Your Political Compass

[NeenerNeener]

Someone earlier said that all republicans are fascists and all democrats are communists. What a load of horse pucky!

Take The Test

See where you land. I guarantee you most of us are much closer to the middle than you think. Plus I bet some who consider themselves left will find themselves slightly to the right of center. In addition to that, there are two axes, not this lame simplistic, right-left stuff! The Y axis is authoritarian and libertarian. If you think about what you think your government should be in more than one dimension, you'll find it's harder to simplify things to the point of retardation.

For instance, I assume that your model for fascism would probably be WWII Germany or Italy, and the model for Communism would have been the USSR. (note: socialist republic, NOT COMMUNIST republic). Perhaps you use Stalin as your communist model dictator and Hitler as the fascist dictator. What you fail to notice is that both your models are DICTATORS!!! They both fall under the authoritarian side rather than the libertarian!

Now, I've been reading so much hot air here that I've come to realize that most of you don't seem to even understand what you want or where you stand. A common thread seems to be "less government".

Now open your minds (creaaaaaaak!, poof!) and imagine that there can be not only authoritarian, dictatorship lefts and rights, but also LIBERTARIAN lefts and rights. Take the test, and see which QUADRANT you end up in. Please also note the past and present leaders and where they lie on the graph.

And please...for the love of GOD! No more of this left-right slippery-slope crap!

Thank you and have a good day.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

The Dalai Lama isn't terribly bad company.

 

[NeenerNeener]

LOL!

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Pic

 

[chambersc]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36

Sorry, been lurking for a while, think this is one of my first posts. I think I'll start posting more on here in response to some of the irrational folk of the right.

 

[Vic]

Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

Hey, Carnegie is a great example. How else but by economic freedom could an immigrant pauper's son work his way from the bottom up to being one of the wealthiest men on earth, creating business and thousands of jobs, and then giving it all away to charity before his death?

In the meantime, the Lama supports the interests of tyrant land barons who want their serfs back.

Hmm... so what you're saying is that for peasants to work their way up and create industry and become rich is bad, but rigid castes where one stays locked in the economic class one is born in is good. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised...

 

[imported_alp]

Economic -2
Social -7

 

[Tab]

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Some of those questions are extremely biased though...

Oh well...

 

[Grimreaper23]

Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

Hey, Carnegie is a great example. How else but by economic freedom could an immigrant pauper's son work his way from the bottom up to being one of the wealthiest men on earth, creating business and thousands of jobs, and then giving it all away to charity before his death?

I take it you're not familiar with the distribution of wealth, the size of the middle class, and the living conditions common in the cities during the era of the robber baron. Nevermind they lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, they had jobs.

In the meantime, the Lama supports the interests of tyrant land barons who want their serfs back.

Source?

Of course, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Stunt]

Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I'm over with Vic.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I'm over with Vic.

You're closer to me than Vic. :evil:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I'm over with Vic.

You're closer to me than Vic. :evil:

No I'm not...you are a wacky economic liberal :laugh:

(note my positive first number)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

Hey, Carnegie is a great example. How else but by economic freedom could an immigrant pauper's son work his way from the bottom up to being one of the wealthiest men on earth, creating business and thousands of jobs, and then giving it all away to charity before his death?

I take it you're not familiar with the distribution of wealth, the size of the middle class, and the living conditions common in the cities during the era of the robber baron. Nevermind they lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, they had jobs.

In the meantime, the Lama supports the interests of tyrant land barons who want their serfs back.

Source?

Of course, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth is that you are misinformed. Prior to those robber barons, the people lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, and after those robber barons, people lived similar to how they do now. Hmm... what created the change? Gee, it couldn't have been the industrial revolution that those robber barons brought about, could it?
You're also misinformed that Carnegie was one of those robber barons. He was a self-made man, rising from the lowest immigrant classes, who never bought government influence for his success (unlike the real robber barons, like Stanford, for example). And before his death, he gave away every dime to charity. Ever been inside a public library? Thank Carnegie, he invented the idea and established thousands of them across the US.

As for the Lama, the whole "Free Tibet" thing is to make Tibet the way it was before the Chinese communists. Well, that was like every pre-industrial theocratic society, one of rigid castes in which land barons ruled the peasant classes like slaves (serfs), and the priests told the peasants that they had to accept the system or they were going to hell. When you support the Lama, you're supporting that.

 

[zendari]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.49

Somewhere between Bush and Sharon

 

[CellarDoor]

I think we did this a few months ago. I'll take it again when I get back.

 

[ScottyB]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.51

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

Hey, Carnegie is a great example. How else but by economic freedom could an immigrant pauper's son work his way from the bottom up to being one of the wealthiest men on earth, creating business and thousands of jobs, and then giving it all away to charity before his death?

