Disqus - Latest Comments for nicrivera

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

nicrivera — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:16:28 -0000

As for hate crimes, I've made it clear many times on TMV that I oppose hate crime legislation as a violation of freedom of thought, speech and expression, though many have made strong arguments against me on that.

Exactly.

Some people here are trying to use the hate crimes legislation issue to bolster their arguments in favor of restricting the types of activities that gay and lesbian individuals should and should not be able to do. This is a complete red herring.

Like, tidbits, I have also argued time and time again against hate crimes legislation on the basis that such legislation criminalizes thought and expression. I personally have no problem with homosexuality. If others do, that's their problem. I have no desire to have the government force such individuals to accept homosexuality.

I have pointed out time and time again, that my belief that homosexual individuals ought to be able to live their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties of others. Since homosexuality, gay marriage, and gays serving in the military doesn't infringe on anyone else's lives, liberties, or property, I see no reason for there to be laws against such things.

This has absolutely nothing to do with trying to force others to accept homosexuality as being good or criminalizing anti-gay thoughts. All of this "gay agenda" rhetoric is just fear mongering. One cannot simply assume that just because some people support gays being allowed to marry or join the military, that they support every conceivable law that is thought to sympathetic to gays. This is blanket a generalization. People cannot keep using the hate crimes legislation issue as some kind of trump card to make arguments against positions that have nothing to do with hate crimes legislation.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

nicrivera — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:15:00 -0000

Father Time,

You have mixed so many issues together (homosexuality, discrimination, rape, hate crimes) that it's almost impossible to have a conversation with you.

Whether you want to accept homosexuality as good or bad or moral or immoral or normal or abnormal is up to you. It seems pretty obvious that no one here is going to change your mind on that, and frankly, I'm less concerned about whatever personal beliefs people hold than I am about what people believe to be the role of government.

In a free society, people ought to have the right to life their lives as they wish so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. People should be able to take part in whatever activities they wish, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. Whether they do so openly or not is beside the point. It's a matter of respecting other people's rights.

If a homosexual person were to rape a heterosexual person, that would be wrong--not because the aggressor was homosexual--but because the aggressor raped another person. Whether such an act constitutes a hate crime or not is beside the point.

If a homosexual couple were to have sex on your front lawn, that would be wrong--not because there's anything wrong with homosexuality--but because that couple trespassed onto your property.

You say that you are talking about real harm, but I am not hearing anything in your arguments pointing out what is so harmful about homosexuality or about allowing homosexuality. I think the whole "homosexuality is harmful" argument is some trumped up argument made by people who are using the word "harm" in a manner that is inconsistent with its definition. No one is being "harmed" by homosexuality in and of itself. What I think is really happening is that some people are just really uncomfortable or repulsed about the idea of homosexuality. But that does not constitute harm.

The whole point of Dorian's post, as I understand it, was to point out that thousands of gay and lesbian individuals have served in the military in spite of our government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and further, that many of those gays and lesbian individuals have made sacrifices for their country, in spite of the fact that some of their own countrymen (and women) do not want them serving.

I gather from his post that Dorian does not support our government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which is in line with what I think. I think that law is based more on fear and misperceptions and very little on logic or rational thought. If the argument is that allowing gay and lesbian individuals serve in the military is going to harm the military in any way, I'd like to hear facts and data to support such an allegation and not simply opinions and hypothetical scenarios.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:19:56 -0000

I absolutely am economically libertarian, but I am incredibly socially conservative.

That sounds pretty consistent with how most conservatives would explain their political views. However, I wonder if your economically libertarian beliefs ever conflict with your socially conservative beliefs. The reason I ask is because economically libertarian beliefs tend to be very laissez faire, while socially conservative beliefs tend to be as far from laissez faire as one can get. Social conservatives tend to support government intervention in a number of issues that I tend to classify as the traditional values and law & order issues (i.e. laws against drug use, laws against pornography, laws against obscenity). Such laws would necessarily violate the concept of free market capitalism, which is essentially what economic libertarianism is all about.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:07:19 -0000

Just as an FYI, and not to be rude at all, because I don't mean to be, but, it's not PBJFan, but rather PJBFan. The PJB is for Patrick J. Buchanan, of whom I am a fan.

