Political quiz

I think The World’s Smallest Political Quiz is better:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

On that test I scored:
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

Interesting.

1) There was no question stating whether the military should be abolished or not.
2) There was no question stating whether free market trade should be abolished or not.
3) There was no question stating an alternative to government welfare and private charity.
4) There was no question asking if government was perferred or not.

Barry F. Seidman

Political Compass

Here was my standing:

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31

Barry F. Seidman

First I thought the long post was excellent Barry, good stuff and well written.
Next,
I think the website with the test was well done and the test itself was a good one. I don’t think a few missing issues affects any-one’s outcome. I liked the explanations of the outcome using references to Hitler, Stalin Gandhi and Thatcher among others. (Friedman)
My result was -
Economic Left - Right -8.50
Social Libertarian Authoritarian -6.10

and on TWSPT
LIBERAL.
Jim

For humanists, politics must be directed to the common good

I agree with you Barry.  Humanism is a world view and has implications in all human endeavors.  It is certainly correlated to our political viewpoints.  The alliance between fundamentalist religions and neoconservatives is not random.  Can someone be a humanist and not care about justice and equality for all?  And I mean for all races and nations.  Politics, defined by the execution of legitimate power, should be guided by the common good, for all nations and races, and for all generations.

Interesting enough I believe through tecnology created by freethinkers can end the race fight forever. 

I am referring to genetic engineering ofcoarse.

Hitler was a great fan of genetic engineering, he did it with guns, gas and furnaces of course because the techniques we have available today weren’t available to him. That isn’t to say he would have used them, guns and furnaces are lots quicker.
J

Politics and Humanism

We often hear that humanists and atheists are left-leaning, yet I know of many who are rather more conservative. Do you think politics have a role in the “movement”? When should campus humanists and skeptics get involved in politics?

-DJG

I lean towards conservatism, but I also see and sympathize with the liberal viewpoint.  I think it is unwise to get involved in partisan politics, because invariably someone insults a political leader that someone else likes, and that ends in bad feelings and disunity in our cause.  We should unite against unfair and incorrect POLICIES, not against political parties or political philosophies.

Usually, our choice in an election is between two candidates we do not like, so we vote in favor of the least undesirable candidate.  Also, we usually vote for EMOTIONAL reasons, not LOGICAL reasons.

Politics is emotional and non-rational.  It is the epitome of unclear thinking.  Getting political is a slippery slope that I think we should avoid.  There are plenty of other venues for venting our emotional political views.

- James Carr

Welcome to the forum, James.

Political Compass ????

First, thanks for the welcome, Doug.

I took the Political Compass test.  It was weird, like a Scientology test.  There were so many questions I neither agreed nor disagreed with, but I was forced to choose one.  That in itself is very frustrating.

I am surprised to find myself close to Ghandi.  I always thought myself more conservative than that.  My Econimic Left/Right is -1.00 and Social Libertarian / Authoritarian is -2.51.

...At least, according to this test.  I have little confidence in the scientific accuracy of the test.  I have a feeling that it is similar to the tests in women’s magazines to find out how much your boyfriend or husband loves you.

[quote author=“jimmiekeyes”]Hitler was a great fan of genetic engineering, he did it with guns, gas and furnaces of course because the techniques we have available today weren’t available to him. That isn’t to say he would have used them, guns and furnaces are lots quicker.
J

I was referring to changing a baby’s dna in the mothers stomache.

[quote author=“theatheistheretic”]
I was referring to changing a baby’s dna in the mothers stomache.

:?:

I assume you mean “womb”?

At any rate I’m confused.

Seems like kind of an odd listing of items in the poll.

BTW, here is my take on the political spectrum:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

I’d consider myself a “neo-Marxist”, of course, most non-Marxists won’t have any idea of what that actually means.

yes i am one too, but also a socialist since i think it is only reasonable that we should redistribute wealth for fairness for all. how a freethinker sec hum person couldnt agree is beyong me. 

Because you are advocating the use of force at the point of a gun to take away someone’s property.  How a freethinking person could think that was fair, right, or just is beyond me.

I have been amazed that Libertarians, for example, can consider themselves Humanist, but some do. 

Libertarians are all about the worth of the individual, rational thought, and freedom.  What could be more humanistic than that? 

I consider myself someone who likes the basic Enlightenment ideas on which America was built.. about ideas from Jefferson to Paine to Smith who spoke of the American experiment which has been lost due to both the imperialist drives of many American governments to the anti-democratic allegience to Capitalism. 

Whew!  There’s a mouthful. 

The experiment is failing because we’ve moved so far away from capitalism.  When Humongous Inc. is writing policies and laws that favor their industry (and sometimes their specific company) that’s the opposite of capitalism.  Real capitalism embraces real competition and distains government involvement.  Our current government weasels are wholly owned subsidiaries of various industries and special interest groups.  That’s not a representative republic, nor is it capitalism. 

In fact, things such as free-market capitalism (especially post-Industrial Revolution), religious/moral absolutism and imperialism are doctrines that the majority of our founding fathers would have abhorred. 

You’re right about absolutism and imperialism, but where do you get the idea that they’d have abhorred capitalism?  Most of them were entrepreneurs.  Please back up this claim. 

The political compass marked me as Economic Left/Right: 2.63, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97.  The graph shows me three clicks to the right of center, and a little less than half way down on the libertarian side.  That’s about right - I’m a small L libertarian. 

