|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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.
A year or so ago, a group of my family and friends took this test and compared notes. Quite a few were surprised at where they landed on the economic/social spectrum. Here is my result:
Anyone else want to take the test and share their results? It could be interesting, I think.
The website includes an analysis here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
You can take the test here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Just did. Same result as I had a few years ago. My politics fall into a very narrow band - same as Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.
Only some called Stewart Alexander apparently represents me in the US.
I am closer to Ghandi, who is further left and more libertarian than either Mandela or the Dalai Lama.
Yeah, who is Stewart Alexander, anyway? Google, here I come.
Libertarian left, pretty much in the same spot as you PP.
Really cool test, it was fun. Answers to Many of the question though really depended on circumstances.
My test results were a dead bulls eye, right in the middle
Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67
Im going to vote for Gary Johnson, but it says I have more in common with Rocky Anderson.
Their description of obama is spot on, but it shows how people are so partisan or such fanboys, that they ignore everything he actually does.
Interesting test. I scored in the lower left quadrant, slightly to the right of you.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printab … ;soc=-5.85
He's a socialist...
I find that interesting because neither Mandela nor the Dalai Lama could be considered socialist.
My politics are about a level playing field for all (fairness), being humane, and getting everybody to be part of the solution. I think that there are ways that can be achieved, and that it would take a generation or two starting with excellent education for everybody.
Interesting test. The questions were a bit odd, but answerable.
I'm 5 squares up from the bottom and 2 in from the left side in the green square. No political names listed in my vicinity.
I'm slightly-right, moderately libertarian.
According to that site, of course. I'm not sure how accurate their test is. I always hate things like that, so much is left up to interpretation in questions, and there isn't always a good fit for your viewpoint.
I agree. It's just one test. Another could have a different result.
It also depends on how one answers the question. Not to mention, how the questions are put into context. Many factors would change many positions.
I first saw this test several years ago. I've completed it in many different moods answering in a manner that suits my mood at the time.
The results are always very similar and close.
If you guys want to try this test, to confirm your results.
I got 100% personal, 90% economics.
This one puts me as an ever so slightly left libertarian.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%
Apparently, that is defined as Left Liberal.
*frown* I consider "liberals" in the UK to be fairly far to the right of the spectrum. The term "left" does not apply to them. It certainly has applied to me for as long as I have had political opinions.
It called me centrist/left/libertarian.
Again, much too vague to be useful, but this one is worse.
Ok. I decided to take it seriously. Here's my result.
I know, I think I'm funny, but I'm not.
I was amused
I really like the four way chart because people don't consider it often enough and just put themselves as left or right, even wrote a hub about it.
Out of curiosity what did people think of the Obama opinion? I am not sure it was ever responded to where I originally posted it.
The first question really bothers me:
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Well yes, I agree, that doesn't necessarily mean I specifically want government to 'serve humanity'.
I'm not going to play the test because the questions make assumptions about particular political beliefs, like that all right wingers think their race is better than others. The front page, on the 2012 election is also going in the wrong direction when it considers Obama and Romney indistinguishable because they are both right-wing, which leads me to believe the site promotes a left-wing political ideology anyway. They are both authoritarians, that's the real crime here.
So if anybody wants to know my political beliefs:
We have the right to our life, liberty and property, and any individual or institution who attempts to take that away from another is committing an act of violence. The best way to reduce violence is to reduce the size of the state as it builds itself on violence, by the procurement of taxes, and then uses this money to enforce a value system upon the population. The most practical, humanitarian and ethical societal system is a system of voluntary cooperation and exchange.
If anybody wants to put that in 'left' or 'right' good luck, but I'm sure my spot would be right down the bottom of the graph.
Anarchist social Darwinist, bottom right, the site is correct in listing them both as right wing in a global perspective and it does put both of them up pretty high on the authoritarian scale.
Social Darwinist? Well, I believe that in a free-market individuals who contribute to society, and provide for the needy by offering services, will be rightly rewarded, yes. Capitalism doesn't necessarily need to be as cold as social Darwinism. It doesn't prevent people like yourself helping others less fortunate than you of your own free will. There is nothing to say a welfare system couldn't be put into place either, providing that all money put in it is contributed voluntarily.
