This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Liberal Or Libertarian? Take The World's Shortest Political Quiz
Unsure of your political leanings? Then take this brief quiz and all will become clear...
Click image for link to take test...
LIBERTARIAN
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
»
- 34415 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I took this quiz and my phone started ringing.
The quiz seems to be leading the test taker to suggest Government sucks. Oh wait...
so to be a libertarian you have to support "free international trade" aka sending jobs overseas? I guess I'm out.
<-- I believe other people are my property.
<-- I don't believe other people are my property.
All other labels and "ism"s and whatever elses stem from the answer you make above.
It's all about getting us into that box isn't it?
I don't need your "Freedom of Choice"
I want "Freedom from your Choices".
If you had put this up Monday we may have done a touch better.
The Matrix sucks, so get used to it.
Anyway, Obunghole got a cork in it on Tues.
Unfortunately, it's not a threaded cork. His regime will be scorching earth hard core these last 2 years.
Edit: After getting booted off youtube, Surveillance Camera Man is back with part 8!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8e_1413271084
Two libertarian values conspicuously absent here are defending the borders, and maintaining a level playing field by scrupulous defense of the rule of law.
Barry, Moochelle, and Holder..., snow ball's chance in hell.
Who defines the borders?
Normally those with the most fire power
Will it take Conservatives 2 Years to Shut Down Zero Hedge ?!?
Will it take Conservatives 4 Years or more to Shut Down Zero Hedge ?!?
My One Question for Zero Hedge. TPTB, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and affiliates want to know.
¿Por qué hay fronteras?
these ZH "libertarian" threads are always entertaining - everyone wants to be a "Libertarian"
but the majority want to bend the rules.
so, tell me again dudes, how does Team Libertarian bend the above into their need for "fetal personhood"?
maybe a new, derivative term for "Libertarians" that modify some of the above, because.
y'know, for clarity's sake.
My son was born one month premature, so, was he an "ïndividual" deserving of protection of his civil liberties?
He's sixteen now.
/////
Well, you asked for clarity ;-)
you state that your son was "born" - I'm guessing he made it past the instant "fetal personhood" test, which occurs when a zygote - sperm meets egg - "begins" - from then on, it belongs to the State.
or so they "hope". . . the meme is evolving quickly, gaining speed down that slippery slope, been kept alive almost 30 years now.
quite the "Repub" agenda, hmm.
edit: only 3 downvotes? yer slippin' guys - although the zero arguments is pretty standard by now. . ."Libertarian" with certain reservations. . .
"...from then on, it belongs to the State."
I'm not used to downing you (and I can prove it if you doubt me on your first comment) Cat but you deserve this one, my son does not belong to any state and I don't know who "they" are but he's being raised by us to suspect the state.
But you must tell me, since you brought this up (again)...do you have any children?
your reading comprehension skills are for shit tonight nmewn.
try reading both my comment, and your reply - I'm talking about the Red Team's game to create new laws via "FETAL PERSONHOOD" Constitutional Amendments.
not children, yours or anyone else's.
downvote away tho' - y'know I love those anonymous lack of arguments. . .
I read it Cat, what constitutional amendement are you talking about?
And you didn't answer the question.
lol. right.
Sanctity of Life Act - note the dates, and Ron Paul's name, and how the rhetoric is added upon as they go. . .
here's Rand Paul's Sanctity of Life upgrade, from his campaign site.
here's another numpty, Paul Ryan on "fetal personhood" - and a quote from yet another Repub, Paul Broun (what is it with these "pauls"??),
as you can hopefully see, this is a long-term agenda, the Paul family is obviously aware and supportive of it, and I cannot believe folks still call this
libertarian.
voters. sheesh!
I'm out of here, have fun. oh, no kids, considered choice. no partners who desired children, obviously. plenty of friend's kids to share. . .zero regrets.
deleted
FUCK YOU.
You act like you cherish freedom, but you are just a stupid fuck. Why would you trash libertarians just because of your one stupid pet probllem? You sound like a stupid feminist nazi.
Some people think personhood should be codified- you disagree- you have a pet cause that you think is so much more important than other peoples' concerns.
