View Full Version : One Question Libertarian Quiz
Saw this somewhere,
"Everyone knows wearing their seatbelt is smart. The question is: should the government require you to wear your seatbelt?"
Discuss
H.
BPTactical
12-09-2010, 10:25
Saw this somewhere,
"The question is: should the government require you to wear your seatbelt?"
Discuss
H.
I have a couple of different angles on this one.
1- The government does not have the right to dictate to me what is best for me. If I am not wearing it and crash the car it harms nobody but me.
2- Is not an automobile considered an extension of my domicile? Therefore as such the government has no right to demand what I do in my home and said extension as long as I pose no risk to the public.
Just my thoughts...
nathan0259
12-09-2010, 10:26
NO! It should be peoples choice to be dumb and dangerous with there own lives. It's a sort of natural selection.
DeusExMachina
12-09-2010, 10:34
How do you know someone's a Libertarian without asking them?
They'll tell you.
But seriously, I like Colorado's helmet laws (or lack thereof). I would never, ever, ever leave on my bike without a helmet but if you want to have bugs hit you in the face, wind burn, and a fatal head injury, its your choice.
ghettodub
12-09-2010, 10:35
It's a sort of natural selection.
[ROFL1]
Couldn't agree more.
As long as it doesn't impact me, I don't care really what people do, like wearing a seatbelt. However, people still shouldn't be allowed to drink and drive, etc, as that effects others.
Must where seatbelt when in car.
No helmet required while riding a motorcycle.
Laws are not made to satisfy logic. They are made to satisfy those who lobby the loudest, and money screams.
Bailey Guns
12-09-2010, 10:36
Slightly off topic...but your car is not an extension of your home (in Colorado it's usually referred to as your dwelling). While you are afforded a slightly greater degree of privacy while in your car (it's more than if you were just standing on a street corner) it's not the same degree as your home. And you certainly aren't given the same protections under some laws (ie: Make My Day) in your car as you would be in your home.
Back on topic:
While I think it's a good idea to wear your seatbelt, just like most other things I don't want the .gov telling me I have to. I sometimes ride my scooter without wearing a helmet. Is that smart...probably not.
On the other hand, I think others that are placed at risk by my actions (not necessarily risk of physical harm) have a right to tell me I have to wear my helmet and/or seatbelt. I think if an insurance company wants to say my premiums will be higher or they won't insure me or cover a loss if it's found I wasn't wearing a seltbelt that's their right. I also have the right to look for other carriers.
I pretty much just want the government to leave me the hell alone. I can take care of myself and I can figure out with which companies I want to do business. I can also figure out on my own smoking is bad for me, cheeseburgers will make me fat(ter), how to protect myself, TSA sucks (had to throw that in there), etc...
Leave me alone, Big Brother.
Byte Stryke
12-09-2010, 10:42
I Agree that it should be an individuals right to choose.
As Insurance companies then pick up the bill and jack my costs, I think you should be opted from any and all benefits if you have no seat-belt or helmet.
I don't want to have to pay for another person's stupidity with higher rates.
Not_A_Llama
12-09-2010, 10:43
I'll go "no" on the seatbelt requirement.
Motorcycle helmets shouldn't be required, but I'm down with the eye protection/windshield laws.
DeusExMachina
12-09-2010, 10:45
Motorcycle helmets shouldn't be required, but I'm down with the eye protection/windshield laws.
Good point. If you're blinded by debris, you can crash into people.
Zundfolge
12-09-2010, 10:46
The only person dumber than one that doesn't wear their seatbelt is one that demands that their government FORCE them to.
Bailey Guns
12-09-2010, 10:54
The only person dumber than one that doesn't wear their seatbelt is one that demands that their government FORCE them to.
That's a good way to put it.
68Charger
12-09-2010, 11:03
I like Zund's answer... but here's another I like:
Part of the right to Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness is the right to go to hell in whatever fashion they desire...
Scanker19
12-09-2010, 11:08
Seat belts yes when someone else is in the car. Your stupid unrestrained body can become a projectile and harm the smart people.
Zund said it.
The nanny state can't save me nor do I want it to.
Instead of making stupid seatbelt laws I'd like to see the goobermint enforce the laws already on the books...illegal immigration for instance.
Waiting for ERNO to chime in about how seatbelt laws are connected to the reduction in greenhouse gasses, thereby averting catastrophic global warming...
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons//tinfoilhatsmile.gif
relichunter
12-09-2010, 11:26
Should we require manufacturers of cars to install seatbelts or should "smart" people only buy the cars that come with seatbelts?
There is a fine line here.
I grew up not wearing seatbelts. My parents were pretty smart but it wasn't unit 1984 (my junior year in high school) that they figured it out and made seat belt wearing mandatory in their cars.
Generally, I accept the notion that "a government regulation is a sign of failure" somewhere else.
I dont know how to get both quotes in here so i did it my way.
quote: Motorcycle helmets shouldn't be required, but I'm down with the eye protection/windshield laws.
response quote: Good point. If you're blinded by debris, you can crash into people.
If you dont wear your seatbelt you can be tossed from your seat very easily (ever ride on a vinyl bench seat around a sharp turn or on a bumby road) your car is then out of control when it otherwise would not be if you had your seatbelt on, and cause it to crash/harm others.
I dont think either should be a law but on these issues the concerns are legit and have merit, unfortunatly I dont think they were decided by the people as they should be and were decided by money from lobbyists.
What about other traffic regulations?
Signs, lights, speed, etc...
Your freedom ends where mine begins. When there is a dispute over where that line is, who settles the dispute?
I am fascinated by the simplicity and beauty of the concept: Consent of the Governed. Consent being voluntary implies the ability to rescind that consent. Governed is not an individual but the collective. When a minority of the governed rescind their consent to be governed, how do majorities tend to react? Civil war? Partitioning of nations? History has recorded many instances of this and much of it is accompanied by violence.
What about other traffic regulations?
Signs, lights, speed, etc...
Your freedom ends where mine begins. When there is a dispute over where that line is, who settles the dispute?
I had this conversation just the other night... This is where courtesy, common sense, logical thinking/rational/etc go into play. You know, all the stuff that our public schools and majority of teachers fail to teach their kids.
The only signs I think needed on a road are street names and such. Lights should be common sense - raining/bad weather/dark/etc.
Speed sould be courtesy and common sense - don't want to drive 120mph on a winding road with no guardrails and a 100 ft drop. If someone is coming up on you quickly, move over, etc...
[quote=BigBear;270346]I had this conversation just the other night... This is where courtesy, common sense, logical thinking/rational/etc go into play. quote]
Courtesy & common sense dont exist in a general population, look at all the prisions, those people thought that courtesy & common sense ment they can take what they want form you including your life if they want.
The errosion of morals and values lead by what is commonly referred to as the liberal movement ensures our society and any society they get their hands on cant have any morals and values as a society and if a society cant decide on a set of morals and values then NO morals and values will be taught and praticed and we will and up with what we have today.
Example the 10 comandments, anyone can read and follow these without being a believer of any religion but the liberals will have you believe that if you hold these up as a standard of society then your forcing people to choose the religion they were written for, do they provide a replacemnt of morals and values for sociey to use, no they dont.
So with that society will have to make some rules in order for all of us to have the basic freedoms we all deserve.
OneGuy67
12-09-2010, 12:44
All very interesting thoughts on the subject. Now, to throw a little more into the mix...
Currently, you are required to wear a seatbelt. You do not and get into a serious crash where you are injured pretty badly. Hospital bills and rehab are mostly taken care of through insurance, who promptly drops you after it is all said and done. Now, you can't work and are on disability and obtain other available aid, which are government paid items. We all dislike the welfare programs and the welfare state, so now by your decision, you are now one of the recepients of the free money for the rest of your life.
Does that change anyone's opinion or no?
The only signs I think needed on a road are street names and such. Lights should be common sense - raining/bad weather/dark/etc.
Speed sould be courtesy and common sense - don't want to drive 120mph on a winding road with no guardrails and a 100 ft drop. If someone is coming up on you quickly, move over, etc...
Edge and center-line markings make roads safer at night because the upcoming turn is visible sooner, we need those.
H.
You all forget poor old EMT's that have to shovel up stupid brain bits or de-taco you from under your dash board! Wear your helmets and seat belts!
All very interesting thoughts on the subject. Now, to throw a little more into the mix...
Currently, you are required to wear a seatbelt. You do not and get into a serious crash where you are injured pretty badly. Hospital bills and rehab are mostly taken care of through insurance, who promptly drops you after it is all said and done. Now, you can't work and are on disability and obtain other available aid, which are government paid items. We all dislike the welfare programs and the welfare state, so now by your decision, you are now one of the recepients of the free money for the rest of your life.
Does that change anyone's opinion or no?
Wearing a seatbelt is not going to ensure you wont be put on this list if your involved in a car accident. I wear mine since I think its stupid not to, but I dont feel it should be a law. Family and sociey should do more to help those in need and the government should not. This goes back to my morals issue, well the lack their of, in my last post.
it should be a choice, but will never be as long as they can write tickets for it.
however for kids... yeah, carseats and seatbelt laws are good.
a thought I had about politics
I like the idea of the libertarian party. I think its odd how it turns the system on its head. The Dems and GOP claim left or right, but it seems to me that the libertarian party successfully claims the far ends of both. When you think about it "I want to be free to say "Merry Christmas" or "I want to carry my guns and be left alone" isn't about guns or God, its about being free to do what you want. In principle, these statements aren't that far from "I want to be free to smoke pot" or "I want to marry my partner and be left alone."
I think once people see its not about right vs. left, its about freedom vs. control the libertarian party will make a lot of headway, and there will be a lot of hippies voting for less gun laws, realizing their freedoms are our freedoms, just in a different dress.
Lex_Luthor
12-09-2010, 13:15
All traffic offenses are hereby moved to Federal Crimminal Court. Anything we can do to add to the inefficient bureaucracy that swarms government agencies.
Courtesy & common sense dont exist in a general population, look at all the prisions, those people thought that courtesy & common sense ment they can take what they want form you including your life if they want.
The errosion of morals and values lead by what is commonly referred to as the liberal movement ensures our society and any society they get their hands on cant have any morals and values as a society and if a society cant decide on a set of morals and values then NO morals and values will be taught and praticed and we will and up with what we have today.
Example the 10 comandments, anyone can read and follow these without being a believer of any religion but the liberals will have you believe that if you hold these up as a standard of society then your forcing people to choose the religion they were written for, do they provide a replacemnt of morals and values for sociey to use, no they dont.
So with that society will have to make some rules in order for all of us to have the basic freedoms we all deserve.
I agree... some rules are nessecary, but I don't think seatbelt laws fit under that jurisdiction. The prison example you mentioned is great, though I would recommend that major felons (such as the murderers you suggest) are killed after their first mark, not their 15th. The whole world would be better off following the 10 commandments, regardless of religion. It is a good moral code to follow to try and be a decent human being. I can help keep you out of temptation, etc... but that itself is a different discussion itself...
Oka, back to seatbelts.
OneGuy67
12-09-2010, 13:40
Wearing a seatbelt is not going to ensure you wont be put on this list if your involved in a car accident. I wear mine since I think its stupid not to, but I dont feel it should be a law. Family and sociey should do more to help those in need and the government should not. This goes back to my morals issue, well the lack their of, in my last post.
Yes, but given that choice, should your choice dictate that I and others need to take care of you for the rest of your life? Or should we only take care of those who did wear their seat belt and do not those who did not wear their seat belt? See what I'm trying to get at? You want to argue personal freedom in the choice of wearing them or not and I want to know that due to that personal choice, whether or not I and others should pay for your Depends and feeding tube food and deposit money into your account because of that poor decision.
...Currently, you are required to wear a seatbelt. You do not and get into a serious crash where you are injured pretty badly. Hospital bills ..., you are now one of the recepients of the free money for the rest of your life...Does that change anyone's opinion or no?
No, it was that persons choice not to wear the seatbelt. I know it sounds cold hearted, but I hope they would have a solid famial relationship and someone in their family could help. Government should play no role in this.
Please realize my thoughts come from this experience. I was involved in a horrible wreck where I was laid up in a hospital for a long time, breaking everything in my body. Had hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills, etc. It was still my error, my responsibility since I was not wearing my seatbelt, regardless of it wasn't I that was driving.
Edge and center-line markings make roads safer at night because the upcoming turn is visible sooner, we need those.
I agree. This arguement isn't about the upkeep of roads, etc. It was about seatbelts. I don't mind paying a tax to upkeep the roads since it helps with national transportation, econimic medians, etc. I don't think there should be a law on how to drive that road outside of common courtesy, respect, common sense, etc.
Wearing a seatbelt is not going to ensure you wont be put on this list if your involved in a car accident.... Family and sociey should do more to help those in need and the government should not. This goes back to my morals issue, well the lack their of, in my last post.
