Bitcoin Forum

My friend posted this quiz on Facebook the other day and it was actually quite interesting.  I found out I was more Libertarian than I thought.  I guess I should have know, even being involved in the Bitcoin Community.  I scored in the green close to Nelson Mandella and not too far from Ghandi so I guess I did about as good as anyone could do. ;)  I was in good company at least.  I would be curious how others did on it though.  I tend to think I am pretty conservative so I was actually surprised I was slightly on the "left" side.  Very interesting!

To take the test go to the site and click on "Take the test" on the left:


http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Apparently I'm somewhat left-wing  :D

Nice test. Good that it hammers the point home that the simple leftwing-rightwing depiction of the political spectrum is too simple. Also nice to see that it puts both US presidential candidates from the previous election (Obama, Romney) in the same authoritarian-right quadrant, with Romney just a tad more towards the corner than Obama.

Myself, I scored close to the middle on the economic axis and strongly leaning towards libertarian on the social axis, which is the expected result, I would say.

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

Seems my economics are more to the left than the right wing and my politics are more libertarian than authoritarian. 

Interesting quiz.  Separating economics from politics makes sense as we can do a lot about political differences but the forces that drive economics are much harder to deal with.

There is no left and right. Or at least, the concept isn't a useful way of analysing politics, but of the ruling classes controlling the freedom oriented factions (Libertarians and Liberals). It's a smart setup; the two authoritarian schools, Socialism and Fascism, get put on opposite sides of the spectrum. Then the Liberals get lumped in with the Socialists, and the Libertarians with the Fascists. It's pure divide and rule, and it's worked amazingly well.

Think about this: left and right have zero political connotations when you think about what the words actually mean. It's almost impossible to have mapped a less relevant polar spectrum onto the political viewpoints equilibrium. That actually helps, left and right as a wholesale concept is pretty relativistic. If they'd used up and down, or black and white, the deception would be a little more blatant.

http://alojaimagens.com/images/z4tlxz1cmkniu3gorjva.png

So, I guess I'm a social libertarian, I was suspecting this for quite some time. :D

I don't think many people here are gonna get positive numbers...

Looks like I've drifted quite a ways to the right since the last time I took that test.

On the way to becoming a fascist! What will your left wing friends think! Sorry people, but this left/right thing is bunk. It doesn't mean anything.

You are about the polar opposite of Obama.  ;)

Heh, no, I'm still libertarian as ever.  It just took me awhile to realize that economic freedom is just as important as social freedom.

It is kind of surreal that many of the arguments that make me head-desk now are the exact same ones I've used in the past.  And yes, the left/right thing really makes me rage when I see an argument that amounts to "The other side wants that, so it must be bad!"

Yep, that's the other classic, politicians drink this particular kool-aid mercilessly. And it validates the laziest type of argument dismissal that you can use: "you're wrong because you're ideology is on the other side of a logically invalid artificial barrier, therefore argument is pointless". I can't believe people are so tunnel visioned that they can't look at all the ideologies on their merits, they assume that there's only one "correct" answer, and they're damn sure they've chosen it. And never does anyone on TV or in the news media question the validity of this left/right falsehood, instead they use the concept like it's some kind of proven principles of physics, by virtue of the fact that everyone else always speaks in left/right terms.

When you think about it, the more you think about it, the more the contradictions just flood in. How come environmentalism is simultaneously left wing and conservative? How come right-wingers strongly push for liberal capitalism?

Absolutely agree.  I am labelled left wing because I support gay marriage and right wing because I believe in the rule of law.  Stupid labels create a contradiction where there is none.

Chris Rock helped me solidify this, as jokes do so well: "Crime, I'm Conservative. Prostitution, I'm Liberal"

The labels and the -isms and the polar opposites aren't important; think about everything on it's merits and if it contradicts a box someone trys to paint you into, tell them they're wrong.

i expect many right libertarians on this forum  ;)

I suspect FirstAscent may be positive...


Woah, holy crap!

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=8.00&soc=-7.44

Last time I took this, I was right down the center line, just above libertarian. Now it's right? I still answered all the sex, gays, and religion questions the same way. I guess this relfects me being a tad more pro-business/free market? I didn't think my views changed all that much in the last 6 months.

