Political Compass

[Jethro83]

According to the PoliticsForum quiz, I'm a Libertarian.

46 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social.
49 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist.
61 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government.
86 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist.
81 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader.
72 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist.
41 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market.
49 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
I agree, it's not the greatest test, especially for those of us whom have actually worked on enviornmental policy. Anyway:

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

C'mon, who's the jerkwad that actually feels they should be proud of where they born?

Oh! Oh! Me! ME!!!

[Ted Striker]

USA!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not really... Rawls admits that his whole exercise is highly theoretical contractual exercise.

You see. That means that even he considers his model to be different from the real world. That doesn't mean we can't apply it to the real world were it may fit.

Then you don't agree with the veil of ignorance argument? You're just a straight natural rights person?

I don't believe in 'natural' rights. I believe rights arise from governments/societies. I'm a relativist/deconstructionalist, etc.

Ok, sure. Then what rights should people have? How do you determine them?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Rawls claimed that policies should favour the most disadvantaged.

So if that 1% is the most disadvantaged, he wouldn't agree, but if that 1% is the top 1%, Rawls wouldn't have a problem with it.

But the thing is that no one is disadvantaged if everyone has an equal expected pay off. I agree that individuals paying the heavy cost is out, because he argued that people would be adverse to risk.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok, sure. Then what rights should people have? How do you determine them?

Whatever Ted Striker says goes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay.

I'll wait until people are done to resize the names, because it may get crowded.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Individual vs Social 1% were more individual
Theist vs Materialist 70% were more theist
Big Gov. vs small Gov 73% were more big gov.
Nationalist vs Internationalist 92% were more internationalist
Protectionist vs Free trader 15% of test takers were more free trade
Absolutist vs non Absolutist 0% were more absolutist
Controlled Market vs liberal market 4% were more liberal market
Marxist vs non Marxist 1% were more non marxist

Interestingly they call me a libertarian and say I should go to the liberalism forum. I went there and I didn't agree with any of them. This test

Now that really scares me. Going on the questions that were asked its hard for me to see how someone with that high of an Absolutist score does any of his own thinking whatsoever.

Interestingly they call me a libertarian and say I should go to the liberalism forum. I went there and I didn't agree with any of them.

And he doesn't even know what Liberal means

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But the thing is that no one is disadvantaged if everyone has an equal expected pay off. I agree that individuals paying the heavy cost is out, because he argued that people would be adverse to risk.

I don't recall Rawls advocating equal pay off.

His assumption is everybody operates off enlightened self-interest.

Suppose the issue at hand is social assistance for the poor. If there are 5 people voting on the matter, with one of them being a billionaire and the other 4 dirt poor. How would you vote if you are one of the 5, but you don't know which one?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boshko

Now that really scares me. Going on the questions that were asked its hard for me to see how someone with that high of an Absolutist score does any of his own thinking whatsoever.


And he doesn't even know what Liberal means

Oh puleez. ML is a class 1 troll.

[Kontiki]

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, free-trade, non-absolutist, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of uncategorisable materialist.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


A free market is a perfectly competitive market. A market with a monopoly is not free by definition.

From your own quote (emphasis mine):

In the ideal free market, the law of supply and demand predominates, influencing prices toward an equilibrium that balances the demands for the products against the supplies....In this mathematical ideal market, the distribution of products is Pareto optimal...

Just because it's mathematically ideal doesn't mean it's the only way for a free market to function. Monopolies can and do form in a perfectly free market. Believe me, you are off base here - however, if you really want to keep trying, find something that says monopolies are inconsistent with a free market. All your quote is saying is that ideally, everything is in a perfect state of balance and totally ignores any form of reality.

[Arrian]

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, small-government, free-trade, kind of person, who doesn't sound like a Marxist.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of libertarian. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.

You scored 48 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social.
27% of test takers were more individual than you.
71% of test takers were more social than you.

You scored 73 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. 74% of test takers were more theist than you.
24% of test takers were more materialist than you.

You scored 62 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government.
59% of test takers were more big government than you.
38% of test takers were more small government than you.

You scored 56 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist.
38% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
60% of test takers were more internationalist than you.

You scored 64 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader.
69% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
30% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.

You scored 59 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist.
54% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
42% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.

You scored 45 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market.
68% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
30% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.

You scored 68 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist.
93% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
7% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.

Much better quiz. Taken it before. Here at 'poly, even.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Everyone up to Oncle Boris.

Sky has to take the test again for me to consider him.

No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That means that even he considers his model to be different from the real world. That doesn't mean we can't apply it to the real world were it may fit

I'm sure that he feels that his conclusions should apply to the real world, even though his model isn't . Which is one reason I have certain problems with him. How can we apply a severly controlled theoretical excersize to the real world when, IMO, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real world.

Ok, sure. Then what rights should people have? How do you determine them?

Ted Striker's wish

, No, seriously, the rights of the people are determined by their societies or governments, basically by people in power. Rights arise from the group deciding what needs to be protected.

His assumption is everybody operates off enlightened self-interest.

Suppose the issue at hand is social assistance for the poor. If there are 5 people voting on the matter, with one of them being a billionaire and the other 4 dirt poor. How would you vote if you are one of the 5, but you don't know which one?

Indeed that is Rawls' theory on the maximin. If you don't know which one you are, you'll naturally vote for the lowest person having the highest benefits possible.