I take it you're not familiar with the distribution of wealth, the size of the middle class, and the living conditions common in the cities during the era of the robber baron. Nevermind they lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, they had jobs.

In the meantime, the Lama supports the interests of tyrant land barons who want their serfs back.

Source?

Of course, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth is that you are misinformed. Prior to those robber barons, the people lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, and after those robber barons, people lived similar to how they do now. Hmm... what created the change? Gee, it couldn't have been the industrial revolution that those robber barons brought about, could it?
You're also misinformed that Carnegie was one of those robber barons. He was a self-made man, rising from the lowest immigrant classes, who never bought government influence for his success (unlike the real robber barons, like Stanford, for example). And before his death, he gave away every dime to charity. Ever been inside a public library? Thank Carnegie, he invented the idea and established thousands of them across the US.

As for the Lama, the whole "Free Tibet" thing is to make Tibet the way it was before the Chinese communists. Well, that was like every pre-industrial theocratic society, one of rigid castes in which land barons ruled the peasant classes like slaves (serfs), and the priests told the peasants that they had to accept the system or they were going to hell. When you support the Lama, you're supporting that.

Vic, back in the industrial age you are aware that Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil industry right? He would use several ways of keeping his monopoly such as buying out competitors or selling their products lower until they drove their competitors to backruptcy. This is the position I don't understand from the libertarian's viewpoint. If the government isn't there to intervene with a monopoly then how does the free market get competition with it? Otherwise, won't the monopoly raise prices and screw the consumers when it isn't driving out competition? I used to be a libertarian btw.

However, I completely agree with you about the Lama. Giga, you should check out this Penn and Teller episode that talked about it. I can't remember the specific episode though.

edit: oh the political quiz. well i really hate this one in particular. some of the questions are worded horribly. and wtf does this have to do with it? "It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents" and this "When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things." oh well..

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

 

[NeenerNeener]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

Wow. I've changed a lot since I took this before.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

Wow. I've changed a lot since I took this before.

Flip-flopper! :laugh:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Stunt
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I'm over with Vic.

You're closer to me than Vic. :evil:

No I'm not...you are a wacky economic liberal :laugh:

(note my positive first number)

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

I swear to god my eyes are playing tricks on me, not only do I need a new car. I am going to need glasses! At least we have a simaller social stance.


EDIT: It appears you cant make a "-" mark bold....

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

Wow. I've changed a lot since I took this before.

Flip-flopper! :laugh:

Before the Iraq war I used to be around 1 and 1...

How things change

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

Libertarian and proud. The freer the market, the freer the people.

I'm sure Rockefeller & Carnegie would agree with you. I'll stick with the Lama.

Hey, Carnegie is a great example. How else but by economic freedom could an immigrant pauper's son work his way from the bottom up to being one of the wealthiest men on earth, creating business and thousands of jobs, and then giving it all away to charity before his death?

I take it you're not familiar with the distribution of wealth, the size of the middle class, and the living conditions common in the cities during the era of the robber baron. Nevermind they lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, they had jobs.

In the meantime, the Lama supports the interests of tyrant land barons who want their serfs back.

Source?

Of course, as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth is that you are misinformed. Prior to those robber barons, the people lived in their own sh!t and died of cholera, and after those robber barons, people lived similar to how they do now. Hmm... what created the change? Gee, it couldn't have been the industrial revolution that those robber barons brought about, could it?
You're also misinformed that Carnegie was one of those robber barons. He was a self-made man, rising from the lowest immigrant classes, who never bought government influence for his success (unlike the real robber barons, like Stanford, for example). And before his death, he gave away every dime to charity. Ever been inside a public library? Thank Carnegie, he invented the idea and established thousands of them across the US.

As for the Lama, the whole "Free Tibet" thing is to make Tibet the way it was before the Chinese communists. Well, that was like every pre-industrial theocratic society, one of rigid castes in which land barons ruled the peasant classes like slaves (serfs), and the priests told the peasants that they had to accept the system or they were going to hell. When you support the Lama, you're supporting that.

Vic, back in the industrial age you are aware that Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil industry right? He would use several ways of keeping his monopoly such as buying out competitors or selling their products lower until they drove their competitors to backruptcy. This is the position I don't understand from the libertarian's viewpoint. If the government isn't there to intervene with a monopoly then how does the free market get competition with it? Otherwise, won't the monopoly raise prices and screw the consumers when it isn't driving out competition? I used to be a libertarian btw.

However, I completely agree with you about the Lama. Giga, you should check out this Penn and Teller episode that talked about it. I can't remember the specific episode though.

Oh crap, what was the term they used? He bought one part of the production... Horizontal or Vertical... something like that.