Let's do this back to front and start with your statement that "we have a right to our life, liberty, and property." Says who? Certainly Mother Nature never bestowed that 'right' on anybody. The law of nature is survival of the best adapted.
However, civilized law bestows 'rights' on people. If the law didn't bestow rights on people, they wouldn't have any. There's no such thing as an 'automatic right' just because one is human. And when you speak about 'we,', who exactly is 'we?"
Next you say "The first question really bothers me:"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.Well yes, I agree, that doesn't necessarily mean I specifically want government to 'serve humanity"
I'm awe struck. Why, exactly, would you not want government to serve humanity? Isn't democracy based on 'government for the people by the people?" Aren't people of all shapes and sizes considered to be part of humanity?
If you're saying that you consider only Americans to be worth governing, then, I'm afraid I disagree with you. So would a great many people. America's 'good', or the good of any country, should not come at the expense of any other person or nation.
In fact, unless we (everybody in the world) learn to temper our needs so that everybody can get a bit of the pie, we are headed for extinction.
Why would we be headed for extinction?
Because people are not rational beings. They have feelings of anger, frustration, and indignation. When pushed too hard, they get violent. It's called terrorism, civil war, class war, and all sorts of things. And at this point, we have the technology to destroy ourselves - whether viral warfare or nuclear warfare. Don't kid yourself that the little people can't get hold of these weapons. There are a lot of corrupt money lovers who will sell this type of technology to anybody. If you think that America can avoid all this, you're highly mistaken.
We either work together in this world or its the end of the species.
And, yes, the test is accurate. Obama is on the right. I knew that from before he was elected. It always fascinated me that people thought he was on the left. He is a good guy, though...
You might like to read my ebook series, "Civil War 2012" by Tessa Schlesinger, available as ebooks on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. They deal with exactly how it is possible we will destroy ourselves as species with America leading the way...
The right to our life, liberty and property is proven through deduction, assuming that the individual is responsible for (owns) his own life. To argue otherwise is to argue that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you, which then demands an answer to what that person has done to claim responsibility for something he has nothing to do with. To claim the right to yourself is to protect yourself against murder, theft and slavery. We assume that murder, theft and slavery is wrong because we have a right to our life. We are also responsible for (own) our actions, and this is why we take the offender to court, and not the victim or anybody else. This is true despite any government. To say otherwise simply doesn't make sense. Gravity isn't bestowed by government, and neither should natural rights.
What you say later can shed some light on it too: who is responsible for all of these irrational beings? Other irrational beings claiming property from them? If we assume they are rational, they have to be voted in . . . by these same irrational people you trust so little. It is because human beings are irrational that makes it important that none of these are given violent power over any other. What makes you so special as to know what everybody in the world should do? There is no consistent argument in favour of that.
It is also important to make sure that everybody can get access to these kind of weapons so that there is not an unfair advantage. Governments take responsibility from the populace to wield these weapons, and then go right ahead and use them anyway, usually against countries who can not fire back. Wouldn't it be a lot safer if there was some kind of incentive to NOT use them? Of course, if you're in favour of gun control you might not understand that.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It is nothing like 'for the people, by the people'. If there was some kind of consensus on what was necessary to run the world, we would go ahead and do it, we wouldn't need to enforce it upon a population. If a group of people want to go to other countries and build infrastructure there so that they can succeed, go right ahead, just so long as you don't force anybody to do it or steal money from people to finance it.
Concerning Obama: I wasn't disputing the notion that he's on the right (right and left matter little to me), I was disputing the assertion that it is because he is on the right that makes the two party system a sham. The two party system is a sham because both representatives are authoritarians.
I hail from Africa. If you are in the middle of the jungle or on a reserve, I can assure you that no lion will respect your right to life. You either fight for your life or you run, and you probably wouldn't get far without a weapon. And if you were too close, there probably wouldn't be enough time to load a gun. There is no right to life. There is only the endless battle for survival. It is the rule of human law that guarantees these freedom - not Mother Nature.
Your picture of the world is too small; you assume that there is only civilization. It's not that simple. We live in a very large world, and the human species is only a very, very small part of it. There is nothing special about it - unless, of course, you believe God made you and is looking after you and granted you all sorts of special privileges. I'm an atheist. I believe we're just another species and it's the survival of the best adapted. And that if we, as a species, do not learn to live together peacefully, we will all drive ourselves into extinction within the next few hundred years.
The test is far broader than just about simple political beliefs. The test takes into consideration values.e.g. the question about whether government should be for the good of humanity or the good of corporations is really asking you if you're a person who believes might is right or whether you believe all people are entitled to a piece of the pie. You need to look at the depth behind the question.
Quote from you. "What you say later can shed some light on it too: who is responsible for all of these irrational beings? Other irrational beings claiming property from them? If we assume they are rational, they have to be voted in . . . by these same irrational people you trust so little. It is because human beings are irrational that makes it important that none of these are given violent power over any other."
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I did not say people are irrational. I said - what science has proven repeatedly - that most people fear authority and will do whatever it takes to protect their interests. That's not irrational. It might be unethical in that it does't look after the greater good, but nowhere did I say that was irrational.
"What makes you so special as to know what everybody in the world should do?"
Where did I say that I'm special? I believe that my life is no more than a microbe in the Universe.
You need to go and read what I said again. You response is completely unrelated to what I said.
The fact that some species would like to take your life from you does not mean that the right to life does not exist in the first place. One has the right to protect one's self. I have no idea how it proves that only government can grant that right either. The right exists therefore it has to be protected. It says in the US constitution that these rights are self-evident, and that the government should serve to protect them. Our argument is whether the global government should do it or not (I think), not whether the right actually exists.
I never said we are special. I never said we shouldn't work together peacefully.
There is no depth behind the question. It is shaped to it is a kind of no-brainer: r u 4 ppl or r u 4 corporations? No one but the most staunch crony-capitalist would say that the interest of large corporations is more important than people. It's just silly really.
I'm saying: Hey, I'm for people, that doesn't necessarily mean I want government running things all around the world (especially not the American government!). This answer is not available in the options, so I'm not going to take the test.
As for this argument about the question in particular - I'm not sure where your difference is. I got from your first reply that you're in favour of global governance "Because people are not rational beings.". If I'm confused here, please elaborate. You didn't seem to say anything about fearing authority. I say "what makes you so special?" because by asserting authority over those 'irrational beings' you are claiming a right to their lives above them, and for that to happen you need to be different from them in some way.
"The fact that some species would like to take your life from you does not mean that the right to life does not exist in the first place."
Actually, it does. If something is an automatic right, then nothing threatens it. The reason why it is enforced by law is because it is a man made construct.
" It says in the US constitution that these rights are self-evident, and that the government should serve to protect them."
Um, what on earth has the US constitution got to do with evolution and the human species? Do you think that the US constitution dictates the behavior of primitive tribes in the Amazon?
"Our argument is whether the global government should do it or not (I think), not whether the right actually exists.:
Aha! So that's where you projected your mindset on to what was being said. It wasn't talking about global government.
The exact quote is: "
"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Economic globalisation already exists. It has nothing to do with a one world government. It just means that all the countries trade with each other. The question is whether when all countries trade with each other, it should it benefit the individuals of all nations or whether it should benefit the few people who own the corporations.
"I never said we are special. I never said we shouldn't work together peacefully." No, you didn't. You asked me who I thought I was to think I was special and I said that nobody was special, ergo, I'm not special either. Obviously, you jumped to the conclusion that I thought I was special. I would really like to know why. I have as much right to an opinion and to write as I see fit as anyone else.
"As for this argument about the question in particular - I'm not sure where your difference is. I got from your first reply that you're in favour of global governance "Because people are not rational beings.". If I'm confused here, please elaborate."
I think you don't know how to derive accurate meaning from what is being written.
My quote from my first post. "I'm awe struck. Why, exactly, would you not want government to serve humanity?