Darn! And here I was hoping that you were a peanut butter & jelly fan!

Anyway, sorry about the switching of the J and the B.

You, of course, are entitled to your views on abortion. I suppose I can agree with you that the individual civilians that are killed during war are not murder in the sense that they are not being deliberately targeted. But I still don't see how bombing a city filled with five million people (the overwhelming majority of which are civilians) is consistent with a pro-life position. But then again, as I recall, Pat Buchanan was one of the few well known conservatives that spoke out against the Iraq War, so if you're a fan of his, perhaps you also opposed the Iraq War?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:15:19 -0000

The analogies to war and capital punishment are inapposite because those two things, that is national defense, and enforcement of judgements, are listed as things the Government MUST take care of.

PBJFan,

You sound like you have very strong beliefs regarding abortion. I happen to be pro-choice, but I can understand why someone who genuinely believes abortion is murder could not bring himself/herself to support the pro-choice position.

However, the final sentence of your comment (which I highlighted above) is something that really struck me.

I happen to know several pro-life libertarians. They believe, as you do, that abortion is murder. And because they believe abortion is murder, they believe it is one of the rare instances in which the government should intervene to protect what they believe to be the fetus' (or child's) right to life (how exactly they would have the government intervene, I'm not entirely sure).

However, these libertarians maintain a consistent pro-life position. This means that they do not believe it is right for any person to kill another person unless it is in self-defense. As such, these pro-life libertarians also tend to be adamantly antiwar on the basis that innocent people are killed during war. When thousands of innocent men, women, and children were killed as a result our government's "shock and awe" campaign on Baghdad (a city with 5 million people), pro-life libertarians did not absolve the government of these needless deaths the way that many pro-life conservatives did.

So while I consider myself to be pro-choice, I can at least respect the pro-life position. But I would expect a little bit of consistency on the part of people who claim to be pro-life.

If one is going to argue that the killing of a 8 week old fetus is murder and should be punished but that the killing of an 8 year old child who dies as a result of our government dropping a bomb on him/her is not murder and should not be punished . . . then that person is inevitably opening himself/herself up to criticism that he/she is being selective in what constitutes murder and in what constitutes a pro-life position.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

nicrivera — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:29:43 -0000

Please tell me what you “subscribe too”…..so that I may be more enlightened and less “vindictive”.

I consider myself to be a libertarian-liberal--someone who is socially libertarian and fiscally moderate. I feel that people should basically be free to engage in consensual acts so long as they do not infringe on anyone else's life, liberty, or property. I believe that government is essentially a coercive institution--that is--the laws they it passes are not recommendations that people may chose to follow but are dictates that individuals are forced to follow either via force or by the threat of force. I believe that some form of government is necessary to protect people's rights, defend them from agressors, provide for courts and elections, and ensure some degree of stability within the country.

I believe that if the government is to pass a law, it should grounded on utilitarian reasons and not grounded moralistic philosophy that argues that some people need to be penalized merely because they are acting "immoral."

If we're going to put certain people in prison, it should be because their actions are infringing upon the lives, liberties, or properties or others--not because we find their actions to be distasteful or immoral.

If we're going to tax people, it should be to collect revenue to fund programs that society as a whole deems is appropriate--not because the rich need to "pay their fair share."

My criticism of your above post was not so much a criticism of what you proposed for the government to do (add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year) but because of the reason you gave for this proposal (just to show them them the power of the collective majority). Was this a tongue-in-cheek statement, or do you believe the government should be imposing taxes on certain groups of people as some kind of "gotcha" or punitive measure, as your post suggested?

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

nicrivera — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:56:30 -0000

I don’t even understand how this can be constitutional. Abortion is legal. This amendment will make it impossible for poor women to have an abortion. How can that not be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy . . . there is so much irony is this statement that how do I even begin?

1) I don't even understand how this can be constitutional. I don't like the government mixing politics with religion any more than you do. I would prefer that the U.S. Conference of Bishops not attempt to shape public policy, but I am not aware of any law that prevents them from lobbying just as any other lobbying organization, and there certainly is nothing in the Constitution that forbids religious groups from being lobbyists.

The irony, of course, is that while you seem very concerned about the Constitutionality of the U.S. Conference of Bishops trying to influence public policy, you seemed very little concerned about the constitutionality of this new Health Care Insurance Reform law itself. Many people have argued that such a law is unconstitutional under the basis that the federal government providing health care insurance is not among the enumerated powers in the Constitution. I realize that you are unpersuaded by this argument and not likely to change your mind.

However, there is also the Insurance Mandate portion of the bill, which would force people to purchase health insurance and be liable to suffer penalties if they do not do so. This, as I understand it, is unprecedented in U.S. history. Time and time again, the federal government has provided services to the American people that some have considered unconstitutional. But this would be the first time that the federal government would actually be forcing the American people to purchase a product/service. Up until now, mandates have been done at the state and local level (i.e. car insurance, health insurance), but never at the federal level. Forcing people to purchase a product/service goes well beyond the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. If the federal government can force people to purchase health care insurance, is there any limit at all on what the federal government can force us to purchase?

2) Abortion is legal. This amendment will make it impossible for poor women to have an abortion. As I have made it known on several previous occasions, I am adamantly pro-choice. I consider abortion to be a very difficult and personal decision that must be made between a woman and her doctor. It is not that I support abortion; I simply do not want the government involved in this decision whatsoever. This is what being pro-choice is all about. It is not about favoring one choice over another, but ensuring that an individual has the opportunity to make that choice in the first place.

Apparently, this is not the pro-choice position that you and many others advocate. You seem to think that a woman's right to have an abortion extends to having others pay for that abortion. I don't agree with that at all. The freedom to do something does not imply that you are entitled to have the government pay for you to do it. I am adamantly pro-choice when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, pornography, and a host of other things. That does not imply that I would have the government force others to pay for me to obtain such things.

The idea that women are entitled to have abortions funded with taxpayer dollars goes against the entire notion of being pro-choice. Being pro-choice means offering individuals the freedom to choose between different options and not coercing them to accept any particular outcome. The requires absolute government neutrality in the matter. A true pro-choice position would argue that the government should neither be funding nor prohibiting abortions. How can you demand that others respect an individual's right to have an abortion, but you yourself not respect an individual's right not to have to fund such a procedure? That is not a pro-choice position.

3) Lastly, I will say that the anti-abortion amendment was inevitable. This is what happens when you inject the government into health care. Not only are you giving the government the power to affect changes that you support; you also giving the government the power to affect changes that others support but that you do not. This is a natural consequence of government intervention.

When abortions are paid for with private money, pro-life advocates cannot argue that they are being coerced into doing anything. Since it is not their taxpayer dollars that are not funding abortions, they have no right to dictate to individuals whether they can or cannot have an abortion or limit access to abortion.

However, when abortions are paid for with public money, pro-life advocates are being forced to fund procedures that they do not agree with. One of the consequences of forcing them to pay for such procedures is that they now have a vested interest in how those taxpayer dollars are being spent. The funding for this procedure becomes collectivised, and pro-life advocates are going to demand that if they are being forced to pay for abortions, then they're entitled limit how abortions are done, what type of abortions can be done, at what gestational age abortions can be done.

In short, by advocating that the federal government become involved in funding abortions, you and others are actually undermining the pro-choice movement. We have a situation now where abortion is legal. But by your insisting that the government be involved in the funding of abortion, you are implicitly giving the government the power to further constrain under what conditions abortion can and cannot be done. The outcome is that in your efforts to make it easier for women to have abortions (by having others paying for them), you actually are advocating conditions that will risk further constraining abortion rights.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

nicrivera — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:35:06 -0000

Then add a surtax on those making more than $300,000 each year just to show them the power of the collective majority.

