Political Compass Scores/Libertarianism. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14784004
Apologies if this wasn't the correct forum for this post, I'm new here and I've only been following politics on and off for the past few years.

I'm wondering what people think of Political Compass questionnaires? To me, they don't seem very precise as there's zero room for nuance and many of the questions are very vague/ambiguous.

Either way, this was my political compass score. How would you classify me?

Does this mean I'm marginally Libertarian right on economics?
And marginally Libertarian right on a social scale?

Which political leaders mostly align with me on my score? Thanks for the feedback.

Image
#14784412
Thanks for the response.
Well, I looked up the definition of centrist and it seems fairly fitting.

Would I call myself a centrist right Libertarian as I'm marginally to the right of the center? Or are Libertarians and Centrists two different things?
#14784462
It might help if you told us what you actually believe. It is hard to give our views on what politicians you might like just from the far from perfect political compass.
#14784509
It depends on how you define, "libertarian."

Bill Maher, for instance, regards himself as a libertarian because he believes that there should fewer social controls over government, abortion and drugs are strictly in the domain of the individual's liberty, and that these rights should be enforced in part by government regulation.

Ron Paul calls himself a libertarian because he thinks the government should have a hand in ethical and reproductive rights of individuals, but out of the market.

Maher is to the left of Paul, because the political compass was invented by libertarians and they wanted another axis—as if anybody says, "I'm super authoritarian!"
#14785278
Decky wrote:It might help if you told us what you actually believe. It is hard to give our views on what politicians you might like just from the f
@Decky,

Ok, I'll use this site: https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conser ... l-beliefs/

Abortion - Liberal
Affirmative Action - Conservative
Death Penalty - Really tough one for me as I could make the case for both political perspectives. I'd say I lean toward Conservative though.
Economy - Don't feel firm enough on my decision, but probably Conservative.
Education - Never heard of "school vouchers" so no real opinion here.
Stem Cell Research - Liberal
Energy - Liberal
Assisted Suicide - Liberal
Global Warming - Too disinterested to research, but the general consensus seems to be that climate change is man made. If that's true, then I'm Liberal.
Gun Control - This one is incredibly difficult. I'm going with Conservative though. Tougher screening required.
Healthcare - Another incredibly difficult decision for me; I can see both sides of the coin. Not even going to try and answer this one without extensive research.
Homeland Security - Conservative
Immigration - Conservative
Private Property - Conservative
Religion & Government - Liberal
Same-sex Marriage - Largely indifferent as I don't think this matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I could make Liberal or Conservative arguments to accept or oppose. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I view marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Would prefer civil partnerships with all the same rights and protections awarded under law. Heavily against forcing a Christian baker to bake cakes for gays or forcing a priest to marry a same sex couple. I guess I'll go with Conservative.
Social Security - Don't feel firm about this one. Would need to review a lot of data to know for sure. Probably Liberal.
Taxes - Conservative
United Nations - Conservative
Terrorism - Liberal (If global warming is actually real, It's a much bigger threat than terrorism.)
Welfare - Conservative.

Overall, I'd consider myself to be an objective data driven person. I'll always side with whoever presents the best arguments and provides the most credible data to back their claims. Facts over feels here.
#14785467
Abortion - Liberal
Affirmative Action - Conservative
Death Penalty - Really tough one for me as I could make the case for both political perspectives. I'd say I lean toward Conservative though.
Economy - Don't feel firm enough on my decision, but probably Conservative.
Education - Never heard of "school vouchers" so no real opinion here.
Stem Cell Research - Liberal
Energy - Liberal
Assisted Suicide - Liberal
Global Warming - Too disinterested to research, but the general consensus seems to be that climate change is man made. If that's true, then I'm Liberal.
Gun Control - This one is incredibly difficult. I'm going with Conservative though. Tougher screening required.
Healthcare - Another incredibly difficult decision for me; I can see both sides of the coin. Not even going to try and answer this one without extensive research.
Homeland Security - Conservative
Immigration - Conservative
Private Property - Conservative
Religion & Government - Liberal
Same-sex Marriage - Largely indifferent as I don't think this matters that much in the grand scheme of things. I could make Liberal or Conservative arguments to accept or oppose. I'm a bit of a traditionalist and I view marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Would prefer civil partnerships with all the same rights and protections awarded under law. Heavily against forcing a Christian baker to bake cakes for gays or forcing a priest to marry a same sex couple. I guess I'll go with Conservative.
Social Security - Don't feel firm about this one. Would need to review a lot of data to know for sure. Probably Liberal.
Taxes - Conservative
United Nations - Conservative
Terrorism - Liberal (If global warming is actually real, It's a much bigger threat than terrorism.)
Welfare - Conservative.


You are a liberal.

I am using the term correctly of course not in the American sense. Pro-capitalism, limited government, economic freedoms for citizens, respect for individual rights, enlightenment values, separation of church and state etc.

In the US you would have to look up classical liberalism instead of liberalism to find like minded people as the Yanks have bastardised the English language to such an extent that social democrats call themselves liberals and the liberals call themselves conservatives and constantly go on about how much they hate liberals. :lol:
#14785483
Fennec wrote:Overall, I'd consider myself to be an objective data driven person. I'll always side with whoever presents the best arguments and provides the most credible data to back their claims. Facts over feels here.


Which, in my opinion, would make you a leftist. You know, one of those elitist academics that follows "facts," from scientists and books instead of how it feels. And then act all elitist because they know things.

Rightests have their own view on such things.



Regardless, I'd like to ask you a series of questions, without looking them up:

Define capitalism.

Define socialism.

Why did feudal people act differently than contemporary people?

Is it better for money to circulate in an economy, for people to collect as much money as possible, or to work to abolish money as a concept?

In regard to freedom of the press: NBC can reach a lot more people than you can. Do you have the same freedom of the press as NBC? Or does the fact that they can exercise this right and you deprive you of the right?
#14785489
In regard to freedom of the press: NBC can reach a lot more people than you can. Do you have the same freedom of the press as NBC? Or does the fact that they can exercise this right and you deprive you of the right?


Complete distraction for a sec (I encourage finnec to ignore this post entirely and just answer the questions to give us a good sense of his views)

TiG are there any intelligent responses to this problem from left-liberals? Not ones you agree with mind but at least some intellectual attempts at cracking it. I find it pretty problematic one to answer personally, always have. From the point of view that NBC definitely has more free speech than me in every practical sense.
#14785493
It's problematic on purpose. I am attempting to gauge whether the person answering the question believes in a definitive moral, ethical, or otherwise abstract conception of things or not.

Should the user come down hard one side or the other, then easily done.

If there's wavering, or qualified, there are follow-ups that can be used to clarify the position a little bit more.
#14785570
Decky wrote:
You are a liberal.

I am using the term correctly of course not in the American sense. Pro-capitalism, limited government, economic freedoms for citizens, respect for individual rights, enlightenment values, separation of church and state etc.

In the US you would have to look up classical liberalism instead of liberalism to find like minded people as the Yanks have bastardised the English language to such an extent that social democrats call themselves liberals and the liberals call themselves conservatives and constantly go on about how much they hate liberals. :lol:


Yeah, it gets kinda confusing, especially for people not as well-versed in politics. I've been accused on more than a few occasions by friends as being a "dirty Conservative", which I had a feeling wasn't true (not that I would even care if it was). Some of my views can be pretty radical, especially those on immigration and "diversity." But as I said earlier, when I read the definition of centrist, It sounds overall quite appealing to me and fairly in line with the way I think about things.

Edit: I should mention that I don't agree with many current Liberal perspectives as they're portrayed by the MSM and different political leaders. I don't agree with silencing dissenting opinions no matter how vile they may be. That seems to be a contradiction of free speech, which is a liberal principle, no? I don't think I even agree with hate speech laws.
#14785598
@The Immortal Goon,
The Immortal Goon wrote:
Which, in my opinion, would make you a leftist. You know, one of those elitist academics that follows "facts," from scientists and books instead of how it feels. And then act all elitist because they know things.

Regardless, I'd like to ask you a series of questions, without looking them up:

Define capitalism.

Define socialism.

Why did feudal people act differently than contemporary people?

Is it better for money to circulate in an economy, for people to collect as much money as possible, or to work to abolish money as a concept?

In regard to freedom of the press: NBC can reach a lot more people than you can. Do you have the same freedom of the press as NBC? Or does the fact that they can exercise this right and you deprive you of the right?


