Help with Political Outlook

sh1tin-a-brick

This may be quite a strange topic, but I need some guidance in defining my political outlook. I'm quite politically ignorant, but as I'm now 18 I think I should start figuring out where exactly I stand.

Just to clarify, I don't need people to tell me what to think! I have plenty of opinions already, I just need to figure out what outlook/party suits me best. I've read a couple of threads about being conservative, liberal etc, but I've found so much conflicting information (coupled with ridiculous amounts of jargon) that I'm nearly more confused than I was!

I'll offer some of my stances, and I'd really appreciate if a few of you could explain what "heading" I fall under :rolleyes:

Abortion, a big one, I'm not entirely sure! To throw in my personal belief, I couldn't do it, but I don't judge others for doing it. I'm a woman of science, big fan of natural selection, so a tiny part of me kinda thinks it's going against that.. In short, I think it should be an option, but certainly not to be taken as an easy way out.

As for use of embryos for stem cell research, I think that's fine. If an embryo has already (in a completely unrelated case to the stem cell case) been aborted, then surely instead of, well, disposing of it, it could be used to possibly extend another person's life? There would have to be strict rules for this obviously, or else people could potentially get pregnant in order to have an abortion so they could arrange to have the stem cells given to someone. That wouldnt be right, especially if there was money involved.

Lets see.. Religion: I was raised Catholic, but I have no religion now. I don't label myself an atheist, because I find them awfully hypocritical. I just have nothing, however I am open to beliefs and the idea of a higher power. I'm tolerant of religion, however I really do think it's a deeply personal thing that shouldn't really affect politics. I'm really, really not a fan of the Catholic Church as an organisation (NOT the individuals in it, like honest priests and honest believers, they're fine), anyway I think that's another debate.

One thing that I really do detest, is when people completely take advantage of benefits. I've seen so many people with houses handed to them, dole handed to them, children's books and uniforms paid for, free lunches at school, and they just milk it all to no end. I understand there's a lot of unemployment around, but a lot of people just take advantage. My parents work their arses off to pay for my education (and my two brothers'), they have literally spent thousands and thousands on it. They work hard, pay taxes, and get nothing. It bothers me to see others sail past on handouts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that conservatives believe in little government interferance. I expressed the views in the previous paragraph to a friend who says that he agrees with my annoyance, and that's he's quite conservative in his views about it. He thinks that the government shouldn't provide for slackers (again, I don't mean to generalise), basically that everyone should fight for their living! I don't think it's a bad idea to be honest.

I understand there is such thing as cultural conservatism, which is about preserving culture and all that craic. I do think we should try and keep our heritage alive. I detest hearing children talking with American accents (*cough*South Dublin) and I do think we should keep our Irish language! The way Irish is currently taught is absolutely appalling IMHO. I know very intelligent people who have been "learning" it for 12 years, and have no real grasp of it, but I have friends in the North, learning it for 3-4 years, who are literally fluent! What I don't agree with though, is throwing money at Gaelscoileanna. In the nearest Gaelscoil to me, the students get free lunches, the school building is brand new, modern, with lovely stone work exterior. BUT, they hardly speak Irish half the time. Yeah, when the aul Cigire shows up they do, but not all the time! My schools (primary and secondary) were overcrowded ****holes, if you'll pardon my language.

Obviously the government has a massive role in education, and I think we're in need of change. I've said to conserve our heritage etc, but education has to be as modern as possible, and always up to date. Primary school in particular has problems. I found that the average child is catered for in-class, the weaker child is catered for with learning support, however stronger pupils are left out. I was constantly bored in primary school, and often in my early years of secondary school, simply because I wasn't being challenged! Note, I don't see that as an excuse to misbehave, I never gave problems, I just sat and doodled all the time :rolleyes: I think that teachers need to be encouraged to always keep up to date with their own learning. I hated nothing more than being shushed or even given out to for pointing out a flaw/mistake (not in a cheeky way mind you, I was a good student!).

Basically, I think education is one of the highest priorities the government should have. Curriculums need to be broader. We need to be educated in life skills as well as all the nonsense we cram for exams. I have friends and class mates dealing with issues like drugs, crime, teenage parenthood etc. We need to be shown that it's not a clean cut choice between either going to college or just doing nothing (and getting involved in the above issues).

As for health, I dunno really. Thankfully I've had only a few occurences where I've dealt with hospitals/clinics. Though I do think the public health system is in shambles. Over crowded, unpleasant. The sight and smell of a public hospital is enough to make me ill! Unfortunately, private health is ridiculously expensive, simply because it can be. I don't know if privatising all health care would be an ideal solution (well certainly not in the current climate, but in the future) but if all hospitals etc were private, and had to compete, surely prices would come down, but the quality should remain fairly high?

Those are just some things I can think of! To anyone who really sits and reads it, THANK YOU! I just need to be advised on what heading I fall under. All feedback is welcome... But if you're gonna sit and challenge my opinions, I'll challenge you right back with logical points and arguments

Cheers

Suryavarman

Taking the political spectrum quiz or the Political Compass test could give you a better idea of where you are politically. I personally find the spectrum quiz more accurate and it also ranks you foreign policy and cultural beliefs as well.

sh1tin-a-brick

Suryavarman wrote: »

Taking the political spectrum quiz or the Political Compass test could give you a better idea of where you are politically. I personally find the spectrum quiz more accurate and it also ranks you foreign policy and cultural beliefs as well.

Very interesting quizzes... They suggest I'm a Left Liberatarian, I'll have to read up on that! Need to figure out what that means in an Irish context too. Thanks for that though, it was very helpul

Waitsian

sh1tin-a-brick wrote: »

Abortion - in short, I think it should be an option, but certainly not to be taken as an easy way out.

