The Political Compass test!

[swani24]

Lol, im right down the middle. First Purple square!

Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46

 

[Niflhel]

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

No real surprise there.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Spoiler

Seems I'm even more Libertarian than the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.
Means bugger-all to me, mind you.

 

[deserteagleeye]

I'm pretty much spot-on dalai lama

 

[Simalacrum]

I appear to be a little more liberal/left wing than a lot of people here? which is saying something

 

[theultimateend]

Not sure how to link the image but apparently these are my results:

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

Not so surprising really considering my out look on life.

Edit - ty for info Folji

Spoiler

The difference between almost dead and dead is subtle but important enough that you should be much more averse to one than the other.

Not saying one of them is death, but subtle differences can mean very big outcomes.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

I'm out in the greener pasture.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Spoiler: Zen

Spoiler: Johnny

On the other hand, I am hugely in favor of the death penalty for serious crimes. Some folks just aren't going to rehabilitate, no matter how much time, counseling, incarceration, etc is spent on them. When you get weeds in your garden, you don't carefully move them to their own little plot, where they receive more time and resources than the plants you ostensibly want to keep. You pull the weeds, throw them over your shoulder, and don't spare them another thought. The left likes to whine about compassion. I have loads of compassion. I just have it for the victims.

There's an issue with what you're saying. It costs more for us to use the death penalty on prisoners on death row than it costs to just keep them in prison, thanks to the many levels of appeals and so forth. But we can't cut down on our appeals process, because we already let innocent people be killed with the death penalty.

I agree that the victims should receive our compassion, not hardcore criminals that are not able to be rehabilitated. But the cost of killing innocents and the cost of money dictates that we cannot continue the death penalty.

Would you be happy if you learned your new neighbor had brutally killed four people without provocation, but was out of jail after just a few years because prisons are overcrowded and it was "too expensive" to put him to death? What are you going to say to the friends and family of his next four victims....assuming of course that you aren't one of them?

You say we cannot continue the death penalty. I say murderers cannot walk our streets. I know it's expensive to kill them. That's why we need to reform the system. We don't need to do away with capital punishment, we need to do away with red tape.

As for killing innocent people, the only way to ensure innocents were never punished would be never to punish anyone for anything, ever. I think we can agree that doesn't work. In the real world we simply have to accept that punishment is necessary and errors will be made. From there, we decide on an appropriate level of punishment and an acceptable level of error. I guess we just differ on what's appropriate and acceptable.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the false dichotomy.

Also, I said "keep them in prison". I never, ever, EVER said that we should just let unrepentant, unrehabilitated mass murderers walk the streets whilly nilly. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you continue to do so then you have made it clear that you are not arguing in good faith and are unworthy of having a civilized discussion.

Anyways, on to your legitimate points:

I know it's expensive to kill them. That's why we need to reform the system. We don't need to do away with capital punishment, we need to do away with red tape.

First of all, we have executed 1312 people since 1973[footnote]sourcey source [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf][/footnote]. During the same timeframe, we have released 141 inmates from death row because they have been proven innocent (not on a technicality, honest-to-god innocent)[footnote]another sourcey source [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty][/footnote]. That means that for every 10 people we have killed, we have found one to be completely innocent.

You cut away that red tape, we murder countless innocents. This also ties into your next point:

As for killing innocent people, the only way to ensure innocents were never punished would be never to punish anyone for anything, ever. I think we can agree that doesn't work. In the real world we simply have to accept that punishment is necessary and errors will be made.

We can both agree that punishing the innocent is bad, and for a dozen reasons.[footnote]not the least of which is the fact that it allows the true criminal to get away scott free with their crime[/footnote] However, there is a difference between jailing an innocent and killing an innocent - you can be released from jail. You can't be brought back to life. Besides, what harm do you honestly think a serial killer / rapist / whatever can do from jail?

 

[seventy two]

Spoiler

See where Friedman is? That is me but I am a bit farther right.

On that other test(I think it is a worse test)

Spoiler

I am pretty libertarian, I prefer my government to be practically non-existent.

 

[Evil Smurf]

<spoiler=Evil Smurf is a dirty commie

<spoiler=2nd website, http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz>the other test
Evil Smurf's issues Score is 80%
Evil Smurf's issues Score is 40%
http://www.theadvocates.org/images/bd/quiz/red_dots/80_40.gif?1351125729

I prefer the second test that you've brought to the table. It is more straight forward and makes more sense.