You say that the government will use nanobots to track women's menstrual cycles. Thanks for helping society by being worried about utter nonsense. (Let's not outlaw murder, because if we do the government will use nanobots to track us and make sure we aren't murdering.)
God you are a fucky fucker!
I dare you to not vote for Hillary you psycho.
I really do think you probably have mental problems- you are a scary mother fucker. Some sort of weird ass libertarian you are, who thinks the scariest part of mainstream libertarianism is there may be support for codifying personhood. Perhaps a libertarian is one who can kill with impunity, whomever one chooses? Hmmmm. Is that what you think?
Not to belabor the point, PSYCHO!
Hey dipshit, CA doesn't live in the US.
LOLUMADBRO?
thanks for this, it's been a while since I got such a great list of labels. . .
lessee - "stupid fuck feminist nazi fucky fucker psycho scary mother fucker weird ass libertarian PSYCHO" - not bad! you left out "progressive" and "anarchist" tho, try & weave 'em in next time!
aye, not bad for someone who has never voted, not once, who mocks "libertarians" because they've yet to agree on a simple definition that can be applied to their wish list, who doesn't need "feminism" because I don't gender my reality, as culture demands. I agree that I can be considered "scary" tho' - thanks!
in your tiny-box'd mind, there is a war going on, your opinions are duking it out, and your labels are winning the fight.
see ya wouldn't want to be ya!
Just because you don't apply labels to yourself doesn't mean they don't apply to you. Clearly, you understand this as well because from what I could gather from the baffling exchange above, you believe that anyone who is anti-abortion cannot be called a libertarian.
Its even worse than that, that what grows inside can be thought of as a foreign object, like a splinter in the toe or a tumor in the intestine instead of what it really is, meant to de-humanize the fetus.
And then turn on a dime and speak of war and inhumanity, no matter what the war is fought over. Violently killing an aggressor who cannot be stopped by any other means is no crime.
I don't know if the issue can ever be remedied to everyones satisfaction, the mother and her rights to her own body and the babies rights that only she can truly fully protect AND the males respectful responsibilities to both as the father and protector, the baby is half his.
And one thing about it, Margaret Sanger was no Libertarian.
My ex and I were forced to take an unpleasant decision.
Unintended pregnancy while I was taking Methotrexate for Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Potential for DEVASTATING birth defects.
Don't judge, until you've been there.
I have been there, so I can judge.
Yes, my life would have changed but it was still wrong, it was..."inconvenient" at the time, sad for me to admit. She (not Mrs.N) was six months along. I (we) took the easy way out.
The death of our own child, I live with it constantly the only way I can, to say it was wrong then and way too easy to anyone who will listen.
Thats all I'll say about it.
You'll notice I capitalized something.
Convenience never came into the equation.
"convenience" no, but compassion for all involved was evident.
pretty sure you know my comment below isn't aimed at any of your comments here, but a sensitive subject prompts me to be absolutely clear.
peace.
I noticed. No harm, no foul.
Just sharing.
while I honestly empathise with most stories told here, I wish people were able to separate personal histories from supporting Constitutional Amendments to limit the body sovereignty of human individuals - in this case, female humans of menstrual age.
the issue is one of allowing government to control female fertility, which is obviously control of the BODY, as a monthly cycle creates the "possibility" of zygote forming every four weeks.
the only logical way to ENFORCE this desired Law is by monitoring a female from the time of onset of menses until menopause. with the desire to ENFORCE "health care" on everyone, it doesn't take much imagination to see how MANDATORY .gov "health care" could use nano-technology (already moving right along, thankyou) to "monitor" whatever the hell they like.
this Sanctity of Life volleyball has been kept airborne for almost thirty years by various funda-mental Repubs, and they're still going strong - no one worries?
and 'splain to me please how this desire fits into a "libertarian" philosophy?
At the risk of being trivial, the tag line from the movie Spiderman comes to mind..."With great power comes great responsibility"...which immediately makes me suspect that (the confirmed nefarious) Statism favors negating responsibility from all parties so that they may subvert the greatest power there is, which lies within women themselves...procreation.
Lacking control of LIFE PRODUCTION (although attempted to date by the incipiently corralled gaming of the 'Pro Choice' v. 'Pro Life' pro wrestling side show) is one of the greatest threat vectors to State tyranny.
'Tis the lifeblood of the eugenics threat that attacks us all by stealth...
Real Pro Choice (aka Anti-Slavery) is having the freedom and resources to choose Life in preparation to continue the war AGAINST the forces of DEATH. Traditonal 'Pro Life', I suspect, inherently recognizes the sanctity of this struggle by default.
Wow there's a pretzel and a half of tortured logic.
This matter is one of simple ignorance (like a lot of things), people who are 'pro life' are simply ignorant as all hell. I'm sure they mean well but it's an ABHORRENT position.
The 'logic' is only tortured because you see it from your twisted programmed Statist perspective.
Imagine that government resources provided for Birth Control (for which they have inserted abortion as a contraception technique) were in fact directed by a eugenics network that serve a (your) government that is very far from a representative of the people...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eu...
"The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” (“A Plan for Peace,” 1932).
In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger revealed: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”
This line of thinking from its founder has left lasting marks on the legacy of Planned Parenthood. For example, 79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic communities.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.
y'know palmereldritch, I can simplify this for you/others.
if you have a womb, you get to make decisions and accept the consequences of your decisions with regards your womb.
if you have a penis, you get to make decisions and accept the consequences of your decisions with regards your penis.
when the penis-bearers attempt to control the womb-bearers, then we have a patriarchy in Force. and we get all kinds of fairy-tales to justify that Force - patriarchal religions, nationstates, wars, invasions, deaths. this is the "story" part of "history". endless cultural myths to justify the thefts, degradations, exploiting, misery.
surrender the illusion of control.
For the record I am pro-liberty (be they a penis-bearer or a womb-bearer) and most importantly pro-creation*.
*And not a Creationist!....love that canard of the polemic...
time for a little more herstory?
Bull Fucking Shit. The protection of the unborn has nothing to do with infringing on womens rights or privacy. Women (unless they are raped) choose to get pregnant or choose to play semen roulette. Libertarianism at its core is that we are responsible for our choices and the results of our choices and that our rights only unlimited until we infringe on the rights of others. That includes the rights of unborn children as they are not our chattel to dispose of when their existence is an inconvenience to us.
By the same token if the existence of that unborn infringes on the mothers life (such as ectopic pregnancy) then the mother has the right to take reasonable action to protect her life. That is Libertarian philosophy in action.
Yes, he has rights.
Nick Gillespie says that about a quarter of Reaon's readers are pro-life because they belive in the rights of the unborn baby.
I am in that camp.
Yes, he has rights.
Nick Gillespie says that about a quarter of Reaon's readers are pro-life because they belive in the rights of the unborn baby.
I am in that camp.
as someone whose pulled a 14 week old out of a toilet. ill tell you it looks like a [tiny human] baby by then... not against abortion esp for reasons discussed by others below. but dont fucking kid yourself about what youre doing
I take it, you're unimpressed with pollsters asking loaded, asinine questions...lol.
Like, do you support legalization of marijuana? Yes or no.
If you answer no, you are a slack jawed nenderthal rethuglican by their measure. If you answer yes, you are an ignorant statist willing to be taxed by the state for growing and consuming a simple plant by my measure.
Interesting dynamic, yes? ;-)
Legalize it? NO. De-criminalize it? YES.
Decriminalize ALL edicts of government.
Of course the control freaks will go absolutely crazy.
Legalisation doesn't necessarily mean taxation and regulation.
If I can grow it, why should anyone have any say in the matter.
Back to that government thing again.
y'know what I love,
that a "state" can de-criminalise this plant that anyone can grow easily, and the Feds can still swoop in, confiscate everything including kids toys, under "forfeiture laws".
that, and the transparent hand-wringing of what once was a "dangerous Class drug" but gets a re-branding as long as they get their skim.
so. very. obvious.
Well, in TWDLand pot has never been criminalised to begin with...
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law” - Henry David Thoreau
CA, let's simply conclude that any 'government' can't challenge 'better than piss poor' in superlatives.
