Conquer Club

Obviously these are over-simplifications. Just choose the closest. As for the definitions of the chosen groups, they are drawn from the Nolan Chart variation as seen here.

You forgot to leave 'centrist' as a choice.

Phail.

Can you define low economic freedom?

<--- anarcho-primitivist.

I am confused.

There is no option for "loyal subject to the Lizardmen".

Please make a new thread with an updated (corrected) poll.



(in all seriousness, yeah, you forgot the centrist option, dude. So that negates this humble user's desire to select an option)

pimpdave wrote:There is no option for "loyal subject to the Lizardmen".

All of the options are synonyms for "loyal subject to the Lizardmen".


Don't forget: 1066 was an inside job.

I'm not a Canadian, but I liked the option.

ok, so according to the world's shortest political quiz I'm not a Canadian, but still pretty far out.

I like the political map, but the site promoting it just uses it as a libertarian propaganda tool (yes, there is such a thing as libertarian propaganda).

oVo wrote:Can you define low economic freedom?

Lots and lots of government regulation, i.e. no private corporations, government owns everything.

Gasp. Surprise. That quiz blows.

Now I`m even more confused ...

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Now I`m even more confused ...

Poor Haggis.

... Libertarian, but that quiz is a fraud. The Libertarian Party uses it to make people think they are Libertarians.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... Libertarian, but that quiz is a fraud. The Libertarian Party uses it to make people think they are Libertarians.

...

or at least think that maybe there are other options outside of democrats and republican big government....although hardcore libertarians wouldn't even bother voting as voting is an admission of state control.

...personally, I prefer to describe it as "libertarians are economically conservative, and socially liberal."

Sounds pretty contradictory to me. You can't give the fat cats a free hand and still tend fairly to the needs of the people - the fat cats will always exploit them to the max if they're not controlled. Eat the rich.


Honibaz

Cronus wrote: hardcore libertarians wouldn't even bother voting as voting is an admission of state control.

If there is no state, then there are no civil institutions to use for the betterment of society at large. Meaning, a world ruled by rich fat cats and the mob (both sences of the term).

Their attitudes may taste like shit, but go real good with wine.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Cronus wrote: hardcore libertarians wouldn't even bother voting as voting is an admission of state control.

If there is no state, then there are no civil institutions to use for the betterment of society at large. Meaning, a world ruled by rich fat cats and the mob (both sences of the term).

well it begs the question for it to be possible to be without a state. It's not even a question of should it be done but it probably can't. Those with the most power even if it be physical power to enforce their will on you would essentially be acting as the state.

As to civil institutions promoting the betterment of society, most government institutions are either military/agents of force or work-fare beauracrats. They don't really work for the betterment of society, but are self-described guardians of society. Whenever the government does something positive it is when they stop actively forbidding something or stop smaller local governments from actively forbidding something (segregation, denying women's suffrage, etc...). Government is an agent of statism. Society changes government, government doesn't change society.

Exactly. If anarchy were ever somehow achieved, it would collapse upon itself like a vacuum. The richest man in the region would in many cases hire a large group of people to take control over areas, so that they can exert greater control over their world... and no amount of shotgun-wielding farmers and anarchist protests would be able to stop them from doing so. The nation or world would instantly revert back to a kind of localized monarchy with few exceptions, and then government would evolve again from there.

Ditocoaf wrote:Exactly. If anarchy were ever somehow achieved, it would collapse upon itself like a vacuum. The richest man in the region would in many cases hire a large group of people to take control over areas, so that they can exert greater control over their world... and no amount of shotgun-wielding farmers and anarchist protests would be able to stop them from doing so. The nation or world would instantly revert back to a kind of localized monarchy with few exceptions, and then government would evolve again from there.

so what you are saying is in order to be totally free, we need to build some invincible force field that people can put around their property essentially making themselves a prisoner on it?

Just kidding

I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. Government is a necessary evil. We need police, firemen, a military, and a judicial system. I do however believe we could cut government in half or so and be much better off.

Cronus wrote:I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian. Government is a necessary evil. We need police, firemen, a military, and a judicial system. I do however believe we could cut government in half or so and be much better off.

Add education to that list, and I'd almost agree with you. And infrastructure; I don't think you'd disagree with either of those. And throw in hospitals, and we'd actually be in complete agreement... if you also mentioned welfare (greatly modified from our flawed system).

So that's police, firemen, military, judicial, education, and infrastructure (and imo, medicine and welfare).
Of course since to pay for all that we'd need taxes, and there'd have to be part of the government to maintain that system (voluntary-donation-only government would just be a tool of the rich). And to appropriate those funds to the appropriate things on our list, we'd need executive offices. And at this point a legislative system is unavoidable.

So our list has grown to police, firemen, military, judicial, education, infrastructure, (hospitals, welfare,) IRS, executive, legislative. In a perfect system, this might just about work, but that's like ignoring friction in physics problems. By this point, the bureaucracy holding all these things together is innavigatable... so nobody notices as corrupt politicians and parties take their agendas from lobbyists... who add hundreds of more goals to this relatively short list.

I'm of the opinion that "ideal government" is essentially an unsolvable equation.