DISQUS

odograph · 10 months ago

By "handguns" I assume we can buy repeating rifles, and the more dangerous pump shotguns. I don't own a Winchester, but have a cowboy self-image that it's all I'd need. I vote yes.

Robert S. Porter · 10 months ago

I'm probably screwing the results because I already am Canadian, but I did it anyway.

The last question is the trickiest. Ultimately I already reflected upon the legality of handguns in Canada (legal but heavily regulated) and decided I'd prefer the stronger economy. Besides there's always the black market!

webgrrl · 10 months ago

Exactly. Any ban on handguns would lose to a Supreme Court challenge, and we'd still end up with health care. So it was a no-brainer, actually.

webgrrl · 10 months ago

sorry, my bad, i meant the GDP growth. :(

GU · 10 months ago

Any ban on handguns would lose to a Supreme Court challenge

I'm pretty sure we were supposed to assume the policies would be allowed to be implemented. (C'mon, wasn't that pretty obvious?) Although the Court has been somewhat hostile to abortion, an outright ban on it would also be invalidated (save the Court completely abandoning its current line of abortion cases).

webgrrl · 10 months ago

no fair to add the bonus button later! The issue is that without choice, as a woman, I'm not really a citizen in the sense of being a full moral agent, the state is still infantilizing me. What good does it do me to be rich if I am chattel in the end, at the moment the rubber hits the road?

amb · 10 months ago

I voted yes on the bonus question, on the assumption that people would still be able to travel to other countries to get abortions.

Joe Strummer · 10 months ago

I think the point wasn't the constitutionality of it. That's beside the point. The point was purely as a thought experiment, which state of affairs would you want to live under.

Jacob Wintersmith · 10 months ago

I was also very ambivalent about #3. In the end I decided that there isn't very strong evidence that banning handguns would actually make us less safe, whereas even 1% of exponential growth gets big over time.

Mike Craig · 10 months ago

I said yes, no and no. The first one is similar enough to the previous post's question that my answer doesn't change (posted under mtc in that thread, this I'm time I'm trying the facebook connect thing). I'm pro-choice, so the second question is kind of a non-starter.

The third one is indeed the trickiest, but 1% is too low to make it interesting for me. 1% additional GDP growth, especially compounded over time, represents a pretty substantial improvement in the material well being of millions of people. But no, just no. I'm not sure I can justify this one right now, but definitely no.

AnotherBen · 10 months ago

I was willing to ban handguns, but not abortion in 3 and 4. I know lots are drawn to libertarianism by being pro-right to bear arms, but absent the Constitution (which, contra webgrrl, the magic button can amend, I think), I don't really see the value in it. Straight out banning abortion is always a bad idea, and the negative consequences of banning it a little (i.e. late term abortions), would usually be substantial for those that want one. Also, you have lame fights.

Amy · 10 months ago

The healthcare question skewed it for me. I'd be willing to give up 1% GDP growth, probably more than that, to get drugs legalized (particularly because I believe a legal drug market would be a huge boon to the economy). I would not, however, be willing to implement full-on socialized medicine under almost any circumstances, because of the number of lives it would cost in new, innovative treatments and cures foregone. Medical innovation requires funding, and right now, the American consumer provides it. I don't want to live in a country where access to lifesaving drugs (if they're even developed in the first place) is regulated by the government, even if it means I have to live in a country where access to recreational drugs is prohibited by the government.

Aaron Street · 10 months ago

I like these polls.

I think a 1% GDP growth isn't dramatic enough to impact my decision-making, though. 5% or 10% and I'd give up all kinds of social liberty! :)

David Jinkins · 10 months ago

1% additional growth per year makes a big difference over a period of years. Imagine everyone in the United States being (a bit more than) 10% richer than they would have otherwise been 10 years from now,

Dale Franks · 10 months ago

I guess I'm a bummer, because I'm not willing to trade any of the liberties. I want them all.

