http://www.politicalcompass.org

My result:
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.95

:P

Here's mine:
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64
I guess I just can't be bothered to have strong opinions about the economy.

Beat you

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13



Oh, and here are the results of NetDanzr:

Economic Left/Right: +10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: +10

Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.38


Centre Left?! How can this be?? I've always voted Centre Right

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

Awesome. I'm totally all about Gandhi.

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

Phew I'm in the middel of do gooders

Has it occured to anyone else that (for example) extreme feminists (whom I'd put in the 'authoritarian' part) would come out as libertarians in this test, because they'd 'strongly disagree' with statements such as "women should do the household"?

You'd be surprised, Mr Creosote. Apparently, I'm the only normal person among you, a Right-wing libertarian

Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

Huh? You're quite a long way away from GWB!

Seriously, though. I can't see how anyone could seriously even come close to the positive part of the economy scale. This person's answer to the very first question would have to be (paraphrased) "screw humanity, making money for the sake of itself more important" for example. It goes on like that. Could anyone (I'm looking into a certain direction...) explain how anyone can seriously claim that?

I think what happens is the people that vote for the politicians that do those things (because they get mega money from corporations) do so for intangibles, or like here, identify with religion or what not. They could care less it seems what happens after the fact.

Since you're looking at my direction, here's how I voted on economic questions:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. Disagree. I'm pretty much neutral on this, leaning towards disagreement, because I believe everybody should be able to profit from globalization - people and companies alike.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Agree. Both are related, and if I were to choose, I'd pick inflation.

Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily respect the environment. Disagree. Corporations are still headed by people, not machines. In addition, there's pressure from consumers and shareholders.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea. Strongly disagree. We used to have this sign in my school during communism, so I guess I'm biased.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. Agree. It's a sad reflection on how dumb the consumers are.

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. Strongly disagree. This goes directly against the principle of owning private property.

Many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. Strongly disagree. That's exactly what I'm doing, and I'm contributing more to the society than many others I know of.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Agree.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Agree. But as a shareholder, I may be biased.

The rich are too highly taxed. Strongly agree. Flat tax to everybody.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . Agree. As long as those who can't pay get adequate care, those who can should be allowed to pay for extra care.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Strongly agree. I'm looking at you, dear games publishers with your false hardware requirements.

The freer the market, the freer the people. Strongly agree. At least, that's what's been happening in Slovakia.

The businessman and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Disagree.

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Strongly agree

Thanks for listing exactly what you chose, but I still don't get how anyone can seriously think that way, because some of those things are just sick.

Edited by Mr Creosote at 20:27 on January, 28th 2004

I think it comes with education and lifestyle. I learned to see people less as individuals, and more as market forces. That makes it easier to ignore them.

No comment.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Strongly agree.

It's still the same - putting theoretical constructs like 'career' above life itself.

Let's put it in a different way: It is more important to save 1000 human lives than to save a company from going bankrupt. You disagree?



I think you missed the word voluntarily. Of course corporations will perhaps change their policy to a more respectable position concerning the environment. But they will only do if there's a pressure from outside, as you write yourself.



That's a joke, right? Not even my economics professors dare to say such inhuman phrases...

There are some question that irritated me, too. A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. Strongly agree. But that doesn't mean that I support such a system.

I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the strong wording of the question, which implies that saving a human life is always more important than saving a company from bankruptcy.


My impression is that "voluntarily" means "without governmental intervention. Remember, market economy is based on voluntarism - nobody is forced to do anything, but everybody chooses to maximize their benefit. As such, companies are free to abuse the environment, and I'm in turn free to boycott their products (as I, and pretty much everybody else I know, did with Shell when they tried to sink that old oil platform). However, since a company wants to maximize its benefits, it chooses to present an environmentally-friendly image.


This ties into the prevoius answer. In order to deliver the most to the shareholders, the company needs to be as profitable as possible. Such a company walks a very fine line between maximizing profits and abusing its workers, the environment and society in general. As a shareholder, I look for the most efficient companies, without problems with their image.

Yes, my question was slightly exaggerated. However, in the end, it's the same: choosing between humanity and financial profits.



I know what you mean, but your assumption is wrong. You imply that there is a permanent pressure from the public that demands corporations to be eco friendly, which isn't true.

Firstly, ecology is an issues that quickly goes up and down in the hierarchy of a political agenda. While it was considered very important by the European public in the Eighties, it is significantly less important today. That means that the pressure by the public and interest groups has decreased.

Secondly, most consumers are satisfied with pseudo campaigns by corporations that aim to improve their image. Such as Shell. The Brent Spar issue got an extreme attention by the media and the public. Shell was forced to react. Then they started campaigns, telling the consumers how eco friendly they are and how they respect human rights. Enough for the consumers to be happy with it. At the same time (1995), they continued destroying nature and cooperating with the local dictatorship in Nigeria. Simply because in Nigeria, there is no Greenpeace, no public pressure, no media attention, and no consumer boycotts that would stop them from doing that.

Conclusion: Most corporations only change the eco policy if they are massively forced to, by consumers or by the government.



We won't get an further in that point, so I'll leave it as it is.