+1
How do we as citizens choose to enforce common courtesy in the use of roads? When there is a dispute, how is that dispute to be settled?
Since you agree to the payment of taxes for certain things, we agree that government has a place and needs to exist. The devil as they say is in the details. How much authority do we who consent to be governed, cede to our government?
When an individual or minority of individuals decides to violate the rules of common courtesy the majority have agreed upon, what amount of authority would you like to give your government to enforce those rules of common courtesy?
There are no right answers. No one will be happy with all laws. Most people agree that some laws are necessary.
How do we as citizens choose to enforce common courtesy in the use of roads? When there is a dispute, how is that dispute to be settled?
He was has the biggest gun? No, I'm kidding. I do not know how to answer this. I would hope that honesty, etc would play the major part... but humans are flawed.... I don't have an answer.
Since you agree to the payment of taxes for certain things, we agree that government has a place and needs to exist. The devil as they say is in the details. How much authority do we who consent to be governed, cede to our government?
That is teh crux of the matter. I'm not smart enough to answer that as I couldn't even think of an answer for your first question.
When an individual or minority of individuals decides to violate the rules of common courtesy the majority have agreed upon, what amount of authority would you like to give your government to enforce those rules of common courtesy?
None, I think the citizenry should deal with it within their pervue.
There are no right answers. No one will be happy with all laws. Most people agree that some laws are necessary.
Rgr that, good talkin' to you.
OgenRwot
12-09-2010, 14:37
Must where seatbelt when in car.
No helmet required while riding a motorcycle.
Laws are not made to satisfy logic. They are made to satisfy those who lobby the loudest, and money screams.
This should have ended the conversation haha
All very interesting thoughts on the subject. Now, to throw a little more into the mix...
Currently, you are required to wear a seatbelt. You do not and get into a serious crash where you are injured pretty badly. Hospital bills and rehab are mostly taken care of through insurance, who promptly drops you after it is all said and done. Now, you can't work and are on disability and obtain other available aid, which are government paid items. We all dislike the welfare programs and the welfare state, so now by your decision, you are now one of the recepients of the free money for the rest of your life.
Does that change anyone's opinion or no?
To a point, yes. But at the same time then the gov comes into your home and says, "that knife is sharp, you can't use it because you might chop off your hand and have to go on disability". Same for guns, off-road vehicles, sky diving etc etc. Anything the gov deems too dangerous now become regulated.
OgenRwot
12-09-2010, 14:40
a thought I had about politics
I like the idea of the libertarian party. I think its odd how it turns the system on its head. The Dems and GOP claim left or right, but it seems to me that the libertarian party successfully claims the far ends of both. When you think about it "I want to be free to say "Merry Christmas" or "I want to carry my guns and be left alone" isn't about guns or God, its about being free to do what you want. In principle, these statements aren't that far from "I want to be free to smoke pot" or "I want to marry my partner and be left alone."
I think once people see its not about right vs. left, its about freedom vs. control the libertarian party will make a lot of headway, and there will be a lot of hippies voting for less gun laws, realizing their freedoms are our freedoms, just in a different dress.
I like about 80% of their domestic policy and about 3% of their foreign policy. We live in a global community these days. What happens in China, the Middle East, Africa etc matters to us. We can't put all our troops on the borders, they will shoot ICBMs over their heads. A military presence globally is a good thing. Isolationism didn't work in the late 1800s and it most certainly wont work now.
Yes, but given that choice, should your choice dictate that I and others need to take care of you for the rest of your life? Or should we only take care of those who did wear their seat belt and do not those who did not wear their seat belt? See what I'm trying to get at? You want to argue personal freedom in the choice of wearing them or not and I want to know that due to that personal choice, whether or not I and others should pay for your Depends and feeding tube food and deposit money into your account because of that poor decision.
Your family should take care of you and if they cant your community and charities can help but not the gov and if they did the gov should provide basics and by basics I mean you eat PB&J for dinner not steak and crab.
You should have inscurance and if your not at fault you should get a lawyer for a civil suit since the person that caused the accident is at fault, the same as if you were not in a car and you were on a bike or walking and got hit by a car.
OneGuy67
12-09-2010, 15:36
Your family should take care of you and if they cant your community and charities can help but not the gov and if they did the gov should provide basics and by basics I mean you eat PB&J for dinner not steak and crab.
