Political Compass

[Prinny]

4 hours ago, rokken said:

I especially don't like question 15,

because if I say "disagree" it implies no business owner may also work in their privately owned factory. Huh? Personally, I think if someone wants to work in the business they own, like say a farmer incorporating his farm, that's not a problem. But then, if I do say yes, it automatically grants me a couple points toward the left despite that not necessarily even being the case—what if I think that means should be privately owned for the owner to run how they see fit, including being one of the ones to use it?

Well, if we look into the source code, it shows questions are weighted, but other than that it's simple multiplier depending if you agree or not and how much.

 

So it's not really perfect and on top of that the test wasn't touched for 2 years. Newer open issues remain unanswered by creators. Still I like that it gives 4 axes instead of just 2, because politics are much more complicated than society usually treats them.

[Eshanas]

Oh, for sure, the Political Compass is just a quick and easy time-passer. But it does put you generally in the right place. If it all hinges on one question, well, just see what happens when you place a different answer for that question. 

 

Here's my 8values.

[Wwen]

The original compass has some wonky questions that are difficult to graph. "Left" and "right" are abstractions that depend on context, which generally isn't given. Authoritarians vs Liberty makes the most sense. 8values seems even worse. Look at these questions... Some of them are more complicated than yes or no.

 

Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments. -Why not both? I think they can both be the source of power imbalances that need to be corrected.

 

It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers. -outside the occasional ancap, I think most people agree that some regulations need to be in place to prevet corruption, fraud, theft and etc. The problem is some regulations ARE bad! It really depends on context, which this question has none of...

 

The freer the markets, the freer the people. - yeah generally, with protections in place.

 

It is better to maintain a balanced budget than to ensure welfare for all citizens. - These things are not mutually exclusive. At some point is is irresponsible to run a huge debt that cannot be paid. More than a few empires have collapsed, by living outside their means. At some point it will create suffering for the people.

 

Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market. -They both have their place and cons/pros

 

International trade is beneficial. -generally yes, I think tarrifs and such are an anchor on free trade and just increase costs for the citizens.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. -this works in my house hold, but I'm wary of anyone that thinks they know who needs what and who can do what in a large population. These people are dangerous and led to tyrany. YMMV.

 

It would be best if social programs were abolished in favor of private charity. -I'd prefer people get involved over the the government, but there are some examples where the government is just the best org to take care of it. (like people with debilitating mental conditions)  "And only in America do we want the system to force us to do the right thing so we can take the credit."

 

Taxes should be increased on the rich to provide for the poor. - I used to think it should be all equal, but I also think money is a form of power and too much is destabilizing. The trick is to figure out how to make it work. The rich can often afford to just avoid this stuff in ways a regular person cannot. I wonder if perhaps limiting a minumum wage to corps worth over a certain amout? Or would this just incentivize them to move elsewhere and create another problem? This is why I mostly just want to leave it equal I guess. Ideally, corps like Apple would just voluntarily use their enourmous war chest and give back...

 

Inheritance is a legitimate form of wealth. -Yes? I mean, if I were rich, I would still make my children work for it. Growing up rich is it's own type of problem. But I have a hard time justifying taking things that don't belong to me. IIRC, the wealth usually dissapates in proceeding generations most of the time.

 

Public utilities like roads and electricity should be publicly owned. -I'm open the idea that it could have worked privetly, but I think we're way past having that discussion now. And the way it worked publicly wasn't exactly free of corruption... Just look up where the term "jay-walker" came from.

 

Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy. -as a free market advocate, yes, it generally is. Also define government intervention.

 

Protective regs are ok. There are many that benefit large corps and prevent small businesses from being able to flourish and compete.

 

Those with a greater ability to pay should receive better healthcare. - this one is hard. I think it assumes that everyone will get the "best" if ability to pay is no longer an issue. I don't think it will work out this way. We should try to fix broken aspects of our current system.

 

Quality education is a right of all people. -I'm hesitant to declare "rights." After all, your rights are my responsibility. It is however, in the best interest of everyone that education be available to everyone and "good."

 

The means of production should belong to the workers who use them. -Is this the degree to which I'm a commie? I mean, does a worker have a "means of production" with out the company that owns the mill and paid to have it built? I disagree with the entire premise.

 

The United Nations should be abolished. - maybe, it's pretty useless and some of it's members are quite dodgy and have plenty of humans rights abuses, yet call out others for humans rights abuses. In concept I like the idea, but I think it might be a waste of time.

