Slashdot Mirror

"We should create a new republican party. Where we actually, you know. Believe republican things."

For the United States, there is a an easy 20 question quiz that is called "The World's Smallest Political Quiz. http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html". Two million people have taken the quiz and sometimes the results are quite shocking for the test taker.

Man, I'm politically interested in a Republican from Texas. That's scary.

What's this?! The great hacker god Eric Raymond is not in this list?!

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them- the-code
http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/suit.html
http://www.self-gov.org/celebrities/images/eric-ra ymond2.jpg
http://pepelucho.blogsome.com/images/eric_raymond. jpg
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos086.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/sexy.htm l

Your terms and axes are a bit off, at least relative to normal usuage.

Right generally *is* equated to Conservative (with Left equated to Liberal). The second axis... the one you call "Libertarian-Conservative"... is usually called Libertarian-Statist or Libertarian-Authoritarian. Someone can be a Conservative Libertarian, just as one can be a Liberal Libertarian.

Take a look at this Animated GIF 2 axis diamond and/or this 2 axis square.

Anyone curious about where they are on the 2 axis map can try this quicky 10 question quiz or this more detailed 40-odd question quiz.

-

For a good example, and a self-test to see where you lie on the plane, have a look here

I don't think it will be the Democrats. They feed off of the current system as stronly as the Republican Party.

Most /. posters seem to me to be Libertarian (disclaimer: I am), but they don't know it. Here's a brief statement of the party's agenda:

1. Minimal Government Control of Markets
2. Minimal Government Control of Personal Rights

Jefferson said "That government is best, which governs least." The moral complement to this is: If you desire a freedom for yourself, you cannot prevent anyone else from having that same freedom.

Check it out at their website.

We "do your own thing" hippies are actually libertarians. For example, Melanie is a Libertarian as documented here. Often the radical left is mistaken for hippies as can, superficially, look similar. However, the radical left follows this guy, and this guy, and this guy. Those guys are the antithesis of "do your own thing".

No, "rational libertarians" would NOT agree.

In both personal and business dealings, libertarians believe private individuals should be allowed to discriminate upon any basis they choose in regard to deciding with whom they will associate. However, when it comes to a public institution, which is funded by taxpayers, they do not believe such discrimination should be permitted.

IIRC, Goldwater didn't care if there were gays in the military. But if someone didn't want to hire one, that would be their business - not Uncle Sam's. It is the gubblement that could not discriminate. What we have today is the opposite (wrt Marriage too).

We say that if discrimination exists then that discrimination creates an opportunity for an entrepreneur.

Shouldn't a person have an inalienable right to rent an apartment or be employed regardless of sex preferences, etc.?

The existence of multiple factions (a true point of yours) does not trump basic tenants. You do not know the basic tenants

Being libertarian does mean I don't think people should be held accountable for their actions, if anything I believe greater accountability is the only way to achieve greater freedom.

If that "accountability" is by the government in areas that did not involve a violation of fundamental, "negative" rights (e.g., not getting murdered, not having your property stolen), then you are not a libertarian. Plain and simple. You are not even mostly libertarian. In fact, you are not even a little libertarian.

A beer belly does not make a dude a "little pregnant".

With respect to (WRT) immigration, you may find room for debate but I doubt it. Here is a start for your research: first link supports you - yeah!

I have been reading the political literature of various pro-freedom thinkers for 17 years. Most of it is theory and often it is decades old. It used not to be the case that immigration would be equated with higher taxes due to health care and schooling. If the government stuck to its proper role, that would not be a concern. You probably support universal health care or universal insurance (same thing) or employee-funded mandatory insurance (more or less, same thing again), and I bet you are in favor of tax-payer-funded schools too.

OK, I'm just being an arse here, I know that the definition of "liberal" has been warped in the states, but I've never understood how this new political definition came about; socialist things are always attributed to the "liberals".