Religion: I don't label myself an atheist, because I find them awfully hypocritical. I just have nothing, however I am open to beliefs and the idea of a higher power. I'm tolerant of religion.

One thing that I really do detest, is when people completely take advantage of benefits. I've seen so many people with houses handed to them, dole handed to them, children's books and uniforms paid for, free lunches at school, and they just milk it all to no end. I understand there's a lot of unemployment around, but a lot of people just take advantage. My parents work their arses off to pay for my education (and my two brothers'), they have literally spent thousands and thousands on it. They work hard, pay taxes, and get nothing. It bothers me to see others sail past on handouts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that conservatives believe in little government interferance. I expressed the views in the previous paragraph to a friend who says that he agrees with my annoyance, and that's he's quite conservative in his views about it. He thinks that the government shouldn't provide for slackers (again, I don't mean to generalise), basically that everyone should fight for their living! I don't think it's a bad idea to be honest.

I understand there is such thing as cultural conservatism, which is about preserving culture and all that craic. I do think we should try and keep our heritage alive.

Obviously the government has a massive role in education, and I think we're in need of change. I've said to conserve our heritage etc, but education has to be as modern as possible, and always up to date. Primary school in particular has problems. I found that the average child is catered for in-class, the weaker child is catered for with learning support, however stronger pupils are left out.

Basically, I think education is one of the highest priorities the government should have. Curriculums need to be broader. We need to be educated in life skills as well as all the nonsense we cram for exams. I have friends and class mates dealing with issues like drugs, crime, teenage parenthood etc. We need to be shown that it's not a clean cut choice between either going to college or just doing nothing (and getting involved in the above issues).

As for health, I dunno really. Thankfully I've had only a few occurences where I've dealt with hospitals/clinics. Though I do think the public health system is in shambles. Over crowded, unpleasant. The sight and smell of a public hospital is enough to make me ill! Unfortunately, private health is ridiculously expensive, simply because it can be. I don't know if privatising all health care would be an ideal solution (well certainly not in the current climate, but in the future) but if all hospitals etc were private, and had to compete, surely prices would come down, but the quality should remain fairly high?

sh1tin-a-brick wrote: »

Very interesting quizzes... They suggest I'm a Left Libertarian, I'll have to read up on that!

Going by the points you've made (and I've picked out) you're not, far from it.

RDM_83 again

The political spectrum quiz does seem a bit better than the political compass quiz. However what annoys me is how US focussed these quiz's are. To be honest I find these quiz's don't really reflect my political views on the liberal versus authoritarian axis as some my position on some issues like the environment would be extremely authoritarian, it would be nice if they could include a 3rd axis of data too

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shanered

"You are a center-left social libertarian"
That quiz is great! Burned a few minutes!
My view is that it would be quite hard for you to choose a political party in Ireland that mirrors your views as alot of them are not exactly black or white and fall into a grey area, which it is impossible for political parties to set into their agenda

sh1tin-a-brick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah your first paragraph is basically what I gathered conservativism (is that a word? :rolleyes:) to be!

Tbh I haven't a clue what all these political fashionistas are all about, they keep trying to recruit me at college (PISS OFF I SAID! ). I'm fairly sure we could survive quite well with little government input in certain areas, like if we completely privitised stuff (eg healthcare), competition would bring the prices down.
As for welfare; leeches really annoy me. I think there was a question on the quiz about whether charity should provide for the needy instead of the government. I think that's a fair enough idea. That way I think people would be less inclined to just milk it, as it is charity. So we the country could certainly work with less government input... I don't know if it would be better, I just reckon it's plausable!

That still leave me as a libertarian or whatever it is? :L

christmas2012

as long as youre not a ULA fan youre fine by me,cant stand richie boyd barret,or FG Fine Gael,enda kenny,Fianna Fail,in fact all political parties..most of them are cons selling out ireland to big multinationals for free(think the fas jobbridge free labour scams)..
I think the whole system needs to change there should be less FAR less politicians running(ruining this country,by overpaying themselves),if you look at the U.K,they have a far better model in place when it comes to running on a council level,we have far too many county councillors,and jackie healey rae types..

sh1tin-a-brick

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The political spectrum quiz does seem a bit better than the political compass quiz. However what annoys me is how US focussed these quiz's are. To be honest I find these quiz's don't really reflect my political views on the liberal versus authoritarian axis as some my position on some issues like the environment would be extremely authoritarian, it would be nice if they could include a 3rd axis of data too

With a third axis it would be a 3D graph... Bit complicated! Awkward to read aswell But yeah a friend of mine didn't think it to be all that accurate. Maybe it's just for poor politically uneducated people like me to find a niche :pac:

junk_seller

sh1tin-a-brick wrote: »

This may be quite a strange topic, but I need some guidance in defining my political outlook. I'm quite politically ignorant, but as I'm now 18 I think I should start figuring out where exactly I stand.

Just to clarify, I don't need people to tell me what to think! I have plenty of opinions already, I just need to figure out what outlook/party suits me best. I've read a couple of threads about being conservative, liberal etc, but I've found so much conflicting information (coupled with ridiculous amounts of jargon) that I'm nearly more confused than I was!

I'll offer some of my stances, and I'd really appreciate if a few of you could explain what "heading" I fall under :rolleyes:

Abortion, a big one, I'm not entirely sure! To throw in my personal belief, I couldn't do it, but I don't judge others for doing it. I'm a woman of science, big fan of natural selection, so a tiny part of me kinda thinks it's going against that.. In short, I think it should be an option, but certainly not to be taken as an easy way out.

As for use of embryos for stem cell research, I think that's fine. If an embryo has already (in a completely unrelated case to the stem cell case) been aborted, then surely instead of, well, disposing of it, it could be used to possibly extend another person's life? There would have to be strict rules for this obviously, or else people could potentially get pregnant in order to have an abortion so they could arrange to have the stem cells given to someone. That wouldnt be right, especially if there was money involved.