As the first question had absolutely nothing to do with global government but was talking about global trade, I was perplexed at why government should not serve people. This is all forms of government - whether local or centralized. The question had nothing to do with global government and it didn't even occur to me that you were thinking of global government. The question has to do with global trade (which has existed for at least 400 years in various forms of sophistication).
"No one but the most staunch crony-capitalist would say that the interest of large corporations is more important than people. It's just silly really."
Really? So how much the USA justice system made corporations a legal entity to enable them to contribute financially? And how come corporations have the same rights as people? This is American law.
"I'm saying: Hey, I'm for people, that doesn't necessarily mean I want government running things all around the world (especially not the American government!). This answer is not available in the options, so I'm not going to take the test."
I'm going to repeat. Go back and read that question again. It has nothing to do with global government and everything to do with global economics, i.e. global trade. That is why it mentioned corporations - not armies, senators, presidents, and governors!
"You didn't seem to say anything about fearing authority. I say "what makes you so special?" because by asserting authority over those 'irrational beings' you are claiming a right to their lives above them, and for that to happen you need to be different from them in some way."
It's difficult to know what you are saying here because the question is very badly phrased.
I think the meaning you got out of this test is very different to what others got. For instance, just with that first question, you interpreted it to be a one world global government whereas it had absolutely nothing to do with that and was talking strictly about global trade - which has been happening for as long as we've both been alive. The question was simply whether all the wealth should go to corporations or whether global trade should allow all members of the human species to prosper.
Then we need to go back to why I questioned the the question in the first place: I believed that the question assumes that if you agree that globalisation should serve the people, you're in favour of government performing that task, and if you disagree, you're in favour of corporate subsidies or whatever. If it is not about that, what is the point of it being there? What is right or left wing about that question? What is authoritarian and libertarian about that question? It's a false question.
And you're questioning natural rights, which begs the question: are you or are you not responsible for your own life? If you say yes, and still say natural rights do not exist, then you simply do not understand the concept. Rights do not have to be invincible to exist.
Maybe you could explain then. Where do these natural rights come from? How do you know what they are? You're confusing the is/ought. Just because there ought to be rights it doesn't follow that these rights just is. How can you establish that rights exist *naturally*, outside of human constructs?
It is certainly a human construct but it doesn't mean that they do not exist, and they can be proven, deductively. Almost every human on Earth accepts that we are responsible for our own life, and that is a given, or self-evident. I appreciate that is not enough for some people, so we need to ask whether it is consistent. If you (as an adult) don't own your life, who does? If you don't own your life, is it then okay if I go and kill you now? What gives me the higher claim to your life when I have nothing to do with you? If we accept that to say 'you do not have a claim to anybody else's life' is inconsistent, we have to accept that you are responsible for your own life.
Responsible for/own/have a right to.
These are rights that the US government was created to protect, not to give out to the populace, and thusly, for a short time, produced the freest and most successful country the world had ever seen. The government can not give rights any more than it can create a new law of the universe. It is when the Wall Street powered government decided to claim a right above the population of the world to their lives, liberty and property that ultimately gave us the situation we are in today: the police state, rampant miltarism, crony capitalism. There's a reason people believe this stuff you know.
"Then we need to go back to why I questioned the the question in the first place: I believed that the question assumes that if you agree that globalisation should serve the people, you're in favour of government performing that task, and if you disagree, you're in favour of corporate subsidies or whatever."
Firstly, there is a vast difference between the phrase, "economic globalisation" and the sole word "globalization." The word, 'economic' in front of the word 'globalization' defines what sort of 'globalization' it is. Economic globalization has nothing to do with a government directing trade.
Nowhere in the above question does it indicate that government should perform the tasks. That was your fuzzy logic.
What the above question is referring to is the ongoing debate (which you have obviously missed) about the extreme disparity in earnings between people at the bottom of a company and people at the top of a company. It is also talking about the fact that corporations are setting up manufacturing in countries that provide virtual slave labor and then selling the products in countries which offer the highest profit.
http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … -pays.html
http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … ou-of.html
http://capitalismandyou.blogspot.com/20 … w-you.html
Essentially, what this system is doing is creating a greater and greater imbalance between the rich and the poor. The middle class has all but disappeared internationally. With the disappearance of the middle class, we are entering a time of neo feudalism.