I notice that, in the example of famous people on that chart, there is no one in the purple section. Likewise, I don't see Ayn Rand on there, or pretty much any business or economist types :P

"The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians."

-George Orwell

Rassah,  don't you find it funny that you are more "right" and I am more "left"?   ;)  With all of my pro-Christian posts on the other threads I would have thought I would have scored in the far right.  I am actually in the green though.

I guess being a tad more pro-business puts you in good company with the right-wing crowd!  LOL

Just kidding here of course! And I have no comment on the authenticity of the test.  I just said it was "Interesting."  That it is!  ;D

Interesting quote!!

So far everyone seems to be unified as being in the libertarian section on this board. ;)

That's why I've never liked the BS right/left/conservative/liberal labels as pushed by mass culture.

There's two kinds of people in political life: those who think they're fit to rule others and those who prefer to rule themselves. Unthinking people get ruled by the first group. ;)

And painting the "unfit" into ideological corners, telling them how they should define themselves has got to be amongst the most insidious method the "fit" have devised. It's up there with currency that's based on the value of their thuggery.   

These people only prove themselves fittest for one thing: deception.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.50&soc=-7.03

Neat.

“I'm a registered Republican, I only seem liberal because I believe that hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure and not gay marriage.”


Yeah, I got it wrong, but seriously doubt we see positive Y. :)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%21images+political+compass+ayn+rand

http://skepticalcubefarm.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/political_compass1.png

disagree though, she likes authority, as long as it's "private".

There's an old saying: If you can't tell who the sucker is at a poker game, it's you. It wasn't until I was in my adulthood that I realized that when thinking of the price of Liberty being eternal vigilance, the vigilance part is admonishing us, "Don't be a sucker."

Deceivers can't help but deceive. It's what they do. But people don't have to be suckers, yet so many choose to be.

I answered all the sex and religion questions the same way too.  I'm certainly nowhere near traditional right-wing when it comes to these issues.  I'm much closer to the liberal left on these issues.

The x-axis is the economic I think, which is why you and I still ended up down the bottom on the social issues, but I still think the right/left labels are misleading.

I also noted, when you look at the US election 2012 graph and analysis they call Ron Paul's economic views "extreme".  I guess in a system where counterfeiting is considered normal they are extreme.

I get the feeling that those on the right actually are more interested in economic freedom than those who end up on the left by the test's standards.   And that those at the bottom care more about social freedoms than those at the top.  But there were also some questions that I thought weren't worded very well and could be interpreted incorrectly or some that set up a false dichotomy, particularly the corporation ones.

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38

Meh, kind of dissapointed, just about like everything else in my life, I'm fairly neutral. I don't care what people do as long as they aren't effecting me in some way or the other. I don't care if people are gay, I don't want regulators doing what the average individual can figure out for themselves, and I think that the individual should be completely entitled to what they have if they can go out and get their own. The wealthy often times deserve to be wealthy and the lazy are often broke. Of course, there are exceptions, such as the spoiled entitled celebrities that have never done anything (Paris Hilton) and the hard working individual stuck in a middle or lower class rut. I'm pro local government. I'm fine with paying taxes for services that I'm recieving, clean drinking water, sanitation services, etc, but the collective communities taxes should go toward 95+% funding those things, and paying wages to the workers that provide them, with a 1-5% excess that can be kept for a rainy day or something like that.

https://i.imgur.com/JVbAX4sl.png?1

You probably didn't use the strongly options much.  I used them more often than not.

I used strongly a fair bit. Accept for the things I didn't have too much of an opinion on or didn't completely agree or disagree with. In which case I went to the respective regular agree or disagree depending on which I was slightly teetering toward more.

Thanks OP, interesting Quiz. Looks like I am right at home with Dalai Lama, Mandela and Hollande ;)

http://imgur.com/atTiVaD.png

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.png

Yep. Extremely dishonest? Why, that'll be dead in the center! Honest and prudent by every long term historical standard? Bit of an out-lier, let's put you falling off the edge of the scale.

I need to stop reading this thread, this voice in my head keeps screaming "LEFT AND RIGHT IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY, TELL THEM AGAIN!" And then I realise that Severian talking about suckers at the poker game got it right, there's a lot of moths still flocking to the flame of this bogus paradigm.

