Where do your politics lie?

I figured that all of my ranting about transparent politics should transcend the actual political realm. As such, I wanted to start this fancy thread. This is a "shower thought" so bear with me.

There is a chart and an accompanying survey that will place a dot on the political spectrum associated with your political views, it's called the nolan chart. I want this thread to be a result thread of your nolan survey.

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

As well as a basic description of your political thoughts on whichever subjects you choose to vent about. This is important, don't post unless you've completed the survey, and don't argue, just state your views and read the rest. I did the Nolan chart survey and was slightly surprised. When I really thought out each question, and applied my principles to them, I came out as libertarian as you can get. I feel that the survey doesn't include enough questions to be 100% accurate, so I will come out and say that I probably lean slightly right of centrist, but still as close to libertarian as you can get at that point in the X axis. My main differences between a libertarian are below:

Military: I agree with the pure libertarian viewpoint that we should not strive to maintain a military presence abroad unless provoked or requested, and then under a specific set of circumstances. I disagree with the pure libertarian viewpoint when I would suggest that we maintain a large and very well funded and technologically advanced (more than now) standing army. If this really means funding NASA, then so be it.

Welfare/Social Security/Food stamps/Disability/Bailouts/random funding for whomever: I do not thing these things, at the federal level, are constitutional. I would not change the constitution to allow them. I think that these things can exist at the state level, and charity can be heavily encouraged through tax breaks to carry the load on these items.

Affirmative Action/Lawsuits/Discrimination etc: I feel just like the south park boys arguing for the flag: KYLE Our main point is that the flag shouldn't offend anyone, because killing has been around since the bieginning of time. All animals kill. And the animals that don't kill are stupid ones, like cows and turtles and stuff. So people should not be so upset about killing.

                                 CHEF
                      Whoa whoa whooaa! You just missed the 
                     point entirely!

                                 KYLE
                     Huh?

                                 CHEF
                     I'm not mad because the flag shows somebody 
                     gettin' killed, It's because it's racist!


                                 KYLE'S TEAM
                      Racist??

                                 CHEF
                     Children, don't you even know what this 
                     argument is about?! That flag is racist 
                     because a black man is being hung by 
                     white people.

                                 KYLE'S TEAM
                      Ooooooohhh.

                                 CHEF
                     Ooooooohhh?!

                                 KYLE
                     W-we really didn't see it that way.


                                 CHEF
                     But that's a black man up there!

                                 KYLE
                     Y-yeah, but... the color of someone's 
                     skin doesn't matter.

                                 CHEF
                     Well of course it matters when-  ...Oh 
                     my God. Wait a minute. You children 
                     didn't even see the flag as a black 
                     man being hanged by white people, did 
                     you?

                                 KYLE'S TEAM
                      No.

                                 CHEF
                      Why, that is- that is the most beautiful 
                     thing I have ever heard.

I would broaden their point to mention that these federal programs, while probably intended to do good, provoke race divides, gender divides etc, and only serve to make the world more prone to believe that the "disadvantaged" group needs help, and is deserving of the federal program because they are somehow inferior.

Gay marriage: Who the berkley cares? Seriously? Call it something else, give the same benefits, and move on - why should anyone care?

Regulation: Anything that isn't specifically outlined in the constitution is disallowed. This includes environmental regulations. If everyone really feels that it's a big deal, everyone will pour money into whatever carbon credits utility companies are offering, buy only Prius's (although I would debate that the environmental impact of those things is terrible) and the like. I, for instance, recycle my light bulbs, my paper and plastic voluntarily. I reuse wood whenever possible, and throw away the bare minimum. I draw the line at diapers.

Get out of my life: The government shouldn't know your gender, your race, your age (other than the census as dictated by the constitution), what car you drive, what library books you got out, etc. This is some scary crap.

Environmentalism: I am a religious guy, and I honestly believe that most environmentalism is serving as a replacement for a god because the human physique desires a higher power to look to. I believe that folks will ignore the data on global warming just as they ignore the biological issues with having a virgin birth. It's the same defense, and the same blind faith. In one (religion) it is desired, and required. In the other, the oft repeated phrase is how scientific it is, and how everything is so data driven, but not really...

I guess that about sums up my 'different than libertarian' viewpoints as well as some other basic fundamentals. The rest should be fairly obvious.

I now welcome your views, on my points or on any other, but please, no silly arguments, chances are we aren't going to convince one another, just let me know what you think.

I am especially interested to hear from Dr. Hess, Alfadriver, Poopshovel and Ignorant, but that is by no means an inclusive list.

