[Tanada]

The standard political self ID test has Authoritarian/Libertarian on the vertical axis and Left/Right on the horizontal axis. While this may be satisfactory for some of you I personally find the whole Left/Right thing to be a political pile of BS generated by politicians to serve their own interests. When I look at a candidate I look at them as Libertarian/Authoritarian and Good/Evil.

Now let me define each of the terms I am using so that my meaning will be clear.

Libertarian, each individual is free to live as they choose and must accept the consequences of their choices themselves. If they ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have a traumatic brain injury as a result that was their choice, tax money should not be used to maintain them in a vegetative state indefinitely. If they eat themselves to morbid obesity that was their choice, tax money should not be used to get them stomach banding. Either pay for it yourself or rely on the charitable giving of others, but know that you are living on charity and be grateful.

Authoritarian, each individual is required to serve the state to the best of their ability, if you are useful to the state then any injuries or illness will be tended to the best of the governments ability because it is in the interest of the state to keep you productive as long as possible. If you become a burden upon the state and resources are limited then you will be expunged from the state as a drain on vital resources. Life boat rules apply with the State the Captain of the boat.

Good, placing the interests of others ahead of your own self interest. Greater love has no person than that they would give their own life for another.

Evil, placing the interest of your own self ahead of others interests. Greater hate has no person than that they would take the life of another to save their own. I am not talking about self defense here, I am talking about if a lion is charging you and a friend you trip your friend so you can escape.

Personally I try and live as close to the Libertarian/Good corner as I can get. I think most people I meet on here are on the side of Good, even those of you who are Authoritarian in your views on freedom.

By their very nature Politicians are going to rank somewhat higher on the Authoritarian scale, after all they are seeking the power to tell others what to do. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City is an excellent example of this, he is constantly seeking to increase his authority over his citizens. Ban salt, it is bad for them. Ban large over 16 ounce soda's they are bad for the masses. Much further down the scale toward Libertarian is Gary Johnson, he wants open borders, all troops brought home, repeal all laws that constrain personal liberty like drug laws. On the other hand he wants to enforce the 'necessity' laws we do have to the fullest extent. Death penalty for murder, manufacturers accountable for faulty goods and so on.

Presidential candidates from any party rank at least in the middle of this scale, I only worry about this dimension of a candidate if they are way high up on the scale.

Where do you fit on this quadrant and how do you rank the candidates?

[Quinny]

IMHO this is oversimplistic. Think the good/evil distinction is pointless as no sane person would put themselves in the evil category, even mass murderers justify themselves!

It's a bit like those who say they will act in the countries best interest. There isn't a 'countries best interest' as there is such a diversity of interest groups that no one group is in totally line with everyone else.

The right have done a really good propaganda job breaking the link between the general publics role of producers and making them vote as consumers. The interests of consumers align much more with the Banking sector than the interests of someone voting as a worker. Manufacturing and Trade Unions interests actually align closer as regards some policy areas.

[Tanada]

IMHO this is oversimplistic. Think the good/evil distinction is pointless as no sane person would put themselves in the evil category, even mass murderers justify themselves!

This not only about how they view themselves it is about how a rational person looking at them views them as well. For example my kid brother thinks I am insane for giving blood because I give away a pint of my life when I do so. That doesn't make me evil in his eyes, just a little odd.

It's a bit like those who say they will act in the countries best interest. There isn't a 'countries best interest' as there is such a diversity of interest groups that no one group is in totally line with everyone else.

There is an almost unlimited supply of Authoritarian people who would say their own opinion of the 'countries best interest' is the correct one and diversity is incorrect. Take a look at Mao or Hitler or William I (the conqueror) of England. None of them gave two shakes of a lambs tail what diverse people thought, their word was law and if you didn't like it too bad for you.

The right have done a really good propaganda job breaking the link between the general public's role of producers and making them vote as consumers. The interests of consumers align much more with the Banking sector than the interests of someone voting as a worker. Manufacturing and Trade Unions interests actually align closer as regards some policy areas.

The left have done a nifty job of the same practices, that is why I consider the left/right dichotomy a false choice. Both 'wings' work together to herd the voters in the direction both find acceptable. The area's where they actually disagree are far fewer than the ones they agree on and work towards.

