Hey PDF members: Are You Left Wing or Right Wing? Take the Test

[William Hung]

I'll tell you a fun narrative.

and @LeveragedBuyout and @Nihonjin1051 you right wing fascists, I challenge you to give a better narrative.

OK, we can view the chart as life stages of a human.

First you start in the blue box as Authoritarian-right. This is a human childhood stage. The only things a child pursue at this lifestage are games, fun and pleasure. And a child would usually only have these pursuits for themselves. If anyone else is involved, be it friends or family, they are involved because they enhance the pleasure. They also depends on authority figures, like parents and teachers to provide them security and protection so that they can freely pursue their pleasure.

Then a child would move from the blue box down to the purple box (Libertarian-right). This represent the teenage years. The pursuit for pleasure is still there, perhaps much stronger than it was in the childhood stage. But now, these typical teenage brat see authority figures, parents and teachers, as burden. They see authorities as roadblocks in their pursuit of pleasure. They consider parental control and influence as unnecessary. To them, nothing a parent say or do make any sense. Their parents are only there to ruin their life and pursuit of pleasure.

Then we go left to the green box (Libertarian-left). Here, the teenage brat has matured a bit and has now pass 20 years old and becomes a young adult. At this life stage, they still believe in their independence, and are proud that they no longer need their parents or teachers influence. However, they would start to think, "hmmmm, maybe I should pursue something or do something that is more meaningful than just my selfish pursuit for pleasure." They now understand that they should also live a life that would help other people too, not just for themselves.

Finally, they would move up to the red box (Authoritarian-left). They have now matured from being a young adult to a fully developed adult. With their new knowledge that life should be lived for others, they now begin to think how can they do this better. At this stage, they think back about their childhood and teenage years and understand the importance of their parents and teachers. They now understand why their parents say the things parents say and the things parents do. They now understand that it was good for them and that their parents had altruistic and compassionate intentions for them. During this life stage, the adults would also have children of their own. They find themselves living not for themselves, but for their children and spouse. They also now find themselves becoming the authority figures that their parents once was, to provide security and protection for their children. They've now fully understood that without the authority and protection of parents, children would be devoured by nasty people out there.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I'll tell you a fun narrative.

and @LeveragedBuyout and @Nihonjin1051 you right wing fascists, I challenge you to give a better narrative.

OK, we can view the chart as life stages of a human.

First you start in the blue box as Authoritarian-right. This is a human childhood stage. The only things a child pursue at this lifestage are games, fun and pleasure. And a child would usually only have these pursuits for themselves. If anyone else is involved, be it friends or family, they are involved because they enhance the pleasure. They also depends on authority figures, like parents and teachers to provide them security and protection so that they can freely pursue their pleasure.

Then a child would move from the blue box down to the purple box (Libertarian-right). This represent the teenage years. The pursuit for pleasure is still there, perhaps much stronger than it was in the childhood stage. But now, these typical teenage brat see authority figures, parents and teachers, as burden. They see authorities as roadblocks in their pursuit of pleasure. They consider parental control and influence as unnecessary. To them, nothing a parent say or do make any sense. Their parents are only there to ruin their life and pursuit of pleasure.

Then we go left to the green box (Libertarian-left). Here, the teenage brat has matured a bit and has now pass 20 years old and becomes a young adult. At this life stage, they still believe in their independence, and are proud that they no longer need their parents or teachers influence. However, they would start to think, "hmmmm, maybe I should pursue something or do something that is more meaningful than just my selfish pursuit for pleasure." They now understand that they should also live a life that would help other people too, not just for themselves.

Finally, they would move up to the red box (Authoritarian-left). They have now matured from being a young adult to a fully developed adult. With their new knowledge that life should be lived for others, they now begin to think how can they do this better. At this stage, they think back about their childhood and teenage years and understand the importance of their parents and teachers. They now understand why their parents say the things parents say and the things parents do. They now understand that it was good for them and that their parents had altruistic and compassionate intentions for them. During this life stage, the adults would also have children of their own. They find themselves living not for themselves, but for their children and spouse. They also now find themselves becoming the authority figures that their parents once was, to provide security and protection for their children. They've now fully understood that without the authority and protection of parents, children would be devoured by nasty people out there.

Challenge accepted. I would suggest that your model needs to be shifted by one box, clockwise. Namely...

Childhood (libertarian-right): I don't want to do my homework, I just want to play with my toys. Leave me alone to play my video games. If I want something, I take it--who will stop me?

Adolescence (libertarian-left): Since I know everything, it's clear that everyone needs to share the wealth for us all to be happy. If we can just redistribute the wealth, we can all live good lives, and the world will be at peace. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do... (smokes marijuana while playing the guitar).