Well, I've never attended college or university, but I'm highly curious about many different things and I spend most of my free time researching whatever it is that I'm interested in. Most of my time has been focused on researching the impacts of immigration across the western world, and trying to make sense of our current political climate. SJW's, feminism etc. I never gave two shits before and in a sense I kinda feel that I was happier for it. The active suppression of free speech and the indoctrination of university students has me very concerned. Political correctness destroying western nations like Sweden etc. These are the things I'm primarily interested in from a political perspective.

Initially, It's often my feelings that lead me to read, listen to audiobooks, watch political commentary on YouTube or discuss political ideals with people who're more knowledgeable than myself. But I'm curious to see how many people feel the same way I do and seek to understand their justifications. I try to steer clear of any cognitive bias in my thinking. My own personal anecdotal experiences may be quite different from that of the general population. Trying to argue your perspective doesn't go very far when you say things like "It's just the way I feel" as opposed to, this is the way I feel and WHY. And sometimes the WHY isn't apparent without further investigation, or your response is so ill-conceived that you look like a bigot. When someone asks me a question or questions about things I'm passionate about, I prefer to have an answer as opposed to a guess.

1.) I have an unfavorable view of governments, so I'd prefer less intervention. I generally don't like being told what I can and can't do. Overall, I have no real firm unchangeable opinion on capitalism as an economic system, It's certainly not something I've studied extensively.

Capitalism/Socialism (my definition)
Socialism - The government owns the means of production, with the goal of making everyone equal financially. For the good of the group over the individual. Economic collectivism. (Punishing successful people.)
Capitalism - Private or corporate ownership of production. For the good of the individual over the good of the group. Economic Individualism.

Maybe this wasn't the answer you were looking for. I can probably try to define my stance further if you want.

2.) Why did feudal people act differently than contemporary people? Not knowledgeable here. No real position. Would need to look this up.

3.) Is it better for money to circulate in an economy, for people to collect as much money as possible, or to work to abolish money as a concept?

Collect as much as possible. Reward the talented hard working innovators\entrepreneurs of society. Those who sit on their ass and contribute nothing should get nothing. The latter sounds like communism. Yuck.

4.) From my perspective I have freedom of the press. It's called YouTube, Vimeo, Minds.com and various other platforms. Alternative news is growing, MSM is dying. The only difference is that I adhere to the guidelines of these platforms.
#14785623
Edit: I should mention that I don't agree with many current Liberal perspectives as they're portrayed by the MSM and different political leaders. I don't agree with silencing dissenting opinions no matter how vile they may be. That seems to be a contradiction of free speech, which is a liberal principle, no? I don't think I even agree with hate speech laws.


Liberals do believe in free speech. As I said, the people who call themselves liberals in the US are not liberals, they are social democrats.

3.) Is it better for money to circulate in an economy, for people to collect as much money as possible, or to work to abolish money as a concept?

Collect as much as possible. Reward the talented hard working innovators\entrepreneurs of society. Those who sit on their ass and contribute nothing should get nothing. The latter sounds like communism. Yuck.


:lol:

Image

Personally I have never seen an entrepreneur working hard, it mostly seems to involve sitting at desks. I have seen shelf stackers, labourers, brickies, plasterers, binmen, factory workers etc working hard though. I live in a capitalist country myself and we give loads of money to people who sit on their ass and do nothing.

Image
#14785634
@Decky,

You'll always encounter people in any society like the above mentioned who make money doing virtually nothing. You've zoned in on such a small minority of people.

How's socialism working out in Venezuela?

From my perspective, If I come up with an ingenious idea and I invest a year of my time planning and working out the details, putting my money on the line to create an entirely new market or I refine my product to match or surpass the competition, I should be making more than the people working for me. They aren't taking the same risks that I am. There's nothing preventing a tradesman or a programmer from coming up with their own ingenious ideas to make more money.

Are you saying that people like Steve Jobs (RIP), Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't be making more money than a janitor, shopkeeper or waiter? They can be pretty hard working after all.

Anyone can clean a toilet, but who's capable of inventing the next Facebook or YouTube? Maybe I got your perspective wrong; it's late and I'm tired, but this is the way I'm interpreting it.
#14785648
Your treating money as an end when it's a tool to exchange commodities. Simply collecting money for the sake of collecting money is bad for the economy. You start having consumer spending falls because people are literally hanging on to their money. So buinesnesses start to close, unemployment goes up, people become afraid and start hoarding more money, it gets worse.

