Libertarian left

I just took this quiz
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
i got in the middle of the libertarian left box.
What is this exactly? Whats a libertarian leftist?

>>33 I can agree with a lot of that. Agnosticism should be official religion, and there shall be no prayer in school, outright bans on abortions, enforced bans on preconceptuals, or swearing on the bible. If libertarians don't want to demand that, they won't get my vote.

>>41
I agree with you, but there should be no official religion. Nothing. Also no prayer on public schools, but on private school it's up to them what they do.

>>39
Yeah, for drug legalization, libertarian is the way to go.

>>38
It isn't the SOLE factor, but it is one of them.. and thus, as the Green Party is so vehemently anti-gun, ... yeah.  A Green Party member who happened to be pro-gun would be a good example of a libertarian-leftist though.

>>41 No.  That would violate the 1st amendment. 
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

>>44
How would it? I think he meant school organized prayer, which is kinda odd at best and not invidual praying, which should ofcourse be legal.

>>45 Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Now, to quote Xel: 

"Agnosticism should be official religion,"

Obviously, his statement runs contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment. 

Xel is a statist. I believe I'm right and the world would be a better place if people agreed with me, however I also know for a fact that if I forced people to agree with me I would make the world a worse place. I must PERSUADE people I am right, not force it down their throats.

"Oh but but fundies force religion down peoples throats!" Says Xel the statist.

I don't give a fuck, I'm not going to sink as low as them, or you.

>>47
Truth. When people resort to measures of their enemies they're as worse as their enemies.

"Obviously, his statement runs contrary to the spirit of the 1st amendment." Spirit. That sugary, warm vague word again. Okay, then isn't it in line with the 1st amendment to officially say that "we simply can't be 100 % sure!"?. Because that is agnosticism - it is not a religion, and my semantics were thusly poor for framing it as such.

"Xel is a statist. I believe I'm right and the world would be a better place if people agreed with me, however I also know for a fact that if I forced people to agree with me I would make the world a worse place. I must PERSUADE people I am right, not force it down their throats.

"Oh but but fundies force religion down peoples throats!" Says Xel the statist.

I don't give a fuck, I'm not going to sink as low as them, or you." How noble and grand. Well, since agnosticism isn't a religion, just a theoretical position, why the fuck would that be equal to enforcing prayers in school or putting "god" everywhere?

>>49
Hmmm... Well... I was thinking maybe the government should have NO religion whatsoever. I take it you are so stupid it takes you time to absorb new ideas.

>>50 But I have just said that since agnosticism doesn't presuppose a supernatural dimension acting on ours nor reject the notion it isn't a religion per se, just a philosophical stance that doesn't force anything but a desire to know more and think hard. Guess you're so inclined towards being a idealist smart-ass you don't need to care about actual definitions. I corrected my semantical mistake and apologized for it. You are being precocious.

>>51
The idea and spirit behind the 1st amendment is that the government should really have no say in whatever personal beliefs you have, as long as you aren't injuring other people in the process.  Whether or not it is a religion, or the absence of a religion, congress should not make any sort of law infringing on people's right to think or believe as they wish, nor should they establish any sort of belief/thought system or whatever.  There should be no 'official' religion or belief system.  People should be allowed to think whatever they want, and the government should have no say whatsoever.

>>51
I understand well the philosophical stance of agnosticism, but the governemnt doesn't have to choose a philosophical stance concerning religion. The government's purpose is to enforce justice. Even if there is some religion which encourages people to commit crime, then the government should not oppose the religion, just the crime. If there is something wrong with the crime then the religion's faults should be self-evident and people will stop following it.

Just admit you are wrong. That's probably why you spend so much time here, you make a mistake and then spend hours trying to prove the unprovable.

>>52 US: Official motto since 60s - In God We Trust (because we can't trust ourselves). Agnosticism isn't favoring or disfavoring of any religion - it is a standpoint that by its fruit one shall know it, since its claims regarding the order and nature of the universe can not be empirically verified. All religions are simply ideologies that incorporate a supernatural dimension and/or undiscover/undiscoverable forces acting upon our dimension. Atheism is the rejection of all said notions, and it is equally irrational though probably not as harmful (as long as it too does not enthuse it being forced on non-believers). I am a practical atheist because I prefer its fruits. I am a theoretical agostic because I am reality-based. Agnosticism is probably the immediate thinking behind the 1st amendment. It is not a religion. Taking agnosticism officially could be simply symbolical but it is compatible with the first amendment (no plusses or minuses distributed, since agnosticism doesn't hold any position to be the correct one, it simply is an argument that no stance is intrinsically better) and it would send a message to islamists, rabid atheists and christianists: "Show us absolute proof or your faith will be considered faith and therefore unendorsable. Show us proof that your system is validified by and compatible with actual reality and it is not a faith. So why bother trying to impose on others?".