Young adulthood (authoritarian-left): It's clear the people are too stupid to see what's good for them. If they won't willingly share their wealth for the good of all, we will force them to share their wealth at the point of a gun. I know in my heart that if we just take from those who have wealth (they probably stole it, anyway!) and give it to the deserving poor, the natural order will be restored. I was naive to think that we could count on the innate goodness of people for them to realize that they should share. We will help them see the light through the wonders of the cattle prod.

Adulthood (authoritarian-right): I work a third of the year just to pay my taxes, and only then can I start earning in order to live my own life and provide for my children. All these people work hard to get their hands in my pockets--why can't they work hard to earn their own money? It's not rocket science: if you tax work, the people will work less. If you pay people not to work, they won't work. On the other hand, there are a lot of hard-working thieves and fraudsters out there, too, so we need a good legal system to ensure contracts are upheld, and we have a stable environment to plan our budgets and execute our business plans. We also need law and order to keep the streets safe, and society stable, so that we all have the opportunity to prosper. If I have done better than others in society, it's because I studied while they partied, I saved while they spent, and I worked hard while they slacked. I earned this, who are they to take it from me?

 

[Aepsilons]

I'll give my input later tonight.

I just want to share a song that I think @Black Flag knows of, lol. Anyways, enjoy!

 

[nair]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.51

Some how i am not able to get the graph

 

[William Hung]

Challenge accepted. I would suggest that your model needs to be shifted by one box, clockwise. Namely...

Muahahahaha I'm not done yet.

Your narrative is flawed because it doesn't reflect the lives of the majority. I think only a small segment of your society can identify with your life story.

My narrative is more universal. I think more people can identify with it, whether they are middle class Americans or working class third world.

Childhood (libertarian-right): I don't want to do my homework, I just want to play with my toys. Leave me alone to play my video games. If I want something, I take it--who will stop me?

I can accept this because I hate Libertarian-right. Actually, I hate them more than Authoritarian-right, so well done!!! .

Adolescence (libertarian-left): Since I know everything, it's clear that everyone needs to share the wealth for us all to be happy. If we can just redistribute the wealth, we can all live good lives, and the world will be at peace. Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do... (smokes marijuana while playing the guitar).

Hmmm you're saying most teens and adolescents are pot smoking leftwing idealist. I disagree. Most teens don't think about politics. They usually start to think about it in their college years. And in a typical western college/university, left leaning students are only one segment of of the student population. And if you zoom out and consider the whole population of the world, not all teens are as you described. The poor would definitely want freebies, but the majority can't hardly be described as lazy pot smoking leftist idealist.

Now look at my portrayal of teenagers as purple square. I think most, whether middle class or poor third world, can identify their rebellious teenage years whether it's about their boyfriend, girlfriend, drugs, etc.

Young adulthood (authoritarian-left): It's clear the people are too stupid to see what's good for them. If they won't willingly share their wealth for the good of all, we will force them to share their wealth at the point of a gun. I know in my heart that if we just take from those who have wealth (they probably stole it, anyway!) and give it to the deserving poor, the natural order will be restored. I was naive to think that we could count on the innate goodness of people for them to realize that they should share. We will help them see the light through the wonders of the cattle prod.

Again, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the majority. Gun point? No way the majority of young adults are leftwing militants. If the world is full of FARC guerrillas, I would accept your description, but it's not.

My portrayal is still better. No matter whether you live is a poor third world country or a middle class western country, young adults tend to think more about people around them compare to their earlier teenage years.

Adulthood (authoritarian-right): I work a third of the year just to pay my taxes, and only then can I start earning in order to live my own life and provide for my children. All these people work hard to get their hands in my pockets--why can't they work hard to earn their own money? It's not rocket science: if you tax work, the people will work less. If you pay people not to work, they won't work. On the other hand, there are a lot of hard-working thieves and fraudsters out there, too, so we need a good legal system to ensure contracts are upheld, and we have a stable environment to plan our budgets and execute our business plans. We also need law and order to keep the streets safe, and society stable, so that we all have the opportunity to prosper.

Sounds like a western middle class life story again. What about the majority third world? Some exploited factory workers get taxed very little but they won't earn much or get promoted no matter how hard they work. They won't get anywhere unless they have assistance from the government (either monetary assistance from state budget or protection from govt regulation). This is also the case for farmers, labourers, etc. They can work as hard as they can, but they will get nowhere unless govt assist them. But you don't believe in govt assistance, so you're happy for them to be doomed as blue collar labourers for the rest of their life? What about their children? will you be happy for them to be doomed to the same life too? they have done nothing wrong other than to have been unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again, I'm willing to bet this reflects the majority of the world's population while your life story is just a minority.

