Political Ideology test

[midcan5]

'Character is both developed and revealed by tests, and all of life is a test.' anon

Close to Gandhi and Stewart Alexander, libertarian left section, green
Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

Similar tests to above. Nolan Chart Survey - and - OkCupid | The Politics Test

This is a fascinating test. "Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?' Battleground God

Various tests and games: Games and Interactive Activities

This topic has always interested me, first posted here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/95300-serious-conspiracy-theorist-question.html

Left Right* Hemisphere Brain Processing
Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test at The Art Institute of Vancouver

 

[Derideo_Te]

I did one of those tests twice got practically same thing each time...what does this make me?

I see it as more Libertarian Socialism or Bleeding Heart Libertarianism

Here is the link if you want to post yours...
The Political Compass - Test

I don't have a problem being in the same company as Mandela, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama since all of them stand for individual rights, justice and self determination. Furthermore 2 of them actually achieved independence and democracy for the people of their nations and the 3rd is working to free his nation from Communist oppression.

 

[Skull Pilot]

 

[editec]

I've taken this test many times and note that depending on how I feel that day my score can change rather considerably but it never moves from one quadrant to the other.

I always find myself somehere on the lower left quad.

This morning I am apparently feeling very libertarian and very leftist too.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I know that many here think it is impossible to be both libertarian and leftist, but obviously it is not.

All it takes to be both is to think that PEOPLE ought to be very free but that ORGANIZATIONS ought to be monitered and controlled

Let's face it... NOBODY (not in power) much trusts governments anymore....but those of us leaning left-libertarian ALSO do not trust CORPORATIONS, NGOs or any other power structure that has influence over governments

That is why most of us here will find ourselves in the lower (libertarian) quadrants but some of us will be in the right hand side (those who trust organizations, but not governments)

 

[dblack]

I've taken this test many times and note that depending on how I feel that day my score can change rather considerably but it never moves from one quadrant to the other.

I always find myself somehere on the lower left quad.

This morning I am apparently feeling very libertarian and very leftist too.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I know that many here think it is impossible to be both libertarian and leftist, but obviously it is not.

I got pretty burnt out on these tests back in the nineties, but my recollection of the design (unless it's changed significantly) is that the questions were configured to rate your desire for freedom on two different dimensions - economic freedom, with an implied connection to private property rights, and personal freedom. So, a 'leftist-libertarian' would be someone who believes in a great deal of personal freedom, but is not so enthusiastic about economic freedom and property rights.

All it takes to be both is to think that PEOPLE ought to be very free but that ORGANIZATIONS ought to be monitered and controlled

Let's face it... NOBODY (not in power) much trusts governments anymore....but those of us leaning left-libertarian ALSO do not trust CORPORATIONS, NGOs or any other power structure that has influence over governments

That is why most of us here will find ourselves in the lower (libertarian) quadrants but some of us will be in the right hand side (those who trust organizations, but not governments)

I suspect more than a few here would wind up in the authoritarian blocks. Though they usually prefer labels like "centrist" or "moderate".

The point you raise here is frustrating because I share the basic outlook. I share your distrust of government AND corporations. But where I part ways with liberals is in their assumption that these two entities oppose each other, or worse, that the only choice available to voters is to be subjugated by one or the other. It's a false dilemma that encourages the growth and domination of both corporations and government.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I've taken this test many times and note that depending on how I feel that day my score can change rather considerably but it never moves from one quadrant to the other.

I always find myself somehere on the lower left quad.

This morning I am apparently feeling very libertarian and very leftist too.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I know that many here think it is impossible to be both libertarian and leftist, but obviously it is not.

I got pretty burnt out on these tests back in the nineties, but my recollection of the design (unless it's changed significantly) is that the questions were configured to rate your desire for freedom on two different dimensions - economic freedom, with an implied connection to private property rights, and personal freedom. So, a 'leftist-libertarian' would be someone who believes in a great deal of personal freedom, but is not so enthusiastic about economic freedom and property rights.

All it takes to be both is to think that PEOPLE ought to be very free but that ORGANIZATIONS ought to be monitered and controlled

Let's face it... NOBODY (not in power) much trusts governments anymore....but those of us leaning left-libertarian ALSO do not trust CORPORATIONS, NGOs or any other power structure that has influence over governments

That is why most of us here will find ourselves in the lower (libertarian) quadrants but some of us will be in the right hand side (those who trust organizations, but not governments)

I suspect more than a few here would wind up in the authoritarian blocks. Though they usually prefer labels like "centrist" or "moderate".

The point your raise here is frustrating because I share the basic outlook. I share your distrust of government AND corporations. But where I part ways with liberals is in their assumption that these two entities oppose each other, or worse, that the only choice available to voters is to be subjugated by one or the other. It's a false dilemma that encourages the growth and domination of both corporations and government.

Without government you have what FA_Q2 calls "anarcho-capitalism" and everyone outside of the 1% has suffered from the latest attempt to impose deregulated "free markets" on this nation. We also know that communist style government control doesn't work either. The reality is there needs to be a balance between corporations and government. That model is successful in the EU social-democracies like Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Neither extreme is right. The solution lies in the moderate middle where both sides have to make compromises. Yes, it does mean higher taxes but the reward is a much more stable and prosperous economy in the long run with everyone benefiting.

 

[Pogo]

I'm pretty sure we've done this test before, and come to the conclusion it is biased toward liberal ideology.

Several times.

Some of the questions cannot really be answered as the statements are inherently flawed. It is the same problem that exists will all of these ideology ‘tests;’ there is no way to boil an entire political worldview down to a small set of yes or no questions. These issues are more complex than that.

We've seen this test before, as well as other versions, but I don't think we concluded it's biased toward left or right; rather, I think we concluded it's misleadingly limited in its scope and definitions.

For a truer analysis of those definitions and the limitations herein, I like what this guy says> Redefining the Political Spectrum

It's a long read but worth the trouble.

 

[Pogo]

I've taken this test many times and note that depending on how I feel that day my score can change rather considerably but it never moves from one quadrant to the other.

I always find myself somehere on the lower left quad.

This morning I am apparently feeling very libertarian and very leftist too.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I know that many here think it is impossible to be both libertarian and leftist, but obviously it is not.

I got pretty burnt out on these tests back in the nineties, but my recollection of the design (unless it's changed significantly) is that the questions were configured to rate your desire for freedom on two different dimensions - economic freedom, with an implied connection to private property rights, and personal freedom. So, a 'leftist-libertarian' would be someone who believes in a great deal of personal freedom, but is not so enthusiastic about economic freedom and property rights.

All it takes to be both is to think that PEOPLE ought to be very free but that ORGANIZATIONS ought to be monitered and controlled

Let's face it... NOBODY (not in power) much trusts governments anymore....but those of us leaning left-libertarian ALSO do not trust CORPORATIONS, NGOs or any other power structure that has influence over governments

That is why most of us here will find ourselves in the lower (libertarian) quadrants but some of us will be in the right hand side (those who trust organizations, but not governments)

I suspect more than a few here would wind up in the authoritarian blocks. Though they usually prefer labels like "centrist" or "moderate".

The point you raise here is frustrating because I share the basic outlook. I share your distrust of government AND corporations. But where I part ways with liberals is in their assumption that these two entities oppose each other, or worse, that the only choice available to voters is to be subjugated by one or the other. It's a false dilemma that encourages the growth and domination of both corporations and government.

Who thinks government and corporatia oppose each other?

 

[Dragonlady]

What political affiliation is "authoritarian"? Are they afraid to use the "S" word socialist? What a bunch of politically correct crap.

No, only a complete dolt thinks that socialists are authoritarians. Hilter was an authoritarian as was Margaret Thatcher. It is possible for authoritarians to be right wing as well as left wing.

I'm posting my chart but before I do, I found the entire test to be skewed to libertarianism. The phrasing of the questions is definitely set out to skew your response.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.50&soc=-5.64

 

[dblack]

I've taken this test many times and note that depending on how I feel that day my score can change rather considerably but it never moves from one quadrant to the other.

I always find myself somehere on the lower left quad.

This morning I am apparently feeling very libertarian and very leftist too.

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

I know that many here think it is impossible to be both libertarian and leftist, but obviously it is not.

I got pretty burnt out on these tests back in the nineties, but my recollection of the design (unless it's changed significantly) is that the questions were configured to rate your desire for freedom on two different dimensions - economic freedom, with an implied connection to private property rights, and personal freedom. So, a 'leftist-libertarian' would be someone who believes in a great deal of personal freedom, but is not so enthusiastic about economic freedom and property rights.

All it takes to be both is to think that PEOPLE ought to be very free but that ORGANIZATIONS ought to be monitered and controlled

Let's face it... NOBODY (not in power) much trusts governments anymore....but those of us leaning left-libertarian ALSO do not trust CORPORATIONS, NGOs or any other power structure that has influence over governments

That is why most of us here will find ourselves in the lower (libertarian) quadrants but some of us will be in the right hand side (those who trust organizations, but not governments)

I suspect more than a few here would wind up in the authoritarian blocks. Though they usually prefer labels like "centrist" or "moderate".

The point you raise here is frustrating because I share the basic outlook. I share your distrust of government AND corporations. But where I part ways with liberals is in their assumption that these two entities oppose each other, or worse, that the only choice available to voters is to be subjugated by one or the other. It's a false dilemma that encourages the growth and domination of both corporations and government.

Who thinks government and corporatia oppose each other?

That seems to be the premise driving most attempts to "reign in" corporations with state regulation.

 

[Pogo]

I got pretty burnt out on these tests back in the nineties, but my recollection of the design (unless it's changed significantly) is that the questions were configured to rate your desire for freedom on two different dimensions - economic freedom, with an implied connection to private property rights, and personal freedom. So, a 'leftist-libertarian' would be someone who believes in a great deal of personal freedom, but is not so enthusiastic about economic freedom and property rights.



I suspect more than a few here would wind up in the authoritarian blocks. Though they usually prefer labels like "centrist" or "moderate".

The point you raise here is frustrating because I share the basic outlook. I share your distrust of government AND corporations. But where I part ways with liberals is in their assumption that these two entities oppose each other, or worse, that the only choice available to voters is to be subjugated by one or the other. It's a false dilemma that encourages the growth and domination of both corporations and government.

Who thinks government and corporatia oppose each other?

That seems to be the premise driving most attempts to "reign in" corporations with state regulation.

"Seems to be" doesn't make "opposition". If the only way you can address a cancer is with chemotherapy, you use one poison to attack another but neither one is good for the body. They're not in "opposition"; they're just different flavors of poison.

And btw you mean "rein", as in restraint; your Freudian slip "reign" means "to rule, as a king". Both government and corporatia, if left unrestrained, will grow oppressive to the populace as absolute power corrupts; to treat one as a pariah that must be kept whittled down to impotency while at the same time building a fence around the other so that nothing restricts it, is insanity. That's why we have a Constitution. For one of them anyway.

 

[dblack]

Who thinks government and corporatia oppose each other?

That seems to be the premise driving most attempts to "reign in" corporations with state regulation.

"Seems to be" doesn't make "opposition". If the only way you can address a cancer is with chemotherapy, you use one poison to attack another but neither one is good for the body. They're not in "opposition"; they're just different flavors of poison.

And btw you mean "rein", as in restraint; your Freudian slip "reign" means "to rule, as a king". Both government and corporatia, if left unrestrained, will grow oppressive to the populace as absolute power corrupts; to treat one as a pariah that must be kept whittled down to impotency while at the same time building a fence around the other so that nothing restricts it, is insanity. That's why we have a Constitution. For one of them anyway.

I'd like to claim the 'slip' as a deliberate equivocation, but alas - it was just a spelling error. My point was merely that many of those who advocate for broad government regulation of the economy assume it will naturally favor the interests of consumers over corporations.

 

[dblack]

Without government you have what FA_Q2 calls "anarcho-capitalism" and everyone outside of the 1% has suffered from the latest attempt to impose deregulated "free markets" on this nation. We also know that communist style government control doesn't work either. The reality is there needs to be a balance between corporations and government. That model is successful in the EU social-democracies like Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Neither extreme is right. The solution lies in the moderate middle where both sides have to make compromises. Yes, it does mean higher taxes but the reward is a much more stable and prosperous economy in the long run with everyone benefiting.

This is exactly the view I'm rejecting. It's not a choice between submitting to government or corporations. And there's nothing to be gained by 'balancing' the two.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who thinks government and corporatia oppose each other?

That seems to be the premise driving most attempts to "reign in" corporations with state regulation.

"Seems to be" doesn't make "opposition". If the only way you can address a cancer is with chemotherapy, you use one poison to attack another but neither one is good for the body. They're not in "opposition"; they're just different flavors of poison.

And btw you mean "rein", as in restraint; your Freudian slip "reign" means "to rule, as a king". Both government and corporatia, if left unrestrained, will grow oppressive to the populace as absolute power corrupts; to treat one as a pariah that must be kept whittled down to impotency while at the same time building a fence around the other so that nothing restricts it, is insanity. That's why we have a Constitution. For one of them anyway.

There is not imaginary fence though. This is the common misconception that people seem to apply to those that oppose onerous regulations as ‘trusting’ cooperate power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, many of us see the regulations as BOLSTERING the cooperate power in this nation. Further, wanting to pull those back does not mean that cooperate power should replace that. Instead, most that seek a limit to the governmental power base ALSO seek to limit the power of corporations.

 

[Pogo]

That seems to be the premise driving most attempts to "reign in" corporations with state regulation.

"Seems to be" doesn't make "opposition". If the only way you can address a cancer is with chemotherapy, you use one poison to attack another but neither one is good for the body. They're not in "opposition"; they're just different flavors of poison.

And btw you mean "rein", as in restraint; your Freudian slip "reign" means "to rule, as a king". Both government and corporatia, if left unrestrained, will grow oppressive to the populace as absolute power corrupts; to treat one as a pariah that must be kept whittled down to impotency while at the same time building a fence around the other so that nothing restricts it, is insanity. That's why we have a Constitution. For one of them anyway.

There is not imaginary fence though. This is the common misconception that people seem to apply to those that oppose onerous regulations as ‘trusting’ cooperate power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, many of us see the regulations as BOLSTERING the cooperate power in this nation. Further, wanting to pull those back does not mean that cooperate power should replace that. Instead, most that seek a limit to the governmental power base ALSO seek to limit the power of corporations.

An intriguing if paradoxical idea, but I have yet to see it manifest around here at all.

I'd like to claim the 'slip' as a deliberate equivocation, but alas - it was just a spelling error. My point was merely that many of those who advocate for broad government regulation of the economy assume it will naturally favor the interests of consumers over corporations.

Now you're broadening the definition to "broad govt control of the economy" as opposed to where we were, restraint on corporations. Goalposts in motion; illegal procedure, five yard penalty. I thought we were speaking of governmental "fences" on corporate power as opposed to the absence of those fences on corporate power -- not as opposed to the idea of government running the whole economy.

 

[dblack]

"Seems to be" doesn't make "opposition". If the only way you can address a cancer is with chemotherapy, you use one poison to attack another but neither one is good for the body. They're not in "opposition"; they're just different flavors of poison.

And btw you mean "rein", as in restraint; your Freudian slip "reign" means "to rule, as a king". Both government and corporatia, if left unrestrained, will grow oppressive to the populace as absolute power corrupts; to treat one as a pariah that must be kept whittled down to impotency while at the same time building a fence around the other so that nothing restricts it, is insanity. That's why we have a Constitution. For one of them anyway.

There is not imaginary fence though. This is the common misconception that people seem to apply to those that oppose onerous regulations as ‘trusting’ cooperate power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, many of us see the regulations as BOLSTERING the cooperate power in this nation. Further, wanting to pull those back does not mean that cooperate power should replace that. Instead, most that seek a limit to the governmental power base ALSO seek to limit the power of corporations.

An intriguing if paradoxical idea, but I have yet to see it manifest around here at all.

Then I'd humbly submit that you haven't read all of my posts.

Corporations are a creation of government and exercise all of the rights and privileges via government. The paradox is the assumption that giving government more power to regulate the economy will 'naturally' reduce corporate power.

FWIW, I'm not one of those advocating for mindless economic deregulation. The bankster fiasco stands as warning to advocates of deregulating the economy. In the face of corporate lobbying, any change to existing legislation will be twisted to serve the dominant interests - whether it regulates or 'de'regulates is largely immaterial.

What I'm arguing for is a fundamental, Constitutional, change in government's power to interfere in economic matters. In my view, the collusion of power between corporations and government is in many similar to the historical collusion of religion and government. And in that situation it was rightly recognized that the way to keep religions from having too much influence over government was to strictly limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, with corporate power, it's a two-way street. If we want to limit corporate influence in government, we have to limit government's ability to affect the fortunes of corporations. As long as government has that power, corporations will do everything they can manage to 'steer' it toward their interests.

 

[Pogo]

There is not imaginary fence though. This is the common misconception that people seem to apply to those that oppose onerous regulations as ‘trusting’ cooperate power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, many of us see the regulations as BOLSTERING the cooperate power in this nation. Further, wanting to pull those back does not mean that cooperate power should replace that. Instead, most that seek a limit to the governmental power base ALSO seek to limit the power of corporations.

