Smallc Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Economic Left/Right: -5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05 That puts me in the ranks of Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Good company and the makings of an interesting dinner party I’d say. But while this compass measures my personal preferences, it doesn’t measure my willingness to impose them on others. While I might strongly agree or disagree with certain statements, there are some that I could still live with if the nation went the other way. But there are others that are simply not negotiable. This compass measures some of my general beliefs, but it is my core beliefs that define my politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 yeah, but I don;t think Ghandi and mandela would get along very well. lol August, your link to mapping is broken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 6.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Later, check out the following link to see the mapping of other posters. Post your results here in this thread and you'll eventually be added to the graph. Hey August, when I clicked on the link I get the following message "This image or video has been moved or deleted". Is it just me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Hey August, when I clicked on the link I get the following message "This image or video has been moved or deleted". Is it just me?Gotta fix, after I do the plumbing in the bathroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Economic....-0.12 Social Lib/Auth.....-1.08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 With all the new posters on this forum, it's time to bring this thread to the top again. New here? Click and do the test below. It's fun and takes about five minutes. Then post your results (Economic Left/Right) and (Social Libertarian/Authoritarian) in this thread. Political Compass Test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 New here? Click and do the test below. It's fun and takes about five minutes.Then post your results (Economic Left/Right) and (Social Libertarian/Authoritarian) in this thread. Political Compass Test Slightly to the northeast of Gandhi: Economic Left/Right: -3.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97 Looks like me and Ghandi could have been great friends!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Mark Messier Left/Right -2.45 Mel Brooks Left/Right +1.55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -0.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03 Right where I thought I would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18 Interesting test,but some of the questions are kind of iffy.I still consider myself conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timetrvlr Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Economic Left/Right: -5.50Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Economic Left: -5.38 Social Libertarian: -4.67 Interesting that the 'righter' options were about global corporate control, the antithesis of a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lily Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Economic Left/Right: -4.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15 I've shifted since the last time I took this test. Edited August 10, 2009 by lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) With all the new posters on this forum, it's time to bring this thread to the top again. New here? Click and do the test below. It's fun and takes about five minutes. Then post your results (Economic Left/Right) and (Social Libertarian/Authoritarian) in this thread. Political Compass Test ---- Later, check out the following link to see the mapping of other posters. Post your results here in this thread and you'll eventually be added to the graph. [Mapping now fixed!] Edited January 7, 2010 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 It appears I am a right winger with a social conscience. But I always knew that. Every time a bell rings a socially conscious right winger gets his left wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85 In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Economic Left/Right +2.5 Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.13 I noticed that almost everyone here is to the left economically. Actually I haven't seen anyone to the right. It is rather a conundrum that the further to the left economically the more Libertarian people seem to be. Libertarian implies small government in my mind yet those I would have considered left wing and for big government social engineering show up being more Libertarian than myself. I didn't particularly like the test. I thought more than a few of the questions were rather leading questions. The first one: If globalization is inevitable, then it should serve the needs of humanity and not multinational corporations. In order to answer it I have to first accept that globalization is inevitable then I have to make a choice between obvious left and right political focuses. I agree that the left/right political paradigm is inadequate and separating economic and social aspects adds more dimension to the model but I think it is simpler, and simplification is desirable inmy view, to look at the political model fromthe perspective of no government to total government. I haven't looked at the mapping yet, that should prove interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) Economic Left/Right +2.5 Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.13 I noticed that almost everyone here is to the left economically. Actually I haven't seen anyone to the right. It is rather a conundrum that the further to the left economically the more Libertarian people seem to be. Libertarian implies small government in my mind yet those I would have considered left wing and for big government social engineering show up being more Libertarian than myself. Left libertarianism implies far more localised government. Having to deal with a bigger number of smaller jurisdictions terrifies big corporations, big unions and big political parties. They much prefer to wield their influence and power in a handful of concentrated centers like national and provincial capitals. They can't stand the idea of letting go of or diluting their power. The public's confusion probably stems from all three of these putting up warm fuzzy fronts when it comes to their particular "stake" in a community but they're mostly talking out of both sides of their mouths. According to my interpretation of the mapped results they seem to have fooled more than a few members of the forum. Edited January 7, 2010 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Left libertarianism implies far more localised government. Having to deal with a bigger number of smaller jurisdictions terrifies big corporations, big unions and big political parties. They much prefer to wield their influence and power in a handful of concentrated centers like national and provincial capitals. They can't stand the idea of letting go of or diluting their power. The public's confusion probably stems from all three of these putting up warm fuzzy fronts when it comes to their particular "stake" in a community but they're mostly talking out of both sides of their mouths. According to my interpretation of the mapped results they seem to have fooled more than a few members of the forum. I don't know if "Left" Libertarianism implies more localized government or not. As a matter of fact I don't think there is such a thing as left libertarianism today. Libertarians traditionally sat on the left with the socialists. Classical liberalism was probably closest to libertarianism in days of yore but after the thirties they parted ways with liberalism and the left wing was entirely overtaken by progressive, big government socialists like FDR. I have never heard you calling for smaller government before this, just more "liberal" government. And another thing that is odd is this is the first post you have made in which I don't find any disagreement except for the existence of a "left" libertarianism. I think that the left, of which you are a party, confuses itself as being the permissive, live and let live, golden rule, type of philosophy and anyone that doesn't agree should have big government breathing down their necks, yet they don't realize that big government isn't specific about whose neck they are breathing down and will, inevitably in it's progression, squelch that permissive, live and let live attitude. Economically, we are entirely at odds. This makes sense from our past discussions. Politically, we are on the same side of their two dimensional spectrum, you leaning more to living day to day without following many rules or having many constraints on how you live your life, wherever the day takes you kind of outlook. I am not authoritarian but I do find a necessity for having rules to follow in society that create understanding and civility in how we socially interact as individuals. You may not believe in rules for the individual but for society you would be the first to complain if someone cut a tree down without permission. One more comment on economics. I have some idea from past discussions what you consider economics to be and I get the idea you consider it to be entirely about money and wealth, the attainment of which is, I believe, not one of your ambitions; although you wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. I know you hold some disdain for the corporate world but they don't make the rules government does, and it has the upper hand. Corporations do indeed influence government and lobby, like any special interest does, for laws that will give them privilege, if not from government then an edge over competition. My biggest problem with the corporate and business model of today is that they are run by accountants and creating company policy out of the accounting office changes the prime purpose of a business to one of profit and not of service to the public. The human element is removed, probably in an attempt to eliminate human error in favour of watching the bottom line. Certainly everyone must see some gain in their activities in order to be motivated to act, or trade and social intercourse would not occur, and both sides of a trade must see a gain in their transactions. That tells you that gain and value are individual assessments. Money is simply a yardstick we all use to assign value. As our "money" has turned into mere tokens it is harder to use as a yardstick and so their seem to be greater and greater inequities created. Few understand why a hockey player makes millions and most doctors won't see a million dollars in a year, to understand it one must have some knowledge of economics and know that "money" is not the reason a hockey player becomes a hockey player or a doctor becomes a doctor - if it is they are usually not very successful in their careers. hockey players have to love the sport and doctors have to care. Anyway, that's all I have time for this morning. Have a glorious day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 I don't know if "Left" Libertarianism implies more localized government or not. As a matter of fact I don't think there is such a thing as left libertarianism today. Libertarians traditionally sat on the left with the socialists. Classical liberalism was probably closest to libertarianism in days of yore but after the thirties they parted ways with liberalism and the left wing was entirely overtaken by progressive, big government socialists like FDR. I have never heard you calling for smaller government before this, just more "liberal" government. And another thing that is odd is this is the first post you have made in which I don't find any disagreement except for the existence of a "left" libertarianism. I think you're too hung up on these labels and pounding square pegs into round holes. I'm more of an advocate for greater decentralization and more localized government. Clearly this implies a smaller federal government but bigger regional governments. I'd like to eliminate the provincial layer of government entirely in lieu of more autonomy of regional governments and divide Provincial core responsibilities amongst these and the federal government. I think that the left, of which you are a party, confuses itself as being the permissive, live and let live, golden rule, type of philosophy and anyone that doesn't agree should have big government breathing down their necks, I think the right, of which you're a party, merely imagines it is the only ideology that stands for small government. yet they don't realize that big government isn't specific about whose neck they are breathing down and will, inevitably in it's progression, squelch that permissive, live and let live attitude. This behaviour of breathing down people's necks is far more a characteristic of centralized government and authority than individual preferences. I think any ideology that also embraces strong centralized government can't help but default to this position. Governments always get bigger never smaller, and we always have more laws not less. Each successive government that comes along just keeps adding more weight to this which is why you often hear me alluding to the trend of mutually assured dictatorship. Of course I realize it. I talk about it all the time around here. Economically, we are entirely at odds. This makes sense from our past discussions. Politically, we are on the same side of their two dimensional spectrum, you leaning more to living day to day without following many rules or having many constraints on how you live your life, wherever the day takes you kind of outlook. I am not authoritarian but I do find a necessity for having rules to follow in society that create understanding and civility in how we socially interact as individuals. You may not believe in rules for the individual but for society you would be the first to complain if someone cut a tree down without permission. I believe in principles and fundamental laws and individual rights and responsibilities. If we're at odds on economic matters its probably because we're still not square with each other on the social dimension. I don't think the Libertarian and Authoritarian axis on the Political Compass captures enough of an image to describe everything you need to take into account to make such conclusions. I think there is a third bisecting plane - a missing plane - that would add another whole dimension to the Compass. The Authoritarian Libertarian axis only reflects how people wish to be governed not how they actually are. Perhaps that's why I cleave so hard towards Libertarianism. One more comment on economics. I have some idea from past discussions what you consider economics to be and I get the idea you consider it to be entirely about money and wealth, the attainment of which is, I believe, not one of your ambitions; although you wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. I know you hold some disdain for the corporate world but they don't make the rules government does, and it has the upper hand. Corporations do indeed influence government and lobby, like any special interest does, for laws that will give them privilege, if not from government then an edge over competition. My biggest problem with the corporate and business model of today is that they are run by accountants and creating company policy out of the accounting office changes the prime purpose of a business to one of profit and not of service to the public. The human element is removed, probably in an attempt to eliminate human error in favour of watching the bottom line. Certainly everyone must see some gain in their activities in order to be motivated to act, or trade and social intercourse would not occur, and both sides of a trade must see a gain in their transactions. That tells you that gain and value are individual assessments. Money is simply a yardstick we all use to assign value. As our "money" has turned into mere tokens it is harder to use as a yardstick and so their seem to be greater and greater inequities created. Few understand why a hockey player makes millions and most doctors won't see a million dollars in a year, to understand it one must have some knowledge of economics and know that "money" is not the reason a hockey player becomes a hockey player or a doctor becomes a doctor - if it is they are usually not very successful in their careers. hockey players have to love the sport and doctors have to care. To me it seems you're describing the income gap and then assuming that I think the government should simply redistribute the money so things are equal and fair. This is a completely false assumption. I'm a fisherman that used to compete in what were called catch as can catch can fisheries. I have no problem competing with other people who fish with the same type of gear in the same fishery and I have never said the guy who catches more should automatically be forced to give a portion to those who catch less to make things 'fair'. The self-humiliation factor alone would make me barf. I'm just trying to imagine standing on the dock waiting for some highliner to drop off my check or give me my share of his catch. What is unfair however and what I'm far far more concerned with is the power gap that results in other sectors or gear types being allocated a disproportionate share of the catch by the government. I'm also concerned that this same process can result in decisions being made outside of my region to permit large mines, dams or other developments within my region that disrupt fish habitat and impact my ability to make a living. I'm deeply concerned with the way distant governments can come in and divide my community and region into little discrete sectors that can then be played off against one another in a depraved dance of influence wheeling and dealing. This power gap is far easier to hide and maintain within a centralized governing structure than a localized one. The worst income gaps are clearly caused by a gap in ordinary people's ability to compete with never mind match the lobbying that corporate or wealthy individual's are capable of, especially when the government being lobbied is thousands of kilometers away. I think I know why anarchy is a viable option for left-wing libertarians - the heavy weight of the order imposed by a government that is compelled by its decisions to breath down the necks of people on the wrong side of the power gap makes living day to day inherently more difficult and chaotic anyway so...we might as well embrace the horror and go with it. Anyway, that's all I have time for this morning. Have a glorious day! You too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 It would appear that I've moved considerably. Eco 8.38 Soc 3.13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) It seems I've moved too: to: Economic Left/Right: -2.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03 from: Economic Left/Right: -2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92 Edited January 9, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.