[SeaGypsy]

Psychology is always 'over-simplistic'. I doubt Tanada's cross is without a circle around the periphery.

The 80's book by M' Scott-Peck "People of the Lie- towards a psychology of evil" is IMO a quite brilliant and real life description of petty evil. Summed up in a vulnerable victim versus manipulative hiding liar scenario, in a similar vein to Tanada's brief descriptive.

The more one studies saints, the more fallible they become.

I am happy to go with most of Gary Johnson's ideas, ie. libertarian; but I find the idea of open borders at this stage in history naive in the extreme. Great if you are stuck in some dive and can improve your situation elsewhere, a total disaster for those currently living in that elsewhere. The world is very seriously overpopulated already, open borders is the highway to hell. With this attitude I distrust such pundits intensely. Youth populist ideas such as decriminalizing drugs and protecting wilderness, welded onto 'world without borders'... well I call hocum on that. There will be borders, whether around countries or towns or houses, that is just human nature.

Full decriminalization of drugs would lead to a serious increase in aberrant behavior warranting application of 'necessity laws' in increased measure. Murder being murder and rape rape, regardless of substance use by the perpetrator.

Reality is the issues are circular, but require polarities for descriptive and prescriptive purposes.

I am libertarian at heart, but there are some humans who need to be rounded up and summarily shot, simply for standing by and doing nothing about evil, IMO. It's complex. Interesting thread starter Tanada!

[Pops]

I look at the vertical axis on these quizzes as the social view: authority vs anarchy & the horizontal axis as the economic view, collectivist/individualist.

The US is pretty authoritarian overall which is why the presidents always score high on the Fascist scale. Aside from the "Puritan Work Ethic", we like to think of ourselves as individualistic Marlboro Men making our way via our bootstraps in the wild west but we're actually very prudish and insular and cliquish and prejudiced. We see ourselves as the great melting pot classless society. And we are, as long as you are in the right pew and church.

Take for example the many anti-sharia propositions. That has nothing to do with politicians seeking power or separating church and state, it has everything to do with protecting the authority of the Christian law "practiced" by the majority.

Digressing a bit, this mismatch between what we tell ourselves and what we do is kind of a big deal, I heard an interesting story the other day about the differences between how Americans vs Europeans report their churchyness. In Northern EU countries for example, people surveyed report maybe 25% weekly church attendance and when asked to fill out an 24 hour daily "diary" about activities over the course of a month it turns out that about 25% of people actually do attend church. In the US when asked, about 50% of people say they go to church weekly but when we fill out the diary it turns out that only 25% actually attend church.

In the early days of North America the European gentry attempted to establish manorial systems (Carolina, Maryland in particular) but there simply were too many options for all the proles that the Lords kept importing. The Plutes hoped the Proles would work and make them richer but because the Proles could just bebop over the hill and clear a new spot it never worked. Democracy was accidental it came from the fact that there were too many options.


The left/right axis is collectivist vs individualist. Again, we see ourselves as cowboys out roundin up the doggies on the lone-prar-ee and driving them to market, fighting Injuns all the way. This was great back when there were doggies to round up and the prairie was unfenced.

[Tanada]

I look at the vertical axis on these quizzes as the social view: authority vs anarchy & the horizontal axis as the economic view, collectivist/individualist.

The US is pretty authoritarian overall which is why the presidents always score high on the Fascist scale. Aside from the "Puritan Work Ethic", we like to think of ourselves as individualistic Marlboro Men making our way via our bootstraps in the wild west but we're actually very prudish and insular and cliquish and prejudiced. We see ourselves as the great melting pot classless society. And we are, as long as you are in the right pew and church.

The left/right axis is collectivist vs individualist. Again, we see ourselves as cowboys out roundin up the doggies on the lone-prar-ee and driving them to market, fighting Injuns all the way. This was great back when there were doggies to round up and the prairie was unfenced.

That is the problem with the left/right scale as you and most test creators rate it. To ME as intended for purposes of this thread individualist is the same as Libertarian and collectivist is the same as Authoritarian. You can't be a collectivist without someone being in charge with the power to collect and theoretically redistribute. You can't be an individualist unless you are free to do as you please without interference from the Authorities. In essence the classic test is really a wide stripe not an axis, very few will score Left Authoritarian or Right Libertarian just because of the way the questions are rated. If you are Authoritarian it shifts you to the right and if you are Libertarian it shifts you to the left.