>>54
Xel, I do see issues with having any establishment of religion or belief like the 'in god we trust' stuff, but honestly, they are VERY minor.  I think you are just anti-religion, and you want the government to be as well.  There are far bigger and more important REAL issues to be concerned with (such as drug legalization, the death penalty, erosion of civil liberties, etc) than stupid shit like having 'in god we trust' written on our money. 

>>54
The government should not endorse agnosticism just like it shouldn't endorse athiesm, christianity, islam, or whatever else.  There should not be ANY 'official' religion-like or possibly religion resembling sentiments in our government.  There is no place for that here.  To be an athiest, agnostic, or religious person is a personal decision, and should remain that way.  The government should not take an official position.

>>54
Just because they commit a crime, doesn't justify you to.
I think you're through with the usual run of the mill fallacies. Agnosticism shouldn't be an enforced extremist ideal of the government. Give it up.

Ok I admit, making agnosticism the state "religion" is idiotic and I was being stupid.

Seriously, I know this is the intarweb and you will take the piss because I'm saying this, but I feel a lot better, I feel relieved because I no longer have to spend 30 minutes on google trying to find up proof to back up my incorrect opinion.

>>56 But. It. Is. Not. A. Religion. And. It. Is. Not. A. Decision. It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had.
>>55 Agnosticism is not an anti-religious position.
>>57 Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe.

>>56 But. It. Is. Not. A. Religion. And. It. Is. Not. A. Decision. It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had.
>>55 Agnosticism is not an anti-religious position.
>>57 Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe.

>>59
It. Does. Not. Matter. If. It. Is. A. Religion. Or. Not.  People. Should. Think. As. They. Want. Individually. The. Government. Should. Not. Have. A. Say.

>>60
"It. Is. The. Only. Viable. Position. That. Can. Be. Had."

Some people aren't logical, and simply believe things whether they are viable or not.  They should be free to do so if they wish, and the state should take no position on this issue.

>>59
"Not extremist ideal. Position. Position based on reality. Reeee-aaaaa-li-teeeee. Reality gooooood. Also, who said anything about enforcing? Stop inferring things you Ben Franklin-wannabe."

Some people believe in things that have no reasonable basis in reality.  Regardless of the absurdity of this, they should be free to do so, and the state should take no position.  It is not the proper function of good government to take a position on issues like this.

>>61 It can tell these people that as long as these thoughts are beliefs they are not superior to any other belief not based on relief. The government should do that.
>>62 You fail at patronizing.
>>63 Yes it is, it is acceptable of a government to make an official statement that no existential position or system of ethics not based on reality is to be imposed on others. It may not have an effect but the idea that it is unethical or should not be done because it is an imposition (it is an acceptance of relativity regarding matters we have not investigated completely) is just... Pussy. Also, what have we said about patronization? "You fail at it" was the message.

>>64
"Yes it is, it is acceptable of a government to make an official statement that no existential position or system of ethics not based on reality is to be imposed on others."

I don't see how it would be 'imposing' something on people to require that the government obey and follow the spirit of the 1st amendment, and not take any official stand on these issues.

>>64
"It can tell these people that as long as these thoughts are beliefs they are not superior to any other belief not based on relief. The government should do that."

No, the government should do -absolutely nothing- regarding this matter.  This is a personal matter, and should be left as such.

JEWS DID WTC

>>65 It is not an official stand, it is an official recognition that only fundamentalists and chickens could object to.

>>68
Or true-blue libertarians be they fundamentalists, chickens, athiests, or agnostics, who would realize the fact that the government simply should not have a say - that this is a personal matter and the government should be kept out of it entirely.

