Political Compass Test

[Left Coast]

I find this test & categorization better for N Ameristanians....
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

80 Personal, 20 Economic - solidly Left/Liberal

I still prefer the Political Compass, as this test was far less nuanced and used obviously biased language (predictable, since it was produced by a partisan org).

 

[Revoltingest]

I got 80 on personal issues and 30 on economic issues. Not quite as libertarian as I used to be, mainly due to my shifting stance on universal healthcare.

A complexity arises with respect to that.
There was Hillarycare, which made care outside the government
system punishable with prison time. That would be the most
anti-libertarian flavor. But one more pro-libertarian would be one
which allows a private parallel for those who want & can afford.

I don't want government provided health care. But I recognize that
in a prosperous democratic country, it appears to be an inevitable
consequence. So the issue for libertarians becomes what kind of
system would be the more libertarian one?

 

[Revoltingest]

80 Personal, 20 Economic - solidly Left/Liberal

I still prefer the Political Compass, as this test was far less nuanced and used obviously biased language (predictable, since it was produced by a partisan org).

It's the superior graph I like.
Political Compass has a Eurostanian orientation.

 

[Enoch07]

Even though I'm mostly liberal, I don't get this sudden trend of opposing immigration law. I believe everyone should have a chance, and that those fleeing violence and poetry in desperation should be treated with pity, but I think simply letting anyone and everyone flood in without any sort of vetting or documentation process is absurd.

I agree for the most part

You're more liberal than what Hillary and Obama purportedly placed on the chart.

Dirty socialist.

Haha that's true to some extent. Its scary how high up the authoritarian scale both Hillary and Obama are. Though I'd never accuse Hillary of being a socialist, I have accused Obama of it!

 

[Enoch07]

I find this test & categorization better for N Ameristanians....
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

The graph....

As all can see, real libertarians are on top, unlike the lower right hand corner of Political Compass.

Not surprising, I'm consistent across multiple test. Must be those darn principles I keep talking about that no one uses anymore.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And how many left of center politicians claim to be "socialist".

Oh, I suppose I should post my results....
The Political Compass
+8.75, -6.10

So far, no one is more libertarianer than I.
"Libertarianest", eh.

Okay, so you're a Libertarian. There are a few things I wonder about, however:

• With a minimum of regulations, corporations presumably should be at complete liberty to pollute, destroy environments, compromise the health and safety of whole communities, all in the name of profit, is that a correct assessment of your +8.75?
• People need to be responsible for planning their own retirement...saving up, making sure they can support themselves, and bury themselves without burdening the state, yes? Corporations, on the other hand, have no need to build the cost of clean up after their demise into their business model (net profit would be reduced by having to set aside sufficient capital to erase the footprint of a defunct corporation), is that correct?
• If, through clever and manipulative advertising, perhaps informed by experts and/or artificial intelligence studying human nature, it should be pretty much okay to market destructive products if you can convince and unwitting public that they want or need those products, even though they will certainly be harmed...is that a "libertarian" precept?

I probably have lots more questions, but I'm sure you get the drift, and I'm sure many other members of the forums can ask their own...which I invite them to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And how many left of center politicians claim to be "socialist".

Oh, I suppose I should post my results....
The Political Compass
+8.75, -6.10

So far, no one is more libertarianer than I.
"Libertarianest", eh.

Im at -8. I stole it from you again, you son of a silly person.

I find this test & categorization better for N Ameristanians....
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

The graph....

As all can see, real libertarians are on top, unlike the lower right hand corner of Political Compass.

That one calls me a Liberal...so..ehhh. At least the political compass makes it clear that Liberals live in a very different neighborhood in a very different part of town than where I'm at. Must be all the maybes I gave it.

 

[dawny0826]

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, so you're a Libertarian. There are a few things I wonder about, however:

• With a minimum of regulations, corporations presumably should be at complete liberty to pollute, destroy environments, compromise the health and safety of whole communities, all in the name of profit, is that a correct assessment of your +8.75?

• Our philosophy is that your right to swing your arms ends where your neighbor's
• nose begins. Pollution which could harm others is therefore worth regulating.
• I can see curbing pollution even more than we already do....it's a libertarian thing.
• And it would apply not just to corporations, but also sole proprietors, partnerships,
• government, & individuals.

• [*]People need to be responsible for planning their own retirement...saving up, making sure they can support themselves, and bury themselves without burdening the state, yes? Corporations, on the other hand, have no need to build the cost of clean up after their demise into their business model (net profit would be reduced by having to set aside sufficient capital to erase the footprint of a defunct corporation), is that correct
  [*]?

• In a democracy people will want such security, & will vote for politicians who'd
• provide it. This is inevitable because the majority will get their way, & it'll be
• politically & economically stable. So while I don't like the idea of government
• meddling in it, it's a foregone conclusion that they will.
• The question becomes....what is the most libertarian way it could happen?
• (This means maximizing everyone's social & economic liberty.)
• I currently don't have a proposal.

• [*]If, through clever and manipulative advertising, perhaps informed by experts and/or artificial intelligence studying human nature, it should be pretty much okay to market destructive products if you can convince and unwitting public that they want or need those products, even though they will certainly be harmed...is that a "libertarian" precept?
  [*]

  • I believe in the individual's right to destroy oneself, eg, drinking, smoking, extreme sports, over-eating.

I probably have lots more questions, but I'm sure you get the drift, and I'm sure many other members of the forums can ask their own...which I invite them to do.

Tis good to ask questions.
Too many contrary posters just make uninformed pronouncements.

Btw, I don't know how to make this response look right.
You & your goll darn rassin frassin bullet points!

 

[Revoltingest]

Im at -8. I stole it from you again, you son of a silly person.

That one calls me a Liberal...so..ehhh. At least the political compass makes it clear that Liberals live in a very different neighborhood in a very different part of town than where I'm at. Must be all the maybes I gave it.

You're not a libertarian....yet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're not a libertarian....yet.

According to some I am. But I'll let you keep the territory for yourself. I believe too much in achieving the post-capitalist world portrayed in Star Trek. And being a commie, Id line up faster to drive a knife through the heart of capitalism than dumb (and monstrously terrifying) frat boys lining up to throw the switch on Bundy. And that is why Ill leave Libertarianism for you.

 

[crossfire]

I find this test & categorization better for N Ameristanians....
https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

The graph....

As all can see, real libertarians are on top, unlike the lower right hand corner of Political Compass.

Libertarian

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Our philosophy is that your right to swing your arms ends where your neighbor's nose begins. Pollution which could harm others is therefore worth regulating. I can see curbing pollution even more than we already do....it's a libertarian thing.

Okay, my first confusion point...I do not see "regulating" as ever being a "libertarian thing." I can point to the terrible pollutions left behind by corporations...wasted and poisoned areas unfit for anything but avoidance. Not just in the US, but here in Canada, and everywhere in the world. There's quite a wonderful art exhibit that was recently here in Toronto called "Anthropocene," depicting how we have, sometimes catastrophically, altered the face of our planet. You can find excellent examples in the book "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer.

In a democracy people will want such security, & will vote for politicians who'd provide it. This is inevitable because the majority will get their way, & it'll be politically & economically stable. So while I don't like the idea of government meddling in it, it's a foregone conclusion that they will.

And I agree. The biggest problem with democracy is that it appears we can vote ourselves pretty much anything we want. And when government deficits come to be seen as standard practice...well, I don't have to tell you where that goes, do I?

The question becomes....what is the most libertarian way it could happen? (This means maximizing everyone's social & economic liberty.) I currently don't have a proposal.

Of course you do! You said above pollution "is therefore worth regulating." And that's all it is...you simply need to decide whether there are things that ought to be regulated, and to what extent. We know for sure that we have such regulations in our individual lives...we're not allowed to kill, steal, beat the **** out of people because they're ugly, shoot up mosques or churches or synagogues. So why can't corporations (which are legally recognized as "persons") be held to similar standards? "You are not permitted to poison the neighbourhood," or whatever else you decide that they really shouldn't be able to do.

I believe in the individual's right to destroy oneself, eg, drinking, smoking, extreme sports, over-eating.

Know what? So do I. I drink. I used to smoke, and stopped because I wanted to. I hate cannbis, but buy it for my lover because he likes it, and it helps with his GBS pain (it's legal in Canada now).


