Political Compass Off-Topic 2018: I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Jan 23, 2018
804
662
230
I tried to do the 8values test, but the first one distracted me and made me reflect, though I leaned on "disagree".

"Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments."

Oppression by corporations generally happen by compliance by the government or the people. Even a big mega corporation would have trouble in terms of exercising oppression, without functionally becoming a government itself - by which point the comparison makes little sense. If anything the biggest danger would always be the government in terms of capabilities for oppression, on the individual and on private enterprise, but especially both together being the more pressing concern.

Any perspectives on this? Because I'm suddenly leaning on "strongly disagree".
First time thinking about this in much depth, and first time talking about it, so I may not have any useful insight.

Corporations can be oppressive by stifling the ability for smaller businesses that choose not to, or can't, outsource labour; that can't afford powerful political lobbies; that don't have huge teams of lawyers.

They can be oppressive by eating up land and resources, and by destroying the remaining land and resources through pollution and destruction of ecosystems, making it less viable for those who want to maintain some kind of self-reliance, and even for the average person who likes clean air/water/food, while ensuring that the vast majority of the economic benefits end up in the hands of the very few and (usually) already wealthy.

Governments can imprison or execute their citizens and thereby control the words and actions of their citizens. Governments commit military atrocities (often in a mutually beneficial relationship with corporations.)

Governments in democratic societies usually have to answer at least to some degree to its citizens; corporations usually have to answer to some degree to citizens via governments and through consumer decisions, though I think that the consumer decisions in practice rarely amount to ethical concerns and only to product preference.

But it so much depends on the particular governments and particular corporations.
 
Mar 5, 2007
9,114
94
925
You’re misinterpreting the question.

It’s asking who should primarily benefit from globalisation. Multinationals or people.

Depending on who primary benefits (or suffers) from an economic policy comes down to the ideology behind it and how it’s implemented. Globalisation didn’t just happen. It grew over time with trade deals and the move away from the ideology of protectionism. Trade deals can be geared to businesses or the people, to specific industries or many, or for leverage for other political aims.

The question isn’t asking if globalisation is good or bad. It’s not asking if it is a net benefit to humanity or not. It’s specifying worded to see how you fall on the economic axis. Do you primarily favour business and the global free market, or the welfare of the people of the world.

Again though, it's pretty much nonsense as worded. Taking it as you say 'should trade deals be tailored to favor specific business interests in particular', no one on any part of the political spectrum is for that kind of thing aside from the people who benefit and the people who get the bribes to make it happen.

The most hardcore anarcho-capitalist on the planet wouldn't read that question and say 'I love me some crony capitalism'. It's a complete straw man of a question. Pro free trade people have very specific economic and moral reasons for supporting free trade, and 'I want to give handouts to big business' aren't one of them.

Bastiat's negative railroad or Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage are true regardless of the beneficiaries.

I'd argue that free trade by it's nature benefits people more than corporations because the increase in competition results in lower prices and decreased profit margins, but it's not something that has to be true in every case for free trade to still be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Likes: FMbarbarian
Jan 12, 2009
15,383
1,091
735
Oppression by government is way more concening technically, as they have vastly more power. It's not even close.

But I interpreted the question as...what are you more concerned about right now.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
1,445
820
915
Please define and/or a list the attributes of a leftist, then do the same for libtertarian, then please demonstrate to me how one can simultaneously hold both views and how they are compatible. I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely interested.

Leftists who are libertarian believe in democracy both in government and workplace which is definitely more libertarian than capitalism which lobbies for corporations that are amoral authoritarian organizations whose main goal, by far, is profit for their rich owners. An obvious but extreme example of the libertarian left is anarchism. Anarchism argues for small communities where there is direct democracy both in government and the workplace.


Did the 8values test btw, I like political compass more because that axis is very descriptive but I got to admit that the questions in 8values were better. Political compass should have kept the longer test as an optional more accurate test.

