Did you vote?

[Peet]

No, I'm too lazy/Not American/Too young/Otherwise don't matter

All of the above :)

Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82


Just read Animal Farm...I wonder if that influenced my score somewhat..

[Decimator]

No, bwansy.



According to the compass, Hitler was a centrist. Thatcher and Friedman were right-wing.

[Felix the Cat]

I would like to pop in here and point out that Bush is not a conservative. And also, right vs left is small government vs big government. Extreme right is anarchy, extreme left is communism. We conservatives essentially believe that government is a necessary evil, but we should keep it as small as we can so it isn't abused.

You need a military, and you need assurance of basic human rights.

Like hell right vs. left is small government vs. big government.

Both sides of the left/right spectrum in the United States advocate statism (big government). The left wants state intervention in the economy in the form of minimum wage, wealth redistribution programs, and the like. The right wants state intervention in the social lives of its people in the form of regulating what consenting adults may do in the privacy of their own homes, putting religious and moral education in public schools and religious documents and symbolism in courtrooms, and traditionally also favors economic interventionism in the form of trade protectionism as well.

Small government vs. big government is, by definition, libertarianism vs. statism.

A lot of Republicans are pro-business, anti-regulation libertarians; a lot of Democrats are pro-freedom, pro-civil liberties libertarians. A lot of Republicans are pro-"moral values", pro-religious interference in politics statists; a lot of Democrats are pro-welfare, pro-wealth redistribution statists.

[bwansy]

OK. My fault.

[Decimator]

First off, the government has no obligation to protect the well-being of those outside its borders. Hence tarriffs on incoming goods and such to protect from foreign competition.

Religious symbols have plenty of prededence for their inclusion in courtrooms also, much of our law is based on ancient religious law. Their value in such places is about as much as their weight in lead, however.

Religious education in classrooms has as much precedence as the people paying for it want to give it. Wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the government didn't funnel our money into failing education and instead allowed parents to send their kids to the private school of their choosing. Heck, I'd even be happy if the government took my money and subsidised whatever school the parents decided to send their kids to.

As for what consenting adults do in their own homes, I personally don't care. This is because I want the government to stay out of my affairs too.

Basically, I'm liking that compass lindir posted more and more.

[KDR_11k]

Note that the political compass redefines right as capitalism whereas it meant nationalism (everything for the Emperor) back when Hitler lived. He was considered far right by his contemporaries (even the followers of the Emperor). Socialist measures taken to pacify the populace don't count into a person's political stance, Bismark was considered a liberal and nationalist despite introducing social programs to weaken the support of the socialist and comunist movements. Also AFAIK Hitler was located much more to the right the last time I encountered the political compass. Since he probably didn't change his oppinion I suspect the compass was adjusted.

First off, the government has no obligation to protect the well-being of those outside its borders. Hence tarriffs on incoming goods and such to protect from foreign competition.

Until you figure in international treaties, that is. The WTO is supposed to create a free global market but in practice it will only put pressure on those who disobey the west while the west can do whatever it feels like to put the rest of the world at a disadvantage (see e.g. EU trade restrictions).

[Felix the Cat]

It depends on how you define "right".

The traditional "right" is conservative. Conservatism traditionally means wanting to stop change and to return to the ways of the past; since the term was coined in the mid to late 1700s, this has meant restoring more power to the monarchy or other strong form of central government. Bismarck was a traditional rightist.

The American "right" is associated with the Republican Party and with a strong, interventionist foreign policy combined with a pro-business economic policy and a resistance to increased personal freedom for its citizens. Ronald Reagan was an American rightist.

The political compass/Nolan chart "right" is associated with increased economic freedom. Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party presidential nominee, 2004) is a Nolan chart rightist.

These three uses of the term "right" are not even close to identical. Bismarck, Reagan, and Badnarik do not share identical or even remotely similar values. Heck, the Nolan chart right refers to a range of possible political views, because it says nothing about the degree of social freedom advocated, while traditional and American right refer to more or less a single position on the chart.

[Das Bruce]

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Seems about right.

[Felix the Cat]

Also, that test has an incredible liberal bias to it.

Case in point: question number one.

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

Sounds like a Socialist Internationale talking point, not a neutral statement! What if you happen to think that serving the interests of trans-national corporations is serving humanity? The question sets up a false dichotomy.

Regardless, I'll take it and edit in results.

edit. Case in point, my results.

Code: Select all

Economic Left/Right: 8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

They make pretty much no sense. I think that people have the right to life, liberty, and property, and that the government should only act to enforce those rights - pretty much the very definition of libertarianism. And yet I'm only 1/3 of the way down on the libertarian scale. On the other hand, I believe that the government should regulate businesses to protect the environment and encourage an open, dynamic marketplace through federal reserve monetary policy and through enforcing standards on advertising - hardly hard-right economic views.

edit2. I'm in almost the exact same spot as Friedman on that chart.