Lets see.. Religion: I was raised Catholic, but I have no religion now. I don't label myself an atheist, because I find them awfully hypocritical. I just have nothing, however I am open to beliefs and the idea of a higher power. I'm tolerant of religion, however I really do think it's a deeply personal thing that shouldn't really affect politics. I'm really, really not a fan of the Catholic Church as an organisation (NOT the individuals in it, like honest priests and honest believers, they're fine), anyway I think that's another debate.

One thing that I really do detest, is when people completely take advantage of benefits. I've seen so many people with houses handed to them, dole handed to them, children's books and uniforms paid for, free lunches at school, and they just milk it all to no end. I understand there's a lot of unemployment around, but a lot of people just take advantage. My parents work their arses off to pay for my education (and my two brothers'), they have literally spent thousands and thousands on it. They work hard, pay taxes, and get nothing. It bothers me to see others sail past on handouts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that conservatives believe in little government interferance. I expressed the views in the previous paragraph to a friend who says that he agrees with my annoyance, and that's he's quite conservative in his views about it. He thinks that the government shouldn't provide for slackers (again, I don't mean to generalise), basically that everyone should fight for their living! I don't think it's a bad idea to be honest.

I understand there is such thing as cultural conservatism, which is about preserving culture and all that craic. I do think we should try and keep our heritage alive. I detest hearing children talking with American accents (*cough*South Dublin) and I do think we should keep our Irish language! The way Irish is currently taught is absolutely appalling IMHO. I know very intelligent people who have been "learning" it for 12 years, and have no real grasp of it, but I have friends in the North, learning it for 3-4 years, who are literally fluent! What I don't agree with though, is throwing money at Gaelscoileanna. In the nearest Gaelscoil to me, the students get free lunches, the school building is brand new, modern, with lovely stone work exterior. BUT, they hardly speak Irish half the time. Yeah, when the aul Cigire shows up they do, but not all the time! My schools (primary and secondary) were overcrowded ****holes, if you'll pardon my language.

Obviously the government has a massive role in education, and I think we're in need of change. I've said to conserve our heritage etc, but education has to be as modern as possible, and always up to date. Primary school in particular has problems. I found that the average child is catered for in-class, the weaker child is catered for with learning support, however stronger pupils are left out. I was constantly bored in primary school, and often in my early years of secondary school, simply because I wasn't being challenged! Note, I don't see that as an excuse to misbehave, I never gave problems, I just sat and doodled all the time :rolleyes: I think that teachers need to be encouraged to always keep up to date with their own learning. I hated nothing more than being shushed or even given out to for pointing out a flaw/mistake (not in a cheeky way mind you, I was a good student!).

Basically, I think education is one of the highest priorities the government should have. Curriculums need to be broader. We need to be educated in life skills as well as all the nonsense we cram for exams. I have friends and class mates dealing with issues like drugs, crime, teenage parenthood etc. We need to be shown that it's not a clean cut choice between either going to college or just doing nothing (and getting involved in the above issues).

As for health, I dunno really. Thankfully I've had only a few occurences where I've dealt with hospitals/clinics. Though I do think the public health system is in shambles. Over crowded, unpleasant. The sight and smell of a public hospital is enough to make me ill! Unfortunately, private health is ridiculously expensive, simply because it can be. I don't know if privatising all health care would be an ideal solution (well certainly not in the current climate, but in the future) but if all hospitals etc were private, and had to compete, surely prices would come down, but the quality should remain fairly high?

Those are just some things I can think of! To anyone who really sits and reads it, THANK YOU! I just need to be advised on what heading I fall under. All feedback is welcome... But if you're gonna sit and challenge my opinions, I'll challenge you right back with logical points and arguments

Cheers

you dont sound too politically motivated to me which makes you similar to the vast majority of people in this country

your quite clearly a centrist and not particulary idealogical about anything , your choice is between FG and FF

junk_seller

sh1tin-a-brick wrote: »

This may be quite a strange topic, but I need some guidance in defining my political outlook. I'm quite politically ignorant, but as I'm now 18 I think I should start figuring out where exactly I stand.

Just to clarify, I don't need people to tell me what to think! I have plenty of opinions already, I just need to figure out what outlook/party suits me best. I've read a couple of threads about being conservative, liberal etc, but I've found so much conflicting information (coupled with ridiculous amounts of jargon) that I'm nearly more confused than I was!

I'll offer some of my stances, and I'd really appreciate if a few of you could explain what "heading" I fall under :rolleyes:

Abortion, a big one, I'm not entirely sure! To throw in my personal belief, I couldn't do it, but I don't judge others for doing it. I'm a woman of science, big fan of natural selection, so a tiny part of me kinda thinks it's going against that.. In short, I think it should be an option, but certainly not to be taken as an easy way out.

As for use of embryos for stem cell research, I think that's fine. If an embryo has already (in a completely unrelated case to the stem cell case) been aborted, then surely instead of, well, disposing of it, it could be used to possibly extend another person's life? There would have to be strict rules for this obviously, or else people could potentially get pregnant in order to have an abortion so they could arrange to have the stem cells given to someone. That wouldnt be right, especially if there was money involved.

Lets see.. Religion: I was raised Catholic, but I have no religion now. I don't label myself an atheist, because I find them awfully hypocritical. I just have nothing, however I am open to beliefs and the idea of a higher power. I'm tolerant of religion, however I really do think it's a deeply personal thing that shouldn't really affect politics. I'm really, really not a fan of the Catholic Church as an organisation (NOT the individuals in it, like honest priests and honest believers, they're fine), anyway I think that's another debate.