Well, as you probably know, 'liber' is Latin for 'free'. It's a pretty generic word, and a positive one; who wouldn't want to be called pro-freedom? (regardless of the fact that nowadays 'liberal' is used pretty negatively by many people, they won't usually claim to be against freedom)

But in politics, there are two big issues that have to do with freedom - free markets, and personal freedom. Someone who is against state intervention in the economy (for freedom) may still feel that drugs should be strictly controlled, or that only straight people should be allowed to marry (against freedom).

What's generally known as the political "left" is a group of ideas that's slightly more on the side of personal freedom, and slightly less on the side of free markets; and the political right is for a free economy and not as much for personal freedoms. In Europe, the right-wing version is called "liberal", in the US the left wing version is called "liberal".

There's a well known webpage with the "world's smallest political quiz" that illustrates this.

Myself, I'm extremely for personal freedom, and for free markets, but I do believe that state intervention is necessary to keep them as free as possible. In ways, I'm much more of a free market madman than most on the political right - I believe that things like global warming can only be solved by means of the free market, and that to make that possible people and companies should be responsible for cleaning up their own CO2, by being forced by government to be CO2 neutral (if you're not, government would cleanup your CO2 output for you, but you will personally get the bill, and they're inefficient as heck). That way the free market would drive companies to clean production methods quickly, and people would pick the cleaner method by voting with their wallets. Free markets can solve a lot, we just need to apply them with more consistency.

Dude, everyone knows that guns aren't at all dangerous. I mean, even swimming pools are more dangerous than guns.

Your whole response just shows how misguided you are. Lots put downs but no substance. Not even recognition of what goes on in the world around them.

Or maybe, just maybe it's because kids have parents who don't raise them right. Maybe, just maybe we should point the cold finger of blame upon those who have the most influence in their upbringing, those who tell their kids, implicitly or explicitly, that some people don't deserve equal freedoms.

It is obvious that you do not have kids, or you are one of those who are not raising them right. I know from experience that the liberal controlled public school system is doing their best to indoctrinate children into their (liberal) way of thinking. For example, gun control is high on the liberal agenda. Today liberally controlled government schools are teaching our children that the Second amendment does not appply to individuals. They are being taught that the right to bear arms belongs to the government. They are being taught only government should possess weapons. That intrepretation goes against the flow of the entire Bill of Rights, since all other admendments in the Bill of Right concerns rights of citizens which the government can not usurp. Our forefathers recognized the peoples right to over throw a tyrannical government, and wanted to ensure that the government they were putting into place could be overthrown should the need arise. Tyranny flourishes with an unarmed population.

Furthermore citizens property rights are being threatened by seizure laws pushed through by Congress sessions controlled liberals. This has resulted in a 21st century USofA that posesses conditions existing in England before the Magna Carta, when rulers almost automatically seized all the property of any person convicted of a felony. Such seizures spurred English barons to force King John to limit his powers in 1215. Except in the US today, one does not need to be convicted, one does not even need to be charged. All you need is to cross paths with a police officer having a bad day.

The enemy you think exists doesn't. You are being lied to.

Actually the enemy I see does exist. The enemy I see is the out of control government. This problem was caused by both liberals and conservatives. Government at all levels must be reduced, and severely. The forceful seizing of assets, also known as the Federal Income Tax needs desparately to be abolished. As it stands now the average US citizen has no idea how much he/she paying in taxes. You ask someone how much they get paid, and they will tell you how much them net after taxes, not what they gross before taxes are taken out. Now that tax season is upon us, if you ask someone how much they paid in taxes, you will probably be told what they owed or they got a refund, but I doubt they will know how much they paid in total. Taxing me for national defense is one thing, taxing me to subsudize some politician's constituants is another. Taxing me to support scientific research is one thing, taxing me so an "artist" can frame a US flag and splatter it with excrement is another. I would much rather keep the money that the governement siezes in the form of taxes, after all I did earn that money by the sweat of my brow and the labor of my back. After all, who knows better how to spend money I earned than myself? I am not being greedy, I am just saying the government does not know what is best for me and my family.

By the way, I am not conservative, I am libertarian. Government is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. Both liberals and conservatives have forgotten this important fact. I find it pissingly funny that you assumed I was conservative from a few words in reply. Maybe you like to take a little test. The results might surprise you. Then again if you believe that government is the answer to all of life's problems, maybe not.

