Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

A perfect score!

I've only nudged a blip to the lower left in the three years or so since I last took the test.

Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51

Dalai Lamaish

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Somewhere between Ghandi and the Dali Lama, although I question the authority of this test.

On this pass I got:

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56

Which isn't much different from the last few times I've taken it. I've always been -6, -6, with variations in the decimals.

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

I couldn't find anyone close to me. I'm all alone in a sea of Libertarianism Right.

^ Mike Gravel is supposedly in your quadrant.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Look at all of you Libertarians in here! I love it!

There's a new little ancillary quiz as well: http://www.politicalcompass.org/iconochasms

(37/49)

Apparently I'm Hitler.



What have I been doing with my life....

^ Inching towards Poland?

Hitler was a Socialist. Maybe you're a Socialist, Edeot?

^ *rolls eyes*

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

i already guessed they were gonna put me in this corner, with the questions they asked and how they asked em. not that they're wrong, i just don't think this is very useful. fun though

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

Dear God, I'm a Libertarian.

This can't be happening....

^ Only in the true sense of the word.

^Only in the best sense of the word. I know all of you Socialists want to be like Hitler, but it's comforting to know you're really Libertarians and not Hitler at all.

You're not making any sense.

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.75&soc=-6.72

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.50&soc=-8.00

Before the economy started shitting all over itself, I was something like +8, -8, and then I took the test a few times between then and now, and I watched myself slowly drift to the left as my trust in big corporations vanished. I've been hovering right around -2.5 for a few months now, so I think I may have found my spot for the next few years, at least.

So according to the 'analysis', Hitler, Thatcher, Friedman and Ghandi are all libertarians of one stripe or another. This test seems an awful lot like the test they give at the Libertarian booth at the county fair.

^Haha! Right. Though, I think Hitler and Thatcher were on the Authoritarian end of the spectrum, DFT.

^ Which changes things quite a bit.

^If Hitler and Thatcher conceived a child together, I would name the baby Thatler (If it were a boy) or Hitcher (If it were a girl). If it were a hermaphrodite, I'd name it blankfist and sell it to a circus.

^I don't think they'd buy something with inherent defects.

Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15

Almost smack dab in the middle. The problem is that there are too many problems, and never a best solution (though there are some better then others). Still more Libertarian then anything else, Bob Barr in 2012!

>> ^gorgonheap:
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15
Almost smack dab in the middle. The problem is that there are too many problems, and never a best solution (though there are some better then others). Still more Libertarian then anything else, Bob Barr in 2012!


Yeah, Gorgon, you're a whopping 0.16 points away from authoritarianism.

You're a regular Eugene Debs!

Where is qm?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Where is qm?


Polishing his Nazi memorabilia.

It should be pointed out again that the word 'libertarian' isn't being used in the USian fashion, but in the original sense.

Here's a little clip from Chomsky which helps toward a definition of terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

I'll get on this when I don't have to sleep.. In the mean time *quality.

gwiz665 cannot award a quality point for this Sift Talk post because gwiz665 does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by gwiz665. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Same neighborhood a lot of you are in, and I was surprised the first time I took the test too. Not exactly what I saw myself as at the time. That was a few years ago.

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

I sure do love seeing me so many Libertarians in here, I do declare! Welcome! Welcome!

^ I guess it's getting lonely for you, all by yourself in the Unabomber Quadrant.

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

Apparantly I'm more of an anarchist than Gandhi. Good to know, but a pretty stupid test.

"Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."
Like humans compared to dogs? or browns and pinks?

edit1: ugh, page 5/6 was easy...

edit2: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.50&soc=-4.46
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.46

Isn't liberal and social libertarian basically the same thing? It's well known that reality has a liberal bias.

Cool! Now my entire political philosophy can be easily explained by four numbers!

Economic Left/Right: 1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.10

I'd love to see more people take the test. So far, we only have half the quadrants represented.

Surely we have people with two positive numbers. I'm curious if we have anyone in the second (upper left) quadrant.

no time to retake this this week, but i think you would all benefit to know that the last 3 times i took it it stuck me way down by myself all the way in the left handcorner with the anarchosyndacalists... i considered going to my local wobbly meetings afterwards, but quickly realized i stopped hanging out with the baby crusty punks for a reason.....


reasons this benefits you in your life: now we all have numerical proof that i am a more evolved being. haha!

