Are you a.........

Left (liberal)
Libertarian
Centrist
Right (Conservative)
Statists (Big Government)


find out …..Take the Quiz now and
find out where you fit on the political map!

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I am.....

Centrist espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

I guess I favored government intervention to some speech issues (public profanity, incomplete truth in reporting and shouting fire in a movie theatre came to mind as areas where some common sense restrictions on free speech came to mind) and I opposed the legalization of drugs for adults (or any other group for that matter). My opposition to free international trade was the only non-libertarian answer for economic issues.

If I didn't have some common sense, and if I didn't doubt the intelligence of so many others I'd be a libertarian - but I know that some people have to be told to shut up and not do things that are bad for them

Quote :

@Deb
Centrists espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Well Deb, I know you're a founding member & I'll likely now be kicked for stating my piece, but it won't be the first time an "open minded" person wasn't.

Let me first state that I've been involved with the Advocates for Self Government for years. I've even done a few "Operation Politically Homeless" things at UT Knoxville, at UM in Miami (Coral Gables) and in Peacock Park in Coconut Grove (FL). So it should be obvious where I fall on the chart...libertarian.

Quote :

I guess I favored government intervention to some speech issues (public profanity,

Why? Probably has something to do with protecting The Children, right?
If I shout profanities in Cantonese (which I can) on the courthouse steps, probably nobody will complain because they won't know what I'm saying.
So too if I shout profanities in English, only those people who are old enough to know what the words mean...will know what the words mean! In short, adults. If some children already know the meanings of those words, their delicate sensibilities cannot be harmed. (The argument that ignorance is superior to knowledgeableness can be set aside for another thread. I needn't expound on my beliefs in that regard...) As to adults being upset at the various tones that make up speech, and the audible shapes these tones make to form words that might offend someone, regard that we must therefore drop down to the lowest common denominator and outlaw all "offensive" words, not just those seven.

Quote :

incomplete truth in reporting

So wait, you want to outlaw lying?
Good luck with that! Don't you know that "the truth" is subjective?
This is anathema to liberty and America! It is a known fact, the truth if you will, that those who win wars get to (re)write history. Take the war of northern aggression for example. The victors call it "the civil war" when one need only search Google and discover what a civil war entails to realize that that war was nothing of the sort.
(I can go on & on about this subject too and will happily get many of you pissed off on another thread if you like.)

Quote :

and shouting fire in a movie theatre

I won't accuse you of parroting (oh well maybe I just did!) But please, if you and I were watching a movie at the theater and I noticed there was a smoldering fire throwing up toxic gases from the burning seat cushions, would you prefer I keep that knowledge to myself? I've heard this excuse for tyranny many times in my 50+ years on earth yet when I ask for a defender, none appear.

Will you defend your statement?

Quote :

came to mind as areas where some common sense restrictions on free speech...)

Common sense is often neither.

Quote :

and I opposed the legalization of drugs for adults (or any other group for that matter).

Well of course you do!
(This is another thread I'd love to duel on!)

Quote :

My opposition to free international trade was the only non-libertarian answer for economic issues.

And since you posted it here you're willing to defend your position?

Quote :

If I didn't have some common sense, and if I didn't doubt the intelligence of so many others I'd be a libertarian -

I contend you have sense, but that your mind may be closed. I hope we can help you overcome this intellectual handicap you've chosen to wear!
(I say "we" because someone else put up the link to the quiz and never in my years of advocating have I seen a non-libertarian post that link. I know there's at least one other wacko-libertarian on this board.)

Quote :

but I know that some people have to be told to shut up and not do things that are bad for them

I have to ask this question: Who owns you?

Doc, I love it.

Spirited debate with intelligence to back it up!

I have an appointment that I must get to right now, but I look forward to thinking about and posting a reply!

I assure you that you won't get kicked by me! Truth be told, I was a bit surprised at the results - I've always been accused of being a libertairian except for my stance on drugs (and that stance is very personal in nature).

I look forward to replying to you.

deb

Sorry its taken me so long to reply.

Doc wrote:

Why? Probably has something to do with protecting The Children, right?

Deb wrote:

No, children will hear everything you try to protect them from - I just believe that as a matter of social propriety anyone who is allowed to venture out should be able to display basic good manners.

Of course they should but should we use force to make them?

Quote :

If there are places that obscene language is the norm, I can stay away from them, but no one should be accosted with bad language while walking down a public street. It's similar to my rights end where yours begin - I'm free to swing my fist and wail my arms until I do it too close to you and my fist or arm comes in contact with your body. If you are my neighbor, and we are both on our respective patios grilling - your right to free speech doesn't trump my right to enjoy the peace and quiet of my property. You are free to speak as many obscenities as you want as long as your sound waves don't connect with my ears.

