Where are you on the new political spectrum?
Score 1 point for all "True" responses. Score 0 for each response of "False."
|0||You're an anarchist! Congratulations!|
|1 to 3||You're bordering on libertarian, possibly even a voter. You still have some delusions to shed..|
You're a state-worshipping authoritarian; you probably vote Democrat or Republican along strict party lines
|16 to 20|
Get in AA (Authoritarians Anonymous)now!
You would most likely shove your neighbors into ovens if the authorities told you to!
|21 to 25||You should be locked up for your own personal safety.|
Now, for those who might be curious about how you got your ranking, see the links below.
|5.||Anarchy means chaos and destruction.|
|7.||We all have a moral obligation to obey the law.|
|8.||The United States is a democracy.|
|9.||The constitution grants us our rights.|
|10.||The government should determine what is right and wrong for us.|
|11.||Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.|
|12.||The majority rules.|
|13.||Politicians are our servants.|
|14.||Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.|
Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that
have been tried.
|16.||The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so.|
|17.||The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security.|
|18.||The lesser of two evils is better than none at all.|
|19.||We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with.|
|20.||Government doesn't have to be moral, that's why it's the government.|
|21.||Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest.|
|22.||When in a war, it's "my country, right or wrong!"|
|23.||The government exists to protect the rights of the people.|
can't trample on our rights.
"If you don't vote you can't complain." This is probably the number one self-perpetuating shibboleth in the state's propaganda arsenal. It looks like it makes sense -- after all, you had your chance to make your choice, right? The logical problem here is the failure to recognize a person's right to not choose someone to rule over him and everyone else. Just because person 'A' wants to belong to a group doesn't give the group the right to order person 'B' around, who refuses to join that group. It makes no more sense to say that than it would if the Baptists armed themselves and started ordering everyone around. So in that case, if you refused to get baptized, would you lose your right to complain about the Baptists ordering you around?
Second, where does the first amendment say that one loses his right to voice an opinion just because he doesn't participate in rituals he doesn't believe in?
Finally, when you vote, it is you voters who have no business complaining about the results. Didn't you agree to abide by the results of the election, no matter who won? Didn't you vote to give politicians your consent to be governed? Aren't your politicians merely representing you whenever they do their evil crap? If so, how can you then bitch when they act like politicians and lie, steal, cheat, and break their campaign promises? You gave them your permission to do whatever the hell they want to you, on your behalf. Otherwise, what is the purpose of voting, anyway? For more about the voting process, see Why I Don't Vot e by Larken Rose.
"Without government, there would be no roads." This is a tie for number one as the most often abused excuse for believing in "government." Roads are what people use to get from point A to point B. "Government" is an agency that supposedly has the right to make laws in order to protect you from the bogeyman. How on earth do those two match? People build roads, and people make laws, I guess -- except that people built roads before there were laws. What do you think -- people didn't go anywhere for thousands of years, they just sat around with their thumbs up their asses waiting and wishing someone would invent politicians to make roads legal? If people can't build roads without "government," who builds beaver dams -- beaver "governments"? This "government-builds-roads" thing is one of my pet peeves, especially because so many otherwise reasonable people fall for it.
"I can not be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself." This is one of the five really loony beliefs I put here to keep some statists from looking completely insane. If you can't be trusted to determine morality for yourself, either you're an incompetent human being, or no one else is competent to tell you what to do either. Besides -- if you don't know right from wrong your own self, why in tarnation should you be voting to pick someone to rule over me or anyone else? Whose judgment do you think you use to pick someone to tell you right from wrong? Your own? You just claimed that your judgment sucks swamp water when you answered "True"!
