Poll & Discussion: RPF Members' Political Stances

[LimitedGovernment]

I want to see where people fall on a number of questions. One of the best options seems to be a generalized poll, because it allows for anonymity.

I'd appreciate it if those who don't mind explaining their answers would do so.


Clarifications

You're only allowed so many characters for poll options. Here are some clarifications:

"Non/religious purposes" includes printing "In God We Trust" or "There Is No God" on currency, establishing religious symbols as part of monuments to fallen troops, placing stone tablets with religious inscriptions in public courthouses, making "God Is Not Great" an official part of public education curricula, leading a public school classroom in prayer as an educator, using public funds for any of these kinds of purposes, etc.

"A christian" was not an option due to space limitations and the fact that almost everyone votes for Christians to take office.

"A muslim" means voting for someone who self-identifies as muslim; not someone who will make policy based on his/her interpretation of the books often referenced by the Islamic faith.

Look up "Scientology" if you don't know what it is.

"Scientific consensus" means the general consensus of professional researchers in a given field. For example, there is a scientific consensus among psychologists that both biology and social experiences that predispose one to having a mental disorder must be present in order for mot disorders to occur.

"Ideological principle" means a Kantian style adherence to an idea - such as "No tax must ever be applied to anyone who is a US citizen".

"Unreliable" means that most science is based on false premises or is undertaken with methods and/or instruments that are fundamentally flawed to the point that researchers cannot reach accurate and precise conclusions of sufficient worth to be the foundations of policymaking.

"Scientific communities" refers to professional groups such as the American Psychological Association and its subset "Division" groups - which may include communities that disagree with broad APA policies. The key point of importance is that the community in question must be the experts on the direct field in question.

"Some rights granted are by governments" means that not all rights worth making policy on are so-called "natural rights", and may be revoked. This may include rights like "the right to free speech inside governmental buildings" or "the right to affordable health care" or "the right to a trial process that is completed within half a year" or "the right to not be bankrupted largely as a result of judicial fees".

"No rights are granted" means that the only rights that exist are so-called "natural rights" like life, freedom from harm, and individual liberty. They may or may not include property rights, as those may be considered rights granted by governments.

[Seraphim]

Keep tax/inflation funded policy the hell out of my life. Period. It is a policy of socialized theft.

That will be all.

[LimitedGovernment]

My responses

1) I'm all for candidates who would vote for complete equality in civil liberties and internet freedom, even if I hate their positions on spending or disagree with them on where tax dollars are raised and end up.

2) I'm a supporter of the intent behind Roe v Wade - that personhood is too complex to rule on, and that viability is the next best alternative.

3) We should have civil marriage equality. Ideally, we'd get it and then people would vote to change the name of the legal status from "civil marriage" to "civil union", merge the law with current civil union protections, and thus get rid of the whole "What is marriage?" issue.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Civil_unions_vs._gay_marriage
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

4) Public means that it belongs to everyone, which means that no one has a right or privilege to use the space or authority to prop up their private worldviews. I don't want some group to use public resources or offices to say that dogs should have personhood rights, either. The only exception is dedicated "public forum" zones - in which case there has been a public agreement to open up a selected space for equal and open advocacy for private beliefs.

5) Again, private worldview beliefs have no place in the permanent public sphere.

6 & 7) Yes and yes. I don't care about your private worldviews if they don't affect your policy decisions.

8) No, only because I believe that every Scientologist I've paid attention to seemed willing to scam other people or put their club's members ahead of other, deserving people.

9) Scientific consensus is the only thing that makes sense to me. Where there is no consensus, we should follow the general scientific method, Socratic method, discussion with others who know the issue, discussion with those who disagree with us, and personal reflection to make our decisions.

10) Ideological motivation is dangerous, because adherents are rarely open to honest discussion, in my experience.

11) Coalitions are beneficial - and sometimes necessary. If we could get 20 neocon and 40 big government socialists to join 5 limited government advocates in working to repeal all indefinite detention laws or lower taxes on people making less than 50k per year, I'd absolutely be in favor of it.

12) I'm anticipating that I'll vote for Johnson this year for that reason.

13) Distrust of scientific methodology and results is dangerous to our future health, prosperity, and morality. I'm a strong advocate for careful review of scientific work - which is a different thing from distrusting it fundamentally.

14) Only a little less disturbing than the idea that people distrust scientific work is that some people distrust scientific communities. That's worse than saying that people distrust charity groups, which don't have peer-review processes, internal ethics watchdogs, or regulations like scientific groups do. It worries me that some people are so strongly anti-science. I can kind of understand their feelings if they haven't ever done professional research work or only get their news from sources with an anti-science slant, but it still amazes and worries me.

15) This often seems to be the flip-side of anti-science groups. Complete general populism is, I think, a terrible thing. If people were really informed enough to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, I don't think we'd be in this mess. I don't want any "average joe" or "career politician" running the country. Good statism relies on good statesmen, which I don't think many "average joes" would become. Eliminating the state altogether is foolish, I think. I'd rather see a generally statist system and a generally populist system operate in two separate regions in the same territory than fully abolish one or the other, because I'd never want to live in either at their extremes, and I think it'd be harder to have one become an extreme with the other's example so close by.

16) I do believe that some rights are granted by governments, and can - and sometimes should - be revoked. Free speech over most - not all - public media or on public lands is one of these things. For example, I don't want someone being "free" to slander people whenever and however they like on public radio frequencies, but I also think that there should always be some channels for pubic dissent and personal opinion. I do believe that the right to life is an automatic right for persons - which is why the definitions of "person" and related concepts are so important.

17) As noted above, I do believe that some rights are granted.

18) I already commented on civil marriage rights. I'm also in favor of net neutrality - at the least for subscribers who buy non-premium packages. Yes, that infringes on private business operations. Yes, I think it's a worthwhile infringement. I feel the same way about other public services that have a broad userbase. If a business is a private club (only open to members), they can do whatever they want.

19) I'm generally certain that I want to see the property tax abolished.

20) Absolutely not. Equality and privacy are key.

[LibertyEagle]

This smacks of data mining. I do not suggest answering such a poll put up by such a new forum member.

[LimitedGovernment]

This smacks of data mining. I do not suggest answering such a poll put up by such a new forum member.

Oh dear gods. How many of your posts have I responded to thoughtfully? How many times have I posted my money bomb donations here?

-Flabbergasted-

[LimitedGovernment]

Bumping for more responses/discussion. Thanks to those who have contributed so far. Some of the current results were unexpected.

[pcosmar]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.

[The Gold Standard]

The only policies I support are the end of all of the current policies and not replacing them.

[LimitedGovernment]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.


How about some elaboration?

[LibertyEagle]

Skewed poll is skewed.

Thinks poll creator does not understand.

+1

[pcosmar]

How about some elaboration?

It's in your name.

but not in your poll

[LimitedGovernment]

It's in your name.

but not in your poll

What, exactly, are you saying? That the poll is bad because I didn't include an option stating "Limited government" - even though people have different ideas of what "limited government" is?

I'm really not understanding what you're after.

[pcosmar]

I'm really not understanding what you're after.

Limited Government. a very limited government.

Your poll is all about expanding government. to either provide or deny.

[LimitedGovernment]

Limited Government. a very limited government.

Uh-huh... and I only had 20 spaces available to write a small amount of text, and certain questions that I wanted to ask due to their relation to views that I've seen some people espouse here. That's why I asked people to elaborate/comment in posts, rather than just vote in the poll.

Do you understand my reasoning?

[pcosmar]

Do you understand my reasoning?

NO.
Do you understand Limited Government?

[LimitedGovernment]

NO.
Do you understand Limited Government?

According to the definition of it, yes. Your idea of it? That totally eludes me.

[DerailingDaTrain]

According to the definition of it, yes. Your idea of it? That totally eludes me.

Your poll asks what you would like the government to give or deny. That's not limited government.

[Sola_Fide]

My responses

1) I'm all for candidates who would vote for complete equality in civil liberties and internet freedom, even if I hate their positions on spending or disagree with them on where tax dollars are raised and end up.

2) I'm a supporter of the intent behind Roe v Wade - that personhood is too complex to rule on, and that viability is the next best alternative.

3) We should have civil marriage equality. Ideally, we'd get it and then people would vote to change the name of the legal status from "civil marriage" to "civil union", merge the law with current civil union protections, and thus get rid of the whole "What is marriage?" issue.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Civil_unions_vs._gay_marriage
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

4) Public means that it belongs to everyone, which means that no one has a right or privilege to use the space or authority to prop up their private worldviews. I don't want some group to use public resources or offices to say that dogs should have personhood rights, either. The only exception is dedicated "public forum" zones - in which case there has been a public agreement to open up a selected space for equal and open advocacy for private beliefs.

5) Again, private worldview beliefs have no place in the permanent public sphere.

6 & 7) Yes and yes. I don't care about your private worldviews if they don't affect your policy decisions.

8) No, only because I believe that every Scientologist I've paid attention to seemed willing to scam other people or put their club's members ahead of other, deserving people.

9) Scientific consensus is the only thing that makes sense to me. Where there is no consensus, we should follow the general scientific method, Socratic method, discussion with others who know the issue, discussion with those who disagree with us, and personal reflection to make our decisions.

10) Ideological motivation is dangerous, because adherents are rarely open to honest discussion, in my experience.

11) Coalitions are beneficial - and sometimes necessary. If we could get 20 neocon and 40 big government socialists to join 5 limited government advocates in working to repeal all indefinite detention laws or lower taxes on people making less than 50k per year, I'd absolutely be in favor of it.

12) I'm anticipating that I'll vote for Johnson this year for that reason.

13) Distrust of scientific methodology and results is dangerous to our future health, prosperity, and morality. I'm a strong advocate for careful review of scientific work - which is a different thing from distrusting it fundamentally.

14) Only a little less disturbing than the idea that people distrust scientific work is that some people distrust scientific communities. That's worse than saying that people distrust charity groups, which don't have peer-review processes, internal ethics watchdogs, or regulations like scientific groups do. It worries me that some people are so strongly anti-science. I can kind of understand their feelings if they haven't ever done professional research work or only get their news from sources with an anti-science slant, but it still amazes and worries me.

15) This often seems to be the flip-side of anti-science groups. Complete general populism is, I think, a terrible thing. If people were really informed enough to be able to make the best decisions for themselves, I don't think we'd be in this mess. I don't want any "average joe" or "career politician" running the country. Good statism relies on good statesmen, which I don't think many "average joes" would become. Eliminating the state altogether is foolish, I think. I'd rather see a generally statist system and a generally populist system operate in two separate regions in the same territory than fully abolish one or the other, because I'd never want to live in either at their extremes, and I think it'd be harder to have one become an extreme with the other's example so close by.

16) I do believe that some rights are granted by governments, and can - and sometimes should - be revoked. Free speech over most - not all - public media or on public lands is one of these things. For example, I don't want someone being "free" to slander people whenever and however they like on public radio frequencies, but I also think that there should always be some channels for pubic dissent and personal opinion. I do believe that the right to life is an automatic right for persons - which is why the definitions of "person" and related concepts are so important.

17) As noted above, I do believe that some rights are granted.

18) I already commented on civil marriage rights. I'm also in favor of net neutrality - at the least for subscribers who buy non-premium packages. Yes, that infringes on private business operations. Yes, I think it's a worthwhile infringement. I feel the same way about other public services that have a broad userbase. If a business is a private club (only open to members), they can do whatever they want.

19) I'm generally certain that I want to see the property tax abolished.

