Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p="
rad-con:9
lib-pop:20
cap-soc:26
"libertarian radical-leaning free marketeer"
Libertarian - Many people in the US Libertarian Party are minor heretics or simply adhere to certain social controls while remaining otherwise nearly anarchical. These people, in addition to a number of especially independent Democrats and Republicans, fit into the libertarian category. They do not seek the philosophical uber-consistency of the anarchists, but they propose most or nearly all of the same ideas and policies. Someone in the ACLU or the Republican Liberty Caucus would likely fall here.
Radical-Leaning - Those American politicians not in the republican category are probably in this section. It is moving in the same direction as the republican group, embraces democracy and rejects racism, but perhaps these people strongly support the death penalty or stand opposed to gay marriage. In American terms, these are more conservative people, but on this scale - which includes a wider range of global and historical politics - they are clustered under radical-leaning.
Free Marketeer - Accepting that the market is the fairest and most effective device for setting wages and prices, those in this category support freer trade, deregulation, privatization, market reforms, tax cuts and economic liberalization. This category includes Reagan and most Republicans, tax cutters, free traders, and those seeking to shrink governemnt and encourage commerce and business. They associate economic success with much less government interference, low inflation, easy access to trade and business creation, and wealth creation.
|
I took the test again, and here are my results:
radical/conservative: 18
liberal/populist: 28
capitalist/socialist: 27
That makes me a
libertarian republican free marketeer. I have changed from "radical-leaning" to "republican." This change illustrates how my perspective has changed with respect to "radical/conservative" opinions. Here is what the site says about being "republican" in this regard:
Republican - This includes a large bulk of modern-day American politicians, whether Republican or Democratic. This includes values of basic racial equality but not necessarily affirmative action. It's a strong rejection of racism and a strong embrace of democracy, but not into the social levelling or hyper-secularism of the democrat level.
I would also like to make further commentary on the definitions offered in this quiz's results page. What I find funny (haha) in the definition of "Libertarian" is that it claims that anarchy requires consistency. Anarchy is inherently and definitionally contradictory and hypocritical, so anything that attempts to define it and qualify it is kind of hilarious. In fact, one can argue that the very idea that there is a way to define an anarchist, or the word anarchy, is contradictory and absurd, but then again, anarchy is a contradictory and absurd ideology.
I also noticed this time around, when I read all of the ideological descriptions instead of just the ones that pertain to me, that the site has a bias and makes judgments on the ideology within the definitions they give. While I have absolutely no problem condemning fascism or communism, or any of their related philosophies, this should be done for analysis and assessments of those ideologies, not within a definition. Definitions should just describe whatever the word or idea in as purely objective a manner as possible. A true fascist or a true communist does not believe they are evil or "malevolent."
__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The12thMan
The rule should never trump the reason for the rule.
|
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terro(ism) is aggravating.