If I have done better than others in society, it's because I studied while they partied, I saved while they spent, and I worked hard while they slacked. I earned this, who are they to take it from me?

What about the blue collar workers who had to start work after high school (or earlier) due to family difficulties? you're most likely better off than them. Is it because they partied and slacking around while you studied and work hard? What about kids born in a trash family and won't have the opportunity to study at a higher level or find decent work opportunity. They will likely be doomed to their parents lifestyle without state intervention. The state would need monetary budget to assist such children. Are you saying the state shouldn't intervene or assist? again the kids haven't done anything wrong other than being unfortunate enough to be born into such environment.

You are talking like all your tax payments goes to lazy pot smokers. I don't accept these kind of people getting freebies either. But if they are getting it, then it is an administration problem. Tell your administration to stop giving these people freebies, rather than getting rid of government assistance.

 

[William Hung]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.51
Some how i am not able to get the graph

@desert warrior You need to directly select the graph also and copy then paste directly here. Don't use the link image option.

@LeveragedBuyout BTW I'm not trying to argue who's right and who's wrong. I'm just giving you my perspective and why I have that perspective.

 

[SRP]

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Muahahahaha I'm not done yet.

Your narrative is flawed because it doesn't reflect the lives of the majority. I think only a small segment of your society can identify with your life story.

My narrative is more universal. I think more people can identify with it, whether they are middle class Americans or working class third world.



I can accept this because I hate Libertarian-right. Actually, I hate them more than Authoritarian-right, so well done!!! .



Hmmm you're saying most teens and adolescents are pot smoking leftwing idealist. I disagree. Most teens don't think about politics. They usually start to think about it in their college years. And in a typical western college/university, left leaning students are only one segment of of the student population. And if you zoom out and consider the whole population of the world, not all teens are as you described. The poor would definitely want freebies, but the majority can't hardly be described as lazy pot smoking leftist idealist.

Now look at my portrayal of teenagers as purple square. I think most, whether middle class or poor third world, can identify their rebellious teenage years whether it's about their boyfriend, girlfriend, drugs, etc.



Again, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the majority. Gun point? No way the majority of young adults are leftwing militants. If the world is full of FARC guerrillas, I would accept your description, but it's not.

My portrayal is still better. No matter whether you live is a poor third world country or a middle class western country, young adults tend to think more about people around them compare to their earlier teenage years.



Sounds like a western middle class life story again. What about the majority third world? Some exploited factory workers get taxed very little but they won't earn much or get promoted no matter how hard they work. They won't get anywhere unless they have assistance from the government (either monetary assistance from state budget or protection from govt regulation). This is also the case for farmers, labourers, etc. They can work as hard as they can, but they will get nowhere unless govt assist them. But you don't believe in govt assistance, so you're happy for them to be doomed as blue collar labourers for the rest of their life? What about their children? will you be happy for them to be doomed to the same life too? they have done nothing wrong other than to have been unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again, I'm willing to bet this reflects the majority of the world's population while your life story is just a minority.



What about the blue collar workers who had to start work after high school (or earlier) due to family difficulties? you're most likely better off than them. Is it because they partied and slacking around while you studied and work hard? What about kids born in a trash family and won't have the opportunity to study at a higher level or find decent work opportunity. They will likely be doomed to their parents lifestyle without state intervention. The state would need monetary budget to assist such children. Are you saying the state shouldn't intervene or assist? again the kids haven't done anything wrong other than being unfortunate enough to be born into such environment.

You are talking like all your tax payments goes to lazy pot smokers. I don't accept these kind of people getting freebies either. But if they are getting it, then it is an administration problem. Tell your administration to stop giving these people freebies, rather than getting rid of government assistance.

Perhaps I took the assignment too seriously; it was not my intention to smear any particular group, only to represent the world from my own viewpoint. Certainly not all teenagers smoke pot, although the percentages seem to be increasing (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/growing-marijuana-use-among-teenagers-spurs-concerns/ ), and the legalization drive combined with the propaganda campaign to play down the adverse side effects of marijuana only serve to aggravate the problem. I myself never smoked marijuana, and neither did any of my friends, but kids around us did.

As far as the rebellious teenager issue: isn't this precisely what an anti-authoritarian/anti-authority attitude is? Further, the adherence of the vast majority of teenagers to the Democratic Party would seem to indicate that my suspicion of their political leanings is well-supported.