 

Military action by our nation is often necessary to protect it. -what a loaded question. "often?" I'm not a big fan of the US inclination for military adventure. If we're legitimately attack, yes, but without context how could I answer this question? What is considered a threat?

 

I support regional unions, such as the European Union. -what a weird question. I don't know how to answer it's not my business gneerally. But the EU is fairly totalitarian and anti-democratic. Germany is trying to take over without firing a shot.

 

It is important to maintain our national sovereignty. -yeah? no nations is anarchy, but government formed naturally in human history. Some sort of hierarchy will always emerge. I'd prefer the one I know, to possible warlords.

 

A united world government would be beneficial to mankind. -Yes, but it's currently untenable. Our cultures are all too different and I think it's impossible to rule over all of mankind... Only a megalomaniac would consider it. YMMV.

 

It is more important to retain peaceful relations than to further our strength. -not mutually exclusive. In moderntimes, this is less true depending on who you are and what countries border you. But presenting strength also keeps people from messing with you. Being prepared for war doesn't make you warlike yourself.

 

Wars do not need to be justified to other countries. -Totally subjective. You have to do what you feel is right.

 

Military spending is a waste of money. -the US mission scope is too large, we could stop world-policing. This question is insufficent. It just places a moral value with no context.

 

International aid is a waste of money. - many times, yes. A nation has a duty to do what best for it's citizens.

 

My nation is great. - what a loaded question. I disavow.

 

Research should be conducted on an international scale. -some just has to be. Cooperation is prefered when possible. Not sure why this is a political question...

 

Governments should be accountable to the international community. - isn't this questions already on here? Really, when it comes to internation politics, the power of power is all that matters in a real context. Powerful nations have a lot of pull regardless of what we may beleive is "just" or "good." we have to be realistic. China has concentration camps and is even extraditing them from other countries to put them there. Is anyone doing anything? UN? Anyone? Pfft. Don't be niave.

 

Even when protesting an authoritarian government, violence is not acceptable. -This really depends on context. In occupied France? In occupied Wallstreet? Context matters, this questions has none.

 

My religious values should be spread as much as possible. -I'm not really one to push my own bullshit on people, you wanna know about it? Do what you want.

 

Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible. -I'm not really one to push my own bullshit on people, you wanna know about it? Do what you want.

 

It is very important to maintain law and order. -Context strikes again. If you want to maintain a civil society, yes. If you want to cause havoc, no.

 

The general populace makes poor decisions. -I'm a little wary of people that think they're above the "general populace." Most people are of average intelligence, including you and most policians and beuracrats. We're all evloved apes and we have some bad instincts and some good. You gotta deal with em both.

 

Victimless crimes (such as drug use) should not be crimes at all. -easy yes

 

The sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism. -those willing to sacrifice freedom for the (illusion) of safty deserve neither. We have a lot of security theater. This applies to the 2nd amendment as well...

 

Government surveillance is necessary in the modern world. - no! stop collecting dick pics, NSA!

 

The very existence of the state is a threat to our liberty. -in a way I yes, but I like the quote to the effect "the government is the tax we pay on our inability to be civilized." It's a necessary evil. I'd prefer to reduce humanity's control over humanity and increase huamnity's control over nature(chaos).

 

Regardless of political opinions, it is important to side with your country. - you should do what you feel is right. Chaotic-good ranger here.

 

No authority should be left unquestioned. -yep

 

A hierarchical state is best. -uh, is there a non-hierarchical state? Have any of them lasted? We just make hierarchies. It's part of our programming.

 

It is important that the government follows the majority opinion, even if it is wrong. -no, but the wrong/right dichotomy is subjective to your values.

 

The republic part of the US system is meant to avert the dangers of mob-rule in democracy, but it hasn't worked. Power has still concentrated in people promising bread and circuses...

 

The stronger the leadership, the better. -not sure what the intent of the question is. People with good leadership is beneficial. Does "strong" mean a good leader or a powerful leader?

 

Democracy is more than a decision-making process. -I do not know what this means? Yes? It's a type of government system... I think the question maker and I are operating on some different premises.

 

Environmental regulations are essential. -Some are good, some are not useful and should be stopped. Sometimes, people use them as a means to can power... It's unfortunate that some have abdicated the issue to those people.