^There probably aren't more than a handful of people on this site who'd fit into the social conservative quadrants and the social conservative/fiscal liberal quadrant is pretty much non-existent at this point.

Without the responses, "I find this question flawed, ambiguous and unanswerable" and "I don't give a shit", I can't complete the test.

>> ^Lurch:
Economic Left/Right: 1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.10


No surprises there.

Ambiguous, irrelevant questions, inappropriate implications, arbitrary relegation of historical figures with positions. I don't see how it is possible to "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" with an ambiguous question so a score of |10|,|10| doesn't even make sense.

Examples:

"Some people are naturally unlucky." Is this suggesting that luck is a physical property of the universe, or that statistically some people will have very bad luck?

"Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged." Better in terms of helping a specific group of people, or better in terms of its impact on society as a whole? AKA "Snuffing out a fire with a baby is better than snuffing out a fire with a small rock." The baby is more effective, but it is not a good thing to use, which sense does "better" mean?

"It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." Does this suggest that some people can't be rehabilitated, or that some people shouldn't be rehabilitated?

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Two people necessarily come to agreement slower than one person, in a time critical issue this is an advantage. This question is trying to suggest that the "advantage" is somehow wrong or authoritarian, which is not always true.

Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

Basically the same as blankfist.

"I'm curious if we have anyone in the second (upper left) quadrant."

Just Siftbot. He's staring at me.

ADVERTISEMENT:
<embed src="http://www.ronpaul.com/ron-paul.jpg" width="80%" height="80%">

@imstellar: http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/

Also, the test itself is mixing metrics. Political systems and social systems are distinctly different. This is named a "political compass" yet the two scales it lists on the analysis page are the "economic scale" and "social scale" yet there is absolutely no reason to favor one scale over the other in determining authoritarianism or libertarianism. As it happens, the author chose the social scale. If he had chosen the economic scale everyone here would be potentially labeled as authoritarian.

The reality is that your social morality is not necessarily dependent on your political system. For instance it is possible to favor the legality of racist speech (political realm) yet be personally against racism (social realm).

This test is taking two political systems, anarchy and authoritarianism and plotting them on a social scale from answers to both political and social questions. This doesn't even make sense; its like measuring your weight and plotting it in inches. A more useful plot would be a cube with x, y, and z coordinates where the three scales are economic, social, and political.

Why do you think most people on this site are measuring in the (-x,-y) quadrant? Most people on this site are socially liberal and economically collectivist. That is the bottom left quadrant where Gandhi "allegedly" is. If the compass was given as a cube, most people here would measure as (-x, -y, +z): economically collectivist, socially liberal, and politically authoritarian - much closer to Stalin and completely opposite from Gandhi.

I am economically individualistic, socially liberal, and politically libertarian, which in a cube would be (+x, -y, -z). blankfist from what I can tell would fall into this same category.

There is just no way the posters on this site accurately fall into the libertarian category. The only time I have ever heard the word "voluntary" out of anyones mouth is when they are quoting one of the 5 libertarians who post here, or they are using it as part of the greater word "involuntary."

I'll take it as a compliment that you are afraid to challenge me intellectually; and view my ability to think on a different level as so incomprehensible that I must be autistic.

>> ^qualm:
@imstellar: http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm curious if we have anyone in the second (upper left) quadrant.


Its certainly interesting you say that, because if we take up-down as authoritarian/anarchy and left-right as collectivist/individualist, do you really think you are more towards no government than total government?

I would place most people on this site in the upper left quadrant.

Stop stalling, stellar, give us your numbers.

Edit: never mind...found them.

>> ^imstellar28:

Basically the same as blankfist.


Dominus vobiscum you poor, tortured soul.

seeing is how most of yall are more libertarian than me, does that mean I get to call you a bunch of anarchists now?

by the way, anyone fancy it funny that your boy Obama is not only on the right and authoritarian, but hes in a totally opposite quadrant as most posters here?

<embed src ="http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png">

not sure how they decided Ron Paul as either authoritarian or more conservative than everyone in the GOP though.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

The quiz has more traps than Admiral Ackbar could call out. "Iconochasms" was far more interesting.


Rougy, for the nonce you're a self-avowed Political CHUMP/ASS for your rude Godwin nap-disturbing commentary.

And your breath stinks of stale bananas and patchouli.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Rougy, for the nonce you're a self-avowed Political CHUMP/ASS for your rude Godwin nap-disturbing commentary.
And your breath stinks of stale bananas and patchouli.