"People need to be controlled, lest they run amok." This is related to number three, except that it's directed at those other people -- you know, the ones who can't be trusted to determine right from wrong for themselves. Usually the authoritarian will admit that he uses his own judgment to live his life, and in some cases can even prove to a Christian why he doesn't need a bunch of old men in the bible making commandments for him to obey. Then he goes out of his way to insist that a bunch of old men in congress should make commandments for everyone to obey -- including him. Unfortunately, the inevitable result is a kakistocracy, meaning "government by the worst among us." The bad guys the authoritarians want to be saved from are most likely going to be running for office to have the power to make laws and enforce them. Who else but the worst among us would want to order us around and take our money? Bad guys make bad laws. They also lie, cheat, steal, and break promises -- pretty reliable evidence that they really are the bad guys. Yet the authoritarian winds up voting for them to control everyone.
On the flip side, virtually every authoritarian claims that he himself is capable of running his own life -- as above, it's just those other people who can't. Each one of them wants an agency based on force to control everyone else -- each one of whom likewise claims to be able to run his own life. It's as if no one liked broccoli, and everyone thought everyone else needed broccoli but him. So, everyone votes for everyone else to have broccoli. It's just as bad to say some people need broccoli, so everyone else must have it, too.
|5.||"Anarchy means chaos and destruction." Anarchy is simply the absence of "government." It has elements of both chaos and order, since it is part of the same universe that contains elements of both chaos and order. It is no more inherently destructive than evolution. Do animals eat one another? Of course. Is that chaos and destruction? Just for the one being eaten. It is order and justice for the one sustaining its life from the meal. Anarchy doesn't result in anything by itself. Only real human beings can act chaotic and cause destruction within the framework of liberty we call anarchy. Believing in putting some of them -- the worst kind, to boot -- in power, giving them guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons and telling them to order us around and take our money is an odd way to prevent "chaos."|
"If you don't pay taxes, you are stealing from society." Here is a classic case of blaming the victim. "You avoided being robbed, so the thief just takes more from us. Therefore you are the thief." The income tax is extortion. What difference is there between, a) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," where 'a' is the Mafia and 'b' is the IRS? The IRS is an extortionist gang. Keeping our money out of their hands is self-defense.
|7.||"We all have a moral obligation to obey the law." This has been overruled by the same cult people claim to believe in when they enter the voting booth: see the Nuremberg trials following World War II for details, or the trial of Lieutenant William Calley over the US Army's massacre at My Lai, or the Ohio National Guard obeying orders to shoot unarmed college students at Kent State May 4, 1970, for examples of the bad effects of this belief. As if that isn't enough, review the notorious Obedience Experiments of Stanley Milgram who demonstrated repeatedly that most people will commit lethal violence on others merely because they are told to do so by someone in authority. When the law is immoral, we have a duty to humanity to ignore, disobey, or abolish it.|
|8.||"The United States is a democracy." Unsubstantiated belief based on societal conditioning, not fact or law. If the US is a democracy, why is George Bush president? Look for the word "democracy" in the constitution. It isn't there. The founders purposely left it out because they knew that it is a bad idea to let majorities have their way with the rest of us. The constitution purposely guaranteed a Republican form of government to the states. |
The US is ruled by one minority party elected by members of two rival sub cults, the Republicans and Democrats, divided for propaganda purposes by rhetoric only. The leaders of the two cults offer candidates and the voters vote. If the ruling party agrees with the voters, it lets their decision stand. If not, it overrules them through some legal legerdemain. Each of the two sub cults thinks the other is wicked and trying to destroy freedom, democracy, the constitution, and life as we know it. After the election, the leaders of the two cults get back together and decide how to rule everyone. If you voted, you have surrendered your right to complain about the results. You agreed to abide by them, and obey the winners until next election. Meanwhile, the majority of us made no such agreement. We voted for no one. If democracy existed, No One would be president.