One thing that I really do detest, is when people completely take advantage of benefits. I've seen so many people with houses handed to them, dole handed to them, children's books and uniforms paid for, free lunches at school, and they just milk it all to no end. I understand there's a lot of unemployment around, but a lot of people just take advantage. My parents work their arses off to pay for my education (and my two brothers'), they have literally spent thousands and thousands on it. They work hard, pay taxes, and get nothing. It bothers me to see others sail past on handouts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that conservatives believe in little government interferance. I expressed the views in the previous paragraph to a friend who says that he agrees with my annoyance, and that's he's quite conservative in his views about it. He thinks that the government shouldn't provide for slackers (again, I don't mean to generalise), basically that everyone should fight for their living! I don't think it's a bad idea to be honest.

I understand there is such thing as cultural conservatism, which is about preserving culture and all that craic. I do think we should try and keep our heritage alive. I detest hearing children talking with American accents (*cough*South Dublin) and I do think we should keep our Irish language! The way Irish is currently taught is absolutely appalling IMHO. I know very intelligent people who have been "learning" it for 12 years, and have no real grasp of it, but I have friends in the North, learning it for 3-4 years, who are literally fluent! What I don't agree with though, is throwing money at Gaelscoileanna. In the nearest Gaelscoil to me, the students get free lunches, the school building is brand new, modern, with lovely stone work exterior. BUT, they hardly speak Irish half the time. Yeah, when the aul Cigire shows up they do, but not all the time! My schools (primary and secondary) were overcrowded ****holes, if you'll pardon my language.

Obviously the government has a massive role in education, and I think we're in need of change. I've said to conserve our heritage etc, but education has to be as modern as possible, and always up to date. Primary school in particular has problems. I found that the average child is catered for in-class, the weaker child is catered for with learning support, however stronger pupils are left out. I was constantly bored in primary school, and often in my early years of secondary school, simply because I wasn't being challenged! Note, I don't see that as an excuse to misbehave, I never gave problems, I just sat and doodled all the time :rolleyes: I think that teachers need to be encouraged to always keep up to date with their own learning. I hated nothing more than being shushed or even given out to for pointing out a flaw/mistake (not in a cheeky way mind you, I was a good student!).

Basically, I think education is one of the highest priorities the government should have. Curriculums need to be broader. We need to be educated in life skills as well as all the nonsense we cram for exams. I have friends and class mates dealing with issues like drugs, crime, teenage parenthood etc. We need to be shown that it's not a clean cut choice between either going to college or just doing nothing (and getting involved in the above issues).

As for health, I dunno really. Thankfully I've had only a few occurences where I've dealt with hospitals/clinics. Though I do think the public health system is in shambles. Over crowded, unpleasant. The sight and smell of a public hospital is enough to make me ill! Unfortunately, private health is ridiculously expensive, simply because it can be. I don't know if privatising all health care would be an ideal solution (well certainly not in the current climate, but in the future) but if all hospitals etc were private, and had to compete, surely prices would come down, but the quality should remain fairly high?

Those are just some things I can think of! To anyone who really sits and reads it, THANK YOU! I just need to be advised on what heading I fall under. All feedback is welcome... But if you're gonna sit and challenge my opinions, I'll challenge you right back with logical points and arguments

Cheers

broadly speaking , your a centrist , not too idealogical in any direction which puts you where the majority are in this country , your clearly not a socilist so are probably a conservative with a small c , your choice is probabley FG or FF

sh1tin-a-brick

junk_seller wrote: »

broadly speaking , your a centrist , not too idealogical in any direction which puts you where the majority are in this country , your clearly not a socilist so are probably a conservative with a small c , your choice is probabley FG or FF

Yeah not hugely into politics, as I think politicians are no different to any other person out there: they're going to be powered by the idea of self-gain. They're not going to give up their nice car or big tv for the sake of a better teacher/pupil ratio in schools.
Unless they're actually living through harsh circumstances they won't seek to better them. They're just like everyone else, I mean how often does one pass by people working for Concern etc out on the streets of Dublin? We're all the same, we're all self satisfying. So voting in different people will make a small difference, if any.

Mance Rayder

According to the political spectrum quiz I am a left moderate social authoritarian and judging by the comparisons with various demographics this political attitude is rare enough.

I'm midway between Gandhi and Stalin :P.

Left: 6.49, Authoritarian: 3.47

Foreign Policy:

You scored: -2.87 ( Slightly left )

Culture:

You scored: -0.18 ( Almost Centre )

junk_seller

CiscoStudent wrote: »

According to the political spectrum quiz I am a left moderate social authoritarian and judging by the comparisons with various demographics this political attitude is rare enough.

I'm midway between Gandhi and Stalin :P.

Left: 6.49, Authoritarian: 3.47

Foreign Policy:

You scored: -2.87 ( Slightly left )

Culture:

You scored: -0.18 ( Almost Centre )

i wouldnt place much truck in those quiz thingys , unless you are very strong either way , they put you hovering around the centre and it doesnt take much to send you left or right , i dont tend to feel very strongly about most of the questions they pose

Mance Rayder

junk_seller wrote: »

i wouldnt place much truck in those quiz thingys , unless you are very strong either way , they put you hovering around the centre and it doesnt take much to send you left or right , i dont tend to feel very strongly about most of the questions they pose

I agree. Most of the questions are geared towards American political issues which are of no interest to most Europeans.

Channel Zero

political spectrum quiz or the Political Compass test

Those quizzes might be a fun way to spend a few minutes, a bit of craic if you don't take them seriously.
But, make no mistake, they're also well known as crude Libertarian recruiting tools. Created by them to try to convince you that you are one of them.

They're updated versions of the Nolan Chart basically, named after and publicised by David Nolan, one of the founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party.
These types of propaganda techniques and their predecessors were and are pushed endlessly on the internet, on telephone surveys and the like, even in schools and textbooks apparently.

They all have the same trick. Everyone who comes out anywhere in the bottom half of the chart (and it's of course set up so that most people do) is told that they're a "Libertarian", while the other segment is "Authoritarian", a term which is generally considered pejorative.

That's a classic false dichotomy fallacy. "You're either with us, or against us." They give everything a negative connotation, except for Libertarianism. After all, it's the opposite of Hilter and Stalin, so it must be good right?
The questions within are cleverly worded to elicit the desired response, aka Framing bias.


Just sayin'.

KyussBishop

Interesting; never really considered the political compass test that way, though have only been introduced to Libertarianism relatively recently.

Libertarianism has multiple dimensions in itself as well really I suppose; just about everyone supports social libertarianism, but when it comes to the economy and public services, there's a lot more disparity in Libertarian ideals.

Eliot Rosewater

Channel Zero wrote: »

They all have the same trick. Everyone who comes out anywhere in the bottom half of the chart (and it's of course set up so that most people do) is told that they're a "Libertarian", while the other segment is "Authoritarian", a term which is generally considered pejorative.

I think you're assuming that the average test taker is somewhere between idiotic and illiterate. The Authoritarian-Libertarian side of the quiz is clearly emphasized to be about social issues, and the labeling can hardly be described as controversial. If you believe that the government should legislate on morals then you are arguing for state authority to be used in the relevant areas. And unlike in economic issues were state intervention can be justified on external consequentialist grounds, state intervention in social areas is argued as an end in and of itself. Authority in and of itself.

Labeling aside, I also sincerely doubt the PoliticalCompass.org quiz was made a libertarian group. The question "Globalization should primarily benefit humanity rather than multinational corporations" is loaded, and clearly pushes people to the left. In fact, I once was so annoyed by this question that I did the test twice answering identically on all questions but answering the opposite on this. The different answer shifted my result a full 1.5 points left. Given that a teeny minority of people will answer that one "strongly disagree", it's hard to see how the quiz is covertly trying to convince people they're libertarian when in many cases it directly pushes them left.

Suryavarman

Channel Zero wrote: »

Those quizzes might be a fun way to spend a few minutes, a bit of craic if you don't take them seriously.
But, make no mistake, they're also well known as crude Libertarian recruiting tools. Created by them to try to convince you that you are one of them.

They're updated versions of the Nolan Chart basically, named after and publicised by David Nolan, one of the founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party.
These types of propaganda techniques and their predecessors were and are pushed endlessly on the internet, on telephone surveys and the like, even in schools and textbooks apparently.

They all have the same trick. Everyone who comes out anywhere in the bottom half of the chart (and it's of course set up so that most people do) is told that they're a "Libertarian", while the other segment is "Authoritarian", a term which is generally considered pejorative.

That's a classic false dichotomy fallacy. "You're either with us, or against us." They give everything a negative connotation, except for Libertarianism. After all, it's the opposite of Hilter and Stalin, so it must be good right?
The questions within are cleverly worded to elicit the desired response, aka Framing bias.


Just sayin'.

Well from personal experience with the Political Compass it has a left wing bias. I have never been able to get further right than half way across the economic axis. Anyone familiar with my posting would be aware that I would be quite far right economically. That quiz also has a number of questions loaded in favour of left wing economics such as Eliot already outlined.

As for the political spectrum quiz, I can either assume that you don't know what a libertarian is or you don't know what you are talking about. If you bothered using the demographic comparison tool you would find that the average person out of 1,215,081 people places here:



The average American Libertarian Party member out of 40,446 places here:



TBH I wouldn't even class that as libertarian.

The average Republican(red) out of 126,364; the average Democrat(blue) out of 173,859; The average UK Labour member(green) out 7,781; The average UK Conservative Party member(pink) out of 8,878 are all as follows:



Are you really trying to tell me that quiz has a libertarian bias?

CL7

Edit: You are a far-right social libertarian.
Right: 8.46, Libertarian: 8.43

Fairly accurate for me.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think you're assuming that the average test taker is somewhere between idiotic and illiterate.

Not sure why you think that.

The Authoritarian-Libertarian side of the quiz is clearly emphasized to be about social issues, and the labeling can hardly be described as controversial. If you believe that the government should legislate on morals then you are arguing for state authority to be used in the relevant areas. And unlike in economic issues were state intervention can be justified on external consequentialist grounds, state intervention in social areas is argued as an end in and of itself. Authority in and of itself.

Well, I didn't really describe the labelling as controversial. The usage of the word "Authoritarian", that has a definite pejorative meaning regardless of your rationale, and "Libertarian" as the opposite, was to me a telling choice of words. That's all. Not controversial per se, but clever wording.

Labeling aside, I also sincerely doubt the PoliticalCompass.org quiz was made a libertarian group.

Not made by a libertarian group. Interesting.
So you think it was made by authoritarian group then? (It has to be one or the other after all.)
They really shot themselves in the foot in that case. I mean, they've gone and designed a quiz that produces results which are the exact opposite of what they intend.

It does seem to be a mystery as to who devised the quiz and who PoliticalCompass.org are. But reading this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 it's pretty obvious where their loyalties lie. It's a biased indictment of Republicans and Democrats alike, followed by what can only be described as a glowing recommendation for Libertarian Ron Paul.

Fitting all the pieces together, perhaps you can see how someone would conclude it's just another Worlds Smallest Political Quiz type dealy.

Channel Zero

Suryavarman wrote: »

Are you really trying to tell me that quiz has a libertarian bias?

I think so anyway.

