[Spoon]

Being on the right wing in the netherlands is apparantly still considered leftish in america

[Nuke]

the american left is a little rightish of the worlds left it seems.

[SpardaSon21]

[Dilmah G]

the american left is a little rightish of the worlds left it seems.

Well you were the guys who had people pissed off about public healthcare. Then again, this is coming from Australia - the land where public healthcare has existed for 40 years and even my most right-wing friends would bertstare anyone who would dare propose abolishing it.

[MP-Ryan]

I used to really like this tool, but more and more I find the questions are not all that well-designed or plotted.  Whoever mentioned the classical liberalism v. libertarianism thing is bang on - this tool has been heavily influenced by the American notion of political ideologies, and I think that's coloring the results (particularly given the number of nationalities on HLP and where we're mostly plotting).

[Bob-san]

Individually, it represents our ideological differences or at least willingness to accept the actions of others. The politicians mentioned are calculated far more arbitrarily so to compare politician to politician. It can't really compare us to a politician since the questions differ.

And honestly, many of the responses assume a simple left/right paradigm. There are alternatives, so allowing one thing in the test doesn't mean you're okay with opening the floodgates. There were a few times where I'd have loved to have an open response session.

[Mikes]

Let me guess... the purpose of this test is to find a label for people that you disagree with so you can disregard their opinion based on your disregard for the label ?


As noted earlier... the test appears to rely way too much on American stereotypes and political cliche.

[headdie]

Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

A lot of the questions defiantly had a liberal slant with a few where i was not able to answer as i would have liked with no counter question to balance the answer with

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Not much to add. You kinda feel that this test is aimed at US americans though.

[jr2]

i dont trust any large group of people whether it be for money or power.

There, we agree at least to some extent.  I'm fine with power/authority as long as there are ample checks and balances with no conflict of interest in place sporting 5-inch fangs.  ofc those also need their own checks and balances... etc.

[Bob-san]

i dont trust any large group of people whether it be for money or power.

There, we agree at least to some extent.  I'm fine with power/authority as long as there are ample checks and balances with no conflict of interest in place sporting 5-inch fangs.  ofc those also need their own checks and balances... etc.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

That all begs the question of where to stop? I want both the size & especially the scope of the federal government to be greatly reduced.

[jr2]

Right, basically, the three branches of government should watch each other, and the government collective should watch big business.

Problem is, then big business gets in bed with Congress by donating a bunch of money to support the (re)election bids of their cronies, donates a bunch of money to get their guy(s) elected President, and President selects the Supreme Court, where are we now?

Not to say the government left to its own devices would be much better, but at least they can balance each other out.

[SpardaSon21]

Except the branches don't watch each other.  Congress and the President are usually in bed with each other when it comes to expanding the government since they both benefit from that and the Supreme Court is typically content to sit back and watch for the most part since they're unaccountable as they're chosen for life.

[Aardwolf]

[Bob-san]

Except the branches don't watch each other.  Congress and the President are usually in bed with each other when it comes to expanding the government since they both benefit from that and the Supreme Court is typically content to sit back and watch for the most part since they're unaccountable as they're chosen for life.

The only risk a Supreme Court Justice faces is old age & assassination attempts.

The problem is that it's in politicians' best interest to delegate their powers to others. It's easier to roll heads in the EPA than it is to accept the consequences of legislation that you specifically authorized. So instead of Congress passing regulations & the President signing them into law, instead Congress passes carte blanc authorization for a 3rd party to write & enforce regulations. You end up with bureaucracies that write & enforce the equivalent of law; there are no checks & balances as the regulations never need votes & don't need to respect the authority of the courts. The EPA's been quite guilty of that one: they can declare land protected and infringe on personal property rights. They can impose fines for noncompliance that, in the span of a day, can bankrupt an individual. Meanwhile, they can prevent the sale of said land. Even if the landowner fights & wins an uphill legal battle, the EPA doesn't have to revise their decision: they can insist that the land be protected and continue to punish the landowner.

All in all, it's a massive nightmare. If something goes grossly wrong, the agency's head administrators resign and are replaced. Those authorizing their appointments rarely if ever need to answer for those votes.

[SpardaSon21]

Yeah, and then the former heads of the agency immediately get jobs in a lobbying firm and start making double what they used to since they're no longer bound by federal salary restrictions.

We can't even ditch the lobbying firms since that would require politicians to actually put in some effort on their part to be informed on legislation and issues, and a politician will never put in more effort than he has to.

[WeatherOp]

Hmm, by far the most left I've ever scored, normally I'm right in the middle. Knowing I answered most questions about the same as all the other quizzes makes me think it's slightly more left based.

[General Battuta]

The fundamental problem with the American government is that it was designed by people terrified of democracy. We can't get anything done because government branches - the president included - do not have enough power.

source: canadians, my dad

[The E]

Weird, I thought my answers would put me more in the authoritarian realm. Well, whatever.

A lot of the questions defiantly had a liberal slant with a few where i was not able to answer as i would have liked with no counter question to balance the answer with

From the tests' FAQ:

Some of the questions are slanted
Most of them are slanted! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions — an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

The propositions should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

[headdie]

I usually consider myself a socialist, liberal and is still found it liberally bias.  Ah well