My Political Compass

My Political Compass.

I'll see where I fall on this quiz. and reply with that

Other urls found in this thread:

celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

These are varying a lot. On the Political Compass, I'm much more libertarian with a slight slant to the left, while on another one of these, I'm a hardcore libertarian with a slight slant to the right.

Also, for the obligatory judging:

Sensitive and OK guy.

Hippie (Possibly anarcho-syndicalist?)

...

economics student
reformed marxist

I just put random answers on all the questions and got this. It perfectly represents the way I feel about politics

There's like one question on there that totally determines where the x goes in that quadrant
can't figure out whichone

...

Here's antoher one of mine (the one with a slight right slant)

I think it was this one: celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php

What the heck how is this Marxist

Probably the sanest opinion.

I'm apparently close to Hitler.

user said "reformed"
he did a 180 and now he's a useful idiot for Drumpf

I don't see how Friedman wasn't any more libertarian than that.. What did he do wrong?

>Saying Drumpf

Nice. Almost identical.

triggered

did I say Drumpf? I'm sorry where are my manners

Drumpf

Wouldn't "cured" be closer to that particular meaning?
Also, I think Trump would be on the far upper right.

"Libertarian" stands for social libertarism there. Maybe Friedman was fond of economic freedoms, but wasn't as strict on social freedoms.

...

No he's voting for Drumpf so he's hardly "cured"

Ive Taken It before, Im in the Libertarian Left.

Im an Anarchist Syndicalist and am supporting Bernie 100%

How come?
Afaik he was in favour of pretty much all social freedoms.
He was Jew and they usually are

>but wasn't as strict on social freedoms.
so the dude thinks that things like gay marriage "should" exist
how quaint
when you actually go out of your way to prevent said freedoms from happening, you're not really "for" them

Interesting to see I guess.

Hope you live in CA or NJ then

Found my Political Compass as well.

Seems you and me are natural enemies.

Nice, although a bit too restricting on the economy for me.

He never said he supported Trump

you do realize the economy wouldn't have so many restrictions if big business would pay people living wages?

call me Milton Friedman in this bitch

didn't really have to
and I doubt he's a Clinton supporter

Surprisingly Right on this one.


Not hippie at all. I ID as an Anarcho-Communist personally

I wish m8, Im IL here. We gave it 50/50 between Shillary and Him. I was out passing out literature and everything

Another of mine

That doesn't seem true
Countries with high minimum wage (and unemployment) tend to have big regulation all over and no growth

good for you Sup Forumsro
there's still an opportunity for phonebanking for CA and NJ next weekend if you're interested

that's their problem

we aren't Europe

Im working on getting my local Politicans to support Bernie at the Convention. I am actually the son of a politician and have been talking to a few of the "Bosses" trying to turn our Superdelegate in favor of Him...

I still cant believe the Unions are backing her..
Like WTF has Bernie not done for the Union? While her lying ass sat on the Wal-Mart board of directors..

As you can see, I am not too far on the right on my tests either. This is because while I absolutely support as few boundaries as possible for people to found companies and thus realising their innovations/ideas in order to further progress society, I do indeed have something against corporations becoming "too big to fail" and monopolies especially. As soon as a company becomes so big that their competitors become insignificant, the central point of capitalism (as I favour it) gets damaged: the free market, because if you have only one supplier, you will inevitably get decreased quality in products. I favour a capitalism with a polypolar market, a market with many competitors, thus reducing prices to a minimum and urging the companies to invest in innovations.
Of course, right-wing economics doesn't like mighty antitrust divisions that much, which is why I probably am in the middle of the economic scale

And the last one

Not much evidence of monopolies in the free market
Government shifts the economies of scale significantly in favour of big business

...

Should have been president. Prove me wrong

Pro tip: YOu cant

Interesting, but how do you justify giving the people as much civil liberties as possible while not giving them the freedom to start their own business because (as I understand your position, excuse any misunderstandings) all business is run through the state?

I suppose you're talking about an "absolute" free market, something we haven't had since the end of the 19th century. As you might know, Teddy Roosevelt cracked down on trusts and monopolies at the beginning of the 20th century which had grown uncontrollably as at the time before his presidency, almost no state control of the market existed.
Your argument is (partly) invalid: Of course corruption and bloated bureaucracy can absolutely help monopolies to thrive as well; but that doesn't mean at all that in a system opposite to communism (where the state has an absolute monopoly) monopolies and corporations aren't guaranteed to emerge as well.

Link?

Its not that I want buisness run throught the state, I want it run by the community, by the workers themselves.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY--determine your philosophy

This is what I got

In the free market diseconomies of scale apply perfectly well and keep companies down to size.
They're far from guaranteed to emerge.
It's not the case that bigger is always better at all

Or they tend to keep companies down to size
I don't want to be highly dramatic

Ah, so you're similar to an Anarcho Syndicalist. Interesting. I have a friend who is one too, and I must honestly say, I have no real opinion of this ideology – because it hasn't been tried even once in history has it?

That's wishful thinking. Just as hardcore communists say, communism can still work, although we have it seen fail over an entire century. We have made a lot of social progress since the 19th century, and I don't think we should roll that back for a utopian belief which is unlikely to work out.

It's not wishful thinking tbh it's mainstream economics based on logic and observation.
Also I sure hope you know that even when they raise prices the imaginary monopoly would only be undercut.
There is no need to compromise with Marxists

...

It says I'm a "right social libertarian"

impressive

My Political Views
I am a left moderate social libertarian
Left: 5.49, Libertarian: 1.19

so what does this mean?

...

...

You're on the right track
Do more libertarian research shit

>liberals

Economics itself is split up in multiple branches (Classical liberalism, Ordo-Liberalism, the Austrian School, Marxism,....) which partly contradict themselves regularly. It's not a natural science, as hard as many eonomists may believe that, and there is no universal solution for a nation to achieve wealth.
And I'm not talking about raising prices or anything like that. I am talking about a state which generally abstains from interfering with the market except if the freedom of said market is endangered (e.g. by monopolies which is why IMHO there has to be a stronger antitrust department) or if the basic human rights of people are violated (gross mistreatment or systematic supervision of workers etc.)
I don't think that can be classified as "compromising with Marxists". That expression alone shows the fundamentalism attached to your views.

...

...

So... Centre... Did not think it was possible

As expected: