I consider myself to be left-libertarian but find that difficult to define, though I know where I stand on most issues. On many of them, I am a moderate by my own definition because I reject the extremes of, frex, totally forbidding something, and totally allowing it.

I started out as a New Deal Liberal, partly because my father was. From the age of 10 onward I started absorbing the ideas of Robert Heinlein, practically through my pores. As an example, I totally incorporated his statements that if you take on the care of a living being, it is your responsibility for the life of that being; or, if sentient, until it can be independent. He had a very early, inspiring story about a traumatized ex-astronaut who now suffered from severe fear of heights - until the mewing of a trapped kitten on a ledge very high up in a hotel building caught his attention.

I also became a feminist during the Awakening, having had quite enough of being viewed as an Other, with attitudes and aptitudes attributed to me that I didn't have and the ones I did have being ignored or patronized.

At the same time I discovered Ayn Rand, who is a great author to take ideas from in adolescence but who absolutely must be outgrown, because her system is rigid and in many ways simply not suited to human reality. It certainly is a system that totally denies the realities of fertility, having children and rearing them, and the necessities thereof. But a lot of what she said felt totally liberating at the time, being reared in a system of aggressive unselfishness. I think you know the sort: in which nobody ever gets what they want and everybody always comes last, and anyone who complains has proven themselves selfish and morally beyond the pale. Gaaah.

Well, parenthood both consumes you and transforms you, as Lois Bujold said in the afterword to "Cordelia's Honor." (I think you'd like Cordelia's Honor. There is a very bad bad guy and his very damaged henchman, but Lois totally believes in redemption for those who will accept it.) So does the urge to write if you do it. So does experience in the work world (have you had that yet? It's extremely eye-opening.) And ...

to cut things short, a lot of things that used to bother me now seem trivial after all this time. But old age doesn't bring you all the answers; just a handful of them "that worked for me back in the day; but don't forget, those were different times." What it brings is the knowledge that there are many, many things you don't know and more you can't do, but at least you have an idea where those limits are. "We have advanced to newer and more surprising levels of bafflement."

BTW - I would very heartily suggest you dip into Lois's novels. She has three universes going right now.

Cordelia's Honor is the beginning of the Vorkosigan series, though she wrote Warrior's Apprentice (about Cordelia's son beginning his adventures) first. They're medium-future science fiction and very, very good.

Curse of Chalion is the first book in a fantasy series we call the Five Gods universe. It's late medieval/early Renaissance equivalent and begins with a wounded, weary veteran painfully making his way home on foot after some time as an enemy prisoner -- he is a wonderful and decent fellow, as well as being shrewd and intelligent. He has some marvelous lines, such as his comment to his Princess that not every cage is made of iron bars. Some are made of feather beds. And so he will not flatter her about her progress in her studies.

The Wide Green World is a post-catastrophe novel set in something very like the American frontier of around 1800, with a very nice and totally mismatched hero and heroine. The first two novels concern cross-cultural contact: hers in the first book and his in the second. The last two take them on a riverboat journey that opens up the world and offers solutions to the unsolvable problems shown in the first two books.

I took this quiz: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/pol...trum-quiz.html

Here's what I got.
You are a right moderate social authoritarian
Right: 3.06
Authoritarian: 2.32
Foreign Policy: -5.33 (Non-interventionalist side)
Culture: 2.33 (Cultural conservative side)

I consider myself to be left-libertarian

So is that the same as a liberal? So, like the Democrat party? Or do you mean you are a libertarian, and believe that everyone should be able to do almost anything?

Originally Posted by Adina

So is that the same as a liberal?

Not as currently defined, no. Not completely. In some ways, yes. Socially liberal and a great believer in the social safety net and sound public services, though.

So, like the Democrat party?

