Take the test to see which political quadrant you inhabit

[Roy]

Have to give a big yup to everyone who pointed out the difficulty of writing an unbiased test. However, I like being in the same quadrant as Gandhi.

[emo_pinata]

If you think that’s bad you should see the placement compared to 2008:

They have basically thrown darts at a wall when it comes to other people for a long time now.

2012:

[Fang]

No, the test is utterly broken, I prefer Hillary to Sanders and I’m nowhere near the top right corner. I mean come on, do you think Hillary is more authoritarian than Mao?

(-4.5, -5.95)

[Fang]

BTW, me putting in answers as a strawman Hillary puts me at (1.75, -3.28). That’s picking stuff like Disagree to “If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.” It’ll be very interesting to see how the fuck you can get Hillary up there without being a complete loon. You basically need to start telling yourself Hillary secretly hates the gays and thinks women should stay in the kitchen, her national security opinions aren’t enough given there are only two questions that relate to it.

Heck, contrary to the chart, Ghandi wasn’t even that communist.

He thought it possible to convince capitalist and worker to cooperate instead of being in conflict: “I am working for the co-operation and co-ordination of capital and labour, of landlord and tenant … I have always told mill owners that they are not exclusive owners of mills and workmen are equal sharers in ownership. In the same way, I would tell you that ownership of your land belongs as much to the ryots as to you, and you may not squander your gains in luxurious or extravagant living, but must use them for the well-being of ryots. Once you make your ryots experience a sense of kinship with you and a sense of security that their interests as members of a family will never suffer at your hands, you may be sure that there cannot be a clash between you and them and no class war.”

[lolipop_jones]

I scored

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

which is surprisingly close to dead center on the grid, which in turn accounts for the fact that I am viewed as a foaming-in-the-mouth rightist here at BB.

But I’m delightedly surprised to learn that I’m more liberal than Hillary!

[Fang]

Also authoritarian/libertarian is flat out a wrong way to characterise the social axis of politics. Ask yourself this - are stronger laws against sexual harassment authoritarian or libertarian? Should a politician proposing laws against homophobic hate speech belong in the same location as a politician proposing laws against homosexuality?

[Medievalist]

@knappa

For example, one was about “some criminals” not being able to be rehabilitated. I’m sure that the number of these is strictly positive; hence “some”. However, “some” isn’t the same as “large enough proportion to decide policy”

I had exactly the same reaction, although you’ve put into words better than I probably would’ve. I’m certain that some criminals are physically damaged in ways that prevent rehabilitation (untreatable thalamic lesions, for example, don’t preclude criminality).

[Mister44]

Yeah, like I said, I wish there was more degrees or even a neutral reply. I did that flag test at home and it probably had a more accurate picture.

[Ziselberger]

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05

Lefty libertarian. Though I bristle at the term “libertarian” since I’m not some Ayn Randian. I am anti-authoritarian, though.

[anotherone]

Wow, I’m further left than the Scottish Socialist party.

[howard]

Me too.

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

[anon50609448]

I’ve received several challenges to the idea that I don’t want to be called a libertarian. I think at minimum to call a person “libertarian” that person must put some value on liberty itself. I don’t think I’m being too tied to etymology here. I guess I’d ask, do you disagree with this top-line summary from wikipedia:

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning “freedom”) is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.

And, if so, what part of if do you think needs to be corrected. If you think that’s a fair assessment of what joins various philosophies that could be called “libertarian” then I am not one.

@Lexicat

If we were to reframe ‘liberty’ as reproductive choice, freedom of religion, speech, and association. Would that make the political value of ‘liberty’ more sensible?

No, I’m 100% serious when I say I don’t value liberty for it’s own sake.

That’s why I used my example of the hypothetical other world where somehow having a law against abortion achieved good results instead of bad ones. In that world I would support a law against abortion.

We don’t live in a hypothetical world, we live in the real world. For me, the fact that we shouldn’t have laws against abortion or marijuana arises from the results those laws have, not from a principle of valuing liberty or autonomy.

@Freshhawk

You are getting confused by the American use of “libertarian” to mean a very small subset of right-libertarian combined with specific old economics ideas.

