Topic: What Do You Score On This Survey?

[IronDioPriest]

It occurs to me to wonder what Ron Paul scores on this test.

Why?

Because I would surmise that if many of us here were to compare themselves ideologically to Ron Paul, and then to someone like, oh, Paul Ryan; Marco Rubio; Scott Walker, etc, I would bet money that we are more ideologically aligned with Ron Paul than any of them.

And I would further surmise that in many areas in which we disagree with Ron Paul, we become inconsistent with libertarian principles in favor of our own preferences.

For instance, Israel. I wholeheartedly believe that Israel must be our ally in the region, and that their survival and security is paramount, if the evil of Scuzlam is to be defeated. I believe that a nation that abandons Israel will be abandoned by God.

But our constitution speaks nothing of the United States choosing sides in distant foreign affairs by developing foreign policy that consistently shows preference for one particular nation, particularly in wars that do not come to the shores of the United States. It speaks of trade and treaty with those nations. The libertarian position is neutrality where our own security is not directly threatened. The libertarian principle would have us be consistent in non-intervention in foreign conflicts, whether it be Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, or whatever.

All I'm pointing out is that our preferences seem to be deeply libertarian; more in line with someone like Ron Paul than any of the other GOP politicians who are supposedly conservative. Where we depart from libertarian principle in favor of our own ideological preferences, we take on attributes of mainstream Republicans, with whom we are less ideologically aligned.

Just an observation.

[warpmine]

It occurs to me to wonder what Ron Paul scores on this test.

Why?

Because I would surmise that if many of us here were to compare themselves ideologically to Ron Paul, and then to someone like, oh, Paul Ryan; Marco Rubio; Scott Walker, etc, I would bet money that we are more ideologically aligned with Ron Paul than any of them.

And I would further surmise that in many areas in which we disagree with Ron Paul, we become inconsistent with libertarian principles in favor of our own preferences.

For instance, Israel. I wholeheartedly believe that Israel must be our ally in the region, and that their survival and security is paramount, if the evil of Scuzlam is to be defeated. I believe that a nation that abandons Israel will be abandoned by God.

But our constitution speaks nothing of the United States choosing sides in distant foreign affairs by developing foreign policy that consistently shows preference of one particular nation, particularly in wars that do not directly affect the United States. It speaks of trade and treaty. The libertarian position is neutrality where our own security is not directly threatened. The libertarian principle would have us be consistent in non-intervention in foreign conflicts, whether it be Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, or whatever.

All I'm pointing out is that our preferences seem to be deeply libertarian; more in line with someone like Ron Paul than any of the other GOP politicians who are supposedly conservative. Where we depart from libertarian principle in favor of our own ideological preferences, we take on attributes of mainstream Republicans, with whom we are less ideologically aligned.

Just an observation.

Oh, I see you've give some deep thought to this. Understand, my friend, I do.

[Alphabet Soup]

Ron Paul is an archetype libertarian when it comes to defense - that is he doesn't have the stomach for it. Oh he pays a little (very little) lip service to "honorable service" and he doesn't seem to hold an animosity for the military like shrillary or Øbongo does, he really has little use for the military.

Foreign entanglements? We may share an inch of common ground but he is a rigid absolutist at the expense of being a pragmatist. "Nothing ever ever ever no no no!" is something less than inspiring foreign policy.

Economy? Sorry folks but practical reality is that it needs the Goldilocks approach. A little government intervention but not too much. Paul would starve us into utter desolation.

Culture? For Paul he lets his libertarian freak-flag fly. Anything goes. After all even though he may not personally indulge far be it for he to judge what others may do.

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

[IronDioPriest]

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. I'd have to say I am more aligned with Walker as well. But the point I'm making is that I'd bet we would score closer to Ron Paul on the libertarian test than we would Scott Walker.

I guess to further my point a bit, we seem to want to be libertarian, and view ourselves as libertarian, and when we parse it out, we find that many of our values are libertarian, but when the rubber hits the road, we turn away from libertarianism in favor of government that is more involved in more aspects of life than our libertarian ideology would suggest.