You should have inscurance and if your not at fault you should get a lawyer for a civil suit since the person that caused the accident is at fault, the same as if you were not in a car and you were on a bike or walking and got hit by a car.
Sounds good, but the practice of the family and community providing the assistance isn't going to happen long term.
Believe me, I don't like a welfare state giving out money everywhere on a permanent basis. I think most who are on some sort of disability could work, but just not in what they originally did. If I was injured in a situation enough that I couldn't be a cop anymore, should I sit home and collect disability or should I try to find a job in which I can do based upon my physical limitations? I think the latter, but the general feeling I have is, most people think and do the former. I say this also as a military vet and I see my military peers who obtain disability ratings for hearing loss or degenerative knees and joints after a deployment and are collecting money monthly from VA.
Insurance is great, but after the catastrophy and the limits get hit, they drop you like a hot rock. Should that happen? Should insurance companies be forced to continue coverage, even after paying out big dollars?
I don't have the answers and I am only putting this up for discussion. Where is the line, what is the time limit put on government assistance that most think is acceptable?
I like about 80% of their domestic policy and about 3% of their foreign policy. We live in a global community these days. What happens in China, the Middle East, Africa etc matters to us. We can't put all our troops on the borders, they will shoot ICBMs over their heads. A military presence globally is a good thing. Isolationism didn't work in the late 1800s and it most certainly wont work now.
I agree with you to some extent, but the sheer size of our overseas operations is pretty staggering. I believe that with just the dozen or so carrier battle groups and some select outposts (Diego Garcia, &c) we would do fine. Especially with the (supposed) reluctance of Libertarians to go to foreign wars.
There is also a substantial distinction between Libertarian Party and libertarians, and (as rare as they are) the few politicians who tread in this direction also have some different viewpoints.
ICBM's don't worry me. They have them, we have them, using them means sending up a plume everybody knows where it came from and where it's going, the same MAD policies that have "worked" for the last 70 years will continue to do so. It's the snuke's and dirty bombs by non-state actors that concerns me.
H.
OgenRwot
12-09-2010, 16:45
the sheer size of our overseas operations is pretty staggering. I believe that with just the dozen or so carrier battle groups and some select outposts (Diego Garcia, &c) we would do fine. Especially with the (supposed) reluctance of Libertarians to go to foreign wars.
There is also a substantial distinction between Libertarian Party and libertarians, and (as rare as they are) the few politicians who tread in this direction also have some different viewpoints.
ICBM's don't worry me. They have them, we have them, using them means sending up a plume everybody knows where it came from and where it's going, the same MAD policies that have "worked" for the last 70 years will continue to do so. It's the snuke's and dirty bombs by non-state actors that concerns me.
H.
I agree, we do have a massive presence that could and probably should be scaled back. Most Libertarians don't like the MAD train of thought (at least those I've talked with), but I, like you, think that MAD works. And I also agree with you on how we will get attacked next. We need a more thorough CIA etc presence to keep on top of that sort of thing. A battalion of soldiers can't stop that threat.
That is an interesting way of looking at how efficient any organization is at providing assistance. I'm sure most people have their own way of deciding which charitable or non-profit organizations to support. My wife and I have always first looked at the type of need an organization meets, then decide how much to support them based on the % of funds donated which go to the actual mission of the organization rather than administrative or advertising costs.
Those numbers can be fudged, but over time most organizations develop reputations on how efficiently they serve their stated mission.
Now start comparing all government agencies using those same standards. How much money are they given, divided by how much is spent on actually meeting their stated mission. The best government agency can't compare to even some of the most mediocre non-profits.
There are government functions that shouldn't be privatized because of the amount of power they have (military, police, fire), but the rise in the power of the public sector unions is a good indicator of why government is growing and why it is not a good thing.
Well, I put it this way, Do what you want.. Personally, two incidents while I was working in the TMC at Garlstadt, and one about this time last year. I won't go over 5 mph without a seatbelt..
Saw this somewhere,
"Everyone knows wearing their seatbelt is smart. The question is: should the government require you to wear your seatbelt?"
Discuss
H.
NO,,nor should they dictate policy on abortion.
Here's the slightly longer original "Are you a Libertarian?" quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz
Here's a more generalized one:
http://politicalquiz.net/
Unsurprisingly, both of them say I'm a libertarian.
H.
Unsurprisingly, both of them say I'm a libertarian.
