What is your political alignment?

[Komatteru]

Turns out I am a total fucking anarchist.

Hmm.

This is true.  I can confirm.

[Dozer]

Economic Left/Right: -9.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13

In your face Dozer!

Phew... I was already worrying I'd be the liberal outcast in a world full of moderate moderators! Looking at Bram's graphic, I need not worry anyway. However, we now have visual proof why political discussions (usually) are being frowned upon on TMD: Our political alignments are spread so wide that eruptive disagreement is bound to happen.

Also, Bram has hijacked TMD by averaging us all out.

[Bram]

Got two more results over PM. Will include them in graph, oh, when I feel like it.

Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

It shifted the numbers a little. Average is now -3,99 ; -3,61. Without outliers (Bardo) it's -2,56, -3,26. The two people furthest apart are Bardo and Dandan with over 15 'points' difference. Reb is a little closer at 14,6 points from Bardo, but he is the furthest away n a diametrically opposed quadrant. Bardo is no longer allowed to argue politics with Reb and Dandan (and the other way around, too ;-).

[Eddie]

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

[everythingitouchdies]

I probably should have included this:

Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.88

[Bram]

Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

Boo ya! Take that, Bardo!

[waSP]

Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

I don't think I'm very anarchist..  Civil Liberties = good, right?

[Bardo]

Bardo is no longer allowed to argue politics with Reb and Dandan

But how else will they see the error of their ways?

Boo ya! Take that, Bardo!

At least I don't feel so lonely out in lefty-wacko land. Welcome to the extreme bottom-left of the graph Godder.

I don't think I'm very anarchist..  Civil Liberties = good, right?

You realize only a terrorist would claim such a thing, right? The State Always Knows Best, in case you didn't know.

[Matt]

No, no, you've got it all wrong. The state is the horrible enemy when it's someone else's state; the American state however DOES know best. ;D

[Saucemaster]

That's because I think their test counts death penalty support as authoritarian, when really, what could be more anarchist than eye-for-an-eye? Maybe if I shout "fight the man!" at my computer a few times, it'll lower my number.

Obviously these quizzes don't have enough nuances. Their one question about classroom education totally didn't let me communicate to the test my profound skepticism of public education, which should push me at least another point or two to the right on its own. Add in that a chunk of my problem with it is that it makes kids too prone to be sheep, and I should be south somewhat, too. But I'm not bitter; I know on the inside I'm more hardcore than some namby-pamby Californian.

Actually, I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se, and I think I selected the "agree" but not "strongly agree" for that question.  I think it needs to be used more judiciously than currently, but I'm not against it in theory.  We probably shouldn't get into specifics, though, because that could turn into a political argument pretty easily (though not necessarily between you and I).

I figured my namby-pamby Californian-ness would be somewhat abated by my growing Philly hardnosed gruffness, but my results (around -6 on both axes, Bram) would seem to indicate otherwise.

[Smmenen]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

I would have to echo those who complained about the phraseology.

Take the first page:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.    

This is an either or question.  In many instances, it will do both at the same time.  I'm not sure whether anyone would disagree with this statement.  Even the most radical conservative economists believe that the reason markets work is because they make people better off.  That is, in making money, we improve the standard of living of people over the world.  Substitute "primarily" with "ultimately" and "humanity" with "people" and I can't imagine that even the most right wing economist would disagree. 

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.    

Obviously this is trying to gauge patriotism, but its too ambiguous.  In my view, this one hinges on the word "foolish."  Substitute the word "irrational" and I might agree.  Foolish? No.  Patriots are well regarded in most countries and it is likely to make you friends. 

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.    

This one struck me as most interesting.  What if I were to say:

Actions which defy law is sometimes justified?  Who would disagree with that?  Slavery was constitutionally protected in this country for a century.  I would be inclined to say "agree" except that I can't think of a single international law that would be ethical to violate.  International Law is pretty well developed and very fair.  One could imagine international laws that one would like to see defied, but that is hypothetical.  Take the UN Charter.  There is really nothing objectionable in it. 

[nataz]

International Law is pretty well developed and very fair. 

I have no desire to debate this, but are you serious? I'm just checking to see if I missed the interweb sarcasm meter.

[Smmenen]

I'm dead serious.   

When we talk about International law we are talking about:

1) Customary Law
2) Bilateral Treaties
3) Multi-Lateral Treaties

I also assume its talking about "public" international law, not private.  The difference being that public international law concerns the legal relations of states.  People in Europe may not like some of the European law, but European Law is not, in my view, international law - it's transnational, but not international. 

So I am talking about public international law.  What are the major treaties? 

The Charter of the UN
The International Court of Justice Statute
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
The Unversal Declaration of Human Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Internatinoal Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women
The American Convention on Human Rights

etc
etc

These documents are broadly worded, hortatory, and often aspirational. 
For examlpe, the Universal Declaration, Article 23:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, and to just and favourable conditions of work and to protect against unemployment.'  Would you invade a country over that?  Or:
Article 25:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family..."

Now, people would probably disagree with the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but that was farce anyway. 

Remember, it doesn't defy international law to use military action unless you have signed and ratified the treaty.  States shouldn't violate treaties which they have ratified and signed, as a general principle. 

I could be wrong, but I am not aware of lots of international laws which I think are any more objectionable than current national law. 

[Smmenen]

-5.00 / -4.31

Basically, I think corporations are just mini-sovereigns with less accountability to the public and are therefore less trustworthy.  And while my personal belief system probably wouldn't go over well with most of today's trendy leftists-du-jour, I do think civil liberties need to be defended more zealously than they are.

I agree with you on both points.  On the former, do you recommend any literature on this subject?   I'm working on a project on corporate prerogative and I was wondering if you have anything to recommend.  I'll pm you if you forget .

[nataz]

steve,

as far as international law is concerned, would you consider yourself a dworkin-ite?

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure which Dworkin you're referring to. 

I don't think my views on international law are simple at all.

I'll try and elaborate with some basics.

The United States suffers from what is frequently called "American Exceptionalism."  This idea originated basically with the founding colony where John Winthrop said: "We shall be a city on a hill."  The idea basically being that America should be a model of government.  Originally this meant a puritan colony that rejected the decadent values of Europe.  However, with our constitutional charter, this also meant a model of democracy.  With economic power came the power to export this model abroad.  Which we did.  We helped set up the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions and we promoted our values and our freedoms to other nations.

However, American exceptionalism has taken a nasty turn in since 2001 and probably since the 1960s.  We have become so parochial that we actually undermine the rule of law when it conflicts with our immediate interests.  We haven't even ratified the convention on the rights of the child because of our concern that it would interfere with US prerogative.  Most of the treaties we have signed and ratified are qualified with reservations that they not interfere or go beyond what is already in US law, giving them little effect. 

US exceptionalism led us to be a model to the world in that we helped establish the rule of law internationally.  Now american exceptionalism has become american eXEMptionalism - we are exempt from the rules of the world because we are so "special."  Moreover, we stand outside of these laws supporting them from the outside.  The result is a double standard.  We hold the world to one standard and ourselves to another.  It is hypocritical and it undermines our moral authority. 

One other thing.  We often forget that customary law is also enforceable international law.  Customary international law is the idea that a certain custom or norm is so widespread that all nations accept it and believe that it binds or constrains their behavior.  This source of international law is quite ancient and the US Supreme Court held in 1900 that it applies in the US.  The case, the Paquete Habana, concerned naval vessels and the right to passage during a time of war. 

I think international rules are good because they provide an enforceable right to people who are truly being harmed.  When the US signed a treaty to protect women, other countries are pressured to do so as well.  That creates legal rights in those countries which positively affect those women in their lives.  We could be doing alot more.  It's sad that the current political climate is so parochial that we can't see that our own constitutional order isn't actually that progressive anymore. 

It is understandable that the US doesn't want to feel bound by international laws and rules, but we don't look good when we violate them.  Take a look at the current bill that was passed in the Senate concerning Torture.  Torture is one of the most fundamental battle grounds for human rights law today.  The President has threatened to veto the bill which was passed 98-1 (?) and supported by people like John McCain who spent 5 years in veitnemese torture prison.  Condemning torture seems pretty basic to me, but evidently it isn't.  How can the United States be a moral leader if we oppose laws condemning torture? 

One of the biggest issues for our generation will be to figure out where our constitution fits in the governing documents of other nations.  The US Supreme Court has already recognized that international law is of value.  They cited it in multiple cases including Grutter and juvenille death penalty cases noting that most countries condemn it.  It was also cited in the sodomy case noting that anti-sodomy laws are disapproved internationally. 

International law should not be taken as more than it is or less than it is.  Its boundaries are often ambiguous but its role is important.  People in the US hear the words international law and spasm.  International law doesn't have to be invasive.  It can reinforce our basic principles and help us lead the world.  Our recalcitrance has made the world worse off, not better. 