The World's Smallest Political Quiz asks for your opinions on the first two. Our statistics group had to rephrase those questions after our principal censored them. We learned than 90% of students had to be told what a "victimless crime" was. We also learned that the principal cared 0% whether we verbally told how those questions were supposed to read.

We should've just added a bonus question on rock-and-roll to complete the trio.

Here's one for ya'! I'm an atheist with strong belief in conservative policies when it comes to public policy and fairly liberal policies when it comes to person freedom. What do they call me? (Seriously.. I've wondered this myself..) Independent?

Around here we call ourselves Libertarians.

Well, this may be the way you feel, but most libertarian and green voters lean closer to the dems.

I watched an interview of a British MP the other night, whose was a 'left-libertarian'. This was considered to be somewhat of a contradiction apparently. However, the world's smallest political quiz puts libertarianism diametrically opposite statism, on a different axis from conservatism-liberalism.

I always thought that libertarianism was about individual freedoms, and not so much economic policy? Couldn't a libertarian quite legitimately have left- OR right- leanings in terms of economic policy, without compromising their libertarianism? (Note that I'm talking about what they believe in, not who would be more prudent to vote for given both those beliefs and present circumstance)

Broadband through TWC - Cable already regulated by FCC (including additional fees...) CHECK

So how is my VoIP not regulated?

As you pointed out, laws exist that govern cable TV service and telephone service. However, VoIP does not fit into either of these categories. The feds currently view VoIP as a data service.

That is, until Powell in his infinite wisdom (sarcasm) tries to regulate it somehow.

So what is this regulation going to ADD for the consumer?

Nothing. Sounds as if you think government regulations are supposed to benefit citizens somehow.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

>If they'd talk straight about taxes, I'd be more willing to vote for them.

Aren't Badnarik/Campagna and the LP talking about taxes enough? They clearly say that they would lower taxes and let you keep more money, just watch/listen any of the debates with Michael, read about the LP at badnarik.org or take the shortest political quiz

1. You have been sold on the idea that left and right are all there is. Not true. Politics are much more complicated than that, but better models Exist.
2. When you have a two party system, they both attempt to make you think they are different, but in reality, they both know that the only thing that they can do to win is to appeal to the independent voters, so they become more and more like each other. You end up with the current state, which I call the sportsization of politics: what a party stands for is no longer important, you vote republican (or democrat) because your friends vote that way, or because your parents voted that way or because your parents did not vote that way.

What we really need is a system that supports more than 2 parties fairly. Until then it will always be a wasted vote.

Take the test, Are you a Libertarian? Its only 10 questions and pretty darn accurate.

The questions on the political compass are left biased. Take this question for example, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." Who would choose other than serving humanity? It could be argued that serving the interest of corporations in turn, serves humanity.

A better political (and smaller) quiz is located here.

I just took the Political Compass and the test in itself is quite skewed. Questions like:

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

Aren't political questions. There are many questions like this. If anyone would like to take a real political quiz, try The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

That's why us Republicans, tired of being bundled with neocons, have gone the way of the Libertarian party.

According to this quiz, there is something fundamentally different between being right wing, and being a libertarian. Therefore, if you were a republican with libertarian values, then you were never really a republican (unless you mean you were a member of the party). The views are fundamentally different.

For instance, given the 2 party system in the U.S. I would personally vote on the left, but only because I value my personal freedoms more than my economic ones. That doesn't mean I would be a democrat. I'm simply choosing, in my opinion, the lesser of 2 evils. I also wouldn't be opposed to voting on the right if I thought the economic freedoms were being eroded too far.

A right wing person advocates financial freedom, but thinks that the government should legislate a restrictive morality (sometimes based on religious arguments). A libertarian advocates as much freedom as possible - both social and economic freedom - until that freedom interferes with the freedom of another person.

For instance, on the issue of gay marriage, a libertarian view would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business altogether, and leave it up to the individuals to write their own contracts. There would be no legal definition of a marriage. The government would, however, enforce any contracts between persons who willfully enter into them.

As long as an action caused no harm against another citizen or their property, then a libertarian government would not have a law restricting it.