|9.||"The constitution grants us our rights." Another civics class-inspired bit of propaganda. The guys who wrote the constitution assumed we all have the same rights as an inherent part of being human. They added the so-called bill of rights as a warning to people in government not to screw with some pretty obvious rights such as freedom of speech and religion (first amendment), self defense (second amendment), and privacy (fourth amendment). The reason they put them there is because they had just violently overthrown their previous government, and they knew what happens to governments that don't respect rights we already have. Therefore, the constitution does not grant us our rights -- it merely recognizes that we have them, and tells government to keep its hands off. (The fact that it doesn't work isn't relevant to this question.)|
|10.||"The government should determine what is right and wrong for us." This is related to question #7. It is so obviously insane that I put five such questions in the test to keep ordinary state-worshippers from being lumped in the same group with admirers of Genghis Kahn, Kim Jong Il, and Josef Stalin.|
|11.||"Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm." Society being an abstraction, it has no brain for decision making, no feelings, and no sense of values in and of itself. Therefore, by definition it can't have obligations. Only individuals can obligate themselves to a course of action. |
The question of whether you are your brother's keeper is essentially a religious one. Strictly speaking, obligations are self-imposed duties. When person 'A' imposes a duty on person 'B' by force or coercion, it's slavery. On the other hand, when you assume an obligation, youfreely give the other party a presumptive right to enforce it. A promise to pay later on for goods you bought today is an obligation you freely assumed, and if you don't pay up the other party has a legitimate claim to restitution.
Now, you can assume an obligation on your part to protect the weak and infirm, and you are the one enforcing it since the weak and infirm can't defend themselves in the first place. However, if you try to impose that obligation on others -- i.e., your self-appointed duty to protect the weak and infirm -- then you're enslaving them. This is exemplified by the state when politicians draft young men to go to foreign shores to kill their enemies for them. They will often use the excuse that they're defending the weak, usually by invoking the old canard about bringing them democracy.
I have a hierarchy of obligations. #1 to myself, #2 to my family, #3 to my friends, #4 to my neighbors, and #5 to everyone else. When deciding whether #2 outranks #4 in any given situation, I always pick #2. I might put #2 or #3 before #1 sometimes. We all play this game. It's called ordering priorities. Each of us uses his own judgment to decide what order to put them in. So, we cannot all have the same obligation to protect the weak and infirm collectively, since each of us determines our priorities differently.
|12.||"The majority rules." Obviously untrue. Not only does the majority not rule, the majority probably shouldn't always get its way. When the majority wanted slavery, they were wrong. When 60% of Californians wanted to keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of generous social programs, they were the majority. Yet one judge overruled their plebiscite. In reality, politicians let you vote for the candidates and issues they already approved, and if they don't like the way the majority picked, they'll override you. |
"Majority rules" is nothing more than a euphemism for might-makes-right. Politicians know that if one has enough power, he doesn't need the majority's approval.
"Politicians are our servants." One of the more absurd examples of public school propaganda. Politicians are not your servants. They are your masters. They write the laws. You don’t. They force you to obey them, not the other way around. You think you have an obligation to obey their ‘laws.’ They agree. You do not institute any rules that restrict politicians, and neither does the majority. You politely ask the politician-gods to control themselves. They don’t. You lose. Tough. This servants of the people and public servant rhetoric is pure bunk. They aren’t there to serve you. They control you and rob you. And you can feel proud in that voting booth when you give them your sanction to do it.
|14.||"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." This is an old quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Civilization requires extortion? Civilization means people cooperating and getting along peacefully with one another. That rules out stealing. What I get from that quotation is "We need to institutionalize routine mass theft to prevent random occasional theft." Not only is it contradictory, it doesn't even work. Freelance crooks commit random acts of thievery in spite of the law. Thanks to the widespread belief in politicians saving us from the bad guys, the cost to society imposed by ordinary thieves is now dwarfed by the billions of dollars the state steals every year. As Larken Rose says, taxes are the price you pay for being boneheads when it comes to economics.|
"Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that have been
tried." --Winston Churchill. Another fine example of political sloganeering based on nothing at all. As was pointed out, democracy doesn't exist. Besides, if I have no obligation to obey an immoral command made by just one lone dictator, why would that change just because there were a whole lot of other jackasses making the command?