 

A better world will come from automation, science, and technology. -A different world. Better is subjective. I'm sure the horseshoe market would disagree.

 

Children should be educated in religious or traditional values. -Some traditions have good reasons to exist. It's good to question, but recklessly tearing down anything you don't understand is a mistake.

 

Traditions are of no value on their own. -I don't understand this question. They can only have value when applied to people.

 

Religion should play a role in government. -no, but people tend to believe in something regardless of their faith advocacy. We're not completely ration animals and religious thinking is a part of our nature generally. Faith in something will always be a part of us, regardless of the existence of a Official National Religion.

 

Churches should be taxed the same way other institutions are taxed. - Mega-churches, yes. The small rural ones that help their communities like I grew up in, no. It's a tough question that's not totally black and white.

 

Climate change is currently one of the greatest threats to our way of life. -maybe, I feel like I've covered this in the other environment question. I'd like everyone to get on board and compromise on things we can do. Unfortunately it's become a huge political football. Winner takes all.

 

It is important that we work as a united world to combat climate change. -that'd be cool, but we should be realistic with expectations. If you look at the stats, it's not very encouraging...

 

Society was better many years ago than it is now. -totally relative, probably, no. But it seems like a "do you miss having slaves" or "when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

 

It is important that we maintain the traditions of our past. -some, but not all. it's not black and white.

 

It is important that we think in the long term, beyond our lifespans. -yes, but humans are bad at this. Not sure you can beat human nature.

 

Reason is more important than maintaining our culture. -not sure why one is the opposite of the other? Not a great question.

 

Drug use should be legalized or decriminalized. -Yes, also, redundant sentence, also, isn't this a repeat?

 

Same-sex marriage should be legal. -sure, I'd get government out of the whole marriage thing anyway, but whatever, bro.

 

No cultures are superior to others. -If you would want to live literally anywhere in the world without concern, you must be the most anodyne person in existence. It's subjective to some degree, but I obviously have some values that other cultures do not. People that have not traveled often do not understand how different cultures can be. Yes, we all have the same basic needs, but thought and feeling and ways of doing things can vary quite a lot.

 

Sex outside marriage is immoral. -If you and your partner are really polygamous, no. If you're cheating on your partner, yes. WTF is this question gauging?

 

If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture. - to some extent, I don't think it's beyond the pale for them to accept the core parts of our culture. "Migrants" seems kind of obtuse.

 

Abortion should be prohibited in most or all cases. -no, I'd just prefer we try and make them less necessary.

 

Gun ownership should be prohibited for those without a valid reason. -define "valid reason" The intent in the 2nd is people should be able to defend themselves from tyrants. The reason persists. If you want to scoff at that, I'd suggest Al Qaeda and etc are soooooo defeated. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The US has a lot of places for fighters to hide. Many dictators have removed weapons before becoming dictators.

 

I support single-payer, universal healthcare. - only after we identify and fix issues with our current system. It won't be a panacea. AND it will still enrich wealthy jackasses and bureaucrats that have made it shitty in the first place!

 

Prostitution should be illegal. - no

 

Maintaining family values is essential. - These questions suck. Define "family values." There's plenty of evidence that a nuclear family more often results in the best outcomes. No, not all, but generally this is good for children more often than not. Is that what they mean? What does this mean on the political scale?

 

To chase progress at all costs is dangerous. -Yes. "progress" is subjective. Weimar German progressed too. You can progress from a tyrannical state to a more liberal state or vice versa. We should all ask, "what am I progressing towards?"

 

Genetic modification is a force for good, even on humans. -only time will tell.

 

We should open our borders to immigration. -outside of ethnostate advocates, I don't know of anyone that is just anti-immigration. It's the degree. Unlimited immigration isn't unlimited good. We should be able to have discussion about how much is too much or too little. Right now it's a dichotomy of dumb. "You hate brown people! You hate not-brown people!" It's dumb, can we stop?

 

Governments should be as concerned about foreign citizens as they are about those within their borders. -they shouldn't be abused, but a nation has the most responsibility to it's own citizens, they do pay to keep the government running after all. I don't think that's beyond the pale.

 

All people - regardless of factors like culture or sexuality - should be treated equally. -yes, but I ask them to treat me with the same respect. I also have the right to think for myself. And they don't have a right to make me do anything.

 

It is important that we further my group's goals above all others. -uh, I reject the premise. We all belong to various groups simultaneously, but they also do not define us. We are individuals and if we protect the rights of individuals, we protect the rights of everyone.

