Libertarian Purity Test

Governments manipulate production via taxation and subsidies. If you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase subsidize it. For good or ill, the US government has long subsidized certain commodities and products for less than stellar motives, for instance buying the vote of the sugar producing states through sugar subsidies even though this requires increased taxes and artifically inflates the price of sugar four and five fold for all Americans. This is indeed welfare.

Government subsidies/price supports of some other commodities, however, ensure that farmers take less risk in producing essential foods and commodities that Americans (and others) need. It could be reasoned that at least some of this is insurance that promotes the national welfare rather than providing welfare to the farmers and ranchers.

0 Replies

That's what really bugs me. When governments financially support business, or subsidize industry or primary producers, it's seen as legitimate, sound investment to the deserving .... Yet they expect poor people to resort to charity & pitiful government handouts to survive ... THEN they're made to feel as if they're parasites, no hopers, lack initiative, a drain on the economy, are free loaders ..... How many people are poor for reasons beyond their control? Don't they deserve to live a life with some dignity? Sure there are dishonest people who rip off the system (as there are in the world of business), there always will be. But I don't accept that they should be used as an excuse to treat the legitimate poor, sick, elderly & unemployed so shabbily.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

That's what really bugs me. When governments financially support business, or subsidize industry or primary producers, it's seen as legitimate, sound investment to the deserving

not by libertarians, as it happens ...

msolga wrote:

Sure there are dishonest people who rip off the system (as there are in the world of business), there always will be. But I don't accept that they should be used as an excuse to treat the legitimate poor, sick, elderly & unemployed so shabbily.

The most important libertarian objections against this arguments are (1) that a generous welfare state will encourage abusers and thereby create more of them, and (2) that while you are free to use your own money to help the poor, and while you are free to persuade other people to give their money to help the poor, you are not free to rob Peter to pay Paul. And neither is the government. (3) while much government expense is started on the claim that it will transfer money from the rich to the poor, this claim is true less often than one might think. Of the 7 biggest programs of the federal government, only one (Medicaid) redistributes from top to bottom. The biggest program (Social Security) redistributes slightly upward, the other big ones are more or less neutral. So your argument is weaker in practice than it seems in theory.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

msolga wrote:
Sure there are dishonest people who rip off the system (as there are in the world of business), there always will be. But I don't accept that they should be used as an excuse to treat the legitimate poor, sick, elderly & unemployed so shabbily.

The most important libertarian objections against this arguments are (1) that a generous welfare state will encourage abusers and thereby create more of them, and (2) that while you are free to use your own money to help the poor, and while you are free to persuade other people to give their money to help the poor, you are not free to rob Peter to pay Paul. And neither is the government. (3) while much government expense is started on the claim that it will transfer money from the rich to the poor, this claim is true less often than one might think. Of the 7 biggest programs of the federal government, only one (Medicaid) redistributes from top to bottom. The biggest program (Social Security) redistributes slightly upward, the other big ones are more or less neutral. So your argument is weaker in practice than it seems in theory.

Thank you for your response, Thomas. So then would I wrong in understanding that Libertarians believe individuals sink or swim as a result of your own efforts, or good or bad fortune ...? That intervention is appropriate in only very extreme cases of need?

0 Replies

I got an 18, which makes me a soft libertarian, according to the test. It seems to indicate the desire of the test constructor to recruit new converts, no matter how remote the affinity. 18 out of 160, and I still have libertarian tendencies? I don't think so.

Many of you have probably seen this test:

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

I come out a liberal there, close to a centrist and a statist.

I am a libertarian pretty much only on the issues of personal freedom (like legalized prostitution, decriminalized drug use, and a free press).

As for the other issues, I trust big government not very much, but way more than big business. Give me Congress over Halliburton, please. I've worked in both government (mostly) and private industry (some) and in my experience the alleged superior efficiency of business is mythical, one of those statements everybody believes because everybody says its so. And government, as opposed to business, could be improved (at least theoretically) by a more concerned, involved populace, one less distracted by the dog and pony show of the two big parties, which reduces every issue to a simple us against them.

More political parties -including Libertarians- would be an improvement over the present system, but not as great an improvement as the absence of political parties altogether.

More government and less politics, that's my platform.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Thomas wrote:

msolga wrote:
Sure there are dishonest people who rip off the system (as there are in the world of business), there always will be. But I don't accept that they should be used as an excuse to treat the legitimate poor, sick, elderly & unemployed so shabbily.

The most important libertarian objections against this arguments are (1) that a generous welfare state will encourage abusers and thereby create more of them, and (2) that while you are free to use your own money to help the poor, and while you are free to persuade other people to give their money to help the poor, you are not free to rob Peter to pay Paul. And neither is the government. (3) while much government expense is started on the claim that it will transfer money from the rich to the poor, this claim is true less often than one might think. Of the 7 biggest programs of the federal government, only one (Medicaid) redistributes from top to bottom. The biggest program (Social Security) redistributes slightly upward, the other big ones are more or less neutral. So your argument is weaker in practice than it seems in theory.