Can anyone explain what Left and Right means politically without using another political ideology or precept to do so? 10 BTC to the first successful attempt. Although I strongly encourage you to consider that the eventual cognoscens of the left-right enchantment to be your reward, as you can only actually succeed in getting me to argue against you  ;D

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

https://i.imgur.com/JTHm7H9.jpg

In this graph, left means "social" (let's share all the stuff we have), and right means "market" (you gotta work and earn if you want something).


tnx.   :-*  :P

I'm quite happy to be in the purple quadrant.  It's the only one where no other politicians are and if that picture graph is true, where sensible thinkers like Mises, Friedman and Hayek reside.  If they want to put the right label on me, then that's up to them but it doesn't mean I have much, if anything, in common with right-wing ideologues.

I wouldn't want to be associated with the people in the green quadrant.  While they have some good ideas they also have a lot of bad ideas.   And, according to the graph, I'm more liberal and willing to accept more social freedoms than they are (I'm lower on the y axis).

you don't think Mises, Friedman and Hayek were right wingers? i disagree.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.  Left and right are far too loose terms.   As stated above by others you can't put everyone in either the left or right camp.  It's just a silly division.

If this were true, the bottom left quadrant would not exist.

To me the terms left and right are meaningless. If left includes socialism I'm against it and if right includes conservatism and xenophobia I'm against that as well. I'm a libertarian adding left or right to that classification is meaningless in my opinion.

My left-right looks about right, but it seems I'm frighteningly authoritarian compared to what I thought.

https://i.imgur.com/aFrCyGD.png

Good explanation.

BTW: I am Thomas Paine.

Perfectly describes the paradox of this nonsense left/right scale. Socialism is far left and xenophobia is far right, except we supposedly live in centrist political system in the West. And yet, we experience bizzare extremes of socialist policies (e.g. bank bailouts) and very blatant xenophobia from centrists governments (British government started an "Immigrants Go Home!" publicity campaign).

Re: conservatism. Everything in it's place, IMO. I'm conservative when it comes to traditions and good principles. Just not conservative when it come to businesses and technologies that don't make sense any more.

Explain what Left and Right mean, not what scale they're projected onto. Why is left social and right market? Why can it not be the other way round? The answer is, of course, because it's completely arbitrary, and that can only be possible if they are meaningless political concepts.

Well, it's not completely arbitrary.
It's history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#History_of_the_terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#History_of_the_terms)

I'm against conservatism for the sake of keeping things the same and rejecting change. It's unlikely

Oh and I severely dislike tradition. If tradition is the best reason you can come up with for doing something, please stop and do something productive! (Or really think about why you are doing something. Often traditions came into existence for a reason. See whether this reason is still valid and proceed from there. Don't call it tradition however).

Edit:

Another reason why left/right division is blatantly wrong is that they aren't opposites. How is xenophobia the opposite of socialism for instance? There are many xenophobic socialistic regimes in history.

Yes, and the original reason was that socialists sat on the right bench and the capitalists sat in the left bench, I know this already. There is no underlying logic to this, the reason is arbitrary, based on the behavioural habits of intelligent ape creatures in a legislative chamber hundreds of years ago.

What if the chamber had a circular seating arrangement? Would we now be arguing about North and West? I'll have you know, I'm politically 172 degrees! You 317 degree people need to GTFO and learn about your politics!

Do you like your birthday? Summer holidays? I'm quite fond of the way the Earth is rotating around the Sun at a fixed distance, but maybe you progressives might want to start a movement to increase the distance to mitigate the effects of global warming!

There's no point to saying you're either strictly progressive or strictly anti-conservative, there are benefits to changing some things and there are benefits to keeping some things the same.

Nope, it's an arbitrary day to have a celebration. I don't think I ever celebrated it on the day I was born in the last years and would have no issues not celebrating it and having another random party instead and it could be at a completely different date. I like parties though :)


I like summer. I like traveling. I like not working.


I would like the Earth to start rotating at a fixed distance. At the moment the curve is elliptic causing the seasons. I like a mono season (summer) so would like a circular orbit, slightly closer to the way it is now (there is no global warming).


See what I did? I pointed out the reasons I like things and sticked with those. The just traditions are just suboptimal ways to a achieve a subset of my desires :)

(I agree about the global warming BS too. We are both right-wing nuts! :D). I don't think the Earth's elliptical orbit is responsible for the seasons, that's actually due to the 23 degree axis tilt... anyway I'm picking examples of simply anything we want maintained, I don't really care about the details.