<grouse>

Amen.

Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.

It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.

</grouse>

Finally, as regards the article itself:

But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.

So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?

"It may be that the populist-versus-establishment dynamic plays out as Democrat versus Republican in this election," Mr. Weitzner said. "But the open-source movement is a populist phenomenon, enabled by the Internet, and not a partisan force in any traditional sense of politics."

So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.

Eric Raymond, a leading open-source advocate, writing in his online "Jargon File," described the politics of the archetypal open-source programmer, whom he calls J. Random Hacker, as "vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent, which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely."

And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?

This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.

That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that

OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it

the NYTimes is pro-Kerry

if you must read the Times, read the whole article.

Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh

Actually, looking a bit further, other accounts by people who claim to have read it say its about a 60s radical, Saul Alinsky, who apparently advocated lying as a path to power (never heard of him before, myself, so don't quote me on that) ... see here and here. To be fair, that's a more disturbing thesis for a former First Lady and current Senator to have written. But it was 1969 and she was young; revolution was in the air. Give her a break!

Okay, so that is a little off topic, and I realize that your point is that there should be absolutely no regulation. I think, however, the regulation is necessary for a public domain resource (like radio spectrum) but that regulation should take local realities into account.

The libertarians tend to think, the radio spectrum should not be treated as public domain, but rather as private property on land is -- the first one to use it can claim it. It can be traded. The government (of different levels) can claim the eminent domain over parts of it and take them (as it does with land for highways if any, etc.). There can be regulations, concerning the size and location of fences, as well as content (you can't lie naked in your front yard). And so on. There are some clever carricatures of this concept, but it still seems more appealing than what we have now. And it follows Occam's Razor principle, by not inventing new concept (FCC et al).

Clear Channel is running its radio in the cheap seats under a government sponsered and enforced monopoly. [...] Clear Channel is just turning to the government to try and squelch a competitor.

Clear Channel's behavior (perhaps even the company itself) is a product of the government's folly -- much like AT&T's monopoly was before that, and the Baby Bells are now... We may be rightfully disgusted by it, but we should not be surprised, nor should we allow for creation of similar government enforced and sponsored monopolies in the future (space travel anyone?) or present (airline bailouts).

why dont ya just get over it!!! Or how about actually finding out what really went on. And dont say the US Supreme Court threw the election, because they did no such thing. If anything the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. Let me explain.

The US Constitution has this weird idea that no one is better than anyone else, aka Equal Protection. This idea extends to election law, in that no ones vote counts more than anyone elses.

Now when the Gore realized how close the election was, his buddies in the Democratic party wanted to count just areas that vote heavily Democratic. The Repuplicans requested that the entire state be counted. First the Democrats got a judge in theses areas to approve a recount. Then the Republicans got a higher court to over turn that decision. Next, Gore's buddies appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which is predominantly Democratic, which OK'd the limited recount. The Republican Party appealed to the US Supreme Court, stating that a limited recount violated equal protection.

Now when the case was heard by the U.S Supreme court, they heard the Bush lawyers arguing for a state wide recount, while the Gore lawyers argued a) against a statewide recount and b)extenting the deadline for certifying election results ( defined by Florida law to be due by the 13th of December )

The US Supreme Court's decision therefore two parts. The U.S Supreme court agreed by a 7-2 vote that a limited recount violated the U.S Constitution. The Supreme Court decide by a 5-4 vote that it would not overturn the Florida law establishing a deadline for certification of election results, since that law did not violate the US Constitution in any way. This decision came down on a Thursday and the election results had to be certified on the following Monday. There simply was not enough time to do a recount.

Like I said Gore and his buddies and the Florida Supreme Court kissed the pooch on this one. If they would have been behind a state wide recount things might have turned out different. But what do you expect from a bunch of ninnys...

The problem with that questionaire is that it's leading...

For example (there are others); do I support or oppose the positions of the NAACP? Yes or No?

The problem is that while I support the stated position of the NAACP, I don't support their actions and their *real* goals, which, IMO, go against the stated position. So I have to select the "no preference" option, which doesn't really represent what I feel.

