erm, shouldn't "giving generously to those in need" be under left, not right? The right are pretty much against helping the poor, with the exception of a couple missionaries.

Actually, no.

The right are not against helping the poor, they're against using government force to do it (thereby making dependents of them).

Most statistics show that those on the right are more likely to give to charity, and do so more generously, than those on the left (as a group).

The right (most of them, at least) are willing to offer up their own resources to help.

Those on the left (most of them) prefer to offer up the resources of others.

I will, say, also, that in regards to the Patriot act and the drug war, there may be minor ideological differences between right and left, but on a practical basis in our current set of representatives, both sides are pretty much equal in their disdain for the rights and privacy of the individual.

For all of the rhetoric, you don't see any of our current crop of liberal representatives making any effort at all to limit the patriot act or the drug war.

There are some on both sides, with some common sense, that are starting to speak out, but they get ignored pretty thoroughly so far.

Mostly libertarian.

However, "non-interventionist foreign policy" is a red-herring. There are a great many international situations where "nothing" is not an answer, however much you might wish it to be. (Iraq being the premier recent example.)

shouldn't "giving generously to those in need" be under left

Something horrible happened to that comment; let's try again.

shouldn't "giving generously to those in need" be under left, not right?

Under left, we find "giving generously to those in need, using other people's money". Similarly, under right we find "tolerant of others' personal choices, as long as they choose correctly".

Nice chart Amy, where can we find the original?

There is one exclusively liberal position I will support: Government-regulated economy. The powers-that-be have proven their irresponsibility. So, since they can't behave themselves, Big Mama government has to step in, grab them by the ears, and march them to their rooms.

I'll support economic freedom when the outsourcing of jobs is either made illegal or taxed so severely that no sane corporate Board would even consider it. And when the hiring of illegals is made illegal. Not before.

I support NO exclusively conservative positions. I support all of the civil libertarian positions, except economic freedom, as I already mentioned.

That said, I don't consider this diagram to be accurate at all. Ask any regular on this board what I am, and they will tell you, often emphatically and in the face of my own denials, that I am a liberal. (I'm not, never was, and never will be. I am an independent.)

"Tolerance of others' personal choices" in marriage means that any man ( woman ) can have as many husbands and wives as he ( she ) wants so long as all parties to the marriage consent.

I think those who are not both peaceful and honest should not be tolerated.

Speacial treatment for certain corporations certainly fits on the liberal side. All the subsidies for green enterprises. Unless one is supposed to interpret the "taxpayer funding for certain charities" as subsidies.

@Patrick: be careful what you wish for. Much of the current crisis was directly caused by government regulation and intervention. To take the 2008 crisis as an example:

First, the government directly caused the housing bubble through Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac.

When the bubble burst, the government kept bankrupt companies afloat - instead of letting them die and have their assets bought by less-stupid companies. What should have been a short, sharp correction has turned into a long-term depression.

In other words, government regulation causes the economic crisis, and then prolonged it. Yet more government regulation is unlikely to be the solution...

Simplistic and incorrect. The left does not support civil liberties. They are interventionist overseas (for slightly different reasons, maybe) and they certainly don't want to end coprpoirate welfare. Their leaders don't, at least.

arandomguy needs to read "Who really cares" (Who really gives? can't remember). Conservatives give much more generously to charity. Leftists want others to give THEIR money, but will not give their own.

Patrick, I'm about to go off to work but I have a question for clarity's sake. Could you share a couple of economists that you find correct and more or less share your idea of the regulated economy? Because when I think about the government regulating the economy I always think of how they screw things up. I'm thinking about price fixing under Nixon and and all the moral hazard attendent with subsidies and taxations that are really social engineering.

To not support economic freedom is alien to me.

I have to point out that "I'll support economic freedom when the outsourcing of jobs is either made illegal or taxed so severely that no sane corporate Board would even consider it. And when the hiring of illegals is made illegal. Not before." is a self refuting statement. Because as soon as you support your version of economic freedom it is by definition no longer freedom at all. It is economic slavery.

