Printable View
I haven't seen a thread like this, and I just searched for one. So. Take this. Then post your scores. Here's mine.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
Yeah, I'm a smurfin' pinko. The economic questions are a bit skewed to the left though, I think, but this is the most objective and meaningful political test I've found on the Internets thus far, so it'll do.
Anyway, take it, then we can discuss the results.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.36
I suck at taking stances apparently.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
I'm right near Gandhi and the Dali Llama.... O_o
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
That sounds about right, I guess.
edit: hi Chem and Ghandi!
Economics Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.05
As I expected. Economically conservative, slightly socially liberal. But for the most part moderate.
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
I think I'm a little more socially liberal than that. Maybe. Also, I have a problem with this question.
"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system"
This is obviously a true statement. There really is no matter of opinion involved. A one party state will avoid the arguments that delay progress in a democracy. Silly question.
well, if you disappove then you wouldn't consider such streamlining to be an advantage. I personally like government that can't do anything too easily. the word "advantage" implies a value judgment.
I strongly disagreed. Because Arguements and oppinions are what we need to have a government that can represent all the people of a nation and not just the ones that won the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
Can we really call actions that only satisfy a minority of the whole nation progress?
yeah, I'm pretty sure I strongly disagreed with that as well.
Also, if you've taken this test before, you could always note how your views have changed since the last time you took it. I'm both further to the left and more libertarian than I was six months ago, by about two points.
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51
Whatever that means.
I'm with you on that one. I guess the matter of opinion is what you define 'progress' as. As Bubba would say, 'that depends on what your definition of "is" is.'Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
Man I hate politics.
-3.13
-1.49
Libertarian Leftist, so it says.
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26
A lot of the questions are very one-sided. You'd feel like a jerk answering one side.
Aristotle said that a benevolent dictatorship was the ideal form of government.
I felt that too. It was as if they were trying to coax you into answering a certain way.
Anywho, I was by Nelson Mandella. Except about two points to the right. I don't have the exact coordinants but yeah.
Certain questions are badly phrased, I agree. The above one (Which is blatantly a true statement.) could do with revision. Also, I don't like: "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." at all. I don't want either to be controlled.
Anyways:
Economic Left/Right: 5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Not as far as I used to be, apparently.
Politics are overrated.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21
Libertarian because I'm socially liberal, I suppose.
Sexy McAwesome has the greatest sig ever.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08
It sounds just about right to me.
And!Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
I disapprove of the idea of a one party system because it is not conducive to society in anyway for the exact reasons Chemical stated. However, the wording of the statement itself is annoying. I suppose it depends on the points of comparison. Of course I agree it would be more desirable to have a multiple party system, but you cannot deny that a one party system does in fact have the advantage of less argument concerning policy, which is what the question asks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
I just have a problem with the way the question is presented. I understood it, but I don't think it's nearly as clear as it could be.
Also, I don't think I've changed. I don't know if the old version of this thread was purged with EoTW, but I want to know if I've moved significantly.
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:7.5
I could have told you that.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36
Whatever.
I've already taken it. I'm pretty centrist - around 0.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.21
I always knew I was a left-leaning moderate.
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08
What I expected. Small-government (what used to be "conservative") libertarian. I'm about 3 points to the right of what I used to be a year-and-a-half ago. Must be getting old. "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head."
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
This said, I don't have much of a stomach for politics, real politics these days is little about the actual economic and social ideals, and more about getting continually re-elected.
Aristotle also said that society should be ruled by the philosophers, because everyone else was too stupid to do it, so I think we can discount most of his political suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
EDIT : ...Or was that Plato? I can't remember, those Greek philosophers talked an awful lot of bunk in between their rare nuggets of wisdom.
Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.79
The one-party question is true by the way - even though a one-party system would be bad, it's true that it's quicker
But there's the term "advantage" in there. Whether you consider that an advantage or not is a value judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Manus
Well that's the way I see it
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
I'm almost exactly where Ghandi was :/
I'm really not that arachistic(realword?), but I answered the questions truthfully, and there were really none I was on the fence about, but whatever.
-7.something
-1.something.
Commies rule!
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31
I hardly understand this, is this good or bad?
I wonder what The Redneck would have gotten.
That was Plato. The most accurate example of a modern-day Philosopher King was Mao.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy
Don't mods have access to EotW?Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
I suppose one could argue that. Mao was a bit of a whack job, thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
"Bit of a whack job?" More like raving lunatic. Isn't he the one who tried to make China into a communist communes state which failed disastrously?
Yeah he had this whole thing where kids weren't supposed to finish their education but take up arms against dissidents or something. He arguably did even more to discredit Communism than Stalin did.
edit: http://rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/mao/
Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15
I'm almost perfectly in the center. I pretty much expected this, since I usually have trouble making desicions and tend to try and compromise everything.
In other words, I'm boring.
Arguably? Mao wasn't nearly as stupid. Mao was an incredibly capable leader, who went significantly further than Stalin to implement actual Communism. And he ended up killing even more people.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
Also, he was actually really smart, and really popular. Had he just used the right system, China would already be number one on Earth, probably by quite some way.
The only reason he's not held up as the first example of Communism in action is because we weren't close allies with China in WW2, and we didn't subsequently have a Cold War for almost 50 years. China hasn't been in the west's domain enough for us to really have noticed, and now that he's gone there's not going to be a terribly large fuss about him, I wager.
BANNED!Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
lolamirite?
Economic Left/Right: -2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
Best part is I have no smurfing clue what that means. Go, ignorance!
Edit: Although I am close to Gandhi, so brownazn shines through.
Well yeah, he was really capable at getting people to follow him. But a lot of his plans... well... weren't really very effective at anything other than killing people. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Didnt he starve loads of his ow people to get WoMD?
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54
I'm with you, Ghandi!
Mao was a philosopher more than anything else.
No, he was a genociding, power-crazy tyrant, more than anything else, I'd say.Quote:
Mao was a philosopher more than anything else.
but all those things came out of his philosophy
Hitler was a painter more than anything else.
He has a point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
:love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Oh yes, Mao was a philosopher, just like Marx. In fact, Mao's communist policy was about as close to Marx as there's ever been. I consider that more than sufficient reason to call him a raving lunatic.
Hey, Marxism is good... In Theory.
To practice is a whole other story... (Though Castro seems to have done a fascistlicious good job... though I suppose when you're under the rule of a Fascist leader there is little room to disagree with their methods.)
So I would agree that Mao is a lunatic, but more so because he tried to place such an ideal theory to practice and that's where everyone goes wrong. When will people learn that the inherent nature of man demands he be engaged in the most frivolous of activities, such as making money... and to make money there must be class dividents. There will always be those who want more than others, and they'll get what they want because they can. It's this kind of cognitive & subliminal psychology that has dictated man since the dawn of his intelligence.
There needs to be something that satisifies (or atleast shutsup) everyone; from the pine nut, communist hippies to the Bible thumping, conservative Desprate Housewives. So. going back to the "the advantage of monopolitical system" I state again that this is why different oppinions and arguing are the advantage of a polypolitical system... It ensures that only actions that benefit everyone will occur.
And to the question whether it was "better to keep inflation low or job employment high..." I said it was more important to control inflation because if inflation gets out of hand you end up having major debt and an inevidable depression will occur in the economy. Thus inflation affects the job market more directly and in a way that is hard to recover.
Didn't one of the women on Desperate Houswives beat up a nun the other day?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemical
Hitler was a painter, period. You people who still think the Halocaust happened are wayyyyyyy behind the times...
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46
Yeah, right there near Gandhi. Too bad I find online quizzes impossible to take seriously.
As opposed to the ones made from trees?
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/poli...2.25&soc=-1.95
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95
Marxism and Communism a paper government.
And without the U.S. China would be under Japanese rule right now.
Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
Not suprising.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67
Not bad, I guess.
There was nothing in Marx's theories that involved killing anyone, so comparing Mao to Marx is like comparing him to Gandhi. Sure, they may have all been significantly to the left of today's mainstream American politics, but one was a murderer and the other two weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
"He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
-Thomas Jefferson
Mao is the logical conclusion of Marxism.
The logical conclusion of Marxism is for the working class to rise up around the nation, create its own political party, and, by voting that party into office, oust the ruling class out of power. However, as long as the media remains under corporate control and people consider the media to be a credible source of information, that will not happen.
And I don't buy Jefferson's reasoning there. Just because I'm forced to share with my neighbours, I'm going to use violence against them? Unlikely.
In a small population, like an Israeli Kibbutz, maybe. Larger populations require government to hold its citizens at gunpoint in order for the system to appropriate resources across said population. I sure as hell wouldn't share my hard-earned money/resources with anyone else unless I chose to, and if the government forced me I would probably resist, like many others I'm sure.
If it's not corporate media it would be The Party media. Sorry, I just don't see Socialism as a more productive system than what we have now. I mean, the smart people can still think for themselves and not watch Fox News.
Marxism is a paper government, it is based on an idealic humanity, people are lazy, greedy, selfish, and stupid, capitalism compensates for this, Marxism doesnt.
Capitalism doesn't compensate for anything - it's just freedom.
To me, capitalism is far more ideal than communism.
if you're forced to share everything, how do I keep, say, a loaf of bread to keep myself from starving when everyone's trying to take it from me due to their entitlement to anything anyone else has? Only by force.Quote:
And I don't buy Jefferson's reasoning there. Just because I'm forced to share with my neighbours, I'm going to use violence against them? Unlikely.
Society wouldn't allow people to take things from others who needed them. You wouldn't be allowed to starve, that's the whole point of a socialist government, things go to people who need them.
I'm sure many people would resist, because our society places an immense value on acquiring as much wealth as possible regardless of the detriment it causes to other people. However, the ideal of Marxism is that it would be a society-wide thing that the entire working class would agree to, and since the working class is the backbone of society, the ruling class would either submit or starve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Of course, I don't see that happening in our current society. That's idealism for you.
Ideally there would be room for all viewpoints, entirely without censorship except for things that are patently false and (possibly) obviously destructive and hateful ideologies, like anti-Semitism.Quote:
If it's not corporate media it would be The Party media. Sorry, I just don't see Socialism as a more productive system than what we have now. I mean, the smart people can still think for themselves and not watch Fox News.