 
Last edited:
Likes: Makariel
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,212
490

EDIT for some reason my 8 category image is busted even though it shows fine in the post preview... 67% in favor of markets, 57% in favor of nation, 58% in favor of liberty, and 52% in favor of tradition. That all seems reasonable aside from the civil axis. No clue how my authority score was so high based on my answers. The conclusion described me as neoliberal, though I view myself more libertarian than that.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2018
1,068
554
285
Pittsburgh
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-0.38&soc=-0.05


Not sure how I got that. I do not think I have substantially changed views. I normally am slightly right and slightly authoritarian.

This has me dead center middle. Only thing I can think has changed is that I believe a bit more in rehabilitation than punishment of criminals.


How do I displaying it as a picture?
 
Last edited:
Jan 23, 2018
804
662
230
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-0.38&soc=-0.05


Not sure how I got that. I do not think I have substantially changed views. I normally am slightly right and slightly authoritarian.

This has me dead center middle. Only thing I can think has changed is that I believe a bit more in rehabilitation than punishment of criminals.


How do I displaying it as a picture?
Impressive bull's eye. Right click the picture and copy link then in your post click the image button and paste the link there.
 
Likes: Corrik
Jan 14, 2018
1,054
766
235
My 8 values results:

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=56.7&d=72.3&g=75.8&s=84.8

I'm posting from my phone and don't seem to be able to get it working as a picture, sorry.

It classifies me as social libertarian, I think I should read up what that actually means before I agree or disagree with it ;)

Overall the bars seem to be about where I would expect them, considering some of the questions I was not quite sure how to answer other than "neutral". I'm not sure if the neutral option here helped me, since I noticed that I was quicker to hit neutral, instead of thinking about the questions the same way I did with the compass questions, where neutral was not an option.
 
Jan 14, 2018
951
3,412
245


Nothing unexpected here, unfortunately the questions don't really seem to reflect the dichotomy that's currently going through the left. While quite a few questions will put you squarely in the camp of the authoritarian right, almost none do the same for the authoritarian left. In that regard, the survey questions kinda fail to reflect current political trends. There is a rapidly growing divide between the authoritarian and libertarian left that's simply explained away by putting classical libertarian lefties into the 'alt-right'.

It's insanely narrow-minded and downright offensive to those who share progressive values, but do not agree on how they should be enforced. By falsely attributing these people to the 'alt-right', you lend momentum to a political movement, that more often than not, serves as a general boogeyman for the failures of the left. While you're free to slap a political label on me, I consider myself an independent and critical thinking individual first. I've pondered long and hard about the values I wish to represent and while I'm always open to better arguments in order to refine my views, I'm not so easily willing to fall over and give up my ideals in order to fit a political label. If that means I cannot consider myself a leftist anymore, I'm not afraid to admit that I don't care, as long as I can stay true to values of enlightenment, humanism and philosophy.

I am fond of all kinds of ideas and the best kinds of discussions is usually with people who do not share my views. I find it usually boring to discuss with people who have the same exact views because it makes me unable to adopt different perspectives, test my own views and, if necessary, rethink and redefine them. In that regard, I am not fond of ideologies, which seem to make a significant comeback in this day and age. Complex problems usually require complex solutions and none of them are usually watertight. I just wish people were more willing to engage with the shortcomings of their own views, rather than be so hellbent on exposing other people's weaknesses. It's almost as if modern ideologies, coupled with the balkanization of the internet and the narcissistic nature of social-media has robbed people of all means of self-introspection. If you point fingers at others, you can more easily ignore your own problems, I guess.

In that regard, I am speaking in favor of human values and ethical principles that cannot be reflected by a political survey. I think that these cardinal virtues are universal and not political by nature. So no, I don't think that everything is political since there are philosophical things that simply cannot be expressed on a narrow-minded political spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Aug 18, 2016
3,417
636
360
35
Michigan
www.geeksundergrace.com
@mckmas8808 @Sailent @gunslikewhoa @Phoenix RISING @strange headache

I have doubts about the meaningfulness of the survey, but I'd be interested to see where you land on this, if you have the time and don't mind.

Does tagging people like this notify them?
I saw this thread. Noticed it used a dated survey, and decided not to participate. For example, I remember taking this survey when the question of same-sex marriage was an option. Last time I took it, that was no longer there.

There's another survey that is circulating FB that is more modern. I'm too lazy to look into it.

As for this poll (assuming it's the same one I've been talking about):

2012:
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.05

2014:

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

2017:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67



I missed 2016, so that's why there's 2017. Hey, it's 2018, so sometime this year, I'm due to take the poll again!
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
696
505
190
Leftists who are libertarian believe in democracy both in government and workplace which is definitely more libertarian than capitalism which lobbies for corporations that are amoral authoritarian organizations whose main goal, by far, is profit for their rich owners. An obvious but extreme example of the libertarian left is anarchism. Anarchism argues for small communities where there is direct democracy both in government and the workplace.


Did the 8values test btw, I like political compass more because that axis is very descriptive but I got to admit that the questions in 8values were better. Political compass should have kept the longer test as an optional more accurate test.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or you're being deceitful. Also, Libertarian Socialism? Lol. I guess I don't need to say more. What's next, Right Wing Communism?
 
Jan 22, 2018
1,530
1,240
310
Germany
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or you're being deceitful. Also, Libertarian Socialism? Lol. I guess I don't need to say more. What's next, Right Wing Communism?
I don't see what so wrong about mixing libertaranism and socialism.

I want socialism when it comes to health care. I want libertarianism when it comes to the topic of censorship and lifestyle.
 
Likes: Makariel
Mar 5, 2007
1,445
820
915
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or you're being deceitful. Also, Libertarian Socialism? Lol. I guess I don't need to say more. What's next, Right Wing Communism?

My God dude you need to learn more about political ideologies. When we say libertarianism we don't mean the rightwing "libertarianism" established as just libertarianism in the United States, we mean actual libertarianism as the word is being used for centuries before it was co-opted by the right. As for your first sentence can you make an argument and explain what you mean by that?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Makariel

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff member
May 30, 2004
20,256
4,328
1,450
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or you're being deceitful. Also, Libertarian Socialism? Lol. I guess I don't need to say more. What's next, Right Wing Communism?
The self-evident point of that alternative test is to plot your data across more than two axes. Results on the Political Compass graph with the ~same coordinates could be achieved through substantially different respective answers given on the test; that's why I encouraged folks here to discuss their worldview beyond just showing their coordinates on the graph. The granularity on the four axis test he posted serves a similar purpose.
 
Oct 30, 2017
696
505
190
I don't see what so wrong about mixing libertaranism and socialism.

I want socialism when it comes to health care. I want libertarianism when it comes to the topic of censorship and lifestyle.
Going by that logic. If I want full blown communism, government seizing the means of production in every sector except healthcare, therefore I'm a right wing communist or a libertarian communist or a capitalist communist?
My God dude you need to learn more about political ideologies. When we say libertarianism we don't mean the rightwing "libertarianism" established as just libertarianism in the United States, we mean actual libertarianism as the word is being used for centuries before it was co-opted by the right. As for your first sentence can you make an argument and explain what you mean by that?
Please, can you just grant my initial request? Just list the characteristics of a libertarian and that of a socialist and demonstrate how one can hold both views simultaneously.

Libertarian, be it in dictionary or "right wing", virtually means the same thing, FREEWILL. LIBERTY/FREEDOM is of the utmost importance. Force/coercion is a no no.
 
Jan 22, 2018
1,530
1,240
310
Germany
Going by that logic. If I want full blown communism, government seizing the means of production in every sector except healthcare, therefore I'm a right wing communist or a libertarian communist or a capitalist communist?


Please, can you just grant my initial request? Just list the characteristics of a libertarian and that of a socialist and demonstrate how one can hold both views simultaneously.

Libertarian, be it in dictionary or "right wing", virtually means the same thing, FREEWILL. LIBERTY/FREEDOM is of the utmost importance. Force/coercion is a no no.
My advice would be: worry less about labels.
 
