Your Political Compass

[JEC]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This is an interesting quick test that will tell you how you are aligned socially and economically. I am pretty close to center on economic issues, but I am a Libertarian Right.

Economic:
Left/Right: 0.13
Social:
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.38

[mrbiggs]

I'm a bit conservative economically, but a bit liberal socially, which is what I expected.

It's also pretty par for the course for future republicans, which is scary...


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

[ThatReallyHurt]

Interesting... admittedly, I didn't completely understand a few of the questions. But, I got:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Neat link, JEC!

Oh, and Paul Martin rocks.

[Have At You]

Holy smokes!

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95

Me, one of the more consistently Republican, conservative, voices from the wingnut Right.

Seriously, no joke, I answered everything honestly.

And I come out more of a Commie than Chirac and Shroeder, and as much an anarchist lefty as Gandhi.

[Inquartata]

Hmm. Curmudgeon mode enabled:

The test is very poorly designed. Quite apart from the fact that I don't think the political spectrum is a compass ( more of a circular continuum ), I was put off straightaway by the simpleminded bias of the very first question, which assumes that the interests of humanity and "transnational corporations" ( uh oh ) are by definition diametric opposites. When in fact the latter merely serve as agents of the market, which itself serves the interests of all in promoting the efficient allocation of resources and the direction of productive capacity. But of course, there's no answer fitting THAT viewpoint...

My faith in the relevance of the test was dashed. I didn't go any farther than that first question, I'm afraid.

[Maeve_Mari]

Hmm. Curmudgeon mode enabled:

The test is very poorly designed. Quite apart from the fact that I don't think the political spectrum is a compass ( more of a circular continuum ), I was put off straightaway by the simpleminded bias of the very first question, which assumes that the interests of humanity and "transnational corporations" ( uh oh ) are by definition diametric opposites. When in fact the latter merely serve as agents of the market, which itself serves the interests of all in promoting the efficient allocation of resources and the direction of productive capacity. But of course, there's no answer fitting THAT viewpoint...

My faith in the relevance of the test was dashed. I didn't go any farther than that first question, I'm afraid.

Ahhh, poor Inq. He must have landed on the left somewhere below Gandhi...

Reality Bites!

[ThatReallyHurt]

Hmm. Curmudgeon mode enabled:

The test is very poorly designed. Quite apart from the fact that I don't think the political spectrum is a compass ( more of a circular continuum ), I was put off straightaway by the simpleminded bias of the very first question, which assumes that the interests of humanity and "transnational corporations" ( uh oh ) are by definition diametric opposites. When in fact the latter merely serve as agents of the market, which itself serves the interests of all in promoting the efficient allocation of resources and the direction of productive capacity. But of course, there's no answer fitting THAT viewpoint...

My faith in the relevance of the test was dashed. I didn't go any farther than that first question, I'm afraid.

Well, yeah - but it said that there was no right or wrong answer. Ergo, there was no right or wrong question...

[Inquartata]

And yet you get results ( apparently ) like Have At You's...

When your results do not approximate reality, SOMEthing is wrong SOMEwhere...

[BrianH]

Notwithstanding Inq's critiques, I found it interesting and reasonably simple to answer the questions. Of course there were some ambiguous questions and loaded words, but what the heck. My results put me in the vicinity of the Dalai Lama and probably most Quakers.

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41

[Jason]

...the market, which itself serves the interests of all in promoting the efficient allocation of resources and the direction of productive capacity.

That's a bit simple and propagandist, if you'll forgive me. Nothing on earth "serves the interests of all."
And never, in history, has any market demonstrated the ability to promote "efficient allocation of resources". (Assuming, mind you, that you and I are understanding "efficient" in the same way.)
A belief in the perfection of a free-market system is just as silly as a belief in the perfection Marxist system. Both have neat ideological baggage that amounts to "this system will make everyone happy"--fairy tales.

[Jason]

Though, I should add, the "test" is crap.

[esskreemr]

Yep, me and the Dalai Lama
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

[Gav]

That's a bit simple and propagandist....

Good post.

