Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Left - Authoritarian

Left - Centre

Left - Libertarian

Centre - Authoritarian

Centre - Centre

Centre - Libertarian

Right - Authoritarian

Right - Centre

Right - Libertarian

Other

Don't care to do the test / View poll

[Andir]

Libertarian - Anyone should be allowed to take drugs, as long as they don't hurt someone.
Authoritarian - No one should be allowed to take drugs, to prevent them from hurting someone.

Depends what you count as hurting someone. When you have a free healthcare the issues some drugs can cause can be a drain on it and so in turn remove resources from those that aren't suffering self inflicted harm. Personally I'm pro legalisation but there are still issues that would have to be considered, probably along the lines of a tax on the drugs to pay for care but that doesn't cover the costs of currently legal drugs very well so it's all debatable.

Or you just let everyone pay for their own health care so the ones using drugs have less money to spend/save for that care.  Personal responsibility is not as common as it should be.  Instead of taking care of things, we tend to buy big cars, toys, massages, nail salons, movies, games, gambling, big screen TVs and other comfort items then complain that we can't afford a simple doctor's visit ... but that's another topic and rant altogether. 

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

[Leafsnail]

While not directly analogous, the "Free Mumia" movement is a pretty good example of how extreme libertarian extremists can get.  (On the authoritarian - libertarian axis.)

I agree with those who have said that libertarians -- and Libertarians -- believe that a lack of law and order diminishes liberty.  That's why the "Free Mumia" libertarians I flagged as extremists not even Libertarians would make common cause with.  Yet the extreme faction does exist, and it would be hard to argue they were extremist authoritarians, so unless you want to take the position that they're bat shit crazy and don't belong on the graph at all they have to go somewhere.

Isn't the Free Mumia movement more because people think he's innocent than because people think that murder is not a serious crime?

Or you just let everyone pay for their own health care so the ones using drugs have less money to spend/save for that care.  Personal responsibility is not as common as it should be.  Instead of taking care of things, we tend to buy big cars, toys, massages, nail salons, movies, games, gambling, big screen TVs and other comfort items then complain that we can't afford a simple doctor's visit ... but that's another topic and rant altogether. 

Logic works fine for minor complaints, but how many people can afford to undergo full surgery on their own salaries?  I mean, I suppose you could say they should've planned for such an eventuality, but it's not like everyone hoarding large amounts of money would be good for the economy.

[Calhoun]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Doesn't surprise me that the majority are left libertarian here. I think there's a saying about not having a heart if a man is a conservative before 40.

[Andir]

Logic works fine for minor complaints, but how many people can afford to undergo full surgery on their own salaries?  I mean, I suppose you could say they should've planned for such an eventuality, but it's not like everyone hoarding large amounts of money would be good for the economy.

One could argue that's what insurance if for... not the routine checkups and exams that drive up costs.  You know.. like car insurance.  Imagine if everyone made claims on their insurance for oil changes, brakes, tire rotations...

[Shades]

Or you just let everyone pay for their own health care so the ones using drugs have less money to spend/save for that care.  Personal responsibility is not as common as it should be.  Instead of taking care of things, we tend to buy big cars, toys, massages, nail salons, movies, games, gambling, big screen TVs and other comfort items then complain that we can't afford a simple doctor's visit ... but that's another topic and rant altogether.

My main problem with this is that it isn't cost effective or very efficent. The social negative is also a consideration but I'm ignoring that because it's one we all know about.

I will agree personal responsiblity is not as common as it should be though

[RedKing]

I just can't accept the health insurance/car insurance analogy. If your car gets busted up bad enough, it's fairly easy to make the cost-benefit analysis that you're better off turning your car into a cube of pressed metal and getting a new one. if your body gets busted up, it's not so easy to say, "Oh well, we're better off killing me." It might be the most cost-efficient option, but we don't live in that cold-blooded (or self-sacrificing) of a society.

The costs are also not even roughly eqiuvalent. My wife slipped and sprained her ankle a few months ago. Nothing broken, just a bad sprain. But because she was eight months pregnant and we didn't know the extent of the injury, we went to the emergency room. Total bill was over $3,000. For a fucking sprained ankle. Even with insurance, we're paying several hundred out of pocket.

The notion that we should keep at least $3000 on hand just in case we slip and sprain an ankle is ludicrous, especially with all of the OTHER things we need to save for and all the bills to pay on top of it. An extra chunk a year in taxes towards national health care is a lot easier to bear, if you ask me. Cause it's liable to be far less than we'd pay unless we somehow went through the year without so much as a sniffle.

[Leafsnail]

Logic works fine for minor complaints, but how many people can afford to undergo full surgery on their own salaries?  I mean, I suppose you could say they should've planned for such an eventuality, but it's not like everyone hoarding large amounts of money would be good for the economy.

One could argue that's what insurance if for... not the routine checkups and exams that drive up costs.  You know.. like car insurance.  Imagine if everyone made claims on their insurance for oil changes, brakes, tire rotations...

It's what insurance SHOULD be for... but all too often you'll find that you actually weren't covered for one reason or another.  One advantage of state cover - you ARE covered regardless of when your conditions developed and what they are.

[Grakelin]

Every time I do this test I see that this:

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Is still a question, and I am left wondering why it is still there. I assume you're supposed to put down 'disagree' if you think it is disadvantageous to avoid the arguments. The problem is, that this IS the advantage of a one-party state. Silly question.

Anyway, I still have the same result.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

Left Libertarian.

It is no surprise that most of us are Left Libertarian, since this demographic group tends to be made up of people with upper-working/middle/upper class young people who have or are working toward a higher level of education. Since most of us here fit into that category, most of us here are practicing GAL values.

[Shades]

Every time I do this test I see that this:

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

I felt the same thing, actually a number of the questions were phrased in a silly way.

[Lord Dakoth]

Yeah, a few of those questions were just poorly phrased. I think that there should also be an "indifferent/don't care" choice.
I did either strongly agree or disagree with the vast majority of them, though.

[Jualin]

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90

I believe I over-thought a few of them, though I tried to keep my answers consistent with what I perceived the test to be asking.

Still, my results do not surprise me much.

[Andir]

An extra chunk a year in taxes towards national health care is a lot easier to bear, if you ask me. Cause it's liable to be far less than we'd pay unless we somehow went through the year without so much as a sniffle.

As a healthy individual, I'm looking for the loophole or cost/benefit ratio of not paying it.  I'm even looking into the possibility of self insuring if that's possible  (I know it is for Auto Insurance by proving a set amount of assets and reserve to cover damages.) because I don't want to pay for people who don't take care of themselves as I do and waste their money on crap.  I'm sure I'm no the only one.  All this bill is doing is enforcing the wall between haves and have-nots, and I'm damn sure going to be on the upper side of that wall.  I'm not going to pay for someone to take their spouse to the emergency room for a sprained ankle.  That's wasteful spending if you ask me.  I can't even remember the last time I was in the hospital except to visit someone.  So why should I have to pay my hard earned money to you?  As far as I'm concerned, you WASTED my money (because I do have health insurance through my company) going to the emergency room.  If there was a clause that allowed review of need then I'd have no problem with them charging you directly for the whole amount of that blunder bypassing insurance.

Yes, I'm an ass.  And I couldn't care less.  Deal with it.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, I'm an ass.  And I couldn't care less.  Deal with it.

We did.  Through the democratic process.  The "I got mine Jack, you can get yours yourself" argument lost, because the world is a lot more complicated than dumb people wasting money, and the way the system works is nothing like what you're complaining about.  You're already paying for somebody going to the emergency room for a sprained ankle, by buying private insurance.  That's how insurance works; everybody pays a little, and it spreads the cost/risk around.  Not to mention you're already paying for the government to do the same thing for old and really poor people, and have been since 1965 in Medicare.

All the new law is supposed to do is make you buy health insurance of some form.  And the real kicker: there is no penalty for not having insurance.  It's specifically written into the bill that there is no provision to enforce it, and can be none without another bill to amend it; precisely because of reservations like yours.  So there ya go.