The Political Compass - Where do YOU stand?

Didn't know what to expect.

 

Well, Authoritarian is believing in larger and controlling government, and Libertarian is believing in smaller government with more human rights. The extremes of those sides being Dictatorship and Anarchy respectively.
Left wing is supporting Equalism and even wealth/opportunity to all, etc. Right wing is supporting order of things, distinction of classes etc. The extremes of those cases being Communism and "Neo-Liberalism" (as Nitrous's provided graph puts it) respectively.

 

Haha! None can match my Neo-liberal ideals! I'm the furthest right and libertarian (...almost) so far.

Looks like you're a democrat haha. Maybe its time you examine what you believe. I mean both are similar don't get me wrong. But its a shame to ever call oneself by party. That shows me you haven't put much thought into it and you are more "leftist" than you thought. You are actually further left than Obama.

 

I never feel comfortable strongly agreeing or disagreeing with anything. I think that's why most of us are a little to the left or a little to the right. :/

 

Woah, did.not.expect.that.

 

I thought exactly the same thing... I am the most extreme conservative Republican I know...

That is because regardless of what the politicians, Obama specifically, *supposedly* believe, that isn't what they practice. He publicly has some of the most extreme leftist ideals in the U.S. to date.

 

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.79
I didn't feel like putting the chart in so i put the coordinates in. If i had a picture it would be up a little and to the left a little.

 

i did this before, i'm a libertarian through and through. screw taxes and big government!

 

Thanks for the insight... the political compass would indicate otherwise. Remember, spending isn't necessarily a leftist thing to do. W. did the same thing.

 

I'm actually not surprised where I ended up.

 

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not...

Spending might not be leftist, but taxing the heck out of hard working Americans and ruining small business sure is. That and the load of "pro-environment" legislation, designed to create even more taxes...

 

It isn't the horizontal axis that determines government spending and taxes, but the vertical one. The more the government interferes with daily life, the more likely it is that they'll be needing more taxes in order to pay for it. My Democrat mayor wants a rail transit system in Honolulu similar to BART, and because of it will increased the general excise tax from 4% to 4.5%. Under Bush, federal spending increased by 28.8% in three years. Both parties blanket America with a shallow fog of more and more interference.

In any case, Bush's plan was to cut taxes while increasing spending, so that's why we're at such a deficit. You cannot blame the liberals on that one, for once.


In short, the test placed me in the correct general direction. Instead of increasing taxes to pay for increased government spending, the government should be decreasing government spending for decreased taxes. That's my thought, anyways.

 

Haha. High taxes don't necessarily indicate whether or not you are a conservative or liberal. In America it does but that's because we have a false dichotomy which is why you believe I was being sarcastic.

Take for example Hitler. He was on the right side of the economic chart but during his reign he nationalized many industries and businesses and followed Keynesian economics.

I'm the furthest right on the economic scale to take the test and I believe in environmental regulation so obviously that's not a reason to be leftist.

Creating new forms of taxation is not leftist; conservatives created the income tax in America.

A genuine free market would stamp out small businesses. Regulation of the economy is a preventative measure to the reduction of small businesses. Leftists preserve small businesses (not that that's a good thing). Your talking point fails.

Please, don't debate me if you don't know what you're talking about. Everything you said was incorrect.

 

He isn't expressing an opinion and saying that international companies should be able to monopolize the economy; he's saying that in the genuine free market situation, that is what would happen.

Incidentally, I view freedom of the economy similar to how I view freedom of individuals. Having a genuine free market is as destructive as having a complete anarchy. There will always be people to **** up your utopia.

You have freedom, but not the freedom to make others less free than yourself. However, with the socialist ideal, it's that you have freedom, and it's your responsibility to give others the same freedom as yourself. In effect, freedom (and the fiscal analogy it stands for) would spiral downwards.

For you all to think about pro tempore, there's this analogy I thought up (I'd like to try to perfect this, so input and criticizm of inaccuracies would be nice); the rider (government) needs reigns on his horse (citizens, economy) in order to go where he and the horse need to go, but the horse needs to be able to stop its rider from telling it to run off a cliff. In the worst-case scenario where the rider is a complete moron who doesn't understand where he's going or how he's directing the horse, then the horse needs to buck him off.


Here's my question. What if the horse is the idiot? What if it's about to blunder stupidly and stubbornly off the cliff? What should the rider do to course-correct?


On the other hand, what if the horse is being chased by a wolf? In the horse's and rider's state of frenzied panice, how should they both act together to escape to safety?

I was under the assumption that Nitrous was talking to Kratos.

 

Though I might not know as much as you, I still have a good understanding of how the economy works and how politics works too.

The income tax was originally created to help pay off government debt. It was a low flat-rate tax, and applied to everyone. The modern system of taxes uses tax brackets, which first came into use with Progressive party in the United States. The Democratic party today has plans to re-evaluate the tax brackets so that the "highest 25%" (or highest 50%, because the percent changes and they really don't want you to know who will pay more) of incomes will be much more severely taxed than everyone else, as an attempt to redistribute wealth in a quasi-socialist way.

That depends on the type of environmental regulation you want. If you want legislation that forces large corporations to either shut down or pay exorbitant and outrageous "clean energy" taxes, then yes, that is liberal legislation designed to fight big business.

In a free market situation, a monopoly will only form if the company has too much scarcity power, and no one can do the job better and at a lower cost. As long as someone can do the job more efficiently and at lower cost, the small business will eventually overtake the large one. Also, there is no guaranteed way to completely eliminate competition, there will always be a business trying to produce a good or deliver a service more efficiently.

 

I'm on the side of communism, which I totally agree with.

I'm nearly Gandhi, whom I also agree with.