The first test the OP brought had bad wording and too many almost moral ultimatum type questions that where pretty close to: Should we kill all the babies? Plus the listing of famous people board for the test is stupid, because Obama and Romney should be nowhere near each other.

50% personal
100% economic(Yeah! A+ on economics, at least that is how I think it should work).

I knew I was mostly conservative. I'm of course very vocal about freedom. Though I think that National ID card bit had no place in the personal freedom section. Of course we need a National ID card is needed, we already have them, and they make sense because being able to cheat systems because nobody knows who you are, is not a part of personal freedom.

So in that case, I should at least be 70% on freedom and not 50%.

Though right now looking at you Evil Smurf, considering we are on near opposite ends of the political spectrum, it is the law that we must get together and have a fist fight. =P

Edit: Yeah, I can post again. Some stupid program had attached itself onto my PC and interfered with the sites posting mechanics. I had to delete sections of it out of its program folder to get the uninstall for it to work; I guess it had anti-uninstall fail-safes. Now I've got to find out who's been messing with my computer.

What is a National ID card? Is it a passport?

I am too much of a pacifist to fight anyone But I wrote you a poem:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
You are wrong,
Ergo you are stupid.

like it?

 

[recurve6]

Spoiler

Practically exactly as I had predicted.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What is a National ID card? Is it a passport?

Most National ID card schemes have been essentially compulsory photographic ID cards with all your information on it and all stored in a central database that all government departments (and probably corporate these days) can access.

Used to be a big issue but these days, seeing as you can't even fart in public without photographic ID it's fallen off the Panic List.

 

[Evil Smurf]

What is a National ID card? Is it a passport?

Most National ID card schemes have been essentially compulsory photographic ID cards with all your information on it and all stored in a central database that all government departments (and probably corporate these days) can access.

Used to be a big issue but these days, seeing as you can't even fart in public without photographic ID it's fallen off the Panic List.

That is not a thing in Australia

 

[josemlopes]

So basicly we are all very close to Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, and people still say that games and movies are all about the violence...

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Spoiler: Here you go

Uh...not EXACTLY what I was expecting (but not too far off either). I guess I do go along with the general consensus of The Escapist on the questions that were asked...

Left/Right: -4.50
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

 

[Vivios]

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.21

Now what does that really mean?

 

[Monsterfurby]

Nelson Mandela? I can live with that.

That, too. I prefer the second test.

I hate extremists, no matter from which political camp and think that 'human dignity' should be above 'freedom' in terms of basic human rights. So yeah, definitely fits the bill.

 

[vasiD]

I make Gandhi look like a fascist!

Spoiler

Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

Also the question: "Do you think marijuana should be legalized for personal use?" Was HILARIOUS, as my state just legalized it.

 

[vasiD]

Spoiler

Furthest Left here?

DAMN! You just have me beat. I salute your liberal ways sir!

 

[elvor0]

By its very nature, the test is very biased. Why do you need to have authoritarian and libertarian in it? The answer is that you are trying to get people to adopt a different mindset about life.

Also, why does it avoid the actual titles? We all know what colloquially what left and right thinkers are, but why not call them democrat and republican?

While some questions were a bit left leaning in their wording, it's in order to make it more varied in your results. Stalin and Ghandi are both left wing, but vary radically on authoritarian issues, thus without the Liberty and Authoritarian axis, your results don't make any sense. We should all know that politics are not just some black and white, Fable-esque morality slider.

And because democrat and republican are not the actual titles, left and right wing are. We're not all American y'know, and there's more right and left parties than just democrat and republican, granted they're not of any consequence in the elections, but that doesn't mean people don't hold those views and fit elsewhere on the spectrum. You can call the Democrats left wing liberals all day long, but that doesn't make them so, most American politics are all varying degrees of Right wing, it's presented laughably obvious in the graph, given Obama and Romney sit almost on top of each other on the graph.

There's an issue with what you're saying. It costs more for us to use the death penalty on prisoners on death row than it costs to just keep them in prison, thanks to the many levels of appeals and so forth. But we can't cut down on our appeals process, because we already let innocent people be killed with the death penalty.

Blimy, I...did not know that, is the repeal process really /that/ expensive? Not that I don't believe you, just where are all the costs coming from, lawyers, organization or what?