DemocratIC Party. "Democrat party" is a term coined by the Republicans to make it seem as if it was only a party for those people who called themselves Democrats: in other words, existing only for ourselves. "Democratic", our original term for ourselves and the one we still use, means "people who believe in democracy". You can still choose to use "Democrat Party" if you wish, if what you mean by the term is what the GOP means by it, but do be aware of the true terminology and its intended meaning.

Or do you mean you are a libertarian, and believe that everyone should be able to do almost anything?

This is a quick & dirty summary of the libertarian position, especially from a conservative viewpoint. Most libertarians place a lot more emphasis on the freedom of any economic entity - from the hot dog peddler to the multinational megacorp - to do as they please without governmental let or hindrance, because they see the latter as destructive of enterprise and like the threads tying down Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels. Their greatest argument in favor of this is that the marketplace will take care of the robbers, destroyers, cheaters, and short-sighted idiots among the business community because "no rational person would do .... (bad things in general.) Well, surprise! A lot of people don't WANT to do what "Rational people" do. Case in point: "No rational slave owner would damage his valuable slave property by being cruel to his slaves." A good many of them did for a good many reasons - including their belief that this was necessary to control them and get any work out of them, and that they didn't really feel it the way Real People would. BTW - this is also the neoconservative position.

Most libertarians are also social liberals, who believe that even vice and foul speech should be permitted, and -- see above -- the marketplace of ideas will take care of it.

But the basic libertarian philosophy I subscribe to is -

(1) People are not only generally competent to manage their own affairs, but generally know what's best for them. And even if they don't, the fact that they are sentient beings mean they should be allowed to try to do so, even if they fail. So - the Nanny State has gone far too far in our opinion.

(2) Centralized economic planning is too crude a tool for any economy larger than band-and-village scale. An economy does best when it's allowed to do its thing, and individual economic actors allowed to do their thing in the marketplace - [B]but with some sort of policing to prevent fraud[, abuse, and even the use of force./B]

I hope this clears things up.

That's interesting. Yes, an economy probably does best when it's allowed to do its own thing.

As for whether vice and foul speech are permitted, I think that the laws are too convoluted and unclear. I personally dislike foul speech, but I'm still undecided how much that sort of thing should be regulated by the government.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The compass and Nolan charts are the same conceptually

They claim to be measuring the same things, yes, but because the way they take their measurements is different, this yields divergent results. I should note that the nice neat overlays I've done probably aren't accurate either. The exact overlay isn't something I'm wedded to, either. The theory doesn't depend on my Nolan chart overlay being perfect.

There also is some question as to whether the Nolan or Compass charts should be centered with respect to the Mitchell chart. For example, the Compass quiz puts nearly all American politicians in the authoritarian right zone which may be accurate in terms of relative policy stance between countries but isn't useful for my purposes:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know about your shifts during different turnings; I don't quite get your concept.

The idea behind this concept is to get a gauge on the kinds of political change that occur in each social moment and to describe a cycle in those shifts. This means that relative differences between countries (as tracked by the Compass) are not useful. The important thing is political attitudes relative to the current conditions within a society. Even the Compass shows that American conservatives are more to the authoritarian right than liberals, and that difference in the direction society needs to head is what's important*, not whether the U.S. is more right wing than, say, Europe.

* By important, I mean important to the theory. I don't mean to say that political differences between the U.S. and other countries don't matter -- rather that an archetype system that says that nearly everyone in America has the same archetype won't provide any useful information.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In all these cases a circular graph like Kurt's overlaid on the political compass may be misleading, since in democratic America predominant opinion will remain above the horizon. Perhaps that's what Kurt or Mitchell mean by "precise" instead of totalitarian and "simple" rather than libertarian.

This is mostly correct (per above) in that one could have very autocratic rule that is nonetheless in the top portion of the chart (Napoleon comes to mind).

I should also point out that Mitchell defines the vertical axis by a person's amenability to using force to achieve social goals. I don't like this definition, since it's a) hard to find anyone who doesn't at least somewhat favor violence as a means of social change and b) examples of social change without force are pretty much nonexistent. Mitchell's definition should reasonably push most people into the bottom half of the chart, unless you're talking about degrees of "forcey-ness."