I live in the county. My neighbors have large dogs. They bark. This barking is offensive to me but I moved to the county for the freedom I enjoy. I wouldn't dream of asking a gov't bureaucrat to do anything about the dogs because I know that when I ask government to curtail my neighbors rights I give tacit permission for him to curtail mine.

Deb wrote:

...incomplete truth in reporting

Doc wrote:

So wait, you want to outlaw lying?
Good luck with that! Don't you know that "the truth" is subjective?
This is anathema to liberty and America! It is a known fact, the truth if you will, that those who win wars get to (re)write history. Take the war of northern aggression for example. The victors call it "the civil war" when one need only search Google and discover what a civil war entails to realize that that war was nothing of the sort.
(I can go on & on about this subject too and will happily get many of you pissed off on another thread if you like.)

Quote :

I recognize that the victor writes the history. I also know that the media determines the battles and arguments that the rest of us will engage in. The "truth in reporting" statement was born of my own frustration after reading a story where many relevant facts were conveniently left out, and had the facts been accurately reported many would have reacted differently.

Oh well that's pretty typical of our "news" media. I don't think you can outlaw them nor do I think you should try. The proper and correct way to deal with businesses that don't sell a good quality product is to "vote" with your feet and refuse to do business with them any longer.

Deb wrote:

and shouting fire in a movie theatre

Doc wrote:

I won't accuse you of parroting...

Will you defend your statement?

Deb wrote:

The shouting fire (in the absence of a fire) in a crowded theatre was the example used in Oliver Wendell Holmes' supreme court opinion in a freedom of speech case. To shout fire when there is no fire could cause injury. The justices realized that no one had the right to create such mayhem in the name of free speech. If there really is a fire, you do have the freedom the scream fire in a crowded theatre. It is an example of having common sense defined through litigation. I don't use it as an excuse for tyranny, just as an example that each of us should display some modicum of common sense and good manners in order to protect the freedoms when it counts.

If any of us are allowed to use speech to incite riots or intentionally cause bodily harm we run the risk of having those freedoms reduced by law simply because we as a society were too stupid to know how the freedom should be used.

So if a citizens speech, words she speaks, cause listeners to take up pitchforks and run through the streets, this would be a crime?

Deb wrote:

I realize that common sense is not as prevalent as one would hope, that it cannot be taught and that we are surrounded by a shortage of it. I just haven't come to an opinion as to whether this sad fact is due to incomplete evolution, a shallow gene pool, some sort of electrical blip that interferes with brain synapses, or a scary trend. I do acknowledge that we are surrounded, but I'll be darned if I know what to do about it. Maybe we can develop a dietary supplement called "Common Sense", add all the disclaimers and make a million.

I think there are far too many laws on the books designed to protect us from our own stupidity.
By allowing bad genes to remain in the pool, we are collectively stupider than we should be.

Deb wrote:

and I opposed the legalization of drugs for adults (or any other group for that matter).

Doc wrote:

Well of course you do!
(This is another thread I'd love to duel on!)

Quote :

Start the topic, and I'll chime in.

OK. Why do I have a right to decide which medications you may or may not use to treat whatever malady you wish to treat?
If you have a mental or emotional problem, by what right can I decide which medication you may consider in your treatment?
Oh and speaking of the gene pool, if I'm stupid enough to want to shoot coke in the morning and chew peyote in the afternoon, why do you want me to reproduce? Just because you make it difficult for me to get my recreational substance of choice what makes you think I'll stop trying to buy it?

I understand your wanting a perfectly safe world, but it cannot be!
I lived in Miami in the 50's-90's. I have lost many, many friends to drugs!
I have seen drugs enforcement go from almost non-existent to the cluster-thing we have now. Back in the 70's a pound of good Mexican weed cost $160.00 and deals were done openly and peacefully. Nobody carried guns and we hippie-types were very anti-gun. But when the DEA started gearing up seriously, the price shot up & the players armed themselves and were no longer over-faired, long haired leaping gnomes, but were instead dangerous Colombians who soon realized that more money could be made with cocaine.
They used to bring it in in powdered (hydrochloride) form. But because the DEA was so busy, many large containers of product had to be dumped overboard and was lost when it got wet. being illegal is what made the profit so incredibly high and so they had to find a better way to bring it in. They realized that they could bring it in in its base form and refine it here. The base cocaine, it was later discovered, could be smoked. The addictive/dependent properties were so much more intense when the product was smoked, the powder cocaine industry dried up almost overnight and "crack" was born.
I offer this bit of history to demonstrate how making pot illegal devolved into the current crisis we have in America. It's really the same with the methamphetamine crises. I can recall when one could buy pharmaceutical "speed" from truckers and it was cheap. One needn't smoke it; One could simply buy it. There were "speed freaks" and one could buy "crank" on the streets, but there was no crises because enforcement was almost nil.
As the government raises the stakes and causes the prices to rise via the law of supply & demand, more entrepreneurs take more risks for more potential payoffs.

So how's the "war on some drugs" going?

Deb wrote:

My opposition to free international trade was the only non-libertarian answer for economic issues.

Doc wrote:

And since you posted it here you're willing to defend your position?

Quote :

My opposition on this issue is purely economical. Simple version: In any economy, whether local, national or global, equilibrium will be reached. Contrary to what many believe, that equilibrium will not be the result of other nations being raised to the standard of living enjoyed in the U.S. There will be some increase in the economies of poorer countries, but there will also be decreases in our standard of living. I've argued this for years, especially during the Clinton administration and the push for NAFTA.

You seem to be arguing for the concept of a zero-sum game.
Economics doesn't work like that. Please elaborate on this "equilibrium" you allege "will be reached." I'd settle for an example.

Deb wrote:

If I didn't have some common sense, and if I didn't doubt the intelligence of so many others I'd be a libertarian -

Doc wrote:

I contend you have sense, but that your mind may be closed. I hope we can help you overcome this intellectual handicap you've chosen to wear!

Deb wrote:

My mind isn't closed, but I don't deny the mental handicap.

Sounds like a cop-out; Your mind is sharp. My BS meter is peggin' lady.

Doc wrote:

(I say "we" because someone else put up the link to the quiz and never in my years of advocating have I seen a non-libertarian post that link. I know there's at least one other wacko-libertarian on this board.)

Quote :

I believe Abra started this thread - and believe it or not he and I agree on a lot of topics. I was merely pointing out the questions where I wasn't a pure Libertarian. On the issues mentioned, the ones that threw me into the "centrist" group, I was a conditional Libertarian.

Interesting guy this Abra...

Deb wrote:

but I know that some people have to be told to shut up and not do things that are bad for them

Only your children. We grown-ups, are born with inalienable rights, one of which is to not be enslaved by nannies and do-gooders.


I sed:
I have to ask this question: Who owns you?

Quote :

I own me, and should be allowed to make my own decisions until the decisions that I make infringe on the rights of others or transfer my responsibilities to someone else. An individual is free to have sex as long as they agree to be responsible for any children that they create. When one person's sexual activity creates a responsibility for someone not involved in having sex (society through public assistance, a grandparent etc.), that uninvolved party then has the right to restrict the sexual activity of the irresponsible parties.

Yeah ok, but if I want to walk down Gay street holding hands with a big hairy man, and even kiss him on the mouth in front of God and everybody, the sight might disgust you but I have the right to do it as much as I have the right to do the same with a pretty lady (of course my wife would probably take issue with both acts and I'm not too excited about partaking in either, especially the first!)

Quote :

I strongly support the notion of individual rights. I just adhere to the ideas that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin and that rights come with responsibilities. If you're unwilling to accept the responsibilities, you don't get to enjoy the right.

Yes, and in your perfect, safe world this is a nice idea, but the reality dictates that someone, likely a policeman with a gun, would have to enforce some law making it a crime to be irresponsible.

Doc,

I'm a little short of time right now, but this remark in particular was very interesting to me.

"I think there are far too many laws on the books designed to protect us from our own stupidity. By allowing bad genes to remain in the pool, we are collectively stupider than we should be."

Intellectually, I completely agree with this statement. I remember a discussion on another board where I adamantly defended the notion of natural selection or survival of the fittest. In all other species, nature allows for the most fit, most capable, most adaptable to live and breed while the weaker less adaptable die off. Humans, are less accepting of this idea, and protect the weak at the expense of the strong - thus perpetuating the weaknesses that would be eliminated by attrition in any other species. If I allow emotions to factor into my analysis of the statement, my resolve weakens - I do have sympathy for human suffering, and will have to give some thought as to whether that sympathy should outweigh logic in establishing a position that I can support without wavering. I will also have to do some soul searching to determine whether the "keeping" of the weaker members of the human race is the responsibility of society or the responsibility of the family. There are also some moral implications that I will have to come to terms with before spouting off my initial reaction. I will give it some thought.

"Sounds like a cop-out; Your mind is sharp. My BS meter is peggin' lady."


I really didn't mean to sound flip, or "cop-out". I was interjecting a little self deprecating humor relating to my mental faculties. Please explain the BS meter.......

I will get back to the other statements later.

I really like having discussions at this level. Thanks for the mental stimulation!

I'll let the thoughts of natural selection brew in your cranium until they're ripe.

A BS meter is a device that one uses to determine if another is bull shitting him or not.
Mine was pegged in that I thought you were doing the above.

I too am enjoying our intercourse and am anxious to read about your drug thoughts (not drugged thoughts though, thank you very much.)