DW Forums Political Compass

[Dartz]

I'm sure everybody knows about it,so lets see where everybody comes in it:

http://www.politicalcompass.org

How European of me....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[robkelk]

Being a civil servant who's on the eligibility list for a possible promotion, I think I should sit this one out...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

I don't have such a concern, so here I am. Somewhat to the right of Dartz, but not terribly different, I think.

-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

Amusing. I show Centrist, with noticeable (but not strong) libertarian leanings.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Jorlem]

Here's where I stand. I think I'm noticing a bit of a pattern here...
-----
Stand between the Silver Crystal and the Golden Sea.
"Youngsters these days just have no appreciation for the magnificence of the legendary cucumber."  --Krityan Elder, Tales of Vesperia.

[DHBirr]

Well, I evidently missed the boat on how to download the graph plus numbers, but I managed to salvage the info.  I noticed, based on one of the comparative charts, that I've got a roughly 50% overlap with the Dalai Lama:  he's slightly more right-wing and authoritarian than I am. 

-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Morganite]

Sooo, right about where I thought I was, huh.

Though some of the questions strike me as a bit... wonky.

-Morgan.

[Valles]

Huh. I wouldn't've expected to be that close to the bottom. More middle-ish. I can kind of see how my social attitudes would earn the title of 'libertarian', but given the obvious consequences of the economic policies usually associated with that label, I can't help feeling slightly insulted.
===========

===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."

[Morganite]

It's a bit of a funny use of the term.

Not that "libertarian" doesn't already seem to get used to cover a fairly wide range of not-necessarily-compatible positions, but still.

-Morgan.

[Rod.H]

Bwah? That can't be right, but then again what does it all mean.
I'm now also wondering where our local Greens fit.....fsck!#@#$ That can't be right? Party wise maybe, but individually I swear they've got people that'd be the next 'glorious leader of the democratic republic' if they'd a chance of running the place.

[TheTwisted1]

So, I guess I'm an outlier, since here's mine: Economic Left/Right: 1.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.00.

However, some of the questions are problematic. For example, "Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold." Agreeing with this likely fits one more to the left-wing, as opposed to right-wing free market support. However, what about someone who agrees because they believe land should be entailed? I don't see how supporting hereditary aristocracy can be considered left-wing. In general, most of these tests that equate the "right" with support for free markets thus fail to distingush between left-wing anti-market postions and reactionary anti-market postions.

--The Twisted One
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."

--Voltaire

[ordnance11]

Here is mine
A bit surprising, considering one of my favorite songs is "Stars" from Le Miserables.  But I consider myself a progressive along the lines of Theodore Roosevelt. I suspect, where I was still in the military, I'd be in ob the upper right hand side.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[ordnance11]

robkelk wrote:

---

Being a civil servant who's on the eligibility list for a possible promotion, I think I should sit this one out...

My congratulations if you get it. Or should it be my condolences? And would you have to move? I already have a career path charted out and unfortunately that will require moving around the country.
__________________
Into terror!,  Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell

[Dartz]

So, I guess I'm an outlier, since here's mine: Economic Left/Right: 1.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.00.

However, some of the questions are problematic. For example, "Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold." Agreeing with this likely fits one more to the left-wing, as opposed to right-wing free market support. However, what about someone who agrees because they believe land should be entailed? I don't see how supporting hereditary aristocracy can be considered left-wing. In general, most of these tests that equate the "right" with support for free markets thus fail to distingush between left-wing anti-market postions and reactionary anti-market postions.

--The Twisted One

It's an old test that's been lurking for a decade or more.

The Analysis page does a better job of explaining things.

With reference to the UK

I'm not sure whether I'm surprised at where the world's political parties concentrate on this chart, or not.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[robkelk]

robkelk wrote:Being a civil servant who's on the eligibility list for a possible promotion, I think I should sit this one out...

My congratulations if you get it. Or should it be my condolences? And would you have to move? I already have a career path charted out and unfortunately that will require moving around the country.

Moving would depend on who (if anyone) offers me a promotion. In th Canadian system, duties and positions are tied to orgchart boxes, not employees.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[nemonowan]

No surprises for mine...

[Foxboy]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faceboo ... &soc=-3.49
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Werehawk]

Which is an iffy result for me. I do feel that some of their questions are a bit off and tend to throw results off. And I think one of my previous rounds at this had me tilting a bit more libertarian than the current one.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab ... &soc=-2.26
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

[Logan Darklighter]

I am amused with this sub-section of the site.
[url=]http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012[/url]

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer
towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative
advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an
unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a
former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended
Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap
and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.
Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded
Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo,
supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed
drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to
the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the
financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top
economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors
absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while
his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a
well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming
pressures. 2008's yes-we-can
chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask
can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal
health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had
spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against
that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then
appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the
honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice,
while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former
Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing
market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The
Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights
supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican
administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency permitted extrajudicial
executions virtually anywhere in the world ( www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/047/2012/en
), expanded drone strikes and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party
would have howled from the rooftops. Senator Obama the Constitutional
lawyer would have been one of the most vocal objectors. Under a
Democratic administration however, these far-reaching developments have
received scant opposition and a disgraceful absence of mainstream media
coverage.

I'm waiting with popcorn bucket in hand to see who makes the argument that this means the site as a whole leans left or right and how biased this makes the test.

[Morganite]

Reads spread over a wide enough spectrum to me that I'm not even prepared to guess.

-Morgan.

[Labster]

Looks like I'm in the green block too.  I'm definitely not as extreme towards that corner, as I was when I took the test 10 years ago.  But I don't feel like my underlying values have changed much, either.  It's more that on something like one-third of the questions, I want to mark a radio button labeled "It's complicated".

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Sure, seeking profits is generally good for corporations, as it looks to optimize resources and innovate to stay ahead of its competitors.  However, this shouldn't be an excuse for getting out of taxes, or creating unsafe working conditions.  Profits don't benefit all of society equally, even though we think they do because of invested retirement plans.  So more profit is good for everyone, unless it ends up cutting the jobs of the people who hold the retirement accounts -- but it's not exactly like we can rely on pensions when bankruptcy is an excuse for business/government not to pay pensions.  TL;DR Businesses have a responsibility to investors and to society as a whole and we're just debating where the line should be; can I check that box please?
Honestly, I just wanna vote for Birgitte Nyborg.
-- ∇×V

[ECSNorway]

It's more that on something like one-third of the questions, I want to mark a radio button labeled "It's complicated".

Exactly.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.