What Are You? (Test)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tmoney1 wrote:
Neo-Conservative

You scored 35% Personal Liberty and 40% Economic Liberty!

A neo-conservative believes in moderate to high government intervention on personal matters and moderate government intervention on economic matters. Unlike most other conservatives, they may tend to support a social safety net, though to a lesser extent then most leftists. Others are more capitalistically inclined.

They tend to support war, police powers, foreign intervention and laws restricting personal liberty. Neo-conservatives tend to emphasize foreign policy. Neo-conservatism is the result of “fusion” between “old left” and “new right” tendencies.

A Muslim neo-con? Amazing. My results are almost identical to yours.

In general I thought the questions were far too leading and poorly done.[/quote]

I agree Zap, the questions were far too leading.

These questions are ridiculous…what if you don’t have an opinion? Or what if on one hand you agree but under different circumstances you might disagree?

“If people are not responsible for their own actions, the government must take that responsibility for them.”

This treats all people who are not responsible for their own actions in the same manner. There are many circumstances where I would agree or disagree with this statement.

"Capitalism is an economic system in which corporations and the rich exploit the poor and middle class. "

Capitalism exploits anyone without capital by its very nature.

“The free market economy is the best known method for ensuring the economic growth and well-being of the people.”

In a capitalist society the free market does not exist because it is owned and one must pay (markup) to trade on it–hence it is not free. Therefore, in a capitalist society the market only works for people with a certain level of capital. Well being should not be determined by wealth.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

In a capitalist society the free market does not exist because it is owned and one must pay (markup) to trade on it–hence it is not free. Therefore, in a capitalist society the market only works for people with a certain level of capital. Well being should not be determined by wealth.[/quote]

Free of “restrictions”, not free of cost.

Entering a market has a prize.So what?

[quote]orion wrote:
Free of “restrictions”, not free of cost.

Entering a market has a prize.So what?
[/quote]

Cost is a restriction.

Why should it cost to trade in a supposedly free and open system? If I wanted to trade my goods for some other need that I wasn’t able to procure why should I allow someone to profit by my lack of capital? That is the major flaw of capitalism. I cannot trade my goods openly. I must convert them to some form of currency and “purchase” what I need in the market. The transfer of capital incurs an unnecessary burden on my labor which in the long run causes inflation.

The purpose of trade is that it allows productive forces to free up unnecessary labor by producing only what they are most productive at. They then trade with someone who lacks this good for a good that they themselves lack. Logically, the trade partner would also benefit by freeing up unnecessary labor to produce more efficiently.

Free-trade implies that neither side benefits at someone else’s expense–in other words no one should lose sustainability because they had to incur some other cost.

The US is losing in this so called free-trade because we cannot produce anything sustainably because of the large corporate liabilities that have been incurred in the name of profitability; this also raises costs onto the rest of the market. Witness–US trade deficit.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Free of “restrictions”, not free of cost.

Entering a market has a prize.So what?

Cost is a restriction.

Why should it cost to trade in a supposedly free and open system? If I wanted to trade my goods for some other need that I wasn’t able to procure why should I allow someone to profit by my lack of capital? That is the major flaw of capitalism. I cannot trade my goods openly. I must convert them to some form of currency and “purchase” what I need in the market. The transfer of capital incurs an unnecessary burden on my labor which in the long run causes inflation.

The purpose of trade is that it allows productive forces to free up unnecessary labor by producing only what they are most productive at. They then trade with someone who lacks this good for a good that they themselves lack. Logically, the trade partner would also benefit by freeing up unnecessary labor to produce more efficiently.

Free-trade implies that neither side benefits at someone else’s expense–in other words no one should lose sustainability because they had to incur some other cost.

The US is losing in this so called free-trade because we cannot produce anything sustainably because of the large corporate liabilities that have been incurred in the name of profitability; this also raises costs onto the rest of the market. Witness–US trade deficit.[/quote]

You are implying that transaction costs are somehow immoral. You can walk your money to your business partners, I prefer to have it transfered by a bank.

Specialising in making business easier and more reliable is a perfectly legitimate business and people are obviously willing to pay for it.

Then, it is a-ok to barter in capitalism. Nobody forces you to use money. I guess you will find out soon why people coose to use money in a complex economy, but nobody forces you.

Plus, money makes wealth storable and cost analyses and therefore financial planning possible.

You are right though that people get robbed by inflation. It is basically legal coin clipping, however, central banks are usually government institutions and inflation is the result of some bankers delusions that they actually know better what the money supply should be than the market.

Transaction costs play no significant role in inflation.

Last but not least, you are rebelling against reality. It costs money to trade. Period.

There is a big difference between realities restricitions,like the need to meet trading partners and costs that occur when you ship goods, or restrictions that are imposed by a government.

A free market is a tool to work with the former “restricions” and is ideally not held back by the latter kind of restrictions.

This trick to equal both kinds of restriction is an old socialist one and basically boils down to the argument that you are allowed to rule other people by force because life sucks anyway.

Jeez… it’s a crappy little quiz people! Not meant to define anyone.

And yea, the test was definetly created by a libertarian. But it was what I found, and I thought it was interesting.

I also realize the questions suck, but I didn’t think anyone would take this that seriously.

