Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Subject: Short Political Quiz

*So you think you know where you stand politically? The result from this
short test may surprise you and give you some food for thought.
You'll be asked just 10 questions, and then it instantly tells you where you
stand politically. It shows your position as a red dot on a "political map"
so you'll see exactly where you score.
The most interesting thing about the Quiz is that it goes beyond the
Democrat, Republican, and Independent affiliations.
The Quiz has gotten a lot of praise. The Washington Post said it has
"gained respect as a valid measure of a person's political leanings." The
Fraser Institute said it's "a fast, fun, and accurate assessment of a
person's overall political views." An unnamed University said it is the
"most concise and accurate political quiz out there."

Click on the link below...*
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

My scores were:

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%

I guess that I lean more Libertarian than I thought.

100% libertarian...surprise!

The only question I paused for was the SS question. Privatize can mean several different things just like "deregulate" can. The old Bush plan to dump SS into a 401k like plan I would not be for because it just gives Wall Street a cut of SS and doesn't fix the longer term sustainability problems. Deregulation has gotten a bad name too because like the SS plan it really isn't a free market solution they are pushing. Instead they are trying to harness the power of the free market to make government run programs better...it doesn't work. Privatize should be the government getting out 100%.

70/90 Liberterian,,not really surprised,other tests have pretty much been the same result

70/80 Libertarian.

While I do not consider my results to be a bad thing, I do have to question the validity of the scores considering the site is run by a Libertarian organization. I have to wonder if the site were run by a Conservative group, or a Constitution party group, how the questions/results would be skewed.

Yarddawg wrote:70/80 Libertarian.

While I do not consider my results to be a bad thing, I do have to question the validity of the scores considering the site is run by a Libertarian organization. I have to wonder if the site were run by a Conservative group, or a Constitution party group, how the questions/results would be skewed.

The questions are undeniably phrased to get agreement with a point of view (which all polls and questionnaires are if they are honest about it). A conservative group would ask the same questions, but phrase the sex and drug differently question to get different answers. The Constitution Party is basically libertarian, but on a few moral/religious issues. I've voted for them in the past for exactly that reason, they had the best candidate. I don't think the federal government should be making any morality laws, but local communities did make such laws early in our countries history. If I don't like what the local community is doing I just move away. The feds should not be involved in it at all.

You can look at the chart and figure out to get a 100% conservative rating. Disagree with the "Personal" questions (first section) and agree with the "Economic" questions (second section). You could try to argue that is "republican" and not conservative. However, that splitting of hairs is nothing, but the talk shows hosts trying to split themselves from what they were advocating during Bush's term. Don't forget that they were for most of those big government programs until the democrats took over. They are all for intrusive government until it is democrat intrusive government.

Here are two interesting reads addressing just that dilemma:
http://mises.org/daily/4921
http://mises.org/daily/4950

60/40 center-left, no surprise.

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Sounds about right.

80/90 Libertarian for me which is no big surprise...

Kreutz wrote:60/40 center-left, no surprise.

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Sounds about right.

Or said a different way, centrist can't make up their mind and have no principles worth standing for even when the going gets rough.

gunderwood wrote:

Kreutz wrote:60/40 center-left, no surprise.

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Sounds about right.

Or said a different way, centrist can't make up their mind and have no principles worth standing for even when the going gets rough.

If you are on the left, you are a liberal.
If you are on the right, you are a conservative.
If you are in the middle (centrist), you are roadkill.

I have to give Brian a break. His recent posts have been leaning more and more to the right!

BTW Garrett, thanks for the links. Very interesting reading.

gunderwood wrote:

Kreutz wrote:60/40 center-left, no surprise.

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Sounds about right.

Or said a different way, centrist can't make up their mind and have no principles worth standing for even when the going gets rough.

The middle ground is worth standing for no matter what. We are the silent sensible majority in these hyperpartisan times.

That is the logical fallacy which assumes that because a position is between two or more extremes that is correct or at least better than the extremes. No such claim can be made.

Besides I was only harassing you.

gunderwood wrote:That is the logical fallacy which assumes that because a position is between two or more extremes that is correct or at least better than the extremes. No such claim can be made.

Usually being between the extremes is a good thing as at least you can see an issue or problem for what it is, validate it on its own merits, instead of going in with ideological blinders on.

I'll admit right off the bat though I favor universal healthcare, I also see the merit in say, allowing insurers to compete across state lines. An extremist liberal would not listen to a word or idea the opposing side has to offer, ditto for an extremist conservative. Either way, a good idea dies for a lack of mere consideration.

Besides I was only harassing you.

I'd expect no less!

And yarddawg, I've always been "right" on certain issues like immigration, death penalty, and firearms. Liberals piss me off immensely on these three subjects.

You're a good man Brian. One that can argue their stance without injecting personal attacks.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:That is the logical fallacy which assumes that because a position is between two or more extremes that is correct or at least better than the extremes. No such claim can be made.

Usually being between the extremes is a good thing as at least you can see an issue or problem for what it is, validate it on its own merits, instead of going in with ideological blinders on.

I'll admit right off the bat though I favor universal healthcare, I also see the merit in say, allowing insurers to compete across state lines. An extremist liberal would not listen to a word or idea the opposing side has to offer, ditto for an extremist conservative. Either way, a good idea dies for a lack of mere consideration.

No it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

There is no valid argument which proves the benefit of being in the middle vice on any side of an argument. It is a fallacy and that is called rationalization. The assumed good is an emotional response, nothing more. The middle is no more good or correct than any of the extremes in of itself. In fact it is dubious to even claim something is the "middle ground" as that really depends on your reference frame.

gunderwood wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:That is the logical fallacy which assumes that because a position is between two or more extremes that is correct or at least better than the extremes. No such claim can be made.

Usually being between the extremes is a good thing as at least you can see an issue or problem for what it is, validate it on its own merits, instead of going in with ideological blinders on.

I'll admit right off the bat though I favor universal healthcare, I also see the merit in say, allowing insurers to compete across state lines. An extremist liberal would not listen to a word or idea the opposing side has to offer, ditto for an extremist conservative. Either way, a good idea dies for a lack of mere consideration.

No it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

There is no valid argument which proves the benefit of being in the middle vice on any side of an argument. It is a fallacy and that is called rationalization. The assumed good is an emotional response, nothing more. The middle is no more good or correct than any of the extremes in of itself. In fact it is dubious to even claim something is the "middle ground" as that really depends on your reference frame.

Have to disagree in principle, the middle ground is a reality (and thus exists) wherever two diametrically opposing views are present.

Here is two extremes:

1) execute all convicted criminals (a stance I have heard proposed by some hardcore right-wingers, and was the policy of Draco of Solon, who lamented he ran out of offenses to punish with death)

2) abolish a punitive justice system altogether (a stance held by some anarchists and probably an Ivy League professor or two)

Where does the middle ground fall? There is definitely going to be a middle option when presented with these two choices.

Absolutist beliefs are typically held by a minority and most people do fall somewhere between two polarized extremes. I stand by my assertion this is a nation of moderates/centrists, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:No it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

There is no valid argument which proves the benefit of being in the middle vice on any side of an argument. It is a fallacy and that is called rationalization. The assumed good is an emotional response, nothing more. The middle is no more good or correct than any of the extremes in of itself. In fact it is dubious to even claim something is the "middle ground" as that really depends on your reference frame.

Have to disagree in principle, the middle ground is a reality (and thus exists) wherever two diametrically opposing views are present.

Here is two extremes:

1) execute all convicted criminals (a stance I have heard proposed by some hardcore right-wingers, and was the policy of Draco of Solon, who lamented he ran out of offenses to punish with death)

2) abolish a punitive justice system altogether (a stance held by some anarchists and probably an Ivy League professor or two)

Where does the middle ground fall? There is definitely going to be a middle option when presented with these two choices.

Absolutist beliefs are typically held by a minority and most people do fall somewhere between two polarized extremes. I stand by my assertion this is a nation of moderates/centrists, otherwise it wouldn't work.

