Short Political compass quiz

Operational said:
Moderate Economic Liberal.


Something I had fun with a few years ago was Nation States. Basically you are in charge of a nation which is shaped based upon your responses to various issues that arise daily.
I've been thinking about playing again. If enough other people were interested we could even make a HL2.net region!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was good for a laugh. Of course, it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if I hadn't created a totalitarian fascist state with the motto "we live to die for the Emperor". :E
 
We were big into Nation States about a year ago. And that other one where you could declare war on people and stuff, forgot the name of it. My nation actually got into the top 300 once...but then back to the top 1000.
 
Authoritarian

You appear to want significantly more government control in both the economic and personal realm than can currently be found in the U.S. This puts you in the same part of this political map as both socialists, moderate fascists, croney capitalists, communitarians, and some theocrats. Obviously, you have differences with some of these groups, since they disagree with each other. Since this test focuses on the amount of government, it does a poor job of distinguishing the different political philosophies which involve more government everywhere. We didn't properly cover what you want the government to do with all that power.

You can find some authoritarian politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Often, such politicians are described as "moderates" in the press, since they combine the big-government ideas of both the Left and the Right.
Click to expand...

As I expected. At the political compass site Stern recommended I pulled a -5 on economy. That's mostly based on my fervent desire to limit corporations. I pulled a 2.5 on social issues. According to the site, there is no real party for me here in America. I'll be able to vote in the next presidential election, so I'll probably just make my decisions based on individual candidates, instead of mechanically voting for one party all the time.
 
Thunderclap said:
Authoritarian



As I expected. At the political compass site Stern recommended I pulled a -5 on economy. That's mostly based on my fervent desire to limit corporations. I pulled a 2.5 on social issues. According to the site, there is no real party for me here in America. I'll be able to vote in the next presidential election, so I'll probably just make my decisions based on individual candidates, instead of mechanically voting for one party all the time.
Click to expand...

May I suggest North Korea? :E
 
Ah yes, but Kim Jong Il is a f*cking lunatic, which is rather a turn off to potential immigrants, no? And the country has almost no health system. Or infrastructure. Or food.
 
I was going to suggest Singapore, but they afford much economic freedom.
Authoritarianism isn't cool.
 
I like to think of myself as just a meritocrat. It's my opinion that of late American elections have just turned into people toeing their party line or voting for whoever's more charismatic, rather than any real scrutiny of their competence as leaders. I freely acknowledge determining competence is a very difficult thing though.

And corporations exist to make money. They can rightly claim they don't need to see to the well-being of their customers. Nations at least have some moral obligation to serve the people.
 
Thunderclap said:
I like to think of myself as just a meritocrat. It's my opinion that of late American elections have just turned into people toeing their party line or voting for whoever's more charismatic, rather than any real scrutiny of their competence as leaders. I freely acknowledge determining competence is a very difficult thing though.

And corporations exist to make money. They can rightly claim they don't need to see to the well-being of their customers. Nations at least have some moral obligation to serve the people.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I see that as an argument for libertarianism rather than authoritarianism. :)
Government will always be for sale, the only reliable solution to the problem of bad governance is to have less government. I am by no means an extremist libertarian who believes that government should have no responsibilities other than defence and policing, but...government is way too big for its boots.
And working at the Department of Health for 3 months (today was my last day, woo!) has really opened my eyes to what a travesty the NHS is.
We need privatised healthcare, but more importantly, we need government to stop regulating the availability of treatments. It is this regulation, along with narrow-minded physicians, that stops thousands people with fatal diseases from getting life-saving treatment, both here and in the USA. It must stop.
The only way my mum is going to survive her brain tumour is by my conducting of private research and purchasing drugs from Mexico or somewhere else where they don't ask questions and doing the oncologist's job for them (unless I manage to get them to write prescriptions for me). It's a sad indictment of the woeful inadequacy of provision for cancer patients.
Although with regards to your point about corporations and customer well-being - the market takes care of that.
 
repiV said:
And working at the Department of Health for 3 months (today was my last day, woo!) has really opened my eyes to what a travesty the NHS is.
We need privatised healthcare, but more importantly, we need government to stop regulating the availability of treatments. It is this regulation, along with narrow-minded physicians, that stops thousands people with fatal diseases from getting life-saving treatment, both here and in the USA. It must stop.
Click to expand...

Given your experiences, I'll trust what you say, but it would seem to me this is just a problem of bloated bureaucracy. I am in favor of 'small' government, as in one that is trim, efficient, with as little red tape as possible.
Government regulation exists to enforce standards so doctors looking to save a few bucks don't sell you rat poison in a bottle, claiming it's an analgesic (or so I am led to believe).I would like to hear your take on how the regulation is screwing over a lot of people.
 
Thunderclap said:
Given your experiences, I'll trust what you say, but it would seem to me this is just a problem of bloated bureaucracy. I am in favor of 'small' government, as in one that is trim, efficient, with as little red tape as possible.
Government regulation exists to enforce standards so doctors looking to save a few bucks don't sell you rat poison in a bottle, claiming it's an analgesic (or so I am led to believe).I would like to hear your take on how the regulation is screwing over a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Government regulation denies access to treatment unless it has been "proven" effective by a very expensive clinical trial system which uses a set of fairly arbitrary criteria to determine whether or not a treatment is "effective".
This ensures two things. Firstly, that only the richest of pharmaceutical companies can afford to get their drugs licensed. Secondly, it discourages companies from researching or developing new treatments for rare conditions, since it's not that profitable - leaving many people to die.
There are so many failings of the clinical trial system, but it's an extremely lengthy subject and I can't be bothered to write an essay on it. For example, however, the null hypothesis is used as one of the criteria - even if the drug was 100% effective for those that received it, if the statistical probability that the difference was due to the treatment received is calculated to be less than a certain amount, the treatment is declared ineffective and never revisited. It works for physics, but not for medicine.
Also, the control group receive a placebo treatment. When we're dealing with terminal illnesses, that is sickeningly unethical.
Cost-effectiveness is also a large factor.
The same rules apply to people with a fatal diagnosis for which no effective, approved treatment exists. They won't be prescribed certain drugs because they're "unproven" or "too risky", even when they're due to die in six months anyway. Even when chemotherapy, one of the only "standard" cancer treatment - incidentally only because it was one of the ONLY treatments available, many years ago, before these regulations became so strict - is extremely toxic and often a cause of death itself. It is unlikely chemotherapy would be approved for use today.
The survival rate of brain tumour patients has remained basically unchanged for 60 years, despite tremendous advances in medical treatment. Most of it comes down to government inflexibility and indoctrinated medical practitioners.
Cutting-edge treatments are also denied because it takes five or so years to push them through the approval process, and they cannot be prescribed until they have gone through this process - even when the patient's illness is fatal, even when the treatment has been proven to work by stage 1 and 2 clinical trials.
This makes me very ****ing angry, when my mum suffers from a highly malignant brain tumour that I believe is quite possibly treatable.
So much more could be said on the subject - I would suggest you research it.
 
The government regulation sounds like a good thing with a genuine desire to make sure the medicine on the market is effective. It's just determining what's 'effective' is where it fails. We've kind of hijacked this thread, so let's end it here. I concur with what you say is true, but I still think that a restructuring of government (namely the NHS) can relieve it.
 
Radical Liberal, lol

You want government out of your personal life. On the other hand, you want more government in your economic life. This puts you closest to either the Green Party or the radical wing of the Democratic Party. You might even consider yourself a socialist, or a "true" communist (as opposed to the "state capitalists" who ran the old Soviet Union).

This is too US based, tbh. I filled some things in as I would for Belgium, but some stuff is solely for the US :|
 
Moderate Libertarian.

Though I didn't really like some of the choices offered in some of the questions.
 
Centrist -> Your views call roughly the same amount of government with just a bit more liberty than we currently have in the United States today. Thus, your views are probably best served by a nearly equal mix of Democrats and Republicans in the legislatures, with perhaps a few Libertarians thrown into the mix to nudge things in the direction of smaller government.

Note that I said just a few Libertarians. The Libertarian Party calls for much bigger cuts in government than you want. Think of a tub of cold bathwater. To get it warm enough to be comfortable, you add hot water, not ideal temperature water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Operational
The Political Compass - 2009 Edition
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Thandurin
Thandurin
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
RakuraiTenjin
GlassBooth Political Quiz
Replies
15
Views
1K
Kamikazie
Kamikazie
Warped
Iranian Elections Erupt in Utter Chaos
2 3
Replies
86
Views
6K
Warped
Warped
Escaep
Ending Apathy
Replies
16
Views
4K
Druckles
Druckles
Back
Top