The question is asking whether you think that corporations should be allowed to benefit solely from what they are doing, or whether the countries and people from whom they are profiting should be allowed some of the money they earned. In other words, laborers should be paid more, consumers should be paying less for the products, CEOs should be paid a good deal less (not $25 million a year), and shareholders should be content with a smaller cut. That's the way it used to be in the 50s and 60s.
You are obviously unfamiliar with Robert Reich's books, and the growing disappearance of the middle class, the encroaching poverty internationally, with half of Americans (according to the 2009) census either living below the poverty line or on the poverty line.
So, no, the question had nothing to do with corporate subsidies or a one world government. You never understood the question because you haven't been reading about the ongoing debate of corporations now being richer than many countries, and the way they underpay staff and rip the public off.
"If it is not about that, what is the point of it being there? What is right or left wing about that question? What is authoritarian and libertarian about that question? It's a false question."
As I said, you never saw the depth of the question, otherwise you wouldn't be asking me 'what is left or right about the question?'
The question assumes that if you think it's okay for corporations to have money as the bottom line, and that it's okay for people to earn 'wage slavery' wages, that you're on the right, and if you believe that there should be a more equitable division of the money made by corporations (workers are better rewarded and CEOs earn less) that you are on the left.
"And you're questioning natural rights, which begs the question: are you or are you not responsible for your own life? If you say yes, and still say natural rights do not exist, then you simply do not understand the concept. Rights do not have to be invincible to exist"
Having rights has nothing to do with whether one is responsible for one's own life or not. That's fuzzy logic.
Of course, we're responsible for our own lives, but that has absolutely nothing to do with 'rights' which are a legal construct made by humanity. There is no such thing as a natural right. 'Rights' are a legal construct.' This means that they are a set of laws constructed by man to ensure that everybody flourishes and is kept safe. They do not exist in mother nature.
Personal responsibility means that when events and life happens to us, we sort it out. It means that we don't expect others to do it for us. In fact, if anything, 'rights' can remove personal responsibility from us. Let me demonstrate that to you.
If you say that we have a right to life, property, and whatever else, you are saying that someone else has to provide that for us because we're entitled to it.
Here's the rub: Yes, yes it would be lovely if workers didn't have to earn slave wages. It would be wonderful if there was a better distribution of wealth. It would be brilliant if consumers had to pay less. I agree. However, who is going to perform the tasks of raising wages and cutting executive pay? The only institution with the power to do that is the government. I don't understand how you see this question going in any other way. Simply because it doesn't mention government doesn't mean it isn't about government. You don't need to patronise me, I understand exactly what the problems in this world are, I just don't believe the government is the institution that can solve them. "I believe that corporations should be ethical" is an empty statement without some kind of inclination as to what you would do about it. If you think that corporations should do it themselves, and click 'agree' you might be put in the 'left' category even though you believe in free markets.
"If you say that we have a right to life, property, and whatever else, you are saying that someone else has to provide that for us because we're entitled to it."
In some backwards way you have kind of explained why natural rights exist. I'm assuming that you believe that we have a right to life, but that it is granted by the government. That means that the government has to provide that right to the populace. Hang on a second, how can you give life to someone? People have their lives already, and by the same extension they have the right to their own lives already, unless an outside party takes that away. You have a right to what you have naturally, and the consequences of your actions/product of your labour, i.e. what would not have existed if you had not been born. The only way you can not have a right to your life is if it's taken away by an outside party, i.e. violence.
This is why one can not have a right to housing, or healthcare. We were not born with a house nor healthcare, so in order for everybody to have a house, someone has to build a house and give them away, and doctors must be forced to care. This is the removal of personal responsibility and it is violence. Natural rights can not do this, because every person is responsible for himself and his actions.
No society can exist with everyone just caring about themselves...