>>69 "True-blue" my balloon-knot. What did the founders say, wasn't it so that they took some maxims as absolute truths, basing these on empirical knowledge about human nature, existence, knowledge, experience and reality? Once again, governement has the right to admit the truth about the extent of contemporary human knowledge about her surroundings and do so proudly without the fussing of fence-sitting idealists who think that the strength and rigidity of a belief is a measure of its worth contra objective reality. The value of government is not intrinsically minuscule - this is one of few cases I would appreciate some arbitrary notions, be they only semantic.

I CAN'T STOP WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH SOMEONE HALP ME PLEEAASEE

Holy fuck Xel! You are so fucking stupid you cannot understand such a simple concept! Shut the fuck up immediately!!!

The government should not involve god in it's decision making process. It should involve only those dogmas which have been time proven to be necessary for civilisation to work, which are pretty much coverred by justice.

Sure not taking god into account can be called agnosticism, but what does agnosticism have to do with law? The government shouldn't declare itself to be agnostic, it should only ask "What does this have to do with the services I am providing?"?

>>72
-? + .

>>72 The constitution is an admittance and reflection of the human nature and situation. The rejection of government favoring or supressing any religion is good. Agnosticism is not a religion, nor a belief, and the admittance of the extent of human knowledge and the realization that reality has not been fully understood is a prerequisite of a stable civilization. Telling people that want government to side with their beliefs (You think there are few such Americans? Think again.) to STFU until they have complete proof that their belief is perfectly compatible with human nature and existence is not statism. Your argumentation is that this is not good, black and white, it violates a holy principle, this and that is sacred, thanks for playing, you are stupid, you need to shut the fuck up immediately,and we do not need to look at this from a practical perspective because it violates a theoretical threshold I don't want to define or argument about. I try to see your point and all I can discern is "Badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers muuuushroom muuuushroom".

>>74
Haha wtf! I didn't realise I was doing you a favour when I told you to shut the fuck up!

"I try to see your point and all I can discern is "Badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers muuuushroom muuuushroom"."
That's because you are an idiot.

The government doesn't need a stance on religion, none at all. Can you get that through your head stupid asshole?

>>75 Agnosticism isn't a stance on religion, it is a stance, an accepting stance, on reality. Religions have to comply with defined and scientifically proven aspects of the universe to be acceptable, that is a message that should be spread.

>>76
There is a difference between not taking god into account and claiming that the government should be agnostic. I don't care whether you have religious beliefs or not, it has fuck all to do with the law.

Someone rapes your child. Do you want the forensic scientist to spend days trying to find out if the suspect is agnostic or not? You probably would, but I prefer the forensic scientist not to bother at all with any irrelevant bullshit and just bring the child rapist to justice before he can escape to mexico (a barbaric nation to the south where child rape is practically legal).

>>76
"Agnosticism isn't a stance on religion, it is a stance, an accepting stance, on reality."

Some people simply believe things to be true that have no basis in reality.  This is their individual right to do so, so long as they are not harming others. 

Also, while the Bill of Rights may not say this in the first amendment, the freedom of religion/belief (or lack of belief, or anything in between for that matter) is likely what was MEANT by the founders, regardless of whether or not it is there on paper. 

Of course, then we have amendments 9 & 10 to consider, aside from the 1st amendment. 

Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'

So Xel claims that agnosticism isn't a religion, and that the government can thus establish it as our official national stand. 

The spirit and meaning of the 1st amendment is clearly to keep the government out of this issue, and to prevent it from taking a particular position on it.

Amendment 9: 
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The powers not granted to the United States government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

Show me where, in the Constitution, it specifically says that the government has the authority to establish a national or official stand on whether or not god exists, which god exists, maybe exists, or doesn't exist.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

Taking all of this into consideration, I would say it is obviously clear that Xel's suggestion would violate the core values of the Bill of Rights & Constitution - the very foundation of american liberty.

>>77 But, agnosticism isn't a religious belief. Also, your analogy is deranged in it's irrelevancy.
>>78 Oh So you know what is meant and what is not? Not buying any interpretation from people who aren't perfectly suited. Regarduíng 1: Agnosticism is not a religion. It is comparable to a scientist not guessing exactly how much landmass there is on earth back in medieval times when all of it wasn't discovered.
Regarding 9: Irrelevant. Theory =/= practice.
Regarding 10: Irrelevant. Everybody can and should have an individual opinion, nobody get to have their own facts.

>>79
You didn't address amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights.  Any National recognition of Agnosticism, unless authorized by the Constitution, is forbidden under amendment 10 of the United States Bill of Rights. 

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm