The Glade 4.0

I believe that is the crux of the poll.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

Although, I tend to think of myself as Classical Liberal, Social Liberal, fiscal moderate. Went with option one.

_________________
"I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock
"There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi
Formerly: Tulamian

By my count, at least 6 of the options in this poll are less than valid.

_________________

How so?

I was actually going to tell you to PM me with what you think I should answer becuase I can't figure it out.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Classical liberal, social liberal, fiscal conservative

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

On the test, I ended up so close to the Dalai Lama I could mow his lawn without leaving the block.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Probably a warped since of humor, but the wording of this statement gives a meaning Im sure you didn't intend.

I have not analyzed them all, but option 1 at least doesn't make much sense. The Classical Liberal and Fiscal Liberal do not mix well in my understanding.

edit: I picked "Classical liberal, social liberal, fiscal conservative", so somewhere in the Libertarian realm.

Without going into too much detail, yes, some of the combinations are somewhat inconsistent. This is one of the reasons I allowed for votes to be changed. I considered the scenario where someone cast their vote, then got curious enough to investigate the various facets with which they think they identify, and find that they misunderstood one or another of the options and found it necessary to modify their vote.

There have been 18 total votes as of the time of this posting. I suspect we probably have a representative sampling of the Hellfire population at this point.

_________________

Its interesting that most of us are fiscal conservatives.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Generally speaking, everything but the second option and last option are internally inconsistent. The second to last option is possibly passable, but the important elements in any set are "Classical Conservative" and "Classical Liberal." Because the first element of each response set dictates political positioning relative social and fiscal policy, some of the choices given are not actually choices in a strict sense. They are traps.

I know, based on responses in this thread and checking the poll, for instance, that Beryllin answered Conservative across the board, which is generally the case. Although, Beryllin will chafe when you mention his driving desire to increase the authority of the Church in the United States.

Montegue, on the other hand, answered in a manner inconsistent with his stated beliefs, as he is a champion of centralized authority solving problems necessary for government intervention. The Classical Liberal prefers the decentralized approach, hoping that no level above the local is needed in the vast majority of cases.

Lenas is very close to a Classical Liberal, but he's fiscally moderate and inclined to side with Federal authority over state or local. His social liberalism isn't a problem, but he's also slightly weak with regard to individual liberties.

Vindicarre is a Classical Liberal, even if his personal beliefs are more conservative on the social front. He opposes the use of government to solve social problems.

Diamondeye is a Classical Conservative, although his deference to authority as it is exists is still problematic at times (more akin to a Tory than a Burkeian Conservative in that respect).

Taly is a Classical Liberal with the same caveats as Lenas.

Conservatism (Toryism) is not exactly well respected in the founding ideology of the United States.

_________________

I understand why you (and others) would have such a perception, but I wish I were better at convincing people that it is a mis-perception, by explaining (somehow) more clearly. I have tried, and I have failed. I fully take the blame for that failure. As the song goes, "Nobody's Fault but Mine".

This is absolutely true. I kind of balked at the "Classical" part of that, with that exact understanding. I am not classically liberal. Decentralized authority, in my opinion, leads to things like segregation and anti-gay laws. It was the closest answer to my beliefs though.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Anti-gay laws and segregation are not an indictment of decentralized authority just because they occur under such a system.

They are an indictment of social outlooks and values at that time period.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Well, in my opinion "States Rights" is most frequently invoked in defense of such practices, and I don't know of a more clear example of the failing of decentralized authority. Federal authority allows for progress on those lines to be possible by forcing oppressive local governments to play ball when it comes to Civil Rights.



That, too. I would argue that those outlooks are not gone, and wont be gone for some time. There will always be an Enemy - once upon a time it was Irish immigrants. Now it's Mexican immigrants, for example. Federal power helps to diffuse some of the worst aspects of localized power. States should never had had the power to deny people the right to vote based on their gender or the color of their skin. They should not have had the right to deny individuals the right to marry based on the color of their partner's skin. And they should not have the right to deny people the right to marry based on the gender of their partner. All of those oppressive results come from the vagaries of decentralized authority. They have only been corrected through Federal power and mandate.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The system doesn't matter. At one time, there was no centralized prohibition for slavery. A decentralized model might let socially unacceptable "views" linger in small pockets, but those pockets become marginalized, segregated from society and ultimately obsolete and destroyed.

Since social values are a dynamic, this just allows radical social change to come about in a more natural way.

For instance, by the same token, decentralized power allows newer, so-called progressive ideas that harken back to the ideas of personal freedom, such as gay marriage and repeal of marijuana prohibition spring up in small pockets. As these ideas become acceptable, the system of decentralized power allows these ideas to perculate and spread.

This is just a legal analog of progression of values and ideas and happens simultaneously with the social aspect.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If people voluntarily go to the government and say "tell us we're married and give us a certificate", then it's not oppressive to turn them away.

_________________
"The map is not the territory."

I disagree. You have the right to walk up to a Justice of the Peace, fill out some paper work, pay a fee, and enter into the state-sponsored and subsidized contract called "Marriage", as a default condition of your partner's gender. They can't say no.

Now, walk in there with another man. They cannot say yes in most places.

You then have a disparity. One citizen is allowed to enter into this beneficial contract because they have an opposite gender partner. Another is not, simply because their partner's gender is the same as their own.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'm weak with regard to individual liberties?

I don't believe I've ever advocated a lot of federal authority in general.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

my choice is:

A schizophrenic, serial killer clown
Who says women love his sexy smile.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Just like the real political system I don't quite fit into any of the above.

I picked classical conservative, social liberal and fiscal conservative.

_________________

While this isn't reflective of my personal views, this is simply wrong.

Anyone can enter into marriage with someone of the opposite sex. No one may enter into marriage with someone of the same sex. There is no disparity. Nor is there a correction of any disparity by legalizing same sex marriage.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I selected Classical Liberal, Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative.

The Classically Liberal part isn't completely accurate. While I am for local and state governments doing as much as they can, I also believe there are a number of issues that must have national level authority.

I am very socially liberal.

My fiscal conservatism is founded foremost in operating within your budget. I am not a fan of deficit spending at all.

Just as a note (and possibly the point of the original post)-- The basic definition of "Classical Liberal" is Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative. I'm fairly sure your choice is oxymoronic, with mutually exclusive definitions.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

As I've been saying for a long time.

Legalizing gay marriage is a good thing to do because there simply is no significant gain in not doing so. That said, it's a matter for the legislature not the courts, precisely because there is no disparity. If people insist on prohibiting gay marriage in their state, fine. More gays will move to states where its perfectly legal, taking their talents with them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."