H.
me too.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_4.jpg
Conservative/Progressive score: 4
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_4.jpg
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 4
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_2.jpg
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 2
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_12.jpg
Pacifist/Militarist score: 12
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Libertarian
Fentonite
12-09-2010, 18:26
Keep in mind that the Libertarian stance is one not only of Personal Liberty, but also of Personal Responsibility. OneGuy67 alluded to this in his post. Personally, I think people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else by doing it. You want to be stoned or drunk in your home? Fine, but if you cause harm to someone in pursuit of, or as a result of your actions, you should be held totally responsible, and punished accordingly.
I doubt that anyone on this board would go out shooting without being sure of target and backstop (at least I hope). If you fire into the air and nobody gets hurt, that's fortunate. If you fire into the air and kill someone, you're on the hook. I think driving without a seatbelt is like firing blindly into the air. It does carry a risk of causing harm to you or another person, and also of causing costly expense to others who had nothing to do with your poor decision.
I despise the nanny state, but also realize that it is coupled with our culture of entitlement. People who act irresponsibly (no seatbelt) do sustain much more significant and costly injuries, and can harm others by being in less-control of their car. In a true Libertarian model, a person who brought such misfortune upon themselves or others would be solely responsible for the consequences. However, our society feels obligated to subsidize idiocy, and therefore, all taxpayers are unfairly burdened with carrying the load of those who are too lazy to carry their own weight, or so stupid that they cause undo expense to others. As long as we, as a people, continue to do for others that which they should do for themselves, I'm afraid nanny-state laws will remain in place. I'd love to see both disappear.
Sharpienads
12-09-2010, 18:40
I got Libertarian on both, too. Actually, I got Hardcore Libertarian on the second one. But the beef I have with quizzes like these is that you have to choose the best answer.
For example, should pot be legalized? My answer would be, "the federal government has no constitutional authority, the states should put it up for a vote, and i would vote against it. No matter the outcome, it would go to court, then possibly a circuit court, then possibly to the supreme court, they would make a ruling and it might as well be federal law by then." But I'm forced to pick yes, no, maybe/don't care.
Oh well, I don't need a survey to tell me that I'm a Conservatarian. Or is it Libertaritive? [Tooth]
The only signs I think needed on a road are street names and such. Lights should be common sense - raining/bad weather/dark/etc.
Speed sould be courtesy and common sense - don't want to drive 120mph on a winding road with no guardrails and a 100 ft drop. If someone is coming up on you quickly, move over, etc...
I very, very strongly disagree with this.
Troublco
12-09-2010, 20:37
One said I'm a Libertarian and the other said I'm a Neoconservative. Some of the questions, as already mentioned, ask questions that could have different outcomes based on the situation.
Here's what the one had -
Conservative/Progressive score: 1
You are a social conservative. You believe in traditional values, and care first and foremost about your country, your family, and your religion. You dislike the agenda of the left because you see them as trying to destroy these things.
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 2
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 2
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 10
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of NeoCon Republican.
Bailey Guns
12-09-2010, 21:06
Pretty hard right libertarian on the first one.
On the second:
The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative
Conservative/Progressive score: 0
You are a social conservative. You believe in traditional values, and care first and foremost about your country, your family, and your religion. You dislike the agenda of the left because you see them as trying to destroy these things.
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 0
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 4
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because everyone should own a gun.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 9
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Republican
Dammit! I wanted to be more right-wing than Hardcore Republican.
68Charger
12-09-2010, 21:54
The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_0.jpg
Conservative/Progressive score: 0
You are a social conservative. You believe in traditional values, and care first and foremost about your country, your family, and your religion. You dislike the agenda of the left because you see them as trying to destroy these things.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_0.jpg
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 0
You're a Capitalist Purist. You believe that the market should be completely free, and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that the people get what they want and will do it in the most efficient way possible. You believe in small government, less taxes, and more privatization.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_0.jpg
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 0
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
http://politicalquiz.110mb.com/score/score_7.jpg
Pacifist/Militarist score: 7
You're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Republican
I would have wound up more "militarist", but I guess I'd rather some other countries deal with their own neighbors & crap... but if you cross us or our allies, you should feel the wrath...
and I don't really agree with this statement entirely: "You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east."
westy1970
12-09-2010, 23:34
I was in california when they passed the helmet law and they used the same argument that they used for the seatbelt law. That is, IF you are uninsured or you are dropped and incapicitated you become a ward of the state and the taxpayers have to pay for your treatment. I don't buy it, but that was the argument used. They were trying to midigate thier costs. They have no problem letting in tons of illegals and paying for them but Great Redwood Tree forbid you are not wearing a seatbelt/helmet. I am thankful on a daily basis I moved to America but the problem is that California works it's way East. Given the choice now, I would leave Colorado for Texas, Idaho, Montana or just bag it all and bail to the Caribbean.
