i got a 4, myself. Sadly though, I knew I was a Bolshevik.
I matched the Hilary Clinton position on the meter, which is odd since I didn’t vote for her (for senator) & often disagree violently with her bleatings on TV. I really thought I’d be lefter than that… I guess I see nuances & fuzziness where I’m not supposed to.
Should I hazard to say that the very binary nature of the quiz is more reminiscent of right-wing or libertarian thinking?
A current version of the scale would range from Dennis Kucinich on the left to Bush II on the right.
Yet another 9 but the questions didn’t address the areas where I am more radical: democracy and economic justice. I figure I am way more liberal than Hillary.
I scored a 7. I’m right between Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Interesting.
I had a whole big spiel about loaded questions, false dilemmas, coin-toss choices, and the like, but everyone before me seems to have covered it pretty well already.
- I’m a dead on clone of Bill Clinton.
I keep telling my wife I did not have sex with that intern!
No, you shouldn’t. Just so you’ll know, right-wing and libertarian are not synonyms.
Authoritarian: one hand on your zipper and one hand on your wallet
Left-wing: one hand to himself and one hand on your wallet
Right-wing: one hand to himself and one hand on your zipper
Libertarian: both hands to himself
Here’s an alternate quiz to show you what I mean.
How can the libertarian have both hands to himself when he’s always got one down the pants of private power?
Those who believe rights & property to be synonymous will always be love-slaves to the dominatrix of all-powerful capitalism.
This is a more all-or-nothing position than even right-wingers usually dare to stake.
I ended up exactly where i end up on most such tests: left-liberal.
Libertarian on social issues, but not on economic issues.
I scored an 8. I knew there was a reason I didn’t trust Hillary- she’s too far to the right!
Nah. Right-wingers believe your body belongs to them.
Scored a 6, which should come as a surprise to no-one, but I know for a fact I’m way the hell to the left of Jesse Jackson.
So, NinjaChick… how you doin’? 
Um… in a purely platonic sense, I mean… Mr. Nabokov, will you please stop breathing down my neck?!
Olentzero! 
Good to hear from you again! Where’ve you been?
I got a 12. My one complaint was that many of the questions were far too black and white.
mhendo: I think that rights do derive from the society in terms of the social contract* drawn up by the informal relationships we have with our bretheren in any group interaction. But then, so does property. I think that rights and property both spring from the same contract, and that without one the other would be meaningless.
(*No, I’m not using Locke’s definition. At least, not directly: The government is a part of society, so the contract in my paragraph extends to the government’s relations with the citizens and within itself.)
Look at it this way. If I don’t own anything, I cannot claim the right to privacy. Why not? I don’t own a home, so I can’t lock any doors. I don’t own clothing, so I can’t dress myself beyond what others will allow. Privacy is hinged on the idea that I can restrict others from using certain areas and certain things at certain times. If I own nothing, the idea of me restricting something is absurd.
I can also claim no right to free speech. I cannot own a printing press, so I cannot publish a newspaper or a book. I cannot own a transmitter, so I cannot broadcast a radio or television program. In the extreme case, I cannot own my own voice, so I cannot say things the group disagrees with.
Finally, I cannot claim any right to my own life. If my group owns my very body, I can be killed on a whim. I can be enslaved, used for testing, even raped without being able to claim any recourse.
Property as we know it is based on rights as we know them. Rights as we know them are based on property as we know it. Both are founded on the specific social contract our civilization has developed in an informal way over thousands of years. It’s arbitrary at its foundation, but so is any axiomatic system. So is any society, for that matter.
The only private power I care about is my own.
I don’t go for that, man.
BTW, how is Capitalism related to coercion? By definition, coercion kills any Capitalist system.
“I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
My extremism knows bounds, of course: I’ll never physically attack except in self-defense.
NinjaChick , You are just a cog in the machine run by The Man. Keep your brutalizing fascist hands off me, Pig.
Me, I got a 3.
Why do so many dopers hold to the views which have created the most dehumanized “culture” on the planet?
You had better care about the rest of it. What if you have only one private hospital to go to & you can’t afford it. Or someone else’s factory pollutes your water supply. Or a company sells cheap guns to kids on your block. Or the economic weight of one powerful company forces yours & all other competition out of the market.
The result is you have less private power (& no public power since this is libertarianism), hence fewer rights by your equation. The basic libertarian mistake is in transferring all democratically-derived power to the private sector. Power is then just moved to a place that you have no access to. And so you are less free.
I apologize if this is worded too strongly, but the “who do you trust more” questions seem like bunk - a collection of questions that compare apples and oranges. I mean, how can I say whether I trust the post office or Pentagon more? They have entirely different functions, goals, and definitions of sucess. Regardless of the current administration, both are run primarily by people for whom its their career and who are very good and experienced at their jobs - thus, I have good reason to stronly trust both.But if I’m asked about their judgement on policy issues, it becomes entirely moot when talking about the post office, and so I can’t compare them to the pentagon. It’s a meaningless question.
Similarly, the functions of the FBI and IRS are too dissimilar for a meaningfull comparison of “trust” , and the last two questions compare organizations which not only carry out entirely different functions, but ones which are part of the government and ones which are not! Comparing the UN and joint chiefs, or CIA and Peace Corps, is absurd.