Conservatives, Liberals, or neither?

[ListenToLife]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.88&soc=-7.90

 

 

This shows you just how little variety there is in politics - there is no Left Wing anywhere - everyone is the same. I can't see how the Dalai Lama is there though, given that he believes he is a divinely appointed god-king and supports corporal punishment of dissenting, secular Tibetans.

 

It's less of 'there is no variety' and more of some systems just blatantly do not work. There are going to be a lot less communists than Capitalists because, in the course of history, Capitalism has been much more successful than Communism. 

 

There are no names at the very bottom of the graph, because that is reserved for Anarchism, and since Anarchism by definition has no leaders, it's pretty much impossible to get many people positioned down there. You could get influential figures, but they would still be few. Because anarchism also doesn't work particularly well in the governing of a country.

 

The right/left wing is an economic scale, and so there are bound to be more right-wingers than left wingers, as collectivism isn't that successful, at the extreme. Personally, I'm situated at about a -5 on the economic, but that's probably because I'm mostly against larger corporations and 'just for money' standpoints. However, I am aware of the successes of Capitalism, so personally I believe I'd be a lot closer to the centre on a better quiz.

[Mehmani]

It's less of 'there is no variety' and more of some systems just blatantly do not work. There are going to be a lot less communists than Capitalists because, in the course of history, Capitalism has been much more successful than Communism. 

 

There are no names at the very bottom of the graph, because that is reserved for Anarchism, and since Anarchism by definition has no leaders, it's pretty much impossible to get many people positioned down there. You could get influential figures, but they would still be few. Because anarchism also doesn't work particularly well in the governing of a country.

 

The right/left wing is an economic scale, and so there are bound to be more right-wingers than left wingers, as collectivism isn't that successful, at the extreme. Personally, I'm situated at about a -5 on the economic, but that's probably because I'm mostly against larger corporations and 'just for money' standpoints. However, I am aware of the successes of Capitalism, so personally I believe I'd be a lot closer to the centre on a better quiz.

 

 

I think questions about religion should definitely be on a quiz, as the religious subscribe to dogma. All authoritarian governments either supported religion (Francoist Spain, par example) or supplanted it by making their leader a figure to be worshipped (Stalinist Russia). Another interesting fact about the Orthodox Church was that Lenin tried to establish a reformist movement within it (the "Renovated Church") to harness the power of the Church in 1922. Stalin himself reopened it in 1941 to stoke patriotism during the draining WWII campaign. If a person agrees to, as the quiz puts it, "you cannot have morality without religion," this is indicative of a belief in authoritarianism as you are indirectly rejecting people without religion. Also, you are mistakenly placing Communism and Capitalism as the flag-bearers of Left and Right, respectively. People to the far left are not necessarily Communists, and Capitalism is more than the preserve of those at the far right. And you are close to the center - there are two centers in this quiz, the x-axis and the y-axis. In terms of Libertarianism/Authoritarianism, you may well be close to the center. From the tone of your response, I'm guessing you took the quiz and got a result that put you on the Left, and you clearly do not identify as such. This is because you falsely consider Obama to be "Liberal" (he really isn't, and any time he appears to be he is merely paying lip service to actual lefties in the Democratic Party), and do not equate yourself with him. Why not join us Left-Libertarians? We are a lot more fun at parties. 

 

EDIT: I agree that the quiz is flawed in some respects (how the hell is the Dalai Lama Libertarian?), but religion plays such a key role in politics that you cannot discount its place in influencing personal tenets.

[ListenToLife]

I think questions about religion should definitely be on a quiz, as the religious subscribe to dogma. All authoritarian governments either supported religion (Francoist Spain, par example) or supplanted it by making their leader a figure to be worshipped (Stalinist Russia). Another interesting fact about the Orthodox Church was that Lenin tried to establish a reformist movement within it (the "Renovated Church") to harness the power of the Church in 1922. Stalin himself reopened it in 1941 to stoke patriotism during the draining WWII campaign. If a person agrees to, as the quiz puts it, "you cannot have morality without religion," this is indicative of a belief in authoritarianism as you are indirectly rejecting people without religion. Also, you are mistakenly placing Communism and Capitalism as the flag-bearers of Left and Right, respectively. People to the far left are not necessarily Communists, and Capitalism is more than the preserve of those at the far right. And you are close to the center - there are two centers in this quiz, the x-axis and the y-axis. In terms of Libertarianism/Authoritarianism, you may well be close to the center. From the tone of your response, I'm guessing you took the quiz and got a result that put you on the Left, and you clearly do not identify as such. This is because you falsely consider Obama to be "Liberal" (he really isn't, and any time he appears to be he is merely paying lip service to actual lefties in the Democratic Party), and do not equate yourself with him. Why not join us Left-Libertarians? We are a lot more fun at parties. 

 

EDIT: I agree that the quiz is flawed in some respects (how the hell is the Dalai Lama Libertarian?), but religion plays such a key role in politics that you cannot discount its place in influencing personal tenets.

 

You completely misunderstood my comment, and there are certain things you seem not to understand about the quiz as well.

I never mentioned religion, and agree that religious questions should appear in the quiz (Though the questions in the current quiz are rather inadequate).

I disagree that I am very left wing as the left/right split is an economic issue, and I am rather centrist on the economic argument. Communism is the generic extreme left; I have to admit I'm not that aware of many other extreme left wing policies. Capitalism is the generic opposite to that, being the extreme right wing, hence why most current political leaders are very right wing (Cameron, Obama, etc), as the current global powers are, as a rule, rather capitalist. 

As for caring about Obama's current position, or any other American leader's, I'm rather apathetic, as American Politics doesn't particularly interest me, or really effect me that much, compared to the fact that Cameron is a pathetic leader of my own country(Though there aren't any UK parties that fully represent me, it seems). And I'm actually rather supportive of Obama, definitely compared to what Mitt Romney would've been like. 

 

I actually view myself as closer to the centre in the x-axis(Still slightly left, but not as much as the quiz says). I'm happy with what the quiz says about my Y-axis - around a -4 - as I am rather libertarian. I pretty much support left-libertarianism, as it's the closest thing I can relate to. I just think that some left economic policies aren't very realistic.

 

(as for the parties comment, I think that any party in which you get into a political debate is not an especially successful party, if I'm very honest. :) Though I would definitely have less arguments with a libertarian that any sort of Authoritarian.)

[Mehmani]

You completely misunderstood my comment, and there are certain things you seem not to understand about the quiz as well.

I never mentioned religion, and agree that religious questions should appear in the quiz (Though the questions in the current quiz are rather inadequate).

I disagree that I am very left wing as the left/right split is an economic issue, and I am rather centrist on the economic argument. Communism is the generic extreme left; I have to admit I'm not that aware of many other extreme left wing policies. Capitalism is the generic opposite to that, being the extreme right wing, hence why most current political leaders are very right wing (Cameron, Obama, etc), as the current global powers are, as a rule, rather capitalist. 

As for caring about Obama's current position, or any other American leader's, I'm rather apathetic, as American Politics doesn't particularly interest me, or really effect me that much, compared to the fact that Cameron is a pathetic leader of my own country(Though there aren't any UK parties that fully represent me, it seems). And I'm actually rather supportive of Obama, definitely compared to what Mitt Romney would've been like. 

 

I actually view myself as closer to the centre in the x-axis(Still slightly left, but not as much as the quiz says). I'm happy with what the quiz says about my Y-axis - around a -4 - as I am rather libertarian. I pretty much support left-libertarianism, as it's the closest thing I can relate to. I just think that some left economic policies aren't very realistic.

 

(as for the parties comment, I think that any party in which you get into a political debate is not an especially successful party, if I'm very honest. :) Though I would definitely have less arguments with a libertarian that any sort of Authoritarian.)

 

Sorry, I thought I was replying to Tentacruel, not you. I get your point about Capitalism, though - maybe Capitalism is an intrinsically far-right concept as opposed to something that even a leftie can be content with.

[ListenToLife]

Sorry, I thought I was replying to Tentacruel, not you. I get your point about Capitalism, though - maybe Capitalism is an intrinsically far-right concept as opposed to something that even a leftie can be content with.

 

I assumed so :)

Though I disagree that Capitalism is intrinsically far-right; I am content with certain forms of capitalism, and I am not to the right at all. Even scialism would include certain parts of capitalism, allowing people to be in charge of their own money and the spending of it. It's the other one; Communism is intrinsically Far-Left; the idea of evenly sharing out money to everyone, no matter their input - in addition to being a rather flawed ideal - has no place amongst anything less that the most extreme left.

[L0SS]

Apparently, I'm between Nelson Mandela and Ghandi, in terms of my Left-wing Libertarianism. Intriguing. 

[Tourmaline]

I'm actually .75 less libertarian than I was last time. It's better to actually use your most recent results and find a balance between them to magnify the scope on what your political stance actually is.

 

 

I'm also more left than I thought. I recently realized that a laissez-faire economy is not the best and is definitely incredibly faulty. In terms of the economy, a laissez-faire one increases the gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate. This is like a parent praising and financially supporting their more intelligent, successful child while their child who clearly needs psychological aid or is impaired is left behind, the gap between the children widening as the parent makes a move anybody rational would consider bad parenthood by supporting only their successful child. Unlike most people believe, many people are unable to control their money in conservative ways when it is necessary or manage it wisely like one would believe a more learned individual would. Many people sincerely can not organize their money or get that job a more successful person would consider easily attained and would even scold the poorer person for allowing to pass by. A good parent does not abandon their child for experiencing a small phase of rebellion or a bit of a cold shoulder, as the individuals in society should not be forgotten for desisting from finding a job or refusing to let the government help them. The good parent would understand how their child feels, or try to, and offer support to their child whenever they needed their help happily, letting them know that they'll always be there for the child regardless of their behavior. This is something that has taken me years to acknowledge and understand, but I believe that a family where the members are actually cared for and considered will always be better than the home where the less successful child is seen as not worth helping.

[ListenToLife]

I'm actually .75 less libertarian than I was last time. It's better to actually use your most recent results and find a balance between them to magnify the scope on what your political stance actually is.

 

 

I'm also more left than I thought. I recently realized that a laissez-faire economy is not the best and is definitely incredibly faulty. In terms of the economy, a laissez-faire one increases the gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate. This is like a parent praising and financially supporting their more intelligent, successful child while their child who clearly needs psychological aid or is impaired is left behind, the gap between the children widening as the parent makes a move anybody rational would consider bad parenthood by supporting only their successful child. Unlike most people believe, many people are unable to control their money in conservative ways when it is necessary or manage it wisely like one would believe a more learned individual would. Many people sincerely can not organize their money or get that job a more successful person would consider easily attained and would even scold the poorer person for allowing to pass by. A good parent does not abandon their child for experiencing a small phase of rebellion or a bit of a cold shoulder, as the individuals in society should not be forgotten for desisting from finding a job or refusing to let the government help them. The good parent would understand how their child feels, or try to, and offer support to their child whenever they needed their help happily, letting them know that they'll always be there for the child regardless of their behavior. This is something that has taken me years to acknowledge and understand, but I believe that a family where the members are actually cared for and considered will always be better than the home where the less successful child is seen as not worth helping.

 

See, I used to be rather left, but that was merely because I used to be rather Idealistic. I realise that extreme left-ism doesn't particularly work in human society, atleast as it is now, and that realistically we do rely on different classes and hierarchies, economically, to create a sense of direction, a dream for the lower classes to attain.

Laissez-faire is flawed, and extreme capitalism is not the way forward, nor do I mean big, multi-national corporations are good for us; but competitiveness and earning money is the key, not giving people things.

 

Going back to your parent analogy, Socialism would act almost as a -too- caring parent, who gives their children whatever they want without giving them a method of earning it.

I'd prefer a more centrist method, balancing the two, so that it's more like a giving parent, that supports the child, while still pushing them for more.

 

We definitely shouldn't have a sudden change towards the left anyway; it would be a rather drastic change to our society that might just cripple us. There needs to be a rather gradual movement towards the left.

[Enrise]

My personal opinion on this regard is that there is no true system for politics that is even close to perfection. There most likely will never be one.

 

The only conceivable way to find such a system that works is to accept all human beings of ideologies, creeds, colors, sexual orientations, so on, so forth, and strive towards equality as close as possible. But as far as I'm concerned, such a possibility won't happen for a long time.

 

To be more on topic, I agree with many ideologies, so I would be more in the center. Think of the left wing and right wing politics as the wings of a bird, and the government body as the birds body. You need both the right wing and the left wing to allow the bird to fly.

[Smesh]

I'd like to keep it at least somewhat in the middle, because once you start leaning too much on a side, you become fucking annoying.

[Mehmani]

Apparently, everyone is a Centrist. That must be why none of the Western governments are getting anything done.

[Tourmaline]

I am wondering how many people here would sincerely support legalizing drugs. It could be because of how people are misled by that chart into thinking they are libertarians for merely the text....

[Enrise]

I am wondering how many people here would sincerely support legalizing drugs. It could be because of how people are misled by that chart into thinking they are libertarians for merely the text....

 

It depends on the type of drug. Obviously legalizing LSD, meth, etc., the real hard drugs that can kill you, I would not see legalized.

 

But the small drugs, like marijuana, if you wanna classify that as a drug, I would probably legalize.

 

 

I'm surprised no one has created Moon Sugar, Skooma, and Balmora Blue, along with other TES drugs, yet....

[swag swag swag swag swag s]

I am wondering how many people here would sincerely support legalizing drugs. It could be because of how people are misled by that chart into thinking they are libertarians for merely the text....

 

I am for support of making all drugs legal, except for the really dangerous once such as heroin and meth, though they have to be regulated and sold by the government.

[Mehmani]

It really does depend on the drug - you have functioning users of pretty much all drugs except crack. If the government legalized drugs and sold them from government-based outlets alone, then they could use all the proceeds to make sure that addicts could get treatment if they wanted.