He also neglects to consider that the primary reason for the existence of corporations (and I am referring back to the political compass' first question) is not to serve humanity but to make profit. There is no intrinsic reason why the two can't be in sync' (Google supposedly tries to be an eithical corporation for example) however the needs of one often outweigh the needs of the other.

And free markets can only regulate themselves, or rather are regulated by the consumer, when they are free. Protectionist policies, monopolies, cartels and the like act agin this idea. Inq' should realise this as he's defnitely been through basic economics classes.

Before anyone else says this, no there is actually nothing wrong with profit - humanity has been profitting, in one form or another, since we learned how to adapt the environment to ourselves.

Rep' to you Jason. A good post.

[Gav]

I seem to have swung to the left, and down, since the last time I took the test.

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

Like all of these sorts of tests, you're emotional reaction to the wording has as much to do with the end result as the question itself. It can't be relied on to be accurate, but I think it could give an indicator.

One of the problems that I have is that there is no "I do not feel strongly one way or the other. There were frequent questions where I had no firm opinion, and so, being forced to choose in one direction means that my results may have been skewed (explaining the difference between now and then). It possible also explains why some people came out unexpectedly in a different direction to expectations. It's an interesting test - aimed at kids - nothing more.

[Larrison]

Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

More right than left, more libertarian than authoritarian.. sounds about right. I'd quibble about some of the questions -- a few really are "well, that depends upon ...." questions. I'd put my score as easily +/- 3 in any area...

*Grins* and as long as we're quibbling on things. I'll argue with Gav that the primary reason for the existence of corporations is to make a profit. You can make very good profits without being a corporation, and there are corporations specially designed to be Non-profit organizations. Corporations exist to spread the risk from ventures around to a number of people, and to allow the continuity of doing something beyond that of one person's life or fortune. Non profit corporations (a specific class of corporations under US tax law) are specifically set up to accomplish something, but cannot make a profit for any of the individuals involved. The fencing sallee I go to for example, is set up as a NPC.

Similarly, you can set up a profit-making corporation with the specific goal that all profits are to be returned to XXXX social cause or reinvested in XXXX field. That's perfectly acceptable, although it doesn't return $ to any shareholder.

IMHO, in most cases blaming "corporations" for something isn't really correct -- you need to go after the key shareholders, and the corporate governance. As Gav points out there are corporations who make a big point of bieng good "corporate citizens". Whereas others are a bit slimy... which is usually traceable to policies put in place through their boards, the actions of specific executives, or what they are being pressured to by major shareholders.

It's interesting to note how the rise of large public pension funds (such as CALPERS and NYPERS), which have large union representation, and who in turn hold substanial ownership % of some large corporations have been changing how corporate governance is effected.

[Philistine]

{snip}I was put off straightaway by the simpleminded bias of the very first question, which assumes that the interests of humanity and "transnational corporations" ( uh oh ) are by definition diametric opposites.
{snip}

I didn't read the question as assuming they are diametrical opposites--merely that they are different. The question was:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Why do they have to be opposites--or even necessarily different in most respects? It's simply a question of which of two entities should be the focus--as an example add another entity to the list (say National Governments), the question is essentially the same--but clearly it can no longer be diamtrical opposites (by definition).

All that being said--the wording of the questions and the non-transparent scoring system does render this little more than a novelty.

I also found it hard to "strongly" agree or disagree with most statements (with a few exceptions).

FWIW:, my score:

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

--Philistine

[JEC]

I agree with most of the comments above. This is not the perfect test for one's political views, but an approximation. It provides a reflection of some economic and social viewed into a simple score.

[oso97]

I never realized how "middle of the road" I was on the traditional scale....

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.74

[jeff]

I agree with the other comments on this poll's limitations. While it's better than the almost-useless division of "left" vs. "right", it shouldn't be taken too seriously either. Sometimes putting numbers on things make them appear more scientific than they really are. I'm also not keen on "experts" deciding the scores of various political figures.

That said:

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

[akaiyuki]

I took that two yrs ago for my econ class. I took it again yesterday cuz my friend asked me to...
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
The only big change is that my economic left/right used to be about -4.5... mmm yeah... opposite corner of Bush.