 

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=40.9&d=48.9&g=60.8&s=52.8

Christ! What a lot of shit!

Edited August 9, 2019 by Wwen (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

What I'm seeing is a lot of "disagree" or "strongly disagree" with an overwhelming flood of "I don't want to hit the disagree button".

Edited August 9, 2019 by BTGBullseye (see edit history)

[rairii]

11 hours ago, Wwen said:

The original compass has some wonky questions that are difficult to graph. "Left" and "right" are abstractions that depend on context, which generally isn't given. Authoritarians vs Liberty makes the most sense. 8values seems even worse. Look at these questions... Some of them are more complicated than yes or no.

Left and right doesn't really depend on context at all. It's an economic spectrum. Left wing is different flavors socialist and right is different flavors of capitalist. The problem with the political compass is that it only has 2 axes and it tries to pin you based on a few unrelated criteria. There's a higher number of right wingers who support strict border controls and deportation and such, but that doesn't make it a left wing issue. There's a higher number of authoritarians who favor it but that doesn't make it an authoritarian issue. It's a socially conservative stance, which you don't have to be right wing or authoritarian to hold, but you most likely WILL be right wing and authoritarian if you do. This issue specifically comes through when you look more outwards. Gun control is very unpopular with right libertarians and conservatives, but it's also unpopular with communists who view it as racist and taking power away from the working class. 8values alleviates this but the fact still remains that there's not enough nuance to properly accommodate different political beliefs. Having to choose between "yes" and "no" for difficult issues is not the biggest problem with political tests, that's unfortunately just a natural consequence of the nature of taking online tests in the first place.

Libertarian vs Authoritarian is actually my main point of contention for most political tests, as it lumps together liberalism with libertarianism and conservatism with authoritarianism. You can be socially liberal and a statist, and you can be socially conservative and an anarchist. There's a difference between how much control you want the government to have and how free you want society to be, there's a correlation but a difference. The U.S. is VERY authoritarian but hell if we don't love our free speech and guns. I'm a democratic socialist and would realistically probably put myself at the top of the green quadrant or bottom of the red quadrant, but I'm often put near anarchism because I answer yes to weed and gay sex.

[Binky The Rabbit]

Whoa, this thread is still going? Points to the OP

 

These days I've realised that I'm not fully comfortable with having any -isms attached to my views. To re-post a rant I sent to a friend last month:

 

It's this attitude I see from some people online that being left-wing or advocating Socialism makes you naive and that you don't know understand how the world or economics works. I mean I'm only left-wing because my outlook on life fits the Socialist narrative. I'm vaguely aware of how the world works, but I want to CHANGE how it works so humanity, as a whole, is smarter and able to look past their own selfish needs and not destroy the environment and other people's live for short-term gain. Does that make me naive, or just convinced that humanity can do better than what it currently is?

[BTGBullseye]

22 hours ago, Binky The Rabbit said:

Does that make me naive, or just convinced that humanity can do better than what it currently is?

Honestly, a bit of both. While we definitely can do better, there are way too many in power that will never allow anyone to do better, and they can't be removed from power without at least the real threat of lethal force. Also, there's no guarantee that you can keep others like them out of power for any length of time.

[Binky The Rabbit]

On 8/12/2019 at 8:09 PM, BTGBullseye said:

Also, there's no guarantee that you can keep others like them out of power for any length of time.

That's the really depressing bit. You can implement the perfect, truly fair system, and there'll always be a segment of the population who will game it for their own personal gain, eventually to the detriment of others. But then, how do you enforce the system without becoming too authoritarian? At what point does peace become oppressive? Is the fight for freedom more valuable than the freedom itself?

 

Disclaimer: it's past midnight am I'm slightly drunk. Does existence even make sense? Don't answer that, I need to go to bed.

[BTGBullseye]

Dude, you just nailed the central philosophical question that the founding fathers of the USA struggled with when they made the Bill of Rights. When is freedom too free, and when is government too restrictive to freedoms?

 

They seemed to have figured it out pretty well IMO, hence why I tend to value their intentions for the Constitution over the letter of the law. (many of them even hated that they had to make the Constitution in the first place, since they knew it would be abused)

[Im_CIA]

I think this is superficial bullshit, but here is mine

[kerdios]

I"m placed close to ghandhih