Suryavarman

Channel Zero wrote: »

Not made by a libertarian group. Interesting.
So you think it was made by authoritarian group then? (It has to be one or the other after all.)
They really shot themselves in the foot in that case. I mean, they've gone and designed a quiz that produces results which are the exact opposite of what they intend.

It does seem to be a mystery as to who devised the quiz and who PoliticalCompass.org are. But reading this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 it's pretty obvious where their loyalties lie. It's a biased indictment of Republicans and Democrats alike, followed by what can only be described as a glowing recommendation for Libertarian Ron Paul.

Fitting all the pieces together, perhaps you can see how someone would conclude it's just another Worlds Smallest Political Quiz type dealy.

Obama is criticised for extending tax cuts, signing free trade agreements and eroding union rights. Ron Paul's ideas are described as social darwinism and he is criticised because a super pac donor invested in defence company. It is clear from the analysis and the framing of many of the questions that the operators of the political compass website are left wing not libertarian.

Channel Zero wrote: »

I think so anyway.

Why?

Channel Zero

We're going way off topic here, but what the hey.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Obama is criticised for extending tax cuts, signing free trade agreements and eroding union rights. Ron Paul's ideas are described as social darwinism and he is criticised because a super pac donor invested in defence company. It is clear from the analysis and the framing of many of the questions that the operators of the political compass website are left wing not libertarian.

Ok. Fair enough and can agree that there is a definite left wing slant to some of what was written in that 2012 election piece.
Is that a bit of political bait-and-switch going on there in the call for left-wingers to support Ron Paul?
Bait-and switch being the tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product.

So in this case, the seller (PoliticalCompass.org) advertises a product (libertarianism or 'left-libertarianism') with the intention of persuading customers (the test takers) to purchase a more expensive product (right-libertarianism).
When a seller uses this tactic, they frequently tell the customer that the original product (left-wing or 'left-libertarian' candidates for the 2012 U.S. election) is sold out or no longer available (even if the product is indeed still available), and push hard for the customer to purchase (support) the costlier product (Ron Paul/right-libertarianism/U.S. Libertarian Party)
Maybe that's reaching hehe.

Why?

Might be repeating things already said, but the reasoning would be that the whole set-up of that quiz is more or less the same as for other ones, like the Worlds Smallest quiz, Nolan chart, ie the two-axis graph, one for social freedom, the other for economic/fiscal freedom, which also happen to be the very ones that right-wing libertarians want movement towards.
The whole idea that freedom can be divided into social and economic freedoms, and the graph used to illustrate it, would seem to have been invented purely to promote libertarianism as a "third way".

Throw in some loaded questions/propositions so that most people who take the quiz and answer them reasonably, will fall into the desired area on the graph.
Hey presto! You're a poet and you didn't know it, and not one of those nasty authoritarians like Stalin or Pol Pot. A clever trick it has to be said.

So it then begs the question, if there genuinely are so many libertarian leaning people, in the U.S. for instance, where these types of quizzes are popular, why did less than 1% of the electorate vote for the Libertarian Party in previous elections?
The most likely explaination would seem to be that the quiz itself is flawed and biased towards libertarianism. That most people who take the quiz are in fact 'centrists', for which there is no position on the 2-axis graph to include them (the false dichotomy) like this one for example.

Many people (me included) i daresay would probably have not even heard of the L word, let alone describe themselves as one (and that's not a judgement on their intelligence, it's just not a word in that common a usage).

Eliot Rosewater

Channel Zero wrote: »

Not sure why you think that.

You're post seeded to assume that the average test taker couldn't actually understand the interpretive stuff on the website, particularly with regards to the vertical axis being a measure of non-economic social opinions. Given what they say on the results page, it would be highly unlikely someone would misinterpret their placing near the libertarian line as meaning they believe in free market economic policy.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Not made by a libertarian group. Interesting.
So you think it was made by authoritarian group then? (It has to be one or the other after all.).

I don't know who that comment is directed at, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that a simple dichotomy exists of the form you're hinting at. Even the political compass people don't: they do have a scale from -10 to 10. Off hand, I can't think of better wording. Do you have a suggestion?

Channel Zero wrote: »

They really shot themselves in the foot in that case. I mean, they've gone and designed a quiz that produces results which are the exact opposite of what they intend.

Why are you assuming that the people behind the political compass, whatever their beliefs, made the quiz in order to promote their ideology? Do you not think it likely they merely had fun making it?

Eliot Rosewater

Channel Zero wrote: »

The whole idea that freedom can be divided into social and economic freedoms, and the graph used to illustrate it, would seem to have been invented purely to promote libertarianism as a "third way".

The idea the two dimensional graphs challenge is the "whole idea that freedom" is one-dimensional. The one dimensional left-right scale has obvious weaknesses. Libertarians are put in with social conservatives. Stalin is lumped in with Gandhi (lol). In both cases the problem is that there is only a weak (or no) correlation between someone believing the government should intervene in economic affairs and them believing the government should intervene in non-economic social affairs. Thus a single scale cannot adequately reflect views.

Channel Zero wrote: »

The most likely explaination would seem to be that the quiz itself is flawed and biased towards libertarianism. That most people who take the quiz are in fact 'centrists', for which there is no position on the 2-axis graph to include them (the false dichotomy) like this one for example.

There is a place for centrists on the political compass: the center of it. I think I'm starting to understand what your problem is. When you see "libertarianism" on the bottom you interpret that as meaning everyone who falls below the x-axis is a libertarian (in a social sense). I do not think this claim is being made. I, equally, do not think that someone who is a teeny bit left of the center vertical line is claimed to be a full-on leftist. The labeling isn't meant to be read like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Issues of left and right are largely irrelevant in the modern age. In a globalised economy, protectionism is discredited, doesn't work, and visibly makes countries poorer. So thats a no go for left and right. The Eurozone crisis has shown the absurdity of sectionalism within the economy, of the various closed shop professions in Mediterranean countries like Italy and Greece, so there goes the corporatist leftism alternative. Whats left? A social democracy that favours high public spending and high taxation? (The Nordic Model) or the French system of a powerful state with tentacles in the majority of the economy? Either way, politicians are neither left nor right in these countries, they will follow first and foremost the popular mood and what is the most pragmatic policy option. Ideological leftism and rightism died in the 70s and the oil crises. It permanently died with the fall of the Soviet Union. There are a few crusties still knocking about from both extremes, but they look so anachronistic that they're laughable almost.

No, what really distinguishes politics in the modern age is the authoritarian/Libertarian dichotomy. With the advent of survaillance technology, the apparatus for the police state is in place. In some countries it is perilously close to becoming a reality - think of the UK. What is worry for civil libertarians like me is that a broadly socially libertarian outfit like the Liberal Democrats can become so enamoured by power that they grant only token opposition to what is in effect an invasion by the state into previously unthinkable domains. Its usually promoted as an advance against pedophilia or terrorism, two scaremongering tactics that will always get the great unwashed on side.

Anyway, I'm rambling here. All I wanted to say was that the only axis that means anything in modern democracies anymore is the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy. Its one of the few areas of principle left in the modern democratic state. Economics is normally a combination of pragmatism and circumstance.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You're post seeded to assume that the average test taker couldn't actually understand the interpretive stuff on the website, particularly with regards to the vertical axis being a measure of non-economic social opinions.

Not at all. It was more about the fact that tests such as these are well-known for being peddled as manipulative hard-sell U.S. Libertarian party recruiting tools.
Pointing out this is not in any way assuming anything about the test-taker, let alone that "every test-taker is somewhere between idiotic and illiterate". It was merely demonstrating how the sales pitch pans out. You do the test and get told how you have scored. (and in this, the most famous one, you're asked would you like to find out more about libertarians)

I don't know who that comment is directed at, but I don't think anyone here is arguing that a simple dichotomy exists of the form you're hinting at. Even the political compass people don't: they do have a scale from -10 to 10.

The political compass model is itself based on a false dichotomy. The introduction of a scale doesn't really change that fact.

Off hand, I can't think of better wording. Do you have a suggestion?

Well, to answer that might mean me entertaining the idea that this model of quiz might be more useful, accurate or un-biased if only the axis was worded differently.
I don't, so will pass on that one.

Why are you assuming that the people behind the political compass, whatever their beliefs, made the quiz in order to promote their ideology?

Because all its predecessors were made to promote their ideology. And this quiz is pretty much exactly the same, albeit a bit less blatantly biased this time, and not conspicouosly named after it's creator, one of the founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party.

Do you not think it likely they merely had fun making it?

They probably had fun making it alright. And it should be treated as a bit of fun.
Was it made merely for fun? I doubt it. But there's no doubt what this test and similar one's are used for. To raise awareness of a minority ideology.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The idea the two dimensional graphs challenge is the "whole idea that freedom" is one-dimensional. The one dimensional left-right scale has obvious weaknesses. Libertarians are put in with social conservatives. Stalin is lumped in with Gandhi (lol). In both cases the problem is that there is only a weak (or no) correlation between someone believing the government should intervene in economic affairs and them believing the government should intervene in non-economic social affairs. Thus a single scale cannot adequately reflect views.

I think it's just that the single scale doesn't adequately reflect libertarian views.

Agree with you that the one dimensional left-right scale has obvious weaknesses, but that's besides the point.
This biased, loaded two-axis one is heavily weighted. The two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired. That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. Why only these two axes?

I think I'm starting to understand what your problem is. When you see "libertarianism" on the bottom you interpret that as meaning everyone who falls below the x-axis is a libertarian (in a social sense). I do not think this claim is being made. I, equally, do not think that someone who is a teeny bit left of the center vertical line is claimed to be a full-on leftist. The labeling isn't meant to be read like that.

I wouldn't be so sure. And it's not me interpreting that everyone who lands in the bottom half is a libertarian. Am just trying to point out that it's a natural interpretation to come to, a result of how the graph is designed around the rigid dichotomy. That this dichotomy is then utilized on ways described already.

Channel Zero

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:)Thanks Permabear. Will have a look at that study at some stage.

Eliot Rosewater

The stuff about it being founded by Libertarians, I will take strictly as a conspiracy theory until you can provide some factual evidence.

I don't see how the current brand of political spectra favour libertarians. If you had to divide up politics into two spectra, how would you do it? As I said previously, there is little correlation between economic views and social non-economic views. As an in-thread example, Denerick and I disagree strongly on economic issues but we have highly similar views on non-economic issues. There is clearly a need to represent these differently as merely lumping me in on the right and Denerick in on the centre does not do justice to the fact that in the major area of non-economic relations we have approximately the same opinions.

Channel Zero wrote: »

The two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired.

Is the political compass plane somewhat physically tilted so that if you don't land in the bottom right corner you slide down there because of gravity? Does this mean that gravity itself is merely an instrument of libertarian indoctrination?

Channel Zero wrote: »

That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. Why only these two axes?

Because computer screens are two-dimensional and more than two axes cannot be represented easily. Perhaps this is another instrument used by capitalists such as Dell to lull us towards the free market. At least the left-wing physicists are fighting back with their 11 dimensional string theory.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The stuff about it being founded by Libertarians, I will take strictly as a conspiracy theory until you can provide some factual evidence.

Which stuff specifically?

I don't see how the current brand of political spectra favour libertarians.

Am surprised you don't.

If you had to divide up politics into two spectra, how would you do it?

As said, i'm not here to suggest alternatives, although there are many out there i'm sure.

