These are my results. Apparently I'm closest to Ghandi: Econ Left Right: -7.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
I ought not claim to speak directly for any self-ascribed anarcho-capitalist, since I am not one in realistic terms. But, I believe an an-cap would take issue in a claim that their (idealized) system would promote hierarchy - given that they have the right to both engage in employment, or, should they change their mind, withdraw from such a contractual agreement - as it is their right to do so. Now, whether that will work in anything but theory is debatable. Any non-ideologue can poke holes in it. But anyways, provided the necessary qualifications to realize an ideal, I assume your typical an-cap is not so much concerned with a "right to work free of inherent hierarchy" so much as they are with the equal-rights of a worker to freely associate with companies in regards to employment and in so doing exercise full control over their own selves and their abilities to become employed. Anyways, I am anti-authoritarian in regards to social issues. That's my realistic position. I.e., viva la revolucion. Give me anything in those lower two quadrants, and you can expect my cooperation in the overthrow.
Political Compass Printable Graph It's a little disheartening to hear that people speak so poorly about right-winged parties and ideologies . I hope I don't seem like a freak on nature but economically I am right-winged. I hope I'm not completely insane; my social views are liberal )))).
Boy, I sure can math good... I said "any points (x, y) such that x >= 7, -10 <= y <= 10 belong to what I call the Kill Zone." What I meant was "any points (x, y) such that y >= 7, -10 <= x <= 10." I don't hate you, Hudson. More like your Mugabe, Stalin, Hitler, Netanyahu types.
Your views are just that It would suck if we all were like minded. Politics is like sports though. People on other teams are gonna talk smack about yours. I wouldn't read too much into it. Also, my only issue with the test is this: So most of the time people are going to disagree with a question if they don't like any of the answers. If you disagree with every question on the test, you will be past 9 points toward libertarian. Sure it's a direction I like, but it means that the test is still unfair. What's worse is, it's balanced left/right perfectly in that respect, so the test designers at least are probably aware of the bias. I agree with slanting questions, the way they're asked, given what's being tested. But stacking the deck as far as scoring is a different animal. But I think a "don't know" option would give way more accurate results on some questions and would avoid this problem. EDIT: OMG 666 posts! Run guys!
I can see your point, Cassie. However, I also think it's problematic because of the way the propositions are intentionally slanted. For example, a proposition like: 'My race is inherently superior to other races' - well that's a clearly racist statement. What if you agree with it? You don't want to be racist! So, you click "Don't Know" to cover up your own bias... even though in reality you'd be more inclined to click "Agree". Giving someone a "Don't Know" option is offering them an easy way to, as they said, duck difficult issues. It's understandable for certain issues like globalization. Someone taking the test might not even know what globalization is, but when it comes to the social issues? I'm not sure if that's needed. But yeah, that's the major flaw I see in offering "Don't Know" as an option, due to the questions being slanted, people might choose that option to avoid agreeing with something that just sounds awful when you see it written in black and white.
As a centrist, I'd argue that x>7 is just as 'damaging' to society as y>7... it's just that there are many, many people within x>7 nowadays so it's not seen as extreme as Stalin etc. I know that the 'average' position of different countries' governments shouldn't be in the centre of the compass as it's an absolute measure rather than a relative one, but surely the content of the questions themselves should? Being against LGBT rights wouldn't be seen as particularly authoritarian 100 years ago, but would be very much so now. The same goes for being against discrimination of incest (I'm not comparing being LGBT to incest entirely, just saying they've both been stigmatised), although I doubt there's a revolution happening there anytime soon.
Not a fan of the options that were available for each question. Politics isn't as clear cut as four choices. Anyway, my results aren't too far off of what I expected. Economic: 2.12. Social: -0.82.
That's because they weren't questions. They are propositions that are intentionally biased, which are used to gauge your gut reactions. I mean, I should hope that everyone here had a strong natural negative reaction to the proposition: 'My race is inherently superior to other races'. For me, I went with strongly disagree. However, there are certainly people out there who wouldn't have my strong visceral reaction to that type of proposition. There are even going to be people who agree with it, and think to themselves, "Of course my race is superior to other races. We built Western Civilization, doesn't that prove it?" In the end, the reason your results are roughly where you expected them to be is because you answered the propositions honestly. The propositions are supposed to get a reaction (either positive or negative) out of most people who have a strong feeling on certain issues that they addressed. That was the point.