An intriguing if paradoxical idea, but I have yet to see it manifest around here at all.

Then I'd humbly submit that you haven't read all of my posts.

Corporations are a creation of government and exercise all of the rights and privileges via government. The paradox is the assumption that giving government more power to regulate the economy will 'naturally' reduce corporate power.

FWIW, I'm not one of those advocating for mindless economic deregulation. The bankster fiasco stands as warning to advocates of deregulating the economy. In the face of corporate lobbying, any change to existing legislation will be twisted to serve the dominant interests - whether it regulates or 'de'regulates is largely immaterial.

What I'm arguing for is a fundamental, Constitutional, change in government's power to interfere in economic matters. In my view, the collusion of power between corporations and government is in many similar to the historical collusion of religion and government. And in that situation it was rightly recognized that the way to keep religions from having too much influence over government was to strictly limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, with corporate power, it's a two-way street. If we want to limit corporate influence in government, we have to limit government's ability to affect the fortunes of corporations. As long as government has that power, corporations will do everything they can manage to 'steer' it toward their interests.

I confess (?) I prolly haven't read all your posts everywhere, but I did read this thread from the beginning.

This is the strawman that hangs me up:
"the assumption that giving government more power to regulate the economy will 'naturally' reduce corporate power."

I just don't see anyone making that stretch. It's quite a roundabout way of addressing the issue, innit?

I'd also take issue with "corporations are a creation of government". The structure is a creation of government, but the corporation creates itself.

 

[Pete7469]

Political Compass Printable Graph

I'm pretty much where I figured I'd be, but it does fluctuate according too mood.

 

[dblack]

An intriguing if paradoxical idea, but I have yet to see it manifest around here at all.

Then I'd humbly submit that you haven't read all of my posts.

Corporations are a creation of government and exercise all of the rights and privileges via government. The paradox is the assumption that giving government more power to regulate the economy will 'naturally' reduce corporate power.

FWIW, I'm not one of those advocating for mindless economic deregulation. The bankster fiasco stands as warning to advocates of deregulating the economy. In the face of corporate lobbying, any change to existing legislation will be twisted to serve the dominant interests - whether it regulates or 'de'regulates is largely immaterial.

What I'm arguing for is a fundamental, Constitutional, change in government's power to interfere in economic matters. In my view, the collusion of power between corporations and government is in many similar to the historical collusion of religion and government. And in that situation it was rightly recognized that the way to keep religions from having too much influence over government was to strictly limit government's ability to interfere with religion. Likewise, with corporate power, it's a two-way street. If we want to limit corporate influence in government, we have to limit government's ability to affect the fortunes of corporations. As long as government has that power, corporations will do everything they can manage to 'steer' it toward their interests.

I confess (?) I prolly haven't read all your posts everywhere, but I did read this thread from the beginning.

This is the strawman that hangs me up:
"the assumption that giving government more power to regulate the economy will 'naturally' reduce corporate power."

I just don't see anyone making that stretch. It's quite a roundabout way of addressing the issue, innit?

I see it all the time. People routinely offer the false dilemma of government dominance vs corporate dominance. That view is the primary excuse offered for supporting PPACA, for example. The idea that giving government power over our health care will minimize corporate power over our health care is central to the reformers' rationale.

I'd also take issue with "corporations are a creation of government". The structure is a creation of government, but the corporation creates itself.

Corporations wield power through their government charter, and through enforcement of laws that protect their interests. They have no police, no military and no real ability to coerce us outside the power granted to them by government.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is not imaginary fence though. This is the common misconception that people seem to apply to those that oppose onerous regulations as ‘trusting’ cooperate power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Instead, many of us see the regulations as BOLSTERING the cooperate power in this nation. Further, wanting to pull those back does not mean that cooperate power should replace that. Instead, most that seek a limit to the governmental power base ALSO seek to limit the power of corporations.

An intriguing if paradoxical idea, but I have yet to see it manifest around here at all.

Then I'd humbly submit that you haven't read all of my posts.

Or the posts of many here. You are not the only one that sees this problem. I am another and I can think of a few off the top of my head.

I am surprised that Pogo claims that he has never seen it manifest here as there are a few threads that is covering this exact topic that were recently quite active.