Pops I think you are an honorable individual who cares about the environment and the legacy he leaves behind for his family. Those are not left/right false dichotomy those are good/evil and I call them good. I also think from many things you have posted you are more Authoritarian than I am because you think a big government can take care of the people who can't take care of themselves and I disagree. That doesn't make me a better person, just a more Libertarian one. I don't assume those who disagree with me are evil nor do I get that vibe from you.

I am inherently distrustful of Authoritarians, the government that governs best is that which governs least in my book. I am a student of history and I know nearly every culture devolves into Authoritarian status after a few generations. Back in 2007 I posted this concept post451846.html but that thread ended up locked in merge mania. I asked the question again 8-stages-of-culture-where-are-we-t59232.html in 2010 and that thread is still open if anyone wants to add anything too it. My faith teaches me that everyone is free to choose their own path in life and with God or without and will have to decide what it is they value most. I donate time and money to project I consider worthwhile, I do not blindly follow anyone unless coerced to do so. Your path is your own choice.

So long as you are working for Good I will support you even if I find your Authoritarian beliefs too strong for my taste. That goes double for every politician I vote for. For 27 years I have voted in every election I could and I have never voted a straight party line in my life.

[dinopello]

I think a big distinction in terms of a society is - are you free to leave and go elsewhere ? In Korea, the old Soviet Union etc the answer is generally no. Regardless of how authoritarian we the people have decided our government should be with forcing people to pay for courts and schools and emergency room care for others, everyone is free to leave and take up residence in the Cayman's or whever you like.

[Quinny]

You're already pointing out the flaws in the OP. You think collectivist means Authoritarian which youare against so in effect it's bad in your terms.

brings to mind the 6 foot long chopsticks in hell

[Ibon]

Do we have the wide open spaces, the resources, the wide open economic spaces to provide the fertile soil for individual freedom to continue to prosper as it has. Or like China straining to manage 1.5 billion people, does resource constraints and an over crowded planet preclude a more authoritarian government?

If authoritarianism is the only choice for managing the masses in a resource constrained world, could we hope for at least a benevolent authoritarianism. Is this an oxymoron or a possibility?

Consider if the demonstrations at Tienanmen Square had been successful and the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party toppled and replaced with a more liberal democracy. Would the 1.5 billion Chinese be better off today?

How tied are America's liberal democratic traditions to the wide open land and abundant resources that spawned a culture of freedom?

Maybe freedom has nothing to do with the kind of government one is ruled under. For example, has our definition of freedom drifted without us even knowing it as we have become more homogenized through being tethered to our digital devices? This homogenization is happening while on the individual level we believe these digital toys are enabling us to have more freedom. Very insidious.

[Tanada]

In fairness there have been Authoritarian periods where the individuals in the lower classes had more opportunities than they did in others. For example for much of the history of the Byzantine Empire poor people who could find an apprenticeship position working for a skilled tradesman could becomes tradesmen or merchants and comfortably middle class. That was not always the case and in some Authoritarian regimes the exact opposite takes place where the people above seek to suppress the ambitions of those below.

[Pops]

I think of the grid like this
--------- laws ------
ours-------------mine
---------rights--------

The y-axis is the authority continuum with the most authoritarian being pre-invasion Afganistan or - yes Preston, Germany before WWII. The old south in the US was pretty authoritarian since some people had no rights at all, it seems to me we're moving uncomfortably this way once again post 9/11 and post TEA party, etc. IOW, you either believe and act via the accepted norm or you are punished.

But none of that is necessarily economic.

the x-axis is the economic continuum where on the hard left is communal ownership of all property and means of production and the hard right I guess would be no state ownership of anything or provision of any service. "Collectivist" doesn't mean "collecting" it means "collective" as in "together".


I guess the old USSR is an example of a 0/10 - our/law (authoritarian/collectivist) country
and maybe Somolia a 10/0 mine/rights (Individualist/anarchist) country (where the true free market individualists live).

I can't really think of a 0/0 our/rights (collectivist/anarchist) country Mainly I think because of the "Law of Oligarchy" that says any organization of sufficient size will wind up with bureaucrats and they will eventually develop into a a hierarchy and eventually an oligarchy. Maybe some pre-industrial groups? There are lots of philosophers who ruminate on various strains of left libertarianism such as libertarian socialism but it is mostly just that, philosophizing. People like order and society needs laws because most will try to take advantage if they can.

I think the right tells themselves a story about just how exceptional they are and of course the recent "I built that" hubristic gas cloud is the perfect example. It is embarrassing to me to see people so full of themselves that they choose to ignore the sacrifices of the past that gave them their chances.


No doubt most concerns of the right in the US are tied up in Their Rights and Their Economy. Ask anyone on the right if they think other people get too many government benefits and what do they say? Of course they will repeat some version of 47% are moochers - but not them!

But the reality is "Tax Expenditures" are the name for loopholes or as those on the right like to say welfare.

Do you know what the largest Tax Expenditure is?
Tax exclusion of employer paid health insurance.
The second? The mortgage interest deduction
Third? Capital gains exemption on sale of residence.

What would those rugged individualists say about the elimination of those tax expenditures?


http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07L01

[Pops]

I meant to explain that I'm in the left lib area of the matrix.
Socially I want the gov to stay out of my personal morality and to respect my human rights and protect those rights from the socially powerful.
Economically I want private ownership and gov should protect my economic interests from those more economically powerful.


Here is another political quiz
http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/POLMTX/thetest.php
This one gives the option of marking issues as exceptionally important.

[Plantagenet]

I meant to explain that I'm in the left lib area of the matrix.
Socially I want the gov to stay out of my personal morality and to respect my human rights and protect those rights from the socially powerful.
Economically I want private ownership and gov should protect my economic interests from those more economically powerful.


Here is another political quiz
http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/POLMTX/thetest.php
This one gives the option of marking issues as exceptionally important.

On Pop's new quiz I came out almost exactly in the middle of the plot---

i.e. the test labels me a CENTRIST.

I'm OK with that.

[Quinny]

I'm gonna take it in a minute, but if you're in the middle planty, sorry pops but it's obviously a crock of shit

[Quinny]

Just done it and come out middle of bottom left quadrant. Wasn't impressed by yht questions though. I think they to muh focussed on a US audience. I think the political compass is better.

[Tanada]

Took Pops new test

Economic score: +5.68
Social score: -3.48Note your scores and Login to your Atlas Account to Save your Scores

Your score pegs you as economically capitalist and socially moderately libertarian.

Capitalists generally support an open free market and lower taxes, but also support government restrictions on blatantly abusive industry. Capitalists also often differ from their more extreme peers in that, while they may support significantly lower taxes, they are less apt to support complete elimination of taxation or near-complete elimination of government.

Moderate social libertarians generally favor a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

Not sure what to make of this, I can't say it is way off but its not quite how I think of myself.

[careinke]

No matter how you label it, I always end up in the bottom/right quartile.

[dinopello]

New quiz result for me

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -4.35Note your scores and Login to your Atlas Account to Save your Scores

Your score pegs you as economically centrist and socially moderately libertarian.

Economic centrists generally support economic policy that they see as fit for specific situations, although they may have different views relating to taxes and regulation.

Moderate social libertarians generally favor a hands-off approach to social legislation. They may believe that the government has no right to enforce morals, but may support certain controls on individual rights to avoid crime, drug use, or similar social ills.

[careinke]

This test put me a little more to the left on the economic scale than I usually am. Probably because I do think we need taxes, just not income or payroll taxes (I prefer consumption/use taxes).

Economic score: +2.71
Social score: -5.74Note your scores and Login to your Atlas Account to Save your Scores

Your score pegs you as economically center-capitalist and socially libertarian.

Center-capitalists often support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances on economic issues, supporting what they see as the best balance between encouraging business and maintaining free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favoring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

[vision-master]

Full decriminalization of drugs would lead to a serious increase in aberrant behavior warranting application of 'necessity laws' in increased measure. Murder being murder and rape rape, regardless of substance use by the perpetrator.

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... z2AR58rJ2L