In response to Leanne’s politics test result:
Economic Conservative/Social Liberal
I think there is (possibly naive) optimism at the heart of all Libertarian’s world view. We believe that people aren’t so stupid that they should have decisions made for them by the state. We believe that private enterprise, on the whole, does a better job of running services to the satisfaction of its customers if it is lightly- or un-regulated and that people should understand that what they choose to spend their money on is their responsibility.
In the UK there has been a lot of discussion in the media about the mis-selling of Endowment mortgages. Many thousands of families are discovering, to their cost, that the mortgage that they thought guaranteed their house would be paid for after a certain period will not do that. This problem is a result of a regulated industry actively telling customers not to worry or find out anything about what they are buying and to rely entirely on an ‘independent’ financial adviser (IFAs) working on commission. That’s not to suggest that all IFAs, or even any, were not working in the customer’s interests, only that customers who were told to purchase something cannot simultaneously be expected to make a responsible decision about the risk involved.
Equally, the government should not tax people and then give them tax credits, it should not tax them and then spend that money on government self-advertisement and it should not tax them and then spend it on charity. In the US charitable donations are higher than in the UK. That’s not because Americans are more generous, just that they are taxed less and know that the state provides less support to the needy.
I would rather pay a proportion of my wages to charities than be told by the government to give it to them and for them to decide what is a deserving charity. Again, the Chancellor gives tax relief to charitable donations - 28% of your donation will be added by the Chancellor so that the charity gets more… This requires paperwork and must, therefore, incure some extra cost. Wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the income tax rate by whatever percentage that would account for the tax relief generated by charitable giving in the previous year so that people could donate that amount plus the reduction in tax due to the reduction in commiserate costs if they wished?
Economic Socialist and Social Conservative
What your beliefs suggest is that you are more realistic (or pessimistic) about the ability of people to carry on their own life without instruction. It suggests you wish the government to provide health care and education in a monopolistic way so that private providers do not introduce the vagaries of market capitalism. I would expect you to be uncomfortable with a school sponsored by Coca Cola for example (though, bizarrely, the UK has schools being built by supermarket chains and schools being run by apparently benevolent private sponsors).
The Social Conservative part of your attitude has probably more to do with your religion that with any political ideology. Subjugation is a feature (I’m not judging here) of religion and it would be incompatible with religious belief to believe in absolute freedom - God has ultimate power in a theistic world.










January 7th, 2006 at 1:58 am
well thank you for the gentle explination,
I was alittle worried you would attack me, and I’m glad you used the word instructed instead of ordered.
The only thing I would change is..though I do feel God has ultimate control….I do not have the power to inforce it,
free will is a gift . and really laws stop no one from doing anything.
so maybe in my little totalitarian world the only rule would be the golden one, and instead of my secret police going around making sure everyone was being good…they would be looking for good to do.
(now who sounds niave)
January 7th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
I’m a totalitarian centrist … Maybe leanne could be my dictator(ess?!)
January 7th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
If I am “The mom”…..that would make you my Daddy jonz.
January 7th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Leanne,
I’m sure I’m picking up on a previous thread but when you said:
really laws stop no one from doing anything
I think one function that laws provide, particularly in a very large country, is to indicate to everyone what the boundaries of accetable behaviour are to the society in which one lives. And the enforcement and sentencing based upon those laws doubly indicates the level of acceptability of that behaviour.
Just thinking out loud…I’ve been thinking a lot about this…
January 7th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
The only reason I say that is because muder is against the law and people still do it…but The reason I have never killed anyone is not just because it is illegal…understand?
January 7th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
No, but if the government set the sentence for murder as 2 weeks in prison while burglary was 1 month, you and everyone else would assume that the burglary is the more serious crime.
January 8th, 2006 at 12:39 am
but isnt it sad that we need someone to tell us that at all
January 8th, 2006 at 3:28 am
I think so… Although some would argue (including, I believe, the Catholic Church) that any sin is as serious as any other… In which case why do we punish differently?
In the Old Testament God says that the punishment for working on the Sabbath should be death!
January 12th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I don’t know that I would assume murder to be less serious than burglary if it carriesd a shorter sentence, however people who had the desire to commit crime would respond to the lesser disincentive. For instance, a burglar might prefer to kill a homeowner rather than risk the higher prison sentence of getting caught.
In that case the respective sentences aren’t telling us which is the more heinous crime, only which is less tolerated by the rest of society. The only time I can think of that we might equate wrong-doing to the level of sentencing is for crimes that are not commonly understood, like insurance fraud.
There is one other important factor in determining what sentence a crime deserves is the likelyhood of capture and conviction. For instance, if stealing money from your employers till is considered equally heinous to defrauding your employer by agreeing to work and then not doing so, then all other things being equal you should recieve a stricter sentence for not working becasue it is harder to prove. That doesn’t happen, indicating other factors are involved.
I’m not sure the RC church treats all sins as equal - something about an eye for an eye springs to mind.
January 12th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Without dragging this down to a theological discussion a sin will stop you from going to heaven unless Jesus (or Priests on his and God’s behalf) forgives you — this requires a desire to be forgiven. The punishment dished out by God and his followers in religious scripture is almost always draconian and is often death. More to the point, the ultimate punishment is damnation — for any sin.
I like your mention of fraud and I agree that as a general rule, with few exceptions, the length of the sentence doesn’t necessarily suggest society’s opinion of a particular crime while it does influence the actions of those prepared to commit crime.
Thank you.