Political Test

[Pliny]

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.

Wow! Who would have thought it!

I think the right, of which you're a party, merely imagines it is the only ideology that stands for small government.

I am not a party of the right. The right may claim to be the party of small government but it has never proven to be such. As an individual, I do hold what may may be considered conservative values. I would criticize the right as much as the left if it wee to promote social engineering. The right can centralize governmental powers as much as the left, maybe for different reasons but they are both guilty of growing government in my view.

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.

"Governments always get bigger.."...this is progressivism. The progressive movement that is termed "socialism". If we understood the role and limited the mandate of government then it would not grow. It cannot be the provider of benefit to anyone.

It is basically the arbiter of justice.

I think you have mentioned how you believe government should provide for the less fortunate. This is the reason governments always get bigger. It seems there is always someone less fortunate.

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'll say. I would never have expected this point of view on the social dimension from you.

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.

You should read up on Libertarianism before you assert you cleave to it. One little intellectual political test does not make one a Libertarian. Let me hear you quote a few Libertarians instead of what sounds straight out of the Huffington Post to support your point of view.

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.

Should everyone fish with the same type of gear in the same fishery? I think you would agree it should and perhaps the Federal Government, whose responsibility is fisheries, should make some laws enforcing that. A libertarian might look at private ownership of water areas - ever thought of that?

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.

The government will tend to do that. Or restrict competition by means of licensing while they benefit from license fees.

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 makes too much sense. Are you sure you haven't been studying some economics on the side?

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.

Essentially you argue here for a decentralization of power. I agree with that but I get the feeling you think decentralization - unless you can benefit from centralization. I know that I lose with decentralization. I lose if there is smaller government. I do not get health care or unemployment benefits or social security or welfare or public education. But I realize that they are all substandard to what society could achieve left to it's own devices or perhaps I could purchase a superior service privately if I wasn't already paying taxes for the mediocre services the government offers.

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.

Firstly Libertarians are not left wing. Thus you are not a Libertarian, you are a progressive socialist. You have taken your own advice and embraced the horror and are going with it.

Tell me you have read some works from Libertarians and agree with them then I will consider re-evaluating my opinion.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

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

Keep moving!

[eyeball]

Should everyone fish with the same type of gear in the same fishery? I think you would agree it should and perhaps the Federal Government, whose responsibility is fisheries, should make some laws enforcing that. A libertarian might look at private ownership of water areas - ever thought of that?

Private ownership of ocean areas wouldn't work that well, fish move around too much. What we have instead are individual quotas. These clearly have their problems too, they concentrate the ownership of access to a public resource into just a few hands and skew things in favour of capital and they completely mock the idea of competition. Recall what I said about humiliation and waiting for some fisherman to hand me a cheque? I often get paid .20 a lb for fish I catch that the buyer pay's $3.50 for. The other $3.30 goes to some quota holder who's probably sitting on his couch in Shaughnessy or West Van.

The government will tend to do that. Or restrict competition by means of licensing while they benefit from license fees.

I was told about a place in Greece where fishermen agreed to limit the size of their boats to make things more or less fair and equal. They decided on a size that compelled all but the toughest fishermen to return to harbour when the wind and waves kicked up as they usually do about mid afternoon.

The trick is getting the government to simply facilitate the processes by which fishermen agree amongst themselves how best to limit their efforts or share the total allowable catch. Some naturally pool their efforts but I guess that was too much like communism so instead we get goofy things like individual quota's and 'men' who 'fish' from plush couches.

Don't blame me for this sad state of affairs, I didn't have any say in the matter.

This makes too much sense. Are you sure you haven't been studying some economics on the side?

No, I've mostly been going on my own first hand experiences. Fishing for .20 per lb while Buddy gets the other $3.30 really brings it home. It might make perfect sense to the Fraser Institute and DFO managers but not me. If that's what studying economics does to you I'll pass.

Essentially you argue here for a decentralization of power. I agree with that but I get the feeling you think decentralization - unless you can benefit from centralization.

What's wrong with trying to incorporate the best and cutting out the worst of both? Things like universal health make a lot of sense, so does local management.

Firstly Libertarians are not left wing. Thus you are not a Libertarian, you are a progressive socialist. You have taken your own advice and embraced the horror and are going with it.

Look, I am what I am which includes not being so hung up on these terms. When I said I cleave towards libertarianism I meant in the context of the Political Compass and should have said I cleave towards the libertarian end of the axis its on.

Tell me you have read some works from Libertarians and agree with them then I will consider re-evaluating my opinion.

I read enough of Ayn Rand to conclude she was basically a nut.

Like I said above, senior governments should mostly be in the business of facilitating and providing the capacity and funds people need to resolve their issues ON THEIR OWN. That's what I mean by libertarian, AGAIN, in the context of the Political Compass. Whatever you think this implies is beyond my control.

[Pliny]

Private ownership of ocean areas wouldn't work that well, fish move around too much. What we have instead are individual quotas. These clearly have their problems too, they concentrate the ownership of access to a public resource into just a few hands and skew things in favour of capital and they completely mock the idea of competition. Recall what I said about humiliation and waiting for some fisherman to hand me a cheque? I often get paid .20 a lb for fish I catch that the buyer pay's $3.50 for. The other $3.30 goes to some quota holder who's probably sitting on his couch in Shaughnessy or West Van.

Thanks for the tip! Next time you are offered 20 cents a lb. I will pay you .25 cents a pound but I guess the government has rules about that. Seems only quota holders make money. How could this inequity exist?

I was told about a place in Greece where fishermen agreed to limit the size of their boats to make things more or less fair and equal. They decided on a size that compelled all but the toughest fishermen to return to harbour when the wind and waves kicked up as they usually do about mid afternoon.

The trick is getting the government to simply facilitate the processes by which fishermen agree amongst themselves how best to limit their efforts or share the total allowable catch. Some naturally pool their efforts but I guess that was too much like communism so instead we get goofy things like individual quota's and 'men' who 'fish' from plush couches.

Don't blame me for this sad state of affairs, I didn't have any say in the matter.

Does government need to facilitate the process or just protect the agreement? It isn't communism to pool efforts. It is communism to make fish the property of the State and then take from one by force and give to another.

I get you. The system as it stands is inequitable and unworkable.

In order to understand how waterways can be privately owned and why they should be there is some reading I can find for you if you are interested.

No, I've mostly been going on my own first hand experiences. Fishing for .20 per lb while Buddy gets the other $3.30 really brings it home. It might make perfect sense to the Fraser Institute and DFO managers but not me. If that's what studying economics does to you I'll pass.

Many things the Government does doesn't make sense to the Fraser Institute. DFO managers just ensure the rules are followed - they may not even understand why the rules are the way they are. They have no accountability but all the authority.

Studying Econometrics, which is mostly what mainstream economics is currently about, does that to you and I agree you should pass.

What's wrong with trying to incorporate the best and cutting out the worst of both? Things like universal health make a lot of sense, so does local management.

Universal health care may make sense and it sounds like a great idea. Here we are today though without the resources to pay for it. The arguments today in order to keep the system going are about whether or not poor lifestyle choices mean you pay more in taxes or fees than others. This is totally unfair because a universal health care plan was a universal health care plan and was designed to include everyone. It was sold to the public on the basis that everyone would have health care. If you are going to be charging people based upon lifestyle preferences then you are talking about people paying when they get sick which sounds not much different than a private system.

The fact is that the public system we have MUST treat everyone equally. You can't tell me they didn't know that some people would get sick more than others when the Health care act was enacted?

Should people who are poor pay more for health care? Being poor is not conducive to being healthy. I don't know if that is an argument unless you consider that people choose to be poor but if taxes get any higher there will be more people choosing to be poor.

Local management is decentralization and does make more sense but should they decide the where and when and how of everything in the industry?

Look, I am what I am which includes not being so hung up on these terms. When I said I cleave towards libertarianism I meant in the context of the Political Compass and should have said I cleave towards the libertarian end of the axis its on.

I read enough of Ayn Rand to conclude she was basically a nut.

Like I said above, senior governments should mostly be in the business of facilitating and providing the capacity and funds people need to resolve their issues ON THEIR OWN. That's what I mean by libertarian, AGAIN, in the context of the Political Compass. Whatever you think this implies is beyond my control.

How are people resolving issues "on their own" when senior government is facilitating and providing the capacity and funds for them to do so.

I don't hold Ayn Rand in too high esteem. She was a bit of an intellectual snob but her experiences living in Russia gave her credibility in her descriptions of how cruel the Soviet regime and totalitarian socialism really was.

Anyway it looks like you want government to change the rules but there aren't many good ideas and it is hard to bring change before the massive bureaucracy that has been created. They won't be interested in down-sizing that Bureaucracy, I can tell you that for sure.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Pliny

[eyeball]

Thanks for the tip! Next time you are offered 20 cents a lb. I will pay you .25 cents a pound but I guess the government has rules about that. Seems only quota holders make money. How could this inequity exist?

I'll say there are rules about how and who I sell my fish to. This inequity exists because the resource was divided into individual quotas and allocated to a small pool of quota holders. I'm not allowed to just throw fish away, I'm compelled to land marketable fish and deliver them. If I choose to simply discard (dump) marketable fish over the side I still have to buy the quota for that species. Instead of making .20 I'd have to pay $3.50.

Does government need to facilitate the process or just protect the agreement?

It should do both but let the players settle their issues largely amongst themselves.

It isn't communism to pool efforts. It is communism to make fish the property of the State and then take from one by force and give to another.

Well, apparently its called free-market capitalism when the State privatizes a common propery resource and then forces you to rent it from the new owner. The tragedy of the commons has simply been replaced with the tragedy of enclosure. Instead of too many boats chasing too few fish you end up with too much capital chasing the fish.

I get you. The system as it stands is inequitable and unworkable.

No system is equitable or workable so long as the government responsible for it is unaccountable and avoids transparency.

How are people resolving issues "on their own" when senior government is facilitating and providing the capacity and funds for them to do so.

They're not for the most part. The government is still assuming responsibility for resolving just about everything. Most of the process' I've been involved with were not really sincere, because the government's heart really wasn't in it.

Anyway it looks like you want government to change the rules but there aren't many good ideas

There are lots of good ideas. The trick is getting governments to try them or get out of the way of people or at least help those who are willing to try.

and it is hard to bring change before the massive bureaucracy that has been created. They won't be interested in down-sizing that Bureaucracy, I can tell you that for sure.

Then I'd advise not standing to close to it because it will fall. Its just too unsustainable.

[bloodyminded]

I read enough of Ayn Rand to conclude she was basically a nut.

Her great contradiction was her dewy-eyed worship for powerful (capitalist) men...at bottom, it is this type of servility-to-Power which is the cause of statism...moreso than actual ideology.

[eyeball]

Her great contradiction was her dewy-eyed worship for powerful (capitalist) men...at bottom, it is this type of servility-to-Power which is the cause of statism...moreso than actual ideology.

Speaking of worship...it's ironic that Rand was such an avowed atheist.

I ascribe the same moral imperative to display a sycophantic preoccupation and obsequious deference to authority in our society to religion. Centuries of cultivating this paradigm is crowned, quite literally in our country, by recognition of the supremacy of a god at the very top of our Constitution. It's been such a successful act of moral and social engineering that even atheists like Rand fall for it.

It's an affront to intelligence, reason and of course and sense of objective reality.

[bloodyminded]

Speaking of worship...it's ironic that Rand was such an avowed atheist.

I ascribe the same moral imperative to display a sycophantic preoccupation and obsequious deference to authority in our society to religion. Centuries of cultivating this paradigm is crowned, quite literally in our country, by recognition of the supremacy of a god at the very top of our Constitution. It's been such a successful act of moral and social engineering that even atheists like Rand fall for it.

It's an affront to intelligence, reason and of course and sense of objective reality.

Yes. Religion, political leaders, financially-successful folk--it's embarassing to watch the bowing and scraping, both intellectual and moral, that is done on their behalf.

[eyeball]

Yes. Religion, political leaders, financially-successful folk--it's embarassing to watch the bowing and scraping, both intellectual and moral, that is done on their behalf.

Don't forget the bum-sniffs who toady up to the IOC. Heck, we'll even suspend people's Charter right's for those ass-holes.

[bloodyminded]

Don't forget the bum-sniffs who toady up to the IOC.

I believe it's all part of the same human weakness. Power-worship.

[August1991]

I glanced through your discussion. I'm reminded of my discussions with Hugo.

Left libertarianism implies far more localised government.

I once thought that this Political Compass Test should have a third dimension to measure the respondent's opinion about what level of government should deal (if at all) with public issues.

For example, some people favour a single world government and in Canada, some people think the federal government is too weak. Then again, some people strongly oppose world government or even a federal government but would happily accept a strong local government.

[Jade Dragon]

I've done this test a couple of times. I always end up somewhere near the middle of the lower left quadrant.

[eyeball]

I glanced through your discussion. I'm reminded of my discussions with Hugo.

I once thought that this Political Compass Test should have a third dimension to measure the respondent's opinion about what level of government should deal (if at all) with public issues.

For example, some people favour a single world government and in Canada, some people think the federal government is too weak. Then again, some people strongly oppose world government or even a federal government but would happily accept a strong local government.

There are also those who would also happily accept a mix of the two where and when it's appropriate.

I've had similar thoughts regarding a missing third axis or dimension in the test. I assume the authoritarian libertarian axis is intended to capture some sense of how far people expect or want a government to intrude into people's lives or impose rules. I think the question in the test that reads "In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded." comes closest to where I would expect this third dimension to intersect the other two.

Does the authoritarian/libertarian axis measure how deeply people want their lives to be governed or how deeply they want others to be governed? I suspect there is a big difference between how much individuals are willing to accept versus how much they believe others should be forced to accept and I can't help but feel that things like religious beliefs and great wealth contribute strongly to more of the latter in society

In addition to growing income gaps there are corresponding power gaps that yawn between the top and bottom of society. To my way of thinking power and wealth one and the same thing, sort of like time and space are I guess. I think controlling the rate at which the income gap grows is more important than controlling inflation. Not to make things equal in the sense of economic power but equal in political power as it's advertised and assumed to be in a democracy. Is it appropriate to use economic levers to control power gaps or are democratic levers alone enough? I don't think the latter are myself - in lieu of far better oversight and real transparency in distant centralized governments far greater localization of governance is the only check and balance I can see at the moment. In nationalistic terms I suspect there are many who would probably be loath to alter these paradigms but that said if there better checks against power gaps getting out of control, nationalism might not have the extra oxygen they requires to burn more brightly.

In any case I'm left with the sense that the differences between people as measured by the authoritarian/libertarian axis are more influential and important than the left/right axis.

[Machjo]

Political Compass Test

Try this. It takes about 5 minutes. Fun, but answer honestly.

I got Economic Left/Right: 5.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

I'd tried the test a number of times before and have found it to be quite unreliable. Though I personally consider myself more left-leaning than right, that test usually puts me to the right, though each time I've taken it the answer has always been different, since too many of the questions are open to interpretation as to their exact meaning, and same goes for the answers. It's a highly unreliable test to say the least, though I suppose like going to see a clairvoyant it could be fun as a passtime or just for the sake of curiosity.

[Thomas Kwon]

Economic Left/Right: 5.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.36

[William Ashley]

I've taken this one before.. I've noticed my economic score has shifted to the right over the last year or two...

Economic Left/Right: -3.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

the other test put me at

NW-You would feel most at home in the Northwest region. You advocate a large degree of economic and personal freedom. Your neighbors include folks like Ayn Rand, Jesse Ventura, Milton Friedman, and Drew Carey, and may refer to themselves as "classical liberals," "libertarians," "market liberals," "old whigs," "objectivists," "propertarians," "agorists," or "anarcho-capitalist."

Edited February 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[msj]

Economic left/right: 0.50

Libertarian/authoritarian: -6.26

[Handsome Rob]

Economic Left/Right: -3.75

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

[Ilie Vasiliev]

Economic Left/Right: 0.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

Funny as this is exactly where I was seeing myself, in the middle.

[Non_Partisan]

I'd tried the test a number of times before and have found it to be quite unreliable. Though I personally consider myself more left-leaning than right, that test usually puts me to the right, though each time I've taken it the answer has always been different, since too many of the questions are open to interpretation as to their exact meaning, and same goes for the answers. It's a highly unreliable test to say the least, though I suppose like going to see a clairvoyant it could be fun as a passtime or just for the sake of curiosity.

I second that your quote. Anyways haven't taken the test in a while and....mushy middle

Economic Left/Right: -1.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

[Yesterday]

Economic left/right -5.12

Socialist/L./A. -3.69

Dead center left bottom corner, same as last time.

[Argus]

I haven't really moved a lot since I first took this six years back. I am allegedly further on the left than I was, but still pretty close to dead centre at -0.75, 0.21.

As Charles Anthony originally objected, though, I agree that the questions are open to interpretation. Also, you seem to get higher scores if you "strongly agree" or strongly disagree. I rarely did simply because the older you get, the more cynical you get, the fewer absolutes you cling to.

[August1991]

I haven't really moved a lot since I first took this six years back. I am allegedly further on the left than I was, but still pretty close to dead centre at -0.75, 0.21.

Recorded, Argus.

For posterity.

[bloodyminded]

Recorded, Argus.

For posterity.

I agree with everybody that the quesiton are open to interpretation. But I would go further, and say that "left" and "right" and "centre" are not perfectly objective standards. So it's not only an inherent problem of interpreting questions and interpreting answers; there's an issue with the very measurements themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

This quiz is silly.

They don't explain the scoring, and from some of the questions asked are stupid. I cut/pasted a few - tell me if I'm wrong.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things

What does this question have to do with politics ?

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Agreeing or disagreeing with such a question says nothing about my personal beliefs, whether I believe in the one-party state and so on.

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist

If you're religious, you should believe in us being equal before God. So answering no would make you right wing ?

Astrology accurately explains many things.

Some people are naturally unlucky.

Again, what does it have to do with politics ?

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

They seem to be associating moral views, and censorship with right-wing views.

The compass poll isn't worth anything. This one is better:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

New thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16747