Abersouth, you consider Americans being required to hire Americans to "economic slavery"? I don't. On the contrary, I would consider it tyranny to force our own citizens to compete with people who shouldn't be in the country in the first place.

It's as if the government's saying, "Yeah, we have laws against undocumented immigration. But we're not going to enforce them. We're gonna let them come here, and even get jobs, collect disability, social security, medicare, food stamps, etc. and we're going to pay for it with the taxes that we collect from you. And if you don't like it, tough."

Nor would I consider it slavery for the government to say, "If you want your business situated here, so you can enjoy the lowest taxes out of almost all industrialized nations, then you will hire our citizens."

But you claim that I can't be for economic freedom? Without even knowing my stance on the minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, paid vacation, employee provided disability, health insurance, etc.? Really?

So, because of my statement against outsourcing and hiring illegals -- which basically boils down to "if you want your business in America, you hire Americans" -- that I'm for economic slavery?

Are you a corporate CEO by any chance?

The right are pretty much against helping the poor

You have...shall we say, proof of this assertion? being opposed to government programs to help the poor is not the same as being opposed to helping the poor.

Is your desire to help the poor so great that you will actually help them? Or only so much that you wish to force others to help them at gunpoint?

> Or only so much that you wish to force others
> to help them at gunpoint?

That is a golden question. DJ is my new best friend.

Lists like this may not mean much, but it's probably good to ask people to consider a variety of issues. I think a generation of voters have come to think of Dems as the party of freebies and Reps as the party of fat cats.

And in the last year, I've noticed that the guy on the street often has strange things come to mind when you say "libertarian". They assume you want to put nuclear power plants in the middle of neighborhoods, and completely disassemble the legal system such that businessmen can do whatever they want.

Try the word "libertarian" at cocktail party next week, and let us know what comes back to you.

I have one small quibble with this chart. The Left is for "privacy" when it comes to reproduction and sexuality. They are the ones who enacted this insane institutionalized airport molestation and they are the ones who want our medical records reported to and cataloged by the Fed.

No chart is going to be perfect, but I'd have to point out that many libertarians do not support "robust national defense". And they certainly don't support our current position of outspending the entire rest of the world on the military. In addition, I think it's also true that libertarians of the Randian persuasion, are not terribly interested in any kind of "altruism."

> I'd have to point out that many libertarians
> do not support "robust national defense"

Yeah. One of the great things about being libertarian is not letting yourself be held accountable for the beliefs of other libertarians. A libertarian "party" is a contradiction in terms.

Again, that's the beauty of a list like this... It can remind you how unpleasant it is to be a member of the larger parties, and the excuses you find yourself making for their lesser players

Patrick, I have problems with the government telling any company where it may or may not locate. And you might want to check on your "lowest taxes" nonsense, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Economic freedom, indeed.

What exactly is a "robust national defense"? This is so vague that almost anyone could fit any view on military spending under the umbrella of a "robust national defense."

It reminds me of someone a couple of years ago who smugly announced that "enough is best", without any reference to who decides what is "enough".

I'll support economic freedom when the outsourcing of jobs is either made illegal or taxed so severely that no sane corporate Board would even consider it. And when the hiring of illegals is made illegal. Not before.

That is by no small margin the most economically illiterate screed I have read in a long time.

Patrick, I AM a CEO, and so let me address you as someone who has to actually make decisions about whom to hire.

I own my own small business, located in the United States, registered in the state of Georgia. I'm an American born and raised, not born to wealth with a silver spoon in my mouth, and all of my business activities are funded out of a paycheck from another job, while I try to build products for the marketplace.

I have hired people from around the world. I've hired British, Indish, & Vietnamese companies for temporary contract work, and not one single American in the bunch. I've outsourced everything but the work I do myself.

Why have I done this? Do I not want to hire an American? Hell, I'd LOVE to be able to hire my countrymen.

But I CANT AFFORD IT!

I put up bids on most of my contracts, and the Americans who respond invariably have slogans plastered up about Americans hiring Americans. I want to slap them. Why? Because they throw up that slogan, and then try to charge me triple for the same work that someone else in another country is willing to do.

