Your political idealogy

[Cuivienen]

I thought I'd update everyone on my slow trend to the lower left:

(More liberal than you!)

 

[bobgote]

if we are going to make an OT map of this, here is mine (with slight changes). comedy in that it suggests capital democratism for me. i'm not even a big fan of democracy anyway. (political compass places me as a slightly libertarian -3.44, hardcore communist -8.88 )

Your Score

Your scored -2 on the Moral Order axis and 0 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Socialism, Liberalism
2. Variation: Moderate Socialism, Moderate Liberalism
3. Ideologies: Social Democratism, Capital Democratism
4. Parties: Democratic Party
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (91.16%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (90.12%), Ralph Nader (81.78%), George W. Bush (61.98%)

 

[Rik Meleet]

Has anyone else noticed that if you are top left (like me) or in the top right (Chieftess) or even in the bottom left quadrant you still get as president "Jimmy Carter". ...

 

[bobgote]

that's cos jimmy carter's the best damn president there ever was!

 

[Longasc]

if you are absolutely in the middle, you get Jimmy Carter, too. In the Political Compass Test I placed much more left, btw.

 

[Chieftess]

Atleast this seems a little more accurate than the political compass site. That one said I was a Libertarian (left-centrist). This shows me more as a Conservative Republican.

 

[Longasc]

Perhaps your soul yearns for your mind to understand the blessings of left-wing politics?

 

[Mise]

By left-wing libertarian I mean very pro-indivdual in all ways except economic

That's an oxymoron. I can recommend reading Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" - that might change your "pick-and-choose" attitude to individual rights.

One thing that's always puzzled me about the libertarians is how you want government to stay out of your pockets and out of your bedrooms, but you still want well defined property rights. Surely, for property rights to be well defined and property to be protected, the government MUST poke around in your pockets and your bedrooms, to make sure no-one else does? If you really were the only true proponents of "individual rights", surely you'd want to protect your own private property, as opposed to relying on the government to do it for you? (One could argue that in protecting "private property", one invokes "collective property rights".)

Alternatively, you could reject the notion of private property altogether, or accept that no ideology based on a few simple rules or buzzwords can be 100% consistent, so "pick-and-choose" attitudes are perfectly valid to form the "best" ideology.

 

[luiz]

One thing that's always puzzled me about the libertarians is how you want government to stay out of your pockets and out of your bedrooms, but you still want well defined property rights. Surely, for property rights to be well defined and property to be protected, the government MUST poke around in your pockets and your bedrooms, to make sure no-one else does? If you really were the only true proponents of "individual rights", surely you'd want to protect your own private property, as opposed to relying on the government to do it for you? (One could argue that in protecting "private property", one invokes "collective property rights".)

Alternatively, you could reject the notion of private property altogether, or accept that no ideology based on a few simple rules or buzzwords can be 100% consistent, so "pick-and-choose" attitudes are perfectly valid to form the "best" ideology.

The ultra-libertarians do not want the government to protect their property, they want to hire a private security company and have a gun next to their bed in order to kill any thief that comes close.

Also they consider property rights to be natural and self-evident, and as such there is no need of a government to define them.

(Personally I agree that they are natural and self-evident, but I DO want a government to define and protect them!)

 

[Ayatollah So]

One thing that's always puzzled me about the libertarians is how you want government to stay out of your pockets and out of your bedrooms, but you still want well defined property rights. Surely, for property rights to be well defined and property to be protected, the government MUST poke around in your pockets and your bedrooms, to make sure no-one else does?

No no, let me explain conventional libertarianism (as contrasted to left-libertarianism) to you. The best foil to compare it to is nationalism, or as libertarians often call it, statism.

According to nationalism, your government rules a territory, because it had superior firepower to other countries at some point in the past. This gives it the right to make rules for everyone there. If the people don't like it, they can leave, and no complaining that other places are similarly "ruled" and are even worse.

Whereas, according to libertarianism, that's not right. Individuals and corporations own land, because their ancestors had superior firepower to their neighbors and successfully claimed it. Thus they get to make the rules that apply on that land. If you don't like it, you can leave, and no complaining that other lands are similarly "owned" and are even worse.

See the difference? (In case you can't tell, I'm not a fan of either view)

 

[ComradeDavo]

Let me explain my 'left-wing libertarian' stance.

(Before I start I'll just say, on the political compass site I always get like -9.8 for both scores).

Ok, well by the libertarian bit I basically mean I think that people should be able to do wahtever they wish in their personal lifes providing they do not indange or seriouly interfer with others. They can take drugs, they can have sex with whoever they want and they can live whether they want, worship whatever they want and have an abortion etc. One thing I am against though is gun ownership, because I don't believe in oen individuals right to shoot another. But in cases of peopel defending their homes, I would favour the defendant.

Now onto the left-wing bit. Well, here I am very pro-wealth redistribution. Now, you may say this is anti-individual. I say 'not so!'. Why? Because I believe in all individuals right to have a good standard of living. I am against the capitalist way that some indviduals are able to profit and live inluxury whilst others struggle to survive. I believe all people, as indviduals, should be given the chance to get a decent wage that allows for them to pursue the life they wish. Therefore, I am socialist in the sense that I desire a system that allows all people to prosper, instead of the current cxapitalist one where some people get rich whilst others stay poor.

So, whilst not strictly libertarian, I use that word because it best describes my social views, whilst economically I am very left-wing.

Hope that makes sense

 

[luiz]

No no, let me explain conventional libertarianism (as contrasted to left-libertarianism) to you. The best foil to compare it to is nationalism, or as libertarians often call it, statism.

According to nationalism, your government rules a territory, because it had superior firepower to other countries at some point in the past. This gives it the right to make rules for everyone there. If the people don't like it, they can leave, and no complaining that other places are similarly "ruled" and are even worse.

Whereas, according to libertarianism, that's not right. Individuals and corporations own land, because their ancestors had superior firepower to their neighbors and successfully claimed it. Thus they get to make the rules that apply on that land. If you don't like it, you can leave, and no complaining that other lands are similarly "owned" and are even worse.

See the difference? (In case you can't tell, I'm not a fan of either view)

BS.

The libertarian movment has not reached a consensus about land ownership. Many consider that land can't be owned, only the improvments one places upon the land.

There is a consenseus however about other goods, and you should focus on them if you want to describe the libertarian ideology.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The libertarian movment has not reached a consensus about land ownership. Many consider that land can't be owned, only the improvments one places upon the land.

As you say, there are a few (many? not around here, but maybe things are better in Brazil) who do stick to the core value of any philosophy deserving the name "libertarian". Namely, liberty.

Still not as good IMHO as a political viewpoint which recognizes that liberty is only one of many human values, and by itself is no guarantor of all the other values. But a big step up from the curious blend of liberty and respect for the spoils of force which dominates the "libertarian" discussion in the U.S. Or maybe not so curious: basically, they're would-be Republicans, but they don't want religious fundamentalists directing their social lives.

 

[Taliesin]

Socialist Democrat (but a green one... unfortunately there's no such combination offered...)

 

[classical_hero]

I was the first person to vote Religious based - Moderate/Reformer!

At home, I'd support Fremskrittspartiet (Progress Party) IF they were for progress (read techonology) and not xenophobia. As it is, I'd support Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian Common People's Party).

I am the second one to vote for this option. EDIT. I would say I am a moderate, rather than a reformer.
Here are my results from the Moral Politcs test:

Your Score

Your scored 2.5 on the Moral Order axis and -2 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Conservatism
2. Variation: Moderate Conservatism
3. Ideologies: Capital Republicanism
4. Parties: Republican Party
5. Presidents: George H. Bush (88.95%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: George W. Bush (82.74%), John Kerry (75.69%), Ralph Nader (60.16%)

Statistics

Of the 2088 people who took the test:

1. 2.3% had the same score as you.
2. 50% were above you.
3. 23.8% were below you.
4. 14.1% were to your right.
5. 76% were to your left.

According to another test, the World's Smallest Political Quiz, I am a centrist.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I finally took that moral test, here's what I got:

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Socialism
Variation: Moral Socialism
Ideologies: Activism
Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (84.07%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (91.16%), John Kerry (74.23%), George W. Bush (39.89%)
Statistics

Of the 2150 people who took the test:

0.1% had the same score as you.
9.9% were above you.
85.9% were below you.
89.4% were to your right.
1.1% were to your left

To be honest I much prefer political compass. This test didn't have enough questions.

 

[WarlordMatt]

Here are my results:

Your Score

Your scored 0 on the Moral Order axis and -2.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

1. System: Conservatism, Liberalism
2. Variation: Moderate Conservatism, Moderate Liberalism
3. Ideologies: Capital Republicanism, Capital Democratism
4. Parties: Republican Party, Democratic Party
5. Presidents: Gerald Ford (97.79%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (86.56%), George W. Bush (75.29%), Ralph Nader (69.30%)

Statistics

Of the 2157 people who took the test:

1. 2.6% had the same score as you.
2. 50.1% were above you.
3. 23.5% were below you.
4. 31.2% were to your right.
5. 56.7% were to your left.

 

[addiv]

Centralist secular liberal, for which I can't really find an option in the poll, so I went with Green.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I was the first person to vote Religious based - Moderate/Reformer!

At home, I'd support Fremskrittspartiet (Progress Party) IF they were for progress (read techonology) and not xenophobia. As it is, I'd support Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian Common People's Party).

Exactly what sort of progress is Bondevik, Høibråten and Lilletun exponents of ?