Representing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Representing.[/quote]
Damn…I thought I’d be higher up and over right with all the verbal conditioning we receive here…but…
fucking thing equates libertarianism with anarchism, real nice
I dunno about this quiz. According to it, I’m almost exactly true neutral. I’m pretty sure that does not describe me.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Economic Left/Right: 7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
I beat Lifty and Orion…
I wonder what my scores would’ve been like four or five years ago…[/quote]
Some of these questions were loaded though.
The liberatrian answer would have been “Who cares?”.
It’s hard not to come out libertarian on the quiz – the “authoritarian” answers are all pretty extreme & icky.
That said:
economic left/right -0.12
social libertarian/authoritarian -6.67
which seems about right. I’m a moderate about the social safety net and really worked up about personal freedom issues.
I’m just going to pick out some of the more loaded questions. I think this test unfairly puts people towards the left economically and more towards the libertarian scale. I also reject tests that ask takers to distinguish between strongly agreeing and just agreeing. Either you agree or you don’t, or you have no opinion. Some of us operate on a different bell curve than others.
First Question:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Serving the interests of corporations will primarily serve humanity. The question is paradoxical.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
The beauty of a free market is that a company is free to choose its goals. I’m guessing strongly agree is the correct answer to place one more towards the right, but in actuality a free-marketer would allow a company to pursue any goals it wants. This question also oversimplifies by ignoring the goal of pure growth.
All authority should be questioned.
When dealing with the social sciences all absolutes should be rejected. (Yes, I get the irony.)
What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Again with the absolutes. I have to disagree with the statement on that basis alone, which I’m sure puts me more towards the left.
Final Score:
Economic Left/Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
This graph just made me laugh. The characterization of GWB is way off base. Based on the questions I answered, I would guess he would rank very close to myself on the authoritarian/libertarian scale, maybe slightly higher. This is clearly a poor attempt to paint him as a fascist.
His score to the right is equally laughable and is a clear attempt to portray free-marketers in a bad light. GWB did not govern with any sense of free-markets and likely would have scored a negative number on this scale.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I’m just going to pick out some of the more loaded questions. I think this test unfairly puts people towards the left economically and more towards the libertarian scale. I also reject tests that ask takers to distinguish between strongly agreeing and just agreeing. Either you agree or you don’t, or you have no opinion. Some of us operate on a different bell curve than others.
First Question:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Serving the interests of corporations will primarily serve humanity. The question is paradoxical.[/quote]
Actually the question is framed as a false dichotomy: Corporations are only served if they serve the consumers and vice versa. It is not humanity versus the corporations but rather corporations and humanity serving each other. Are not humans part of the make up of the corporations, after all?[quote]
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
The beauty of a free market is that a company is free to choose its goals. I’m guessing strongly agree is the correct answer to place one more towards the right, but in actuality a free-marketer would allow a company to pursue any goals it wants. This question also oversimplifies by ignoring the goal of pure growth.[/quote]
And in all actuality a company can only deliver a profit to its shareholders if it serves its customers properly – or if they can get special favoritism from government. In a free market delivering profits to shareholders would be a sufficient criteria for being responsible. In a fascist economy like the US has, shareholder profits do not necessarily prove anything.
[quote]
All authority should be questioned.
When dealing with the social sciences all absolutes should be rejected. (Yes, I get the irony.)[/quote]
Isn’t democracy just a “legitimate” process for questioning authority? If people think authority shouldn’t be questioned but they vote then they are in fact not acting in accordance with that principle.
Though, to admit my bias, I am not in favor of using democracy to order society and I am still in favor of questioning “authority”. How does any person claim to be an authority over us in the first place?
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13
You don’t know much, do you?
Just one example should be enough:
“Trade union leaders in the United States have said they are suing the soft-drinks company Coca-Cola for allegedly hiring right-wing death squads to terrorize workers at its Colombian bottling plant.”
http://www.killercoke.org/report.htm
“The findings of the New York City Fact-Finding Delegation on Coca-Cola in Colombia support the workers’ claims that the company bears responsibility for the human rights crisis affecting its workforce. To date, there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola’s workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured. Union members have been fired for attending union meetings. The company has pressured workers to resign their union membership and contractual rights, and fired workers who refused to do so.”
Yay, capitalism.
Yes, don’t they know that words mean whatever you want them to? Hence you calling yourself an anarchist.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:I am not sure the person who wrote this test knows what libertarian is.
Yes, don’t they know that words mean whatever you want them to? Hence you calling yourself an anarchist.
[/quote]
Their questions are loaded.
I would have answered most questions with “none of the above”-
The trick is to have a personal and a public opinion, and my public opinion makes me a libertarian. They should have a second question to every question, “do you want your opinion to be forced on other people?”.
The very idea that everything should be a matter of public policy is deeply unlibertarian.
True, but that wasn’t really my point.
[quote]orion wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Economic Left/Right: 7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18
I beat Lifty and Orion…
I wonder what my scores would’ve been like four or five years ago…
Some of these questions were loaded though.
The liberatrian answer would have been “Who cares?”.
[/quote]
Very true.
[quote]orion wrote:
The very idea that everything should be a matter of public policy is deeply unlibertarian.
[/quote]
People have a hard time wrapping their heads around this idea. They’re programed to think the default is for the government to do “something.”
You’ve said it before, the most annoying part of being a libertarian is having everyone assume that just because one doesn’t want the GOVERNMENT to do something doesn’t mean one doesn’t want ANYTHING being done.
Economic Left/Right: 5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
No real surprises here…
mike
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yay, capitalism.
[/quote]
Yes, and we’re all to aware that organized labor would never consider the use of violence. Pacifists all.
mike