-Brian

When I do that test, I also come out as libertarian as they come.

Where I disagree with the full-on Libertarian view is that I do agree with some, very limited, socialist programs. I do think that certain forms of welfare are perfectly acceptable (unemployment, WIC, student loans).

Other than that, get your government the hell away from me unless I'm doing something that affects you. I do feel this does touch certain enviromental issues, though. Big Factory dumping their waste into the air affects all of us. Dumping it into the water affects everyone downstream. I think cars SHOULD be encouraged to be more efficient, though let's make DAMN sure the legislation doesn't turn into a mother-may-I like California smog law (if I can put a 429 in a 240SX and it makes less emissions than the stock motor, why is this illegal?)

To paraphrase the Wiccans: do as ye will, that it harm none.

Almost all the way on the top of the chart, slightly to the right.

Liberal Libertarian... Interesting

I think most of the people on here will be on the libertarian top half

ReverendDexter wrote: When I do that test, I also come out as libertarian as they come.

That...

I sum it up with... "We need to learn personal responsibility and accountability." The day we can stop blaming someone else is the day things change. Sadly, the government has made it so that you are no longer responsible for wiping your own arse. In fact there is probably a bailout for that.

Librarian, I mean Libertarian. Didn't need the questionaire or chart to be aware of that. It's funny tho,some of my conservative redneck friends think I'm a liberal.

Liberal w/ conservative views toward capital punishment, tort reform and the castle doctrine (although I'm not remotely into guns).

Seems to me that "libertarian" is way too random of a label. Every conservative/neo-con is apparently a libertarian.

Libertarian, the star was right where you would drive a nail to hang the chart. I differ with the libertarian party when it comes to drugs, I really dont want to board an airliner who's pilot is on LSD.

I came in on the very tip of the libertarian section.

As far as I'm concerned, the federal government should be so small as to be unnoticeable. The states not much bigger.

40% of what the federal government does should be handled by the states. Another 40% shouldn't be handled at all.

The Constitution is not subject to interpretation. It's written in plain if old English, follow it to the letter. If you don't like it, try to get it changed or move to another country.

This country was founded because of an oppressive interfering government and we seem to be headed back to one.

4eyes wrote: Libertarian, the star was right where you would drive a nail to hang the chart. I differ with the libertarian party when it comes to drugs, I really dont want to board an airliner who's pilot is on LSD.

And that would be where the companies own internal regulations would come in.

almost exactly in the center with a slight slant towards conservative/statist.

Hard to pick some answers when you don't agree with any of the choices and the one i sort of agree with has a second half that makes my choice sound stupid.

why does global warming stuff take such a strong role in the foreign policy section?

National id card? I already have a social security number. Everyone seems to use it to identify me..... why are we even talking about this?

Slightly to the conservative side of Libertarian, which is kind of what I expected. Although several of the questions didn't really have any answer I was comfortable with. I basically think people should be able to do whatever they want with their own lives to the extent that they aren't impinging on anyone else's right to the same. Guns, smokable plants, gay marriage, tinted windows... I think it's ridiculous and unnecessary that governments try to ban such things in the face of their inevitable continued existence. I'm not as much on board with the hands off approach toward the economy and general welfare. I think everyone in this country should get a fair chance at achieving the most they can in life, and to me that means generously funding education, ensuring that poorer areas get support for things like education and public safety, and eventually ensuring access to at least a basic level of health care for everyone. If the government really wants to strengthen businesses it should be done indirectly by providing them with the best-educated, safest, healthiest work force in the world, rather than a straight handout.

I also think we need to have some economic controls to ensure that trade remains more fair - things like regulations that account for the externalities of environmental damage, because if it's free for Bob to pollute in the name of profit, yet someone else ends up having to pay to clean up the result, then the pure unregulated market is failing and we're letting Bob unfairly take advantage of everyone else. Of course, once economic regulations get as disjointed convoluted as they are now, there's a similar danger for people to exploit inconsistencies in the system to everyone else's detriment. So there has to be a balance between the extremes.

Wow - interesting how tightly grouped we all are, really. I don't have the information from that particular survey, but I am willing to bet that we all differ from 90% of elected and appointed officials these days. Good, keep 'em coming.

Liberal. Near the center, but liberal.

I love winding up the "libretarians" at work. They're all about ready to retire and clearly don't have a true grasp on what they really are asking for.....

Here's some questions? How are you going to get healthcare after you retire? Does the company really owe you this? What if the company needed to be more competetive and had buy you out of your retirement.... Generally, they don't know what to say at that time......

