Why would you discuss politics here?

[Ben Kenobi]

Even on the econ? +5 is pretty strong.

Lots of us are -2 authoritarian, I just wanted to prove that my score really was -2 and if you plug in the exact same answers, that will be what you get.

Some here question my libertarian credentials.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Even on the econ? +5 is pretty strong.

Lots of us are -2 authoritarian, I just wanted to prove that my score really was -2 and if you plug in the exact same answers, that will be what you get.

Some here question my libertarian credentials.

The political compass test page isn't loading for me to validate... admit it, you and your authoritarian overlords took down the website to keep the truth from getting out

[Kidlicious]

Thanx BK. It's interesting to see what people answered, why and what score they recieved.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Asher:The answer: posts like your post right here. It's long, verbose, and boring as ****.

The lesson: Post something interesting, and make it brief.

I don't even know who the **** you are and you expect me to read essay-posts? Get real.

Fine, I'll start splitting my posts by idea. If you are bored of an idea, skip to the next post. I'll refrain from being condescending and give you the nice answer: that post shouldn't have taken more than 5 minutes to read, and judging by the amount of time you probably spend here I don't think that's unreasonable. The problem is with apolyton, where everyone writes mindless three sentence posts, so when someone actually has a thought that needs to be developed for a bit no one has the attention span to read it. But, since you're such a genius, please explain to me how the post criticizing the test could have been shortened.

Paragraph 1-covers the inability of the test to distinguish what the tester thinks "ought" to be and the way things work out in real life. For example, I got a -9.88 on the econ. My ideal (and I think most peoples' ideal should) would be a society that works like that. I only think this type of economic system (with -7.54 on the political) could only come in very distinct situations, and I am defintely against imposing such a system on a populace the way many Marxist governments have done. I am a pragmatist and in many situations, particularly in third world countries, I fear that such a system could not functinon.

Paragraph 2-the inadequacy of the two dimensional scale, and the introduction of my argument about the difference between measuring and conceiving progress, government, laws, economics, etc. by the individual or the group cannot be measured accurately by this two dimensional scale.

Paragraph 3-example of being on the left of both scales and a classical liberal

Paragraph 4-example of left on both scales but with a greek style democracy who does not measure all in terms of the individual but in terms of the society.

Paragraph 5-example of left economically and on the right politically but not classically liberal, including many Marxists. Also the possibility of one who conceives all in terms of the individual but on the left economically and on the right politically.

Paragraph 6-examples of conservative economically and authoritarian, which could make you classically liberal (USA and more extreme: US supported dictators such as Pinochet), examples of conservative economically and authoritarian but not liberal at all and pertaining to a philosophy that champions the good of the nation above the individual (ie fascism).

Paragraph 7-conservative economically and on the left politically, ie libertarianism, something very classically liberal, but pointed out the theoritical possibility of having such a system without being an individualist.

Paragraph 8-the fallacy of equating economic conservatism and pro-business policies with neo-liberalism (ie Ross Perot was opposed to free trade)

Paragraph 9-what is with some of these questions?

There is the skeleton of that post. Granted, I use too many filler words and with pruning could have made it less wordy with about 90% the size. But other than that please tell inform me of what was unnecessary about it and what could have been cut out and why. Specifically.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Asher:
I've already told you it was a troll, point blank. You still don't get it. If I say it again will it sink in?

Well you've been talking about it for a few pages now. Don't you have anything better to do? Like a book to read or something? Here's a recommendation, Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz if you're interested in something from the other side. Or if you're interested in reading a neo-liberal I've been reading a lot of de la Balze recently for class, can't remember the first name. He's pretty good and pays a lot of attention to history, though I don't agree with him on a lot of things.

originally posted by Asher:
Oh my God, you are everything I hate about academia.

You missed the point but you did not miss the opportunity to namedrop Fukuyama where it was not necessary in the context.

I was simply pointing out that your characterization of my beliefs was way-****ing-off, and you responded to that by ranting about Fukuyama. Completely clueless, and you've no clue that you're clueless. Recipe for professorship in an arts program of some sort, I'd reckon.

And you are everything I hate about Apolyton. You write and argue about academics being disconnected from reality and being crazy commies, something I have hear every day from ignorant rednecks, and so I respond by pointing out the truth is the opposite, that most academics, particularly the intelligent ones, are neo-liberals. I point out that your response is very similar to what I have to hear from ignorant rednecks. Hence I said you were sounding like an ignorant redneck, not that you were one. It wasn't meant to be and shouldn't have been offensive. If I were to start talking about Mother Gaia and someone said I was sounding like an ignorant hippy, I wouldn't get offended as long as they didn't call me an ignorant hippy. But of course your ego, being too big to fit in a room with anything other than a computer in it, got all defensive and condescending, to which I will only respond with equal condescencion.

You posted earlier about the superiority of neo-liberalism stemming from its maximum wealth creation, to which you were arguing with Traianvs about the desire for happiness and wealth creation. So I responded by pointing out the bad philosophy the discipline of economics is based on and some of the common logical mistakes made by economists (namely their inability to understand things like history and culture), to which you give a response that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. So then I reference the name of one of the most famous authors who makes those same philosophical mistakes to give you an idea of what I was talking about, so that perhaps you could understand. I've never even read Fukuyama because I have better things to read but he's so famous that I've heard his basic arguments. But instead I'm "namedropping." I have no clue as to why you think my characterization of your beliefs is off. I was simply pointing out the logical fallacy (and not event that, just that those philosophical assumptions may be *gasp* disputed) of your wealth creation argument, which you and libertarians take to be the Word of God.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by SpencerH:
Theres just way too many of them word thingies here to read. Is this being generated by some sort of computer program or are you an insomniac?

I'm getting a little bored with all the winkie smilies so I'll say instead that this is tongue in cheek and not a personal attack.

Nah, there was just so much to cover with that test that it took a while. But in all serious, this is the other reason why I hate the internet and apolyton. My posts actually aren't long, it's only that they are long in comparison to the other posts. Everything is so short and sweet on the internet and whenever you're not interested you just change the page. And on apolyton most of the posts are just one liners. I don't think you can really cover anything of values in three sentences. But since we're used to reading such short posts all of the time, whenever there is something that takes 3 minutes to read (I guruantee you my longest posts would only take 5 minutes to read if that) it is way too hard to read all of it.

originally posted by Asher:
You very clearly don't understand the complex math Newton had done...

Not a math/science expert because I find most of it less interesting than studying human beings, but I took a physics class in college called Newton and Beyond, where we started with Newtonian physics and moved onto studying some of the basics of relativity (for non physics majors mostly). It definitely doesn't make us smarter than Newton but wouldn't the fact that all of us could stutter out some of the basics of relativity mean that we were more advanced than him? The same would go for anyone who can stutter out some of the basics of Foucalt or any post-modern thinker, they would be more advanced than say, Kant. And I bet everyone on this forum could easily point out some of the discoveries in Psychology made after Freud, making us all more advanced than him.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are welcome. You asked, so I posted it up for you.

[Aeson]

For Kid:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.25 (slightly different than last time, some of them I can go either way on.)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

agree - globalization serving humanity would be a good thing. Though I don't think it should be forced to...

strongly disagree - if my country is wrong, I'm not going to support it in that particular falacy.

agree - it is kinda foolish to be proud of where you're born

strongly disagree - i don't think race is a useful evaluation tool. (ethnicity and actual hereditary line can be though, medically speaking... race is too broadly and fuzzily defined)

disagree - the enemy of my enemy is a friend unless they're an enemy too /shrug

disagree - if hypothetically the law is being used to kill innocents.. I'd allow for an exception. otherwise it'd be strongly disagree, as I don't think such a situation exists currently.

disagree - there are some concerns with the value of information (or at least it's absorption) being undermined by distracting from it with the entertainment, but in general infotainment is a good thing.

agree - I could go with disagree with this too. I think fundamentally we are divided more by class than by nationality, except a lot of people don't see this because of their focus on nationality. (Meaning there's people all over the world who'd get along just fine given their values and personality, if they'd just look past nationality.)

agree/disagree - it will depend on circumstance whether controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I just flipped a coin here.

agree - we definitely need some environmental regulation so our rivers don't catch fire and stuff like that... we have gone too far in some cases though. (Or are focusing on the wrong things IMO.)

agree - "from each... to each..." is a good idea. Impractical as we as people aren't ready to implement it perhaps, but still a good idea.

disagree - if people want bottled water, there should be someone bottling water. (and in some areas it actually is necessary) It is kinda silly in a lot of cases though.

agree/disagree - based on how you read the "should". Ideally I think it'd be great if land were public and we could function that way. Realistically though, it won't work out well.

agree - it would always be better if such fortunes were made while contributing to society. but not strongly agree since I think people have a right to be selfish bastards so long as they aren't stomping on other people's rights.

strongly disagree - free trade > protectionism.

agree - corporations are amoral, they exist to bring profit to shareholders. regulations, consumer advocacy, and the like are what should keep them in line. They can't be expected to consider those things themselves.

agree - though in a weird way. (get rid of income tax and capital gains tax, and move to VAT/luxury tax.) If keeping our current tax system, I don't think the rich are taxed too much.

agree - everyone should have a right to pay for care they want if they so choose... though I think access to health care (especially preventative) for everyone should be assured as well. Realistically this will result in a higher threshold for those willing to pay more.

agree/disagree - depends on how misleading "misleading" is. Is it just spin, or is it outright lies? Spin should be punished by investors (sell), lies/fraud by the government (and investors).

disagree - a pure free market would have no restrictions... but of course a healthy free market needs them.

agree - all else equal, the freer the market, the freer the people. Of course it's possible to have a free market and little to no civil liberties, or for free market to be taken advantage of to limit the economic freedom of those without as much capital, so that won't always be the case. But in general, agree.

disagree - abortion should be legal until there is a possibility the fetus is a conscious/feeling human being (detectable brain activity IMO). illegal afterwards. (And the earlier the better if it's going to happen.)

agree - all authority should be questioned. though it's not something you have to do unless you want to...

disagree - "...makes the world blind" forgiveness > retribution, though society does have a right to protect itself from those who would destroy it or the rights of people who comprise it. In some cases that will be "eye for an eye"... at least on some levels. (Like if someone kidnaps and imprisons someone else, and they are imprisoned for that crime, it is eye for an eye in a sense.)

agree - if it's worth saving, taxpayers would be willing... if not, it shouldn't be preserved at their expense.

agree - standardized testing should ensure that kids are receiving a proper education... be it in the home, public, or private schools. (in a specific school though, as long as the parents have a choice about whether to attend or not... schools should be able to have attendance requirements)

strongly disagree - segregation yourself is ok if you want, but so is integration

disagree - physical punishment may work in some cases, but it's not necessary to be a good parent. positive reinforcement works too, and is better IMO.

agree - kids aren't going to tell their parents everything

strongly agree - drugs should be legalized and taxed, we're just wasting time on the war on drugs.

agree - not strongly though since I think it's a bit more broad based than just "finding jobs". More like "being able to be a functional member in society". Which "finding jobs" is (perhaps the most important) part of that school should be concerned with.

strongly disagree - I do think that, if there is high likelihood your children would suffer your disability, voluntarily taking yourself out of the gene pool is a good thing... but only voluntary. Forcing it is ugly.

disagree - discipline is important, but there are many other important things though, and some more important. (to respect the rights of others is probably the most important.)

disagree - there are some savage peoples still, and some civilized. (and "civilized" peoples can sometimes be quite savage in their own way as well.)

strongly agree - if you can work. you do, if you don't you shouldn't expect help

disagree - problems are worth thinking about. though if there's nothing you can do at the time (having thought it through) then being able to let go and think about other things is valuable.

disagree - how long it takes an immigrant to integrate will be situational.

strongly disagree - what's good for corporations is often good for us, but there are some really ugly things that can be good for corporations and decidedly not good for us. (Strongly because of the "always, ultimately" language.)

agree - if general TV/radio/whatever stations rely on "public" funding, it should be by donation. Though an educational broacasting institution (working with schools or homeschooled) could be acceptable.

strongly agree - civil liberties need to be protected from those who would use fearmongering to undermine them.

agree - one-party getting things done quickly is an advantage, perhaps even a "significant" one... at least in a way. not sure if it's an advantage we'd want though

disagree - I don't personally worry about surveillance, nor do I think I need to be, but it's potentially a problem and worrying about it is understandable even for those who've done nothing wrong.

agree (but probably disagree with the intent of the question) - it should be an option. just an option for those sentenced IMO.

