Help with Political Outlook

Channel Zero

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:)Thanks Permabear. Will have a look at that study at some stage.

Eliot Rosewater

The stuff about it being founded by Libertarians, I will take strictly as a conspiracy theory until you can provide some factual evidence.

I don't see how the current brand of political spectra favour libertarians. If you had to divide up politics into two spectra, how would you do it? As I said previously, there is little correlation between economic views and social non-economic views. As an in-thread example, Denerick and I disagree strongly on economic issues but we have highly similar views on non-economic issues. There is clearly a need to represent these differently as merely lumping me in on the right and Denerick in on the centre does not do justice to the fact that in the major area of non-economic relations we have approximately the same opinions.

Channel Zero wrote: »

The two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired.

Is the political compass plane somewhat physically tilted so that if you don't land in the bottom right corner you slide down there because of gravity? Does this mean that gravity itself is merely an instrument of libertarian indoctrination?

Channel Zero wrote: »

That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. Why only these two axes?

Because computer screens are two-dimensional and more than two axes cannot be represented easily. Perhaps this is another instrument used by capitalists such as Dell to lull us towards the free market. At least the left-wing physicists are fighting back with their 11 dimensional string theory.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The stuff about it being founded by Libertarians, I will take strictly as a conspiracy theory until you can provide some factual evidence.

Which stuff specifically?

I don't see how the current brand of political spectra favour libertarians.

Am surprised you don't.

If you had to divide up politics into two spectra, how would you do it?

As said, i'm not here to suggest alternatives, although there are many out there i'm sure.

Is the political compass plane somewhat physically tilted so that if you don't land in the bottom right corner you slide down there because of gravity? Does this mean that gravity itself is merely an instrument of libertarian indoctrination?

Because computer screens are two-dimensional and more than two axes cannot be represented easily. Perhaps this is another instrument used by capitalists such as Dell to lull us towards the free market. At least the left-wing physicists are fighting back with their 11 dimensional string theory.

Not really a great rebuttal there tbh. I'll take it you agree then that the two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired. That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. And if so, why only these two axes?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Channel Zero wrote: »

Which stuff specifically?

Your belief that it is founded by libertarians.

In fact, have you read the Wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass ?

According to Tom Utley, writing in the Daily Telegraph, the site is connected to One World Action, a charity founded by Glenys Kinnock, and to Kinnock herself.

One World Action is a charity based in London whose aims are a world free from poverty and oppression, where strong democracies safeguard people's rights.

Kinnock is a member of the British Labour Party.

Channel Zero wrote: »

As said, i'm not here to suggest alternatives, although there are many out there i'm sure.

I'm not sure that's tenable. A two-dimensional political compass offers an improvement on the one-dimensional left-right scale, regardless of the motive. It gives you more information without losing any. To argue effectively against it you really need to provide a better alternative - because the only alternative now is the flawed left-right single scale.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Not really a great rebuttal there tbh. I'll take it you agree then that the two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired. That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. And if so, why only these two axes?

I think this is absurd. How can a scale be biased towards one point of view? The measures are effectively objective - there's no chance people will sneekely be put into the wrong corner. And, again, if you had to choose two axes, what would you choose? Has it occured to you that people other than libertarians would choose these axes, too?

Are you sure you're not a closet libertarian? I recently read an article that claimed that people with suppressed sexual feelings towards people of the same sex manifested themselves in homophobia. Your paranoia over the choice of axes might merely be a manifestation of inherent leanings towards the bottom right corner which your concious self is trying to fight.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I would say OP is socally liberal, fiscally conservative, and should probably vote PD, if they still existed, which they don't.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are you sure you're not a closet libertarian? I recently read an article that claimed that people with suppressed sexual feelings towards people of the same sex manifested themselves in homophobia. Your paranoia over the choice of axes might merely be a manifestation of inherent leanings towards the bottom right corner which your concious self is trying to fight.

You're right. Have to say, you've got my number! I admit it.
I've just re-taken the test truthfully, and lo-and-behold, i'm down at the bottom right corner like you predicted. I now believe that Libertarianism is the answer to everything.

I also now believe that Chris De Burgh is a very talented entertainer, and all dogs should be encouraged to wear hats.

Wiki Quote: According to Tom Utley , writing in the Daily Telegraph, the site is connected to One World Action, a charity founded by Glenys Kinnock, and to Kinnock herself.

Tom Utney? Now of the Daily Mail? Not exactly a source par excellence, but nevermind.

I think this is absurd. How can a scale be biased towards one point of view?

It's not really that a scale in itself can be biased towards one point of view (more about this below though), but that this dichotomy with government "authoritarianism", in conjunction with leading questions, increases the potential that respondents will be classified as libertarian.

The measures are effectively objective - there's no chance people will sneekely be put into the wrong corner.

But how can you be know that the measures are effectively objective? They don't even reveal their methods for positioning on the graph.

A two-dimensional political compass offers an improvement on the one-dimensional left-right scale, regardless of the motive. It gives you more information without losing any. To argue effectively against it you really need to provide a better alternative - because the only alternative now is the flawed left-right single scale.

Well, imo one can argue effectively against both models if both are flawed and pseudoscientific. But, to consider it anyway, a better alternative i presume would be to allocate positions for different political issues with a detailed breakdown of some sort at the end.
Not just a dot on a graph with two axes, both related to libertarian cravings for freedom from government intervention.

To paraphrase Chomsky, freedom from government intervention does not assure individual freedom within the private sector, and that government may actually serve to preserve individual freedom against non-governmental powers.

So you see, the simplified economic scale that has 'free market' at one end and 'government-controlled-market' at the other end completely ignores the view that free markets or free trade and regulated markets or fair trade are not inconsistent with each other.
Similarly, the social axis with libertarianism on one end and government authoritarianism at the other end perpetuates a false view that it can only be government that inhibits personal freedoms.

In a nutshell, the whole premise of this 2-axis thingy is therefore flawed. The theme of these models that the path to 'freedom' is always with less government intervention is biased towards those who, for whatever reason, desire more freedom from government intervention.

Graphs and quizzes are fun though, it has to be said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kinski

Aquila wrote: »

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 3.29, Libertarian: 2.29

hmmm..interesting

And yet you support Chelsea..tsk

Their map of the Irish political landscape is interesting. Only two parties in the left-liberal quadrant which you identify with, OP. Anyone know who exactly does the party ones? Can the results be considered reliable?

Channel Zero

Kinski wrote: »

Anyone know who exactly does the party ones?

Some guy somewhere decides or guesses. They don't reveal their methods for positioning on the graph for parties or individuals.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Aquila wrote: »

So what party should i vote for according to the graph?or does one exist to cater for me?

Labour would probably be the closest to your position in theory. In reality, as they always end up in government with Fine Gael and end up moving to the centre, there isn't really any party for you to vote for. So if you were looking for somebody that lined up with you on that graph you would be looking for an independent.

It's probably best to take each election as it comes and pick the party that you think is the best option.

Belfast

This is how I score
Compass:

You are a far-right social libertarian.
Right: 10, Libertarian: 9.27