The Political Compass Test

May 16, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 

I’ve taken several tests and quizzes on political philosophy. Not surprisingly, I usually wind up being some type of libertarian.

• The Definitive Political Orientation test (I’m a “right libertarian”).
• The Circle test (I’m a “minarchist”).
• The Libertarian Purity test (I’m a “hard-core libertarian”).
• The 8 Values test (I’m a “libertarian capitalist”).
• The world’s smallest political quiz (I’m a “100-percent libertarian”).

But sometimes I get odd results. For instance, the Political Left/Right Test, put me exactly in the middle, and another political quiz pegged me as a “moderate.”

The former might be reasonable since libertarians have some right-wing views and some left-wing views. But the latter quiz concluded that I had “few strong opinions,” which is a nonsensical result.
Anyhow, I found another test. This new survey is called the Political Compass Test, and it’s based on the theory that the traditional left-right economic spectrum is insufficient.

…the social dimension is also important in politics. That’s the one that the mere left-right scale doesn’t adequately address. So we’ve added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

And here’s the four quadrants that are created by their two lines.

While no system will capture everything, I have no objection to their theoretical construct.
But I think two of the examples they provide are somewhat crazy.

First, Hitler was the head of the National Socialist Workers Party and he belongs on the left side of the horizontal axis. Second, it’s absurd to have Thatcher anywhere near Stalin and Hitler on the vertical axis.

I also think Friedman should be moved more in the libertarian direction, but at least they have him in the correct quadrant.

Now let’s look at my results. I’m somewhat disappointed because I’m not way on the right for economic issues. And I’m even more irked that I’m barely on the libertarian side for social issues.

For what it’s worth, some of the questions were more about attitude and outlook rather than policy. And since I’m the boring kind of libertarian, perhaps that’s why I don’t get a strong score.

Let’s close by looking at my score compared to various famous people. I’m closest to Gary Johnson, which strikes me as a reasonable result.

But some of the other results are very bizarre. First of all, Milton Friedman magically moved. Now he’s very libertarian on social issues, but squishy on economics. Needless to say, that’s nonsense.

But not nearly as nonsensical as Benito Mussolini being on the far right for economic policy. That’s crazy. He was a strident opponent of capitalism.

Likewise, they have Hillary Clinton on the right side of the spectrum for economic policy. The person who did that must have been on some crazy drugs at the time.

And I’m not a Trump fan, but I think it’s laughable to have him ranked as more authoritarian than Mugabe, Mao, and Castro.

Which Is Worse: Postmodernism or Anti-Intellectualism?

By Alex Berezow — March 23, 2017

Every discussion about postmodernism quickly devolves into accusations that the writer doesn't know what postermodernism is¹. Of course, that's true, because nobody knows what postmodernism is. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy agrees². As the ultimate manifestation of intellectual and cultural relativism, postmodernism means whatever its adherents want it to mean.

Yet, this nebulous concept poses an existential threat to science and technology. How so? Because postmodernism is largely characterized by a rejection of objective truth. This is antithetical to scientific inquiry.

Marcel Kuntz, Director of Research at CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), has made it part of his life's work to fight against the corrosive effects of postmodernism. He's back again in the pages of Trends in Biotechnology. He perceptively writes:......To Read More.....

Christian philosophers revile Christian philosopher for advocating Christianity

Edward Feser

Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor of philosophy at Oxford University, author of many highly influential books, and among the most eminent of contemporary Christian thinkers, recently gave the keynote address at a meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP).  In his talk, which was on the theme of sexual morality, he defended the view that homosexual acts are disordered – a view that has historically been commonly held within Christianity and the other major world religions, has been defended by philosophers like Plato, Aquinas, and Kant, and is defended to this day by various natural law theorists.  So, it would seem a perfectly suitable topic of discussion and debate for a meeting of Christian philosophers of religion.  Of course, that view is highly controversial today.  Even some contemporary Christian philosophers disagree with Swinburne.  I wasn’t there, but apparently his talk generated some criticism.  Fair enough.  That’s what meetings of philosophers are about – the free and vigorous exchange of ideas and arguments......To Read More....

My Take - Let me try and explain what's really happening in so many "Christian" communities.  They're not Christian!   In Donald J. Devine's book, American's Way Back, Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition and Constitution, he states on page 151, "so-called Christian leaders don't even claim to be religious.  In Sweden, the Ecclesiastical Department minister who ran its state church was a well-known atheist.  A former archbishop of Canterbury was called "red" to symbolize his attractions to Marxism." 

Is this an anomaly or is it a pattern? 

This is absolutely a pattern in all the main line religions, including falling into the abyss of accepting abortion, and homosexual marriage, which by context means they must accept infanticide and gay life as sinless, irrespective of any official position they may take or what's said in the Bible.....you know.....the book that's supposed to be foundational to their beliefs justifying the existence of their church and their position as ministers of a gospel in which they apparently don't believe.  These "religious" leaders con their congregations.