disagree - hierarchies are unavoidable, but it's not what makes things civilized (or not necessarily so). It can be useful in keeping things civilized though.

disagree - art is in the eye of the beholder IMO. if abstract art isn't art to one person, fine... if it's art to another person, fine too...

disagree - rehabilitation is more important than punishment. much tougher though.

agree - I don't think we have the capability to rehabilitate everyone. some (like those sentenced to life) should have rehabilitation options (education, religion) open to them, but I don't think we should actively try to rehabilitate them unless they're the ones pushing for it. I do think we should try to avoid dehabilitating criminals, by keeping prisons safer for the prisoners.

disagree - writers and artists are important too. which is more important depends on who specifically is the writer/artist or businessperson/manufactuer, and what they've accomplished.

disagree - I think homemaker is a valid choice, but it should be up to the woman.

agree - certainly there is unethical behavior out there, but I don't think it's pervasive. definitely there's exploitation, but that's not necessarily unethical. (amoral would be a better term to describe it)

disagree - depends on the establishment

strongly disagree - astrology is silly (but somewhat interesting)

strongly disagree - religion may help some be moral, but it isn't a necessity.

agree - charity is better than social security, at least when it happens. neither work as well as they should.

agree - some are lucky, some less so.

strongly disagree - religious values aren't important for me personally. I do think values are an important part of education though. Honesty (not cheating, so accurate evaluation of student's progress can be made), how to interact with others respectfully, ect.

disagree - it's not necessarily moral or immoral to me. that depends on other factors (like if you're cheating on someone, or if you're not using protection knowing you have a STD, ect.)

strongly agree - sexuality shouldn't be a requirement for adoption.

strongly agree - porn should be legal.

strongly agree - consenting adults

strongly disagree - people have varying sexuality... and that's just how it is, "naturally".

agree - while I support the right for people to be open about their sex lives, I think the incessant sexual dipictions in the media, and general cultural obsession with sex, have undermined relationships in this country... leading to too many kids growing up without good role models (or worse yet, with the sexual depictions in the media as role models). So it's gone too far for our own good, but still should be allowed.

[Kidlicious]

jcm's criticism of this test is good. I think it becomes more evident, when looking at people's answers and justification of them, that the test writers expect the test takers to think a certain way, and that often they do not.

Take the question, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It can be considered a foreign policy doctrine or it can be taken literally and universally. To tell you the truth I don't know for sure how they expect a person to consider it. So unless you know how you are to consider it you can not answer the way you are expected to.

I also think some people prefer a certain score and take the test to get that score.

[DaShi]

Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by kidicious:
jcm's criticism of this test is good. I think it becomes more evident, when looking at people's answers and justification of them, that the test writers expect the test takers to think a certain way, and that often they do not.

Take the question, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It can be considered a foreign policy doctrine or it can be taken literally and universally. To tell you the truth I don't know for sure how they expect a person to consider it. So unless you know how you are to consider it you can not answer the way you are expected to.

I also think some people prefer a certain score and take the test to get that score.

Exactly. I feel like the test is a bit for lower-level thinkers and many of the questions just deal with "attitudes" and orientations rather than their manifestations on a policy level. Thus the test is better for the average to fairly intelligent person (and great for American social conservatives, who vote for policy on a gut level) but for someone who is at the level where they can make more nuanced distinctions it doesn't work. For example, I think there is a lack of discipline in our society and that parents should be able to spank their kids. I think that people talk about sex too much. I think it's sad that our society is so immoral. Those are conservative attitudes and would make me more conservative on the test. But I completely disagree with the actually implenting them on a policy level, unlike the religious right in the US. Discipline should happen in the home and with the family, not with the state. The problem is American social conservatives are stupid and can't tell the difference. On the other side, I strongly agreed with the from each according to his ability statement, but that doesn't mean I'd forcefeed the idea on anyone.

I think the test could be improved if it tested for attitutdes, like this test, but also threw in a lot more concrete policy questions as well. For this reason I think the test puts you much more to the left than you actually are, it's about attitudes and ideals. Ideally I'd like an anarcho-communist state, putting me way to the left, but I don't think it's likely to happen anywhere at this point in time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

for someone who is at the level where they can make more nuanced distinctions it doesn't work

NO simple quiz works for those with more nuanced distinctions, unless you have an essay section and someone grading your work... but that's called school and not an internet quiz.

