Political Matrix Scores are Very, Very Important. Talk About Yours Here.

[For Oklahoma]

Just retook it, but I didn't click every issue as critical, only a few:

E: +6.52
S: -8.61

[Redalgo]

I retook this with fewer criticals and wanted to see whether my shift left from social democracy
had any appreciable impact on my PM score. Interestingly enough, opposite appears to be true.

Old Result: (E: -6.19, S: -8.3)
New Result: (E: -5.03, S: -7.83)

[For Oklahoma]

Old: E: -6.19
New: E: -5.03

[white trash heroes]

E: 4.39, S: 0.70

No criticals. Yawn.

Economic score: +3.35
Social score: +2.43

Outlier probably. Either that or this blackshirt is too tight.

[Communists For McCain]

Social: -8.78
Economic: 4.45

Damn, that's probably the lowest Econ score I've ever posted.

Oh noes, am I turning into one of those people!?

[For Oklahoma]

Social: -8.78
Economic: 4.45

Damn, that's probably the lowest Econ score I've ever posted.

Oh noes, am I turning into one of those people!?

DIRTY COMMUNIST

[Senator Napoleon]

Mechaman has always been My Man Mechaman.

[For Oklahoma]

Retook it earlier today:

E: 4.65
S: -6.43

Not as many crits.

I dunno what it is with AF Libertarians shifting to the left economically recently.

[white trash heroes]

Retook it earlier today:

E: 4.65
S: -6.43

Not as many crits.

I dunno what it is with AF Libertarians shifting to the left economically recently.

Because a lot of you aren't actually Libertarians. You are just classical Liberals, perhaps edging more towards modern liberalism.

[For Oklahoma]

I subscribe to the non-aggression principle, however. Isn't that a core belief of libertarianism?

[white trash heroes]

I subscribe to the non-aggression principle, however. Isn't that a core belief of libertarianism?

Well you would need to explain your interpretation of that before I could answer better. From what I've read of your posts you tend to attack government programs more on the grounds of incompetence than philosophical ones. And you already accept the notion that taxes are legitimate. A lot of libertarians would argue you can't carry the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion and support anything other than user fees.

[For Oklahoma]

I recognize that taxes are a necessary evil, though I would prefer either the lowest tax rate possible or, ideally, no taxes whatsoever. That would be in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world.

I attack government programs on the grounds of incompetence because, in my mind, they are incompetent.

Anyway, I believe that there is no legitimate reason to ever use war as a first option. Ever. Maybe as an option after you've exhausted every single option possible...maybe. But I don't believe war is ever necessary as a first option. I don't believe in the ideal of causing harm to another human being, no matter on what grounds.

[white trash heroes]

I recognize that taxes are a necessary evil, though I would prefer either the lowest tax rate possible or, ideally, no taxes whatsoever. That would be in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world.

I attack government programs on the grounds of incompetence because, in my mind, they are incompetent.

Anyway, I believe that there is no legitimate reason to ever use war as a first option. Ever. Maybe as an option after you've exhausted every single option possible...maybe. But I don't believe war is ever necessary as a first option. I don't believe in the ideal of causing harm to another human being, no matter on what grounds.

But you just said you accepted taxation, so obviously that implies that you do accept the necessity of force on some level. It's simply a matter of degree. Libertarianism is inherently anti-utilitarian and idealist by its nature. It does not accept the use of force, as it believes that is inherently wrong and nothing can ever change or justify it. Hence you are not a Libertarian in my view, you are some variety of Liberal because you consider the state to be necessary and legitimate.. But only in so far as it continues to defend 'individual rights' (and the rest of your agenda) against larger obstacles.

It would not be surprising to me therefore if you shifted further "left" on economics because of some belief that social programs provided a bulwark against socialist revolt and/or allowed people to enjoy their freedom more (i.e. the modern liberal/social democrat position).

[For Oklahoma]

[Seattle]

Economic: -3.74
Social: -4.7

Economic score: -4.39
Social score: -4.35

Economic score: -3.35
Social score: -5.22

highest economic, and lowest social score yet. Interesting...

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Economic: 4.77
Social: -8.35

Economic score: +6.52
Social score: +2.00

[True Federalist]

I'm not gonna waste time looking for my previous post.

Former: +2.71, -2.78
New: +2.32, --3.13

[Senator Napoleon]

-0.9 and -8.87

I don't think these scores will ever significantly change.

[For Oklahoma]

-0.9 and -8.87

I don't think these scores will ever significantly change.

[Senator Napoleon]

-0.9 and -8.87

I don't think these scores will ever significantly change.

I put neutral on probably half of the economic questions. A good number of questions are too vague for me to give any kind of definite answer.

[Jackson]

Old:-9.68, -9.57
New:-6.45, -5.57

My politics appear to be taking an unfortunate turn.

[For Oklahoma]

Old:-9.68, -9.57
New:-6.45, -5.57

My politics appear to be taking an unfortunate turn.

[ModerateCoward]

-7.48, -7.48
Seems to me it has stabilized.

[Pacific Councillor LiberalJunkie]

-6.65, -7.57
Don't think ill ever be +

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Dad's result:
E:-0.45
S:+6.87

Mom's result:
E: -4.06
S: +3.04