Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 12,479 comments
- 500,305 views
- 84,359
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's odd, because bottom-left (green) and top right (blue) are fundamentally inconsistent positions - you can't value personal freedom and financial control, nor can you value financial freedom and restriction of personal liberties. They don't mesh.
They do, however, reflect a middle-class, Daily Mail-esque attitude - people want their own freedom (bottom) and their own money (right), while stopping other people's freedoms affecting them (top) and government to pay for everything (left). They're bottom-right (purple) for themselves and top-left (red) for everyone else
It all averages out to very odd and inconsistent set of answers and political "position" and it's typical of people who haven't really thought about things, just answered on feel. If you've ended up in the green, you really do need to analyse things a bit more. If you've ended up in the blue, you should probably be thinking "Hang on... all politicians are liars and all the main parties are catering to that quadrant...".
But then even if you do value controlling people and controlling their money, you're kinda left with Scottish and Welsh national parties, which somewhat screws you if you're English... If you value freedom, you can at least vote Lib Dem, but right now that ends up as a vote for right-wing authoritarians instead.
Also:
Retaken just now. +4.6, -4.4
They do, however, reflect a middle-class, Daily Mail-esque attitude - people want their own freedom (bottom) and their own money (right), while stopping other people's freedoms affecting them (top) and government to pay for everything (left). They're bottom-right (purple) for themselves and top-left (red) for everyone else
It all averages out to very odd and inconsistent set of answers and political "position" and it's typical of people who haven't really thought about things, just answered on feel. If you've ended up in the green, you really do need to analyse things a bit more. If you've ended up in the blue, you should probably be thinking "Hang on... all politicians are liars and all the main parties are catering to that quadrant...".But then even if you do value controlling people and controlling their money, you're kinda left with Scottish and Welsh national parties, which somewhat screws you if you're English... If you value freedom, you can at least vote Lib Dem, but right now that ends up as a vote for right-wing authoritarians instead.
Also:
Retaken just now. +4.6, -4.4
Last edited:
- 28,498
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Famine is marginally more left wing and more authoritarian than he thought?
Communist.
It's not as if any of that test is concrete though, it's just a bit of fun. The questions are interesting enough but there's no chance to justify or criticise them. With most of the questions it's not a black and white case of 'agree' or 'disagree'.
---
IDS speaks out against £10bn welfare cuts
The quiet man is here, and he's turning up the volume.
Communist.
It's not as if any of that test is concrete though, it's just a bit of fun. The questions are interesting enough but there's no chance to justify or criticise them. With most of the questions it's not a black and white case of 'agree' or 'disagree'.
---
IDS speaks out against £10bn welfare cuts
The quiet man is here, and he's turning up the volume.
boiltheocean
Premium
- 7,756
- Samoa
- 1,294
- Cumbria
- Thomas_George
Thought I would be more right than this if I'm honest..
- 1,457
- Exeter
- Emptyone-77
I supposed I had Left leanings, and I was fairly accurate with where I thought I'd be.
Economic: -3.00
Social: -3.69
That makes me somewhat of an oddity compared to everyone so far
EDIT: It also puts me in line with the Dalai Lama, and towards Nelson Mandela ... interesting
Economic: -3.00
Social: -3.69
That makes me somewhat of an oddity compared to everyone so far
EDIT: It also puts me in line with the Dalai Lama, and towards Nelson Mandela ... interesting
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Having done my previous chart while hiding from the boss at work, I did it again with a little more thought and a few more "strong" answers than last time.
Previous:
Economic 3.12, Social -3.03.
New:
Economic 4.75, social -3.85.
I wish they'd have oriented this thing like a proper Nolan chart. The square setup doesn't make as much sense as the diamond shape. Plus I like seeing "libertarian" up at the top, shining knowledge and perfection down on everybody else.
I'm also rather amused by the "International" plot. It shows various world leaders from recent history.
These people are in positions of power. They're highly motivated, usually egotistical, often well-spoken and clever, with a constant desire to advance themselves to the highest degree. They want power and success.
As Famine said earlier, only Q2 and Q4 represent consistent positions, I'm I'll add that of those two only one of them is moral. That's Q4. None of these world leaders are in Q4. As a matter of fact, most of them represent hypocritical positions that don't make sense, much less that are moral. What that means is that they're wrong. However, I don't believe this assessment is compatible for corporate leaders. I think these positions are fundamentally different, the main difference being "profit".
Previous:
Economic 3.12, Social -3.03.
New:
Economic 4.75, social -3.85.
I wish they'd have oriented this thing like a proper Nolan chart. The square setup doesn't make as much sense as the diamond shape. Plus I like seeing "libertarian" up at the top, shining knowledge and perfection down on everybody else.
I'm also rather amused by the "International" plot. It shows various world leaders from recent history.
These people are in positions of power. They're highly motivated, usually egotistical, often well-spoken and clever, with a constant desire to advance themselves to the highest degree. They want power and success.
As Famine said earlier, only Q2 and Q4 represent consistent positions, I'm I'll add that of those two only one of them is moral. That's Q4. None of these world leaders are in Q4. As a matter of fact, most of them represent hypocritical positions that don't make sense, much less that are moral. What that means is that they're wrong. However, I don't believe this assessment is compatible for corporate leaders. I think these positions are fundamentally different, the main difference being "profit".
- 28,498
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
You're probably right, I probably do have an inconsistent view of the world. But I'm not the one calling the shots so it doesn't matter.
I think it would be very difficult to be 100% all the time consistent in your views across every topic.
I think it would be very difficult to be 100% all the time consistent in your views across every topic.
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
dylansan
Premium
- 4,870
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
I didn't save the picture, but I ended up fairly libertarian and slightly left. I think I'm fairly consistent with my stance on social issues but I know very little of economics. What's a good resource for that sort of thing? I'm not aware of any great sources on information on left vs right that aren't either terribly biased or wikipedia.
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I wouldn't call the Mises Institute itself a place for beginners, but they do offer lots of info for people just learning about it. Book lists and whatnot. Lots of interesting scholarly stuff, etc.
- 13,876
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
I'm also rather amused by the "International" plot. It shows various world leaders from recent history.
These people are in positions of power. They're highly motivated, usually egotistical, often well-spoken and clever, with a constant desire to advance themselves to the highest degree. They want power and success.
As Famine said earlier, only Q2 and Q4 represent consistent positions, I'm I'll add that of those two only one of them is moral. That's Q4. None of these world leaders are in Q4. As a matter of fact, most of them represent hypocritical positions that don't make sense, much less that are moral. What that means is that they're wrong. However, I don't believe this assessment is compatible for corporate leaders. I think these positions are fundamentally different, the main difference being "profit".
The Pope is way too low on that chart.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
My score.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
I'm somewhat bemused by the fact that my results don't really reflect my real opinions. That's because I strongly disagreed with just about every question with "always" or "never" in it. If it had said "usually" or "seldom" instead of "always" or "never", I would have agreed or strongly agreed on some of them. For instance, one of the questions is "First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country." While I largely agree, I doubt it's true of 100% of all immigrants; particularly for an immigrant who is an infant or in early childhood when they arrived in their new country. By the way that's just an example folks, I'm not trying to start a discussion of the merits/demerits of the statement itself.
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Bit surprised by that. My general view is that the government need to become less involved in everything. Stop controlling our everyday lives and to lower taxes slightly but them only to cover, the basics of healthcare, education, police/fire service and small army. The constant squabbling over everything else is taking up so much time,effort and money that humans have lost track of following our own goals and developing the human race as a whole (developments in science, exploration, ect).
I think this test shows me as far to centre for my views
, and yes I am just an idealistic teenager.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Luckily for you it's been established that Q1 and Q3 represent illogical positions that are self-contradictory. Your "general view", that government should become less involved, yet still do everything they currently do (healthcare, education, emergency services, military, public research funding) agrees with that perfectly. How you didn't spot the contradiction while you were typing your own paragraph I'm not sure.
My general view is that the government need to become less involved in everything...only to cover, the basics of healthcare, education, police/fire service and small army....developing the human race as a whole (developments in science, exploration, ect).
- 84,359
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Only after the first two. Government's role is to protect its citizens rights through being a body of force to uphold rights when the citizens cannot - which means the law, police and judiciary domestically and the armed forces to protect borders.
Those who think government should provide any other service think that their rights cover having that provided for them. If they can show that, logically, they have those rights, they are welcome to continue thinking that and share it with the rest of us.
Or they think that private industry shouldn't be trusted with the task for some reason. Wonder where they get their food from...
- 28,498
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I wasn't suggesting that it was right to think that Governments should cover fire, education and utilities, but that it is merely possible that people can hypocritically believe in small Government but want the Government to provide a multitude of services.
Keef
Premium
- 24,526
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
A proper government's role should be nothing more than to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. See the Human Rights thread for more.
EDIT: Tree'd by the strangest British person on the forum.
Government can't logically provide any service other than the protection of life, liberty, and property because government is an institution operating on a fundamentally different set of rules than people. Like Famine said, government rule comes into play when the people aren't able to uphold their own rights. The force a government operates with is a very dangerous thing and it's important to keep it in check at all times, otherwise potentially powerful people in charge of that force will start getting ideas. If you allow a government to provide a service other than the protection of fundamental rights then it sets a precedent that can be interpreted as the government being allowed to provide all services...and that's the slippery slope that lands you way up in quadrant 2, a fascist communist state where the government forces the people to work for it and the people are totally dependent upon the government's support for survival. In such a society there is no personal liberty and there is no economic liberty. A precedent has been set for the government to provide all services, and therefore the government has complete control of the people. And that's why there are only two general types of "sustainable" government - oligarchy and republic.
EDIT: Tree'd by the strangest British person on the forum.
Government can't logically provide any service other than the protection of life, liberty, and property because government is an institution operating on a fundamentally different set of rules than people. Like Famine said, government rule comes into play when the people aren't able to uphold their own rights. The force a government operates with is a very dangerous thing and it's important to keep it in check at all times, otherwise potentially powerful people in charge of that force will start getting ideas. If you allow a government to provide a service other than the protection of fundamental rights then it sets a precedent that can be interpreted as the government being allowed to provide all services...and that's the slippery slope that lands you way up in quadrant 2, a fascist communist state where the government forces the people to work for it and the people are totally dependent upon the government's support for survival. In such a society there is no personal liberty and there is no economic liberty. A precedent has been set for the government to provide all services, and therefore the government has complete control of the people. And that's why there are only two general types of "sustainable" government - oligarchy and republic.
Last edited:
- 28,498
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It's the grey area of what exactly constitute 'life, liberty and properties' that have spewed so many failed Governments.
We all have our opinions and are entitled to them. Even if they're wrong. I know I'm not totally accurate in my beliefs. I'm aware of my own shortcomings; I could tell you how it's important to teach English grammar more thoroughly, but I'm not an economical expert so I'm probably wrong in what I think will make things better.