[John Florida]

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. I'd have to say I am more aligned with Walker as well. But the point I'm making is that I'd bet we would score closer to Ron Paul on the libertarian test than we would Scott Walker.

I guess to further my point a bit, we seem to want to be libertarian, and view ourselves as libertarian, and when we parse it out, we find that many of our values are libertarian, but when the rubber hits the road, we turn away from libertarianism in favor of government that is more involved in more aspects of life than our libertarian ideology would suggest.

 Agreed!

[Weisshaupt]

The libertarian position is neutrality where our own security is not directly threatened.

Yep, if only we had stayed of of World War II and let Hitler conquer the continent, then Russia and most of Africa and then dealt with him when he finally turned his attention to us after developing rockets with Nukes.
"Directly Threatened" is certainly the big L sort of Libertarian philosophy,  and the Founders certainly tried to do that, and then found it impossible.. with both England, France and the Islamic Pirates attacking our shipping - mostly because we were allied with no one.   Going it alone and remaining neutral  is not possible in this world as it stands - and that is one of those hard facts of adult life.  Sadly there are a number of Libertarians who use the philosophy as Liberals use theirs - to absolve themselves of their moral responsibility for others, and yes that applies on an international scale as well.  First they came for the Jews.. but I wasn't a Jew.

I don't know what to call it- little L libertarianism, Founderism or whatever. Bottom line the founders did believe in personal responsibility, and (religious) morality as the PRIMARY motive in individual lives, our government being wholly inadequate to any other but a moral people ( paraphrasing Adams) 

[Alphabet Soup]

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. I'd have to say I am more aligned with Walker as well. But the point I'm making is that I'd bet we would score closer to Ron Paul on the libertarian test than we would Scott Walker.

I guess to further my point a bit, we seem to want to be libertarian, and view ourselves as libertarian, and when we parse it out, we find that many of our values are libertarian, but when the rubber hits the road, we turn away from libertarianism in favor of government that is more involved in more aspects of life than our libertarian ideology would suggest.

I like to think of it as libertarians agreeing with me more than 'tother way round 

[IronDioPriest]

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. I'd have to say I am more aligned with Walker as well. But the point I'm making is that I'd bet we would score closer to Ron Paul on the libertarian test than we would Scott Walker.

I guess to further my point a bit, we seem to want to be libertarian, and view ourselves as libertarian, and when we parse it out, we find that many of our values are libertarian, but when the rubber hits the road, we turn away from libertarianism in favor of government that is more involved in more aspects of life than our libertarian ideology would suggest.

I like to think of it as libertarians agreeing with me more than 'tother way round  

Well, can't argue with that!

ETA: And who knows? I'm only guessing; wondering. Perhaps Scott Walker would score right in line with most of us, and Ron Paul would bury the libertarian needle at the top end of the scale. I'm only curious, because there was a time in the not-too-distant past when I would never in a million years have labeled myself as libertarian, and yet, I'm scoring high on the test, which seems like a valid test, even if basic. I'm just guessing that our garden variety conservative  Pubbies that are considered the Wacko-Birds by the RiNOs would score lower than most of us here.

[Alphabet Soup]

I actually find myself more attuned to the opinions and values of Scott Walker than I do Ron Paul.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. I'd have to say I am more aligned with Walker as well. But the point I'm making is that I'd bet we would score closer to Ron Paul on the libertarian test than we would Scott Walker.

I guess to further my point a bit, we seem to want to be libertarian, and view ourselves as libertarian, and when we parse it out, we find that many of our values are libertarian, but when the rubber hits the road, we turn away from libertarianism in favor of government that is more involved in more aspects of life than our libertarian ideology would suggest.

I like to think of it as libertarians agreeing with me more than 'tother way round 

Well, can't argue with that!

ETA: And who knows? I'm only guessing; wondering. Perhaps Scott Walker would score right in line with most of us, and Ron Paul would bury the libertarian needle at the top end of the scale. I'm only curious, because there was a time in the not-too-distant past when I would never in a million years have labeled myself as libertarian, and yet, I'm scoring high on the test, which seems like a valid test, even if basic. I'm just guessing that our garden variety conservative  Pubbies that are considered the Wacko-Birds by the RiNOs would score lower than most of us here.