Lets remove all the oxygen in the air! That's a stupid conservatism if ever there was, things have gotta change round here, let's not let the whole mammals breathing oxygen thing getting in the way of progress!

We don't do that because I like to live. NOT because it is the way is has always been ;)

Let's change our biology and live a different way! If we breathe nitrogen, there will be more usable air for respiration! Progress is the best!

My guess is that even the green one, or pretty much anything to the left, still requires authoritative types to"enforce" the social ideas.

left libertarian here.  :)

Good questions.  Unfortunately in the US there's only really 2 parties, and so we need far fewer questions to find out if you're republican or democrat.

Do you like guns?  Or do you want sick people to get heath care?
Do you like religion?  Or do you want to try and preserve our environment?
Do you like bankers?  Or do you think everyone should have enough money to buy food and shelter?

There is a libertarian party ffs! Don't vote for democrats or republicans, they both suck. Seriously, if there would be a libertarian party in my country I might take the effort to vote once in my life ....

Here's another ruling class trick: corner the market on Libertarians with your own shills, then associate the party with extreme right-wing stuff. This happened in France with the Le Pen people, Ron Paul somehow went after racist vote in 2011 nominations, and now in Britain with UK Independence Party.

Again, how does this make sense? You have the furthest "left" right wingers that are also simultaneously the most extreme "right" right-wingers? It only makes sense if you want to de-rail the underlying concept. The political classes are terrified of decentralised, self-sufficient political ideologies, it means no power center for them.

Perhaps anything to the right requires authoritative types to enforce property rights.

That's not authoritative. Me telling you not to destroy or take my stuff is not me telling you how to live. You telling me what I am and am not allowed to do with my stuff is.

I'm not sure but I think the guys in the green quadrant are, generally speaking, for social freedom but against the free market.   People in general, and the makers of this quiz, don't see what a contradiction that is.   If the market is simply people trading with each other, buying goods and services from each other, then the free market equals freedom.  Govt control of the market is not freedom and, by definition, will result in an erosion of social freedoms.  Which is exactly what real world evidence shows us.

Out of curiosity, how many people are just now finding out they're libertarian?  Really, I think most people, especially those who don't want to involve themselves in popular politics, will find they're libertarian; anyone who simply believes in being and letting be counts as a good person to me.  The only difference is whether the person self-identifies as libertarian or not; considering the amount of dissenters toward the increasingly authoritarian America, it is quite easy to see, we at least generally agree that we don't want what's become.

Anyhow, here's how I scored:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=3.88&soc=-7.54

LIBERTY!!!


In libertarian socialism (i.e. anarchism), private property is considered tyranny and hierarchies in business are viewed as unwanted, just as hierarchies are viewed in government.  Though I personally believe this is a natural shift, it really depends on the society in question; a person can consider their land as personal property (as opposed to private property), and will consider trespassing on said land as an aggression against him; this is the right.  On the other hand, the left will believe that the earth belongs to everyone, and to attack a person who enters the land he owns (which is all of it, collectively) will be an aggression against him.  This is a classic distinction, no matter if it's libertarian or authoritarian.  I have two minds on this matter: I believe forcibly taking control of an area of land and then paying people to work it is unfair, because those people could've worked it on their own without someone owning the land; it is only a method for the wealthy to remain wealthy, which I believe is perfectly fine if the person is deserving, but not when he's setting up a situation where he deprives his peers of wealth to increase his own; in this way, I see working the earth's natural resources as something which can be done together, not as one owner with wage slaves.

However, I also believe people should be able to have their private space, such as a house; I can see we'll not get along well if we can't have the right to privacy, which naturally entails owning an area of land on which to live on.  So now we must figure out what "my house" is, since we can technically define all of the USA as the state's "house" with us as guests living upon it (it's funny thinking about this; the only true free people are those behind government, the rest of us live off this fantasy of authority.)  The way I see it, whatever you can afford to protect is fine; I see this as naturally limiting what a person can consider his home (no more than his vision can carry anyway), while also making large spots of land where one might work unfeasible for one owner to protect reliably; if we can define even the smallest space of personal property as the one we're currently existing in, then I see no reason why we cannot reserve a certain amount of space to work, while allowing others this same right; I see no reason for the ownership of large swathes of land here, so even capitalism, in its most natural form, is naturally self-limiting without the subsidies to protection provided by the state.

Frankly, the way I see political standing is as a triangle; the top two points lead to authoritarian right and authoritarian left, but the closer you get to liberty, the less it really matters what you believe in since we can't enforce it anyway; we naturally move toward the best system for us, whatever it may be; it's hard to say since I don't live in such a society.  The distinctions between right and left make perfect sense now, but I believe, once in a state of freedom, these distinctions melt away, else we resort to authority again to ensure these distinctions remain (e.g. "I don't like those socialists, let's get 'em!", followed by "Well I don't like those fascists, let's get 'em!")

Since most people in the USA are for taxing those who make more than $250k a year, and most people are for "fair income" and against the idea that the wealthy are not sharing their wealth equally, I'd have to say that most people, even those who don't want to get involved politically, are not quite libertarian. They may be close, but not quite. Plus we still have tons of people who are for the free market (somewhat), who are paranoid about things like monopolies and corporations running amock :p

Well, there I go off into an-cap land. Occasionally I have been in "Ultra-Anarchism" before and I am not sure what exactly I answer differently. No big deal though.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=9.75&soc=-7.23

https://imageshack.us/a/img708/2415/imgcgi.jpg

What alot of 'isms to fight with each other! I can't seem to find Liberto-fasci-Democratism?

"Brothers, brothers, we should all be joining together to fight the common enemy!" "The Judean Peoples Front?!"

Brian wept.

This is an old quiz and it isn't the best.

For example, the first question:

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

Consider the perspectives here. A leftist would most certainly strongly agree. Someone who believes in the current corporate structure could answer yes - under the pretense that the folks working for that corporation would benefit.

This is more of an "Are you left/right wing with respect to platitudes" test than a political compass test.

i am a Right Authoritarian! muahahahah -- i will buy an island and become dictator as soon as my bitcoins are worth enough!

The problem is that there's the libertarian "let people smoke pot if they want I don't care" and there's the libertarian "let people die in the streets if they don't have money to eat I don't care".  The latter keeps most people from identifying with libertarianism.

"I don't care" is not what it is.

It is: "It's not my responsibility and of I choose to do anything about it, this should be out of my own free will instead of mandated by some retarded centralized state people like to call my country."

I think it is more along the lines of, "I think the way to solve problems is not by using force and violence of the inefficient state welfare, but voluntary charity programs that help people who are in need and do not have other options.

I tend to be a fan of allowing people to disagree, even when it comes to things like charity. The state doesn't alalow disagreement as if I do not pay for your method of welfare and choose a different one that I think is 10x better, I get locked in a cage or shot for my disagreement.

Well you can disagree with taxes, but you still have to pay them.  Anyone thinking that the poor will be taken care of voluntarily through charity without welfare is naive.  Same for basic science research, education, libraries, etc.  Basically all the things that contribute to a great society.

Indeed.  In a lot of ways, the most productive part of what people call the "private sector" is a set of people that mooch off state subsidies for research.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/738da524-08f2-11e3-8b32-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2iI6lOhI6

Didn't want to feel left out, so I'll chime in  ;D

I think it's mostly: if you keep removing consequences, people will not learn to avoid bad decisions, and will become dependent on you having to remove more and more consequences. Right up to the point where you have no more means to remove consequences, and it all breaks down in protests, riots, and an economy in shambles.

Yep, all events can have unintended consequences, and so the only way to remove unintended consequences is to remove all events.

That's not what libertarianism is about.  If it was obvious that government was the solution to social problems then I would admit it, but this just isn't so.  History shows that as governments get bigger and bigger they stagnate the economy and move closer to collapse.  You look at the giant Western governments and the level of debt is staggering.  Anyone thinking that that can last forever is insane and you know who's going to pay the price when the party ends?  Hint, it isn't going to be the rich.

Libertarians are far more humane than non-libs in general because they understand how the market works and what set of circumstances leads to the greatest prosperity for the largest amount of people.  

Putting your faith in government has, over the last century, proven to be the greatest mistake that individuals can make.  There are so many countless millions of examples around the world of people who put their faith in governments to look after them who ended up poor, destitute or in the worst cases, dead.