I took that long ago, prior to the last election. Right in there at Libertarian, with maybe a twinge to the right (no legalized drugs, thank you) but re-centered on a few social issues (gay marriage--yeah, whatever. And I like the concept of Social Security, but it's being totally mishandled).

Which is why I voted for Bob Barr.

I've been registered as a Republican for years, mostly because I believed it would allow me some control in the primaries. I've since found that to be a fantasy, and am changing to Indpendent this year since the GOP in my state has just dissed the Tea Party movement. Again.

Parties are for drinking beer and hitting on women, not for choosing government policy leaders.

OK, it says I'm liberal.

But to me, words matter.

And the words "liberal" and "conservative" are no longer valid.

Some of my friends (and they ~are~ friends) call themselves "conservative", but they are far more liberal about some issues than me. And I am pretty conservative about certain issues.

I prefer "progressive" and "reactionary" but I know some of my "conservative" friends dislike being called reactionary......just as I dislike being called liberal.

Dead nuts on the "T" of Centrist.

Deep Libertarian to the right of center. Which is true.

But I don't like the survey. I think it is strongly biased toward the Libertarian by the wording of the questions.

I also found several of the questions to have no answer I found satisfactory.

Perhaps the fact that I don't like the survey is what really proves I am a Libertarian.

SVreX wrote: I also found several of the questions to have no answer I found satisfactory.

I agree, but still think I'm conservative, central, Irish.

Apparently I'm an apex libertarian. I don't need/want adult supervision.

If I handed that survey to my 10yr old and asked him "Which questions do you think the author wants you to choose" and had him choose them I bet he gets the answer "Libertarian".

I happen to agree with most of them. I was squarely in their camp anyway but that is a bogus survey if there ever was one. I'm surprised it does not hot-link to a "Join Us" page.

Typical response for west Michigan...

Not terribly surprised at the result. What's interesting is that if we were to have a conversation you'd swear I was a screaming liberal. I'd also say that I have a good dose of socialist in me.

I think government should serve the needs of the people. This includes things like laws to keep us safe; a strong military without going nuttily overboard like we are now; socialist programs like public education, roads and bridges, libraries, police and fire services, and health insurance; welfare programs to get people back on their feet, which should include oversight and planning assistance when someone stays on welfare for more than, say, a year. You get the idea.

Social Security should be replaced with a mandatory individual retirement account fed with 5% of your pre-tax dollars from the very first day you start working. You can have the money when you're 60, tax-free.

I think lobbying by business - any business - should be illegal. Why? Because I, as an individual, cannot afford to hire a full time representative to lobby Congress on my behalf, nor do it myself. Allowing that privilege to those that can afford it means that the direction of the country will be chosen by big business and rich people rather than the general public. And this is not a free speech issue - the right of free speech does not guarantee you access to any particular person. If it did I'd book a month with Obama right now. Businesses can still talk all they want about what they want - but in public forums, not private.

We need Congressional term limits. No more than 12 years in Congress, whichever house you serve in.

I think all drugs should be legalized in combination with laws to punish unsafe behavior - unsafe being define as causing personal or financial harm to another person.

I'm against the death penalty, but only for financial reasons. It costs way more to execute someone than to house and feed them for the rest of their life.

I don't own a gun, but I fully support the rights of individuals to bear arms. It's my view that the Second Amendment was meant to keep government afraid of its citizens. This country would not exist if not for guns, and the government should keep that in mind at all times.

We need a balanced budget amendment. Deficits have been completely out of control since 1980. The I also think we need to limit the US debt to citizens and legal immigrants only. No corporations or foreign entity should be allowed to hold US debt.

I'd be happy to go on if anyone's interested.

libertarian also, just a little right of center.

ignorant wrote: Liberal. Near the center, but liberal. I love winding up the "libretarians" at work. They're all about ready to retire and clearly don't have a true grasp on what they really are asking for..... Here's some questions? How are you going to get healthcare after you retire? Does the company really owe you this? What if the company needed to be more competetive and had buy you out of your retirement.... Generally, they don't know what to say at that time......

This guy: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/dr_ezekiel_emanuel_rahms_broth.html is a bio-ethicist who, like yourself, is a proponent of nationalized health care. And, has been an advisor to Clinton and Obama on their reform agendas.

The good Doctor proposes limiting health care to those who are not "productive" members of society - like retirees. Such a concept places a government program on par with the evil private sector you vilify.

Be careful what you ask for.