Here is a question that sends many an authoritarian into irrecoverable brain stall: Do you have a moral obligation to obey something politicians scribble on a piece of paper (i.e., a "law")? One answer makes you an anarchist - the other makes you a candidate for a room in the Bellevue Sanitarium. Besides, can you even know all the laws that might apply to you? Try reading just one piece of them, the tax code, Title 26 sometime. Christians at least can name most of the commandments they insist we have an obligation to obey. What about the Cult of Legislation? Can you name all the laws of Congress? If not, what business do you have claiming to obey them? Even if they were inherently righteous commands, you still wouldn't know what they are. Enforcing them is plain wicked, when there's no evidence that they are even legitimate. Calling a set of innumerable, unfathomable commandments "democracy" doesn't make them any more legitimate.
This is better than democracy: self government.
|16.||"The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so." Here is yet another dead giveaway that state-worship is insane. In what case should person 'A' have an exclusive right to inflict death on person 'B' just because he is wearing a shiny badge?|
|17.||"The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security." The state has no rights. While the state is very real, it is made up of lawyers, thugs, con artists, buildings, monuments, laws, traffic signs, and a host of other attributes. It doesn't have rights, though. Rights are only conceived by individual humans using their individual brains. There is no collective brain of the state. Even the founding document for the republic clearly ascribes rights to the people, while reserving powers (not rights) to government. Whether the state should monitor the population is another example of the Where-Do-You-Draw-the-Line game, based purely on individual judgment.|
|18.||"The lesser of two evils is better than none at all." In a presidential election, for example, if you settle for the second-worst evil, and the worst evil dies -- aren't you now stuck with the worst evil? Of all the justifications for evil, this is just about the most absurd.|
|19.||"We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with." This is related to number 18, except that instead of settling for the least onerous of two evils, it suggests that we should embrace an evil because there's nothing to replace it. It's as if someone asked, "Would you approve of abolishing rape," and you answered, "Yes, but only if you can come up with something to replace it." The state represents institutionalized theft and threats of violence. Why would you need to replace theft and violence as a condition for doing away with it?|
|20.||"Government doesn't have to be moral, that's why it's the government." This actually came from my page "Every Once In A While An Authoritarian Tells The Truth," and it is a simplification of what a lawyer told me on the same page: |
Me:Can making [extortion] "legal" change the fact that it is WRONG?
This is one of the most glaring examples of authoritarian doublespeak. Even the obvious absurdity of such a statement fails to break through years of conditioning in the state-worshipper's mind.
|21.||"Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest." Yes, and who determines what the national interest is? [Clue: Not you.]|
|22.||"When in a war, it's 'my country, right or wrong!'" One more propagandistic slogan that makes sense only when one believes it can be right to do something wrong.|
|23.||"The government exists to protect the rights of the people." Give yourself 1/2 point if you thought it said "the government should exist to protect the rights of the people." In reality, rulers protect their own interests first, and when that conflicts with the rights of the people, the people get screwed. No piece of paper with lofty prose on it can stop those who rule by force and propaganda from acting like rulers who resort to force and propaganda. |
Here is a link to just one site that demonstrates what your government thinks about protecting your rights: The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Right. If you tried to read the tax code at the link I mentioned in question #15, you might see how absurd this is. While in criminal law it is assumed that a person ought to know the law, even then the state admits it needs three lawyers and a jury to determine whether the defendant actually violated a law. Not only that, in some cases the judge tells the jury not to even look at the law, the judge himself will tell them what it says. Who among us is not ignorant of the law? I once asked a lawyer which amendment of the constitution abolished slavery, and he couldn't answer. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet it is only a few pages. How could one of the high priests in the Cult of Legislation not know something as fundamental as that? Yet we are required to know literally millions of words that comprise the laws we live under, local, county, state, and federal?
I'll test this theory: "It is hereby against the law to pass within three feet of my car while walking. The penalty: I will kick butt." Now, anytime someone gets within three feet of my car, he gets his ass kicked. Hey, he didn't know it was against the law. That's no excuse, right? Looks like anarchy to me.
"We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights." The contradiction here is obvious.
Thank you for your interest in this survey. For more anti-state propaganda:
Click here for There's No Government Like No Government!