Also, from a purely utilitarian perspective, how is someone working three part time jobs less deserving than a CEO of $100? For a CEO a hundred bucks is nothing but for that person working three jobs a hundred bucks a week can give them the freedom to go to school part time and still feed their kids.

Neil degrasse Tyson made an interesting point about this. If he was busy he would skip picking a penny up on the street, but he'd pick up a quarter. So there is a ratio of floor money to income that Neil would stop to pick up. The same ratio for Bill Gates would be about $100,000. If you taxes Bill Gates $100,000 it would be like me losing a dime of my income. When that money can improve the lives of so many people it seem immoral to not do so.

It's not a punishment for the rich or "successful" it's a maximization of social utility. Most people aren't poor because they just want to sit around, and they deserve a chance to do more than work a bunch of part time jobs till they die.
#14785691
Fennec wrote:1.) I have an unfavorable view of governments, so I'd prefer less intervention. I generally don't like being told what I can and can't do. Overall, I have no real firm unchangeable opinion on capitalism as an economic system, It's certainly not something I've studied extensively.


Is your unfavorable view of governments based on any particular principle or reason?

I ask as you say, essentially, that you could take or leave capitalism. But your later answers speak to a certain belief in it, and there has never been anything close to capitalism while a government isn't in place.

Capitalism/Socialism (my definition)
Socialism - The government owns the means of production, with the goal of making everyone equal financially. For the good of the group over the individual. Economic collectivism. (Punishing successful people.)
Capitalism - Private or corporate ownership of production. For the good of the individual over the good of the group. Economic Individualism.


Not badly done. I mostly wanted to see how you threaded that needle. But, in light of the first issue, I'd point out that capitalism has always had a government. And socialism, just for clarification's sake, is regarded by socialists not as, "the government" but direct rule of the people that constitute the government. It was, after all, hardly in the interests of international socialism for the FBI and CIA to be created by a capitalist government.

James Connolly wrote:Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist


2.) Why did feudal people act differently than contemporary people? Not knowledgeable here. No real position. Would need to look this up.


I would encourage you to think about this. The way that things change is important.

I know someone well that I grew up with that has the most conservative policies imaginable, though he himself is an old lefty because he thinks that humanity needs to evolve into a place where we can function without a lot of controls, but we aren't there yet. His view of the progression of humankind is the most important part of his policy. For him, feudalism would have slowly evolved into a more efficient system with a lot of the same controls and ability for human social evolution.

For a more typical liberal, the nobility had been stifling thought for long enough that the Enlightenment, a result of printing presses, information, and the discovery of the New World, meant new opportunities. These were rationally thought out, and groups of people put out a series of policies that eventually made feudalism redundant.

The reason a lot of conservatives tend to cling to Christianity is the same reason; things are supposed to be a certain way as God has set them that way, and guiding from His plan is necessarily evil. For them, the collapse of feudalism was a result of the Protestant Reformation, where Jesus reconnected with a German monk against a Church that strayed from His word, and what followed was the construction of a society based upon the Reformation, guided by Christ's hand.

For a socialist, the transition from feudalism to capitalism was a result of the contradictions within feudalism becoming too great and eventually coming to a series of revolutions in which a relatively newly empowered class, the bourgeoisie, was able to overthrow the aristocracy.

All of these political philosophies have a way to explain the way things are and that helps guide how they are going to view policies now and in the future.

Collect as much as possible. Reward the talented hard working innovators\entrepreneurs of society. Those who sit on their ass and contribute nothing should get nothing. The latter sounds like communism. Yuck.


I find this interesting and a little at odds with some of the previous statements you made. Do you like the concept of Mercentalism?

4.) From my perspective I have freedom of the press. It's called YouTube, Vimeo, Minds.com and various other platforms. Alternative news is growing, MSM is dying. The only difference is that I adhere to the guidelines of these platforms.


Surely you recognize that this is not the same as the power that NBC (or Fox, or the NYT, or whoever) has.

Does this power to put yourself onto YouTube, within the guidelines of Google's terms and conditions, actually equal that of one of those media outlets; or is the theory behind the right enough; or do you not have the same rights?
Trump's Dumb Economics

Truth and facts are not always the same, since tr[…]

They are not victims just stupid. Your socio[…]

Too Many White People

I would amend that statement. I think the governm[…]

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]