My Political Compass Score:
I retook the Political Compass questionnaire tonight, and scored fairly libertarian: 7.38 on the economic left/right axis, and -2.92 on the social libertarian/authoritarian axis.
Like others, I have problems with the test. Among other things, some of the questions seem to presume that if one holds that a given practice or activity is immoral or unethical, it is appropriate for the state to intervene. Yet I reject this view. There are activities, both economic and social, that I believe to be wrong, yet should remain perfectly legal. Therefore, I question the relevance of questions about one's moral views in a test that purports to measure one's political views.
Related Posts (on one page):
- My Political Compass Score:
- Another political compass test:
I consider myself to be strongly libertarian. One of the problems I had with the test is that it associates opposition to abortion with authoritarianism.
But plenty of libertarians are pro-life, and they aren't any less libertarian for it. If one views a fetus as a human being deserving of rights, one is generally pro-life. The question of whether a fetus is a person deserving of rights is not a question answered by the political philosophy of libertarianism.
The question about consenting adults in bedrooms is problematic too. I think the state obviously should prevent adult brothers and sisters from having sex. So apparently being anti-incest makes you an authoritarian.
If you'd like to argue that brothers and sisters shouldn't be able to reproduce, that's another story entirely. But simply having sex? You're an evil authortarian who hates liberty and freedom if you're trying to ban it.
However, it's still a fair point - what's not authortarian about disallowing incest?
I also don't like the fact that I can't answer "neutral" to any questions.
For example.. "Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."
What is our race? I'm from a mixed background. Are they asking me whether mongrels are superior to non-mongrels? I don't even really consider myself to be part of some race. Does "white" count as a race, anyway?
Another example... "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." What if there are other reasons to be proud of it? I agree it's slightly but not totally foolish to be proud of it ONLY because it is where you were born - but what if there are other reasons? Maybe it's just poorly worded. (BTW despite it being a "sin" I think pride can have some positive effects, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing even if the reasons behind it are weak.. but that doesn't make the question any easier to answer).
Another example... "Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified." Shouldn't they first ask me whether I think "international law" really exists? This question seemed to be based on the premise that it does, but who gets to define what international law is? Who enforces it? The same people who are "breaking" it? That makes the question very hard to answer.
I really wonder what kind of person or group came up with these questions.
Anyway for what it's worth, I answered all the questions as best I could and got 0/-3.33 for Libertarian. That's where I would have put myself anyway. So I guess it sort of works, although this is only one data point.
After several bad experiences, I have to conclude that the only criterion in place for posting a quiz on the internet is having web space and a working knowledge of how to make a website. I'm flabbergasted, to say the least.
This nation was founded upon the principle that some truths are self-evident. That's as far as I'm willing to go in the debate.
It is to distinguish between those who think that government should expand to offer more services, those who think its perfect as is, and those who ultimately would like to see it shrink by 50% or more.
However, it's still a fair point - what's not authortarian about disallowing incest?
This nation was founded upon the principle that some truths are self-evident. That's as far as I'm willing to go in the debate."
I didn't notice incewst mentioned in the Preamble to the Declaration fo Independence. You can shut yourself off from debate on the issue if you want (though you raised it), but, although I'm uncertain how I feel about the issue, I don't see why it is "self-evident" that incest is so wrong that it should be prohibited by law, which means, punishable by force--that is always the question I ask when considering whether a law is just; whetehr I woudl support throwing someone in jail (eitehr for breaking the law, or failing to pay the fine) for doing it. Some adult brother and sister having sex with each other--I honestly couldn't care less what they do. Now, if it were my kids, I'd care, but I wouldnt' want them locked up. So what is so self evident about this?
I'm tired of seeing Madonna in her underwear, and Brittany out of hers -- but that's just my opinion, not something I'd enforce on others.
Lots of questions on the early pages about corporations, many of which were irrelevant to policy. (Is privatizing [excuse me, privatising] the Commons a regulation?)
Shouldn't there be at least three axes? One for fiscal (that was their right/left I think), one for authoritarian (and I always pass the World's Smallest Quiz), and another for tastes, measuring that I have become an old fart even faster than merely standing my ground while time moves forward would suggest.
In any case, I scored 3.63 - 1.90i (and I'm usually a 1965 Mustang, a Gingerbread house, I prefer pickles to cucumbers, tastes great to less filling, and Charybdis to Scylla.)
This position is prescriptive--a person's morals should not affect their political views.
But the quibble with the test can be seen as a strength. People's political views are very much affected by their morals, whether they should be or not.
The author's obvious intent was to give different scores to people who want to ban homosexuality, bondage, extramarital sex, etc. and people who don't. The question clearly doesn't measure what the author wants it to measure.
The fact that what it does measure is still authoritarian doesn't change this, since the author wouldn't weigh all forms of authoritarianism equally in producing the final result.
More fun are all the self-proclaimed libertarians who have different scores than other self-proclaimed libertarians. Can all y'all blame it on the questions if all y'all answered the same questions? Can the different difficulties interpreting the questions justify the different plottings?
It's a rough tool, but one that may teach all y'all the subjective skills of distinguishing and analyzing instead of running that mythical libertarian horse on all four of its legs.
Q. Orange is my favorite color.
Strongly disagree: -3 on the vertical axis
Disagree: -1 on the vertical axis
Agree: +1 on the vertical axis
Strongly agree: +3 on the vertical axis
Q. It takes longer to go to New York than to take by train.
Strongly disagree: ....
And then consider the questions where can be parsed differently.
I think you missed the boat on the difference between authoritarianism and libertarianism. A libertarian and an authoritarian can very easily believe that the same things are right and wrong - it's the extent of the government's role in enforcing social mores that they disagree on. But from your comment, it would almost appear that you think libertarians necessarily believe that incest is morally OK.
This nation was founded upon the principle that some truths are self-evident. That's as far as I'm willing to go in the debate.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are ... Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you'll concede that "all men" means "all human beings," without limitation as to siblinghood, isn't incest a human right? At least, if engaged in in the pursuit of happiness? Or am I only able to ask this because I lack a sibling of the appropriate sex?
Give me a break. The author wrote that question to ask about "privacy of one's home" sexual practices that are actually the source of controversy today. The fact that it's worded so as to include incest is simply a mistake; it wasn't meant to be about incest, and any rephrasing should eliminate the incest angle completly, not emphasize it.
Why am I comfortable there? Because to me, libertarianism is all about resistance to evil ... where "evil" is best understood as domination over others. A corrupt racist communist dictator like Mugabe is, to me, just an exaggerated parody of the way all governments tend to behave anyhow. Why are there no politicians in my sector? Because people like me are profoundly anti-political; that is, opposed to the use of domination to accomplish goals.