Thank you for your response, Thomas. So then would I wrong in understanding that Libertarians believe individuals sink or swim as a result of your own efforts, or good or bad fortune ...? That intervention is appropriate in only very extreme cases of need?

Sounds like you've got it, Olga. My score was 44.

If this country were willing to break up into smaller segments, then I would gladly move towards a libertarian POV.

Any of the questions which I could not answer yes or no, I left blank. I'm not sure how they were counted.

0 Replies

Piffka

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... Well, now I know I'll never be a Libertarian! (despite my results telling me I had "potential"! :wink: )
Nope, it's way too cold & harsh/ dog eat dog/ survival of the fittest/ everyone for themselves/ I'm alright, Jack/ for my liking. Now, If we were all born EQUAL, I'd be more attracted to libertarianism, but the truth is we're not. Unfortunately we don't all have equal finances, intelligence, health, drive, or good fortune .... Maybe I'm a closet Communist? Seems friendlier, somehow .... :wink: Razz

0 Replies

I got a 56.

I happen to like most of their views but others seem a little extreme for my tastes.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Piffka

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... Well, now I know I'll never be a Libertarian! (despite my results telling me I had "potential"! :wink: )
Nope, it's way too cold & harsh, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, everyone for themselves, I'm alright Jack, for my liking. Maybe I'm a closet Communist? Seems friendlier, somehow .... :wink:

I'm with you, Olga. I also believe that despite having apparent liberatarian leanings, it is quite possible to want to help those less fortunate and to ensure a good life for all -- therefore on all the questions about Medicare, Social Security, and taking care of others I answered in what was plainly not a strict libertarian stance. Still -- I got what seemed to me to be a surprisingly high score.

0 Replies

Piffka

kindred spirit! Very Happy

0 Replies

Piffka

Just checked & I got 35. The highest score was 99.
Interesting, this has been! Very Happy

0 Replies

35...and beginning to really hate political tests and politics in general...

0 Replies

Re: Libertarian Purity Test

Phoenix32890 wrote:

...It might also explain about why I am in such a funk about the election....

Where do you score on this test?[/color][/b]

Every such test I've taken, I check out about 80% of the way towards being a libertarian. In an ideal world, the choice on ballots would be libertarian vs republican, and democrats would all be in cages and loonie bins where they belong. Nonetheless, even given such a choice between George W. Bush and a libertarian candidate, I'd still in all likelihood be voting for George this time.

The problem with libertarians running major countries is most easily grasped while reading the history of the second Punic war. In Hannibal, Carthage had the best military mind of the age, a man fully capable of having defeated Rome IF the people running Carthage could have stopped doing their libertarian shekel-centric things long enough to provide the guy with just the tiniest bit of additional aid and supplies, chiefly the 5000 or so extra of his Numidian light cavalry which he wanted. Carthage and not Rome would have been the dominant power around the med basin from the time of Alexander to the time of the Huns if Republicans rather than libertarians had been running the place.

What actually did happen was that Carthage got pulled down to the last stone and salt plowed into the ground in the surrounding territory.

I'd be happy to vote for Libertarian mayors, councilmen, sherrifs, dog-catchers, senators and representatives all day long. Presidents, I'd have to really think about it.

0 Replies

willow

That's the first one I've done at A2K. I'm glad I did, because I discovered that I'd totally misunderstood what the term meant in US politics. Very instructive.

I can understand your feelings toward politics right now. Doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, does it? :wink: And the addiction can drive one over the edge! I speak from experience! Laughing

All the best for a good result on Tuesday.

BTW, fantastic avatar! Love it!

0 Replies

Okay, I garnered twenty five...

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

willow

That's the first one I've done at A2K. I'm glad I did, because I discovered that I'd totally misunderstood what the term meant in US politics. Very instructive.

I can understand your feelings toward politics right now. Doesn't exactly bring out the best in people, does it? :wink: And the addiction can drive one over the edge! I speak from experience! All the best for a good result on Tuesday.

BTW, fantastic avatar! Love it!

NO it doesn't bring out the best, especially in myself lol...but i can't stop reading them...and if it isn't a good result i may just explode... Laughing

thanks for avatar shoud go to Jp..he is a wizard...I love how it brings out my passive/aggressive tendencies ROFLMAO Shocked

0 Replies

You're going to experience BAD withdrawal symptoms, willow! :wink:

0 Replies

Nah, i have lortabs and whiskey to numb myself in case Bush wins :-)

0 Replies

Good luck! But you gotta get sober some time! :wink:

0 Replies

Oh, foo, I didn't stick around to see what my result meant to the pollsters. Looks like Foxfyre and Revel and I and McGentrix are close. I can't remember ever agreeing with foxfyre's many political posts, even one, though I do remember agreeing with McG a couple of times.

Not, therefore, a very discriminating questionaire, from my point of view.

0 Replies

Libertarian Purity Test

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know