I cannot be a Libertarian. I believe strongly in the right of individuals to live as they choose, but always with that caveat against harming others. That caveat moves me to some extent away from the notion of absolute liberty. I do the same with corporations.

With corporations, however, I am forced to add one more thing: as individuals, we have to get along in the society in which we live and interact. I think that corporations need to do that, too.

Therefore, I'm a liberal because nothing in the life of a social species like ours is ever entirely unconstrained. Except, perhaps, as Portia says in the Merchant of Venice, "the quality of mercy." (That's one of my favourite Shakespeare speeches, and one that deserves more thought than is usually given.)

 

[Revoltingest]

According to some I am. But I'll let you keep the territory for yourself. I believe too much in achieving the post-capitalist world portrayed in Star Trek. And being a commie, Id line up faster to drive a knife through the heart of capitalism than dumb (and monstrously terrifying) frat boys lining up to throw the switch on Bundy. And that is why Ill leave Libertarianism for you.

A non-capitalist future might be more Harkonnen than Federation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A non-capitalist future might be more Harkonnen than Federation.

They remind me more of the abject callousness and disregard towards humanity found in the gilded era bourgeoisie.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, my first confusion point...I do not see "regulating" as ever being a "libertarian thing."

You might want to check out the Libertarian Party platform.
We don't oppose all regulation.

I can point to the terrible pollutions left behind by corporations...wasted and poisoned areas unfit for anything but avoidance. Not just in the US, but here in Canada, and everywhere in the world. There's quite a wonderful art exhibit that was recently here in Toronto called "Anthropocene," depicting how we have, sometimes catastrophically, altered the face of our planet. You can find excellent examples in the book "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer.

I'm already familiar with the Anthropocene Extinction.
I've held forth on its deleterious effects in multiple threads.

And I agree. The biggest problem with democracy is that it appears we can vote ourselves pretty much anything we want. And when government deficits come to be seen as standard practice...well, I don't have to tell you where that goes, do I?

Of course you do! You said above pollution "is therefore worth regulating." And that's all it is...you simply need to decide whether there are things that ought to be regulated, and to what extent. We know for sure that we have such regulations in our individual lives...we're not allowed to kill, steal, beat the **** out of people because they're ugly, shoot up mosques or churches or synagogues. So why can't corporations (which are legally recognized as "persons") be held to similar standards? "You are not permitted to poison the neighbourhood," or whatever else you decide that they really shouldn't be able to do.

Corporations are not "legally recognized as persons". Corporate personhood
is about having some of the rights of persons, eg, to sue in court, to be
represented in court, to engage in political speech. But they don't get to vote,
collect Social Security, adopt children, etc, etc.

Know what? So do I. I drink. I used to smoke, and stopped because I wanted to. I hate cannbis, but buy it for my lover because he likes it, and it helps with his GBS pain (it's legal in Canada now).


I cannot be a Libertarian. I believe strongly in the right of individuals to live as they choose, but always with that caveat against harming others. That caveat moves me to some extent away from the notion of absolute liberty. I do the same with corporations.

I don't get your fixation with corporations. There are other forms of business
ownership. And crimes are also committed by individuals & government.
One's political philosophy should apply to all....not just corporations.

With corporations, however, I am forced to add one more thing: as individuals, we have to get along in the society in which we live and interact. I think that corporations need to do that, too.

Therefore, I'm a liberal because nothing in the life of a social species like ours is ever entirely unconstrained. Except, perhaps, as Portia says in the Merchant of Venice, "the quality of mercy." (That's one of my favourite Shakespeare speeches, and one that deserves more thought than is usually given.)

You misunderstand if you think libertarians advocate our being completely "unconstrained".
Again, did I not just advocate environmental regulation?
I'm getting the impression that your sole focus is dissing corporations.
Did you know that the DNC is one?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You misunderstand if you think libertarians advocate our being completely "unconstrained".
Again, did I not just advocate environmental regulation?

Ive been saying it for years: y'all need to curb stomp the Reps and dump them if you want to win and clear up your image, because youre guilty by association.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Evangelicalhumanist

re: Revoltingest's "Did you know that the DNC is one?"
So is

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Ouch, there's no way I'm one of the least liberal liberals here:

 

[Rival]

Took it again. I'm obviously feeling more...red today,