That is stupidity at its height. More and more work, especially in the tech sector, can be done around the world at much lower cost for quality labor.

Yet many American workers still want to try to get paid like its the 1900s and the only competition is in the next city over.

Eventually I'm sure I'll hire American workers, but for things that I can't outsource.

What you're asking for, with high taxes on overseas labor, is economic suicide. I'll agree we shouldn't "encourage" outsourcing at the government level, with tax laws that grant lower tax rates for companies that engage in it. But you're prohibiting good sense, with the only impact that would come from it being that companies will just open up their doors solely overseas in the first place.

Call me narcissistic but it amuses me how they put all the positive buzzwords in the middle and all the negative buzzwords on the outsides. I mean really? "Personal freedom" and "tolerance of others' personal choices"? Those can mean almost anything, but they sure sound good, don't they! And who's going to be for taxpayer funding of charities or for using eminent domain for personal gain? Anyone who is sure isn't going to say it out loud.

At this point, I really don't support anybody. They're all kind of corrupt.

Robert -- What kind of work are you doing, and who are you trying to hire? I ask because many American contractors hire sub-contractors, who then sometimes hire sub-sub-contractors to do the actual work. That's why they charge triple, so the middlemen can take their cut. Unless you're asking for manufacturing that requires specialized machinery, it kind of sounds like you'd be better off just hiring directly on a temporary basis.

No one said anything about where a business may locate, Momof4. I said that if they locate in this country, then they hire in this country. You want to hire in India? Fine. Then build it in India.

As for corporate taxes being the highest, then why aren't they paying it?

Jeff, since you bought nothing to table yourself, or shared any of your profound insight into economic literacy, I'll just assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Robert, I do not sympathize with you and you overblown statements. I myself was just "offshored" for a 10 percent cost saving, even after I offered to take a 20 percent pay cut. We are talking large scale companies her, not one man operations. They take H1B indians and place them here (remember H1B means worker shortage) so that they can interface with the idiots offshore. Their production is 1/3 of ours because of the time differences and layers of bullshit. It is just a current fad among CIO's to see how many people they can fuck over and beat their little CIO club member down the street. Your contempt for your fellow americans disgusts me.

Registered Independent, for reasons Crid stated above.

I have many, many libertarian principles, but I remain unaffiliated to a particular party or person.

I am free to move around that way, man!

> At this point, I really don't support anybody.
> They're all kind of corrupt.

A Sister.

btw, long time republican that switched to independent when dubya was the best the republicans could do. But in our current political environment, it really doesn't matter. Look at the last two presidents, neither was/is actually qualified or even capable of leading. That is the real issue that nobody seems to want to tackle in any party.

Patrick: Why aren't they paying it? Because the tax structure is set up so that corporations that locate in other countries only pay taxes on the overseas rate. It was set up that way back during the cold war to establish strong ties to governments that we were competing with the Soviet bloc to influence.

There are other little tricks (such as the dutch sandwich) (yes that is a real thing) and loopholes some companies use. But the long and the short of it is this, the cost of avoiding taxes is less than the cost of the taxes themselves. This is one reason why high taxes result in reduced revenue in the long term. Eventually people figure out ways to avoid paying or hide resources, and because the government employs people who usually could not get work in the private sector, they're rarely as good at ferreting it out as others are at hiding it. And even if they were good at it, there are so many avoiders that the odds of any one in particular getting caught are relatively low.

Fun fact: The Boston Tea Party happened over a tax CUT imposed by the British Empire. See before then, the tax was relatively high, so to avoid the tax people often bribed the collectors at the ports to be away at the time when taxable actions were taking place. Or did taxable activities covertly elsewhere. Whatever their course of action, few people paid the tax, and revenue collection was low. The British government responded to this, by lowering the tax with, if memory serves, the "Stamp Act". This lowered the tax to a point that it was a small cost of doing business, and it wasn't worth it to bribe or smuggle or hide. It was easier to go along.

This actually upset the citizens, who had gotten used to going without the effective interference of the British Crown. And here we are.

but it amuses me how they put all the positive buzzwords in the middle and all the negative buzzwords on the outsides.

I'd noticed that as well. And truthfully many Libertarians don't support a Robust National Defense, nor necessarily giving generously. There's a history to Libertarian politics in the US, which this diagram ignores (e.g. the long standing and often very weird positions of the LP).

The basic problem for Libertarianism in the US has been that most people who call themselves Libertarians are like the kids who have joined the Occupy protests. They have a lot of complaints and glib proposals, but are otherwise largely incompetent and uninformed. Libertarians are often similar to Leftists, characterologically, but without the pretense of altruism or some elevated moral consciousness. When you actually delve into their proposals, you recognize that they seem to be chosen more as an appeal to the proponents vanity than their practical effect.

The real fault with all of the "isms" is that they ignore the reality of human nature, and assume that people will do what is RIGHT when given the choice between what's right and what is convenient/self-serving. Theoretically, socialism could work if everyone contributed what they could (both through labor and capital) and the leadership wasn't corrupt... Just like "pure" capitalism could work if hedge fund operators, CEOs, corporate boards and traders always did the "right" thing. We don't live in this theoretical, ideal, world though.

So, I lean Libertarian but tend to vote Republican (since the choice I'm given tends to only include D or R).

My top three for the Republican primary, in order:
1. Paul
2. Cain
3. Perry
Although I took a little quiz on Reason last week that claims my best "love match" is Huntsman.

"Although I took a little quiz on Reason last week that claims my best "love match" is Huntsman. "

They did that to me too. I think its a conspiracy. I'd vote Obama again over Huntsman. No joke.

Patrick,

From your link ( dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/study-tallies-corporations-not-paying-income-tax/ )
=== ===
Joshua Barro is a staff economist at the Tax Foundation, a conservative research group.

"The vast majority of the large corporations that did not pay taxes had net losses, he said, and thus no income on which to pay taxes. The notion that there is a large pool of untaxed corporate profits is incorrect."
=== ===

The NYTimes quotes large "revenues" to support the claim that most corporations are not paying taxes. Revenue is sales. Corporate taxes are applied to profits, which are sales minus expenses. The NYTimes is intellectually dishonest for not making the distinction. The NY Times shouts that large numbers of companies are not paying taxes, without explaining the primary reason.

Below, they even print a retraction, without mentioning profit. Their original estimate of tax owed was based on gross sales, which is economically illiterate.
=== ===
NYTimes: The incorrect figure of $875 billion [in tax owed] was based on the companies’ paying the standard rate [35%] on their $2.5 trillion in gross sales.
=== ===

Not all libertarians are isolationists, though.

The strain of isolationism is widespread. It might even be the majority. But it's not definitional.

It's not required as a follow-on from any of the core principles (ie, non-aggression) - because States are not Persons, and there's no non-aggression requirement against States, only against Persons.

One of the few places I agree with Ayn Rand on any particulars is that a tyrannical state is inherently illegitimate, and itself justifies the use of force to overthrow it - even from outside.

One may in fact argue that especially outside intervention is justified, since a tyranny is most effective at keeping the native revolution down, but has far more limited power over foreign intervention.

(Persons in the Army of such a State are either legitimate targets by dint of willing participation, or conscripts - and if they're conscripts, their enslavement cannot be taken as something that justifies not attacking their enslaver.

The only decent response to an attempt to use human shields is attack; anything else signals the the tactic works and should be repeated.

By all means, if possible, kill as few conscripts as possible on the other side while destroying the State that enslaves them. But don't quail at the entire operation because some will die - because the alternative is worse.

Now, in a Nozickian world where people choose to live in such states because they prefer that tyranny to a libertarian utopia? By all means, don't interfere with force.

But in the real world, people are rarely free to leave, which is one of Nozick's requirements for the situation being tolerable...)

(I also agree with Sarah et al. on the cheap manipulative value of the groupings and wordings, and the faulty assumption that those, as well, are really core "libertarian" values.

In an ideal world, perhaps. Not in this one.)

"Now, in a Nozickian world where people choose to live in such states because they prefer that tyranny to a libertarian utopia? By all means, don't interfere with force."