Kinney · 10 months ago

1% is a hell of a lot over any reasonable period of time. That said I still voted no as I have a visceral reaction to the state banning things. If question 3 had been heavily regulate instead of ban I would have voted for the economic package, and if question 4 had been overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide I would have voted for the economic package. It was very, very close on both of those though.

Nathan · 10 months ago

Does anyone even understand Canada's health care system? It increasingly private every day. I don't see anyone saying no to Magic Button one.

Robert S. Porter · 10 months ago

In what way? There are a few minor clinics that have managed to spring up but I don't think it represents any major change towards a private system.

Nathan · 10 months ago

By a few minor you means hundreds?

Robert S. Porter · 10 months ago

Such as? If you're going to say they are proliferating around the country then do list them, or at least post some news articles explaining this phenomena I seem to have missed.

Nathan · 10 months ago

http://cupe.ca/health-care/private-clinic-study

Just typing in "Canada private clinic" give you many links.

Robert S. Porter · 10 months ago

Meh, that's CUPE and CUPE has never said an honest thing in its life.

Apparently there are few clincs in Canada, but I don't know of any meaningful ones in Saskatchewan. Indeed when a private MRI clinic (on a First Nations bands' land) was contemplated it was shouted down as heresy.

Nathan · 10 months ago

There are hundreds of articles. I remember reading one more than a year ago. Attacking the source is no less than a cop out.

Robert S. Porter · 10 months ago

Well then post them, Nathan.

The private clincs you think you chaning the landscape of Canada are minor and the more widespread they become the more the public will turn against them.

Ken Hagler · 10 months ago

Since all of the "yes" options involve initiation of force, this poll is really only useful to determine how many people who self-identify as libertarians really aren't.

huadpe · 10 months ago

3 and 4 were tough for me. 1% per year forever is...massive. That's alot of benefit. Even if the direct suffering related to those bans wouldn't match it though, I have a really visceral reaction to living in a gilded prison state.

Unit · 10 months ago

That was fun!

Minos · 10 months ago

I pushed 'no' across the board. Even a squishy libertarian like me is horrified at the idea that *I* have any moral right to push a button that will have so much impact on so many others. Who the hell am I, anyway? Do I not think that the Hayekian information problem applies to me?

David Jinkins · 10 months ago

Sure, but not pushing is a decision on behalf of others as well ; )

Trevor · 10 months ago

I push all the buttons! At once!!!

And I don't even want to ban abortion or handguns.

Chris · 10 months ago

I found these tough to answer without heavy qualification. Do you really mean ban abortion of all types? Does that include birth control? My answer really depends on exactly what you mean. My mother is an OB/GYN in the bible belt and was for quite a while the only one in the area who did abortions. I'm thoroughly convinced of the social importance of a woman's ability to control her reproductive tract in a way that's decoupled from sexual activity, and I have very little sympathy for a fetus until it has got a fully functional central nervous system. All that said though, I'd be willing to give up a hell of a lot to get a nationalized healthcare system. If we had a magic button that would give us regulations preventing granny from sucking down half a million dollars on a ventilator and dialysis ( our privatized system has proven utterly incapable of restraint and reasonable allocation of resources, and actually encourages this kind of thing) to buy six more semi-concious months in exchange for some restrictions on abortion I think I'd have to take it.

athena · 10 months ago

How about leave the people alone with their personal decisions, guns and drugs and get govt the hell out of healthcare and the economy-we'd all be MUCH better off.

Todd · 10 months ago

These are much better questions than the first poll. I actually found #1 the most difficult because I've never had any experience with Canadian health care system. My sense, though, is that without the U.S. or some other large country allowing significant private investment with the potential to make profits, health care innovation would crawl to a stand still around the world, so even though I doubt Canada's system is that bad now, and as horrific as I find the drug war, I'm with Amy above. Other than that an extra 1% per annum is phenomenal and given that it's presumably achieved by genuine liberalization of the marketplace, there would have to be massive deprivations on the other side to come close to offsetting it, and besides, like Robert S. Porter pointed out, there's always the black market.

pafford · 10 months ago

I found it very difficult to resist the power and allure of being able to push a magic button of any sort. However, isn't any small increase in GDP equivalent to a small increase in government?

Paul O'Pinion · 10 months ago

The polls reflect our decisions with our politicians, except they are more fun!

Vangel · 10 months ago

What a weird survey. No matter what choice a libertarian makes on any question s/he has to compromise on principles. That is not true for liberals or conservatives, who have choices that are in line with their principles.

Batman · 10 months ago

As a libertarian, I had to ban abortion. After all, isn't the baby inside the womb entitled to liberty too?

Greg N. · 10 months ago

No.

webgrrl · 10 months ago

May I politely request you consult Aristotle's Metaphysics to bone up on the rigorous difference between the "potential" and the "actual."

Peter Twieg · 10 months ago

Should we also use Socrates' definition of a human as a featherless biped while we're at it?

webgrrl · 10 months ago

Why not? That's a fair description of what separates us from parrots and knuckle-walkin' chimps. I mean, don't get all high 'n mighty, we're just monkeys after all.

Batman · 10 months ago

So an embryo goes from potentiality to actuality via the birth canal? Perhaps you need to bone up on the rigorous distinction between substantial change and accidental change.

webgrrl · 10 months ago

hey don't think you know my position, big guy, without asking. i'd be willing to discuss stopping all electives at 12 weeks, if plan b cost only $1, could be bought anywhere, services were more widely available, and these ridiculous notification rules were all set aside. preserving the life of the mother is non-negotiable - pre-eclampsia happens - but otherwise i'm open.

odograph · 10 months ago

I almost voted yes on the abortion-related, because anyone serious can fly to India.

webgrrl · 10 months ago

You jest.

Or maybe you think the fly girls should instead have the baby & marry the drug dealin' dawg baby-fathers who will soon be jailed, as I believe Kristol once argued? Is that really a great idea? Middle-class teens should just roll with it and incorporate an exotic Indian abortion-vacation with a nice visit to a yoga school in Kerala?

Teenaged underprivileged girls whose mothers have abusive boyfriends can really get a visa to India? They can afford to fly there? Do you live on any planet resembling Earth?

Christopher Monnier · 10 months ago

The suspense is killing me...when are we going to see the results!?!

Joe Strummer · 10 months ago

Question 3 seemed the easiest to me - go for growth - but may be difficult for many people given that most people don't understand the compounding effects of growth. The difference between, say, 2 and 4 percent growth is the difference between Singapore and Argentina after 50 years.

I would've said "The U.S. and Argentina,", incidentally, but it's obvious that this financial crisis that we're in is going to render us as poor as Argentina.

stephen · 10 months ago

the trade offs in this poll were so intense. i apparently don't care as much about the size of goobberment as much as i thought!

this changed my life. forever. or, until we get new buttons to push.

by the way, buttons definitely are the most superior of superior ways to actuate stuff.

Brian 2 · 10 months ago

Really good questions. I voted yes on 1, but on further reflection I think I should reverse that, because losing the one vaguely capitalist health care system could easily cost a huge number of lives in delayed and foregone innovations. 2 is an obvious no, 3 was difficult but I voted yes because as noted above +1% forever is huge, certainly more than the net social benefit of handguns, and the decrease in personal freedom isn't *that* bad. The bonus button was even harder, and there I decided that the decrease in personal freedom was that bad, so no.

LP · 10 months ago

Looks like the form is now turned off, according to the error message I just got.

db · 10 months ago

I got the same error message as LP. My response was similar to Brian 2, except on the last one. While a close call I probably would push the button on banning abortion for 1% gdp. For me it would really depend on how draconian the enforcement was. If its nominally illegal but still relatively easy and safe to get an abortion I would say yes, otherwise no.

Tim F · 10 months ago

I couldn't get the poll to accept my votes. I answered "Ideological Self-Identification" as "Conservative and Libertarian". Answered no, for magic button one, and yes for magic button four.

Beyonce Knowles Sunglasses · 10 months ago

I vote yes to the bonus button, many women are thinking of abortion min their own sake!! I hate those kind of women.