KevDen2005
12-10-2010, 03:26
wouldn't it be population control in some ways to just allow motorists to not wear it.
I actually don't care, however the state says I need to, so I guess in a way I do...never given a ticket out for it though 'cause I never think to ask
KevDen2005
12-10-2010, 03:28
I was in california when they passed the helmet law and they used the same argument that they used for the seatbelt law. That is, IF you are uninsured or you are dropped and incapicitated you become a ward of the state and the taxpayers have to pay for your treatment. I don't buy it, but that was the argument used. They were trying to midigate thier costs. They have no problem letting in tons of illegals and paying for them but Great Redwood Tree forbid you are not wearing a seatbelt/helmet. I am thankful on a daily basis I moved to America but the problem is that California works it's way East. Given the choice now, I would leave Colorado for Texas, Idaho, Montana or just bag it all and bail to the Caribbean.
Lets get craploads of conservatives and go to California so we can change their state to how we like it since they are doing it to us
being a libertarian and those that call themself liberals are not one in the same from what i observe.
most people that i see that say they are liberal are really one of these commies/socialists/marxists/progressive.
seems to me that many people that think they are closer to a conservative are really closer to libertarian.
edit: I took both quiz's, Libertarian and hardcore Libertarian. I identifiy myself as a Constitutionalist because thats what I believe in and I dont want anyone to mistake me as a liberal.
Saw this somewhere,
"Everyone knows wearing their seatbelt is smart. The question is: should the government require you to wear your seatbelt?"
Discuss
H.
hell no. it is my own choice to wear a seatbelt. I am not hurting anyone else by not wearing my seatbelt. I am not impaired by not wearing my seatbelt.
safety tests show in a lot of crashes that seatbelts save lives.
My dad and sister have both been in rollovers where the seatbelt helped save them injury if not worse.
my friends dad has been in 2 accidents, one where the seatbelt saved him, but the other he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and he was flung to the passenger side, but that saved his life because the driver side was completely crushed and he would have been too.
either way i think of it as a personal choice.
driving is not a right though, it is a privilege, so they can attach whatever laws they want to really. you have the choice to walk or ride a bus.
Dr Suess says:
A seatbelt no I will not wear
A helmet will mess up my hair
My government tells me what to do
So I tell them to go screw
I hoard my weapons yes I do
So poo on the government, poo, poo, poo
Dr Suess says:
A seatbelt no I will not wear
A helmet will mess up my hair
My government tells me what to do
So I tell them to go screw
I hoard my weapons yes I do
So poo on the government, poo, poo, poo
[ROFL2][ROFL2]
ronaldrwl
12-10-2010, 16:08
I pretty much just want the government to leave me the hell alone. I can take care of myself and I can figure out with which companies I want to do business. I can also figure out on my own smoking is bad for me, cheeseburgers will make me fat(ter), how to protect myself, TSA sucks (had to throw that in there), etc...
Leave me alone, Big Brother.
+1
The holidays bring out the best rants
Troublco
12-10-2010, 18:06
I think "liberal" is not the word that should be used to describe the people it is usually used on. Socialist, Marxist, that sort of thing, would be more accurate and not demean a word that could be properly used otherwise. As in, the liberal consumption of ammo when shooting....
(Like the poem, Dr. Mountain Man!)
Hardcore Libertarian
Conservative/Progressive score: 5
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 3
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 0
Pacifist/Militarist score: 6
kinda what I expected.
nogaroheli
12-10-2010, 23:14
FTR, I wear a helmet anytime I'm on two wheels, but the idea of anyone telling me to do so pisses me off like you wouldn't believe.
theGinsue
12-11-2010, 00:43
I haven't made it completely through the 4 pages of this thread (yet), but I saw the post below and wanted to add my comments.
Wearing a seatbelt is not going to ensure you wont be put on this list if your involved in a car accident. I wear mine since I think its stupid not to, but I dont feel it should be a law. Family and sociey should do more to help those in need and the government should not. This goes back to my morals issue, well the lack their of, in my last post.
Jim - I agree with everything you've said. Here is a recent (today) example of how wearing your seatbelt is no guarantee that you won't be harmed or killed:
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Fatal_Car_Accident_West_of_Walseberg_111697854.htm l
A woman was killed in a two-vehicle accident on Friday morning that happened on Highway 160 at milepost 297, west of Walsenberg. State troopers are investigating driving while asleep as a factor in the fatal crash.
Colorado State Patrol is still investigating the accident, which happened at a little after 10:00 on Friday morning.
According to the preliminary report, a Toyota 4Runner, driven by 61-
year-old Tobias Varos of Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico, was headed eastbound when he traveled into the westbound lane of traffic and off the roadway. Troopers say Varos then reentered the roadway, swerving across both lanes of traffic, when he hit a car headed westbound.
The car that was hit, a Kia Rio sedan, rolled onto its top on the southern side of the road. Troopers say the passenger of the Kia, 65-year-old Irene Dede of Rye, died at the scene from her injuries. The driver of the Kia, 67-year-old John Dede of Rye, sustained minor injuries and was taken to the hospital.
The passenger in the Toyota, 66-year-old Deena Varos of Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico, sustained serious injuries and was flown to St. Mary-Corwin Medical Center in Pueblo. The Toyota's driver, Tobias Varos sustained minor injuries. He was also arrested and charged with Careless Driving Caused Death and two counts of Careless Driving Caused Injury.
Investigators say that all occupants were wearing their seat-belts at the time of the crash. Alcohol use, drug use, and excessive speed are not
considered contributing factors in the crash at this time, but driving while asleep is being investigated a contributing factor.
Now, most of you might be left thinking that I'm against seat belts. On the contrary. I ALWAYS wear a seat belt. Anyone who wishes to be a passenger in one of my vehicles will either wear a seat belt or find another mode of transportation - period. I can't emphasize enough to my family members that they should ALWAYS wear a seat belt (even when I'm not around). I believe that seat belts save lives.
BUT... For anyone 18 or older, I don't think the government has any right dictating that I must wear/use a protective device (seat belt). Notice that I exempted anyone under 18? Because I strongly believe in their use but know that many adults (parents) don't share this same opinion, someone needs to step in for the kids and mandate that everyone under 18 be properly secured - or the adult(s) get severely fined.
On the issue of helmets. This is another place where I don't think the government should have any say (eye protection, yes; helmets, no). When I was in HS I used to ride dirt bikes (lived in the country) and never wore a helmet but I wasn't into any off-road stunts, just casual riding of the trails. Once I started riding street bikes, I ALWAYS wore a helmet. On August 28, 2000, after 20 years of riding motorcycles, I had my first ever street bike wreck. I was wearing a $350 full-face helmet. It saved my life (still have it and will show it to anyone who wished to see it). I decided that if I ever rode again I'd spend every penny I could possibly afford for a helmet if I thought it could buy me even a touch more protecdtion. While I still got a MAJOR concussion, had I been wearing anything less than a full-face, my face would have been left on the pavement and my brains would have had to have been scooped up with a spoon. As it was, I woke up in the trauma center, but I survived (no, really, I did).
Those stupid enough to not wear seatbelts or helmets are just chlorine waiting for the gene pool. Eventually, their poor decisions will catch up to them and their existence will be filtered out of society. But the government needs to get away from this idea that they know whats better for me than I know for myself. No matter how many senseless laws are passed to the contrary, you can not protect me from my own stupidity.
That is all.
theGinsue
12-11-2010, 01:11
Lets get craploads of conservatives and go to California so we can change their state to how we like it since they are doing it to us
Now, I'm liking that plan. Give them a taste of their own medicine.
driving is not a right though, it is a privilege, so they can attach whatever laws they want to really. you have the choice to walk or ride a bus.
I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. You don't strike me as the type to believe this way though. *I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, in case this has been covered.*
KevDen2005
12-11-2010, 08:46
I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. You don't strike me as the type to believe this way though. *I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, in case this has been covered.*
Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out since I haven't read most of these...but you don't as a side note to driving IS a privilege on public roads it is however I would argue a RIGHT on private land, hence no seat-belt requirement, no license, registration, or insurance requirements (Don't know what your home owners says about this but auto is not required) and the list goes on and on and on.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.