Jan 14, 2018
1,054
766
235
If I want full blown communism, government seizing the means of production in every sector except healthcare, therefore I'm a right wing communist or a libertarian communist or a capitalist communist?
No, you'd still be round about where Stalin is in this graph:



I'm more wondering how come you see politics as so binary?
 
Mar 5, 2007
1,445
820
915
Going by that logic. If I want full blown communism, government seizing the means of production in every sector except healthcare, therefore I'm a right wing communist or a libertarian communist or a capitalist communist?


Please, can you just grant my initial request? Just list the characteristics of a libertarian and that of a socialist and demonstrate how one can hold both views simultaneously.

Libertarian, be it in dictionary or "right wing", virtually means the same thing, FREEWILL. LIBERTY/FREEDOM is of the utmost importance. Force/coercion is a no no.

It is very simple, in libertarian socialism the government is democratic and the workplace is controlled by democratic unions not corporations or the government, that makes the system more libertarian than capitalism. Unions by replacing corporations create a balance of power so that the government can't take over and since they're democratic there's less incentive to manipulate the government and essentially control it like corporations are doing currently.

All socialist ideologies aren't Stalinism where the government controls everything, and before you say it the reason that we usually had Stalinism is because capitalism has repeatedly crushed, extremely violently I might add, and with the full force of its military, propaganda and intelligence arms all socialist libertarian movements and communities, any means and dirty tactic necessary. That forces socialists into a corner, either become extremely violent and authoritarian themselves to defeat the capitalist forces or give up. The ones that didn't give up usually became monsters or like Castro couldn't give up power even if they wanted to because they knew the CIA was lurking to deceive, threaten, assassinate and extort.

The only solution to this conundrum imo is to wait for capitalism to eat itself until it's so weak that we can bring change without the need to become authoritarian monsters because they are worse than the system they're fighting. Thankfully capitalists have been doing a great job at ruining capitalism the last few decades. And all that thanks to neoliberalism which imo is capitalism's natural evolution since it's a system that allows and aids a tiny minority to become exponentially richer to the point they can easily buy politicians.

Btw I know I got a little offtopic there but I wanted to cover the subject thoroughly and include answers to the questions I usually get about it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Tumle
Dec 11, 2015
979
1
210
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or you're being deceitful. Also, Libertarian Socialism? Lol. I guess I don't need to say more. What's next, Right Wing Communism?
Right wing communism isn't a thing because communism is it's own ideology rather than an umbrella word for all left wing political systems. Not all ideologies that involves principles from socialism on some level or another takes an authoritarian slant to it.

E.g north European countries have well developed public social security nets and single payer healthcare systems, and strong well entrenched labour unions in place, while still having a market economy not being state planned as it's primary system.

The US brand of libertarianism is an ideology on it's own and not the only version of libertarianism there is too. Just like modern liberalism and classic liberalism aren't the same.
 
Jul 12, 2014
750
125
315
Denmark
What dangers do you NOT see from having a big government?
Not talking about a big communists government, but a democratic elected one, that makes sure that infrastructure,health care and what ever other commodities a mordern country needs to move all people forward.. and not outsourcing the essentials to private companies that are concerned about making a profit by any means necessary (as a company should)..
I just think it’s strange that it seems like Americans have more faith in private companies than in there own government..
Ok I answered your question.. can you answer mine now:)
 
Last edited:
Likes: S-Wind
Oct 30, 2017
696
505
190
No, you'd still be round about where Stalin is in this graph:



I'm more wondering how come you see politics as so binary?
Because politics is binary. You either want more government or less government. The only difference is how MUCH government do you want.

No matter what policy or ideology you advocate for, it's either government intervention or not. Some people want government involved in almost all aspects of the economy, some want government in some parts of the economy, some want little or no government. It's all about government no matter how you slice it.

Since the dawn of time, left has always been more government (socialism and communism) and right has always been less government (capitalism and libertarianism), hence I'm puzzled by the amalgamation of labels I'm seeing in this thread. Adopting some ideas from the other side doesn't make you less of what you are. Occasionally eating vegetables doesn't make you vegan or vegan-carnivore when the bulk of your diet is still animal products.
 
Mar 5, 2007
1,445
820
915
Since the dawn of time, left has always been more government (socialism and communism) and right has always been less government (capitalism and libertarianism), hence I'm puzzled by the amalgamation of labels I'm seeing in this thread. Adopting some ideas from the other side doesn't make you less of what you are. Occasionally eating vegetables doesn't make you vegan or vegan-carnivore when the bulk of your diet is still animal products.
Patently false claim that ignores even posts itt. Do anarchists want more government? Also, is that what you understood from the description of my ideology? It should also be noted that rightwing libertarianism is a contradiction. A weak capitalist government creates a power vacuum, that vacuum will always be filled by the next powerful institution and that in capitalism is corporations. Corporations are authoritarian organizations which automatically cancels the "libertarian" part of the so called libertarian ideology.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
1,242
1,003
250
Norway
I see you're banned ilfait, but I greatly appreciated your perspective.

Corporations can be oppressive by stifling the ability for smaller businesses that choose not to, or can't, outsource labour; that can't afford powerful political lobbies; that don't have huge teams of lawyers.

They can be oppressive by eating up land and resources, and by destroying the remaining land and resources through pollution and destruction of ecosystems, making it less viable for those who want to maintain some kind of self-reliance, and even for the average person who likes clean air/water/food, while ensuring that the vast majority of the economic benefits end up in the hands of the very few and (usually) already wealthy.
Yeah, corporations can be oppressive, that I agree with. But generally they tend to have a much weaker basis to be oppressive, especially as they require government and/or the people to be compliant. Generally when they are oppressive, it's when they've functionally become the government - still leading to the government as the oppressor. Corporations also tend to be harder to keep unified, as they can often have different interests, meaning that they'll be in competition against each other. It could be differently in terms of large scale manipulation, corruption and mental and physical dependence - but that also leads back to corporations as functional governments, and it needs a mega-/unicorporation to work. While one can take examples like the Russian Revolution and the reign of Stalin, to see how power can be exercised by a government, in terms of control of both private enterprise and social engineering.

That's why the question was odd to me.
 
Jan 14, 2018
1,054
766
235
Because politics is binary. You either want more government or less government. The only difference is how MUCH government do you want.
???

You do understand what binary means, right?

You also completely ignored most of the points made in the posts above, which I don't feel like repeating.
 
Jul 8, 2011
1,666
58
530
Titusville, Florida
Here is me I always identify better with most libertarian points of view but they turn me off in how wacky they can be. I essentially believe anything one does that doesnt hurt others is ok, companies are too powerful, government can help the people but usually doesn't as much as it should because of corruption and everyone is redeemable and worth helping.

 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,030
2,925
360


This surprised me a bit. I always thought I was a bit more of a centrist. Though given the limited amount of questions and how they weigh the questions, this could be off by a good bit. This can also change on a day-to-day basis (as can other similar questionnaires such as the Meyer Briggs Personality Test). It is an interesting idea, but not one I would take a lot of stock with.
 
Mar 5, 2007
9,114
94
925
Leftists who are libertarian believe in democracy both in government and workplace which is definitely more libertarian than capitalism which lobbies for corporations that are amoral authoritarian organizations whose main goal, by far, is profit for their rich owners. An obvious but extreme example of the libertarian left is anarchism. Anarchism argues for small communities where there is direct democracy both in government and the workplace.
You should really look into public choice economics.

Democratic systems respond to the same types of incentives that any corporation or business would, so they are not inherently more moral, and it is dangerous when people treat such systems as if they were without concern for the kinds of misaligned incentives that can cause even decent moral people to behave in ways that cause great damage to society at large.

Democracy is not a sufficient protection for minority and individual rights, and it is not sufficient to guarantee good policy decisions.

Corporations may have all types of flaws, but theoretically their power is limited such that you have to voluntarily consent to it, which can not be said for the power of the state.

Also free market libertarians have no problem with such workplaces as long as it's voluntary and people have the freedom to choose to do something else. No one has any problem if you want to start a commune or a co-op or whatever, you just can't take a business that someone else has already built and steal it. Alas, history has shown that the much maligned 'rich owners' actually provide some value that cannot easily be replaced by a labor council, so such businesses have not managed to out-compete the typical corporation.
 
Likes: FMbarbarian
Feb 6, 2018
65
45
175
It is very simple, in libertarian socialism the government is democratic and the workplace is controlled by democratic unions not corporations or the government, that makes the system more libertarian than capitalism. Unions by replacing corporations create a balance of power so that the government can't take over and since they're democratic there's less incentive to manipulate the government and essentially control it like corporations are doing currently.
Just to be clear, you support the 'people'/ government taking over all business? What about your house and car, or is it just other people's property? So for example it would be illegal for Evilore to own neogaf and he'd have to 'share' it with everybody else (who exactly? anybody that has an account?) and if you started your own message board you'd have no problem with a bunch of trump fans registering and taking it over 'democratically,' correct?

And no, if corporations were run by a mob of janitors they would still try to influence government and do whatever they can to expand their power and benefit themselves.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
1,445
820
915
You should really look into public choice economics.

Democratic systems respond to the same types of incentives that any corporation or business would, so they are not inherently more moral, and it is dangerous when people treat such systems as if they were without concern for the kinds of misaligned incentives that can cause even decent moral people to behave in ways that cause great damage to society at large.

Democracy is not a sufficient protection for minority and individual rights, and it is not sufficient to guarantee good policy decisions.

Corporations may have all types of flaws, but theoretically their power is limited such that you have to voluntarily consent to it, which can not be said for the power of the state.

Also free market libertarians have no problem with such workplaces as long as it's voluntary and people have the freedom to choose to do something else. No one has any problem if you want to start a commune or a co-op or whatever, you just can't take a business that someone else has already built and steal it. Alas, history has shown that the much maligned 'rich owners' actually provide some value that cannot easily be replaced by a labor council, so such businesses have not managed to out-compete the typical corporation.

Nothing in capitalism is truly voluntary, it's either you play by the rules or abject poverty, you might as well say that you can do anything in society because you can still live in prison. Not that socialism is perfect in that regard but let's not kid ourselves about people being exploited by corporations voluntarily, do the Chinese workers who work 16 hours a day to make the fucking iPhone do it voluntarily?

As for corporations being amoral I would think a good number of the population working and voting in a democratic workplace would make more moral decisions compared to a few rich assholes would especially since most of the rich are completely out of touch with society or just plain psychopaths (there was a study on that iirc). Especially since socialism values education and would result in a more educated population than what we have now in the world. But again, I don't expect perfect result just better ones, humanity was, is and will always be incredibly flawed.

Just to be clear, you support the 'people'/ government taking over all business? What about your house and car, or is it just other people's property? So for example it would be illegal for Evilore to own neogaf and he'd have to 'share' it with everybody else (who exactly? anybody that has an account?) and if you started your own message board you'd have no problem with a bunch of trump fans registering and taking it over 'democratically,' correct?

And no, if corporations were run by a mob of janitors they would still try to influence government and do whatever they can to expand their power and benefit themselves.
There are socialist systems that have no problem with property as long as it doesn't impede on the rest of society as in at some point the taxes if you hoard too much of it become huge and I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. Sorry, no billionaires allowed in socialism and I'm quite satisfied with that. It should also be noted that where neoliberalism is heading, to a service based economy including property like houses and cars where instead of society owning most like it would happen in socialism the corporations do, which is much, much worse. In fact it looks like a nightmare scenario to me.

And btw I really doubt the mob of janitors or their representatives organize Davos to influnce and control governments like corporations do now. Of course I expect influnce, there's no way around it but I don't expect that much influence, not even close.
 
Last edited: