Political leanings

Hmm, looks like I'm leaning slightly in a communist direction myself!

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

Honestly, though, I'm not sure which political party I'd be suited to.

 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

 

What is funny is that many people here peg low in the authoritarian/libertarian scale, but also wish to have much more government.

That alone makes the test void. Or means people cheated.

You can't have both less government and more government at the same time.

 

hmm. i, like betelgeuse, tend to think of myself more as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. but i guess my answer to that healthcare question knocked me over to the left i remember having done this before. i wonder if i can find my old numbers and see how i've changed in the past year of constant life disasters?

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

A little down and to the left.

 

Mine is

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

No surprises there.

 

I do not appear to have moved much in the past year.

Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 30 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]452274[/snapback]</div>

I think "big gov" typically refers to "big spending" and more government control, which the liberals are more likely to do. Other than opposing abortion and trying to ban gay marriage, what restrictive social laws does the right promote?

 

Interesting.

Economic Left/Right: -3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

-wiiprii

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 30 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]452295[/snapback]</div>

Restrictive immigration policies, tougher penalties for drug offenders, more government surveillance are three that come right to the top of my head.

 

Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

Right smack dab in the center of the lower left quadrant. Dalai Lama and Mr. Mandela!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 30 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]452295[/snapback]</div>

Um, lets see, how about DRM and Wiretapping just to name two.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 30 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]452295[/snapback]</div>

Liberals are more likely to be for more governmental control and 'big spending', but keep in mind that 'big spending' is usually investing into something valuable. For instance a program such as nationalized healthcare isn't about spending more government money, it is about taking the money we spend privately into the public realm to equalize access to healthcare; and in the U.S., this process can net a decrease in the amount of overall public + private spending on healthcare. The government spends more money and we get higher taxes, but there is a net gain for the vast majority of the people. Also, 'big spending' in research and development, correlates to more economic growth in new technologies down the road, which is done by private companies (private sector benefits). And programs such as welfare is 'big spending', but if done properly (which is the hard part), can lift poor families out of poverty and into the economic growth engine of the economy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 30 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]452295[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. I hear more "right-leaning" people talk about big-gov being to restrictive in just about everything except when it comes to issues in citzens personal lives. They often push for laws against same-sex marriage or abortion etc. yet they want less laws on business and economic factors. The so-called liberals tend to want the opposite. Less laws on personal issues and more on economic and business issues. Since the majority of problems are caused by big-business prcatices and not whether Diane wants to marry Susan I see no problem with the latter viewpoint. We can have more government control without "big spending". If people cannot accept responsibility for their actions and educate themselves enough to do the rights things then someone has to guide them (government). Unfortunately most people cannot be bothered to do research on political canidates or ballot propositions so they just let others choose for them and those who do the choosing tend to be in that 1% of the rich portion of the community, can you see a corrolation there?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 30 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]452295[/snapback]</div>

Ahhh, two agendas, both faith-based.There's the real question...not "how many programs?," but "how many programs which are guided by belief in a certain faith?"

Also, I'm wondering...how many Americans need be impacted before restrictive social laws like these gain sufficient importance?

If the Bush administration passed a law which prohibited monster trucks on public roads, would that get your attention?

 

I am for the government that gets involved with my life the least, whether it be gay marriage and narcotic use, or what vehicle I am allowed to drive and whether I am responsible for three people on my block getting health care and covering their food bill.

All of those are pretty involved in my life and my decision making process, and quite frankly, suck.

I don't think the government should have any place in marriage. The whole thing is either a religious issue, or a business contract. Religious ceremonies have no place in government. Business and legal contracts are just that, and the only part the government should have in that is the enforcement of them through the courts. If Bill and Adam want to live together and have a rose garden, great. It shouldn't be anybody's business. If John wants to simultaneously be married to Adam, Mary, Kristy, and Joe, good for him. I won't help him financially, but that is his choice.

I don't think that the government should be legislating any type of private morality, unless it hurts other people against their will, or involves children, animals, or the mentally ill.

In my view, if you want to do 25 lines of coke while watching adult films, that is your choice. If you have a heart attack and can't afford to pay your medical bills to stay alive, well, that is your responsibility too. Not mine.

If Susan wants to have an abortion, that should be her choice. I am certainly not going to pay for it though, and neither should anybody else. That is her responsibility. I am not going to pay for her kids either. If you can't afford to take care of your children, they should be taken from you.

If John doesn't want to work, let him starve. He will work eventually. His living and eating arrangements are not my responsibility, nor that of the government. If he is unable to work, then he should receive help. However, if he is unable to work because he is a coke addict, he should go to the bottom of the list. I want the guy who was in a massive layoff to receive help before the coke addict.

If you want to eat lard and trans-fat all day, more power to you. That is your right. You know it's bad for you. I should not have to pay your medical bills for your poor decision making process. That would just reinforce your bad behavior. Same with tobacco. You smoke for 30 years and now need a new lung? Tough luck, bad choice. Probably should have cut down a pack a day and saved up for a new lung.

If you want to rape or murder children, I think you should get no special treatment. If other prisoners are going to murder you, I really don't care. I don't feel you are worth rehabilitating. Seeing as how we can't prevent you from being near children, we need to find the most failsafe way of preventing you from harming more children. You should never be able to escape. If that means death, so be it. That should be left up to the individual state though.

If you don't want to wear a seat belt, great. Nobody is going to pay your medical bills for you though. You will be billed accordingly. Nobody will be held liable for your injuries either, when it was your decision to increase your own risk.

To make it simple, the only law the federal government should enforce is the Constitution. The states should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. I choose to live in a state that is pretty liberal (little L). I found California and Illinois to be oppressive and draconian in that they micromanage people's lives. If Massachusettes wants to recognize homosexual marriages, great. Why should another state be forced to? Massachusettes certainly doesn't recognize my right to carry a concealed weapon, or even own one for that matter. Florida does though.

I am a conservative libertarian. I want more freedom from government, at all levels. I don't want you snooping on me, or telling me I need to distribute my money to someone else. I don't mind paying taxes for things that work. Most government things don't work all too well. I will pay for things that private industry can't do, like national defense and massive research and development. I also don't mind paying for roads, hospitals, and schools, as long as they are working well. I resent anybody telling me how to live my life, whether they are some religious nutbar or some atheist socialist.

 

I can only hope that nothing heinous and unspeakable and absolutely awful befalls you...something which saps your will to survive and to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and maybe even makes you question everything you thought you believed.

'Cause, if it does...and you discover yourself not quite as fit, and young, and able, and strong, and independent, and self sufficient as you were...you might have different feelings about those who "choose" not to work...who "choose" not to better themselves...who "choose" to end up destitute and supported by Government programs...

Sure, there are lots of abuses to the system. We all know that. I'm not going to argue otherwise.

But there are also lots and *lots* of people who need our help, and it's a bit disturbing that you articulate your disdain for them so vehemently.

The "I'm a rugged individual who can take care of himself...I don't understand why everyone else isn't like me" stance comes across as a bit callous and self-centered.

Are you in your 20's, by chance? I felt a little like this in my 20's.