That sounds pretty vindictive.

I can understand raising taxes for the purpose of funding the government. But to raise taxes just to show them the power of the collective majority, that sounds pretty mean-spirited. The idea that the majority should be able to bully the minority is not something that I subscribe to.

Re: What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?

nicrivera — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:28:59 -0000

Once again, I think it is best that religion not be injected into politics.

In a free society, religion is a set of rules and beliefs by which individuals of that particular religion are encouraged to live by and practice. In a free society, religion is not something that should be used to justify the government imposing certain rules and beliefs.

I have long heard arguments from conservatives that use Christian beliefs to justify the government enforcing certain "conservative" morals on people. Now I hear arguments from progressive using Christian beliefs to justify the government enforcing certain "progressive" morals on people. Yet Jesus' message was one of teaching and persuasion; not of coercion. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never preached for Christians to take part in government in order to legislate their beliefs upon the people of any particular state.

Yes, the Bible says certain things about how you are to live your life. Certain actions are considered necessary to achieve salvation while certain actions are forbidden. In a free society, this constitutes a belief system by which individuals should live their lives, not how they would demand others to live their lives. Yes, showing compassion and generosity to the poor was among the teachings that Jesus preached, but this is something that Christians should do under their own volition and not something that they should be coerced into doing.

Progressives need to realize that there are plenty of Christians who do give to the poor but do not believe the government should be in the position of forcing people into doing so. And conservatives need to realize that there are plenty of Christians who believe in a strict set of values but do not believe that the government should be in the position of forcing people into living by those values.

So I really would prefer we don't judge people's Christianity or religiousness by people's political views

Re: Cantor Criticizes Limbaugh (Take Bets On Apology Date Now)

nicrivera — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:38:21 -0000

As far as bias goes, I think its important to distinguish between partisan bias and ideological bias.

Partisan bias refers to bias towards one particular political party. One unfortunate result of partisan bias is that some people become so strongly attached to a political party that they begin to adopt a "my party, right or wrong" type attitude. Another unfortunate result of partisan bias is that because partisans will often put party first and principles second, such partisans will often become unmoored from any set of coherent, consistent political beliefs and instead adopt whatever platform the party offers at that time.

Ideological bias refers to bias towards a particular set of political beliefs. It can be progressive, conservative, libertarian, or even communitarian. The point is that a person with a strong ideological bias will often adhere to a set of particular beliefs even when others abandons such political beliefs when it becomes politically inconvenient. One unfortunate result of ideological bias is that some people will believe in a particular political philosophy so strongly that they will adhere to that political philosophy even after facts have discredited the utilitarian aspects of such a philosophy.

In general, I have much more tolerance for ideological bias than for partisan bias. Ideological bias is inherent in anyone who is able to engage in abstract thinking. People with a strong ideological bias might be wrong (and in some cases, very wrong), but at least they think for themselves and are willing to stand up for their political beliefs.

Partisan bias, on the other hand, is not inherent; it is merely herd mentality and can be avoided if people simply avoid forming strong attachments to a single political party. I have a very difficult time respecting people who place party above principles. Moreover, it is very difficult to engage in political dialogue with someone whose principles are inconsistent and incoherent and fluctuate with according to the prevailing political winds of fortune, as is common among partisans.

Everyone here at TMV, myself included, has an ideological bias, however weak or strong. It cannot be helped, nor should we be ashamed of it. It is the diversity of thought here at TMV that I feel is one of TMV's strengths.

As far as partisan bias goes, I certainly do not think that TMV maintains an even balance between the two major political parties at all times. However, there are a handful of people at TMV who do have a strong record of avoiding partisan bias and offer a set of political opinions not to be found in either of the two major political parties.

Re: Same Sex Marriage Rights Defeated In Maine

nicrivera — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:00:35 -0000

Sorry, JD, but I can't agree with you on this one at all.

People have their religious beliefs, and they're welcome to practice those beliefs and persuade others to also practice those beliefs.

But the last time I read the Bible, there was nothing in there about Christians using the government to force others to live by their beliefs. The Bible also forbids Christians to worship false idols. And yet Christians do not insist on the government imposing laws forbidding people from worshipping false idols.

No Church, Synagogue, or Mosque is being forced to marry homosexuals. So the idea that gay marriage is an attack on religious freedom, as some conservatives have claimed, is a joke.

Re: The Ultimate Sacrifice

nicrivera — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:18:56 -0000

Honoring the heroes has its place. So does caring for all who serve or have served. And, damn the political leaders who send them to die or be forever diminished in their wars of choice.

I can't argue with that.

Re: The Close NJ Race

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:39:07 -0000

Wow Thurman. We're practically neighbors!

Well, kind of.

Re: The Close NJ Race

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:07:01 -0000

Well, the way I look at politics and voting is that no state-wide election is ever going to hinge on my one vote...EVER. The combination of simple grade school math and basic statistic dictates that my one vote will NEVER change the outcome of such an election. I probably have as much a chance of winning the lottery as I do being the decisive vote in a state-wide election.

So, if I'm going to vote, it might as well be for someone whose political positions I support. Not support as in a hundred percent of the time, but a politician that I agree with more often than I don't...well, that would be nice.

So I'm not sure I entirely understand the "realist" argument on voting that dictates that it makes more sense to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance of winning (or as I call it, the "vote for the lesser of two evils" argument). I put the term "realist" in quotations, of course, because there's nothing "realist" or "realistic" about voting for a Democrat or a Republican and then believing that your vote mattered any more than my vote for Joe Independent.

Now, of course, if I were such a persuasive speaker or writer that I could presuade two thousand other people to vote exactly as I did, then yeah, I'd actually have a chance of determine the outcome of a state-wide election. And with that kind of voting power, I'd probably be more open to the "realist" argument and voting for the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, if I really had the power to persuade two thousand other people to vote exactly as I did, the last thing I'd do is have them vote for some Democrat or Republican that I could barely tolerate. I might as well have those two thousand other people vote for the principled third party candidate and double that candidate's vote total in one foul swoop.

So, in closing, I say to you casualobserver, your single vote will never matter...at least, not in state-wide election. Neither will mine. Neither will Kathy's, nor Shannon's, nor T-Steel's, nor Austin's. Even good ole' Joe...his vote will never matter either.

When we grow old and reminisce about the past, none of us will be able to brag to our grandchildren that we cast the deciding vote in an historic election. Nor will our grandchildren care that our vote caused the winning candidate to win by 64,321 votes instead of 64,320 votes.

In the end, all we really have is our principles and our honor. And maybe, if we're lucky and we have a shred of ability when it comes to writing or public speaking, we'll be able to convince a few people to understand our point of view along the way.

Re: The Close NJ Race

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:50:02 -0000

Is the Independent candidate a conservative?

No, I'd call him more of a moderate. But he's former Republican, so Republicans have just assumed that he was siphoning off more votes from Christie (the Republican) than Corzine (the Democrat). The irony, of course, is that recent polls have shown that Christie is actually taking away more votes away from Corzine than Christie, so the "Don't Waste Your Vote on Daggett!" campaign being waged by Republicans is actually poorly founded.

Personally, I believe that Corzine has been a horrible governor, and I will not be the least bit upset if and when he leaves. But if I hear one more Republican whining about a third party candidate "stealing their votes", I swear I'm going to explode. I mean . . . literally. It won't be pretty, so don't tempt me.

Re: The Close NJ Race

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:30:35 -0000

Because conservatives walk the walk of representative democracy day in and day out, whereas liberals simply like to talk the talk unless the given race has some hollywood glam points.

Actually, the Republican response to the NJ race has been to demand that the Independent candidate drop out of the race.

Not exactly the best way for Republicans to demonstrate their support for representative democracy.

