Talk Elections

The purpose of this thread is to measure the forums social libertarianism. Poll coming. Rather then the really soft BS that normally gets asked, I'm polling "hard" social libertarianism to separate the actual libertarians from latte liberals, and pragmatists that oppose things like drug bans from a cost-benefit standpoint. 

, you can't select multiple options on the poll. Just answer in the thread then.

Dueling to death is still legal somewhere?

Really?

Options 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10.

1.should be legal
2.I'm not sure
3.should be illegal
4.depends on how broadly you define "weapons"
5.should be legal
6.should be legal (with limits)
7.should be illegal
8.should be illegal
9.should be illegal (with limits)
10.depends

In order from "should definitely be banned" to "should definitely not be banned":

3
1
-----I would draw the line here.
6
8
2
4
5
7
10
9

I'd say pretty much all of them.

2 depending on context, 3 unless it's another small child, 8 depending on context, 9 (although there shouldn't be "public land" in the first place)

Yes. Paraguay... but only if you're a registered blood donor.

I'd say all of them except guns.

I do not consider myself a social libertarian so much as more socially liberal than most people.

Public sex and unlimited immigration are the options I feel least inclined to ban but probably would review several studies on the possible outcomes before making up my mind.

My support for legalization of Russian Roullete, duels, voluntary participation in gladiatorial events, and sale of oneself into slavery without coercion would be dependent on there also being regulations. Participants have to undergo and pass psych evaluations, minors shouldn't be allowed to participate, and people should retain the right to withdraw their consent - e.g. forfeit rather than die if they choose, break ones contract in slavery to become free again but owe a debt, or otherwise quit an activity at any time if one has a change of heart.

Verbally inciting others to commit murder, sex with consent with a child under ten, unlimited access to weapons, extreme public nuisance behavior, and blockading access to an event or location through a collective protest occupying public land are things I do not think should be legal.

You're annoyed by...people having standards? ???

All of them

Probably all of them... I could see remote circumstances under which the last two could be legal.

1. Legal
2. Lean illegal depending on context
3. Illegal
4. Illegal
5. Legal per regulations RE: Redalgo
6. Legal
7. Legal per regulations RE: Redalgo
8. Illegal
9. Legal if it's something like a public park, illegal if it's something like the roads.
10. Legal though it would probably only work effectively if done globally

The political matrix test should have more questions like these. I don't feel it went as far as it could have on the social or economic areas.

     Eh, #3 gives me pause. #9 is fine, unless they are directly preventing others from accessing the event, in which case it becomes an act of aggression. The rest are more or less fine.

Then it's not really a 'gladiatorial event', at least according to my understanding.  I have a more traditional Roman conception of the word, which often involves state-sponsored public fighting and gory deaths in an arena for the entertainment of the masses.