What's your political compass?
Obviously these things aren't perfect, but whatever, somethin to do if you have the time. Would be interested to see how WSO looks on a chart.
This is me:
I won't argue with it
Trending Content
| +86 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 22 | 1d | |
| +65 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 4d | |
| +53 | How to sound more eloquent? | 25 | 17m | |
| +40 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 10 | 18h | |
| +34 | Interviews Are So Fake | 20 | 5h | |
| +30 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 18 | 10h | |
| +29 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 13 | 11h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 13 | 2d | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 4d | |
| +24 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 4d |
Career Resources
Economic Left/Right: 2.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.10
Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13
Seems about right.
for reference:
Maybe Obama isn't a closet socialist?
(baiting ANT to argue the invalidity of this test)
Obama isn't a Socialist in the European sense, he is a Socialist in the American sense.
Obama wants to raise taxes, makes everything a rich vs. poor and has a hard on for European methods. That makes him a socialist in the American sense.
Also, those questions were pretty limited and you knew what they were going for when they were phrased how they were.
Makes no sense: look at France and Austria. Everyone slightly familiar to the matter would say it is very far from reality...
Economic Left/Right: 7.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.92
Economic Left/Right: 8.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.15
Interesting that the most prosperous countries are libertarian and and the ones that are at risk of default are authoritarian.
Economic Left/Right: 0.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.44
Pretty much smack dab in the middle of everything
Economic Left/Right: -2.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
ANARCHY
Wait...why is marijuana bad?
I saw it on Fox News bro, trust me.
Because it can give you AIDS... prostitution on the other hand
oh wait, wut?
11 months late to the party guys:
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/the-political-compass
Here was mine back then. I don't imagine it changed much, but if it did it went further right and further down.
Economic Left/Right: 6.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Wow, just retook the quiz, looks like I was correct in direction but understated in magnitude.
This score is Rothbard as shit yo. You all jelly at how much more I love liberty than you guys do? (jk)
Economic Left/Right: 7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
Economic Left/Right: 5.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.08
took me a while too, upload to tinypic and paste the link
MINE:
Economic Left/Right: 6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64
That analysis they wrote over the 2012 candidates was probably the best i've read since, well... ever.
[quote=dwight schrute]
Economic Left/Right: 0.05
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.1
EDIT: I screwed up the framing above.....
Economic Left/Right: 0.05 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.1
Too lazy to take the test but strongly libertarian. And LOL at how close all the GOP candidates + Obama sans Paul are to each other.
Economic Left/Right: -1.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.62
The people who made this have the right idea. Conservatism good liberalism bad.
Yeah, and authoritarianism is awesome too right?
Heisty, everyone knows that conservative libertarianism is the best. If liberalism was so great it would have worked by now.
I just wish Liberals would come clean and admit they want to dominate and control the poor. If they did that I would at least respect the position. You cannot roll out massive entitlements and still allow people to act like retards.
http://i.imgur.com/s14SI.png[/quote]
Look up definition of libertarianism.
According to my MD everyone on this board is a communist. Ant and MMBinNC are on the border.
:(
Me a commie? Say it ain't so!
interesting....here is mine.
Economic Left/Right: -0.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64
Correction: +7 is the cutoff; ant you\'re good.
Heister I\'ll ask him to consider that you\'re growing a mustache
Economic Left/Right: 7.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33
also http://www.politicalcompass.org/music
I took this 4 years ago and was in the far corner. Either growing up or error.
Economic Left/Right: 10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.26
I am fiscally conservative, and socially moderate, so this seems pretty accurate. Although I self-identify as a Democrat/ Independent, since the neo-cons have taken over the Republican Party.
Economic Left/Right: 5.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.45
Economic Left/Right: 6.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
WSO's average thus far:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=3.46&soc=-1.26
Economic Left/Right: 7.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
Interesting....
[quote=JeffSkilling]I have no idea how you guys are embedding the image: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=7.12&soc=-4.77[/quote]
Upload image in tinypic, and paste the link.
it's actually easier if you just get the link address to the pic, then put and delete the three dashes, then enable full html under "input format" right below the comment box
Economic Left/Right: 8.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33
Actually really surprised how accurate this was. It puts me near Ron Paul, which is just about right.
After reading the questions, I realized that my own knee-jerk reaction is to pick out the "correct" answer that matches my view of a strictly constitutionally limited representative government (very libertarian), but then I had to take the questions for what they were. As a result, I was just to the right of center and just above the line into "authoritarianism".
Examples:
1) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." My initial reaction is "strongly disagree", but the reality of the world is that this is true. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is.
2) "Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation." Gut reaction is that regulation is bad because we are definitely way over regulated, particularly in my line of work. However, this question is basically asking, "Will private companies naturally seek their own interests or the interests of the environment?" Hence it's asking is basic regulation necessary to protect the environment. I say yes, as I think most here would even say.