Not at all. As I said above, I think what joins various philosophies you might describe as libertarian is that they value liberty (freedom? autonomy?). I don’t.

@zikzak

Interestingly, though, many people who might be tempted to impose standards for social outcomes find that they are actually best promoted when everyone has agency to choose whether and how they pursue those social outcomes. These people are pragmatic libertarians.

I wouldn’t call that position a “pragmatic libertarian.” Designing a system to be robust in a world where liberty is a reality is not being oriented towards liberty. Just like people in earthquake zones build earthquake resistant houses. I don’t think of those people as “pragmatic earthquakarians”.

@Minnesotastan

Instead of placing you in a quadrant, the survey assigns you to a Political Typology group, using these categories:

Well, obviously this test is US-specific, but it put me as “Solid Liberal.” Of course I would never call myself a liberal. The only place I disagreed with my typology was on the question of whether the US should spend less effort overseas and focus on problems at home first. That question is a bit of a dog whistle, so I get so few “Sold Liberals” would say yes to it. But taking the question literally, I’m like, “Yes, maybe fewer foreign wars and more fixing racism at home would be good.”

ETA: I have literally no idea how this ended up being a reply to @Gyrofrog.

[armozel]

I would put Hillary Clinton closer to the center but still on the right at least on the basis that she and her husband were instrumental in the whole New Democrats movement of the mid-90s and so they’re more in line with the idea of mixing free markets with some kind of economic justice (albeit very tepid economic justice) while preserving some social conservative values.

[Lexicat]

Thank you for taking the time for the thoughtful responses. I also want to stress that I was not trying to assert that you should… I am so accustomed to libertarianism (in the sense that you described) as being part of the mix of political and social ethics and philosophies that I was intrigued. I think I will be munching on this notion for a while into my future, and so I thank you for that also.

[Lexicat]

Clinton is a war-hawk with a demonstrated history of advocating for anti-feminist, anti-poor and anti-black policies. I am not at all surprised she graded far right. That said, I get that her brand image is more centrist.

[Lexicat]

“The” social axis, or “a” social axis?

[the_borderer]

@anon50609448

I guess I’d ask, do you disagree with this top-line summary from wikipedia:

yes

@anon50609448

And, if so, what part of if do you think needs to be corrected.

The parts that refer to individualism, which exclude a large amount of libertarian socialism which is more collectivist leaning. That one difference changes the whole nature of libertarianism. It’s Wikipedia though, so if I change it, someone will revert it within minutes.

Look at how things are done in Rojava, not how they are done by Randians. Democratic Confederalism is the one of the few forms of libertarianism that is actually happening in the world today, and all of those forms are far to the left of the petite bourgeoisie authoritarianism that passes for libertarianism in the American right.

[Dustin_Dopps]

Considering that this test shows I’m pretty much a moderate, I think it’s safe to assume that I haven’t been swayed by the “right-wing media.”

I think both sides of the spectrum, at least here in America, put so much effort into demonizing the other side that they almost don’t even consider each other human. That’s really sad.

I can see why more liberal-minded people like Hillary. And I can see why the more conservative-minded like Trump. I think supporters of both of them are regular, flawed human beings who have good intentions (or at least believe they do…) but get lost in the weeds of ideology.

Please don’t assume that because I don’t support your candidate it means I am uneducated or less intelligent. That is the highest level of hubris and it’s not nice on a personal level. As I said, I dislike both of them and anyone else who is that ambitious and power-hungry. My preferred candidate for President would never run for office because they wouldn’t delight in control and power, thus they would find the whole idea odious.

[the_borderer]

Here’s some criticism of the Political Compass from libertarian communists.

https://libcom.org/forums/general/political-compass-24052015

I know it is difficult to write questions that are not open to interpretation, but surely it is possible?

[Gyrofrog]

@the_borderer

It’s Wikipedia though, so if I change it, someone will revert it within minutes.

More than that, Wikipedia (at least in its early years) tilted very heavily toward (the perceived American brand of) libertarianism; its cofounder identifies as such. I noticed it when some (non-Somali) editors asserted Somalia was some grand experiment in anarcho-capitalism. IIRC some of them were affiliated with a website dedicated to “Defending and Celebrating Somalis’ Freedom and Prosperity.”