This was, despite being real short, a tricky test, but I do think it turned out about right.. World's Smallest Political QuizLeft-Liberal
Left-Liberals prefer self-goverment in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want goverment to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
I do think that's generally correct, even if, of course.. my views aren't exactly that "fixed"..
I've thought some about that lately.. about impossible "issues"..
Such as abortion, as an example..
Am I for the right to abortions? If I had to choose, I would have to say yes, but obviously, it's an extremely hard question to answer, since it's such a lot of good arguments for both sides.
I do think people should have the right to have an abortion, as in.. it shouldn't be totally out of the question of having one. At the same time, it's hard to get past the moral question in it. If it's right to end a "life" like that. If one can call it life? Tecnically speaking, I guess one can't call it life, except in the the biological terms, since it's not an individual mind. Concious thoughts. Now.. the problem with that, I guess, is that.. when does a person get a concious mind, an individual mind, when someone is fully aware of the consequences of actions and the ability to make considered decisions (yes.. I know.. some would say that never happens :P), but if you count that, would that make it ok to get rid of 3 - 4 year olds too? Technically speaking, that would be like killing grass or something, since you don't regard that as a concious life. It's very hard to get past the emotional opinion, when you regard something as being a life, and the right for that life to live.
The ultimate question, obviously, would be to go to oneself. What would I do? Now, that's impossible to answer, since I've never been in that situation. Now, I'm not even sure I would want to have children, ever, for various reasons, which makes it harder. Of course, it would have to be one of the worst decision we would have to make, but... yes, if it was entirely out of the question of going through with it, yes.. Even if I'm hard pressed for coming up with something that would be reason for not having it. Now one can never say never, but I would never have sex with someone I don't love, and ultimately wouldn't be prepared to have a child with if it came to that.
Another "popular" issue, is the Death Penalty..
The problem with that is, that it's based on a lot of other things, such as how the society is. A society where the Death Penalty is something that might be an option, is screwed in the first place, and to accept the fact that the Death Penalty might be a good option, the way society is, is to admit giving in to how ways are.
Saying that, you probably think I've got a very strong disgust about the Death Penalty. And yes.. deepest down in my heart, I am. Still, I do admit, do give in to how things are, that it's as well, with a Death Penalty, since.. what's the option?? What good would a life-long prison term do, for someone who is beyond "saving" (which I do happen to think there are, even if that has to do with society not been able to stop them from becoming that in the first place)? Now, I do think there's only one crime that should be up for Death Penalty in the first place. Taking someone else's life. (But, where do you stop? Would Presiden George Bush, Sr. be up for a Death Penalty, since he's sent people to death in the Gulf War. Maybe 100 thousand US Citizens will have an early death thanks to being exposed to Radioactive dust from "Dirty" (deploted) Uranium used in Grenades and missiles used in the Gulf War (about 300 tons of contaminated, highly radioactive Uranium dust, impossible to clean up, where left in Iraq by USA). What about corporate presidents that conciously destroy and take life conciously, by neglecting safety and enviromental issues or make business decisions that affects, ruins, many people's life?).
No, I don't think people that "happens" to kill someone, even if it is a concious act, is a real threat to the society neither, since it's most often an isolated act, and even if they consider killing someone an option, most likely will not be in a situation where they feel the need to kill someone again. That leaves people who kills again and again, and most likely can't be stopped from doing that. (Now, where does one draw the line of that. If someone drives drunk, is in an accident, and does that over and over again? What about rapists that rape women over and over again, even if they've been punished for it?) That have a real, too strong, desire to kill someone. Since I don't think someone is born good or evil, it means they're made into having that desire. Yes, one would mostly call that a Mental disorder, which means they, sometime, most likely could've been cured, in one way or another. When they would be up for a Death Penalty, they're most likely beyond cure, no matter what one would do, which means they shouldn't be allowed out in the society again. But, if they're beyond cure, what good would it be to let them live, even if it's in a prison? Wouldn't it be as good to just execute them then?
I don't know... really. Even if I, in the end, do think it's always better to let people live, especially since there's as little point in executing them as it is to have them spend the rest of their life locked up.