You are missing the whole point.

The fallacy doesn't say the middle ground doesn't exist, nor does it say it is always wrong. It simply says that any argument which argues for the middle ground based on the fact that it is the middle ground is logically flawed. The position may in fact be correct, but the argument for it is wrong. You are now also committing the fallacy of a false dichotomy, but I'll drop that one for now.

Kreutz wrote:The middle ground is worth standing for no matter what. We are the silent sensible majority in these hyperpartisan times.

This statement commits that fallacy. The middle ground is worth nothing, nor it is better than an extreme simply because of its position. Classifying something as the middle ground or extreme is just that, classification of information. It doesn't argue for or against the viewpoint.

Kreutz wrote:Usually being between the extremes is a good thing as at least you can see an issue or problem for what it is, validate it on its own merits, instead of going in with ideological blinders on.

This statement also commits that fallacy. The underlined section is the only way to determine the validity of an argument. The fallacy points out the flawed argument which is that somehow because you view yourself as in the middle that you do that and others haven't. Just because someone is at an extreme doesn't mean they have ideological blinders on. In fact, it is obvious from your comments that you have centrist ideological blinders on. You consider your position superior simply because of where it stands rather than the rational behind it; quite contrary to your minor statement, but consistent with your major argument.

At the risk of derailing the thread, here is an extreme example to make the point. Hitler and Stalin differed on certain things and their views are generally considered extreme. There certainly is a middle ground between them, but I think we all agree that that middle ground is still quite poor. The fact that it is the middle ground means exactly squat.

The middle ground is a classification statement, not an argument for validity or in any way superior to any other position simply because of its classification. The middle ground between conservatives and liberals is very different than the middle ground between conservatives and libertarians or liberals and libertarians, etc., etc. That fact that there exist a middle ground between to view points (calling them extreme is a invalid biasing of the argument anyways, but another time...) is irrelevant to determining the validity of any argument. That isn't my opinion, that is classical logic.

As one last final counter point, you claim the middle ground is better because you consider all alternatives. On more than one occasion, I have demonstrated more thought and understanding about your own left wing ideas than you have. I.e. I know your own arguments better than you do and I need to in order to argue against them IMHO. However, I am at an "extreme" (libertarian) viewpoint, so that can not occur in your statement, but it does, thus the statement is false. I don't arrive at my libertarian viewpoint because of ideological blinders, I arrive there after having considered in some depth the practical, moral, ethical, and philosophical underpinnings of the alternatives. Logical consistency puts me in your "extreme" bin.

@Kruetz

Since deregulation and privatization are big things for you, here is an example.

In the simplest statement, Democrats believe the government must regulate and control certain markets <insert reason here>. Republicans believe that those markets should be "deregulated." I'm being purposefully vague about what that means to make a point. Far too often the middle ground is adopted, which results in utter failure. Deregulation usually means that Ds and Rs compromise and come up with a complex system which is basically the following:

1. Rs get a "market" based solution.
2. Ds get continued government control.

The compromise isn't deregulation at all. It is a market based regulation where the government keeps its fingers in the pie, but attempts to use "market" forces to better manage the system. That is often considered the middle ground compromise, but It is doomed to failure.

From a libertarian point of view, there is no difference between the bureaucrat regulated system and one which attempts to regulated using market based solutions. The compromise isn't the middle ground at all because both parties have already agreed that that market can only function with government intervention. A study of praxeology and catallactics would show that the market based regulatory solution is always doomed to failure. The market only works in the absence of force where human action can be exercised until that action becomes unethical through the application of force. The Republican and Democrat alternatives really are the same thing, two sides of the same coin if you like. They both want government involvement and regulation, but simply argue over the best way to accomplish that task. Both proposals will always results in a suboptimal solution, AKA failure.

A simple change of reference point makes diametrically opposed positions actually the same. The proper choice of reference frame depends on the debate. E.g. Is deregulation about how government should be involved in regulating a market or is it defined by the distinct lack of special regulation?