IMO the point of commonality is "live and let live" - having tolerance for things that don't necessarily interest you personally. The problem (as I see it) is that "L"ibertarians take that basic concept, swallow it, and then turn it crossways so as to restrict basic functions. They get so hung up on abstract idealism they lose sight of the forest for all the damned trees. I can't tell you how many self-professed libertarians I've met who are in truth closer to anarchists - they are so against everything that they unconsciously seek chaos.

Remember too the imprecision of this test. It simplistically attempts to weight trends based on a slim sample-set and with an unknown and questionable methodology. As I was taking it I chuckled at a comparison to an eye exam, "now this - is it better or worse?" OK, how about now - better or worse?" LOL.

[charlesoakwood]

It is not feasible to rip an elderly person's support from them and expect them to sustain themselves.
Advocating the immediate sensation of SS is advocating the death of thousands of people.
Advocating the immediate cessation of SS is advocating murder.

[Weisshaupt]

It is not feasible to rip an elderly person's support from them and expect them to sustain themselves.
Advocating the immediate sensation of SS is advocating the death of thousands of people.
Advocating the immediate cessation of SS is advocating murder.

If this is an attempt to bait me, I am not rising to it.  You are my brother CO,and I mean it... but seriously..
No one deserves to live off anything not freely given. Period. End. of. Story.

Those "thousands of people" with no one willing to care for them wrote their own ending. They  Decided to depend upon the forced participation in SS  rather than their own initiative and honest earnings.
No, I have no sympathy for them  at all.

There is a difference between asking and telling.  If  you  point a gun at someone else and tell them to care for you then you  are asking to be murdered.

[charlesoakwood]

It is not feasible to rip an elderly person's support from them and expect them to sustain themselves.
Advocating the immediate sensation of SS is advocating the death of thousands of people.
Advocating the immediate cessation of SS is advocating murder.

If this is an attempt to bait me, I am not rising to it.  You are my brother CO,and I mean it... but seriously..
No one deserves to live off anything not freely given. Period. End. of. Story.

Those "thousands of people" with no one willing to care for them wrote their own ending. They  Decided to depend upon the forced participation in SS  rather than their own initiative and honest earnings.
No, I have no sympathy for them  at all.

There is a difference between asking and telling.  If  you  point a gun at someone else and tell them to care for you then you  are asking to be murdered.

It is absolutely not a bait.  It is a mathematical certainty if SS were immediately eliminated people would die as a direct result. 

Your opinion that "Those "thousands of people" with no one willing to care for them wrote their own ending. They  Decided to depend upon the forced participation in SS  rather than their own initiative and honest earnings.
No, I have no sympathy for them  at all. " is your opinion and has no bearing on the reality that people would die as a direct consequence of SS being withdrawn.

If one is aware that death will be an outcome of SS being halted then those persons death will not be an accident.

[Pandora]

It is not feasible to rip an elderly person's support from them and expect them to sustain themselves.
Advocating the immediate sensation of SS is advocating the death of thousands of people.
Advocating the immediate cessation of SS is advocating murder.

If this is an attempt to bait me, I am not rising to it.  You are my brother CO,and I mean it... but seriously..
No one deserves to live off anything not freely given. Period. End. of. Story.

Those "thousands of people" with no one willing to care for them wrote their own ending. They  Decided to depend upon the forced participation in SS  rather than their own initiative and honest earnings.
No, I have no sympathy for them  at all.

There is a difference between asking and telling.  If  you  point a gun at someone else and tell them to care for you then you  are asking to be murdered.

It is absolutely not a bait.  It is a mathematical certainty if SS were immediately eliminated people would die as a direct result.  

Your opinion that "Those "thousands of people" with no one willing to care for them wrote their own ending. They  Decided to depend upon the forced participation in SS  rather than their own initiative and honest earnings.
No, I have no sympathy for them  at all. " is your opinion and has no bearing on the reality that people would die as a direct consequence of SS being withdrawn.

If one is aware that death will be an outcome of SS being halted then those persons death will not be an accident.

No, Charles.  There are people, for those that don't have family, who would see to it that most do not die.

eta:  You don't want to say whether or not you have children, so, I'll repeat that Gunsmith and I do not, which, right now, puts us in the advantageous position of not being in the "sandwich generation" -- having parents and kids depending on us -- so it's just the parents when the checks stop.  My brother has two, neither of which is going to lift a hand to help him should he need it, because they're both used to him giving to them.  My sister?  Feh.

So, here I sit, knowing I'm not going to let any family die as a direct consequence, and I'll tend to as many friends as we can manage.  And we're not alone, you know?  CHF and his wife invited an elderly couple from their church to come live with them, and they see each other as blessings.

There will be somebody willing to help us when and if we need it and I doubt that you don't/won't, nor many others either.

[trapeze]

I would be perfectly okay with phasing SS out over time. Say...something more than ten years and less than twenty. Some amount of time to give people adequate warning and sufficient time to prepare for the total failure of SS. Medicare too. All of the handouts and un-Constitutional giveaways and freebies. They are all wrong for so many reasons and they are all unsustainable. But there is no need to yank the rug out from people.

So that's my position. They all need to go because none of them are right. But they should not be cut off without adequate warning and time for preparation.

But, as all of us are adults and not stupid, we know that the country will be allowed to fail before the bread and circuses will ever be cut off.

[Weisshaupt]

So that's my position. They all need to go because none of them are right. But they should not be cut off without adequate warning and time for preparation.

Adequate warning was given the moment the Supreme Court declared SS to be a tax and benefits to be at the discretion of congress. And for the morally  inclined it was given before that.
CO is right people will die. Especially if they think they can hold a govt gun to my head  and demand I fund their retirement with full knowledge no one will be funding mine.
I did nothing to deserve slavery. I did nothing that would require I pay for something I will never get.  If you were dumb enough to believe you could get something for nothing , and pissed of family and friends enough no one will willingly take care of you, then you deserve exactly what you get.  I am not your slave. Asking id different than telling, and if the boomers have to learn that the hard way, then so be it.

[charlesoakwood]

So that's my position. They all need to go because none of them are right. But they should not be cut off without adequate warning and time for preparation.

Adequate warning was given the moment the Supreme Court declared SS to be a tax and benefits to be at the discretion of congress. And for the morally  inclined it was given before that.
CO is right people will die. Especially if they think they can hold a govt gun to my head  and demand I fund their retirement with full knowledge no one will be funding mine.
I did nothing to deserve slavery. I did nothing that would require I pay for something I will never get.  If you were dumb enough to believe you could get something for nothing , and pissed of family and friends enough no one will willingly take care of you, then you deserve exactly what you get.  I am not your slave. Asking id different than telling, and if the boomers have to learn that the hard way, then so be it.

CO is right people will die. Especially if they think they can hold a govt gun to my head  and demand I fund their retirement with full knowledge no one will be funding mine.

The government gun is at your head today and it is demanding you pay and you do.  You are angry that you have to pay the SS FICA taxes and I understand and agree.  Directing your anger at those who were forced just as your are being forced is not a solution.  Those folk at whom you are directing your anger understand that anger but it is misplaced, both of you are at different ends of the same boat.  The solution is eliminating government extravagance and as you have agreed there many places, some  more extravagant than SS, to begin. Approaching the problem from that perspective would enable you to cut extravagance and bureaucracy while enlisting many allies instead of eliminating them. 

I did nothing to deserve slavery.
Slaves rarely deserve it.

I did nothing that would require I pay for something I will never get. 
You signed up for SS.

If you were dumb enough to believe you could get something for nothing , and pissed of family and friends enough no one will willingly take care of you, then you deserve exactly what you get. 
non sequitur; The point is SS and the morbid outcome of its immediate withdrawal.

I am not your slave.
Thank God.

Asking id different than telling, and if the boomers have to learn that the hard way, then so be it.
It'll will be a difficult learning curve for everyone.

[BigAlSouth]

The Democrat Party reminds me of the labor unions at Eastern Airlines in the 70's and Hostess Brands of late. They were specifically told that the company that gave them their job would not be able to exist if they did not reduce their wages. So what did the unions do?

Gave the big Eff U to their company, then sat back and watched it die, along with their employment, before their very eyes.