20) Absolutely not. Equality and privacy are key.


Wow.

[LimitedGovernment]

Your poll asks what you would like the government to give or deny. That's not limited government.

By whose definition does limited government mean that the government cannot provide programs for the benefit of society or create documents that state that all people have fully equal rights? Certainly not mine. Certaintly not whomever contributes to Wikipedia: "Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution."

Do also note that I have as an option the belief that all rights are inherent: "Someone who believes that no rights are granted"

Edit:

"Rights" in that case being whatever you personally think "rights" consists of.

[KingRobbStark]

There sbould be an option of "Would you vote for a decentralized government?"

[LimitedGovernment]

There sbould be an option of "Would you vote for a decentralized government?"

What do you mean by that?

Personally, I'm in favor of local governments (counties and townships) having the most political supremacy.

However, I didn't think that including that point as an option wouldn't really get at what the poll is designed to investigate - which is whether members here have certain absolutist positions or not and whether or not they have an apparent ideological view of what government should look like generally (not just locally).

Edit:

Thinking about it again, I think that would be worth including. However, I was out of space, and these other questions touch on broader issues. I used "in my state" in some question to try to not pin issues down as a specifically local or federal.

[LimitedGovernment]

By the results so far, it seems that about 1/3 of current respondents would agree with me on some issues that I see as very important. Roughly 2/3 would agree on some other very important issues. Some issues are split roughly half-and-half.

So, 1/3 of current respondents are very strongly against my positions.

Well, that explains a little bit of what I've encountered here, I think, and illustrates the background behind the responses that I have gotten.


The big question is whether these results even roughly represent the membership of RPF, or if they're a better representation of the most active users.


More data would be appreciated. I'm now making decisions about how I'll interact with this site based on the results.

[pcosmar]

I'm now making decisions about how I'll interact with this site based on the results.

http://www.shitamandasays.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SayWhat.jpg

[FindLiberty]

Wow, just wow!

That survey is whacked up w/too much agenda...
I don't see reasonable questions to respond to
(except for the last two questions that slash gov).

DATA MINE THIS: I'm 100% pro-Liberty!

LimitedGovernment is just too much...

[LimitedGovernment]

http://www.shitamandasays.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SayWhat.jpg

I'm not going to post certain things if they're vastly unpopular and the people who would respond are strongly driven by an absolutist ideology. There'd be no point.

[Sam I am]

I'm not going to post certain things if they're vastly unpopular and the people who would respond are strongly driven by an absolutist ideology. There'd be no point.

Your biggest problem is that you're easily driven off-topic into meta discussion, which is really not a place you want to be.

You should do less posting and more thinking

[The Free Hornet]

Uh-huh... and I only had 20 spaces available to write a small amount of text, and certain questions that I wanted to ask due to their relation to views that I've seen some people espouse here. That's why I asked people to elaborate/comment in posts, rather than just vote in the poll.

Do you understand my reasoning?

The poll is not a good format for so many issues. Also, it is hard to distinguish the literal questions from the policy positions. For example, one could - hypothetically - vote for Obama to keep Romney from winning. That would not be an endorsement of anything Obama stands for. Since "I would vote for..." anybody under the right circumstances, the poll may not yield useful data.


- Non-"Liberty candidates" who support some "Liberty candidate" policies

Not likely

- Someone who would legalize abortions in my state up to the third trimester

Why "up to"? Why not "decriminalize" instead of "legalize"?

- Someone who would legalize civil marriage rights in my state for all consenting people

Marriages or Civil Unions? And I would prefer the governement out of this matter. I.e., not "legalize" and not grand "marriage licenses", but stay the hell out of the issue. Possible exception is when one party needs a dispute resolved as in a divorce or custudy battle.

- Someone who beleives that public land and office cannot be used for non/religious purposes

"non/religious"?

- Someone who bases his/her policies on his/her interpretation of the books collected in the bible
- An atheist
- A muslim
- A scientologist

I need more specifics but: no, maybe, not for being one, and doubt it.

- Someone who bases his/her policies on scientific consensus - not ideology

Contradiction. The consensus is typically driven by an ideology. More so, a scientific conclusion does not suggest a specific public policy. They might as was well state, "I won't tell you what my policies are based on!".

- Someone who bases his/her policies only on ideological principle

I could likely live with that.

- Someone who forms coalitions with others who have different beliefs and policy positions from my own

How different?

- Someone other than Ron Paul if my vote resulted in a series of 3-way General Election debates

?

- Someone who believes that most scientific studies are unreliable

I suspect many scientists would agree that most scientific studies are unreliable (especially as one goes further back in time). There is a reason why repeatability is crucial and many good scientists look to discredit the past. Models and theories are torn down to be built by better ones. One can also have the perspective that the data is good even if the conclusions are wrong and the methodology is the best. What is the "unreliable" portion: methodology, data, conclusion?

- Someone who believes that scientific communities are untrustworthy

Second opinons aren't just for patients...

- Someone who believes that "every day" Americans make the best decisions

I believe they make better decisions when free to suffer or benefit from those decisions.

- Someone who believes that some rights are granted by governments
- Someone who believes that no rights are granted

You left out the positive law types: all rights. That's OK.

- Establishing new social policies (e.g. equal access to civil marriage rights, net neutrality)

You are presupposing an answer the questions asked above ("rights are granted")

- Banning economic policies (e.g. printing money, some/all taxes)

???

- Banning social policies (e.g. abortion, equal access to civil marriage rights)

???

To summarize, I don't know what half the choices mean although I might be able to infer what you mean...

[DerailingDaTrain]

By whose definition does limited government mean that the government cannot provide programs for the benefit of society or create documents that state that all people have fully equal rights? Certainly not mine. Certaintly not whomever contributes to Wikipedia: "Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution."

