Monday, February 2, 2009

Where I Am On The Political Compass




















I still think this test is deeply flawed for a number of reasons. Just check out their laughable take on the 2008 presidential elections. Ralph Nader and totalitarian state-socialist Brian Moore are deemed the most libertarian (!?), Mike Gravel is deemed a right-winger (!?), Ron Paul is deemed an authoritarian (!?), Chuck Baldwin is deemed more authoritarian than John McCain (!?). Hardly takes a rocket scientist to see how flawed that is.

10 comments:

anarcho-mercantilist said...

I took the test about ten times in the past, each one with different results on the economic axis. However, I have always remained the same in the libertarian/authoritarian axis, just like your results, with approximately four rows up from the bottom.

Since you blogged about this, I just retook the test. On the economic axis, I scored one column to the right of the center. This matched with my previous results, which I took a few months ago.

Cork said: "deemed a right-winger"

The terms "left" and "right" have no definite meanings. I see these terms as abstractions, and the communication of these causes confusion to others. I try, in all cases, to eliminate my usage of these terms, even when I do critiques of those who self-identify as "left" or "right." Thus, I do not even describe myself as "anti-left" nor "anti-right," since these terms have multiple meanings, and can easily lead to misuse, might unintentionally provoke others from the "left" and "right" stereotypes, and equivocation fallacies. The terms "left" and "right" function as hasty generalizations based on the non-existent Democrat/Republican dichotomy.

Unlike some of the "left"-libertarians (Spangler, Long, Brainpolice, Johnson) I oppose redefining or abstaining the usage of some terms like "capitalism." These "left"-libertarians oppose "capitalism," not only because they advocate propaganda, but mainly because they have mutualist or neo-mutualist views. They believe that the non-cooperative ownership of the means of production (they call this the "monopolization of capital") will "force" wage laborers to produce unnecessary surplus labor.

Both of the mutualists and the Marxians have a negative view on the "monopolization of capital." Both the mutualists and the Marxians believe that the "monopolization of capital" will enable capitalists to steal surplus value from the workers. However, the mutualists and the Marxians differ on the cause of the "monopolization of capital." The Marxians believe that the free market inherently "monopolizes capital." The mutualists believe that the state "monopolizes capital," not the free market. However, both of them have an inaccurate view on the "monopolization of capital" (as defined per above), since the it does not, per se, privilege the capitalist at the expense of the worker.

Therefore, the mutualists and the neo-mutualists have a "negative view" on employment, since it supposedly forces "surplus labor." They would also likely prefer a double standard on cooperatives over employment.

I support "capitalism" because I do not hold these mutualist or neo-mutualist beliefs.

These "left"-libertarians will attempt some tactics to redefine capitalism, such as doing fallacious arguments based on the [incorrectly interpreted] historical usages of capitalism and appeals to authority. But, in reality, they oppose capitalism, not just because they advocate General Semantics (see Spangler's post on that) or whatnot, but mainly because they have mutualist or neo-mutualist views.

Even I, myself, practice General Semantics. I try to eliminate the usage of vague and abstract concepts, such as "left" and "right," and I write in E-Prime. But I do not practice propaganda, as these "left"-libertarians do at the expense of others.

Rorshak (1313) said...

I retook the test and here's where I fell.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=5.00&soc=-6.92

Some of the questions are hard to answer. The one about one vs. multiple parties doesn't make much sense if you oppose political democracy.

Also, I have to wonder what the questions about abstract art and astrology have to do with politics at all.

Cork said...

Yeah, the question I thought was the most ridiculous was "when you are troubled, it's best not to think about it." Wtf does that mean? How is it relevant to politics at all? Am I missing something?

Cork said...

Anarcho-mercantilist,

I support "capitalism" because I do not hold these mutualist or neo-mutualist beliefs.

Agreed. This is the main distinction that I never really see Brainpolice address: mutualists oppose economic capitalism.

That is, they think it's immoral for someone who contributes capital to an enterprise to take some of the profits (even if it's voluntary and mutually beneficial).

I don't think the "brainpolice" crowd has a strong enough grasp of mutualism or exploitation theories in general to understand what this means. So they start a stupid definition war over the word "capitalism" every time it's brought up.

anarcho-mercantilist said...

Cork, thanks for your reply. I became a little worried that some others might have assumed my long comment as trolling. I accidentally elongated my comment in attempt to clarify and show evidence for the details, and this happens often. I apologize for that.

Cork said...

No worries, I don't think you're trolling. I get accused of "trolling" all the time, simply for disagreeing with someone else.

Anonymous said...

"That is, they think it's immoral for someone who contributes capital to an enterprise to take some of the profits (even if it's voluntary and mutually beneficial)."

Mutualists DO NOT, as a rule, oppose entrepreneurial profit; they believe that capitalists are not entitled to assume a greater profit than the market will allow (usury). This makes it not too dissimilar from free-market capitalism.

Cork said...

Mutualists DO NOT, as a rule, oppose entrepreneurial profit; they believe that capitalists are not entitled to assume a greater profit than the market will allow (usury).

On entrepreneurial profit, I believe you're right (although it's kind of vague and fuzzy).

But they don't think the market will allow capitalists to profit any higher than zero--at least not after compensation for risk and time and whatever. (IMO, the only reason they believe this is because they want it to be so.) It all goes back to Tucker's 'What' is a thing. 'Who' is person. drivel.

anarcho-mercantilist said...

"Mutualists DO NOT, as a rule, oppose entrepreneurial profit;"

Anonymous, even that they do not oppose entrepreneurial profit, the mutualists oppose "return on capital" or "capital gains" which you conflate with "profit." Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose those, and can exist naturally in a free market; the low time-preference savers (the capitalists) will earn economic rent. I mentioned that in a blog post of mine (see section 4).

Anonymous said...

(IMO, the only reason they believe this is because they want it to be so.)

Really presumptuous. I doubt many mutualists (including myself) would honestly give a damn if it were proven that the cost principle is bogus. It would just mean a readjustment of what is acceptable and what is not.