where do you fall on the political spectrum

[Aunty Em]

This one seems a bit simplistic. And the questions seem more emotionally charged than the other. I think the other test probably gives a more accurate assessment.

Yes, how you can tell someone's political affiliation from so few questions, except in very general terms, is beyond me...

 

[RD_151]

I think both are way too short and too subjective. Neither is designed very well. Maybe we can find a better more academic test? These seem to lack the depth or objectivity necessary to really classify ones political views well, or accurately.

I consider myself to be basically moderately right, with strong libertarian tendencies. So in both cases, I know they classified me wrong!

 

[Aunty Em]

Actually I'm an anarchist with serious lefty tendencies....

Hell if that doesn't get the security services interested nothing will!

 

[Squiggy]

I'm afraid to know too much about myself...

 

[RD_151]

Thats always good, where would we be without anarchists

 

[RD_151]

Balance is good, we need people on all sides. Just like in congress, GRIDLOCK is GOOD!!!

 

[Squiggy]

 

[Gonz]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.10

 

[Ardsgaine]

The test I posted does have fewer questions, but the questions are not as biased, and they're 100% relevant to what you think about the proper role of government.

I consider myself to be basically moderately right, with strong libertarian tendencies. So in both cases, I know they classified me wrong!

Perhaps you've been classifying yourself wrong? Just out of curiosity, how did you answer the questions in the one I posted? I voted 'yes' to each of them, hence my 100% libertarian rating.

I disagree with the test on one thing, though. I don't think you actually need a two dimensional graph to plot where people stand on a political spectrum. Put the statists on one side, and the advocates of individual rights on the other side. There's no practical difference between Hitler and Stalin. The specific ideology of a statist is just window dressing, the result is the same: mass murder.

Actually... I disagree with the test on one other thing. An anarchist could get the same score as I did, because the questions do not weed out those who think there is NO proper role for government. I don't see any practical difference between an anarchist and a statist, though, because anarchy inevitably leads to dictatorship.

That flaw in the test shows its Libertarian (big 'L') bias. The Libertarian Party operates as a united front movement that includes anarachists, anarcho-marxists and other bizarro-world ideologies that are essentially hostile to true liberty.

 

[Jeslek]

Perhaps you've been classifying yourself wrong? Just out of curiosity, how did you answer the questions in the one I posted? I voted 'yes' to each of them, hence my 100% libertarian rating.

I voted yes to all of them, except the military thing. I believe in mandatory military service.

 

[flavio]

Perhaps you've been classifying yourself wrong? Just out of curiosity, how did you answer the questions in the one I posted? I voted 'yes' to each of them, hence my 100% libertarian rating.

I voted yes to all of them, except the military thing. I believe in mandatory military service.

Have you been in the military?

 

[Shadowfax]

...here we go again...

"no"
"then why do you have that opinion?"
"can't i have that opinion just because...blah blah..."

 

[Jeslek]

Perhaps you've been classifying yourself wrong? Just out of curiosity, how did you answer the questions in the one I posted? I voted 'yes' to each of them, hence my 100% libertarian rating.

I voted yes to all of them, except the military thing. I believe in mandatory military service.

Have you been in the military?

Yes, and I am enlisting as soon as I graduate. The only thing that keeps me from quitting school right now and enlisting are my parents, friends, and employer who are all telling me to keep studying and enlist as an officer after graduation.

 

[Shadowfax]

cool, i was actually mistaken.

 

[Ardsgaine]

If you guys intend to pursue the discussion of mandatory military service, it would be better to start a new thread for it. I don't think people were done talking about the political spectrum, yet. At least, I wasn't.

 

[flavio]

Have you been in the military?

Yes

In what capacity?

 

[flavio]

I couldn't get past the first question...

If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Assumption #1: Globalisation is something which must be controlled by the state and made to serve some end.

Assumption #2: The interests of humanity are not the same as the interests of trans-national corporations.

A person who truly believes in individual rights can't even begin to answer a question like that.

Try this test: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

What's the big deal with this question?

1. Answer yes - If you think that globalisation should be controlled in some capacity so that it serves humanity.

2. Answer no - If you think globalisation should not be comtrolled and should serve the interests of the corporations.

 

[Ardsgaine]

1. Answer yes - If you think that globalisation should be controlled in some capacity so that it serves humanity.

ButI don't believe that government controls on economic activity actually serve humanity....

2. Answer no - If you think globalisation should not be comtrolled and should serve the interests of the corporations.

and "serving the interests of the corporations" can be interpreted as having the government grant special considerations to those corporations, which is something I oppose.

I believe that unfettered economic globalization would serve both the interests of humanity and the interests of trans-national corporations, so how do I answer the question again?

The question should have read: Do you think global corporations should be subjected to special government regulations that limit their overseas activities?

That's pretty straight forward isn't it? There's no language there that sets it up as an issue of serving humanity or serving the interests of trans-national corporations. As soon as I saw the first question I knew the test was written by a statist, and I knew that there was no point in me trying to take it.

 

[flavio]

and "serving the interests of the corporations" can be interpreted as having the government grant special considerations to those corporations, which is something I oppose.

I think you might be reading too much into the question. I interpreted globalisation "serving the interests of the corporation" as allowing corporations to do whatever they need to grow and make money. As you said "unfettered economic globalization", where the driving force is the financial gain of the corporation. So I would think that you pick "disagree" or "strongly disagree" on that one.

Now about this

I believe that unfettered economic globalization would serve both the interests of humanity and the interests of trans-national corporations, so how do I answer the question again?

It would seem to tie those two things together you have to assume that trans-national corporations have the interests of humanity at heart and we know that's not true .

By "unfettered" do you mean to do away with all tariffs, health regulations, and environmental restrictions as well?

 

[Ardsgaine]

I interpreted globalisation "serving the interests of the corporation" as allowing corporations to do whatever they need to grow and make money.

Then you're the one reading too much into the question. I'm not reading anything into it, I'm just reading it as written. As written, it says: "If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." I'm saying that I don't believe there is a difference between the true interests of humanity and trans-national corporations. Now, some portions of humanity may think it's in their interests to control the corporations, and some corporations may think it's in their interests to have access to slave labor, but I'm saying that both would be wrong. Their true interest is in living in a society that respects and protects individual rights.

Whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant for the purpose of the question. I'm not some lone crackpot in this, I'm part of a broader philosophical movement. The question assumes that there is an opposition between the interests of those groups, thus disregarding an entire political philosophy.

(I thought your other questions would be best answered in another thread, so I'm going to split the discussion.)