On environmental policy, I consider myself more environmentally friendly then most people, yet the more I read, the more I believe that environmental orginazations are simply political tools. Case in point - who burns a Humvee? Someone who cares about the environment? That caused more polution than the entire life of that vehicle would have otherwise.

It's the same thing when it comes to the ACLU. I'm not religious, for example, but how is attacking religion going to help me?

Almost all the questions ask me to take the position of some really extreme organization. This questionaire is not nearly as good as, for example, the test to see what political party you most identify with (here).

Anyway, being way off topic, I'll end this now...

The issue with libertarian philosophy is that it can not be neatly placed into the linear spectrum of political philosophies that is typically used. I believe that's why you will see on most libertarian websites when they have "are you a libertarian?" quizzes, they will usually map your position out on a 2-dimensional plane, which categorizes your political beliefs based on too factors (social and economic ideology) with two poles for each ("liberal" and "conservative", used in the modern sense of the terms). This is a good example of one such quiz.

I inferred by their policies that they are economically "conservative" (which would define them as "libertarian") but by the individuals they mentioned/endorsed/associated that they have a socially "conservative" bias (which would define them also as "right-wing"). You can disagree with my methodology all you want. It may not make perfect logical sense, but it works for me.

In regards to:

"Assuming these are all economic matters, then the site's proponents could be secretly conservative or libertarian (secret because they publicly state that they are not affiliated with any party). There isn't sufficient information to tell which one, however, and they cannot be both."

Well, I never asserted that they were affiliated with any party. I asserted they proscribed to a particular political ideology (being the difference between calling them "libertarians" vs. "Libertarians". One asserts believers of a particular ideology, the other members of a party).

Finally as to the ad-hominem attacks:

ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

Yes, I did engage technically in an ad hominem attack as I made an argument that questioned the opponents' motives. I make a distinction however in that he asserted he was asking an objective question of "science", although the information he referenced was not objective nor was it "science", but rather an ideologically biased piece attempting to discredit recycling. The original poster was intellectually dishonest in his question, and so I raised the point. I accused you of making an ad hominem attack as I DID present some evidence of my own, which apparently you dismissed and then skipped to the bottom and latched onto one statement that I made that questioned his bias.

And finally, yeah it was a loaded statement with some disdain, and that is probably my own bias poking through. You are absolutely correct that I am not a libertarian, I am not a right-winger, and I do not put much into their beliefs as a general rule. The closest you could come to putting me in a box is to call me a socialist, although most socialists tend to accuse me of breaking with orthodoxy a bit too often. And while I did only intend to point out the bias in his source, I apparently failed to do so in a polite fashion. So sue me. :)

And on a final final note, in my defense I would like to point out that every time an story like this gets posted, it seems to me that those "just looking for an objective scientific point of view" always seem to cite sources like the Heartland Institute or the American Enterprise Institute or some other politically conservative organization, not seeming to recognize that they are no more "unbiased" and "scientific" than Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or whatever other "liberal" group the author appears to disagree with. It's that sort of intellectual dishonesty that gets my blood going. If you want to get into a political/economic debate about these issues, then fine, let's do it. If you want to get to "just the facts", then you need to really find a more credible source, IMHO.

Peace out, grasshopper.

Sigh... another person buys the story that there's only left and right... Advocates for Self-government

The usual liberal/conservative categorization is extremely misrepresentative. Try this.

If you use just one political scale things tend to wrap around and become meaningless. Libertarians are half far left and half far right. "Classic" liberals and "classic" conservatives end up right next to each other in the middle when you build some bogus scale like libertarians on one end and NAZIs on the other. (BTW, put the two on either end of the scale as it makes just as much sense)

As you suggest, the political spectrum doesn't have just a single axis. In fact, there are a several websites out there with multi-axis political scales. Here is a very good one and a much more slanted one (it takes Capitalism for granted).

Another issue you allude to is how the meanings of some words have changed over time. For example, the word "socialism" has been horribly distorted from it's original meaning. "Anarchist" also has a lot of baggage attached to it. Our political debate is horribly weakened by this distortion of language.

Ah well.... "War is Peace" after all.

but that one tends to get avoided because people take it as a slam on everyone else.

But Libertarianism is 'middle' in relation to right and left, it's just off a bit on a different axis as well. Take the quiz and look at the Nolan chart and you'll see what I mean.

take The World's Smallest Political Quiz [self-gov.org], sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Chances are, you may already have many Libertarian views!

Yeah, yeah, freedom for all, peace on earth, whatever. I just don't like the way Ayn Rand fanboys prop up libertarianism as the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything. If the people running things thought that way I'd say we'd all be in deep shit. Individual freedom's great. There shouldn't be any reason to screw with that, but guess what? Capitalism ain't perfect. You get situations when having each party act in their own self interest just screws it up worse. A noncompetitive party is necessary to deal with those eventualities. The government doesn't have to fuck with anybody's rights, it just has to be ready to step in with your tax dollars and adjust things when necessary.

Yeah, whatever, I'm off topic. We need a new Godwin's law for libertarians. "We're out of cereal? Don't worry, the free market will take care of that. What, go to the store? What are you, some kind of Communist?"

No offense, Gendo, I'm just too crotchety for a copyright law debate. What am I thinking, writing this much for slashdot? I'm gonna go get wasted.

I know, I know, I'm feeding the trolls. I guess I'm bored enough to humor them for a while longer.

My television has scarcity. There is only one of it. The same with my car. Only one of it. The same with my computer (well, actually, four of them rather than one, but still a finite number). Also, they are mine and you can't have them unless I give them to you. If I gave you my television, I wouldn't have one.

However, if I have an infinite number of televisions, and I sell an infinite number of them to your friend, and he gives an infinite number to you, what's the problem? I still have an infinite number of televisions, your friend has an infinite number of televisions and he obtained them in a moral way (buying them from me), and you have an infinite number of telivisions and you obtained them in a moral manner (your friend, who obtained them in a moral manner, gave them to you). What's the problem?

If I give you a copy of a song I write, it becomes YOUR property (morally, if not legally), and it would be morally wrong and Communistic of me to try to FORCE you to use it or not use your own new property in a certain way.

You should expand your mind and learn to care about freedom. You should start by visiting the Libertarian Party and learning why government interference in the private lives of consenting adults is BAD. Next, you should take The World's Smallest Political Quiz, sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Chances are, you may already have many Libertarian views! The transition to Libertarianism might not be as hard as you think. I used to be just like you until I learned to care about freedom.

Next, to learn about real Capitalism, not fake enforced-by-government-mandate capitalism (also known as Socialism/Communism), you should visit The Ayn Rand Institute. She's is, in many ways, the father of modern pro-capitalist anti-government-regulation thought. You should read her books, too.

Do these things, and you'll see the world from a different perspective. A *free* perspective.

From this cursory look, it seems like you are not actually a conservative but are a libertarian. You can take this test to see.

I must disagree. This is why campaign reform in every form in which it has been proposed is a MUST NOT . Limiting campaign giving is limiting free speech and it makes our politicians less accountable to us. It places near absolute power in the monopolist major parties. It also limits the degree anyone can communicate to the public. The result is that the encumbant automatically gets a major advantage.

An above poster had it right, normal people need to use donations to make their will felt and sever the dependancy of politicians on large corporations, lobby groups, labor unions, run-away government agencies and political parties.

This article explains it better than I. Campaign Reform Bill Is Really "Incumbent Protection Act"

Once again, people need to be told that there is more than one axis in political thought. It's not just about "Left" vs. "Right".
Sadly enough, it seems most people are just able to make the distiction of "Us" vs. "Them", and then assign a "Left" or "Right" label to each as seems fashionable.
Another labels that often seem to be confused are liberal and libertarian. It might be beneficial to some to take this quiz for a more in depth view of their political stance.

Oh yea. The price of rentals in New York have nothing to with too many people and not enough places to live. If the govt simply lifted their regulations everybody in new york would be paying $200.00 per month for those luxury suites.

If the government regulations were lifted, the prices would've gone down. If I can not charge what I want from this tenant, I'll have to spread it over the others. Most likely -- the new ones. That's why you are hit the most, when moving from one place to another. The landlord has to set the higher price in advance because he/she will have to fill out too many forms to increase it the next year, if he wants to. And you also have to pay for all the tenant.net subscribers living in the same building, who know every way to weasel out of paying the market price.

Not enough places to live? Of course! What's the incentive to build/renovate in this over-regulated city? The city, where rent-control was introduced in 1943, as a temporary measure, is its own hostage now -- repealing the rent control costs too many votes.

City of Westchester, MA was hit with this problem -- no appartments. Why, was the question? There are, roughly, just as many homes, and not that many more people?.. The answer -- it has gradually become next to impossible to evict a tenant, so many retired owners of two-family houses, who used to rent before, gradually withdraw from the market. The risk of getting an unruly tenant in your upstairs appartment did not rise, but the danger, such a mishap would bring, inreased too far to outweight the benefits.

"At the price set by the government? I come from the country, where this was the case, and as a result there was no milk in the stores."

Hey Mr. Clueless man. In most states (maybe even all) the price of milk is regulated. Did you know that? Dairy farming is also subsidized did you know that? Perhaps you ought to do some research first before blathering your liberterian drivel.

I did the research. My "drivel" is quite founded. In here, government regulations help formers. They can raise the milk prices -- it is illegal, in fact, to to charge too little! It is also illegal to advertise a particular brand of milk -- in Massachusetts, for example. Only the general "It does a body good" is allowed there. Stores can not even publish coupons for a particular brand of milk.

So, I guess, I'm not as clueless, huh? Make sure the dog does not eat your homework again...

Why do they get such protection? There are more of them, than there are those, who noticably suffer from it. We all do, but we don't realize it.

Same with the tenants vs. landlords. Their votes are equal, and even though it is the landlord's damn property, a whole bunch of people pretend, the tenants are somehow entitled to control it beyond the lease terms.

What's your problem with libertarianism, anyway? Take the quiz. May be, you'll find a hidden libertarian inside you :-)

You're confused, and it's because of the classical left wing/right wing political view. Politics aren't one dimensional. If you take the classical view, it's Communist - Liberal - Neutral - Conservative - Facist. Where are the anarchists? the Libertarians? It doesn't match the real world. See The World's Smallest Political Quiz for more information- they phrase it much better than I do.

Being "closed minded" and throwing out thoughts and opinions before the entire message is understood is quite childish.

Might this apply to your response as well? You say "the opposite sides of the coin reflect the differences in opinion necessary to show the entire scope of the idea" but if "the entire message [was] understood" you would understand that the point was that there are not just two sides -- it's not a coin, it's more like a ball. How many sides to a perfect sphere? How many perceptions of an idea? A coin does not even begin to describe the scope. But instead you "[threw] out thoughts and opinions" because in your "'closed minded'" viewpoint there are only two sides to the issue.

What I believe the original responder was trying to communicate is that this issue, like politics, cannot be accurately represented on a line. As with politics, you need more dimensions, a matrix if you will. (Example) By limiting the representation to just Left vs Right you miss a vast amount of critical data.

Everything is "political" these days...

As has always been the case; you can always cast everything from a political perspective, just as you can cast them from a social perspective, just as you can cast them from a financial perspective. But I do agree that one must see it from the political perspective (amongst others) to avoid missing opportunities, risks, etc. that are only apparent from that perspective. The responsible participant in the process (e.g., the responsible company with a defaced site) will find a balance based on multiple viewpoints -- not just political, not just economic, not just how late one must stay to resolve the issue. An irresponsible participant will discard all but the most convenient perspective; I would suggest that the "fix and forget" behavior is a symptom of irresponsibility.

Secure network? The gummint can't
even keep drugs out of prisons!

Can I have some examples of increased civil liberties?

Lost Rights, a book by James Bovard, is long, thorough, dry, and depressing collection of the MANY losses and attacks on civil liberties.

• American's today must obey 30 time more laws today than at the turn of the century.
• Fedral Agencies publish an average of 200 pages of new rulings, regulations, and proposals in the Fedral register everyday.
• A citizen's use of their land is presumed illegal until it is approved by multiple zoning and plannig commisions.
• Since 1985, there have been over 200,000 properties siezed under forfeiter laws.
• We have 2 million people in prison, a higher percentage than any other nation. Quote Mother Jones, "Since 1980, the national crime rate has meandered down, then up, then down again -- but the incarceration rate has marched relentlessly upward every single year. Nationwide, crime rates today are comparable to those of the 1970s, but the incarceration rate is four times higher than it was then. It's not crime that has increased; it's punishment."

I could go on, but the point I want to make is this: from what I can tell, we have been experiencing a net decrease in rights... If you could point to me to info that shows otherwise, I would happily read that, too.

Oh, completely, yes. But it doesn't change the fact that they were stupid enough to try it in the first place.

You know, there's a test you really should take. Here's the link, it's billed as the world's smallest political quiz.

My results show me to be a staunch Libertarian.

friendly, chipper, informative, helpful and welcoming American Customs staff

Bwaaa Haw Haw Haw hahahaha Wooooooo! HeeeHeee heee heee heee! hmmmmmahahaha

I *always* have more trouble going back into Canada. On the whole, and in my experience, American Customs agents are much friendlier. I'm dating a Buffalonian, so I cross the border once every week in each direction. Recent entry into the US at Lewiston NY, almost verbatim, transcribed:

"Citizen of what country?"

"Canada."

"Purpose of your trip?"

"Visiting friends in Buffalo."

"How long you staying?"

"Three days."

"Zat an old Dodge? What year's that truck?"

"Yes sir, Dodge D-140 Ram, and 1976."

"What's the motor?"

"400 CID (6.6L) V8."

"Rev it for me."

I comply... Customs guy smiles warmly.

"Love that sound. Thank you. Have a great trip, and take good care of that truck."

"Thank you sir."

Customs trick to being treated better: Smile. Tell them only what they ask of you. Hold a piece of ID (like a passport, even though they're not required between Canada and the US, they help) in your hand on the steering wheel, but only give it to the agent if he/she asks. And, most importantly, take off your sunglasses and turn off the radio before you pull up to the hut.

Like most socialists, you're so ill-informed that you can't even spell the party's nickname right. No wonder you need the government to protect you from success through work - you're illiterate! Okay, Lesson One: T-O-R-Y. Tory. Got it? Good.

And no, I'm not. While I did help to relect Mike Harris in Ontario because he was doing such a great job, that's not my political stripe: I'm a Libertarian more than anything else.

If you're unsure how to vote, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

It may help you decide.

* For those of you who are libertarians, see the next issue of LIBERTY magazine for an article about ideas like these. Ideas about freedom and "reduced government" that are worth campaigning for and that aren't about helping foster an old-fashioned inherited aristocracy in America. When you think about how many interesting things Cheney & co. could be talking about - like ending the Drug War - you'll wind up holding your nose and voting for Gore.

Places to check for more info:

• Harry Browne, Libertarian Presidential Cantidate
  
• Libertarian Party
• Advocates for Self-Government

The questionaire mentioned above can be found at the http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html, entitled, "World's Smallest Political Quiz."

As noted by the domain name (self-gov), this is a tool by libertarians. However, it is generally fair, if a bit simplistic. Ten questions: five on economic issues and five on social issues.

The four extents are Left-Liberal (social freedom over economic freedom), Right-Conservative (economic over social), Authoritarians (neither economic nor social individual freedom), and Libertarians (minimal central government).

The middle of the chart is, as you might predict, the Centrists, which represents nearly all elected officials in the US, regardless of their mud-slung labels.

They even break Authoritarians into left-authoritarians (socialists) and right-authoritarians (fascists).

I've made a Palm version of the same quiz, and it was made for the Newton a couple years back. Email me for a PalmOS/PocketC version.

The reason voters see little choice is because both the Republicans and the Democrats are alike in most ways. They have created a status quo and are loathe to change it.

But there is a real third option, the Libertarian Party. Visit the site, take the World's Smallest Political Quiz and decide for yourself.