Our system is based on the rule of law, not people.  Promoting the rule of law and a rules based system serves to make the world a better place, in my view. 

[Bram]

Thanks to all your extreme leftwing ideas, the curent average is -3.09 ; -4,72, based on 23 people. This means that 3 people are now more representative of the community than I am, namely Matt, Smmenen and Machinus (in that order). The updated graph:



I love being right (as in: opposed to 'wrong' rather than 'left' :-P )

[Matt]

Much like tic tac toe, I have captured the center of the board and am thus assured non-defeat.

[Bram]

Hah! Wait 'till Hitler and Mussolini log on and post their test results to offset those of Bardo and Godder. I'll be right back on average in no time

[Dr. Sylvan]

I'm not sure whether to be surprised that I'm still the most economically "right-wing" person here. I'm guessing I shouldn't be, but I somehow expected to be beaten with such a low score. You're just a bunch of socialists, apparently.

[Smmenen]

I was surprised that I was only -2.75 on the economics scale.

I guess its because I believe in markets as an efficient allocation mechanism, I just know that markets get fucked up by various things.  I'm not socialist, I'm realist.  Oligopolies and monopolies make markets run inefficiently.  Despite what Ludwig Von Mises or Murry Rothbard might have said, monopoly is a very bad thing.  The right wing answer to monopoly is really no answer at all.  It permits temporary inefficiencies at the expense of workersr and consumers. 

[Dante]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

[BigMac]

I am unsure if this test is really a good test. Economically i am really rightwing but this test is giving me -2.5.
Liberally it is a lot better as i am almost in the middle. -1.38.

And do not give me the test is right crap, i know what i stand for as i am standing for the same almost all my life. But to be on the Bram side of the story, i am typical TMD material so it seems.

[dandan]

I should point out that any poll that concludes that I am more left than Tony Blair is flawed. I did consider some of the questions rather biased. I'm pretty sure I could reword a number of questions and you lot (being Reds and therefore gullible) would flock to the right.

Regarding International Law, at present it appears that 'Might is Right'. It could also be observed that 'Right is Might'. Calling a war a conflict is something a liberal might do to avoid breaking International Law. Judge Dredd would simply say 'I am the law' and be done with it.

Basically being left wing means that you believe that someone else knows how to spend your money better than you do. Being a Social Libertarian means you think you know better than the State. Being a left-wing social libertarian basically means you know that the State is going to misuse your money but you just want something to bitch about.

At least the people who set up the graph had the right idea about what is positive and what is negative.

[Godder]

Apparently, I'm the Leftist of us all! However, I thought quite a few of the questions could have been worded better.

[Bardo]

Apparently, I'm the Leftist of us all! However, I thought quite a few of the questions could have been worded better.

And I was so damn close!!! (Economic Left/Right: -9.88; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.13).

Congrats man. Congrats*. - Dan



(* referencing that only the most radical leftists wins the contest).

[dandan]

Socialism means you get the same as all the thick lazy people. Take a prosperous country (say Germany). Take away most of its wealth then divide it in two. Make one half right wing and one half left wing. Shoot the ones who object to being left wing so they appreciate socialism more. Wait about 50 years. Compare and contrast.

I'm shocked at how many lefties are here. Don't you Yanks drown them at birth so they understand political freedom?

[Anusien]

Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

My economic policy didn't surprise me.  Having not lived on my own or had to face a lot of financial issues, I'm not really as firm in my beliefs there.  But yeah, the questions suck.

[Bardo]

Don't you Yanks drown them at birth so they understand political freedom?

Budget cuts, resulting from the costs of waging unnecessary wars, have eliminated the "Drown the Red Babies" Program started by Harry Truman.

[dandan]

Don't you Yanks drown them at birth so they understand political freedom?

Budget cuts, resulting from the costs of waging unnecessary wars, have eliminated the "Drown the Red Babies" Program started by Harry Truman.

Spending more than the next 10 countries in the high 'defence' spending list is more an authoritarian than a right-wing thing (I don't remember Clinton making massive cuts in military spending).  I'm pretty sure you could make hufe defence cuts (and in doing so at least pretend to honour the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty America repeatedly accuses other countries of not honouring) and still have enough miltary might to take on Russia and China (let's be honest, Britain won't attack you and France would surrender immediately anyway).