This definition also makes it hard to say where the horizontal axis is. At what point is one halfway amenable to political force? That's why I defined the axes as a choice between two priorities. For the vertical axis the choice is whether the rules should be general guidelines or focused and detailed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Off hand (only) I would say that consensus opinion in a 4T leans toward the bottom or bottom left of the Horner revision of the Nolan chart. But a circular graph of that using the Nolan and compass charts can be misleading, since in America most opinion remains democratic and not totalitarian. In a 3T the consensus is economic conservatism (upper right), and in a 2T social liberalism (upper left). In a 1T it might be also slightly lower on the scale, leaning to the right.

Here we find a notable area of disagreement. I don't think turnings and political styles align in a repetitive fashion. A 3T can have an attitude reflective of any of the quadrants, depending on what part of the overall cycle a society is in. This 3T has been lower right. The last one was upper right, the one prior to the Civil War was upper left and the one prior to the Revolution was lower left.

Originally Posted by Adina

I took this quiz: www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Here's what I got.
You are a right moderate social authoritarian
Right: 3.06
Authoritarian: 2.32
Foreign Policy: -5.33 (Non-interventionalist side)
Culture: 2.33 (Cultural conservative side)

You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 7.26
Libertarian: 6.33
Foreign Policy: -5.64
Culture: -7.71

You are a center-right social moderate.
Right: 2.48
Authoritarian: 0.18
Foreign Policy: -3.54
Culture: -0.86

Originally Posted by Odin

You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 7.26
Libertarian: 6.33
Foreign Policy: -5.64
Culture: -7.71

I wonder what the average Millie numbers are. I know a lot of über-liberal Millies like you, but sometimes I suspect that they are just the ones that are the loudest. The conservative Millies probably keep quiet about their views. That's my hypothesis anyway. Sort of like how Boomers are not all liberal, but the loudest ones are, even though they are a minority. I bet that liberal Millies are the majority, or at least close to 50%.

@Odin, it's interesting that we have almost the same foreign policy score. But, wow, you're much further to the left than I am to the right, and much more libertarian than I am authoritarian.

I am Left Moderate Social Libertarian
Left: 7.06
Libertarian: 2.25
Foreign Policy: -2.99
Culture: -1.85

I ought to start my own political party. Might as well call it the "Adina Party" since no-one else is likely to join it.

It's for people who are slightly right, slightly authoritarian, very non-interventionalist, and slightly culturally conservative.

(At least according to that test.)

But it would also feature an end to ageism, and a constitutional amendment to waive the national origin requirement for presidential candidates.

Also a revision of copyright law, and perhaps some tweaks to laws that are obsolete.

I am a left social libertarian.
Left: 5.77, Libertarian: 5.02

Foreign Policy: -6.33

Culture: -7.1

Who knew?

Originally Posted by Adina

I ought to start my own political party. Might as well call it the "Adina Party" since no-one else is likely to join it.

It's for people who are slightly right, slightly authoritarian, very non-interventionalist, and slightly culturally conservative.

(At least according to that test.)

But it would also feature an end to ageism, and a constitutional amendment to waive the national origin requirement for presidential candidates.

Also a revision of copyright law, and perhaps some tweaks to laws that are obsolete.

Sounds like old-fashioned North-Eastern paleoconservativism (Look up Henry Cabot Lodge).

And no, you won't have much of a party, since that is moving into the Fringe territory right now on Kurt's chart.

Center-left social moderate.

Fun little test, but I'm sure my presently untroubled mood had a lot of influence. As a result, I kept the level of importance at center for just about everything.

Hit me moments after viewing a specific news story or watching a political debate, I might have a whole lot more to say.

I am a left social moderate.
Economic issues: 6.2 left
Social issues: 0.83 libertarian
Foreign policy: -6.67
Cultural: -4.76

Wow I'm more pacifistic than anyone else here, so far.