Is the political compass plane somewhat physically tilted so that if you don't land in the bottom right corner you slide down there because of gravity? Does this mean that gravity itself is merely an instrument of libertarian indoctrination?

Because computer screens are two-dimensional and more than two axes cannot be represented easily. Perhaps this is another instrument used by capitalists such as Dell to lull us towards the free market. At least the left-wing physicists are fighting back with their 11 dimensional string theory.

Not really a great rebuttal there tbh. I'll take it you agree then that the two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired. That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. And if so, why only these two axes?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Channel Zero wrote: »

Which stuff specifically?

Your belief that it is founded by libertarians.

In fact, have you read the Wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass ?

According to Tom Utley, writing in the Daily Telegraph, the site is connected to One World Action, a charity founded by Glenys Kinnock, and to Kinnock herself.

One World Action is a charity based in London whose aims are a world free from poverty and oppression, where strong democracies safeguard people's rights.

Kinnock is a member of the British Labour Party.

Channel Zero wrote: »

As said, i'm not here to suggest alternatives, although there are many out there i'm sure.

I'm not sure that's tenable. A two-dimensional political compass offers an improvement on the one-dimensional left-right scale, regardless of the motive. It gives you more information without losing any. To argue effectively against it you really need to provide a better alternative - because the only alternative now is the flawed left-right single scale.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Not really a great rebuttal there tbh. I'll take it you agree then that the two axes conveniently measure the very aspects in which movement is desired. That is, towards non-government, non-regulation lassaiz-faire capitalism, privatisation etc combined with so-called civil libertarianism. And if so, why only these two axes?

I think this is absurd. How can a scale be biased towards one point of view? The measures are effectively objective - there's no chance people will sneekely be put into the wrong corner. And, again, if you had to choose two axes, what would you choose? Has it occured to you that people other than libertarians would choose these axes, too?

Are you sure you're not a closet libertarian? I recently read an article that claimed that people with suppressed sexual feelings towards people of the same sex manifested themselves in homophobia. Your paranoia over the choice of axes might merely be a manifestation of inherent leanings towards the bottom right corner which your concious self is trying to fight.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I would say OP is socally liberal, fiscally conservative, and should probably vote PD, if they still existed, which they don't.

Channel Zero

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are you sure you're not a closet libertarian? I recently read an article that claimed that people with suppressed sexual feelings towards people of the same sex manifested themselves in homophobia. Your paranoia over the choice of axes might merely be a manifestation of inherent leanings towards the bottom right corner which your concious self is trying to fight.

You're right. Have to say, you've got my number! I admit it.
I've just re-taken the test truthfully, and lo-and-behold, i'm down at the bottom right corner like you predicted. I now believe that Libertarianism is the answer to everything.

I also now believe that Chris De Burgh is a very talented entertainer, and all dogs should be encouraged to wear hats.

Wiki Quote: According to Tom Utley , writing in the Daily Telegraph, the site is connected to One World Action, a charity founded by Glenys Kinnock, and to Kinnock herself.

Tom Utney? Now of the Daily Mail? Not exactly a source par excellence, but nevermind.

I think this is absurd. How can a scale be biased towards one point of view?

It's not really that a scale in itself can be biased towards one point of view (more about this below though), but that this dichotomy with government "authoritarianism", in conjunction with leading questions, increases the potential that respondents will be classified as libertarian.

The measures are effectively objective - there's no chance people will sneekely be put into the wrong corner.

But how can you be know that the measures are effectively objective? They don't even reveal their methods for positioning on the graph.

A two-dimensional political compass offers an improvement on the one-dimensional left-right scale, regardless of the motive. It gives you more information without losing any. To argue effectively against it you really need to provide a better alternative - because the only alternative now is the flawed left-right single scale.

Well, imo one can argue effectively against both models if both are flawed and pseudoscientific. But, to consider it anyway, a better alternative i presume would be to allocate positions for different political issues with a detailed breakdown of some sort at the end.
Not just a dot on a graph with two axes, both related to libertarian cravings for freedom from government intervention.

To paraphrase Chomsky, freedom from government intervention does not assure individual freedom within the private sector, and that government may actually serve to preserve individual freedom against non-governmental powers.

So you see, the simplified economic scale that has 'free market' at one end and 'government-controlled-market' at the other end completely ignores the view that free markets or free trade and regulated markets or fair trade are not inconsistent with each other.
Similarly, the social axis with libertarianism on one end and government authoritarianism at the other end perpetuates a false view that it can only be government that inhibits personal freedoms.

In a nutshell, the whole premise of this 2-axis thingy is therefore flawed. The theme of these models that the path to 'freedom' is always with less government intervention is biased towards those who, for whatever reason, desire more freedom from government intervention.

Graphs and quizzes are fun though, it has to be said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kinski

Aquila wrote: »

You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 3.29, Libertarian: 2.29

hmmm..interesting

And yet you support Chelsea..tsk

Their map of the Irish political landscape is interesting. Only two parties in the left-liberal quadrant which you identify with, OP. Anyone know who exactly does the party ones? Can the results be considered reliable?

Channel Zero

Kinski wrote: »

Anyone know who exactly does the party ones?

Some guy somewhere decides or guesses. They don't reveal their methods for positioning on the graph for parties or individuals.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

Aquila wrote: »

So what party should i vote for according to the graph?or does one exist to cater for me?

Labour would probably be the closest to your position in theory. In reality, as they always end up in government with Fine Gael and end up moving to the centre, there isn't really any party for you to vote for. So if you were looking for somebody that lined up with you on that graph you would be looking for an independent.

It's probably best to take each election as it comes and pick the party that you think is the best option.

Belfast

This is how I score
Compass:

You are a far-right social libertarian.
Right: 10, Libertarian: 9.27