, Sales and Gas taxes... and any other the others above DESERVES to go to the government??? Do they really work harder than YOU at making your life better...? and if not, then why do they deserve more than half of your pay?
(would it be ok if they only took 3/5ths of your pay?) - subscribtion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow. It was actually pretty accurate in my case (Centrist with a slight Right and Up inclination). I can't imagine it being that accurate in all cases, though. I consider it to be a coincidence.
- neglesaks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm a Libertarian, and have been for years.
- Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Tocard.....I love the list of taxes that you have compiled. I bet you the list is MUCH longer than what you provided. Also, to be fair...the gasoline tax that you provided is probably your state. The FEDERAL gas tax is about 18 cents. Yet, the feds make more money per gallon off of the tax than the oil companies(they make about 10 cents per gallon profit on oil).
Also, I wouldn't like to say that we had the largest middle class. Sometimes....it's not a bad thing that the middle class is shrinking. I don't get the problem when the middle class is shrinking.
I feel mexicans and illegal immigrants can be libertarian. I know of one mexican who is taking political science(and most of these people are liberals...much like people going into sociology) and he hates liberals. It's because he grew up in the ghettos and managed to get out and actually GO to college. After hearing his story and other mexicans.....I can't feel any sympathy for people saying "I can't break out of poverty."
Let me add some taxes though that are put upon businesses(meaning forced by the government)
Workers insurance
Fee for that sign that says the maximum occupancy
Fee to have that entrance built to the parking lot
Fee for maximum occupancy IN THE PARKING LOT
Insurance for the food served(if it's a restaurant) - danknerd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6LIBERTARIAN - but I already knew that ;)
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Even that isn't such an easy question. I am convinced that a civil society needs no government whatsoever, and I have plenty of problems with the Constitution as a failed experiment, but I wouldn't want to answer NO to the question. Such a government, if it were possible, would be a VAST improvement over what we have now.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The portion of "libertarianism" that you're forgetting is "strict liability".
That means that even if it's otherwise perfectly legal, if what you do harms others it is prosecutable. People along rivers and lakes have a great deal of interest in prosecuting people who do things like put foreign fish into the eco system that destroy native species.
However, all the legislation and regulation in the world hasn't _prevented_ it from happening either, so your argument is rather specious to begin with. Show me something government has successfully done that hasn't been done privately, then we can discuss if government is a better choice than voluntary cooperation. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4becuase its the smallest political quiz in the world?
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ Misesean
I totally agree with your analysis of the okcupid test versus the politicalcompass one. I guess I screwed up on some of those biased questions because I didn't quite make it to the Unabomber picture. LOL - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4goldoldharris: you're right, most /those/ questions are OK, though I take issue with your number 3 in particular. That's 1/4 of the test. What about the rest?
I'll start with your number 3 (number 20 in the test): "A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies". There are a lot of buried assumptions in there, and it's not clear what the words mean: e.g., what is meant by "restrictions"? If it means "legislation" (i.e., rules set down by some body and enforced over others regardless of their agreement), then assumption number 1 is that there can be such a thing as a genuine free market /and/ legislation coexistent. I.e., the meaning of "genuine free market". On the other hand, if I interpret it to mean "economic law" or "natural law" (i.e., something which just is, as a result of the way the universe is set up - or "from god" if you believe in such a thing, etc.), then the assumption is that it's even possible /not/ to have such a restriction. Other assumptions are about the "predator" nature of multinationals; the relationship between multinational corporations and the state (whether they would even exist in their current form absent the state), and the nature of monopoly - to anyone with an understanding of (Austrian; i.e., real) economics, "monopoly" /means/ "government"; there's no such thing as a monopoly without government intervention, so the question is utterly meaningless. In short, I can see hard-core libertarians like myself answering either "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree", depending on how you interpret the question - it's therefore of no value. I can make an educated guess about what the test-writer meant by the question, and how it will affect the result, but then I'm "driving" the test toward a particular result (and based on incomplete knowledge of the scoring mechanism!)
Some other examples of biased questions:
1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Again, the words are ill-defined. Are there really two opposing interest-groups? If you accept that there are, is there anyone who would disagree?
9. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Again, the underlying assumption that there's a either-or choice here.
10. Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
What does "disagree" mean here? They can't be trusted but they don't require regulation? They can be trusted and therefore don't require regulation? They can be trusted, but require regulation anyway? The environment isn't important? There's that assumption about the nature of corporations and the meaning of "regulation" again.
18. Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.
Should I interpret this as "those with the ability to pay should be able to get better medical care"? Or "it's (not) unfair that they do"? Or take it literally, that the rich should have the /right/ to better care (whether or not they actually pay more for it, etc.)? Is it making the assumption that anyone has a /right/ to medical care? (What if nobody wants to provide it? Do we enslave everyone with medical knowledge?) I don't know whether to agree or disagree!
I'd really be interested in knowing where you see bias in the advocates' test. All of the questions are simple statements with which you can agree or disagree; /I/ can't see any underlying assumptions in the questions that anyone could disagree with. [Actually, I can see one, but it weighs in the opposite direction from what you claim; the question about privatizing Social Security is one a libertarian could answer either way (i.e., some will recognize "privatize" as meaning "allow private entities to act in a rights-violating manner with government authority", and disagree. E.g., we don't want tax collection privatized! SS should be abolished, not privatized)] - rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4you're just confused...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 