The question I had the most trouble with was: “There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.”  Yes, there is a fusion of the two, but I don’t find it worrisome.  I think it’s fun, and may be a good thing if it gets people to pay more attention to what’s going on. 

I have little confidence in the scientific accuracy of the test. I have a feeling that it is similar to the tests in women’s magazines to find out how much your boyfriend or husband loves you. 

Agreed, but they can be fun if you don’t take them too seriously. 

In answer to the poll, I picked Libertarian because there wasn’t a “small L libertarian” category.  Small Ls agree in principle to libertarian values, but are willing to make compromises, either for pragmatic reasons, or because small steps toward freedom are more likely than waiting for one giant leap there.

Reply to Hittman

Someone said: yes i am one too, but also a socialist since i think it is only reasonable that we should redistribute wealth for fairness for all. how a freethinker sec hum person couldnt agree is beyong me.

Hittman said: Because you are advocating the use of force at the point of a gun to take away someone’s property.  How a freethinking person could think that was fair, right, or just is beyond me.

Barry: I do not know what “Someone” meant, but socialism is not “the use of force at the point of a gun.”  That may have been Soviet or Maoist Communism ... It certainly was totalitarianism ...  But it was not socialism. 

Still, I think socialism will not work because the inherent problem with big government is that it CAN become so corrupted.  I advocate for Libertarian-Socialism.

Someone said: I have been amazed that Libertarians, for example, can consider themselves Humanist, but some do. 

Hittman: Libertarians are all about the worth of the individual, rational thought, and freedom.  What could be more humanistic than that? 

Barry: I agree with Hittman’s definition of Libertarianism ... but it seems Hittman is a Right-Libertarian (unregulated capitalism), or at best, a Free-Market, non-capitalist Libertarian. 

Instead, the sort of Libertarianism that matches Hittman’s above definition with humanism is Left-Libertarianism… Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism or Anarchism.

Hittman: The (American) experiment is failing because we’ve moved so far from capitalism.  When Humongous Inc. is writing policies and laws that favor their industry (and sometimes their specific company) that’s the opposite of capitalism.  Real capitalism embraces real competition and distains government involvement.  Our current government weasels are wholly owned subsidiaries of various industries and special interest groups.  That’s not a representative republic, nor is it capitalism. 

Barry: Hittman is right that the capitalism we have now is more akin to fascism than capitalism’s origins, and this is terrible.  But I think corporate capitalism is bound to come from capitalism when you have a state.  Still, I think Hittman is mixing up capitalism with the “Free Market,” and this is not right.  You can have a free market system without capitalism (corporate or otherwise), such is a Free Market system without profit as in Anarcho-Capitalism or Free Market Anarchism.

Someone Said: In fact, things such as free-market capitalism (especially post-Industrial Revolution), religious/moral absolutism and imperialism are doctrines that the majority of our founding fathers would have abhorred. 

Hittman said: You’re right about absolutism and imperialism, but where do you get the idea that they’d have abhorred capitalism?  Most of them were entrepreneurs.  Please back up this claim.

Barry: I think Stephen Bronner (author of Reclaiming the Enlightenment) said it best on my radio program when he said - and I am paraphrasing here - that capitalism was born after the times of the American Founders, and that the trajectory of the Enlightenment would lead us to Social Democracy (the 1970s version of Sweden) today and not Libertarian, Corporate or Crony Capitalism.

Hittman: The political compass marked me as
Economic Left/Right: +2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97. 

Barry: Hittman hit right where I thought he would…. a Libertarian with Right-wing economic tendencies… A mix of Randism, Freedmanism with perhaps a little classical liberalism tossed in to keep him away from the far right.  Hardly where I would plug in humanism.  I’d say Hittman was an atheist, but not a humanist.

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97

Barry: I agree with Hittman’s definition of Libertarianism ... but it seems Hittman is a Right-Libertarian (unregulated capitalism), or at best, a Free-Market, non-capitalist Libertarian.
Instead, the sort of Libertarianism that matches Hittman’s above definition with humanism is Left-Libertarianism… Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism or Anarchism. 

You’re using nonsense terms and contradicting yourself within the same sentence. 

Free Market is capitalist.  (And yes, I’m a free market, capitalist libertarian.)  Libertarian Socialism is not anarchism.  In fact, Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.  One can not be a libertarian and a socialist within the current definitions of the words. It’s like claiming to be a Christian Atheist. 

You can have a free market system without capitalism (corporate or otherwise), such is a Free Market system without profit as in Anarcho-Capitalism or Free Market Anarchism. 

This is simply gibberish.  You’re just tossing around terms with no consideration for what they mean.  There purpose of a free market is profit. 

The bottom line is that all government is force at the point of a gun, from the most draconian laws to the simplest local ordnances.  EnFORCEment requires the initiation of force if someone doesn’t want to go along with it.  And while the guns are rarely displayed at first, they are there, and will come out eventually if someone continues to resist. 

Socialism and Communism can be practiced voluntarily on a small scale - a commune or a monastery, for instance - and occasionally it works in such limited environments.  The key is that an individual has the choice to sign up, and can walk away if they want to.  When governments do it, it requires forcing everyone to participate, whether they want to our not.  It also leads to huge disasters - the more socialist/communist the government, the bigger the disasters.  Without capitalism and competition there is no incentive for improvement, doing the job well, or getting things done efficiently.  Without ownership there’s no incentive to improve or even maintain anything.  Everything turns to crap.