3) "It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society." I don't care how you earn a living and I don't seek to regulate that away, but take the question for what it is--it is indeed regrettable that otherwise brilliant people who could be doctors or research scientists have opted for trading or investment banking.
4) "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders." Again, knee-jerk reaction is that profit is all that matters. If not, go into the Peace Corps or join a Catholic charity. But then I realized that I'm building a business right now and, as a boss, I consider my first job to be both making a reasonable profit and taking care of my employees needs and interests. Does that mean I support government doing this? No. It means my own moral compass tells me profit is not the end all, be all.
At the end of the day I'd argue many of you are "less libertarian" in practice than what you have selected in this test regarding your own political philosophy. Textbook and reality are very often much different.
I'm just gonna show you al how to make it so the image shows up, rather than going to tinypic or just positing random stuff, because I think I have edited 90% of the posts on this thread to add the graphic.
If that's too much work you could also, after getting the results plug your values into the following code but without the spaces between the signs.
This dude had Economic freedoms at -2.00 and Social at 3.08. Just make sure you don't fuck up the negative positive signs and that there is always a digit before the decimal place like 0.43. The just do #5 and post it.
Also, for a comprehensive map thus far....
If i had SB i'd hand you one. that's awesome.
Kinda weird that im the biggest lefty here... I consider myself an independent though.
I think TheKing has you edged by a little bit there. You are basically a communist on this board though.
Pretty stunned somebody was right of ANT.
Nice job on the composite!
Give MMBinNC a raise.
Economic Left/Right= .50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian= 1.49
UFOinsider and I are almost identical, which is weird. I'm definitely a right-wing xenophobe. I don't feel like this was a good political philosophy test. The questions were very poor.
Yeah, I agree about the questions.
Expected that most would be in the purple. I'm in the purple too. 4, -3
I am a far left loon!
Economic Left/Right: 1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=2.12&soc=-2.15
Yep...seems about right. We centrists can disagree with damn near anybody.
Yeah, I'd say while I'm a very conservative Republican I am so because I support their positions, but not in a philosophical sense. I could care less about the "archaic philosophy" as UFOinsider puts it; rather, I'm interested in good public policy. I think that's why a political philosophy test like this one may have some validity in that it demonstrates how 2 people can have similar "philosophies" and yet come down on completely different ends of the partisan spectrum.
"Partisan" would seem to approximate how one views issues that specifically impact American foreign and domestic policy while an overall political philosophy might demonstrate how one might approach government in a totally different country.If I started a new country on newly unearthed land I would probably not use the U.S. Constitution as anything more than a guide while some libertarians may try to fit it into the new country.
Economic Left/Right: 8.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
http://i.imgur.com/RnfKh.png
[quote=Thurnis Haley]http://i.imgur.com/RnfKh.png[/quote]
Fucking hysterical.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.12&soc=-4… im lazy
Economic Left/Right: -5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77
I'm a lefty.
But then y'all probably already know.
I need someone who will (1) shrink the government and (2) stop caring what I do in my bedroom. And no, that would not include the social conservatives who want to arrest people for having anal/oral sex (see Lawrence vs Texas). Or Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum who pledged to ban porn if they were elected.
I'm almost 100% sure none of the 3 candidates you mentioned said they would ban pornography. I follow politics VERY closely and I find that claim to be highly dubious. Santorum may have said something like that, but that's still a dubious claim. On topic of sodomy, that's such an extreme case. That's like judging an entire political philosophy based on the behavior of San Francisco Democrats.
On the point of being in someone's bedroom, the left is fairly hypocritical on this. When it comes to abortion liberals think the gov't should stay out of "the bedroom" but when it comes to birth control, abortion and even sex changes (see San Francisco), the left wants to force the public to finance the personal sexual/bedroom behavior of people. When it comes to homosexuality, the left (usually via the teachers unions and schoolboards) has a long history of attempted indoctrination. I know. I was nearly suspended at my public high school for saying that I believed homosexuality was wrong (this was in 2002). Also on the topic of homosexuality, the left in many states has made it illegal for employers to conscientiously object to the hiring of homosexuals. When it comes to birth control, the left sees no issue in violating the consciences of religious organizations in their desire not to participate in birth control financing. When it comes to pornography, the left thinks it's an issue of "free speech" to have porn accessible in a public library and forced upon the objecting public. I'd argue the American Left is guilty of far more egregious "bedroom" violations than any social conservative.
Either you believe totally in keeping gov't out of the bedroom or you don't at all. There is no middle ground. There is no "kind of pregnant".
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/13/santorum-romney-and-gingrich-vow-…
I can't believe you missed this, since you follow politics VERY closely.
VaTech - you can indoctrinate someone to be gay? Interesting, I didn't know that.
Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? Did you read that in the Bible? Get out of here with that crap.
As Andrew Wilkow says, "the arguments cannot be broken" so the liberal Democrats ignore the issue and attack the messanger. Here I pointed out the rank hypocracy of the American Left on social issues and you ignore the facts and attack me. Too predictable.
No, I'm attacking your position. Why is it "wrong?" You got reprimanded for denouncing homosexuality because you think it is wrong. You also said that the "left" tries to indoctrinate children. You need to defend that kind of statement.
So, again, please explain why it is wrong.
That's not the argument. The argument is about personal freedom, the legal right to be right or wrong in religious or personal beliefs. It's not relevant why or what I believe regarding religion. The point is, all Americans should and DO (according to the 1st Amendment) have the right to believe homosexuality is sinful OR to believe homosexuality is not sinful. Both are protected beliefs under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No public official has the right to suspend or threaten over religious beliefs in a public school. Liberals on schoolboards and in schools attempt to indoctrinate about the rightness of homosexuality from a very young age IN the public schools. Rather than teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, they focus on indoctrinating youth into their political or religious beliefs.
So, let me get this straight:
--You want companies to be able to discriminate against gay people solely because they are gay (I'm sure you'd flip a shit if a company didn't hire you because of your religion)
--You think that schools should not talk about homosexuality as being ok or normal because you believe that it is not for reasons that you apparently will not explain.
I'd seriously like to hear you defend your position that homosexuality is "wrong" or "bad." If you can't defend that position in a practical manner, then you can't go accusing schools of "indoctrinating" something that isn't a choice to begin with.
You liberal Democrats continue to miss the point. It's called personal freedom. I personally would not discriminate against someone who is a practicing homosexual, but it's a matter of human freedom to allow an employer to conscientiously object to hiring people they believe are doing things that are inconsistent with their value system. That may offend you personally, but freedom is offensive. I actually believe companies should have the right to not hire me because of my religion, yes. It would suck, but that's the price of freedom.
Public schools should have no position either way on homosexuality. They should not be telling anyone it's good or bad. Homosexuality is a sexual reality and should be discussed in that context. But the California legislature, for example, should not have the right to tell schools that their agenda has to be partially about "[admiring] the role and contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans." SB 48. The state has no business in moral or immoral indoctrination, especially when it has given itself the right to compel attendance.
In our positions lie the fundamental difference between liberalism (tyranny) and conservatism/liberatrianism (liberty). Liberals believe they are correct and therefore that their belief system should be mandatory.
Oh please. Newt Gingrich's conservatism don't go hand-in-hand with libertarianism. And neither does Rick Santorum's conservatism. There is a reason why this chart is 2D, not a single line.
I'd take Mitt Romney for the sake of the industry I am in, but those two just scares the hell out of me.
Also, if you think being gay is "wrong," then I hope you never work on the sabbath again. I also assume you never eat shell fish, and plan on stoning your children to death when the disobey you in the future.
I've been a Romney supporter for 4 years now, so I'm a Romney guy. But I don't see exactly how Santorum or Gingrich would scare someone. The President of the United States has almost no control over social policy other than when they do highly unconstitutional things, like Obama. You want to impact social policy? You'll make a bigger difference petitioning your school board, county board, or state legislature. The local school board member will have a far bigger impact on your community's social policy than a President, whose greatest task is foreign policy.
Wait, why are you a Romney fan? Considering your hatred for Obama, wouldn't you dislike Romney right off the bat because of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts?
States have the right to do a lot more than the federal government. I actually supported Romneycare back in the day because it was innovative. It's had some success and some failure, but its failures remained out of the rest of the 49 states. So long as Romney signs a Congressional repeal of Obamacare I'm good.
Of course this thread would turn into a Republican circlejerk. So do you guys get your ideas from the Republican thinktank [FWD: FWD: FWD:] or from political scholars such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Duggar?
I don't know why Virginia Tech is getting so much hate for saying that he thinks homosexuality is wrong, it is his personal opinion. Besides, it's not like he's saying that he hates gays (if he is saying that, I retract my previous statement).
I personally think the act of (male) homosexuality is ugly and disgusting. But I also think Newt is ugly and disgusting, and if he can get married, why not the gays. Marriage is already ruined in this country, so I don't see how my gay neighbor's marriage will change anything. The thing Liberals fail to realize however, is that forcing their propaganda down people's throats makes them little better than the evangelicals they despise. I believe that there are people who are actually gay. But their numbers are quite insignificant compared to the vast majority of "gays" who are led to believe that they're gay.
King, I believe that companies are forbidden to discriminate based on sexual orientation. While that is for the most part good, I think that there should be an exception for professions where proximity to children is high, such as school teachers, pediatricians, priests etc. But apart from those select few professions, I agree with you.
Virginia Tech 4ever, I support Ron Paul, but since America is too stupid to elect him, I have to go with Romney for the sake of the industry I'm in. If you can't fathom how Newt or Santorum legitimately scares some people... The POTUS has almost unlimited power, due to unconstitutional EOs such as the ironically named "PATRIOT Act", both Bush and Obama support it, (despite Obama's pretenses to the contrary). Newt/ Santorum will have us engaged in a whole slew of meaningless wars, that will lead to loss of human lives, and bankrupt the country (even more than it is now). Romney won't bring the troops back, but at least he won't make it worse.
I simply mean that while there are actual gay men (who are legitimately attracted to men only, and find women revolting), there are others who watch a random movie/song/speech, or are talked into it by liberal propaganda that tons of people are gay, and they might be one as well.
Anecdote: 1) My neighbor is legit gay, and is marrying his boyfriend this June. I'm friends with him, and even invited to the wedding. He has been gay all his life. 2) My best friend from college recently decided on a whim that he's gay. I've known the guy for 5+ years. The man was a legend in bedding chicks, and the only guy in my frat who managed to bang four chicks in one night. The guy fucking loved women. Now out of the blue, the guy announces that he's gay, and he's getting weird feelings and shit.
So V4T, if employers should be allowed not to hire someone because he is a homosexual, should they also have the right no to hire someone because he gets drunk on occasion, lies, has had sex outside of marriage, etc. ? There are a lot of sins in the Bible and the last person who would turn away from a sinner is certainly Jesus.
Good point, though. There's a lot of picking and choosing with regard to what the Bible may or may not deem "wrong" by followers. Further, some "wrongdoings" receive a heavily disproportionate amount of attention relative to the frequency and urgency given in the Bible.
Incidunt alias quo nesciunt provident. Voluptatibus voluptatibus repellendus architecto molestiae velit.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Placeat tempore quod hic consequuntur atque. Dignissimos iure corrupti ipsam eligendi. Asperiores sint repellat ad quod voluptatem. Non doloribus est et eum. Suscipit beatae suscipit accusantium excepturi. Maiores voluptas velit quisquam incidunt sunt sunt.
Deleniti vel vel dolorem et possimus assumenda cum. Hic fugiat nihil id consectetur. Consequatur et iusto facere repellat ut. Debitis quos consequuntur officiis doloribus omnis incidunt atque. Dolores in nesciunt autem repudiandae suscipit incidunt.
Et sequi molestiae quod necessitatibus esse voluptas saepe. Molestiae non autem et sit accusamus qui quae officiis.
Impedit consectetur consectetur tempora. Nam aut quam nesciunt fuga architecto neque praesentium possimus. Sit error quaerat voluptatem officia quaerat ducimus. Aut corporis aspernatur repudiandae omnis sed minima omnis quia. Qui aut molestias occaecati et et. Ut ab alias aut quasi illum sint saepe.
Quis labore quisquam dignissimos sunt consequuntur ea. Temporibus ipsa nostrum quod ut illum dolorum. Dicta quis quod hic ut eius. Sint minus qui voluptatem sit rem sunt iste sunt.
Quam aperiam sunt est illo eos quidem. Necessitatibus commodi non animi adipisci magnam totam pariatur quo. Molestias laboriosam provident sunt iure repellat aperiam dolores. Distinctio praesentium suscipit iure aperiam delectus.
Laudantium quis qui explicabo ipsa quos dicta. Ullam hic eos sunt aut dignissimos. Nobis porro voluptatem et molestiae. Id officia ratione earum.
Rerum tempora voluptas neque architecto sit quos. Velit explicabo quasi voluptatem qui est in. Iste dicta corporis corrupti illo libero.
Quas est qui aut in soluta dolor porro. Consequatur explicabo cumque quia maiores.
Sint voluptatibus magni nobis itaque quia commodi sunt. Labore illo omnis ut commodi. Rerum enim enim ipsam assumenda sit nulla. Doloribus vel dignissimos aliquam aut illum a.
Quis sequi dolor molestias provident aperiam cum. Et libero laudantium explicabo totam magni occaecati est.
Ad autem enim omnis. Possimus omnis exercitationem nisi vero est velit. Deserunt possimus non temporibus ut maxime. Sunt eum porro perspiciatis id. Ratione laborum rem ut consequatur facilis. At libero aut dolores tempore odio nesciunt.
Impedit est accusantium modi. Officiis nihil sunt dolore saepe quibusdam. Quam autem minima ut culpa veritatis. Iure praesentium non alias et vel.
Distinctio id et alias. Modi id totam distinctio nobis et aut. Rerum qui quia voluptatem iure.