Maral Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 check it out http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 A very nice ideal...but people are just not ready yet...perhaps when they stop believeing in fairy tales they will have matured to the point to govern themselves... Very slanted poll BTW...and like all things of this sort put everything inot black & white when there are plenty of areas of gray... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hmmmmmmmmm... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 A very nice ideal...but people are just not ready yet...perhaps when they stop believeing in fairy tales they will have matured to the point to govern themselves... Very slanted poll BTW...and like all things of this sort put everything inot black & white when there are plenty of areas of gray... So you believe in coercion and forcing other people to live the way you want them to live. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 As the resident anarchist I score the highest. http://www.self-gov.org/quiz/s100_100.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 So you believe in coercion and forcing other people to live the way you want them to live. Nice. Who says its the way i want them to live? You advocated (at least in word though not action) adherence to a strict moral code - claim that ther is only balack & white - that sort of thing - I am not the one being judgemental. Idealy I would agree with you - and - again idealy - I would wish for no government...but the realities of the world - and that of unbridled human action - in a variety of shperes - personal, corporate etc - makes it clear that this is just not possible - there would be extreme abuses and massive irresponsibility - so we are just not quite ready. Like I said - when people stop believeing in fairy tales - like religion - then that will certainly be a sign that we have matured to the point were no governement is possible. in the meantime I do advocate self-governement - true democratic governement with citizen involvement (and accountability) to the maximum degree. And in that vein i have been very involved in local politics and civic activities in my community. Additionally - and I know you'll find this funny - but I back the lcal libertarian candidates (and in fact one of my neighbors has been the Libertarian candidate for Govener of my state) - so i imagine I've actually done a bit more to support Libertarian ideas then you have - (not that I am at all 100% with the Libertarian party - not at all - because they essentialy advocate turning the country over to Big Business - and if you think government is bad....). BTW - I seem to have gotten the very exact score as Stormy did - my dot is in the same left-libertarian spot as hers. that being said - the poll/quiz was incredibly biased to come up with such a result for just about everyone (IMO)....and I answered most of the questions with a maybe BTW.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 BTW - I seem to have gotten the very exact score as Stormy did - my dot is in the same left-libertarian spot as hers. that being said - the poll/quiz was incredibly biased to come up with such a result for just about everyone (IMO)....and I answered most of the questions with a maybe BTW.... Yeap, I just got PM'ed by someone I wouldn't agree with on some things who said they had got the same result as myself. Crazy world or crap test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 there is nothing strange about the test. there are five questions in each category. you receive 0% for each no answer, 10% for each maybe answer, and 20% for each yes answer. so, it adds up anything from 0% to 100%. it doesn't matter which questions you answer yes/no/maybe. they all have the same weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 You advocated (at least in word though not action) adherence to a strict moral code - claim that ther is only balack & white - that sort of thing - I am not the one being judgemental. This has nothing to do with the thread at hand. A strict moral code, is not the same as initiating aggression and coercion and forcing other people to live the way I want them to. Passing judgement and saying they are wrong, is not the same as using force to make them abide by what I believe is right. You have no case there. Idealy I would agree with you - and - again idealy - I would wish for no government...but the realities of the world - and that of unbridled human action - in a variety of shperes - personal, corporate etc - makes it clear that this is just not possible - there would be extreme abuses and massive irresponsibility - so we are just not quite ready. This is misleading. You believe that individuals if left to themselves will be "irresponsible" and there will be extreme "abuses", yet this doesn't deter you from believing that these same individuals will be selfless public servants if cloaked with the mantle of State authority. In that sweeping verbiage you've made a contradiction. Here is what Stephen Kinsella has to say. Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians. Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a ) aggression is justified; or (b ) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression. Proposition (b ) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.) As for (a ), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so? He further elaborates: Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it. Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that’s an impractical view" or "but that won’t work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime – that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights – does not mean that it’s "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong. Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won’t work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur." The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified. The rest of your hodge podge is pretty much moot and your own inflated experiences, thus I will spare responding to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.