The Political Compass

[Edric O]

The NationStates chart? Yes, that's a good example of a 3D political compass that separates democracy and civil rights, but it does suffer from one major problem: Most of the names in there are jokes, meant to be funny rather than accurate. I mean, you have titles like "New York Times Democracy", "Corporate Bordello", "Father Knows Best State" or "Psychotic Dictatorship".

[Dunenewt]

My Nationstate is an Iron Fist consumerist.

[Edric O]

Economic Left/Right: -4.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21

Ew I'm a green, Although I'd put myself more in the social democracy side.

Well, read my "note #3" below the chart - putting the Greens in there was a bit of a judgement call and I knew it was going to be controversial, but I chose to do that instead of extending Social Democracy downward because it seemed weird to suggest that Social Democracy shares a border with Anarchism. Clearly there has to be something that is more libertarian than Social Democracy but less libertarian than Anarchism. I thought most Greens fit that description quite well.

Your score also puts you close to socialism.

Yeah I know its just that label... That and i've always been usually in opposition to green groups whenever I've come into contact with their politics.

I'm not a Green (despite the colour of my text), but I'm curious: What is it about their politics that you oppose? I generally don't oppose them, I just disagree with their priorities. I agree that the environment is important, but I don't think it's the single most important issue in the world, and I don't think it environmental concerns can ever be properly addressed in the current capitalist system anyway.

I have seen an actual 3D model of a political compass, which took civil and political ideas as different different things.

well, "cives" is a latin word for "polis", I have no idea where the difference could be

The difference is not between "civil" and "political", the difference is between the concept of democracy (often called "political freedom" - the idea that the people should be in some way in control of the government, so that the government cannot adopt policies that run contrary to the people's goals) and the concept of civil rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment before the law regardless of race and gender, that sort of thing).

It is in theory possible to have a benevolent dictatorship that grants its people civil rights but no political freedom. This is extremely rare. It is also in theory possible to have a "tyranny of the majority" in which a majority of people vote to eliminate their own civil rights. This is even more rare; in fact it can be argued that it never happened in human history.

I am for saving the environment, the war on Iraq, and controlling immigration, and I am against the E.U.

Ok, that explains your authoritarian score... (except for the E.U. thing, which could mean anything because different people oppose the E.U. for radically different reasons)

[i am against] the benefit system, and the unethical practises of TNCs, which means I never really do fit in these graphs.

...and that might explain your leftist score. But what do you mean by "benefit system?"

Oh, and I hate Chavez.

Ah, but is that because of his policies, or is it just because of his (admittedly annoying) personality?

[Edric O]

My Nationstate is an Iron Fist consumerist.

That's a bit odd. It means you are in the most authoritarian bracket on both civil rights and political freedoms, so it really shouldn't matter to you that the Political Compass does not separate them. Then again, NationStates only has three brackets for each axis, so it's not very precise. It is, however, in agreement with your Political Compass score: If you divide the social axis of the Compass into 3 brackets, the most authoritarian bracket goes from +3.33 to +10, and you fit into it with your score of +4.05.

On another note, I think the economic axis of the Political Compass also suffers from a lack of differentiation between two separate dichotomies:

1) Collective vs. individual economic control

2) Egalitarian vs. hierarchical distribution of wealth

As it stands, the Left-Right economic axis goes between egalitarian collectivism (left) and hierarchical individualism (right). This is in line with most people's economic opinions, and it is basically the dichotomy between socialism and capitalism.

But it is also possible to be a hierarchical collectivist - to believe that the state should intervene in the economy for the purpose of enforcing inequality and privilege. This view was relatively popular before World War 2 and got a lot of support from corporatists and some fascists. Conversely, it is also possible to be an egalitarian individualist - to believe in a decentralized economic system controlled by individuals but operating according to some form of non-capitalist principles that ensure equality of wealth. This is advocated by some anarchists and syndicalists.

So I believe that the minimum required number of axes for an accurate model of the political spectrum is four:

1) Collective vs. Individual economic control

2) Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical distribution of wealth

3) Democracy vs. Dictatorship

4) Civil rights vs. Traditional morality and authority

[Caid Ivik]

The difference is not between "civil" and "political", the difference is between the concept of democracy (often called "political freedom" - the idea that the people should be in some way in control of the government, so that the government cannot adopt policies that run contrary to the people's goals) and the concept of civil rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment before the law regardless of race and gender, that sort of thing).

It is in theory possible to have a benevolent dictatorship that grants its people civil rights but no political freedom. This is extremely rare. It is also in theory possible to have a "tyranny of the majority" in which a majority of people vote to eliminate their own civil rights. This is even more rare; in fact it can be argued that it never happened in human history.

That makes it clearer...although I find them mingling with each other as well; to call a right to impose pressure on somebody else - even if we find the means to be constitutionally ok - as "political freedom" sounds rather funny. Also the difference is blurred by the fact, that both ideas of fully "benevolent dictatorship" and "tyranny of the majority" as you wrote are purely hypothetical. In fact, even in a montesquieuan despocy the king always names at least a wezir, who is dependant on king's will, but his free actions are of much wider consequences.

my results were 1.63 right, -1.74 liberal; my previous results: http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?topic=10120.msg164246#msg164246

[Dunenewt]

The benefit system as in things like Job Seekers allowance.

[Khan]

Oh edric I didn't mean you I just took your colour because it was a green. And it was more the stereotypes of green I was on about I'm really just glad I came that close to socialists. I'm big on Libertarianism.

[nemafakei]

You're against JSA? There's not all that much of it to be against, surely? Apart from the bureaucracy of it all. Seriously, though, how can you justify forcing people who are out of work through no fault of their own to go hungry?

[Dunenewt]

Because lots of people try and live of it, and have no intention of seeking it.  I would not abolish it, but I would change it completely.  There are too many people in this country who are content to live off benefits, or have more children so they can claim more benefits.

[Edric O]

Because lots of people try and live of it, and have no intention of seeking it.

Let's analyze this claim a bit. You are saying that there are many people who, when given the choice between (a) not working and being very poor, or (b) working and being wealthier, would choose the first option. This means that they value free time and leisure far more than they value money.

And that's where your claim begins to break down. Too many people don't value money? Excuse me? If anything, people in our society put too much effort into getting money, not too little. The claim that there is a large section of society who doesn't really care about money is extraordinary.

But in any case, even if that claim was true, then it logically follows that if you eliminated all unemployment benefits, these people you are talking about would strive to find a job - any job - and would have absolutely no interest in getting promoted or advancing their careers (since you have postulated that they will always do the least amount of work necessary to stay alive). I doubt such people exist, but if they do, removing their benefits certainly won't make them productive members of society.

There are too many people in this country who are content to live off benefits, or have more children so they can claim more benefits.

How many people is that, exactly, and how much money does it come down to when you divide the amount of benefits they receive by the amount of taxpayers? According to the CIA world factbook, the current labour force of the UK consists of 30.71 million people and the unemployment rate is 5.4% - which means there are 1.66 million unemployed people and 29.05 million employed people in the UK. Now, if every unemployed person received 8000 pounds per year - which is far more than they actually get - what would be the cost to the working taxpayer? A bit of quick math puts the cost at 457 pounds per working person per year, or 1.25 pounds per day.

Even if we allow for considerable bureaucratic waste, the cost would only go up to 2 pounds per day. That's laughable. Don't tell me you think that paying one or two pounds per day is an unbearable burden.

[nemafakei]

"I would not abolish it, but I would change it completely."

Well, yeah... so would I!

"There are too many people in this country who are content to live off benefits, or have more children so they can claim more benefits."

How many, d'you reckon? In the grand scheme of things, the cost of actually checking is often as much as it saves, and many of the 'savings' are people who actually deserve it.

[Dunenewt]

I know its a very bad source but watch the Jeremy Kyle Show to see what is wrong with this country.  So many people just living off dole money, and teenage girls having loads of babies and just living off the child benefit money.  Of course the problem is a social one, and ideally you'd have to change the attitudes of all these people, but I still think the benefit system encourages them to be like this.

Alternatively we could just ship off all the Chav underclass to the U.S., or Ireland, and problem solved.

[Khan]

It's true that the Jeremy Kyle show does present a very ugly side of the lower class mentality in the UK, but the majority of people in the UK aren't working class/unemployed, as Edric pointed out, and there would be an even lower percentage of people who are Jeremy Kylesque if you did the research.

[nemafakei]

"So many people just living off dole money,"

Yes, but that's largely because the government has deliberately avoided full-employment economic policies, preferring to shift the blame for the high levels of unemploymen to the victims by perpetuating these stereotypes about people out of work being layabouts.

"I still think the benefit system encourages them to be like this."

Yes and no; economically, being unemployed is damned unattractive, and it keeps wages low which makes being employed not all that attractive either. On the other hand, what does make the unemployed likely to remain so is the incredibly depressing and negative view that society takes to people on benefits: when people are told day in day out they're useless layabouts irrespective of how hard thay have worked and how hard they look for jobs, then they're bound to get demoralised and give up. As to the microeconomics, benefit fraud is (as always) not impossible, and it is also possible for some people in certain situations to game the system if they're so inclined, but this is largely because the general funding is so selective to begin with.

"Alternatively we could just ship off all the Chav underclass to the U.S., or Ireland, and problem solved."

Awww. I think you need to hug a hoodie.

---

Khan:

"but the majority of people in the UK aren't working class/unemployed"

Depends on your definition. The majority of people in the UK ARE working-class, unless you try to use a definition that's purely cultural or otherwise irrelevant to the point at hand. The distinction for working-class I'm going to go by is "not having the power to hire and fire" and thus not in control of your own labour.

The point is that the vast majority of the working class, employed or not, are not sponges. There are a few quirks who've been sought out by the media and are disproportionately portrayed as the stereotypical claimant, but to a certain extent, they're still symptoms of wider socio-economic alienation. There are far more sponges with far bigger sponging ability in the upper echelons of society, and they're the ones running the shop and able to do something about it.

[Dunenewt]

Hmm...'hug a hoodie'.  That's one of the areas where I disagree with Cameron on to an extend.  A lot of these so called human beings have minds warped beyond reasoning, and there is little society can do for them.  Some thing needs to be done to stop them breeding so much, and then with few numbers the problems can be addressed.  The mother of Shannon Matthews (9 year old girl who went missing in the UK recently for you foreigners) had seven different children from five different fathers.  This is the kind of thing we should be sorted out.  As for how...well I can't think of any mainstream methods that would actually work, but me personally, I would give all girls an implant at the age of 12, the same time they have that cervical jab, that would prevent them getting pregnant for say, 4 years.  We do need to consider more radical methods, not quite approaching China's one child policy, but looking in that direction.

Don't quote me on any of this when I'm Prime Minister though.  Please.

[Acriku]

I'm as close to Gandhi as you can get on the graph, but from the results of the poll I'm not alone  ;)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

[Dunenewt]

For an atheist, that is slightly odd surely?  Anyway, perhaps we should put everyone's results on the same graph?  I still don't want to vote in the poll, I don't get how I am a 'left' authoritarian.

[Timenn]

Economic Left/Right: -8.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

Can't say it surprises me. I like a state where people are free to constantly complain about the socialistic laws. :)

I must admit that this test, like more of them out there, is a bit transparent. You can guess what a question means for the end result, and usually you don't want to be surprised. (Like Dunenewt was).

Wow, Dunenewt?! Implants for girls... that would make you an Authoritarian 10++ instantly.

[gunner154]

Why is it odd for an atheist to have a score like that?

[Anathema]

From socialism to liberalism. You've moved drastically to the right on the economic axis. That is remarkable and highly unfortunate at the same time... What caused such a great change?

It's from before I got here, but I remember looking at some posts where you were arguing that communism could never work  ;)

Disclosure: I always ranked, and still rank, "true" political liberties and transparant and accountable governance to economical freedom. I've grown to believe though, that market forces are the best way to facilitate economic development and to ensure that goods are produced that people actually want. I favour social security above charity (the last one being not reliable enough) as a means of garantuing a minimum standard of living for everyone, but that it should be possible for everyone to accumulate more wealth through genuine effort.

[TMA_1]

I love the snobby class bullshit concerning the "chavs" over in the floating suburb they like to call the UK, or England, or whatever the hell it is these days. Lord knows their empire has collapsed, they are about as relevant now as coin currency.

Why do "chavs" exist in england? It is because most of these kids (not all, but most) live in shitty housing projects, with inferior public education, and a boat load of pubescent angst to mill as the best grist in the whole damn world. The snobby remarks towards these underclass kids are as offensive as four day unwashed body odor.

I put in authoritarian left.

[Dunenewt]

That's a very naive thing to say.  I had public education, I went to a school where most people where chavs, and indeed live in an area where most people are chavs, but I am not a chav because my parents brought me up properly.  So what if they live in council houses?  Why do they go round smashing things up, and beating up old people?  You simply can not blame that on council houses, rather the failure of their parents to bring them up properly.  Being poor does not excuse you from any morale values.  Sure, the British Empire is now the British Commonwealth (it never collapsed), but the British Empire was far greater than the American Empire that exists today.  It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and England is a constituent country of the U.K..  I don't see how you can put my thoughts down to snobbery, when I have working class parents, and I live in a working class area.  Our chavs are worse than your trailer trash, in that the chavs are violent, disgusting, pitiful excuses for human beings.  They get free education, free healthcare, lots of other free things, and they abuse it, whether it be causing drunken fights, beating up pensioners,  etc

[Dunenewt]

Wow, Dunenewt?! Implants for girls... that would make you an Authoritarian 10++ instantly.

Desperate times, desperate measures.  If teenagers won't use contraceptives, and have no intention of having a child, they should be given implants.

[Edric O]

So many people just living off dole money...

How many, exactly? I have just demonstrated mathematically that if every single unemployed person lived off a generous amount of dole money, the whole thing would cost you less than two pounds a day. It may be a social problem, but it's certainly not an economic one.

...and teenage girls having loads of babies and just living off the child benefit money.

Perhaps - dare I say it - they should be considered unfit mothers and the state should take the children to place them in foster care?

Of course the problem is a social one, and ideally you'd have to change the attitudes of all these people, but I still think the benefit system encourages them to be like this.

If that is true, removing the benefit system would only encourage them to try to get minimum wage jobs and then carry on as before. Hardly a solution.

Hmm...'hug a hoodie'. That's one of the areas where I disagree with Cameron on to an extend.  A lot of these so called human beings have minds warped beyond reasoning, and there is little society can do for them.

The older you get, the more difficult it becomes to change your ways. So, at some point in their lives, they are indeed beyond saving. But children and teenagers are never beyond saving. They are still young enough to change their ways, so a lot of effort should be focused on them.

Some thing needs to be done to stop them breeding so much, and then with few numbers the problems can be addressed.

There is no "chav gene", Newt. People grow up to become "chavs" because of the environment they were raised in. Raise them in a different environment and they will be as posh as the Queen.

The solution is not to "reduce breeding" (though that may also be beneficial due to overpopulation concerns, but that's a different discussion). The solution is to change the environment that underclass children grow up in. I completely agree with TMA:

I love the snobby class bullshit concerning the "chavs" over in the floating suburb they like to call the UK, or England, or whatever the hell it is these days. Lord knows their empire has collapsed, they are about as relevant now as coin currency.

Why do "chavs" exist in england? It is because most of these kids (not all, but most) live in shitty housing projects, with inferior public education, and a boat load of pubescent angst to mill as the best grist in the whole damn world. The snobby remarks towards these underclass kids are as offensive as four day unwashed body odor.

Shitty neighborhoods (thank you, Maggie Thatcher!) and very bad public education are the bedrock of "chav" culture. These two things alone are not sufficient to make a "chav", but they are necessary. Revitalize neighborhoods, provide better housing and jobs, improve public education and the "chav" subculture will be undermined.

As for how...well I can't think of any mainstream methods that would actually work, but me personally, I would give all girls an implant at the age of 12, the same time they have that cervical jab, that would prevent them getting pregnant for say, 4 years.

Ummm, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no such contraceptive technology exists. Do you think anyone would be taking the pill if they could get an implant that made sure they couldn't get pregnant for 4 years?

That's a very naive thing to say.  I had public education, I went to a school where most people where chavs, and indeed live in an area where most people are chavs, but I am not a chav because my parents brought me up properly. So what if they live in council houses?  Why do they go round smashing things up, and beating up old people? You simply can not blame that on council houses, rather the failure of their parents to bring them up properly. Being poor does not excuse you from any morale values.

Poverty and bad council housing alone is not sufficient to make a chav, agreed. But it is necessary. It is one of the key ingredients that must come together to make a chav. Remove one of the key ingredients, and the number of chavs will dwindle.

Frankly, it's easier to fix the problems of poverty and bad schools than to fix moral values. I know how to fix poverty (shall we talk about socialism? ;) ) and there are many successful examples of public schools systems in the world that you could copy. But I haven't the faintest idea how to improve moral values, and I've never seen anyone come up with a decent solution to that either.

I don't see how you can put my thoughts down to snobbery, when I have working class parents, and I live in a working class area. Our chavs are worse than your trailer trash, in that the chavs are violent, disgusting, pitiful excuses for human beings. They get free education, free healthcare, lots of other free things, and they abuse it, whether it be causing drunken fights, beating up pensioners, etc

But you also got free education, free healthcare and all the other free things, and yet you are not a chav. That undermines your idea that "benefit culture" is to blame for this social problem.

One way to go about trying to find a solution to the problem is to look at the differences between your life and theirs, and to think about possible government policies that would result in more people in your area having the kind of upbringing you had. If you are the success story, the question is how to make more people end up in your position.

Anyway, perhaps we should put everyone's results on the same graph?  I still don't want to vote in the poll, I don't get how I am a 'left' authoritarian.

I would make a graph if more people posted their numerical scores. As for you being a "left" authoritarian, the Political Compass defines a "leftist" as a person who supports collectivist economic policies, or an egalitarian distribution of wealth, or both. You ended up on the left side of the chart because you support one or both of these things more than the average person. From what I know about you, I assume it must have been because you favour a stronger economic role from the state (you don't seem the egalitarian type ;) ).

[Tatar Khan]

I got the following

Economic Left/Right: 0.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

Due to the 0.08 i am not in the centre.

As far as I can see the from debate about social programs, I can say that any social program one designs there always would be a free rider problem. People will find a way to take advantage of it. While, I believe that you can do anything if you try hard enough (based on my own experience). I also can clearly say that the parents' attitudes and upbringing also influence greatly how the child turns out. But bad educational programs and overall bad programs of the state also contribute.

I have seen how the destruction of Soviet system of education and after school activities (which were semi-compulsory) destroyed the society and the children in former Soviet Union. Crime among the youngsters rose up and inadequate social programs just made it even more attractive.

But I got where I am right now thanks to the fact that our whole family worked like crazy to get out of the problems and did not just blame everything on society and waited for it to bail us out.

As I have the Ostap Bender's saying in my signature. If you want to be helped you must be the first one to do something about it.