My point: We will be one week before total and complete national insolvency and Nancy Pelosi and her bunch of dumbasses will be refusing to cut one cent out of SS/Medicare/medicaid.

[Weisshaupt]

Directing your anger at those who were forced just as your are being forced is not a solution.

The Retirees collecting SS now are not forced to take it. They are no longer having their paychecks confiscated. We are not in the same boat because, you see CO, they will get paid  , and I will not.
Two different boats - one - unwilling to give up what they think they are owed ( but they aren't owed a penny)   and advocating the forceful servitude of innocents to get it. Please explain why I shouldn't be angry at people who think I should continue to pay so they won't "suffer" but have no problem that I will as a result? I will get screwed out of my payments. Why should they not ALSO be screwed out of theirs? Why are they special? Because they are old?  Because they have more invested?  So what? Why is that relevant?  They also had opportunities I  and my children will never have.  They had richer, fuller and more prosperous lives than I can even aspire to.   If they loose more, they should be grateful for what they already got and realize that the amount they are getting screwed is directly proportional to their THEIR OWN FAILURE to repeal  this program BEFORE it because a Last Generation of the Ponzi problem. I have failed to to get it repealed too - and I will also lose my money as a result.   The essence of fairness is that the rules are applied the same to everyone. If I don't get paid, I don't see why they should. Advocating any solution other than a complete and total cutoff is advocating for an unfair, evil and cruel treatment of some so the most selfish generation ever can got to their graves unaffected and sacrificing NOTHING.  There is no doubt  some will die, but then, that is what Liberals want you to believe , that without SS there is NO WAY OF SURVIVING. Well there is. Those unwilling or too stubborn  to pursue those methods of survival because they demand sacrifices and changes  deserve to die IMO. As Pan indicated most will understand the need to help, but then perhaps you fear they won't help...I wonder why you might suspect that.

. Approaching the problem from that perspective would enable you to cut extravagance and bureaucracy while enlisting many allies instead of eliminating them.  [/i]

If they think that continuing to take from others  by force is right, they cannot, by definition,  be my allies, because they are proving themselves perfectly capable of stabbing me in the back - and in fact advocating it be done. At best they are mercenaries, paid by promises of ill-gotten gain, and they would help only because it would benefit them and  prolong their payments at my expense, an army of paid voters bribed with tax dollars to vote a certain way.  If you are unwilling to repeal because that is the RIGHT thing to do, then you can't be an ally. People like this  yanked the rug out from under my entire generation, I have no problem doing so in  return. .

A person who  Selfishly demands "they get theirs" by the enslavement of innocents has proven they are perfectly willing to sell out the principles of freedom and liberty for their own interests- and they are no different than any run of the mill liberal in that regard. Social Security is wrong. Living off the backs of others is wrong. Advocating anything other than the immediate and compete repeal of the program - especially when it serves selfish personal interests, is simply evil. Since  popular repeal is impossible anyway, I don't really need their help at all do I?  But I will remember their attitudes when this inevitably  repeals itself, and you can bet that no help will be coming from me for people like this .  Those who don't respect the rights of others, who don't treat others civilly and charitably , should not expect respect,charity, or civility when the tables are turned.  A whole generation, as a group, failed to earn their own  keep- spending their children's future  incomes instead, and when this unhappy and unfair state of affairs starts to come to its inevitable and utterly predictable  end,  they   scream "but we will die!"  - but Parasites SHOULD DIE when they are removed from the host.  If you aren't a parasite, then you will survive just fine.

 
You signed up for SS.

You know perfectly well I didn't, and would have opted out - but the only way to do that is to leave the country.
No I pay SS and was signed up the way everyone is : at the point of a gun.  The difference is that many of  those currently getting paid are willing to become part of the criminal enterprise- to fight its repeal and ending,  to  hold and use that gun against me, because its unacceptable to them that they suffer or sacrifice or in any way be screwed, but perfectly fine if I am.  

 
If you were dumb enough to believe you could get something for nothing , and pissed of family and friends enough no one will willingly take care of you, then you deserve exactly what you get.  
non sequitur; The point is SS and the morbid outcome of its immediate withdrawal.

Its hardly a non sequitur.  I am saying that those foolish enough to be dependent upon Social Security at this point -those  so foolish as to depend only upon the state for survival - those so useless and unwanted by anyone; friends, family or community, those who would demand I sacrifice so they don't have to,   THOSE PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE, justice would be served by their deaths,  and therefore  the morbid outcome is perfectly acceptable, and in fact desirable as those people no longer being around will make the world a better place. And the best part is that they are self selected.  The morbid outcome is inevitable no matter what - because this WILL end  ;  an end that has been  apparent and predicable for decades,  and there is nothing anyone can do now to stop it.

[IronDioPriest]

The Retirees collecting SS now are not forced to take it. They are no longer having their paychecks confiscated. We are not in the same boat because, you see CO, they will get paid  , and I will not.

But aren't you the fella 'round here who constantly tells everyone we should go on the dole and bleed the system in order to quicken the demise of this surely doomed nation so we can get on with the rebuild?

If I'm wrong, tell me, but I'm sensing a bit o' dissonance here.

[Weisshaupt]

The Retirees collecting SS now are not forced to take it. They are no longer having their paychecks confiscated. We are not in the same boat because, you see CO, they will get paid  , and I will not.

But aren't you the fella 'round here who constantly tells everyone we should go on the dole and bleed the system in order to quicken the demise of this surely doomed nation so we can get on with the rebuild?

If I'm wrong, tell me, but I'm sensing a bit o' dissonance here.

 CO seemed to be implying an equivalence that I think is invalid: "Those folk at whom you are directing your anger understand that anger but it is misplaced, both of you are at different ends of the same boat."
The people on one end of the boat are on the receiving end, the other on the giving, and the boat has cracked in half-- and both sides are sinking - but some on the receiving side of the boat are demanding those on the giving side throw them all of the life preservers, and then plan to  leave the givers to drown..   Its the "demanding" bit I have having trouble with.  The argument that we "must" give current seniors a pass, and others time to adjust is BS.  This was and has been obvious for decades. If you didn't adjust to the reality then, I see no reason for granting an additional grace period.  The dissonance comes down to a matter of  intent.  Do you take those funds because you want to drive the system to its end? Is your actual goal  to deprive yourself of those  checks leaving whatever money on the table that you didn't happen to receive? Or do you take them because you think you are "owed" them, and intend to fight for getting all your "owed" no matter what the cost to others or where the money comes from?  I don't really want anyone to take the High Road and reject them, as that just prolongs the time I will have to pay in, but that is selfishness on my part, and I couldn't fault  someone who rejected those funds because they didn't want to face God's judgement. However, I can easily find fault with those who not only take them, but believe they are "owed" that money.. that in some way I promised it and have to make good.

Sure, in the end, the action is the same, and only individuals know in their hearts which intent drives them.  It all works toward my wish of watching it all burn and thereby gaining my freedom from it, and preferably sooner than later.  The  morbid results CO complains of are  inevitable, and baked into the cake regardless.  If we "secure" seniors now by guaranteeing their benefits and they don't die, it just condemns more people in my generation to that death - as some of the resources needed for us to prepare for our own retirement  will be forcefully taken from us.  The  casualties just occur at  a later point in time - to a different set of people. . But COs point seems to be that casualties in my generation of non-recipients  are preferred to casualties in the current generation of recipients. A form of  "Better you than Me" that involves perpetuation of the original  wrong for the preservation of one group at the expense of the other.  My Generation will suffer regardless from this, but I see no reason the prior generation, having had every opportunity to prepare for their own retirements in a world of prosperity and plenty  , should heap more suffering on my generation who will have to make do in a world without such opportunists ( and those to follow mine)  all so the prior generation can  "get theirs" and think they should be immune from suffering or from having their plans wrecked. And Yeah, being in the group who some think it would be right to sacrificed, a group with many more troubles of our own,  I resent those in the prior generation who are unwilling to own up to their own responsibilities and  take their own lumps gracefully when the time comes.

So by all means keep collecting your checks, just please  take what you get  as a gift and with a grateful heart, rather than one darkened by a spirit of entitlement and some thought that you earned or  are owed what you receive.