[johncmcleod]

I actually think this is a good idea, it's a great and fairly objective way to get to know people politically and see how they think.

NO simple quiz works for those with more nuanced distinctions, unless you have an essay section and someone grading your work... but that's called school and not an internet quiz.

Agreed, but I still think this test could be made better and more nuanced. Read below.

Strongly agree-Globalization to serve humanity

Strongly disagree-Support my country no matter what

Agree-It's foolish to be proud of your country
This question bothered me. Technically I do think it's incredibly foolish, but I think nationalism, though very dangerous, can be very useful in certain situations, and if people aren't stupid and close-minded about it (like most nationalistic Americans) I'm not going to be bothered by anyone being proud of their nation, particularly if it's for good reasons (if I grew up in a Scandinavian country I'd be proud of living in a society that functions so well).

Strongly disagree-our race is better


Disagree-enemy of enemy is friend
Didn't like this question either. I'm assuming the question deals with foreign policy. I put disagree but would put strongly disagree if the question is geared towards the US practice of giving weapons to whoever the hell opposed a government they didn't like. But in other circumstances I realize it's very necessary.

Strongly disagree-military action justifying international law.
If we're talking about the US here than I'd definitely answer that way, since if it's supposedly to serve humanity there are a million ways they could do it without violating international law. But if the way in which the law is enforced is to serve the interests of a few wealthy, powerful nations, I could see certain circumstances where it might be justified. Again it depends on what the question is referring to.

Agree-worrying fusion between information and entertainment
It would be nice to know what they're referring to, if they're talking about how dumbed down the news gets for the purpose of the viewers not being bored, than yes, I'd strongly agree, but if it's about the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the mix between news and comedy than I'd disagree. It's stastically proven that Daily Show viewers have a greater understanding of current events than ordinary news viewers. Don't have the stats right now but someone from my high school wrote his junior thesis on it.

Strongly agree-people are more divided by class than nationality

Disagree-controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
This is why I hate some of these questions! At first I thought it was the other way around, with unemployment first, and I put agree, but then in seeing that controlling inflation was first, I almost put strongly disagree. On a lot of these if the question was rephrased to the negative or positive or if the order was changed it might change the strength of answer.

Strongly agree-corporations need environmental regulation
Well duh, I don't see anyone putting disagree there, even the most hardcore libertarians would want some barebones environmental regulations regarding issues such as poison, clean water, etc. The debate is about how much, which the question doesn't deal with.

Strongly agree-from each according to his ability
It's a great idea, but I'd differ from a lot of other people who answered the same way in how much I'd force it on a policy level.

Strongly agree-"It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product."
This is another one that really pissed me off. I am highly opposed to the privatization of water in the US (though obviously if you don't have access to clean water you're going to buy bottled water, I just hope in those situations the involved places ween themselves from dependence on it). It's incredibly inefficient and unfair (they just take tap water from one state, bottle and package it, and then ship it to another to make a profit off of the taxpayers) and I'd rather see life's most important resource in the hands of an institution more accountable to the public as opposed to profit-seeking shareholders. But it seems that they're asking more about our attitudes on consumerism, except that you can't answer why you're opposed to bottle water, for practical reasons or for the dislike of that aspect of consumerism. I personally oppose it for both though much more for the former, if it's about the latter I might only put agree. I can understand the concept of selling nice, cold water if it's a better product than the tap water (which it isn't by the way, tap water is much better tested and has better quality).

Agree-land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold
Another bad question. Read my signature if you want to know how I feel about it. But property is pretty much inevitable in this world and if I were a leader I wouldn't try to get rid of it unless the circumstances were correct.

Agree-"It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society."
I mean yeah, but there are lots of other useless jobs out there, and we need resource management in any society. And if you're damn good at it you should be rewarded. I wish they wouldn't make that much obviously but that's the reality of the situation and in most cases you wouldn't be able to change it. Another gut-feeling as opposed to policy question that I don't know how to answer.

Strongly agree-"Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade"
Does this mean I strongly agree that protectionism is sometimes (as in only certain occasions) necessary in trade, or that I strongly agree with lots of protectionist controls?