You are on my ignore list for a very good reason, QM.

I still catch glimpses of your predictable, inflamatory prattle when other people include your quotes in their posts, and I un-ignored you this time with the hopes that you would reveal your score, or have something intelligent and relevant to say.

You are the person who wrote "Death to the weak, wealth to the strong."

That is one of the tenets of fascism, in particular the flavor that Hitler was spreading all over Europe, not very long ago.

Yes, on occasion you say something funny, but for the most part you're no more interesting than a parrot that repeats nothing but the tired, mean-spirited slogans and insults that it heard from the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, and Coulter.

You're a pussy, and a chump, and a cowardly little piece of shit who has neither the brains nor the spine to think for himself.

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

Gandhi.

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

New book idea: "The Gandhi Delusion."

I'm not sure how you reconcile your support for invasive government with Gandhi's ahimsa, or total non-violence; but I'm guessing it involves spandex, a trapeze, and several tight-ropes to say the least.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Gandhi.

>> ^imstellar28:

I think that's an interesting idea, but how is that different from just taking the current left-right definition (all about the size of government) and making it a 3rd axis?

Why can't that axis really be decomposed into a vector of the social and economic axes?

Positive values on the social axis call for more government involvement, and less on the economic. Perhaps they should just flip the x-axis around, and say positive values correlate to more government involvement (though that would destroy the natural left-right order it has now).

Adding the 3rd axis leads to weird combinations; is it really possible to be economicly collectivist, socially conservative, and politically libertarian?

It seems like you're just trying to superimpose your view of the left-right axis onto the system. In fairness, I think that's because you generally view your positions on economic and social issues as being derived from your political philosophy, whereas I generally feel like my political philosophy is derived from my views on economic and social issues.

The chart is more about measuring the kinds of concrete goals you have for the way society should work, than about the means you think it will take to get society there. Maybe it's a weakness in the system's ability to discern political party sympathies, but people in the 4th quadrant are pretty much all going to self-identify as libertarian or "independent". At least, in the US.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
Gandhi.


Look maw, I took an internet test and it said I'm like that racist who called himself a saint and gave women enemas daily.

>> ^imstellar28:
not sure how they decided Ron Paul as either authoritarian or more conservative than everyone in the GOP though.


It's most likely his stance on spending seeing how the left and right in this instance is specific to the economic scale:

<embed src="http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif">

And all the other members of the GOP love spending money. That's for sure!

>> ^imstellar28:
New book idea: "The Gandhi Delusion."
I'm not sure how you reconcile your support for invasive government with Gandhi's ahimsa, or total non-violence; but I'm guessing it involves spandex, a trapeze, and several tight-ropes to say the least.


I'm not sure how you can reckon the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet being less "invasive" than Gandhi, who kicked the British out of his homeland with a campaign of non-violence.

Stellar, it is not "invasive" for you to pay your fair share any more than it is "invasive" for your dinner party to expect you to pay your share of the bill, plus gratuity.

ok i got around to retaking it

economic: -9.25
social: -9.81

still looking kind of anarcho-collectivist. which is right on. my ideal society lives in egalatarian tribal communities on the texas plains. we raise our children to be naturally defiant, yet respectful, and we worship the great spirit, which is nothing more or less than the ecological bond between all living things. also.... we dance.

If your analogy is to be valid, you have to include the choice of whether to eat out, the choice of where to eat, and the choice of what to order; not just the choice of whether to pay the bill.

It is invasive when someone forces you to eat out, forces you to dine at a certain restaurant, forces you to order a certain meal, and then forces you to pay the bill. It doesn't matter how "good" the restaurant is, or how "good" the food is; people are being forced to "eat" it and that is exactly what Gandhi spent his whole life protesting against.

If you can answer yes to any question starting with "The government should be allowed to force law-abiding citizens to..." then you are nothing like Gandhi. Gandhi was uncompromising about his stand on non-violence.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28 Stellar, it is not "invasive" for you to pay your fair share any more than it is "invasive" for your dinner party to expect you to pay your share of the bill, plus gratuity.

Ah yes, I was getting mixed up a little there, it does make sense that he is the most right of anyone because that is essentially towards the individualist side. Still not sure how on earth they pegged him as authoritarian though.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^imstellar28:
not sure how they decided Ron Paul as either authoritarian or more conservative than everyone in the GOP though.