Do also note that I have as an option the belief that all rights are inherent: "Someone who believes that no rights are granted"

Edit:

"Rights" in that case being whatever you personally think "rights" consists of.

So we should steal money from some to give to others? No, I don't think so.

Now to answer the second part: When has that ever happened? They "state" that some "groups" have rights.

[Revolution9]

According to the definition of it, yes. Your idea of it? That totally eludes me.

Many things go right over yer head and yer back to auto-babble in an instant. Don't think I am attacking you because you are such a powerful intellect with rock solid ideological philosophies. The facts are that you have dick on a stick to stand on and debating you is equivalent of wandering around drunk in a dead end alley..Your poll is just as skewed as the PTB polls dragging mushheads by the nose where they want them to go. How long before you give up in utter desperation that you are allowing cognitive dissonance to create cracks in yer assfault brainset and letting some light in and life to grow. I ain't a borg but you seem intent on creating a borg society. I want no part of your version of limited government. I could give a goddamn about others hurt feelings or they don't get a slice of frikkin' pie. Nobody ever gave a shit about mine.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

I'm not going to post certain things if they're vastly unpopular and the people who would respond are strongly driven by an absolutist ideology. There'd be no point.

Jeezus H. Keerist in a handbasket. You got the unmitigated gall and lack of insight to label individuals claiming their birthright absolutists whilst you waltz through here spewing dogma left and right trying to inculcate folks even deeper into the nightmare of the American political dream machine. Piss up a rope buddy. Wake the frak up and stop being so bloody all around annoying and cloyingly ignorant.

Rev9

[Sentient Void]

Bumping for more responses/discussion. Thanks to those who have contributed so far. Some of the current results were unexpected.

I'm curious - what did you expect to see in the results for some/all of these questions vs what was actually shown to be the case?

[Sentient Void]

BTW, my answers... 'yes' means I checked it off... 'no' means I did not.


Non-"Liberty candidates" who support some "Liberty candidate" policies

No. I could not with good conscious support/vote for someone who for example (allegedly) advocates one or two 'liberty' positions, while also supporting positions that are completely against what I believe in. Ron Paul, while not 'perfect' in my view of what I support, is pretty damned close.


Someone who would legalize abortions in my state up to the third trimester

I ended up going with 'no' on this. But mostly because I agree with what someone else said - why not 'decriminalize' instead of 'legalize'?... I don't know if I'd vote for someone who wished to legalize abortion, with abortion technology the way it is *today*, up to the third trimester... I agree with Walter Block on 'eviction' as opposed to 'abortion'. Ultimately, while I am against abortion personally, I feel that prohibition is merely a cure worse than the disease - if you ban abortion, you'll cause a whole lot more harm than good. The unintended negative consequences horribly outweigh the banning itself, and it wouldn't even stop these things from happening. It is what it is.


Someone who would legalize civil marriage rights in my state for all consenting people

Absolutely, yes. Everyone has the right to engage in any contract or agreement, marriage or otherwise, between any consenting adults, male, female, gay, straight, etc. Currently, the State is an impediment to freedom of association and contract.


Someone who beleives that public land and office cannot be used for non/religious purposes

I simply went with 'no' on this because I have no clue what you are asking. non/religious? Huh? are you saying either non-religious *and* religious? or just non-religious? or just religious? I have no clue. I'll say here - I believe in separation of church and State, but I also believe in separation of virtually if not totally*everything* and State (including education, economy, police, defense, etc). So if someone believed that public land and office *cannot* be used for *religious* purposes - I would absolutely consider supporting this person, depending on 'how good' they are on the other liberty issues. If they believed that public land and office cannot be used for non-religious purposes, then logically you would mean public land and state can only be used for religious purposes, then most certainly I could never support this person. Even if this was one of the only things I disagreed with him on. The implications would be pretty bad, IMO.


Someone who bases his/her policies on his/her interpretation of the books collected in the bible

UGH, NO. See above. Blech!


An atheist

Absolutely. A person's religious affiliation as well as non-affiliation has no bearing on my decision. I would look at their policies. I don't care if they are the most religious person in the world - if they would not force such views on others via the State - they would absolutely have my vote, as long as they seem consistent on other liberty issues. Of course, the same goes if they are atheist. However, if an atheist wanted to impose atheism on everyone, ban religion, keep private schools from offering courses on religion, etc - then I absolutely could not support such a person.


A muslim

Yes. See above.


A scientologist

Yes. While I find scientology awkward and have no interest in pursuing it myself - this would have no bearing on my decision. See above.


Someone who bases his/her policies on scientific consensus - not ideology

No. It's one thing to use scientific consensus, evidence, etc, to *illustrate* reasons for one's view - but unfortunately 'scientific consensus' is not particularly relevant when it comes to subjective valuations of individuals, the choices and desires of individuals in society, economics, psychology, etc. I hold logic and reason as my absolute, and respect others who do as well. I do not find positivistic bullshit particularly impressive, and don't believe it should ever be used to determine 'policy'.


Someone who bases his/her policies only on ideological principle

Absolutely. I may disagree with some on the left or center who base their policies only on their ideological principles, and I would not support them on the grounds of that disagreement. However, while I find that I would vote for / support consequentialist/utilitarian libertarians for office - I find I most often agree with those who take the deontological approach to libertarianism and thus policy. They tend to be the most consistent, and this tends to lead to good policy, IMO. Ultimately, those who take a purely ideological stand would have to be ideological libertarians.

Quick note on 'extremism' and how you find 'extremism' dangerous. Bad ideas, taken to their logical conclusions, produce extremely bad results. That's how you detect bad ideas. Good ideas are just the opposite, and are tested in the same way. Moderation is only good for stopping us from taking bad ideas too far.


Someone who forms coalitions with others who have different beliefs and policy positions from my own

Yes, this can be a very useful strategy. Ron Paul does this regularly.


Someone other than Ron Paul if my vote resulted in a series of 3-way General Election debates

Absolutely. Especially if Ron Paul is not nominated - then I *know* I will not be voting for neither Dem nor Rep anyways. So getting a third party in there, even as a protest vote for someone I don't at all agree in - at the very least to keep the Republocrat's honest or throw a wrench or two in their bullshit - then I would absolutely support this.


Someone who believes that most scientific studies are unreliable

No. I would say *MANY* scientific studies are 'unreliable' (many, I've found, are based on fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc... correlation =/= causation, yet many are making this claim) - though 'most' still are. If one major focus of someone's campaign was this position - I would think they were simply a crank, - probably a blind-faith religious zealot, and I would not take them seriously, TBH.


Someone who believes that scientific communities are untrustworthy

No. This sounds like more crankish bahavior. Why would scientific communtiies be 'necessarily' 'untrustworthy'. Ugh.


Someone who believes that "every day" Americans make the best decisions

Yes. While I wouldn't say that 'every day Americans make the best decisions' - they, in my opinion, often times make shitty decisions - but those are their decisions to make and learn from. Not the government's. And often times while they may be shitty decisions to *us* - they are good decisions to *them* - since value is subjective, and since they will make what *they* think is the best decision for themselves based on the information they have at the time and what their (otherwise constantly changing )goals in life are at the time. So while I would disagree with the sentiment, the implications of the sentiment are what I prefer - that the government knows even less about what decisions to make about *other people's* lives, and that the idea that they can, or should, I find both nanny-statish, immoral, and horribly condescending.


Someone who believes that some rights are granted by governments

Ugh. No. Absolutely not. Rights (to the extent that they exist as a useful social tool) are not 'granted' - that's what makes them 'rights' in the first place. You have them due to your humanity. What this is talking about are *privileges* - and I don't think the State should be redistributing privileges. 'Positive rights' are legitimate only via contract - not via the State. Negative rights are rights by our humanity.


Someone who believes that no rights are granted

Yes, indeed. See above.


Establishing new social policies (e.g. equal access to civil marriage rights, net neutrality)

It depends on the social policy, so yes. I am in favor of 'legalizing' gay marriage, for example... but 'Net Neutrality' is a horrible, economically and technologically ignorant policy. I hope it never gets implemented.


Banning economic policies (e.g. printing money, some/all taxes)

haha. I'm a market anarchist. What do you think? ;)

[quote]Banning social policies (e.g. abortion, equal access to civil marriage rights)/quote]

No. Absolutely not. The 'religious right' and 'social conservatives' fail utterly, here, IMO. Prohibition doesn't make things better - it only makes things worse.

How's that for data? :)

[Jingles]

Non-"Liberty candidates" who support some "Liberty candidate" policies

Depends how liberty minded they are. If they are with use about 95% of the time they probably. They have to agree with us on the fed, foreign policy, economics, and civil liberties. That is my litmus test anymore. Also have to be for at least some reduction/elimination of the drug war.



Someone who would legalize abortions in my state up to the third trimester

Abortion is probably least important issue to me. It's much more of a social problem in the sense that no law will prevent it from occurring. So a candidate's stance on this issue does not matter to me.


Someone who would legalize civil marriage rights in my state for all consenting people

I don't want government involved in marriage at all. So I would vote for someone who supports allowing people to make whatever voluntary contracts they wish.


Someone who beleives that public land and office cannot be used for non/religious purposes

I'd vote for someone who wants to eliminate all/as much public as possible. "If it moves privatize, if it doesn't move privatize it" -Walter Block



Someone who bases his/her policies on his/her interpretation of the books collected in the bible

Someone's religion doesn't matter to me as long as they are voting for liberty and not trying to enforce their beliefs on others via the force of the state.


An atheist

Yes. See above (I'm also an agnostic atheist).


A muslim

See the one above the above.


A scientologist

See the above of the above of the above.



Someone who bases his/her policies on scientific consensus - not ideology

Depends. I want someone to have principles but one must also be logical and factual.


Someone who bases his/her policies only on ideological principle

Absolutely.



Someone who forms coalitions with others who have different beliefs and policy positions from my own

As long as it's coalitions and not compromise.


Someone other than Ron Paul if my vote resulted in a series of 3-way General Election debates

Yeah, I'd probably vote for Gary Johnson.


Someone who believes that most scientific studies are unreliable

Meh, this is a very case by case question. There is nothing wrong with science (In fact I love it). It just matters how it's done (i.e. isolating variable, and all that jazz). I don't find most global warming studies to be reliable, but physics is completely different.


Someone who believes that scientific communities are untrustworthy

As I said above. It's very case by case.



Someone who believes that "every day" Americans make the best decisions

I want people to make their own decisions and not the state. It doesn't really matter if people make "correct" decisions or not. It's about liberty.


Someone who believes that some rights are granted by governments

Our rights come in a natural way or are proven by Hoppe's argumentation ethics and/or by libertarian deontological ethics.



Someone who believes that no rights are granted

Basically what I said in the above question.


Establishing new social policies (e.g. equal access to civil marriage rights, net neutrality)

I don't want the government touching social issues. I don't want the government touching the internet.


Banning economic policies (e.g. printing money, some/all taxes)

Banning is not the correct word for this. Eliminating government involvement in the market is what I want (preferably all).


Banning social policies (e.g. abortion, equal access to civil marriage rights)

Meh, I wouldn't really vote for a social conservative that wants to use the force of the state. I know Ron Paul is socially conservative, but there is a difference between personal life and the role of the state.

These questions aren't worded very well and many are not able to be answered with a yes or no (i.e. the above poll isn't exactly a great gauge of the views of forum members.

[LimitedGovernment]

The poll is not a good format for so many issues. Also, it is hard to distinguish the literal questions from the policy positions. For example, one could - hypothetically - vote for Obama to keep Romney from winning. That would not be an endorsement of anything Obama stands for. Since "I would vote for..." anybody under the right circumstances, the poll may not yield useful data

I recognize that a poll format isn't useful for getting clear data on these issues. That's why I encouraged posting responses to the poll a comments.

I'll answer a few of the specifics you touched on below.


- Someone who would legalize abortions in my state up to the third trimester
Why "up to"? Why not "decriminalize" instead of "legalize"?

As with many of the questions, I tried to use wording that would evoke certain reactions from people based on their more deeply-held beliefs. "Up to the third" was chosen to downplay the fact that the question coincides with Roe v Wade, while "legalize" touches on whether one's sentiment is that abortion should be a legal option. Making Roe v Wade the issue would bring up associations with other issues, and "decriminalize" would touch on many of those same issues and peoples' perspectives on them. I chose "in my state" for the same reasons.

In other words, I worded the question so that people would be more likely to select it, rather than less. Thus, not selecting the option speaks of a greater opposition to abortion than I could otherwise infer.


- Someone who would legalize civil marriage rights in my state for all consenting people
Marriages or Civil Unions? And I would prefer the governement out of this matter. I.e., not "legalize" and not grand "marriage licenses", but stay the hell out of the issue. Possible exception is when one party needs a dispute resolved as in a divorce or custudy battle.

My choices here were similar to those on abortion, but also included "civil marriage" because that's the factual definition at issue. The issue has been popularly identified as "redefining marriage" - but that's not actually the issue. The issue is what access to legal options is provided by the law - specifically, civil marriage law vs civil union law. Civil unions provide a second-class status to people, offer fewer legal options, and do not have cross-state legal status. The difference includes things like hospital visits, custody rights, health care packages, and on and on.

My person view is that the government should remove "marriage" the term in the law, and instead merge civil union and civil marriage law together (keeping the best of both and removing the worst of both) and call the end result "civil union legislation". If people want to call themselves married, they can do so on their own reasons with their own arguments - whether that's a church ceremony or whatever else.


- Someone who beleives that public land and office cannot be used for non/religious purposes
"non/religious"?

Religious purposes and personal worldview purposes (e.g. deism, atheism, and so on, which are not actually religions).


- Someone who bases his/her policies on his/her interpretation of the books collected in the bible
- An atheist
- A muslim
- A scientologist
I need more specifics but: no, maybe, not for being one, and doubt it.

I'd like to hear why "maybe" on #2, given that you stated "not for being one" on #3.


- Someone who bases his/her policies on scientific consensus - not ideology
Contradiction. The consensus is typically driven by an ideology. More so, a scientific conclusion does not suggest a specific public policy. They might as was well state, "I won't tell you what my policies are based on!".

I couldn't really get into the nuances within the poll limitations, nor could I in even just a sentence. The general idea is that scientific consensus is influenced by data, dissenting views, peer review, and so on - things that are absent from positions based on Party history and public polling. An example would be deciding to look at the research on successful charter school policy and what the research community says about it, compared to taking a position that charter school policy should be driven by broad financial policy or the opinions of Party leaders.


- Someone who believes that most scientific studies are unreliable
I suspect many scientists would agree that most scientific studies are unreliable (especially as one goes further back in time). There is a reason why repeatability is crucial and many good scientists look to discredit the past. Models and theories are torn down to be built by better ones. One can also have the perspective that the data is good even if the conclusions are wrong and the methodology is the best. What is the "unreliable" portion: methodology, data, conclusion?

Again, there wasn't much space to get across the intent of the option. I chose the language that I thought would meet the intent most clearly. That intent was to discover whether or not people are distrustful of "science" in general. My use of the word "unreliable" was to allow people to feel comfortable with putting out their distrust, while also not having that distrust associated with wording in the vein of "science of all kinds is usually bogus".

Anyone who understands scientific disciplines will of course understand that much of science is trying to disprove current and past work by eliminating error and looking at the data carefully. Those familiar with epistemology will understand that we don't really speak of "truth", but of degrees of confidence. Those are different things from the idea that science/scientific reports are unreliable.


- Someone who believes that scientific communities are untrustworthy
Second opinons aren't just for patients...

Now, here, I don't really see where you're coming from. Do you think that most medical practices (or whatever scientific practices you choose) are the result of untrustworthy people doing untrustworthy work? If so, by what process should hospitals and other service providers decide what medical procedures to use?


- Someone who believes that "every day" Americans make the best decisions
I believe they make better decisions when free to suffer or benefit from those decisions.

Your answer is the kind of response that I was expecting to elicit with this poll. In this case, you gave it.


- Establishing new social policies (e.g. equal access to civil marriage rights, net neutrality)
You are presupposing an answer the questions asked above ("rights are granted")

Actually, factually speaking, no. People can believe that there are rights that current laws do not address.

But this is another case in which you responded in the way that I expected people to.


- Banning economic policies (e.g. printing money, some/all taxes)
???

Not sure what your confusion is.


- Banning social policies (e.g. abortion, equal access to civil marriage rights)
???

See above.

[Lishy]

I don't care what religion someone is, as long as they keep it out of politics and focus on scientific reality and constitutional principle for their policies.

I'll be honest here that whether or not someone is libertarian is none of my concern. I would vote a libertarian candidate, but my biggest concern is civil liberties (Drugs, gay marriage, censorship,etc...) and foreign policy.

The only exception I'll say here is that I would not vote for any Scientologist! Look, I know ancient alien theory, and I could trust people who believe it. But Scientology? Come on! That "religion" is fake! Not to say other religions might not be just as much BS, but with Scientology we KNOW from the background and words of its own founder than it's a scam! It's all clear and crystal! Scientology is a scam because its founder admits it! So any Scientologist running is either a bullshitter or an idiot who cannot be trusted with power! "Scientology" is a disgrace to the word "Science"!

[PaulConventionWV]

Limited Government. a very limited government.

Your poll is all about expanding government. to either provide or deny.

No option for getting the government out of marriage. That's one option that's missing.

[PaulConventionWV]

By whose definition does limited government mean that the government cannot provide programs for the benefit of society or create documents that state that all people have fully equal rights? Certainly not mine. Certaintly not whomever contributes to Wikipedia: "Limited government is a government in which anything more than minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy is not generally allowed by law, usually in a written constitution."

Do also note that I have as an option the belief that all rights are inherent: "Someone who believes that no rights are granted"

Edit:

"Rights" in that case being whatever you personally think "rights" consists of.

You don't get it. By almost everyone's definition here, limited government cannot provide programs for "the benefit of society." Also, there are many so-called "anti-federalists" here, of which I am one, who believe that the government should not create documents that state all people have fully equal rights. It is not the role of government to do so because that implies that we didn't have them before it was written on said document. That's one reason the founders disagreed over whether we should have a bill of rights. Another reason is because said bill is easily misunderstood as a limitation on all governments in the nation, local and national, as opposed to simply a limitation on the federal government, which is what it's supposed to be. It's also misleading to have a bill of rights in a Constitution where it's understood that the government can only do things that are explicitly assigned to it in the Constitution. It's redundant and unnecessary and can only lead to trouble. The bill of rights has led to the Supreme Court completely overriding many of the liberties we used to enjoy because the Supreme Court felt it was its duty to regulate all local government according to the national bill of rights, despite the fact that it was meant only as a limitation on the federal government.

The bill of rights creates a national standard where none is needed. This is asking for trouble.

[LimitedGovernment]

I'm curious - what did you expect to see in the results for some/all of these questions vs what was actually shown to be the case?

Let me start by pointing out that I expected people who are thinking more critically about these issues or who care about them most to comment on their responses, as you, Jingles, The Free Hornet, and I have. I'm well aware that any poll on this site will be flawed by its very nature.

That said, I expected to see a breakdown like this on issues that have different scores:

About 50-60% support for non-"liberty candidates" who support some policies (I expected to find more support for non-libertarians who share at least a somewhat similar list of concerns.)

About 50-60% support for abortion up to the 3rd trimester (The current Roe v Wade standard. I expected more people to be knowledgeable about abortion and to have more "liberal" views regarding it. I was very shocked to find support for the idea that embryos are persons, which the current poll question was partly aimed at discovering numerically.)

About 80% support for civil marriage equality (I really didn't expect to find that many people thought that equality would be a horrible expansion of federal power, given the human equality focus attributed to the movement. It makes me wonder if 50% or more would support abortion bans that criminalize mothers who take the "day after" pill/Plan B.)

About 60-70% support for separation of church and state (My impression was that the "Freedom FROM religion" and "public means anything goes" people were a small minority. I expected people to be more educated about the history of the debate on church & state separation and how important it is to generalized liberty.)

About 5% support (or less) for governance based on personal interpretations of the bible. (The support for this is beyond me.)

I didn't have a particular percentage in mind, but I expected atheism to be a divisive point, and to actually be more divisive than Islam. I'm shocked by the lack of prejudice against atheists, and the comparative prejudice against muslims.

I expected 70-80% for science broadly, and expected the "only" qualifier to matter more to people when they considered the "ideology" option. I'm surprised to see people ignoring the "only" part and interpreting "ideological principle" as "guiding principle". I wonder if using "ideology" instead would have produced the hesitance that I anticipated. The option was designed to test people's commitment to their personal view of how absolutist their voting patterns should be, though, and it certainly seems to have succeeded in that.

I expected an 80-90% rate for coalitions. I'm pretty shocked by the absolutism here. I'm more shocked by the commented response that supports coalitions, but only if they don't involve any compromise. I really think that the anti-coalition & anti-compromise views are one of the top three reasons why people refuse to listen to "liberty advocates", why the GOP doesn't want Paul supporters in the party, and why the media figures generally refuse to see Paul supporters as anything but fringe though they seemed to take a liking to some TEA Party groups even before the corporate & "social/religious conservative" takeover of many TEA Party groups.

And I should note, Ron Paul is totally against the idea of not forming coalitions and not making compromises that move in his preferred political directions. That's part of why the absolutism here (and at the Daily Paul) is so stunning to me, even though I'm well aware that some supporters disagree with Paul on things (including myself).

On the opposite side, I'm delightfully surprised by the response to voting for a not-Paul candidate in order to get a 3-way debate. The almost worship of Paul that I've seen by some people here and at the DailyPaul led me to believe that many people are absolutist about the candidate to the point of not voting or writing in Paul even if the write-in vote wouldn't count because of regulations about collecting signatures beforehand. However, I can't reconcile the lack of candidate absolutism with the prevalence of non-"liberty candidate" absolutism. The difference may simply be that people are leery of non-"liberty candidates" and generally assume them to be liars or something, or their leeriness led them to interpret "some positions" as "few positions".

I expected maybe 10-20% to think that scientific communities were untrustworthy, because of the religiosity/FOX News crowd, but I was surprised by the responses saying that science is unreliable. My guess is that the view comes from global warming, with maybe some stuff about drug side effects. People with those views tend to not have any experience in the related scientific field, and isolate themselves from conflicting news and research - so that's not surprising.

It does seem possible that I tend to overestimate people's experience with science, and - moreover - that those who have experience with it consider those experiences to be scientific rather than just "knowledge from trial and error".

I was blown away by the "everyday Americans" response. I probably expected 50% at most, but I can't really say what my frame of mind was, now that I've been exposed. It truly baffles me that people believe any one of three things: (1) think that non-professionals are better at making decisions on topics of others' research, (2) that people are not prone to a multitude of psychological and physiological errors in perception, understanding, and reasoning, or (3) that it is ok to leave decisions up to people with no advanced knowledge (at best) or who have not deeply considered (at worst) the issues that they are responsible for and which will have a strong impact on others' lives. I realize that part of this is because I have a background in human factors research, but there's also part of me that just doesn't get the idea that people shouldn't have governance/people will freely make decisions and contracts that would produce a world desirable enough that we shouldn't have governance.