Originally Posted by radassat83

I am a left social moderate.

Wow I'm more pacifistic than anyone else here, so far.

Yeah. What did you answer on the foreign policy questions? And, I wonder where the Democratic party falls on their foreign policy compared to the ones we have been getting.

Originally Posted by Odin

You are a left social libertarian.
Left: 7.26
Libertarian: 6.33
Foreign Policy: -5.64
Culture: -7.71

You are a center-right social libertarian.
Right: 2.88
Libertarian: 8.77
Foreign Policy: -8.86
Culture: -8.05

As with many of these types of quizzes, I find the economic questions difficult to answer since they typically conflate markets with concentration of wealth and concern for the poor is conflated with state socialism. Whether that means I "should" be more left or more right is anyone's guess.

I just found another archetype system -- the Moral Politics chart. My initial run of this quiz gave me -1.5, -1.5 (modestly in their liberal zone). I like the way their quiz is set up since it tries to survey attitudes rather than specific policy stances. The horizontal axis in this quiz seems identical to the horizontal on my chart.

Their vertical axis tries to gauge independence (individualism) versus interdependence (collectivism), which might correlate with rule concision (my vertical axis). However, I'm not sure this is a useful distinction. Many people who favor social justice are attempting to create an environment where the individual can flourish. Furthermore, a desire to restrain vice does not necessarily imply a collectivist view of the economy. I suspect that the moral politics vertical axis aligns with a lower-left to upper right axis on my chart (just like the left-right axis on the Political Compass chart). As such, two of the moral politics quadrants would be narrower than my quadrants and two of them would be wider.

A. V.'S SCORE Your scored 1.5 on Moral Order and -4.5 on Moral Rules. The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible) System: Conservatism Ideology: Capita Republicanism Party: Republican Party Presidents: Richard Nixon 04' Election: George W. Bush 08' Election: John McCain

Of the 625,664 respondents(11,413 on Facebook) 3% are close to you 8% are more conservative. 11% are more liberal. 67% are more socialist. 13% are more authoritarian

Right: structured moral order
Left: flat moral order

Top = society benefits from collective initiatives.

Bottom: priority is given to individual initiatives.

From http://www.moral-politics.com/

Originally Posted by BookishXer

Center-left social moderate.

Fun little test, but I'm sure my presently untroubled mood had a lot of influence. As a result, I kept the level of importance at center for just about everything.

Yeah -- "left moderate social libertarian" here -- left 3.74, libertarian 1.07.

The problem I had was that so many of the questions to me are context-dependent and the answer is often "it depends" -- based on context, on circumstances, et cetera.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Yeah -- "left moderate social libertarian" here -- left 3.74, libertarian 1.07.

The problem I had was that so many of the questions to me are context-dependent and the answer is often "it depends" -- based on context, on circumstances, et cetera.

What'd you get on the moral politics test?

Originally Posted by Adina

What'd you get on the moral politics test?

Rather odd considering the other one called me moderately left-libertarian, and I've certainly never considered myself authoritarian:

Your scored 1 on Moral Order and 1 on Moral Rules.

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):

1. System: Authoritarianism
2. Ideology: Social Republicanism
3. Party: No match.
4. Presidents: Gerald Ford
5. 04' Election: John Kerry
6. 08' Election: Barrack Obama

Of the 625,670 respondents (11,413 on Facebook):

1. 7% are close to you.
2. 17% are more conservative.
3. 41% are more liberal.
4. 27% are more socialist.
5. 4% are more authoritarian

That's interesting.

Originally Posted by Adina

That's interesting.

I was pleased the latter quiz found no match for party, because I pride myself on being fiercely independent and non-partisan.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I was pleased the latter quiz found no match for party, because I pride myself on being fiercely independent and non-partisan.

What exactly do you mean by non-partisan? The only time I've heard that term was for figurehead rulers who weren't supposed to voice their opinions. Or do you just mean not Democratic or Republican?