Test Your Political Stand

Yeah, i tend to agree. But at the same time, i had to make a change. The LP represents most of what i believe and the GOP doesn't anymore. I refused to vote for someone who says one thing and does another. Dems and Repubs fit that bill. I actually thought the GOP was going to become very irrelevant in the next few years. The Democrats shot that in the ass. The GOP ruined themselves from 2001 to 2006. It took the DNC less than two years to surpass the same thing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I belong to the LP now and i also registered with the Minnesota Independence Party when i moved back here.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I will have more to say about this very interesting post, but I wanted to make one observation on a point that lept out at me. It was this bit:

After the words came Blair and the New Labour movement's great battle against the party's traditionalists, eventually doing away with the historic and heavily symbolic Clause IV of Labour's constitution, calling for the "common ownership of the means of production".

Just how far left was Labour?!?! I mean, this is the very definition of full-on Communism, Soviet Union style!

Remember Labour's birth at the end of the Industrial Revolution championing the common man over the abuses of the industrial elite and the old guard. They were very much THE socialist party until 1997. It might still be in their constitution, but that form of Labour has been dead since the 1970s, but arguably they were creeping further right during the Cold War. Michael Foote was the last of their kind and his defeat in 1983 was crushing. Furthermore, that Labour would have called for the abolition of the monarchy, something that they wouldn't do these days.

Well that makes sense. The Russian Revolution was all the rage in the U.S. as well in the early part of the 20th century. One of our most famous Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was very much a fan of certain Marxist concepts and did much to move the Democratic Party much further to the left than it had been previously (though certainly not the point of "common ownership of the means of production... that sort of rhetoric would not have been readily accepted, even during the Great Depression).

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I find this very interesting as it would seem that the U.K. is far more to the left than I had thought. It is a no wonder at all that we have the debates we do given the cultural political differences between us. It would seem that even your Conservative party is much more to the left than to the right, at least when compared to what I as an American would consider conservative.

I just don't think our political system is as clearly defined as yours is. The Political Compass website shows all three of our main parties on the right http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010. I would like your views on that piece especially.

The first thing that immediately struck me about this test was the wording of the questions and the questions themselves. Having created quite a number of polls myself over the years (mostly as media tools), I found the questions somewhat Eurocentric in their thinking, and frustratingly devoid of the sort of nuance I would like to see in such polls.

I consider myself to be a conservative with libertarian leanings on matters of social issues. So I took the test to see how the site would score me. I tried to answer as honestly as I could, but many questions were nearly impossible for me to give an accurate answer. Let's look at the very first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

If the interests of the so-called "trans-national corporations" is not served, then why on earth would they bother to form? What good is starting or running a major corporation if the "interests" of those invested in it, those running it, and those employed by it are not also served?

It's sort like a trick question that gives you no middle ground to take on the issue, since the only possible answers are agree or disagree, with only a single variance in the degree of agreement or disagreement. It is the sort of question I would devise to force an outcome rather than determine a true position.

The questions on economics were equally frustrating; to wit:

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

Well DUH! This is the whole point behind the rule of law, to check the baser instincts of human nature. Only an insane lunatic would think otherwise, but then, I guess that's the whole point of the poll. I suppose there are a few who might actually disagree with this premise.

On the other hand, some of those questions will ferret out fairly accurately legitimate political positions. So the test is not all trash. I would just like to see some of the questions structured with a little more nuance.

All in all, I found the test interesting, but I question it's accuracy. After completing it, I was scored as: Economic Left/Right: 3.25 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.67

This puts me a little below the x-axis and a little right of the y-axis - much more centrist than I consider myself to be.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I honestly didn't realize that Labour had been that far left, it is quite a revelation for me. I know that you said it was heavily symbolic, but why would anyone want that even as a symbol?

If you read this biography of Michael Foot http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/devon/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8547000/8547317.stm you will see the original Labour cause.

I see. I was just shocked at blatant nature of that phrase. I understand that the party has since moderated and moved into the 21st century somewhat. And while I would never vote for a Labour candidate, I can somewhat understand U.K. citizens doing so given the history.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It begs a reading of Labour's constitution to see what the thinking may have been behind this.

Sort of explained above but if you want a more in depth understanding of Labour's foundations, I'm sure there are plenty of explanations all over the web.

As you note, asked and answered.

Here's where i ended up. I feel that it places too much emphasis on either right or wrong, agree or disagree than having the opportunity to find a middle ground.


But in the sticky in this section on the American side of politics, i was placed more Libertarian.....


So, by European standards, i seem to be a centrist that leans slightly to the right. By USA standards, i'm one of those dastardly far, far, far-right wing Libertarians.

I have taken both tests on two separate occasions. But I've done them again.

As you say, some of the questions are confusing. Take this question for example.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

Bizarre question. It says nothing about whether the person being quizzed thinks a one party state is a good idea or not. Further, as I've never lived in a one party state I cannot evaluate that as a true statement. It probably is true so would putting that as "agree" mean that the test assumes the person being quizzed thinks a one party state is a good idea or not?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I have taken both tests on two separate occasions. But I've done them again.

As you say, some of the questions are confusing. Take this question for example.

"A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

Bizarre question. It says nothing about whether the person being quizzed thinks a one party state is a good idea or not. Further, as I've never lived in a one party state I cannot evaluate that as a true statement. It probably is true so would putting that as "agree" mean that the test assumes the person being quizzed thinks a one party state is a good idea or not?

Actually, the first problem I had with that question was the word "progress." How does one define progress? Progress towards what? Is that "progress" toward or away from the fundamental principles upon which a given nation was founded? For this reason alone I had to answer a resounding "Strongly Disagree" since there was no way I could honestly assess what "progress" actually meant.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

What I find interesting about your results on this test Matt is that you show leanings toward Libertarian principles and away from Statist principles. That is a very good thing, at least in my view.

Well thanks. I find it amusing that I am more of libertarian than you two despite being further left. I don't know why, it just made me chuckle.

I certainly consider myself a progressive in that if something no longer appropriate or has become counterproductive so society, it should be changed or scrapped. But at the same time I don't agree with change for the sake of change.

My basic philosophy is that I expect a government to act as a leader, but not as a ruler. I guess for me it is about earned authority. This is why I do not like authoritarian structures such as churches because we do not have a say in how they are run, we do not elect them or get a chance to vote them out, yet they presume authority over the lives of everybody; it is also why I support capitalism but still desire a degree of government keeping a watchful eye on corporate activity. At the same time I place a lot of trust in the scientific method because of the status it has earned by continuing to prove itself effective and its capacity for self-correction.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Well thanks. I find it amusing that I am more of libertarian than you two despite being further left. I don't know why, it just made me chuckle.

It is amusing, but rather simple to explain. I am going to bet that the difference is almost certainly centered on sexual issues - American's are decidedly more prudish than their European counterparts. How else does one explain the lack of a Page Three girl in our newspapers?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I certainly consider myself a progressive in that if something is no longer appropriate or has become counterproductive to society, it should be changed or scrapped. But at the same time I don't agree with change for the sake of change.

I suspect the term progressive has a distinctly different meaning between our two countries. In this country, the term "progressive" carries decidedly socialist or Marxist connotations and is linked to our 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, who gave us, among many other things, the "progressive" income tax system that is now such a source of abuse by our Federal government.

I do not believe the term "progressive" carries this same distinction in your country, would I be right?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:My basic philosophy is that I expect a government to act as a leader, but not as a ruler. I guess for me it is about earned authority. This is why I do not like authoritarian structures such as churches because we do not have a say in how they are run, we do not elect them or get a chance to vote them out, yet they presume authority over the lives of everybody; it is also why I support capitalism but still desire a degree of government keeping a watchful eye on corporate activity. At the same time I place a lot of trust in the scientific method because of the status it has earned by continuing to prove itself effective and its capacity for self-correction.

I cannot disagree with any of those views whatsoever, including your view on capitalism and government's role. I would only submit that in our country, that government role has become abusive of capitalism and between regulation, law and the tax system, the government has created an edifice that no longer protects against abuse, but is it itself the abuser, picking winners and losers at the whim of politicians through regulation and taxes.

dblboggie wrote:It is amusing, but rather simple to explain. I am going to bet that the difference is almost certainly centered on sexual issues - American's are decidedly more prudish than their European counterparts. How else does one explain the lack of a Page Three girl in our newspapers?

That's what drives me crazy over here. Not enuff naked women!

Seriously, it's far too prudish in the USA. I draw a line on sex scenes on prime time television though (kids don't need to see that). But nudity on a beach? I had a heart murmur the first time i walked down a beach in Bremerhaven, Germany.

dblboggie wrote:I suspect the term progressive has a distinctly different meaning between our two countries. In this country, the term "progressive" carries decidedly socialist or Marxist connotations and is linked to our 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, who gave us, among many other things, the "progressive" income tax system that is now such a source of abuse by our Federal government.

I do not believe the term "progressive" carries this same distinction in your country, would I be right?

Just adding my opinion here. Progressive is the Dems' way of hiding their actual agenda. Conservative has always been conservative. The Dems went from the word Liberal to the word Progressive. I've met liberals on other boards that do not like being called a liberal. Go figure.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:It is amusing, but rather simple to explain. I am going to bet that the difference is almost certainly centered on sexual issues - American's are decidedly more prudish than their European counterparts. How else does one explain the lack of a Page Three girl in our newspapers?

That's what drives me crazy over here. Not enuff naked women!

Seriously, it's far too prudish in the USA. I draw a line on sex scenes on prime time television though (kids don't need to see that). But nudity on a beach? I had a heart murmur the first time i walked down a beach in Bremerhaven, Germany.

Honestly, I could care less. If prudish is what the American people want out of religious or moral concerns, then I say let them have it. This is the 21st century, I can see all the naked women I want, at time, night or day. Besides, I've been a nude beach here in America (Blacks Beach in San Diego county), and there were some people there that I thought should NEVER be seen naked...

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I suspect the term progressive has a distinctly different meaning between our two countries. In this country, the term "progressive" carries decidedly socialist or Marxist connotations and is linked to our 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, who gave us, among many other things, the "progressive" income tax system that is now such a source of abuse by our Federal government.

I do not believe the term "progressive" carries this same distinction in your country, would I be right?

Just adding my opinion here. Progressive is the Dems' way of hiding their actual agenda. Conservative has always been conservative. The Dems went from the word Liberal to the word Progressive. I've met liberals on other boards that do not like being called a liberal. Go figure.

I have never understood this point. I have no problem saying what my political leanings are. I have no problem being called a conservative. It's what I call myself. But liberals all too often seem loath to reveal their political leanings and tend to couch them in terms like "independent" or "centrist" and the like. I say, say it loud and say it proud. Be who you are!

By the way, "progressive" is the lousiest way for a Democrat to hide their actual agenda. Any one with a shred of intelligence knows exactly what this euphemism really means in this country.

I've never been ashamed of being a conservative. But i was ashamed to be a Republican a few years back. I disowned them as we all know. Libertarianism is the way to go as, for the most part, it stands for what conservatism is all about. They have several platforms that liberals would like but they shy away from it.

TexasBlue wrote:I've never been ashamed of being a conservative. But i was ashamed to be a Republican a few years back. I disowned them as we all know. Libertarianism is the way to go as, for the most part, it stands for what conservatism is all about. They have several platforms that liberals would like but they shy away from it.

I am not ashamed of being a registered Republican, but I am incensed at what the party leadership has done to the Republican Party. Hopefully REAL Republicans will take the party back this November.

dblboggie wrote:and there were some people there that I thought should NEVER be seen naked...

I second that. As somebody who has been to Greece many times (where topless sunbathing is acceptable) you will generally find that it is not the young and attractive women that sunbathe topless.

dblboggie wrote:I have never understood this point. I have no problem saying what my political leanings are. I have no problem being called a conservative. It's what I call myself. But liberals all too often seem loath to reveal their political leanings and tend to couch them in terms like "independent" or "centrist" and the like. I say, say it loud and say it proud. Be who you are!

I can really only defend my European cousins here in that most would identify themselves as a liberal to each other. In fact, I would describe myself as liberal and if you look at the origins of the movement in the 19th century, I'm pretty sure I would identify mostly with that description.

To you Americans, they (and I) would be a little more cautious because of the negative connotation it has come to have in your society. Where you are, the term "liberal" seems to mean anything from a Social Democrat to a Marxist that is based partly on a misunderstanding, part parody and partly pure fabrication of what a liberal is. A true liberal is never that far left and that is why there have been so many arguments on SP over what a liberal is and you two are just as guilty of this parody as anybody else on there. So is it any wonder people would loath to identify themselves as a liberal to you when you make such vast sweeping assumptions about their political position? I'm not trying to start a fight, but I've had cross words with both of you over this issue and we still do sometimes now.

dblboggie wrote:I do not believe the term "progressive" carries this same distinction in your country, would I be right?

"Progressive" I see as simply the opposite of "Conservatism", where conservatism is the preservation of what is, progressiveness is slow and cautious change to keep up with the modern world. This is in line with true Liberal thought. Going back to the birth of the Labour party (when they were true socialists) you would never see words like "progressive" being banded around, they would be using words more like "revolutionary" and other words we would associate with Marx.

An also in my experience "independent" is used by those who like to consider their vote carefully rather than voting the same way because that's the way they have always voted. Over here we use the term "floating voter" and I certainly identify as one of those.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I have never understood this point. I have no problem saying what my political leanings are. I have no problem being called a conservative. It's what I call myself. But liberals all too often seem loath to reveal their political leanings and tend to couch them in terms like "independent" or "centrist" and the like. I say, say it loud and say it proud. Be who you are!

I can really only defend my European cousins here in that most would identify themselves as a liberal to each other. In fact, I would describe myself as liberal and if you look at the origins of the movement in the 19th century, I'm pretty sure I would identify mostly with that description.

Actually, it has been my experience that those on your side of the pond do not eschew the label of liberal. It does not carry the same baggage with it that it does here in the US.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:To you Americans, they (and I) would be a little more cautious because of the negative connotation it has come to have in your society. Where you are, the term "liberal" seems to mean anything from a Social Democrat to a Marxist that is based partly on a misunderstanding, part parody and partly pure fabrication of what a liberal is. A true liberal is never that far left and that is why there have been so many arguments on SP over what a liberal is and you two are just as guilty of this parody as anybody else on there. So is it any wonder people would loath to identify themselves as a liberal to you when you make such vast sweeping assumptions about their political position? I'm not trying to start a fight, but I've had cross words with both of you over this issue and we still do sometimes now.

Okay, this is good. I actually wanted to have this discussion; first, so we could finally agree to cast off the old stereotypes, parodies and fabrications of political labeling so prevalent next door. I want to take the opportunity this site provides to say we should be able to have open and candid discourse on the issues without the nonsense that such discussions can devolve into when petty labeling comes into play. I think we can all agree on this.

Now, as for the term “liberal,” it is true that here in America a liberal is rather too broadly defined. And it is certainly not defined the same way in the UK and Europe as it is here. Truth be told, there is no concise and definitive definition of “liberal” in the US anymore. Of course, I am sure you know that I could be defined as a “liberal” if one were using the classical definition of “liberal” as classical liberals were for all those things that we here in the US now identify with “conservatism” – limited government, personal liberty, freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press, a free market, and so on. Of course, this is not a comprehensive definition by any means, but you get the drift, and I’m sure you are aware of this anyway. As happens over time, these terms become perverted or even co-opted by politics. As it happens, I suspect this is what occurred in America; the primary force behind that co-opting and perverting of the term being our 28th President Woodrow Wilson, who was actually a progressive (which party – it was an actually party – had a largely socialist platform completely incompatible with our Constitution).

At any rate, I’m prattling on here. Today, in America, the term “liberal” and “progressive” are now more closely associated with socialism than anything else. And by socialism I mean a larger government role in the means of production, if not an outright co-opting of certain sectors of our economy. And I can understand that this does not carry the same significance to those in the UK or Europe, that it does here, but the majority of American’s still self identify as “conservative” (which you might read as more aligned to classical liberalism and not traditional conservatism), and are against an ever expanding role of government in the private sector, or the government takeover of any portion of it.

Now all of this rambling is my way of trying to give you some perspective on how these terms are loosely defined here in the US.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I do not believe the term "progressive" carries this same distinction in your country, would I be right?

"Progressive" I see as simply the opposite of "Conservatism", where conservatism is the preservation of what is, progressiveness is slow and cautious change to keep up with the modern world. This is in line with true Liberal thought. Going back to the birth of the Labour party (when they were true socialists) you would never see words like "progressive" being banded around, they would be using words more like "revolutionary" and other words we would associate with Marx.

Ah! That is as I thought. In the US, “conservatism” is not actually for the preservation of what is in the traditional sense, as much as it is about those ideals of classical liberalism that I cited above. Conservatives in the US have nothing against progress, but one can have progress while still adhering to the core principles of limited government, personal freedom and independence, and free markets. We believe we can have progress while still maintaining a strict constructionist reading of the constitution, and holding the federal government to its enumerated powers.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:An also in my experience "independent" is used by those who like to consider their vote carefully rather than voting the same way because that's the way they have always voted. Over here we use the term "floating voter" and I certainly identify as one of those.

Ah. Okay, fair enough; and actually, given the party scene there, with such a variety, that makes sense.

I don't need to take the test. I know where I stand politically - and so does everyone else in here. But since the topic of Page 3 girls was brought up, since it is just about 2011 calendar time, I was wondering who I should get? I'm thinking Hollie or Rhian.

i_luv_miley wrote:I don't need to take the test. I know where I stand politically - and so does everyone else in here. But since the topic of Page 3 girls was brought up, since it is just about 2011 calendar time, I was wondering who I should get? I'm thinking Hollie or Rhian.

I knew just where I stood politically as well. Hell, I've actually spent my life working for to implement my political positions. But I took the tests anyway. I wanted to see how accurately they portrayed my actual political positions. Neither was completely accurate, but the first was the closest. You should take the tests if for no other reason than to test their accuracy. That is why I took the tests. And I was unafraid to post their results, or my interpretation of them.

You should take the tests ILM... you might be surprised at the outcomes.

Just saying....

i_luv_miley wrote:I don't need to take the test. I know where I stand politically - and so does everyone else in here. But since the topic of Page 3 girls was brought up, since it is just about 2011 calendar time, I was wondering who I should get? I'm thinking Hollie or Rhian.

I did the test for ya, ILM, so you don't have to.

dblboggie wrote:Actually, it has been my experience that those on your side of the pond do not eschew the label of liberal. It does not carry the same baggage with it that it does here in the US.

If anything we find it bizarre that you do and how such a term can be used as insults by politicians against each other.

dblboggie wrote:I’m sure you are aware of this anyway. As happens over time, these terms become perverted or even co-opted by politics.

Far too often for my liking.

dblboggie wrote:but the majority of American’s still self identify as “conservative” (which you might read as more aligned to classical liberalism and not traditional conservatism), and are against an ever expanding role of government in the private sector, or the government takeover of any portion of it.

I get that entirely. Obviously as we do not have any rules about such government interference, and sometimes we see government regulation as necessary or even preferable, we have less of a problem with it. However, when governments do take over industry here they are usually quite keen to sell those utilities off at the earliest convenience and privatisation was a disaster for our once world class rail network. We now have an aging decrepit rail network with trains that are fast becoming obsolete, prices are rocketing and rails are rusting... but the investors and shareholders are making a mint from the exhorbitant prices they charge and zero investment with it so I suppose that makes it ok! Ask most people here about whether they think the rail network ought to be renationalised and you will get a resounding "yes".

dblboggie wrote:Ah! That is as I thought. In the US, “conservatism” is not actually for the preservation of what is in the traditional sense, as much as it is about those ideals of classical liberalism that I cited above.

But the dictionary definition of "conservative" is one of preservation.

dblboggie wrote:Conservatives in the US have nothing against progress, but one can have progress while still adhering to the core principles of limited government, personal freedom and independence, and free markets.

I can agree to an extent, but I'm not sure classical liberalism really says anything about the nature of the market system to be used. If anything, that there needs to be a degree of government interference... simply because of the time it arose in the middle of corporate exploitation in the industrial revolution. That is why I said on the other thread that the rise of liberalism was because of the free market world and the desire to control such exploitation (though I probably didn't use those exact words).

dblboggie wrote:We believe we can have progress while still maintaining a strict constructionist reading of the constitution, and holding the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Well I certainly agree with that.

dblboggie wrote:Ah. Okay, fair enough; and actually, given the party scene there, with such a variety, that makes sense.

As an aside, would you say people over there are cautious of voting for much smaller parties? Tex's outspoken declaration of support for an underdog such as The Libertarian Party wouldn't necessarily be seen as a wasted vote here, but I get the impression that over there it probably would be with so few actual politicans in these parties taking active part in government.

Where did my response to this last post go?????????

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERAL!

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

There you go.

Nobody answered the most important thing though. Which Page 3 girl should go on my wall next year?

i_luv_miley wrote:Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERAL!

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

There you go.

Nobody answered the most important thing though. Which Page 3 girl should go on my wall next year?

But does the result conform to your own view of your political stance?

As for the important question... I couldn't say... I'm on the wrong side of the pond to give advice on that question... you'll have to ask Matt...

Though his wife might have something to say about that...

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERAL!

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

There you go.

Nobody answered the most important thing though. Which Page 3 girl should go on my wall next year?

But does the result conform to your own view of your political stance?

As for the important question... I couldn't say... I'm on the wrong side of the pond to give advice on that question... you'll have to ask Matt...

Though his wife might have something to say about that...

It absolutely confoms to my views. It should though since I answered the questions. But yeah, I see what you're asking... And yes, I agree with the result. If the questions are decent and the test is fair then it shouldn't say anything to us that we don't already know (about ourselves). Having said that though, obviously ten questions isn't enough to get more than a broad sense of where people stand. But at least as far as those questions were concerned, it pegged me pretty well.

re: page 3 girl - I'm thinking I'll just get both Hollie and Rhian and be done with it.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is... LIBERAL!

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

There you go.

Nobody answered the most important thing though. Which Page 3 girl should go on my wall next year?

But does the result conform to your own view of your political stance?

As for the important question... I couldn't say... I'm on the wrong side of the pond to give advice on that question... you'll have to ask Matt...

Though his wife might have something to say about that...

It absolutely confoms to my views. It should though since I answered the questions. But yeah, I see what you're asking... And yes, I agree with the result. If the questions are decent and the test is fair then it shouldn't say anything to us that we don't already know (about ourselves). Having said that though, obviously ten questions isn't enough to get more than a broad sense of where people stand. But at least as far as those questions were concerned, it pegged me pretty well.

re: page 3 girl - I'm thinking I'll just get both Hollie and Rhian and be done with it.

I understand. The reason I asked is I was mildly surprised by my result on that test... it had me pegged a lot more libertarian that I thought I was. And I think that is because the test is only 10 questions long. The other longer test, pegged me as more centrist that I know I am. I was just curious if anyone else would be surprised at the results.

As for the page 3 girl... good choice...

dblboggie wrote:Where did my response to this last post go?????????

There is a problem with this forum in that if you move away while typing a post (by accident or design) you lose everything. Many a time that has happened to me.

I just wanted to correct myself on one thing though. I have been looking into early liberalism and I was wrong about Classical Liberalism. I was getting it confused with Social Liberalism which includes a philosophy on social responsibility. Most Europeans would identify in this category today.

This core philosophy is why we often desire a level of government interference, why we want industry regulators, offices of fair trading and standards authorities.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Where did my response to this last post go?????????

There is a problem with this forum in that if you move away while typing a post (by accident or design) you lose everything. Many a time that has happened to me.

Thing is, I didn't move away; I just typed my response and hit preview, was satisfied and hit send and it went. When I came back later, it was gone...

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I just wanted to correct myself on one thing though. I have been looking into early liberalism and I was wrong about Classical Liberalism. I was getting it confused with Social Liberalism which includes a philosophy on social responsibility. Most Europeans would identify in this category today.

This core philosophy is why we often desire a level of government interference, why we want industry regulators, offices of fair trading and standards authorities.

Exactly... early liberalism, that is liberalism as understood in the 19th century, was focused on things like individualism, liberty, private property rights, equal rights (but not equal results), said rights being considered inalienable, as well as a free economy with minimal government interference. This is why I closely identify with classical liberalism. I can appreciate the times in which this concept was formed. Governments were far more oppressive and far more controlling of enterprise. There is a balance that is optimal for both encouraging the prosperity of all, while protecting against abuse... I believe that the combination of free-market capitalism and constitutional republicanism created here represented that ideal balance.

Of course the erosive effects of human nature have had their predictable effects on this once very successful system and politicians greedy for power have corrupted it into a system of government sponsored crony capitalism. But all that is needed to correct that is a move away from the tax system and regulations that have given the government the ability to manipulate businesses toward a preservation, and even expansion of government power.

PS: See my siggy below for one of our founder's thoughts on this matter.