The authoritarian left and use of the gun: One of the main characteristics that defines a government is its monopoly on the use of legitimate force. I don't know what your country of residence is, but in the US, if you don't pay your taxes (and thus support the left-wing social programs of the politicians), eventually, armed police will come and arrest you. In more extreme examples of the authoritarian left, we only need to see the security apparatus of the USSR or North Korea to see how this plays out.

In regards to the blue collar/middle class issue, even the United States went through this generational cycle (grandparents experience grinding poverty, parents struggle to enter the middle class, current generation enters the professional class). Social mobility isn't as fluid as it once was, but from the right-wing perspective, that is because of government involvement. Government subsidies of tuition have driven up the cost of education at a staggeringly faster rate than inflation, putting it out of reach of the common man. Government regulation has caused credentialism inflation, where now specific degrees/certifications/licenses are required to do jobs that high school graduates are perfectly well-suited for, but instead causing workers to throw away money for no practical purpose just to get a piece of paper. Government regulation like OSHA and social security taxes drive up the cost of employing citizens, especially unskilled citizens, and government encouragement of legal liability makes it more difficult to fire incompetent employees for cause, which would otherwise open up opportunities for newer, more ambitious workers (and knowing the difficulty of firing, companies do their best not to hire in the first place).

If you think it's hard to work as an employee today, try starting a business and being an employer; all the forces of government and the competition are working hard to ensure that you fail, and if you overcome these obstacles and succeed, the government takes a huge percentage of your earnings anyway. But if you fail, you fail alone.

That's just developed countries. In developing countries where there is a labor cost advantage, if the government gets out of the way and ensures a stable business environment (e.g. China), then investment and employment will flow in at a torrid rate. If the government enacts strangulating regulation in a misguided attempt to equalize the playing field (e.g. Venezuela), the economy will be snuffed out, and blue collar workers will have no opportunities for employment, let alone advancement.

I haven't even touched the ethics of wealth transfer, but briefly, I am an adherent of Robert Nozick's governing principle that if income is legally earned, there is no ethical justification to seize that income and redistribute it to those who are "more deserving" (as advocated by John Rawls). I despise this idea, commonly referred to as "social justice." Who decides who is worthy, and who is not? By what criteria? How much wealth transfer is "enough"? You can immediately see the potential (and in reality, certainty) of corruption in the "social justice" governing philosophy. That is why on the economic front, I am an adherent of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

So to answer your question, I do not believe the state should intervene "for the sake of the children." The parent should strive to provide a better life for his child than was provided for him, even if that means sacrifice. A parent unwilling or unable to sacrifice for his child in order to provide this may have made a mistake by deciding to have a child that he could not adequately support. Certainly some stranger should not be held responsible for such incompetence by having his earnings seized and redirected to the "worthy" indigent father. It's a slippery slope, so I cannot support such actions.

 

[TejasMk3]

I see a score trend amongst Chinese, Indian posters. Most scores are left leaning.

Yup, we did this test a while back on an Indian defence forum, almost everyone (barring two or three guys) were all very left wing,

The questionnaire itself is designed to be from a western/christian perspective. Stuff like Abortions, homosexuality(despite the recent headlines) are a non issue, so the answers would automatically put us under left wing.
I wonder what sort of questions those would be replaced by for an Indian society based test.

 

[A.Rafay]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

My test:

 

[powastick]

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.41

 

[Yaduveer]

Mine ... who is more like me ?

 

[metalfalcon]

These are NOT my VIEWS This is How Uncle SAM Plots my way of Thinking on Graph, This is more of a Survey rather than a "TEST". All questions Directly effected the AMERICAN Society This LITMUS Paper test is Not Universal.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

That's just developed countries. In developing countries where there is a labor cost advantage, if the government gets out of the way and ensures a stable business environment (e.g. China), then investment and employment will flow in at a torrid rate. If the government enacts strangulating regulation in a misguided attempt to equalize the playing field (e.g. Venezuela), the economy will be snuffed out, and blue collar workers will have no opportunities for employment, let alone advancement.

I haven't even touched the ethics of wealth transfer, but briefly, I am an adherent of Robert Nozick's governing principle that if income is legally earned, there is no ethical justification to seize that income and redistribute it to those who are "more deserving" (as advocated by John Rawls). I despise this idea, commonly referred to as "social justice." Who decides who is worthy, and who is not? By what criteria? How much wealth transfer is "enough"? You can immediately see the potential (and in reality, certainty) of corruption in the "social justice" governing philosophy. That is why on the economic front, I am an adherent of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

The government doesn't get out of the way in China though. It is very much, in the way. It doesn't get in the way of noodle stands, of course. In African countries, the government does get out of the way and the result is self evident.