Re: The Close NJ Race

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:21:41 -0000

I voted via absentee ballot last week. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Ken Kaplan, who obviously does not have a snowball's chance of capturing more than one or two percent of the vote. I considered voting for the Independent candidate, Chris Daggett, but Daggett just seemed too wishy washy on the medical marijuana question, which should be a slam dunk for anyone with a shred of compassion or common sense.

My prediction is that Republican Chris Christie will eake out a slim victory, but it all depends on voter turnout. A large turnout tomorrow will play in Corzine's favor. But baring that, I think Christie will prevail.

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:08:03 -0000

Ron Paul was considered an "extremist" by Libertarian party higher ups which I find a bit horrifying but he was the first time that I heard "libertarian" linked with an end to the war on drugs from anyone running for office.

Ron Paul was the first time you heard "libertarian" linked to ending the war on drugs from anyone running for office???

Forgive me, but I find that absolutely baffling. Ending the War on Drugs has been a part of the Libertarian Party's platform since the party was formed in 1971. In fact, it is probably THE signature issue for which they known for.

I'm curious about how much you actually know about libertarianism or the Libertarian Party.

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:30:53 -0000

It could also be that the Libertarian party tends to advertise itself as Repub lite and does not push out what would be its more popular messages like an end to the war on drugs...

Then again, if a Libertarian who wants to legalize marijuana runs against a Democrat who wants to keep marijuana illegal, and you vote for the Democrat, who ends up winning the election...aren't YOU the one who is at fault?

It's all about principles and priorities. A lot of "liberals" claim they're for freedom and tolerance, but at the end of the day, they'd rather vote for a Democrat who promises to give them universal health care than a Libertarian who promises to end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous victimless crime laws.

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:15:13 -0000

Those Libertarian candidates all sounded exactly like their Republican opponents.

That's because the Libertarian candidates (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root), were former Republicans who--for all intents and purposes--ran on Republican platforms. There were actually four genuinely libertarian candidates during the Libertarian convention (Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian), but Libertarian delegates, in all their infinite wisdom (or should I say idiocy) decided to vote for the two candidates who were more well known to the public but--sadly--were far less principled.

None of this changes the likelihood that the Libertarian Party was unlikely to garner more than 1% of the vote even if they had chosen principled candidates. The political system and the media is biased against third party candidates in general.

Getting on the ballot for anything other than president isn't hard to do.

For Democrats and Republicans it sure ain't. They're assured ballot access year after year since they never fail to garner less than 5% in statewide elections. Libertarians and third party candidates, on the other hand, generally have to hire people to collect the 50,000 to 100,000 signature needed to attain ballot access as well as the lawyers needed to make certain that Democrats and Republicans comply with their own ballot access laws.

For third party presidential candidates, this is something that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I imagine it wouldn't cost so much for a third party congressional candidate who only has to obtain ballot access in a single state.

Re: Political Compass

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:10 -0000

I remember back when Patrick addressed this topic back in July 2008 under a post titled Test Your Ideology. I haven't taken the test since that time, but I suspect that my current score would be similar to what it was then, given that my political beliefs have not really changed all that much in the last 16 months.

As I mentioned in thecomments section to that post, there are some noteable flaws with Politcal Compass:

I just retook this test for the first time in a couple of years, and although it approximates my political leanings, I feel that it is a highly subjective and somewhat misleading tool.

For one thing, many of the questions asked have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. Whether I think abstract art is meaningful or not has nothing to do with my political leanings. Believing that most abstract art is meaningless does not indicate that someone has socially conservative leanings (as The Political Compass would imply), not does believing that most abstract art is meaningful indicate that someone has socially liberal leanings (as The Political Compass would imply).

Also, questions regarding the motives and appropriate aims of businesses and corporations are also not fundamentally political in nature. I might believe many corporations to be greedy and feel that they have a personal responsibility toward society as a whole (a supposedly economically liberal position), but that does not necessarily indicate that I feel that government should have the responsibility to regulate such practices (with opposition to governemnt regulation being a economically conservative position).

