Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just a quick look at how Dakka fits in an arbitrary dichotomy. It's for... like.. research and stuff...

31 days for the poll to run.

You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.

Yeah, I can't fit that onto a Dakka poll without allowing multiple answers...

May do that axis in a couple of days, after I have some data here.

Interesting poll. Very subjective based on location though in that if you lined up the various issues and gradiations and compared the answeres of folks say in the US and GB, I think you'd find that the choices above might mean rather different things depending on which side of the pond you are on.

Or maybe -as the list was made by a Brit- it would be a matter of shifting the list up one knotch for Americans.

Possibly, but I can't differentiate in this poll. For that I'd need a survey/questionnaire. So I have some methodological flaws.

For anyone not in the know, American Centrist is somewhere between British Centre Right and British Right. The British Conservative party is nominally Right Wing, but takes Libertarian policies and makes deals with our Left Wing parties, and looks solidly Left Wing in comparison to the American system.

Very much a dirty leftie.

Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.

But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.

Please do. Otherwise, you'll get weirdness like myself, who leans left-libertarian, being functionally identical to a statist colleague.

This is acceptable in life, but not for polling purposes.

 Verviedi wrote:
You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.

Its amazing how many axis you need to actually do something like this really, seems most labels are used to identify "them" and put "them" into a group to be vilified.

life complicated enough before you add people (and leopards) into the mix

#leopardlivesmatter

 Verviedi wrote:
Please do. Otherwise, you'll get weirdness like myself, who leans left-libertarian, being functionally identical to a statist colleague.

*political Snap*

I'm a bit of an outlier, I'm a left-leaning libertarian, but I rank high in disagreeability. Long story short, that means I'll vote Right to remove the Hard Left, and vote Left to remove the Far Right.

 Verviedi wrote:
You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.

Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.

But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.

nou wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.

Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.

But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.

I actually think this being a multi-national forum makes it a bit more interesting, and amusing, given this is all self certification its just interesting to see what drops out the bottom.

Think more options for extreme, ultra hard right & left are needed, possibly with something slightly more surreal at either end as well

leopard wrote:

nou wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
You're missing an axis, here. The libertarian/authoritarian divide is also important. Anarchism and authoritarian communism are both hard-left ideologies, but they are radically different. Same for fascism and anarcho-capitalism on the right side.

Unfortunately libertarian/authoritarian divide is as delusive "axis" as left/right, with just slightly better theoretical definitions of assumed extremes. Especially because one's place on this axis is usually self-assigned - I know both self described liberal-left people and "sworn philosophical libertarians" whose practical POV is authoritarhan as f%^&k.

But this poll is flawed for one far more important reason - this is multinational/multicultural forum, left/right political wings (including far ends of the spectrum) differ A LOT between countries. To give one (but of course not the only one) bizarre example from the left side of this spectrum: english speaking left fights for genderless language, slavic countries left fight for gender inclusive language... So if one does choose it's political orientation by specific goals to achieve in society and not by being "progressive" or "conservative" in relation to current state of things, one might land under different answers in this poll depending on country of origin...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As to my personal answer - "I don't fit". No political landscape description method I know of has a place for non-bundle POV.

I actually think this being a multi-national forum makes it a bit more interesting, and amusing, given this is all self certification its just interesting to see what drops out the bottom.

Think more options for extreme, ultra hard right & left are needed, possibly with something slightly more surreal at either end as well

But yes, it makes it much more interesting discussion, just drastically less usefull poll

 Selym wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Please do. Otherwise, you'll get weirdness like myself, who leans left-libertarian, being functionally identical to a statist colleague.

*political Snap*

I'm a bit of an outlier, I'm a left-leaning libertarian, but I rank high in disagreeability. Long story short, that means I'll vote Right to remove the Hard Left, and vote Left to remove the Far Right.

I believe left unity is important, but too hard authoritarian in any direction is unacceptable. SOME short term mildly authoritarian methods are important, of course, such as federal education standards (for the purpose of combatting right wing disinformation). Best to overcome the right before the left infights to determine the course of the future. Right libertarians need a looking-at, though, they have some good ideas.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Very much a dirty leftie.

Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.

But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.

Loony!

Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

In Spain we have left and right parties from a social standpoint, but from a economical stanpoint they are all from the left. High taxes, a high centraliced goverment with many competences, a strong healthcare system, etc...

Personally, I find myself confortable in a Democratic Republic that puts equally value in the freedom of his civilians as their well-being, with a strong but fair tax system with strong public sanity and education of quality.
A free economic market, but with strong legislations to avoid the abuse of the people that can't defend themselves, with freedom to asociation to make labor unions.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Very much a dirty leftie.

Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.

But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.

Loony!

Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Equality of opportunity. But when that equality of opportunity can be bipassed with money... many people mixs equality in the law to equality in society.

Thats why I don't believe in "meritocracy". A pure meritocratic system is a full autoritarian one like Plato's Republic. If not, fathers with money and good position will give advantages to their children. And thats goesn't awainst a pure Meritocracy.

Oh, and to pass the time, here's a handy test that differs from the old political compass:

https://8values.github.io

 zedmeister wrote:
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.

Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.

Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?

For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.

I expected this result

This Poll is missing an Authoritarian/Libertarian axis.

With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.

 Selym wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.

Let's say you were at a football game, but the stands had been removed for repairs. Everyone crowds around the pitch, trying to watch the game. Everyone's opportunity is equal, the floor is level so nobody gets a systemic advantage, and people are not able to distinguish between one spot or point of entry and another. But people have different heights, and now that everything's equal, some people can't see the game.

Can these people pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Nopesicles. What's the solution?

For her, it was preferential treatment for the incapable by giving them boxes to stand on.

 Selym wrote:

Love that differentiation. I support equality of opportunity, but my mother did once point out a flaw in my logic.

That's an old one that's been bandied about but that is a too simplistic argument to make. At what point do you have to determine the equality of opportunity? When you arrive at your seats? When you enter the stand? When you buy a ticket? Why doesn't someone fetch the poor little fella a bigger box to stand on?

Of course, the same could be said about equality of outcome. In order to recognise that there may be Squats in the crowd, everyone is provided with a regulation mk.1 box - 10" high. One size fits all.

 zedmeister wrote:
Oh, and to pass the time, here's a handy test that differs from the old political compass:

https://8values.github.io

Me, apparently: https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=52.4&d=47.9&g=58.5&s=64.4

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This Poll is missing an Authoritarian/Libertarian axis.

With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.

It has a liberal/authoritarian axis? Unless I'm missing your point?

I got this. Not unexpected.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This Poll is missing an Authoritarian/Libertarian axis.

With online Political Compass tests I come out half down the Libertarian scale, smack bang in the middle of the Left-Right axis. You could call me a Libertarian Centrist I guess.

It has a liberal/authoritarian axis? Unless I'm missing your point?

I ended up as neo-liberal on mine (a bottom righter going by the political compass)

There is Left - Right. And then there is Authoritarian-Libertarian.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Very much a dirty leftie.

Socialist all the way, but not communist. Politically I strongly believe we need to work toward a meritocracy, where the station of one's birth is but a footnote.

But I also get that a shelf stacker shouldn't be as well rewarded as a surgeon - but both should be rewarded to a level where they can actually be economically active.

Loony!

Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Only ever equality of opportunity. You can lead a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

But we as a society do need to better value 'low end' jobs. Yes, arguably anyone could do them - but that's a piss poor excuse for a subsistence of as it is now a below subsistence wage.

We need to move away, far away, from the notion that wealth can by success. Consider the Univeristy System. Two students can get identical grades, say a 1st. Yet Student A went to Eton then Oxbridge. Student B went to a local Comp, then Scumbag University. And to far too many prospective employers, especially those offering high end wages, it's the provenance not the ability that counts. And not every person with a natural talent is given the chance to explore and ultimately exploit that talent.

Nobody can help the family they're born into. Dirt poor or obscene wealth, it's all luck of the draw. But that should have precisely no bearing on where you end up. Consider the sentences meted out to poor criminals, and the lenient sentencing for those suffering from 'affluenza'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a quote from Sir Terry Pratchett which more or less sums up my thoughts.

Moving Pictures wrote:Ginger: You know what the greatest tragedy is in the whole world?... It's all the people who never find out what it is they really want to do or what it is they're really good at. It's all the sons who become blacksmiths because their fathers were blacksmiths. It's all the people who could be really fantastic flute players who grow old and die without ever seeing a musical instrument, so they become bad plowmen instead. It's all the people with talents who never even find out. Maybe they are never even born in a time when it's even possible to find out. It's all the people who never get to know what it is that they can really be. It's all the wasted chances

Right libertarian checking in and stating this poll lacks proper choices.

Left? Right?

Pssht. SubGenius for the win.

 zedmeister wrote:

Question for you: Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

My ideal would be equality of opportunity with a baseline of acceptability for outcome. That is to say everyone has access to the same toolkit, but if you fail miserably there's still a baseline quality of life that society won't let you fall below. Even if it's a very low baseline that just covers your basic needs, maintains opportunity for your children and equips/insures/etc you just enough to keep you from becoming a major drain on social services.

However, it's kind of a false choice (at least here in the USA). Opportunity is so different depending on location, race, economics and social standing that equality of opportunity just doesn't exist.

I love polls like this, because everybody wants to be a special snowflake that doesn't fit neatly unto a political spectrum.

There are plenty of axes to political thought, theory, policy, and practice. And sure, just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you also want school prayer, but all of those distinctions hide a simple one: do you think that power belongs in more hands?

Conservatism, independent of all of it's seeming contradictions, can be summed up with a simple statement: That the people in power should, for the most part, keep their power. Liberalism, as a political movement, is essentially the opposite, and can be summed up with the statement "more people should have power than currently do."

When you look at the policy goals of both ideologies, they all boil down to either keeping (or even consolidating) power in the hands of those that have it (almost always the rich), or expanding power to those that do not (usually the poor, although often minorities.)

So, sorry, my libertarian friends, you are right wing, because you want power kept in the hands of the wealthy. You might not like being lumped in with theocrats, corporate capitalists, and good of fashioned white supremacists, but you're on the right.