Slashdot Mirror

That the Libertarian Party occasionally endorses causes that are traditionally characterized as "liberal," such as a woman's right to choose or narcotics decriminalization, only emphasizes the fact that on most issues, Libertarians are closely aligned with "conservative" issues.

• freedom of immigration
• freedom of speech and the press
• separation of church and state
• equality under the law for gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities (and for everyone else too)
• opposition to the draft and to militarism
• opposition to corporate welfare, stadium subsidies, and other forms of corporatism
• protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments against "law-and-order" police powers, wiretaps, unwarranted search-and-seizure, and the like
• (for some libertarians) opposition to the patent system

The left/right, liberal/conservative, single-axis political spectrum, dating back to the French Revolution, is an inaccurate model for the diversity of political views. It is more useful to describe people's political positions in terms of the set of rights or freedoms which they support, or conversely in terms of the set of restrictions on freedom which they support. One such model is the two-axis system proposed by the Advocates for Self-Government. I think even it is too simplistic, but it is a damn sight better than the usual spectrum.

Actually I think there are probably a lot MORE libertarians out there than anyone realizes. If we'd all vote our mind, a giant portion would vote Libertarian.

Rather ask some statistics professor, why not view the original and ask yourself whether or not it is objective.

While I have heard many people call the WSPQ biased, I have yet to have anyone point out any better test. Until then, it is still less biased than no test at all.

This is a perfect example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Our (U.S.) gov't has soooooooooo many regulatory agencies doing things that mean well, but are pretty ridiculous when you sit down and think about them. And OSHA is one of the worst.

OSHA's job is basically to take the common sense of the workplace and make it law. Seems like a good idea on the surface, yes? Flip through the hundreds of binders that house the collected works of OSHA and you'll change your mind. They have rules about EVERYTHING. Railings must be EXACTLY 42 inches off the ground (IIRC), planks may not extend more than 3 feet beyond the edge of a scaffold, et cetera, ad naseum.

If I want to build my railings forty-FOUR inches off the ground, or maybe THIRTY-SIX! I can, but not if I want to pass a building inspection. Why don't I have the right to build my railings whatever height I want? And, more to the point, why shouldn't telecommuters have the right to as un-ergonomic of a workstation as they like, without their employer fearing an OSHA audit?

As geeks, we have a different perspective on workplace ergonomics than most. Many of us live at our keyboards and mice/trackballs/whatever. We're just BEGGING to acquire Repetitive Stress Injury (correct term?). But, as geeks, we should also realize that the only way to do it right is to do it yourself. Some gov't agency requiring your employer to meet some arbitrarily set standard is NOT the right way to do it. YOU should go to YOUR employer and say, "I require better ergonomics. I need a new keyboard, a desk that's X units high and a chair that's blah blah blah. And if you can't cut it, I'm out." You get the idea. I'm sure a lot of you are making $50,000/yr or more, your employer can afford to buy you a new chair at your request. And if they "can't", is that the kind of place you want to work? I know *I'd* prefer to work somewhere where the management cares enough about its employees to either on its own or at their behest provide an ergonomically sound working environment, rather than waiting until some tax-wasting gov't agency forces them to.

Our government simply has its grubby paws in too many aspects of our lives, and with OUR money to boot. Enough is enough.

www.lp.org
www.self-gov.org

MoNsTeR

The Advocates for Self Government have posted this quiz on their website. There's only 10 questions. But think seriously about them before answering. It'll help you be more certain when it's time to pull the lever.

Remember that local elections are as, or more important than the Presidential election. Vote wisely. It's your duty!

[FULL DISCLOSURE]
I am a county chairman of the third largest national party, so you may find my views biased. I hope you do .

Interestingly enough, your perception is reinforced by this page which correlates scores on the World's Smallest Political Quiz with presidential candidate choice. All highly unscientific, but interesting nonetheless.

Christian, Fiscally "liberal" and Socially "conservative"? Isn't there a contradiction in there?

If tax slavery and forced morality are Christian, then I'm a Juddhist Hindislam monk. (In other words, everything but.) But I figure this is likely to be a troll, though there are some people who actually believe in such things. Admittedly, "Me" may have been referring to friendly persuasion and non-coercive measures to promote a better social environment, in which case I heartily applaud him.

In any case, y'all might benefit from a few links:

• Advocates for Self-Government has a nice little test to determine your political tendencies. They chart it for fiscal and social beliefs. "Me" would probably an Authoritarian by this reckoning. The main problem with Authoritarianism is that it requires real flesh-and-blood humans to make those decisions for everyone else, and even if you managed to get honest people into office, they still would not have the necessary local knowledge to make those decisions. The result is generally tyranny.
• Might as well plug my site, The Libertarian Party of Union County, (N.C.). Okay, y'all know where my sympathies lie.
• Since the subjects of God and Freedom have come up, you might enjoy God's Free Men and Women. Not exactly mainstream, but noteworthy for their belief that God wants Freedom for his people, a belief that does have significant backing in the Bible. ;-) ;-) ;-) (Most religions have this, but unfortunately, the folks who come along after the founder, generally whittle this down to virtually nothing.)
• For something a bit less controversial, I recently came across Echoes of Gideon which made a point about the story of Gideon that I had not heard before - that the bit about the men being chosen who drank by cupping water with their hands was because those who lapped up water had gotten used to this method because they were used to bowing down to idols.

Alan R. Light

The questions are a little biased, but you still might want to take a look at the
World's Smallest Poltical Quiz

But I'm still probably unconvinceable anyway.

I'll have a squint at the quiz you mentioned. Lemme know how Seth did :)

I suggest that everyone take The World's Smallest Political Quiz if they haven't already.

First, expand your thinking about politics. Communism, in practice, involves using state power to enforce utopian ideas about how people should work together for a supposed common good - ignoring actual conditions - and has been a miserable failure. OSS, on the other hand, has appeared and grown despite the common practice of the establishment and the state. This is because, as ESR points out, it is functions well in the free market - it's just that it uses a different set of business models. And there is nothing wrong with the service industry: while janitors and burger flippers are the low end, true; there is also the high end of doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers. Programmers and consultants have always tended twoards the high end, and will continue to do so, IMHO. So that first quoted paragragh is just fear-mongering.

The second paragraph is even worse, containing baseless accusations about the character of the OSS community. If you have something of real value to contribute, then do so! If it requires a radical new approach, then lets see it! If you have to fork an existing code tree to accomplish your grand vision, then go for it! But it just sounds like some lamer whining to me.

As far as I am concerned, the orignal post deserved it's flamebait moderation.
--

Being a libertarian, I often face problems with explaining the importance of private-ownership in the opensource world. Yet, it is at its foundation becuase if someone did not control the distributions and create official releases that are possible copyrighted, the software might as well be public domain. Opensource is about making my own stuff better for everyone by letting you help me out. In exchange you get a better product, but I still had to put all the revisions together into a distribution. In a similar thread, this guy is going off on the same end. Despite the Internet's government background, it today is flurishing because of commercialization. If you will recall, before the early 90s, the Internet was the domain of only a few geeks with computers that were held together only by others who were willing to donate their time. Today there are a wide variety of services avaliable thanks to businessmen. In short, the idea is the old blurried eyed vision of Utopia obtained through material commfort. It doesn't happen (plenty of real-world examples, and ever read Orwell's 1984) and never will. I know that I am attacking his personal beliefs, but it exactly those beliefs that have slowed the Internet and other technologies in the past. I can't remember where, but Self-gov.org has some stuff on it about what I am talking about. If someone finds the full location, please post it and let me know.