Since none of these questions offers a "none of the above" or "unsure" option, the test taker is given no opportunity to abstain from questions which are politically ambiguous (at best) or having nothing to do with ones political beliefs (at worst).

Secondly (and this is an admittedly minor objection compared to the first), the whole layout of the Compass itself is all wrong. Instead of assigning the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" their traditional meanings (with "authoritarian" meaning favoring broadly increased government power and "libertarian" meaning favoring broadly decreased government power) the creators of this test apply the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" solely to the social freedom axis. The result is the distorted labels that test takers derive from this test. People in the left lower quandrant will call themselves "Left Libertarians", despite the fact that a good number of these people have views that are economically authoritarian. Similarly, people in the right upper quandrant will call themselves "Right Authoritarians", despite the fact that a good number of these people have views that are economically libertarian. And finally, Authoritarians in the upper left quadrant and Libertarians in the lower right quandrant are labeled as on the "left" and "right" respectively. Such logic would erroneously lead us to conclude that Adolf Hitler was "left-wing" while Tommy Chong would be "right-wing."

Personally, I'd recommend the political test at www.quiz2d.com. It's politically biased to some extent (as are just about any political test you'd take), but the chart makes more intuitive sense in its layout, the questions are more politically relevant and allow for middle-of-the-road type answers, and the test allows you to gauge how important each political topic is to you so that your answers can be weighted accordingly.

Political Compass results:
Economic left/right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
Political label: (left-leaning) Right Libertarian

Political Quiz in 2D results:
Economic axis: ~65%
Social axis: ~95%
Political label: Left-Leaning Freedom Lover

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:40:20 -0000

Of course, the edgy, slightly unhingedness of the Libertarians is largely why they've never gotten off the ground as a viable political power.

Or it could also be the draconian ballot access laws that Democrats and Republicans have imposed to prevent third party candidates from getting on the ballot in all fifty states.

Or it could also be the fact that the cable news networks have Democrats and Republicans spouting Democratic and Republican talking points every single day of the week whereas Libertarians are invited onto the cable news networks perhaps a couple times a year.

The Libertarian Party has its fare share of conspiracy theorists, but I'd rather take my chances with some "slightly unhinged" Libertarian activist who is fighting for my freedoms than some "seriously unhinged" Democrat or Republican who would put me in prison for commiting any number of victimless crimes.

Obama and McCain have both vowed to continue fighting the War on Drugs, a government program that essentially spends billions of dollars each year to arrest people for smoking pot.

Talk about unhinged.

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:44:43 -0000

I'm just curious: If Frank Rich had used the word "totalitarian" instead of "Stalinist," would that have seemed less hyperbolic?

Yeah, it probably would have flown over better. Totalitarian, while used as an epithet, is more vague, and unlike "Nazi" or "Stalinist", it doesn't necessarily have the connotation of being sympathetic to have political opponents or "undesirables" killed off.

Though the term "totalitarian" is pretty hyperbolic in and of itself. I've used the term "authoritarian" before, but only in cases in which I was referring to specific people or policies that I believed showed an extremely low tolerance for freedom.

The problem with Rich using the term in this particular instance is that he's referring to a large group of people. I find it hard to believe that he understands the political philosophies of all of these people well enough to call them "totalitarians." And whatever you think of their "purging" tactics, it is an extremely bold statement to compare their actions with those of true "Stalinists."

Re: Democrats Notice They’re Spending Us Into Oblivion

nicrivera — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:53:18 -0000

Say what you want about Bill and Newt, but they left us in the best fiscal shape of my lifetime.

Ahh, the wonders of divided government. Federal spending tends to go up whenever one party controls both the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of which party is in power.

Re: Political Cannibalism

nicrivera — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:31:18 -0000

Stalin murdered tens of millions of innocent people.

Frank Rich comparing conservatives to Stalinists is as bad as the tea party protesters comparing Obama to Hitler.

Rich might have some salient points in his article, but when it comes to partisans racheting up the hate-filled rhetoric, he seems to be a part of the problem.