Disagree-"The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."
Another terrible question. Legally that is the only responsibility of a company and though I would like things to be different, in a capitalist society that's the way things are going to be. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to a very large, state-run command economy where the state (accountable to the people with the responsibility of serving them) takes care of what the people want and private corporations, with their only responsibility to deliver a profit to the shareholders, are limitedly allowed. And though ideally (as in the should be that the question states) they would have to take care of other things as well since they are a source of money and power, if doing so would make them unprofitable and go bankrupt I wouldn't ask them I'd just ask the state. So I don't know how to answer this. I should put strongly agree, but that definitely wouldn't express the beliefs stated in this paragraph. What a bad question.

Strongly disagree-the rich are too highly taxed.

Strongly disagree-those with the ability to pay get better access to healthcare
In theory everyone deserves the same right to life. But does this mean if I were a leader I'd try to get rid of all forms of privatized health care? I don't think I would in a lot of circumstances.

Strongly agree-"Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public."
But are they misleading the public in an illegal way or not? If they violate the law, than yes, they should be penalised. But if they don't violate the law? Than I may hate them and think they're terrible people, but to quote McCoy from law and order: "Where there's a law, I'll enforce it. Where there's a crime I'll prosecute it." Penalization starts and ends with the law. If someone does something highly immoral that isn't illegal, they shouldn't be penalised for it (though that doesn't mean that the law in question shouldn't be changed). Another bad question.

Strongly agree-A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of multinationals to create monopolies
Though I could easily see how you could be completely neo-liberal and supportive of free trade but still support certain domestic anti-trust laws. The question would be answered differently by many whether it deals with domestic or international anti-trust policies.

Strongly disagree-the freer the market, the freer the people.

Strongly disagree-abortion should always be illegal except in case of mother's life at risk

Strongly agree-all authority should be question

Strongly disagree-eye for eye

Strongly disagree-taxpayers shouldn't pay for museums/cultural stuff that can't commercially survive

Strongly disagree-schools shouldn't make attendance compulsory

Strongly disagree-'separate but equal'

Strongly agree-parents should be allowed to spank their children
I completely agree but am definitely not authoritarian and don't think this attitude should be reflected on a state level-I can make the distinction between what should be enforced in the home and what should be enforced by the state, but this question makes me out to be authoritarian.

Strongly agree-it's natural for children to keep secrets from their parents
Again not sure how my view on this issue has anything to do with my views on the state.

Strongly agree-decriminalize pot

Strongly disagree-Prime function of school being job preparation

Disagree-people with strong inherent disabilities not being allowed to reproduce
What type of disabilities are we talking about? If the child is going to only know a life of pain and suffering that's one thing, I don't agree with the birth of that child just because the parents want to-what choice does the child have? But that doesn't mean I'm against dwarfs from reproducing. The question should make the distinction.

Strongly disagree-the most important thing children need to learn is discipline
I strongly disagree with the statement that it's the most important thing, but I definitely do think it's very important and that there should be more discipline for children. But I don't think this has anything to do with policies of the state. So how do I answer? What if I think that discipline is the second most important thing, but that love is far and away the first (just an example)? Then I would answer strongly disagree, but that would give me the same answer as the hippy who doesn't think it matters at all. And do my views make me authoritarian?

Strongly agree-no such thing as 'civilized people'
God I sure hope everyone answered the same as me. The concept of civilization is such bad early modernist philosophy.

Disagree-"Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support."
Another bad question. What kind of support are we talking about? In terms of what welfare state I want, I don't like too much the concept of the 'liberal' welfare state (ie USA, UK, and the white commonwealth countries such as Australia) where welfare is considered a safety net for those the market does not provide enough. I'm more of a fan of the Scandinavian style welfare state, where social welfare spending comes in the form of programs such as health care. So how do I answer the question? I don't want parasites, but I do think they deserve support-such as rehabilitation and state help to help them turn their lives around and work. I also support lots of spending to improve the conditions that produce these types of people (ie better education and subsidized housing projects). So I have no idea how to answer the question.

Agree-when you're troubled think about cheerful things
What the hell does this have to do with anything? I definitely believe our society does not think enough and ignores its psychological problems, on the other hand I think a certain amount of escapism is necessary so that you don't go crazy, and I think everyone would agree. So how do I answer the question?

Strongly disagree-1st generation immigrants can't be fully assimilated
Again I was unsure how to answer, as you have to define assimilation. No first generation immigrant that came after a certain age will be the same as someone who was born and bred in the country, but there's nothing wrong with that. I also think of the nation more in terms of shared political ideology than in terms of culture.

Strongly disagree-what's best for corporations is always best for us

Strongly disagree-"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding."

Strongly agree-our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the war on terror

Strongly disagree-advantage of one party state being no discourse

Strongly disagree-only wrongdoers need to worry about lack of privacy in the information age

Strongly disagree-death penalty

Strongly disagree-"In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded."
Horrible question. First off, what the hell does civilised mean? Second, I think every society in history (animals included) have had some type of authority. Even in total anarchy without explicit authority, some will command more influence than others by nature of intelligence or whatever trait is valued by the society. The other thing is that what if you agree to needing people to be obeyed (I'm not an anarchist, there has to be some type of authority) but disagree with needed people below to command? I don't think anyone posesses the need to command anyone (some people psychological may need it but that's their problem, I don't think it's an inherent human need).

Strongly disagree-abstract art not art

Strongly disagree-punishment for criminals more important than rehab

Strongly disagree-it's a waste of time to rehabilitate some criminals
I sure hope no Christian answered otherwise. I think one of Jesus' primary teachings was that God loves everyone and is ready to forgive everyone and that anyone can give up sin.

Strongly disagree-businessman and manufacturer more important than artist
Who would say otherwise? We only get one Beethoven per century but thousands of businessmen.

Strongly disagree-mothers' 1st duty is to be a homemaker

Strongly agree-multinationals exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries

Strongly disagree-Making peace with the establishment is an important part of maturity.

Strongly disagree-astrology can predict
What does this have to do with your political views?

Strongly disagree-You can't be moral without being religious

Strongly disagree-charity is better than social security for helping disadvantaged

Strongly disagree-some people are naturall unlucky
Who here believes in luck?

Strongly disagree-it is important that my child's school instills religious values
I put strongly disagree because I am a firm believer in secularism for public schools and an aetheist, but I'll probably send my kids to a religious school so that they grow up with a good sense of ethics. So how should I answer?

Strongly disagree-sex outside of marriage is usually immoral

Strongly agree-gays shouldn't be excluded from adoption if family meets the criteria for raising a child

Strongly agree-pornography should be legal
I strongly agree that it should be legal but I think a lot of it is really demeaning, so how do I answer?

Strongly agree-state stays out of bedroom

Strongly disagree-no one can feel naturally gay

Disagree-"These days openness about sex has gone too far."
I mean I don't think talking about sex in private or on TV is immoral in anyway nor do I think the state should intervene. However, I do think people are overreacting too much to our religious background and talk about it way too much. So how do I answer?

Final score: -8.88 Economic, -7.95 Political
Hmm, different than I got the last time. Don't know what happened. Another problem with this test, your score can change significantly depending on your mood.

[Agathon]

The real point of the test is to look at how different the attitudes of your leaders are from you. They are also plotted on the scale.

Conservatives on here seem to think that they are magic because they fall into the negatives for authoritarianism. However, what is scary is that our leaders are way higher than all of us when it comes to authoritarianism and on average are much further to the right economically.

It looks very much like we are a bunch of centre left wing social liberals being ruled by a bunch of fascist leaning neoliberals.

That assessment, I would say, is more or less accurate.

It demonstrates that democracy is a failure, because it keeps electing people who have extreme values compared to the rest of the electorate. Imagine electing a bunch of people who were all like me, and then notice that, extreme lefty that I am, I'm a lot closer to most of you than people like Thatcher, Bush and Blair are.

The fundamental lesson of the test seems to be that people with vastly different and much more authoritarian values than the norm seem to be running the show, and we let them and then wonder why we do not like what they do.

[Agathon]

The scale is actually a failure, since the left/right and liberal/authoritarian scores tend to track each other in our societies (in communist societies the authoritarians are to the left, and very few people are right wing economically). In our societies what we mean by left and right is pretty much anti-authoritarian vs authoritarian, and that is fact that is much more rigorously established than the political compass.

Libertarians try to paint themselves as an alternative, but they are either confused anti-authoritarians or authoritarians looking for a means to dominate others.

BTW JohnMc. Compared to me, you are Hitler.