Online quiz to see if you are more "left, right, Authoritarian or Libertarian"

[Carlton Banks]

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.

[hayek]

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.

[scarsbergholden]

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

[cp1]

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.

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.

[wachtwoord]

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.

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."

[Snipes777]

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.

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.

[cp1]

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.

[Hawker]

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

[Rassah]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Carlton Banks]

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.

[hawkeye]

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.

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.

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.

[wachtwoord]

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.

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.

[herzmeister]

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.

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.

[Rassah]

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?

[Mike Christ]

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

By installing a state

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Well you can disagree with taxes, but you still have to pay them.

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.

[Rassah]

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

By installing a state

But that's ridiculously expensive!

[wachtwoord]

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

In case anyone managed this miss this.

[herzmeister]

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

By installing a state

But that's ridiculously expensive!

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

[Mike Christ]

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

By installing a state

But that's ridiculously expensive!

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

[wachtwoord]

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

By installing a state

But that's ridiculously expensive!

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

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