I changed 24 back to NO and it dropped my radical down to #5. Seems homos in the military is triggering the Radical label. Try changing 24 to No, and see if you still come up with Radical for #2.
I couldn't reproduce my first exact results but I got left-libert, radical, libert, as the top 3 again and changed the homo's military to a no and none of the top 3 moved. Changing a simple priority from med to low changed radical to libert though. As for priority.. i think they mean "how strongly" you feel about it... at least that's how i answered. there were a few i really didn't care much about..
1. Libertarian 2. Left Libertarian 3. Radical 4. Paleo-Libertarian 5. Centrist Neo-Con's are more likely to enjoy S&M while Libertarian's are more likely to enjoy ménage à trois.
Source: http://www.forfas.ie/ncc/reports/ncc_annual_05/ch03/ch03_02.html Productivity growth rate 1999-2004
The US is successful because they have the worlds reserve currency and have been allowed to print as much money as they want. The US Dollar is possibly the most overvalued currency in history.
To be fair, the U.S cannot simply print as much money as they want or the economy would collapse, though I agree that having the world's reserve currency does help to keep their dollar high. Fixing it to oil also contributes a lot.
Moderate Libertarian Conservative Moderate views on foreign policy...leaning conservative Moderate views on social policies...slightly to the right Extremely free market-minded....I don't believe even in centralized banking Conservative on immigration policy...highly critical issue No direct income tax...preferable pre-16th amendment taxation (with some exclusions) Pro-federalism...abolish the 17th amendment I think Liberal are in many ways destructive...there only use in some cases are to moderate some of the views in the right that go too far (or are too corrupt). I'd prefer the REAL conservatives to the modern the liberal by far.
I am definately a fiscally conservative libertarian. I have many reasons but the main one is because I don't think a government should decide what is best for it's people through regulation(drugs are illegal, why?) or taxation(ex: welfare) or by any other means. I'm welcome to criticism
The methods US used to illegalize drugs was actually nothing like today...they just regulated it as 'drugs' in general....slowly phasing legal use out. I'm a bit in the middle on this issue. I do lean your way, but drugs and shitty hippie culture spells disaster...although I figure if those type want to screw their life over and die...go for it. They suck either way.
I'd lean that way as well. People always surprise govenments over these type of things. Govenments love to think we're all idiots who can't think for themselves. Recently in the UK the govenment leagilsed 24 hour alcohol licencing. There was all sorts of complaints that it would lead to mass alcoholism and a huge crime wave. However crime has actually dropped and people are reportedly going out later and drinking slower. I think with the legalisation of drugs (some not all) and they were sold and taxed in a controled manner then the vast majority of people would use them in a sensible way without becoming a junkie. Did you know that alcohol is the fifth most harmful drug available?