How many of you have tried this? Go here, take the test and see where you stand:
I landed Economic Right: 2.12, Social Authoritarian: 0.31, which is a bit of a surprise since I consider myself more of a social libertarian by about the same margin.
I have a problem with this poll.
For example, check out the first question:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
The first problem is that it's a zero-sum game: it's either humanity or the corporations. Capitalists believe that, in a free-market, corporations are proven to be serving humanity by the fact that they're making profits. Where is the option for that?
The second problem is that 'humanity' is so hard to define. What does that even mean?
Third is that the assumption is, by clicking 'Agree', is that you're in favour of government intervention in the economy to gear globalisation towards 'humanity' or whatever they believe 'humanity' to mean, and gear your result towards economic left.
Most of these questions are absurd for libertarians to answer.
"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment" OK, so what does that mean if I agree with that? That I'm a liberal, conservative? My views on that don't really matter when it comes to politics because I don't want the government to intervene anyway.
I'm not going to take the test because the result will be misleading.
If you want to know, I'm economically right, and socially moderate, but I don't want there to be a government at all to intervene in these things.
The options are that you can strongly disagree right through to strongly agreeing.
Read the FAQs where they cover all your doubts about the test.
And if you don't know what humanity means . . .
I don't find the answer in the FAQ satisfactory - the ultimate assumption of the question is: "what part of society do you want government to benefit?". Since my argument is 'none', there is no answer for me on the question.
My point is that we all have our own idea about what is good for 'humanity', as is the point of political ideology. It's kind of like arguing: should we be in favour of good things, or corporations? Pretty dumb.
Don't think it too deeply - you obviously agree that EG should serve humanity, not strongly, but you do agree, you've just said so.
by BlissfulWriter5 years ago
Do you think people have become more selfish than say 50 years ago? By selfish, I mean more concerned for own self-interest and own financial benefits, rather than thinking of the community as a whole or doing...
by PrettyPanther4 years ago
This link was posted in another thread, to show that Barack Obama falls into the authoritarian/right economic and social sphere, contrary to what many people believe.http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012A year...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Tuesday that he thinks teachers unions should be banned from making political contributions because union leaders often negotiate contracts with Democratic politicians...
by Jimbo'daNimbo4 years ago
We have two major political parties that would seem to stop at nothing to get or keep power. This was highlighted to me when my son and I went to see The Campaign. Who do you feel is the least scrupulous? Please...
by LiamBean6 years ago
The Supreme Court recently voted 5:4 to grant corporations unlimited rights toward funding political activities. Should this sort of right be limited to living breathing citizens of the United States or should any...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.