Wednesday, October 05, 2005
I'm a free market shill
It seems as if everyone else is doing it, so I took the politics test that has been circulating around the net. Mmmm.... blog peer pressure.... As many others noted, I think the test actually did a good job of capturing my political outlook - libertarian and a massive free marketer - even if some of the questions were kinda squirrely.
You can take the test if you like at this site.
|
You can take the test if you like at this site.
| You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (93% permissive) You are best described as a:
|
Spakkadi also asked if one would be guaranteed a score of anarchist for "agreeing or strongly agreeing that consenting adults should be allowed to challenge each other to a duel and fight a death match" is a guarantee for an anarchist score, I'll note that I strongly agreed (seriously) and ended up a capitalist (it would also be broadcast on pay-per-view which made a big difference for me cause I wouldn't have approved if it was on public TV).
Explaining my answer, I don't think anyone should actually duel, death match style or otherwise. However, outlawing duels would enshrine my morals in law which I would rather not do (this is not to say that moralistic laws are not Constitutional, rather, they generally are, particularly at the state/local level). If the question had instead been worded as "consenting adults should challenge...", my answer would've been a resounding no.
Particularly when no one else is directly impacted, I would prefer that most societal questions be addressed by the community (for instance, I actually think gossip is a useful tool) which typically has greater local knowledge (I'm such a free marketer, that my inner Hayek couldn't be contained for even this short discussion) and greater flexibility for minor incidences than a system of one size fits all anonymously structured laws. Of course, my community-oriented approach only works as long as morals are maintained, hence my occasional railing against the declines in America's moral fiber.
And that's my complicated little moral/legal/Constitutional philosophy of death matches.
Explaining my answer, I don't think anyone should actually duel, death match style or otherwise. However, outlawing duels would enshrine my morals in law which I would rather not do (this is not to say that moralistic laws are not Constitutional, rather, they generally are, particularly at the state/local level). If the question had instead been worded as "consenting adults should challenge...", my answer would've been a resounding no.
Particularly when no one else is directly impacted, I would prefer that most societal questions be addressed by the community (for instance, I actually think gossip is a useful tool) which typically has greater local knowledge (I'm such a free marketer, that my inner Hayek couldn't be contained for even this short discussion) and greater flexibility for minor incidences than a system of one size fits all anonymously structured laws. Of course, my community-oriented approach only works as long as morals are maintained, hence my occasional railing against the declines in America's moral fiber.
And that's my complicated little moral/legal/Constitutional philosophy of death matches.
|