"End government barriers to international free trade"
"Defend the borders"
So let me get this straight, we want to be able to continue to exploit the labor and resources of other countries, then build siege walls to keep those serfs out? Who actually "defends" those barriers?
Damn, the first Filemaker ad on this page was so big, I originally thought it was part of the article.
Ad Block Plus
Never run without it.
Look, real quick... I do know about this:
Get Firefox.
Get ABP
Get NoScript
You will never go back.
Don't forget Ghostery. I use it instead of NoScript.
Been hearing more and more about it.
No doubt its good too.
Some people swear by it.
I just havent used it much, so I cant really reccommend it.
I'd avoid running both NoScript and Ghostry.. Do one or the other.
Try Hitman Pro if you have a malware issue.
In his first Presidential campaign, Ron Paul said his pledge was to keep the government out of your bedroom, your medicine cabinet, and your wallet.
but not your womb.
he knows his audience, as does his son.
gotta love the new amrkn political dynasties - it's almost like punters can't handle any more new names, just ones they "remember".
Ron Paul's position on abortion is that it should not be a Federal matter. Abortion is an excellent wedge issue for the idiots and the sheep who don't have a fucking clue what liberty means.
have you read up on the decades of pushing the Sanctity of Life Constitutional Amendments? are you at all aware of how they "evolve" as each new Red Team dude slavers at the chance to run for head of the class?
because "not a Federal matter" doesn't even BEGIN to describe the repeatedly proposed "bill".
low information voters, and Paul family fan boys abound. . .
Fuckheads will tolerate, nay, welcome and embrace at total fucking police state so long as they have the wonderous liberties of abortion and gay marriage. Get some fucking perspective, man.
agreed. this is a distraction issue. I am personally pro life, but there are far more important things to be talking worried about. This is one of those issues that is very devisive, and the reason its discussed so often is that it, along with gay marriage, are among the 'safe' debates to have. The proles can argue this until they are blue in the face, and it keeps them from waorrying about things like our looming insolvency, the fed, endless warfare, and the fact that they are getting raped by both parties.
ponder this Carl.
you have zero control over any of that "incoming" in your short list.
all you have "control" over is your mind's perspective as reality happens through you.
I'm offering up one perspective to counter the illusion of "nation state" - merely a concept to challenge the narrative - I'm simply pointing to an obvious (to some) glitch in the matrix you believe to be "real". I'm not "taking a side" - I'm holding open a door.
but you have to see the door in order to utilise it.
you can continue to see this as a little wedge issue - body sovereignty for half the population - because you have the luxury of not being the target of this police state action, masquerading in the guise of "for teh babies". yet.
this is how culture works for the State. it's always been about control of the resources. I am simply aware of the FACT that those who write your scripted lives see YOU and I as resources, human resources.
and so their desire to control the means of reproducing their human resources, is most obvious to me.
you? you "believe" you're free because they nudge you into your traditional roles of cultural policing of their human resources - you get to mock, and bully, and keep folks in line - you get to uniform up and go kill folks in other lands for resources and drugs, you get to feel like you're "in control" of your life.
it's their illusion you're buying into. their scripted nation-stories, their FatherGod religions, all of it keeps you believing YOU are chosen to maintain their story. and some of you find that enough to live for.
*shrug*
Sweet.
Ultimately government makes the best case for Libertarianism.
“Avoid teams at all cost. Keep your circle small. Never join a group that has a name.”
? George Carlin
I wouldn't make people my property...
Unless I got a really good deal.
Do you have a wife?
Is she YOUR wife?
How about YOUR kids?
(Of course they are HERS when they misbehave. MY SON WOULD NOT DO THAT.)
And I will bet that you got a good deal.
I was going to simplify.
Government is the solution?
Government is the problem?
Occam's Razor and all that.
people who desire government is a problem.
as long as "leaders" are desired, "followers" will result.
I believe other people are my property.
<-- I don't believe other people are my property.
All other labels and "ism"s and whatever elses stem from the answer you make above.
Are they YOUR children?
Is she YOUR wife?
Doesn't that imply ownership?