If it's not taken care of voluntarily, then it's not important.

Let people vote what they find important with their own wallets, not mine.

Well, others argue the other way round: Freedom and capitalism is a contradiction. Why? Because of the acquisition of property (especially land) leads to inequalities, especially over generations.

What's the difference between a land owner and a state really.

Eventually, someone owning a lot of land will find people needing to live on his land because they'll starve anywhere else. So he rents his land out to those people. Thus, these people will have to pay him rent just to exist. How is this "freedom" anymore? How is it not conceivable that this would lead to different classes of people?

And this land owner in most cases didn't even earn it through hard work, but rather through inheritance over generations. To prevent unrest, his ancestors probably invented things like religion to pacify the plebs, and to justify their rule "by the grace of God". Later, in the more educated phase of history, of course "democracy" was invented for the same purpose, to pacify the plebs.

How would those landowners passify the plebs if democracy was no longet an option, I wonder?

By installing a state :P


To sum it up, libertarianism is ethics in application.  To put it more bluntly, libertarianism is to hone one's actions and to be fully expectant of the reciprocal, of reaction.  To put it very bluntly, libertarianism is to mature and be a capable, responsible adult.  To sum it up in a popular colloquialism, libertarianism is to man up.


This is not an argument; it is a demand.

This is what separates the authoritarians from the libertarians: one uses threats, the other uses reason.

But that's ridiculously expensive!

In case anyone managed this miss this.

obviously, they had centuries to accumulate wealth, and enough time to come up with the mentioned techniques to pacify the plebs

And thanks to the acceleration of history coupled with our incredible methods of communication, it has become nigh on impossible to accomplish such a feat again if ever there was a loss of control.  We live in interesting times ;D

And the disruptive nature of Bitcoin has the potential to achieve just that :)

In this context I've been wondering for a while if it is really possible to buy land anymore these days.

I mean, not just buying the right to e.g. build a house on ground that is ultimately owned by someone else as it effectually seems to be the case today. I guess the ultimate owner is the owner of the title register, which would be the government, or following the rabbit hole deeper, in Europe it often seems to be the Vatican.

So if everything was just a question of price, how much would it cost to e.g. negotiate with Spain to buy from them a piece of their land so you can found your own nation on it?

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-6.25&soc=-7.74

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=2.75&soc=-4.82

An insane amount of money for an insanely small amount of land. People have tried with really poor countries with really small pieces of useless land and come back empty handed. Countries are ..... irrational when it comes to their sovereignty.

i'm pretty much gandhi

economic left/right: -4.2
social libertarian/authoritarian: -3.49

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.12&soc=-3.49

interesting that they define extreme left wing as anarchism.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.62&soc=-2.77

this is me

I barely know what left and right is but i've always been confident i've been pretty much in the middle/neutral which i was

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticalcubefarm.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2Fpolitical_compass1.png&t=538&c=S_gAqn2go9DbKg

im on par with nelson mandela

very flattening :D!

I think Nelson Mandela is about the best choice on the list.  Ghandi is not too bad either.  ;)

I was closer to Mandela too, which shocked me.  I always thought I was more "right winged".  

If Bitcoin holders tend to be close to Mandela and Ghandi then that should say something to the world!  We need to get that in press somewhere!  ;D

 ;D im dangerously close to mandela according to this https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Fimages%2Finternationalchart.png&t=538&c=PfUnXilc3pNgow

I believe tupac would be close to mandela too

Are you in the US?  I would vote for you if you decide to go into politics.  ;D 

Lol no, I live in sweden

Thanks though ;D

I'm tired of all these labels. Simply because some people are so obsessed and assume others are just as obsessed with them.

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.74

My views an opinions change, and I'm sure if I took this test in a month with different questions that it would be plotted different. Interesting, nonetheless.

This is the original "true Libertarian" quiz:
http://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php

Don't label on others at random. Some people, only believe others also indulge.

I can't wait to see how I'm viewed by this survey.  This is so exciting because I know what I consider myself but like the idea of being put into a group based on a few questions about my societal beliefs.

The results of this are rather interesting, considering the number of people who took the quiz
http://www.nolanchart.com/surveytotals.php

I wonder how representative the sample is of the general and US population?