The problem with that is that such states always seek to export their tyranny. We have two examples in the world right now -- Gaza and North Korea. As far as I'm concerned, they both deserve to be nuked off the map.

Patrick, let me get back to you later tonight on a response to the foreign-trade and outsourcing issue. I disagree with you but I think your question is a legitimate one and deserves an honest answer. I want to write something that's coherent and not too emotional, and I don't have time to think it through right now.

Hello, Cousin Dave. I'll be looking forward to it.

Amy, I see lots and lots of numbers at the top of your site, all hyperlinked. I click on one and get a "movable type" error message. Not sure if it's my browser or your site, or something else.

Have a giggle.

As for corporate taxes being the highest, then why aren't they paying it?

Posted by: Patrick

Patrick, here is a quick and dirty economics lesson. Corperations dont pay taxes, their customers do.

Let say I own a burger shack. And I sell you one burger for $11,000.

Out of that $11,000 gross profit I spent $5 on supplies, $5 on labor, $15 on utilites, & $975 on property taxes.

This gives me a net profit of 10,000 - are you with me so far? Now let us suppose that the government decides to tax my bussiness profits at 10%.

10% of $10,000 is $1,000. This leaves me with $9,000 instead of my original $10,000.

So how do I maintain my profit margins? First I try and find cheaper supplies, which means my product wont be as good. Then I try and find cheaper labor, in addition to those measures I also have to raise my prices.

In order to maintain my 10,000 profit margin and pay the tax I need to incread the price of my product by a little more than the same margin by which it is taxed.

Be thankful that those corperations are avoiding paying taxes, if they did everything you bought from them would cost 10%-20% more then it currently does

To lujlp,

You are mostly correct, but there is a confusion.

Corporations do pay taxes on their profits (sales minus costs). See my comment above. Almost all corporations that pay no tax have no profits (or have losses) to pay any tax on. The headline say "50% of corporations pay no tax" is intellectually dishonest. It may be true, but it is not tax avoidance; there is no tax owed.

What you talk about is also almost always true. Economists call "tax incidence" the determination of who actually bears the burden of a tax, regardless of who writes the check. Your comment is correct about this. Much of corporate taxes are "passed along" to customers (higher prices) and employees (lower wages). All taxes on employment, like healthcare mandates, show up as lower take-home pay for workers.

If sales fall greatly because of the higher prices, then there can be a further and possibly larger "deadweight loss" where the corporation loses some of its value, fires workers, or even goes out of business. Worse, many businesses are not started because it doesn't make sense in a high tax, high regulation regime. These are mostly businesses with lower profit margins, which employ people at lower wage rates.

"shouldn't "giving generously to those in need" be under left"

No giving and forcing us to give via taxes are different. The left wants to force us to "donate" when we need help ourselves just to help the poor.

Helping the poor is not the same as stealing from the middle class to give to the poor.

Do a quick search and you will find that conservatives are known for being more generous with their donations than are liberals. Those who think of conservatives as evil, greedy scoundrels might find this illogical. What conservatives want is the ability to choose for themselves who they give their money to. Not the ability to keep it all to themselves.

The reason I became a republican was because of a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least". Stay out of my business! But looking at that list, and thinking about some really nutty stuff on both the far right and the far left, I think libertarian fits my thinking better than either of the fringes, for sure.

Try the word "libertarian" at cocktail party next week, and let us know what comes back to you.

From my two years on a mostly-lefty blog in Seattle, most people there equate libertarians with conservatives. Whenever they bash libertarians I always point out to them that libertarians agree with them on many civil liberties, if not on economic liberties.

I wonder if the reverse is true, if many people on the right equate libertarians with liberals?

About ten years ago I was on another internet forum which was also mostly-lefty but which had one hard-core libertarian. He once posted a link to a series of questions you'd answer and the end result showed where you were on a left-libertarian-right graph. As I recall, I came out as about 50/50 left/libertarian. For example, I'd definitely like to see less government regulation but I'd hardly in favor of abolishing all of it.

One of the items on the chart above I take issue with is the left being in favor of banning guns. I think most people on the left are in favor of regulations, but not outright bans.