It is not that simple.
I said disagree to "end government barriers to international free trade" and still ended up libertarian in the quiz results.
You just felt like bashing libertarians is all.
down arrowed you for voting.
So showing .gov that the Libertarian movement is growing is worse than hanging out online and bitching?
Makes sense that we are where we are.
I got the same score but I am not a Libertarian.
Perhaps Libertarians may agree with me most.
But I am more of a Sovereign Citizen in my Political Philosophy.
I have one ruler and that is God Almighty.
I place no faith in World Governments whatsoever.
I operate on the code of the Bible.
I do not do this to follow the Law, or because I have to, as I am saved by Grace and only if God sees it fit.
I do it out of love for my Heavenly Father as I know that it pleases Him as I do not deserve the reward.
But I will not demand that others do that. That is between them and God and not my affair.
Now of course anyone can downarrow this if they want. I expect that the atheists will.
But I am just demonstrating that the test only gives you an indicator of what Political Party you may agree with. The test does not identify you as a member or affiliate of that party.
Tom, for our sake I hope that God is not as ruthless a judge as you :)
Yes, which is why I don't identify as Libertarian even though I share many of that particular label's values. Free trade = globalization = serfdom. We've all heard the giant sucking sound.
Not taking long for the liberals to invade this thread I see.
So I am a liberal? I favor the 2nd amendment, want to do away with the NSA (completely), want to shrink government, cut back the MIC, cut back welfare (it is a system used to create a compliant class of welfare recipients), do away with Obamacare which is an insurance company giveaway, prosecute the banks for fraud, END THE FUCKING FED. And that's to name a few. Care to discuss the merits of offshoring?
Yes, LTER, you let them discover your dark secret.
Scarlet "L" for you.
Burn the liberal!
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people (including ZH posters) want to label everyone. I guess it is a fuckload easier than debating actual issues. That's what I miss about the old ZH. You didn't see this kind of shit where everyone just starts throwing around the liberal/progressive/socialist babble without a thought.
The ZH peanut gallery was never uniformly rational, but it's become quite stupid of late, as well.
Na-na boo boo, you fucker!
ZH from two years ago was fun, if not rational. I remember getting into a lot of "no, go fuck yourself!" discussions, but at least it was on substance. Now it's largely just name calling and liberal this, progressive that. Which is why I refer to the new version as the Zero Drudge report. Same level of conversation in many threads.
I'm with you 100%.
Kind of frustrated.
@ LTER Corporations are creations of government and the grossly misnamed free trade laws are negotiated by governments under regulatory capture of corporations. Maybe some day you will understand that.
Whatever you claim you are, you are still an inveterate control freak and government lover. But then, so are libertarians.
Libertarians are optimists who think that a little bit of cancer is better than no cancer or that adding one gallon of drinking water to 100 gallons of sewage gives you sewage, but adding one gallon of sewage to 100 gallons of drinking water gives you drinking water.
BRING BACK THE MATH CAPTCHA!
Why?
You can just voluntarily quit posting.
As if.
Do you have anything of substance to say?
Sure. I don't see anything from you though that isn't a regurgitation of old, failed beliefs from some like-minded useless idiot.
Work for government?
CAPTCHA!
CAPTCHA!
CAPTCHA!
Anusocracy
you may want to check your meds
Yup,
They wouldn't use infantile terms like Drudgites.
Dey gots dem post election blues.
BWAHAHAHA
Fuckin' Drudge-ite.
BRING BACK THE SIMPLE MATH CAPTCHA; IT WOULD TOTALLY PREVENT THESE MORONS FROM COMMENTING!
Have you ever read the comment section from a Drudge linked article?
If you bothered to observe, the article is about labels.
The article is about these cute little titles for ideas, not labels. You can't label a person like that, because not one person is like another.
Totally absurd comment.
There may yet be hope for you.
I've been saying the same thing for a long, long time. But I don't follow every scripture and when I vary from the lines, I get labeled a liberal. Go figure. Do you know what Dennis Kucinich stands for ? Do you know that he and Ron Paul stood together (and almost alone) on their desire to audit the Fed?