It's most likely his stance on spending seeing how the left and right in this instance is specific to the economic scale:

@ imstellar: You aren't being forced to remain in the United States. You have many other options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nations

Or you can remain and work toward carving out an independent Libertopia or LibertyLand(TM), or remain and work toward entirely changing your society as you would prefer it. Or you can buy a canoe at Walmart, grow a beard- or try to anyhow, and then head off into the wilderness. Not necessarily in that order.

Extremely poor argument. Please explain how that is in any way relevant to what we are discussing?

>> ^qualm:
@ imstellar: You aren't being forced to remain in the United States. You have many other options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nations
Or you can remain and work toward carving out an independent Libertopia or LibertyLand(TM), or remain and work toward entirely changing your society as you would prefer it. Or you can buy a canoe at Walmart, grow a beard- or try to anyhow, and then head off into the wilderness. Not necessarily in that order.

>> ^qualm:
@ imstellar: You aren't being forced to remain in the United States. You have many other options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nations
Or you can remain and work toward carving out an independent Libertopia or LibertyLand(TM), or remain and work toward entirely changing your society as you would prefer it. Or you can buy a canoe at Walmart, grow a beard- or try to anyhow, and then head off into the wilderness. Not necessarily in that order.


So you're saying if you don't like the country then leave? How very stereo-typical right-wing southerner of you.

Are you going to ask him why he hates America next?

>> ^imstellar28:
If your analogy is to be valid, you have to include the choice of whether to eat out, the choice of where to eat, and the choice of what to order; not just the choice of whether to pay the bill.

Nobody is forcing you to live in America. Let's start there.

Nobody is forcing you to fly a kite. Nobody forced the slaves to not kill themselves. How is any of this relevant?

>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
If your analogy is to be valid, you have to include the choice of whether to eat out, the choice of where to eat, and the choice of what to order; not just the choice of whether to pay the bill.
Nobody is forcing you to live in America. Let's start there.

^ Huh? Forget about the restaurant analogy for a moment if that helps you. What are you trying to say?

>> ^imstellar28:
New book idea: "The Gandhi Delusion."
I'm not sure how you reconcile your support for invasive government with Gandhi's ahimsa, or total non-violence; but I'm guessing it involves spandex, a trapeze, and several tight-ropes to say the least.


How do you rationalize your economic ideas with the fact that you don't understand most of them? I'd love to hear that one.

So.....you're not going to respond to that question?

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^imstellar28:
New book idea: "The Gandhi Delusion."
I'm not sure how you reconcile your support for invasive government with Gandhi's ahimsa, or total non-violence; but I'm guessing it involves spandex, a trapeze, and several tight-ropes to say the least.

How do you rationalize your economic ideas with the fact that you don't understand most of them? I'd love to hear that one.

You didn't like the restaurant analogy because you didn't have the "choice" to eat out, or choose where to eat.

Well, you've apparently chosen to live in America.

So pay your fair share.

>> ^imstellar28:
Nobody is forcing you to fly a kite. Nobody forced the slaves to not kill themselves. How is any of this relevant?
>> ^rougy:
>> ^imstellar28:
If your analogy is to be valid, you have to include the choice of whether to eat out, the choice of where to eat, and the choice of what to order; not just the choice of whether to pay the bill.
Nobody is forcing you to live in America. Let's start there.

^give me a single example of a thing which can't be illegal while holding to that logic.

the consequence of your position is that human rights are nonexistent because people chose to live here and thus "agree" to some kind of insane contract which forces them into whatever whoever enforces the contract pleases.

your entire philosophy boils down to "deal with it or get the hell out." you must have to live your entire life on LSD or marijuana just to cope with the cognitive dissonance inherent to such a ridiculous position.

^ The ridiculous position is yours.

If you don't like America, and you don't like paying your fair share of the taxes, then you can always live somewhere else.

You are exactly like the tight-wad that goes out with the office gang after work, drinks your share of beers and shots, then ducks out before the bill comes around.

"An example of a thing which can't be illegal." Classic.

Theres no cure for stupid in real life, but there is on the internet

qualm -> on ignore
rougy -> on ignore

>> ^imstellar28:
Theres no cure for stupid in real life, but there is on the internet
qualm -> on ignore
rougy -> on ignore


No loss.

If any of the Econ 101 text book companies stumble upon your "original" posts, they'll make the RIAA look like girl scouts demanding their payment for all of the S'Mores you bought and refused to pay for.

Don't worry Rougy. We can all still play with imflouncer via Blankfist. He's the hand in the puppet so to speak.

an example of a thing which can't be illegal...

an example of THING which can't be illegal...

an example of a thing which can't be ILLEGAL...

>> ^imstellar28:
So.....you're not going to respond to that question?


I see that I need to draw you a picture as always.

You stated yourself that this test is an imperfect measurement of a person's political stance since it asks a few narrow questions, I mentioned Gandhi because he happened to fall within the same area as my score. It doesn't automatically mean that our views are similar in nature uniformly across all issues.

My stance on interventionism (both hard and soft) is intellectually based as it has not been proven to have been applied in any conflict so far bar some UN peace keeping operations which forced conflicting parties to negotiate, something that has been said could have prevented the Rwandan genocide had the UN presented a large military preseence and excuted its mandate of nullifying combative arms and forced the application of the peace accords both sides agreed to before the presidents death, more on this can be read in L.Gen Romeo Dallire's "Shake Hands With The Devil" an account of his command of UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time. Instead we saw the international world sit back and watch a genocide of unimaginable proportions occur, both France and the US had forces it could have deployed.

I have stated that American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a disaster for this argument for the next 100 years. But its silly to question someones opinion on it, I think its an interesting proposition while at the same time acknowledging that it's most probably impossible to execute on a international scale without interfering on national sovereignty, as much as the Iraq war has created problems no one can really state that it would have been better to simply let Saddam stay in power and hope things get better for Iraqis by doing nothing.

Similarly I can point out that previously you have stated that all populations must abide to a certain rule set that you defined regardless of their own democratic or cultural based choices. How do you rationalize that with your belief that people should be allowed to decide things for themselves?

I would like to elaborate in stating that American interventionism has been shown to only occur when a horrific event occurs to justify the following aggression.

Sometimes it is justified in the case of Pearl Harbor but historically the Gulf of Tonkin and 'Soviet Nuclear Bases' in Grenada as well as nuclear weapons in Iraq have shown that it's been most commonly justified through outright public manipulation and coercion.

At the same time we have a hypocrisy when it comes to state terrorism executed by the US which is good and state terrorism of other states which is bad. The US killing thousands in Latin America and paying CIA games in Afghanistan and Iran is OK. But we wouldn't think so if these states committed those actions themselves. So Iran possessing Nuclear arms is bad, but the US possessing Nuclear arms is okay.

x 5.12
y -4.72

Right wing libertarian, and late to the party.

If the question you were responding to, "how do you reconcile your support for invasive government with Gandhi's ahimsa, or total non-violence?" were on a test, what grade would you give your answer?

^Farhad2000:
My stance on interventionism (both hard and soft) is intellectually based as it has not been proven to have been applied in any conflict so far bar some UN peace keeping operations which forced conflicting parties to negotiate, something that has been said could have prevented the Rwandan genocide had the UN presented a large military preseence and excuted its mandate of nullifying combative arms and forced the application of the peace accords both sides agreed to before the presidents death, more on this can be read in L.Gen Romeo Dallire's "Shake Hands With The Devil" an account of his command of UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time. Instead we saw the international world sit back and watch a genocide of unimaginable proportions occur, both France and the US had forces it could have deployed.
I have stated that American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a disaster for this argument for the next 100 years. But its silly to question someones opinion on it, I think its an interesting proposition while at the same time acknowledging that it's most probably impossible to execute on a international scale without interfering on national sovereignty, as much as the Iraq war has created problems no one can really state that it would have been better to simply let Saddam stay in power and hope things get better for Iraqis by doing nothing.



If you take away ahimsa from Gandhi you are left with almost nothing - it was the most unique philosophical trait about him. If you disagree with ahimsa, why are you pretending that you and him are on similar wavelengths?

I mentioned Gandhi because he happened to fall within the same area as my score.

What are you stupid?

imstellar has staked out one square inch of territory for right wing "libertarianism." He'll fight for it too.

Why the hell is imstellar still posting here? You gotta admire his preservation I guess.

"You gotta admire his preservation I guess."

That's the formaldehyde.

What do you think?

>> ^Farhad2000:
What are you stupid?

-6.75, -4.46

Nelson Mandela

I mistakenly began another Sift Talk Post on the political compass, before it was pointed out to me this one existed.

Blankfist:

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

"I couldn't find anyone close to me. I'm all alone in a sea of Libertarianism Right."

Qualm:

Economic Left/Right: 10.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 10.0

Hands off, control freak!