"One of the items on the chart above I take issue with is the left being in favor of banning guns. I think most people on the left are in favor of regulations, but not outright bans."

The division between the gun banners and the pro gun people is not politically a left or right issue, as I have met socialist radicals who think "come the revolution" the second amendment will be their best friend.

On the other hand, there are plenty of social conservatives who don't want "the wrong sort of people" to have easy access to a ready means of self defense, and also think the Second amendment is somehow about "hunting"
If you truly favor "regulation" as opposed to an outright ban, we have plenty of those now. By no means perfect, but rapidly approaching the traffic law equivalent of having a stop sign on every corner.

I believe groups like the Brady Campaign are for the most part disingenuous gun grabbers aided and abetted by pacifist tools, who use the mantra "common sense regulations" to push further regulation, inch by inch to a point where confiscation and an outright ban will be politically acceptable. The Heller decision was a big set back for them.

Amy, I bet that a lot of lefties/liberals tend to focus on the economic liberties that libertarians are for, which libertarians share with conservatives, not considering the libertarian passion for civil liberties as well, so that's why they lump them in with conservatives. Although I feel there's some valid reasoning behind that. I may be wrong, but it sure seems to me that libertarians do tend to lean more to the right than to the left and, if that is indeed the case, perhaps it's because economic liberties are more important to libertarians than civil liberties.

The division between the gun banners and the pro gun people is not politically a left or right issue, as I have met socialist radicals who think "come the revolution" the second amendment will be their best friend.

Isabel, I'd agree with you that it isn't a black and white left or right issue -- with all lefties being in favor of regulations or bans and all righties being diehard second amendmenteers -- but don't you think the sides generally fall into those camps? I do.

And even libertarians are in favor of some degree of regulation (at least I think they are.) The second simply mentions "arms" without defining them so one could argue that this means citizens have the right to keep and bear any kind of arms they want and I doubt you'd find any libertarians arguing for the right of American citizens to possess nuclear weapons.

I would tend to agree, that it often seems to break out this way, but I also think a lot of people have very muddied emotional responses to different issues and you would be hard pressed to find any consistent philosophy behind what they believe.
Guns are one of those emotional issues (like drugs).

The military was slightly pro gun when I was in it, and now I would describe the majority of senior officers in all branches of the military as being generally "anti gun" in that they think guns have no place off of the battlefield.

The liability for having a firearms "incident" or even a suicide in your unit is so great, that it will be, and has been, a career ender. In short, they are scared.

I suspect that most military leaders would like to find some way to get individual weapons completely eliminated, leaving them free to be the corporate managers, and government bureaucrats they envision themselves to be.

Many of these same commanders are social conservatives but they believe that guns are inherently dangerous, and should be left to professionals like themselves, and the police.

Many of these same commanders are social conservatives but they believe that guns are inherently dangerous, and should be left to professionals like themselves, and the police.

Thanks Isabel. That's a very good example of how conservatives can be in favor of not just some regulation, but actual bans (I bet your example would surprise my lefty blog participants), but I also believe people like this are exceptions and it seems you agree with me that, in general, the left is "anti"-gun and the right is "pro"-gun.

*

Well, first of all, this is a poster, not a book, so they have to be brief, but a "robust national defense" means you want to have military defending our country but not military as the world's policemen.

That seems like a reasonable explanation, Amy, but then the question is: how much do we need to spend on the military in order to defend our country? Everyone is going to have a different idea of what level of defense is "robust enough" to do the job.

I'm sure Mexico wishes that libertarians had been calling the shots in the U.S. back in the 1840s.

Jim above refers to "a series of questions you'd answer" to determine where you stand on the political spectrum. It might be The Advocates.

I was thinking more J. Edgar Hoover. Not because of your looks, because of the dress.

That was just a general question. I'm just saying that people who are for a strong national defense could be all over the map in how much they think we need to spend on it.

Bush didn't send the military to Afghanistan to protect it. He did it, as you know, because the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and the case was made that, since we had been attacked, attempting to eliminate that safe harbor was "national defense." His action had support from people of all political persuasions, probably even some libertarians.