We are going to hunt you down and beat you for starting this topic.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why should it cost to trade in a supposedly free and open system? If I wanted to trade my goods for some other need that I wasn’t able to procure why should I allow someone to profit by my lack of capital? That is the major flaw of capitalism. I cannot trade my goods openly. I must convert them to some form of currency and “purchase” what I need in the market. The transfer of capital incurs an unnecessary burden on my labor which in the long run causes inflation.[/quote]

Where to begin? First of all, there are costs at every level of production, including opportunity costs. A free system does not imply that there are no transaction costs - that has never been the case.

As for currency conversion, you can barter if you want to, but you have the theory exactly backwards - money improves trade, it doesn’t snarl it up. Barter begins to fail when needs and wants can’t be segragated in an efficient way - money greases that wheel.

Your “criticism” of capitalism is refuted by a basic Economics 101 class - I don’t mean that as an insult, but you have this tendency to get far afield in a topic you seem to have little understanding of when the understanding is not that complicated.

Correct - and it works, otherwise people wouldn’t do it.

Where in the world does free-trade imply that neither side benefits at someone else’s “expense”?

Free-trade implies that each side will trade if it is their own self-interest to do so. If it wasn’t, they would choose not to trade. You confound the idea by adding weird, unsupported caveats - like someone “losing sustainability to incur some other cost”. How often does this happen? Outside of a few contexts, if the person was going to become “unsustainable”, they would opt not to trade - it wouldn’t be in their interest to do so.

The market can break down when certain goods/services are not really a matter of choice - say, for example, medical services when you get hit by a bus - but these are the exceptions to an otherwise viable rule.

Wow.

I won’t go further with this, since it hijacks the point of the thread.

Being a libertarian is so trendy these days.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Being a libertarian is so trendy these days.[/quote]

That’s because of this new thing called the inter-nets. You see, its a giant series of tubes that allows us a new kind of freedom of speech and expression, and now that we’ve had a taste of these tubes, we want more.

Oh, and the inter-nets is nothing like a truck, you ca NOT just dump things on it.

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Being a libertarian is so trendy these days.[/quote]

It is like the lenght of dresses, it all goes in circles.

After a century of socialism you would expect a backlash.

[quote]orion wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
Being a libertarian is so trendy these days.

It is like the lenght of dresses, it all goes in circles.

After a century of socialism you would expect a backlash.
[/quote]

Very true

What a bunch of knobs. It’s a stupid little test… stop whining about it.

Anyway, based on my exasperated “let’s get this over with” answer mode, I’m apparently a paleo-liberal. I noticed that the “box” was mostly in the centrist zone with bits in left and libertarian.

Not bad. I believe in personal freedom, and economic freedom, with some minor adjustments, but there is no single ISM, to date, that is perfect.

So, obviously, we need a test that aligns our beliefs into a 3D sphere…

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
Being a libertarian is so trendy these days.[/quote]

Trendy? What’s trendy about wanting to make your own decisions?

Isn’t what makes our countries good places to live the afforded freedom?

I understand and support the need for a “safety net” provided by the government. Ideally, that should be minimal. Something that allows someone to cope while they get back on their feet, not something that allows someone to live like a parasite for 80 years.

We also need to make sure society does not collapse into anarchic chaos. But once that is in place - preferably in the least intrusive way possible - I prefer the government to stay the hell out of my life, my bedroom and my wallet.

Totalitarian, lol…

For shits and giggles; it’s as good a way as any to jump into the board. (and for the record, I’m not a 80-something capitalistic old man–not that there’s anything against 80-something old men…I just happen to be a 20-something female.)

Neo-Conservative
You scored 25% Personal Liberty and 40% Economic Liberty!
A neo-conservative believes in moderate to high government intervention on personal matters and moderate government intervention on economic matters. Unlike most other conservatives, they may tend to support a social safety net, though to a lesser extent then most leftists.

Others are more capitalistically inclined. They tend to support war, police powers, foreign intervention and laws restricting personal liberty. Neo-conservatives tend to emphasize foreign policy. Neo-conservatism is the result of “fusion” between “old left” and “new right” tendencies.

[quote]speezy wrote:
Neo-conservatism is the result of “fusion” between “old left” and “new right” tendencies.[/quote]

Na, it is the never changing collectivism…

Totalitarian
You scored 0% Personal Liberty and 0% Economic Liberty!
A totalitarian believes in extremely heavy government intervention in both personal and economic matters. A totalitarian is the epitome of tyranny. Omnipotent, all-encompassing government that controls the entire economy and social behavior down to the detail. A huge welfare state and a huge police state at once.


Hmm I guess I’m fucked up.

Knew something was wrong…

Paleo-Liberal
You scored 63% Personal Liberty and 51% Economic Liberty!

A paleo-liberal believes in low to moderate government intervention on personal matters and moderate government intervention on economic matters. They tend to be opposed to war, police powers and victimless crimes. They believe in a social safety net, but to a lesser extent then most leftists. They generally believe in protecting personal liberty. They support self-ownership and privacy.

Some Paleo-liberals may lean towards embracing capitalism as an economic system. Paleo-liberals are reminiscent of the attitude of the “new left” of the 60’s and 70’s. Strong Paleo-Liberals border on Libertarianism.