*I* think you're a Libertarian, as I thought Ayn Rand, and myself. Perhaps definitions can vary ..
Just don't get him started on the Walton family and their unearned Walmart inheritance.
You got me started. This is one of the areas where I greatly diverge from Libertarians. Being born to dynastic wealth = royalty. I have no problem with passing on something to one's heirs, but the idea that someone can and should inherit billions of dollars is antithetical to a free society. Yes, this is a form of socialism to restrict inheritance to some level or another, but it is the price for a free society not ruled by the sons and daugthers of billionaires. We are seeing right now what society reaps when it allows such things.
Snore!
I guess a society based on individual merit is only for the fiction books, eh?
You're such a Debbie Downer.
It's not individual merit, when you start taking things away from people, no matter the reason. It just encourages the destruction of capital when larger firms have to get broken up to satisfy that demand.
"It just encourages the destruction of capital when larger firms have to get broken up to satisfy that demand. "
Bullshit. No capital need be 'destroyed' or firm 'broken up'.
It's called an IPO, or in the case of a massive/controlling block of a public company, a secondard offering.
But, it was a nice republicanesque attempt to frame the argument for total fools.
There is stolen wealth and earned wealth.
A person with stolen wealth wrongfully possesses it and should be deprived of it.
A person who earned their wealth rightfully possesses it and should be able to use it as they see fit.
Thieves in and out of government don't obtain their wealth through merit.
LTR - Inheritance taxes = theft. Don't steal. The Govt hates competition.
The government is largely controlled by the people who inherited. They have set up a system that benefits themselves, because they have the money to put politicians into power who will do so for them. So we get no change with elections, while Libertarians cry foul at the idea of putting them out of the business of fixing elections. But simple slogans are easier to digest.
I get it but the idea of inheritance taxes is an anathma. TPTB can easily avoid them and the people who get hit with the "law" are the only true threat to TPTB. Which is the only reason these taxes exist.
For this problem, dynastic families who promote their agenda by accumulated wealth, the real solution is something you said upthread - end the fed. The fed enables all of this nonsense. End it and the moocher billionaires will turn into moocher millionaires then they turn into busted out nobodies.
Whether ending the Fed would fix the problem is up for debate, but it would be a huge start and I would happily cast my vote for the first mainstream politician who advocated for it, even if he swore never to touch inheritance. And yet no one in mainstream politics is talking about. In part, because the wealthy royalty who inherited money won't allow it.
And there you have it hermano - the politicians are currupted and will never take this path (end the fed) without a sea chnage. You imply/say directly the money is what moves them. This is part of it but how do you account for those who have so much money that a tripling of their holdings means zero change in their life? The string pullers at the top have this level of wealth and they don't care about money anymore. They are the tax receivers! Taxing them is a no go. They are beyond the reach of taxes. Beware supporting stalking horse motions (inheritance taxes) that never touch the true enemy.
End the fed and cut off their vampire blood supply.
Man,
You gotta get past that Elected have power concept.
They DON'T.
Its the Bureaucrats, Bankers and Families who have already gained the levels of power that you are trying to prevent others from gaining.
Consider that by stripping the young of their inheritance you are potentially weakening the upcoming young Turks who might have the moxie to buck the old guard?
If we strip them of resources, their efforts might be less effective if they choose that path.
The Bankers and Families are the ones with power, I agree. Who in the last 50 years meets your definition of one of that class who bucked the system? I can name 100 who control it.
JFK?
Ross Perot, who saw that video Bill Hicks talked about and decided to go home
I think Perot was self-made. Could be wrong and feel free to correct me. I voted for the guy so I should know, but I don't.
My issue is not with self-made billionaries. It's with their offspring and the dynastic wealth effect.
Eugene McCarthy. He was against Vietnam War and was on the Left... after either Jack or Bobby got killed he came out as on the Right, supporting the Right, and pissed off his constituents by getting out of politics.
That is what I got from Wikipedia though.
Perot had a great story with his Iran Hostage rescue Narrative. I think he tried to spread integrity through out his organization.
Ross Perot was a criminal. He made his money by theft and fraud. I am old enough to remember reading the indictments in the papers.
Ross Perot - for whatever he is and however he made his dough: he is not a Georgia Guidestone guy, not a Bushie, not a Kennedy Killer. Never heard him dreaming about world govt, thousand points of light, etc. Never heard him praising the NWO.
He said 50.. So JFK is out.
Ross is good.
John McAfee
Goldwater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Bingo. That's the only one I know, and many here don't even like him. Either way, what happened to him?
Carter did - after.
That's why as an anti-abortion rights Catholic I say he's the only living president in posession of a human soul.
I think Carter was self-made, too (like Perot), but again I could be wrong. But you're right -- Carter bucked the system.
There's real money in peanut subsidies.
"JFK? "
JFK is actually a classic example of the elitist inheritor/dynastic class oligarch.
I suppose that JFK made his brother Atty. General becasue he was by far the very best person in the entire fucking country for the job and not because the whole point of inherited leadership/oligarch caste systems is inbreeding, old boy's networks, consolidation of power, etc..?
Am I the only one who is sick of hearing idiots who can't unlearn their bogus grade school 'Camalot' indoctrination mythology spout nonesense about the fallen puppet-king?
"The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
Thomas Jefferson
Thats a pretty persuasive statement.
Its not the money that worries me; it's the power and influence it can buy.
So, you can't imagine stripping people of their monies? Can You?
I'd say put restrictions on them funding any kind of political efforts with it.
But some slick ass lawyer would creep around it somehow...
So, If you decide stripping monies from young billionairs is the appropraiate path to take...
I'm pretty sure you could find a few posters on here willing to assist with the liberation of assets.
Pure Evil?
Steal all you want, it's free for the taking.
So you're okay with de facto royalty? Royalty by definition was carried on from generation to generation via inheritance.
No. Not at All. I don't like the dynastic characteristics that have developed over my lifetime.
It's just that I'm Less OK with taking money from someones Family using the power of the State.
I get it, and that's my problem with Libertarians. You are focused on the overarching principle that people should be left alone. If someone dies and wants to leave $10B to his kids, let him. The problem is that when you leave oligarchs alone, they take over and rule you. They decide who your candidates are in every election. As evidenced by today. It's a complicated problem that does not lend itself to black and white ideological solutions.
Yeah I get your point.
If we pass a law, it won't be used to take a bite out of the oligarchs.
It will be used to squeeze every dime out of the middle class possible.
Reducing down any accumulated wealth by every generation until gone.
The Fat Cats will still be FAT and the middle class will be reduced to the common proletariat in 3 generations.
Don't build the trap for them...
Following the thread and about inheritance money and ideologies that become doctrine pieced together by some person or group... Our Culture is failing since our Education is unequal & people are unequal ... and the rules are failing. And Wealth covers up the problems. Like the spoiled who inherit. Extreme Wealth and Extreme Compensation seem to be both places where Corruption takes hold... as Extreme Compensation is really a rape of the system or the corporations or of Investors or it is a monopoly.
US Constitution with it's Amendments was supposed to be the place where we refined our common laws and doctrine.
Maybe I miss the mark a little. The founders were trying out ideas to establish a government not an ideology. Maybe we need to be able to guard the US Constitution, and even hold it up even higher in public. Opening a constitutional convention... people bring this up as a fearful thing.
26th Amendment Ratified July 1, 1971
Humans will create fraud and need regulations and structure. Exchange Markets don't work without regulations. This seems like a weak point of Libertarians ideology. 2008 Financial Crisis proves that we need Regulations and Justice Systems.
28th Amendment should be to get either money & gift giving out of politics... or get Lawyers & Bankers out of Politics.
Maybe Libertarianism is just over development of normal conservative base ideas.
The spoiled Americans, the very left, the very Liberal... that could be organized crime, mental weakness, humanitarian values, or communism if not stupidity about accounting or bookkeeping. You can't explain Obama's Spending... any other way.
Yeah, I get all that.
I'm saying that any laws enacted to correct the issue(s) will only be applied to those without the power to fight them.
Corruption is the problem.
Lack of proper maintenance of the system is what has caused it.
Some things just can't be reconstructed once they get past a certain point of decay.
This Nation is one of those things.
I don't like it.
I'm not gonna burn myself up worrying about it.
Masterful inactivity saves lives.
yes. Auditing, monitoring, tracking, funding staff levels for auditing, and making sure funding levels are appropriate... these are things that are done in real follow through by real executives...
whether public or private executives.
What you say is true. Reading a little on Jefferson's thoughts, contemplating this and growing up a bit has changed my thinking on this point.
Yeah, is a government that has the power to strip the oligarch kids of billions going to listen more to you with your ten dollar donation or the oligarch with a hundred million who can mobilize all his workers and economic influence?. It is the leftist dilemma. All the good people have to end up in government for this to work...and still not be corrupted by their absolute power.
Most wealthy families lose all their money by the third generation. Do you really think Paris Hilton is capable of carrying on the family fortune and becoming an oligarch?
How do you even get oligarchs apart from government power? I do not see the Walton family giving me speeding tickets, raising my property taxes or asking the NSA what my favorite porn sites are to blackmail me. I see nice government people doing that. It is nice government people that keep former leftist Democrat governor Jon Corzine, wealthy and free while his free market clients went broke. Should we confiscate all the Corzine inheritance money when he dies? Might be fair in this instance but will not happen will it? He should be in jail making nice new license plates but he is not. See paragraph !.
"I do not see the Walton family... "
Now do you actually see Jon Corzine doing any such thing.
Nor Mike Bloomberg.
Nor Warren Buffett.
Nor George Soros.
Nor the Koch Bros.
Nor Carl Icahn.
Etc.......
BUT, ALL of these people have their hands on the levers of power through their inordinate wealth which they do not even need and cannot really even dispose of in spending/consumption in any manner that is reasonable.
These 'capitalists' don't even need their vast fortunes in the sense of capital to build or acquire production as they have access to credit in amounts that are astronomical and unavailable to those without previously purchased political influence..
They ARE the hands that choose how the political puppets and their legions of praetorians and bureaucrats act against YOU.
No, they are not the hand of power and that is where you simpletons get it wrong. They are the ones who feed the crocodile hoping they can tame it but the crocodile still has all the teeth, even if it let's them borrow the teeth.
As far as I know the Koch brothers fund libertarian causes to kill the crocodile.
The State owns the guns, the police forces, the monitoring equipment, the real law, the national purse under the ruse of legitimacy.
Want to disempower all those people you list? Disempower the government. If there are no taxes there are no tax breaks. If there are no subsidies there is no public money to get. Specifically disallow bail outs...or better yet, do an enumerated powers document. Cannot do anything not listed on the document. Some day someone will think of this, I tell you.
You are the perfect conspiracy theorist. By the fact you don't see the things I mention it is proof they really happen behind the scenes in private. If those things happen we should see their finger prints. Every time I go to the DMV to do my civic duty and register, license and pay the taxes on my car there is no Carl Icahn representative there.
Even if you were right...the solution is still the same. Disempower the government. Let's agree on that. Then we break into the super secret documents and minutes of their last conspiracy meeting to see if you were right.
The end of competition is monopolies, duopolies, cartels, and royal families.
Kind of what we have right now.
Which is why I'm not sure that some of these jackasses really understand the implications of "protecting liberty" quite as much as they think they do.
Really, most people just want more stuff.
If you earned your wealth, passing it on is a right.
If you stole it off the backs of others, that's a different thing altogether.
The financial system that most of us suffer under is in the latter category.
Divine Right of Kings
That's why there's never an atheist monarch!
I agree, although one could view Russian communists as monarch-like.
Bakunin certainly did.
I wish you were a liberal.
That would mean there was a shift in the paradigm and possible hope.
Used to be lots of Democrats that had your views, not many Liberals.
Nowadays the Liberals are harmless compared to the serious Progressives.
How's that for some label slinging?
Look, all I want for Christmas is for some Meat Curtains to be hanging off my Curtain Rod.
Haha..
Go gift yourself.
All I want is a break from that shit!
Dehydrated.
Sorry, Lady Gaga already bought them
I prefer to think with my other head.