The same case was made for Iraq, although that was sketchier since Bush & Co. were selling the threat of an attack, not responding to an actual attack (and I personally feel it was a smokescreen to cover the real reason: the desire, or fantasy, of Wolfowitz and other neocons to create a democratic state.)

Unfortunately, a little too late for Layne's idea. No way Israelis would ever give up that land now, even if it meant living in peace somewhere else. From what I recall, there were some Zionists who didn't want to create Zion in Palestine. I believe Uganda and somewhere in South America were two other options they proposed. But there was no way those destinations were going to fly since they had no historical connection to the Jewish people.

The Arabs would probably have an equal chance of finding a cure for cancer (you knew Steve Jobs' father was Lebanese, right?) if they spent less time on religious mumbo-jumbo and more time on science. It's sad. They had a great creative civilization at one time.

Yeah, I read about that trade for Shalit. Glad he got to go back to Israel, even if I never cared much for his movie reviews.

Thanks Andrew. That's the one. I thought there were more questions (and I think more questions would be better) but I recognize the graph.

I just took it again. I'm not completely down with libertarians on economic issues (score of 60%) but we're compagnons on personal issues (score of 100%.)

It was Uganda, although it says "Herzl made it clear that this program would not affect the ultimate aim of Zionism, a Jewish entity in the Land of Israel." The Uganda Proposal

Didn't see anything about a South American country being considered but Canada, Australia, Iraq, Libya and Angola were. Also Galveston.

"Whenever they bash libertarians I always point out to them that libertarians agree with them on many civil liberties, if not on economic liberties. "

Doesn't matter. If you don't agree with the Left 100% on every issue, you're a redneck knuckle-dragging Palin-loving conservative who ought to be shot. Besides, the Left doesn't believe in civil liberties for everyone. Just themselves.

Dave, people on the left don't have any patent on that. There are people on both the left and right who view people with contempt if they don't toe the party line all the way.

Besides, the Left doesn't believe in civil liberties for everyone. Just themselves.

How so? Can you provide any examples?

And there are also libertarians who have a you-must-toe-the-party-line view. Here's an example, Walter Block, in his piece A Libertarian War in Afghanistan? at LewRockwell...

I recently wrote an essay claiming the Randy Barnett was wrong in claiming that libertarians could support our side of the war in Iraq. Most of the response I had to that op ed piece was positive, although there was a small amount of very vicious reaction from several pro-war self-styled "libertarians."

So if you don't agree with what Mr. Block feels is correct and proper and true for all libertarians, then you're a 'self-styled "libertarian"', not a true libertarian.

"Thanks Isabel. That's a very good example of how conservatives can be in favor of not just some regulation, but actual bans (I bet your example would surprise my lefty blog participants), but I also believe people like this are exceptions and it seems you agree with me that, in general, the left is "anti"-gun and the right is "pro"-gun."

Jim, are you familiar with the Army Marksmanship Unit? They are located at Ft Benning Georgia and are part of Special Services. The unit is considered a recruiting tool to get people who are interested in shooting into the military which has always been a natural fit.
Well anyway, part of their mission is to hold shooting clinics and matches open to the public at their wonderful facility at Ft Benning.
As of this month, all clinics and matches have been cancelled for the indefinite future. The rumor mill says it is because the current Ft. Benning commander is "anti gun".
He has probably decided that people openly bringing their target guns onto the post is a security risk. Never mind that a rule like this would have never stopped something like the Ft Hood massacre because a criminal or a terrorist is not in the business of filling out the paperwork to bring guns on post.
This is almost a different planet from my time in the army in Germany where anytime I was payroll officer, I carried a loaded .45 and my driver carried a loaded M-16.

"Did you see the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was released by the Palestinians...The guy looks about as much a soldier as I do -- or my little neighbor Lilly does. In fact, Lilly could probably take the guy, and she's 6"

The reason Gilad looks like an Auschwitz survivor now is because he was held captive by Hamas for 5 years. Note that by contrast the released Palestinian prisoners were well-fed, hale & hearty, and shouting at the top of their lungs about being free to kill more Jews.