For each issue question that Eric complains about, I issue this blanket retort now instead of repeating it for each issue: if you think you can state the issue in 35 characters or less, and in a way that is useful for LP outreach, and do so in a way that is more fair or insightful than the way I did it, then let's see your 35 characters. And if instead you think there's no way to use 10 or 20 short questions to get a rough idea of which standard political label applies to someone, then your complaints are better directed to The Advocates, not to me.
Fair enough. It only occurred to me later that Holtz was the creator of the current test that I criticized. And I guess my ultimate point is that injecting 20 questions from any ideology might create an unfair or misdirected result. I've never been a big fan of this test. Keep giving the test all you want wherever you want.
In the end it comes down to Brian's anti-anarchist paranoia. I'm perfectly fine with minarchists who want to play politics for what they think might yield more freedom in the electoral game. I'm not a ZAPolutist and I don't wear my anarchy on my sleeve when I do play politics. I may never agree that government has any legitimacy, but I'm not beyond coalitions and different ideas when it comes to political practice.
I'm too tired today to just go down the line on every question again. I do think BH plays a little footloose when inserting Barr or Root into the whole test thing. In the end, the assertions of libertarianism not completely anarchy are fine when it comes to diddling in third party scenarios. I'm always jealous that he can get on the ballot so easily. I fight and burn and get no where in here in NY, even though I think I'm a better back slapping common joe kind of political guy.
Here's a couple questions a wry anarchist might ask . . .
1. Do you think drunk driving should be illegal if no one gets hurt ?
2. If there were no public schools could you're family get by ?
3. Do you think health care is a right ?
Etc.
Leave a comment