" The only institution with the power to do that is the government. I don't understand how you see this question going in any other way."
Um. Very easy. Government doesn't need to be in it at all. Here's a guarantee. If the people stopped shopping for bs goods for one month, every single corporation would be brought to its knees. It truly is that simple. That is what Occupy was about. It's not a hierarchical organization. It's an international movement that is saying that 'the people' are sick and tired of this! It's the only way to bring corporations into line. Stop buying from them. Of course, if the people are that materialistic, then it's never going to happen. They the only time they are going to realize that they don't need all this stuff is when they have truly become slaves...
"In some backwards way you have kind of explained why natural rights exist. I'm assuming that you believe that we have a right to life, but that it is granted by the government..."
The fact that we are born and get life does not mean we have a right to life. It simply means that we got born. We can die just as easily of TB or AIDS or anything else. There is no right to life. None of us understand how we got life and what it is. To assume that we have a right to life just because we are born is fuzzy logic. That's rather like saying that a bush fire has a right to burn just because it is burning. So next time you see a bush fire, don't protect your property because it has a right to burn exactly as it likes. To have a right means to be entitled to something. One might enjoy life. One might not want to die. One might believe that nobody has a right to murder one, but in no way do any of those beliefs give one the right to life. Life is a battle to survive - always was and always has been.
"You have a right to what you have naturally, and the consequences of your actions/product of your labour, i.e. what would not have existed if you had not been born."
Really? Cause and effect are the universal laws of nature. If one does something, there is a consequence. That is not a 'right.' It is the outcome of cause and effect.
One of the great difficulties right now is the number of young graduates who were taught that they 'have a right to a good job." Really? Mother Nature does not provide 'good jobs for graduates' and all their 'production' doesn't guarantee it either. Fuzzy logic.
Just an afterthought here.
When the US Constitution says that people have a 'right to life, liberty, and whatever else,' they have enshrined it in law. In other words it is a legal construct. By having a 'right to life,' I would suspect that they mean the US government will protect the lives of its citizens and see that others don't murder them. If, indeed, the writers of this piece of paper were thinking that people were entitled to life just because they were born, what can I say? Fuzzy logic?
"Here's a guarantee. If the people stopped shopping for bs goods for one month, every single corporation would be brought to its knees. It truly is that simple."
Hey, you should be a libertarian, you have some good ideas! The problem is, if you say 'Agree' to the question with your solution in mind, you're going to be put into the economically 'left' category, even though you'd propose a free market solution as above which suggests an economically 'right' category.
A right is not a guarantee, it is simply an assumption of what you own. You're still thinking in the same paradigm of legal 'rights' which define what people are entitled to. Natural rights are completely different, and actually exist in comparison to legal 'rights' that are simply acts of violence to give people what they want. A bush did not consciously burn itself so does not have the right to be burned, and you also have the right to protect your property. Congratulations, that's the worst analogy I've ever heard.
Do you actually believe humans should have a right to life?
"It would be wonderful if there was a better distribution of wealth. It would be brilliant if consumers had to pay less. I agree. However, who is going to perform the tasks of raising wages and cutting executive pay?"
It's desirable but not necessary to cut executive pay. A less regressive tax system is what is needed. The maximum rate should be increased to the pre-Reagan level, and obvious loopholes (e.g.,hedge fund operators) should be closed. Since Reagan there has been a huge redistribution of income in favor of the 2% and from the 98%.
Ralph... " However, who is going to perform the tasks of raising wages and cutting executive pay?"
How about "We, the people..."
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
If the people don't stand up collectively and object, then nothing will be done. Government is only a reflection of the will (or apathy) of 'the people."
That's what collective action for. We refuse to buy the goods. The prices will soon come down. We refuse to support the corporations until the salaries of the CEOs come down. We refuse to buy from corporations that are guilty of wage slavery.
Or are 'the people' too greedy and too entitled to give up some of their material (unnecessary) luxuries for the long term, greater good.
Remember, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
I don't disagree entirely. That is one of the objectives of the Occupy Movement, but I haven't heard much about them lately. That's what collective bargaining can accomplish, but government workers and private sector workers all over the country are losing their bargaining rights and many of the benefits previously negotiated thanks to the GOP.
Interesting site - I came out exactly where I would have expected
I've been thinking that I lean towards libertarianism, but I don't agree with the American Libertarian party on their economic policies.
Mine came out as a mirror image of yours, with the red dot in the green bit rather than the purple.
I agree with Innersmiff - the questions tend to make assumptions about the person answering them, based on the answers they give. Just because I think that corporations can be greedy, doesn't mean to say that I think more government regulation of said corporations is the way to fix the problem.
It's interesting but hardly surprising that most mainstream politicians fall in the top right hand quadrant (the right wing/authoritatian bit).
I find politicians on this particular chart to be dead center authoritarian(dead center at the top of the center line). Both sides want full power and don't give a damn what is in the best interest of citizens.
It's the citizens who haven't woken up to it is the problem.
You are right about the "dead centre" thing - it is actually a mistake to put people like David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Barack Obama et al in the top right. A true "top right" politician would be in favour of completely unregulated markets (capitalism in its true sense), but draconian laws on personal liberty (no free speech, tough regulation on sexual behaviour, drugs etc.) David, Angela, Barack & co. are really crony capitalists, not true capitalists.
Well I took it and came out just slightly right and below center.
Some of those questions are so highly rhetorical....not to mention whoever devised this actually believes that the advisers of this administration are highly conservative!
Thatcher was just below Hitler??????????
Not certain this test is not invalidated by the ideology of it's creator/s.
There are many of us who wouldn't argue with that!
That is of course many with personal experience rather than just exposure to right wing propaganda.
That's because the compass doesn't have a third axis marked "genocidal tendencies".
Whatever you might think about Margaret Thatcher, at least she didn't advocate mass murder.
No I thought it was absurd.
That's what you get when you are a Conservative.
You do know that she excused Pinochet's murderous ways by saying that he had to stamp out communism?
And how Is Hu Jintao leader of COMMUNIST China part of the Authoritarian right??
Being a fan of HP's more politically defined forums I feel it is important to show where I stand ideologically for the sake of transparency and credibility, and thus "respect" for all the American right-wingers that are lurking in the deep
So here you go >>
Bare in mind though, that I was taught to argue through facts, and I will keep doing so, even though I know you hate facts more than the government This is just to let you know that my facts will usually support the fore presented political views... so try to keep up cuz all of us "Lefties" hate ignorant BS !
As the person most to the right so far, I must say that people of different political persuasions generally believe they have the facts on their side.
the beautiful thing about facts is that they are what they are... one can sure as hell try to interpret them in accordance with one's own convictions, however if those interpretations are based on anything else except the facts at hand, those arguments tend to fade into stupidity. Sides are irrelevant in this context, empirical proof, logical deductions, and rational assumptions are the cornerstone of any factual discussion.
Here's the way they do politics in Jordan where they're apparently applying our 2nd Amendment!
In Korea they have to use Judo!
So, Ralph, do you think we need to abolish the 2nd Amendment?
No, I don't. But we need more effective laws covering the manufacture, sale and use of handguns, assault weapons and other large magazine handguns and rifles. This can be done within the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. States and cities should be free to impose reasonable restrictions which they believe are needed to reduce deaths due to handguns and other weapons. The regulations justifiable in a city such as Detroit should be different from a small town in Wyoming or Alaska. Employers, schools, government buildings, bars and restaurants should be free to prohibit patrons from carrying guns. If it weren't for the NRA a number of common sense changes in gun regulations and enforcement consistent with the Second Amendment would be possible.
by Tessa Schlesinger14 months ago
Where do you stand on the political compass?There is a site called Poltical Compass where you answer some questions and it gives you your exact location on the map. It's interesting. The map has four points - left,...
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be...
by Scott S Bateman23 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
by mio cid6 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to...
by James Smith5 years ago
This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end,...
by Susan Reid8 years ago
What is your biggest political aspiration for our country?Wanna write a hub about it?
Copyright © 2018 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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.