5-dimensional political test

[Gorgon]

Democrats 

on immigration, domestic policy, healthcare, social, foreign policy, economic, environmental, and education issues.
compare answers

91%

Green Party 

on social, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, environmental, domestic policy, and education issues.
compare answers

76%

Socialist 

on social, domestic policy, environmental, healthcare, and immigration issues.
compare answers

69%

Libertarians 

on economic, domestic policy, and social issues.
compare answers

30%

Republicans 

on economic and environmental issues.
compare answers

[Darkpriest]

@Gorgon,

 

Are you from a Scandinavian country?

[Valsuelm]

@Gorgon,

 

Are you from a Scandinavian country?

 

I've wondered the same thing... as he often posts in a manner that would lead one to think this.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Conservative Anarchist Total-Isolationist Humanist Liberal

 

Collectivism score: -67%
Authoritarianism score: -100%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: -50%
Liberalism score: 17%

 

Some of it is operating on bogus definitions though. Deciding not carve a bloody crusade across the globe to eradicate perceived threats to my culture makes me an isolationist? Every question dealing with foreign issues involved State participation. They are kind of a false choice. I didn't see the "unregulated voluntary trade and travel with everyone" option. Other than that, the title doesn't feel too off-the-mark.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Rostere]

Okay, American test:

 

Parties you side with...

88%

Green Party 

on domestic policy, social, foreign policy, immigration, and healthcare issues.
 

83%

Democrats 

on domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, and healthcare issues.
 

74%

Libertarians 

on economic, immigration, and social issues.
 

55%

Constitution Party 

on domestic policy and economic issues.
 

52%

Socialist 

on social and foreign policy issues.
 

37%

Conservative Party 

on economic and environmental issues.

 

30%

Republicans 

on environmental issues.

 

So apparently I largely with the Green Party, except for issues of economy, where I am a Libertarian (I find that hard to believe), and issues of environmental issues, where I am with the Republicans (!).

 

Well, I think all this test tells us is that if non-Americans were running the US, the two-party reality of Democrats and Republicans would be exchanged to one of Democrats and the Green Party.

 

[Darkpriest]

 

 

Well, I think all this test tells us is that if non-Americans were running the US, the two-party reality of Democrats and Republicans would be exchanged to one of Democrats and the Green Party.

 

 

Nah, that's just scandinavians who can't think of better because their whole life is direced by the state and ultra high taxes

[Gorth]

You are a: Left-Leaning Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Humanist Liberal

 

Collectivism score: 33%

Authoritarianism score: -33%

Internationalism score: -17%

Tribalism score: -50%

Liberalism score: 17%

 

 

 

I knew my results would be boring...

I got something with a similar sounding description...

 

You are a: Left-Leaning Anti-Government Non-Interventionist Nativist Liberal

Collectivism score: 17%

Authoritarianism score: -17%

Internationalism score: -33%

Tribalism score: 50%

Liberalism score: 17%

 

Edit just for fun, tried the link GuardDog posted (just to see if I would have made a good American)

 

Parties you side with...

 

72%

Libertarians

on economic, foreign policy, social, and domestic policy issues.

 

70%

Green Party

on social, environmental, foreign policy, domestic policy, and healthcare issues.

 

65%

Democrats

on environmental, domestic policy, and healthcare issues.

 

61%

Constitution Party

on economic and immigration issues.

 

60%

Republicans

on economic and immigration issues.

 

59%

Conservative Party

on economic and immigration issues.

 

54%

Socialist

on social and domestic policy issues.

[Bendu]

You are a: Objectivist Anarchist Total-Isolationist Humanist Libertine

Collectivism score: -100%

Authoritarianism score: -100%

Internationalism score: -100%

Tribalism score: -67%

Liberalism score: 100%

[Namutree]

 

 

Well, I think all this test tells us is that if non-Americans were running the US, the two-party reality of Democrats and Republicans would be exchanged to one of Democrats and the Green Party.

 

Sounds horrible. 

[Maedhros]

Norwegian here (so you might not be too surprised with my results):

 

[LadyCrimson]

I'd agree the questions are too "binary" ..... but then, most questionnaires like these are. Kind hard not to be unless they're essay questions.
 
You are a: Right-Leaning Anti-Government Progressive
Collectivism score: -17%
Authoritarianism score: -17%
Internationalism score: 0%
Tribalism score: 0%
Liberalism score: 50%
 
It's interesting that if I go back and change the answer to one question, the tribalism score went -17% and I become a Right-Leaning Anti-Government Cosmopolitan Progressive, whatever the heck that means.

 

I started to take that isidewith.com test but my attention wandered and I doubt I answered them with much thought. Plus side, it allowed for more indepth answers. Still, I'm not a very "political" person and barely know who these parties are anymore. But it gave me these:

 

Democrats 87
Green Party 82
Libertarians 68
Conservative 53
Constitution 52

(I think "Socialist" was down there at 40%ish)

 

...probably not surprising.

[Guard Dog]

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom. Not really. They like a government who tells them what to do and how to do it. To each their own I guess. I can't really see it myself but to each their own.

[Namutree]

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom. Not really. They like a government who tells them what to do and how to do it. To each their own I guess. I can't really see it myself but to each their own.

Maybe they think a balance of freedom and security (economic or otherwise) is better than an unbalanced reverence to freedom. 

 

Don't get me wrong: I likely am as pro-freedom as you, but I can still understand other points of view.

[Guard Dog]

I'll be honest, I really can't see it. Accepting economic security at the price of an all powerful government seems like a fools bargain to me. Limited freedom enjoyed only at the sufferance of a government that can take it away is not freedom.  In the US Greens, Socialists, & Democrats (for the most part) do not value individual rights or liberty. They are in favor of a government that to a greater of lesser extent has control over a great part of our lives.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Namutree]

I'll be honest, I really can't see it. Accepting economic security at the price of an all powerful government seems like a fools bargain to me. Limited freedom enjoyed only at the sufferance of a government that can take it away is not freedom.  In the US Greens, Socialists, & Democrats (for the most part) do not value individual rights or liberty. They are in favor of a government that to a greater of lesser extent has control over a great part of our lives.

I added the bold there.

 

They don't want an all-powerful government. They want balance; generally. They see an all powerful state crushing all semblance of freedom as a threat. They see a stateless or near stateless society where much of your life is left to chance and your future not being secure as a threat as well. It's not hard to understand.

 

They see government as a tool: It's good when used properly, and it can be bad when misused. A hammer for example is good for construction, but it's not so good when used to bash people's head in. The problem isn't the hammer; it's the misuse of the hammer.

 

Again; I'm only playing devil's advocate.

[Darkpriest]

Well, give it 30 years in EU and you will see the economic system collapsing or more and more riots and protests. Socialism is a dream that can't be sustained, due to limited availabilty of resources and limited groups having access to those resources for extraction (due to simple geographic reasons). Socialism attracts unproductivity and beaurocracy (no productivity, costs only). The more legislation that tries to monitor everything, the more clercks you need, whose sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth, so logically this will limit overall wealth growth potential. It's funny, that Western EU countries built their wealth on the post war free economy and in large part Marshal plan and once reached a certain wealth level decided to go for the nicely named socialism (called welfare), completely disregarding the socialism behind the iron curtain that over there it made people equally poor, aside of the people in charge of the wealth redistribution.... Now when more immigrants hit the EU and the society's demographics gets in danger of getting to elderly, you start to see the issues more clerly. First the retirment age issues, then we will see free education issue, there will be social benefits to cut out, etc. if not, then we will see the repeat of 2011 economic crisis and more countries forced to announce insolvency, and that will eb too late... if a country like France will have to do that (and they will have to unless they will push for even more cuts in the walfare state) the EU economics will suffer greatly...

 

That said, social tolerance and making sure that our race or religion are not a subject to discrimination is something we should strive for. It's just the socialism as the economic idea that it's flawed in its concept, but so is free capitalism. Capitalism with MINOR involvement of the government should be the goal. The minor part being critical point here, and that refers to clear laws, simple tax rules and support for science/education and renewable sources of energy, plus general public safety, i.e. firefighters, police, military and life saving emergency hospitalization. I could make a more detailed list, but that would take too much space

[Rosbjerg]

Socialism is a dream that can't be sustained, due to limited availabilty of resources and limited groups having access to those resources for extraction (due to simple geographic reasons). Socialism attracts unproductivity and beaurocracy (no productivity, costs only). The more legislation that tries to monitor everything, the more clercks you need, whose sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth, so logically this will limit overall wealth growth potential. 

 

The problem you are pointing to aren't a result of socialism, it's monetary and cultural. We have more than enough resources, it's simply distribution that have needed, until now, to be tightly controlled... and it worked really well, we brought an entire group of people from abject poverty to excess. Capitalism truly revolutionized distribution of wealth and socialism with capitalism has worked really well up here in the north - some would say better than most other system (if Fukuyama is to be believed).

 

But the system is starting to show it's weaknesses in a modern economy evolving away from production and industry. Extreme waste, the fact that irresponsibility is more often more profitable, growing disparity due to ingrown corruption etc.

 

We need to come up with a new system - not socialist - which essentially still operates under industrial assumptions and not capitalistic.

 

 

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom.

 

Not your kind of freedom at least, but then I don't really believe one would be truly free under your kind of system.

[Gorgon]

@Gorgon,

 

Are you from a Scandinavian country?

No, all the mods are not secretly from...

 

damn, too late. 

[Gorgon]

I thought support for Israel was universal. Perhaps it's louder with the republicans. Democrats would still answer 'yes' though. Is there anyone of importance that wouldn't ?

[Maedhros]

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom. Not really. They like a government who tells them what to do and how to do it. To each their own I guess. I can't really see it myself but to each their own.

The only freedom you have that I don't is the freedom to fail, really. Well, that and hate speech I guess.

 

I like my safety net! It's not like the government is forcing us to pay high taxes, we, as free folk and all that, prefer it that way.

[Namutree]

 

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom.

 

Not your kind of freedom at least, but then I don't really believe one would be truly free under your kind of system.

 

Are you talking about the US system as it is or Guard Dog's tiny government/no government ideal?

Edited December 1, 2014 by Namutree

[Darkpriest]

 

Socialism is a dream that can't be sustained, due to limited availabilty of resources and limited groups having access to those resources for extraction (due to simple geographic reasons). Socialism attracts unproductivity and beaurocracy (no productivity, costs only). The more legislation that tries to monitor everything, the more clercks you need, whose sole purpose is the redistribution of wealth, so logically this will limit overall wealth growth potential. 

 

The problem you are pointing to aren't a result of socialism, it's monetary and cultural. We have more than enough resources, it's simply distribution that have needed, until now, to be tightly controlled... and it worked really well, we brought an entire group of people from abject poverty to excess. Capitalism truly revolutionized distribution of wealth and socialism with capitalism has worked really well up here in the north - some would say better than most other system (if Fukuyama is to be believed).

 

But the system is starting to show it's weaknesses in a modern economy evolving away from production and industry. Extreme waste, the fact that irresponsibility is more often more profitable, growing disparity due to ingrown corruption etc.

 

We need to come up with a new system - not socialist - which essentially still operates under industrial assumptions and not capitalistic.

 

 

You hardly can have industrial system where a lot of "added value" became intangible. Ask yourself why the odd walfare system worked well. Was it because when you implemented it, you were already wealthy perhaps?

 

Give people the fishing rod and learn them how to fish, instead of giving them the fish and making dependant. I will always disagree with the notion that you need redistribution. I can agree that in the case of physically and mentally disabled people you need some form of basic help to allow them to operate in the society in a civilized way, but no one will ever convince me that we need to pay taxes and give people social benefits. I don't mind the paid insurance for instances of losing a job, and equal chances at obtaining the basic education ( so basic learning materials and access to basic education). Everything else is in the hands of the individual.

 

I've climbed in 6 years from an intern to an Finance Manager in a global multibillion corporation, then resigned from that and went to start a career in another field after a long break and I am sure I will be successful in it too within 2-3 years. My father was starting up own business 4 times before he got successful. If I or my father, who came from poor family could do that, then everyone can do it. If you are too lazy to do that, then that's your fault, and no one elses. Do not put a burden of financing lazy or stupid people on people who worked hard to get to where they are.

 

As for the resources, how do you define "enough"? Enough does not equal unlimited, and as in case of everything that has limits (starting with fertile land and living space to diamonds) there will be a value. If you want socialism, you need redistribution. If you need redistribution, you need people doing that. The question is, how much reditsribution you need, and how much are you willing to pay for it. There are no "free" items in the world. Everything has its value, including human life, when you look from the limited resources perspective. There are however different value tags based on the perspective on given problems.

 

An example:

For me, my life is invaluable - I'd be willing to give all my assets to save it, but I have no real alternative for my choice. I retain nothing of my assets if I die.

 

For my family, my life is extremly valuable, but would my family be willing to sell all the assets to save my life... I can't be sure, because they might value for example the ability to have a shelter and food for them quite high and would not necessarily be willing to get rid of that.

 

For my neighborhood my life is probably significant enough to raise some funds, but I am fairly sure that they would not sell all of their assets to save my life. They value other things higher than that, so for exmple my life is worth to them less than their car.

[Humanoid]

I largely see myself as being apolitical, but eh.

 

You are a: Centrist Pro-Government Interventionist Nationalist Libertine

Collectivism score: 0%

Authoritarianism score: 33%

Internationalism score: 17%

Tribalism score: 33%

Liberalism score: 83%

 

 

The other test helpfully leads with the message "This is the American quiz. Would you like to take the American Quiz (link to American Quiz)?" Less than halfway through it, I found I didn't understand even half the questions properly, so I aborted.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

The problem you are pointing to aren't a result of socialism, it's monetary and cultural. We have more than enough resources, it's simply distribution that have needed, until now, to be tightly controlled... and it worked really well, we brought an entire group of people from abject poverty to excess. Capitalism truly revolutionized distribution of wealth and socialism with capitalism has worked really well up here in the north - some would say better than most other system (if Fukuyama is to be believed).

 

But the system is starting to show it's weaknesses in a modern economy evolving away from production and industry. Extreme waste, the fact that irresponsibility is more often more profitable, growing disparity due to ingrown corruption etc.

 

We need to come up with a new system - not socialist - which essentially still operates under industrial assumptions and not capitalistic.

 

 

 

 

Extreme waste, corruption and irresponsibility are hallmarks of all political system across time when you look deeper into them. Nazi germany was extremely controlled and yet there was plenty of corruption in it. The point being is that those traits are not the result of systems failing but people failing the system. Unbridled capitalism is the absolute champion in those categories anyway.

 

The push to destroy the welfare state comes from the rich, all in an effort to push the state out of businesses (both in terms of regulation and ownership) so they can take them over and put all the profits in their own pocket. 

If you cut down on the socialist aspects of the system all that will be achieved is that more money will be drained out of the government and by extension, out of what it can provide for the citizens, while the corrupt public figures will be replaced by corrupt private figures accountable to no one.

[Valsuelm]

So... what I'm seeing here is there are a lot of folks here who really don't like freedom. Not really. They like a government who tells them what to do and how to do it. To each their own I guess. I can't really see it myself but to each their own.

 

Given your time on this forum, does that really surprise you? The commies and willing serfs out number us here.