Despite how much crap I'll get for saying this here: People are fundamentally error-prone and unable to consider relevant information for decision-making in all of the key areas of their lives, and - as a result - cannot govern themselves to a degree that is worth doing so, given the benefits provided by governance by people who have spent their lives learning about information that is relevant to those key areas and who can work together to govern. Free markets do not produce nearly as well as does limited governance by good, educated people. If they did, then organizations wouldn't have hierarchies.

And though I understand the motivation behind the idea of leaving people alone (and support the idea that every state should have a "liberty region" for those who don't want to participate in a system of governance adopted by the state), I feel that there is a moral imperative to have governance in order to produce better outcomes for everyone.

Now, as I've stated many times, I don't think that putting too much power in the hand of people or having a large system of governance is good, and I think that all people should be able to leave a system that they disagree with. I think that there should be competition of all sorts. That's why I'm a limited government, public-oriented, and generally "the local level is supreme" voter and advocate. You can do things however you want in region X, and I'll do things with people who work with me in region Y.

I didn't expect there to be much disagreement about the term "rights" as far as 'rights granted" goes. I see some rights as a special class of privileges, so this was an oversight on my part. I think that the difference has messed up the results a little bit, but I did expect there to be a significant amount of belief that any "real right" is inherent/ungranted somehow.

I'm quite surprised by the opposition to establishing new policies. For one because civil marriage was part of the list, and that got a decent level of support (though not what I expected), and also because internet freedom is a big issue for many Paul supporters. People may not agree about net neutrality, but I figured that the "net" part would get people thinking about new laws that are needed because the founders couldn't have envisioned contemporary society. My guess is that the reason is belief in privatizing everything/completely free markets/everyday Americans.

I'm also surprised that banning economic policies is only at 75%. I expected more support for that. My guess is that some people just object to banning anything - again because they don't want the government to have almost any power - if they even think it should exist.

[LimitedGovernment]

You don't get it. By almost everyone's definition here, limited government cannot provide programs for "the benefit of society." Also, there are many so-called "anti-federalists" here, of which I am one, who believe that the government should not create documents that state all people have fully equal rights. It is not the role of government to do so because that implies that we didn't have them before it was written on said document. That's one reason the founders disagreed over whether we should have a bill of rights. Another reason is because said bill is easily misunderstood as a limitation on all governments in the nation, local and national, as opposed to simply a limitation on the federal government, which is what it's supposed to be. It's also misleading to have a bill of rights in a Constitution where it's understood that the government can only do things that are explicitly assigned to it in the Constitution. It's redundant and unnecessary and can only lead to trouble. The bill of rights has led to the Supreme Court completely overriding many of the liberties we used to enjoy because the Supreme Court felt it was its duty to regulate all local government according to the national bill of rights, despite the fact that it was meant only as a limitation on the federal government.

The bill of rights creates a national standard where none is needed. This is asking for trouble.

I honestly don't recall ever hearing the idea that the Bill of Rights was a bad idea because the amendments were seen as government gaining control over what are "true rights". Then again, it's been a very long time since I looked into any history on the Articles of Confederation and anti-federalism.

Thanks for the short history lesson.

My fear, however, is that if they weren't spelled out, the people in office would assume that they could do whatever they wanted, and the people would be less able to challenge the decisions made.

As such, I think that there needs to be some documented reference to people's "fundamental rights" - and something that at least generally touches on what they consist of. A reference to them is different from a "recognition" that people have them/an assent to the people's beliefs.


As for people's different definitions of limited government - I use the term in the simple sense of "a government limited in its powers by ruling documents, such as a constitution". That's all I've ever used it to mean. I won't nearly claim to have the knowledge to say what proper limitations are - I'll only throw my voice in when I think a government isn't limited enough, or is too limited.

[LimitedGovernment]

On a separate note, I want to speak to the distinction that people have drawn between utilitarianism and consequentialism on the one hand, and deontology on the other.

Deontology was abandoned by many people because of what was seen as its absolutism, self-contradictory nature, and limitations for guiding behavior in situations that are nuanced and/or require quick decision-making.

Consequentialism - particularly liberal consequentialism - was adopted because of its ability to respond to complex problems, the need for quick-decision-making, and its emphasis on making the world better for all and worse for none, as much as may be possible.

As my second philosophy of ethics professor said, "I can call myself a 90% deontologist, because I come to many of the same conclusions under consequentialism that I would come to under deontology, and I can come to 10% more when deontology isn't sufficient."

Very often, there is little difference between the two on broad issues. It's the nuances and "small stuff" that matter.

tl;dr Consequentialists aren't the enemies of deontology, and shouldn't be feared. Malevolent dictators who use a personalized utilitarian theory to justify their actions are a whole different story.

[The Gold Standard]

The concept of rights is not difficult to understand. Rights come from ownership. If you own something, you have the right to do whatever you want with it as long as you don't violate someone else's property.

So if you own your body you have the right to say whatever you want, think whatever you want, eat whatever you want, smoke whatever you want, contract with whoever you want without needing permission from anyone. It means the money you own can not be taken away from you. It means your property can not be taken away from you. Any violations of these are violations of your rights.

[anaconda]

I checked all of the boxes because any one of these by themselves would not necessarily preclude voting for the person, depending on the balance of their platform. In other words, no one item appears to be a deal breaker by itself.

[LimitedGovernment]

I checked all of the boxes because any one of these by themselves would not necessarily preclude voting for the person, depending on the balance of their platform. In other words, no one item appears to be a deal breaker by itself.

That's certainly a fair, if unusual, answer.