NationStates Jolt Archive

**NEWS** First release of the political-quiz. The first section (Social Policy) is somewhat finished. Some minor tweaking and more deliberation on the overall design needs to be done. It also needs feedback to determine a "realistic" political stance, rather than one based upon ideology alone. Most surveys don't take into account the amount of control that governments can have, because populism isn't as popular as, say, anarchism or libertarianism, especially in the civilized world. Because of there, there's a bias in not asking questions like, "Should citizens be executed at your command?", and so on. Adding populist questions makes any graph slant more to the left (because the extremist right-wing populists balance out all of the other conservatives).

The current version of the quiz can be viewed here:
http://fapfap.org/quiz1.php

After seeing politicalcompass.org, I was interested to learn that the characterization of "left" and "right" is highly incorrect, because they do not inherently lean towards the same tendencies. They lean towards the same permissiveness vs. control, yes, but in different areas: economics and morality. However, I also believed that a 2-dimensional political spectrum was incorrect as well, because it does not take foreign policy into account. In other words, past Republicans who believed in Conservative economic and social policy were isolationists. The Neoconservatives and plenty of modern Republicans are expansionists. The reverse is true for Democrats. But they have switched roles, despite believing in pretty much the same policies. Dictators, such as Hitler, were expansionists. Whereas many other dictators (like the Chinese Emperor who built the Great Wall of China) were isolationists. Some Communists, for example advocate expansionists in terms of promoting worldwide revolution. Many other Communists do not. So, there needs to be a distinction.

Now, you could consider "isolationism" and "expansionism" to be part of economic policy, but that's not exactly true. Isolationism and expansionism involve how much outside involvement a government should have with foreign governments, though that is usually and is supported by economics, not always. Even social policy and economic policy intersect, such as with the cost for the death penalty, or social welfare could arguably be considered either as well. Conservatives and Neoconservatives both support Conservative economic and social policies, and both advocate expansionism, but Neoconservatives seem to advocate greater expansionism, not just by encouraging free-trade, but also by invading non-democratic countries or democracies we don't like. And they don't seem to do it for strictly economic reasons (as with Hitler), but also for moral reasons, possibly related to Judeo-Christianity. Islamic countries also seem to be expansionist for the same moral reasons: That a worldwide Muslim Theocracy is what they believe would be the best for the world.

So, I've proposed a 3-dimensional political spectrum:
http://fapfap.org/youngspectrum.gif
The three factors are:
Social Policy
Libertarianism---Authoritarianism (Moralism)

Economic Policy
Anarchism---Socialism

Foreign Policy
Isolationism---Expansionism

In essence, the "left" and "right" characterization is still there, but it's been further refined. The "left inherently represents greater freedom for the individual and government permissiveness. The "right" inherently represents greater governmental control. That may not be the way we typically view "left" and "right", but that is because we've been using a flawed one-dimensional spectrum for so long, which only takes social policy into account. But, in truth, modern Republican economics are what Libertarians claim: classical liberalism. Modern liberal economics draws from a change in liberal ideology, probably also greatly influenced by Marxism.

Oh, and I'm also developing a new political compass. Because there are a series of fundamental flaws in two political quizzes I've seen (including politicalcompass.org), which can be corrected. A third quiz may have also have been flawed, but I'd need to further analyze it. But in any case, I didn't like, and I don't believe it took a 3D spectrum into account. Ultimately, a 4D graph might need to be made (in other words, an animation, with time representing the fourth dimension). But I see no need to add a further dimension, unless anyone has a suggestion.

genius

great, why dont you write a paper for the American Journal of Political Science and see what they think.

great, why dont you write a paper for the American Journal of Political Science and see what they think.
Because I'm a college student without a bachelor's degree? And though I was on the Dean's list a couple semesters ago, I totally screwed up my grades for the last two semesters because I was depressed.

Because I'm a college student without a bachelor's degree? And though I was on the Dean's list a couple semesters ago, I totally screwed up my grades for the last two semesters because I was depressed.
Big fucking deal. Get over it.

Even though I want to strangle you on a daily basis....this borders on genius. Great idea. All we need now is someone (who is better than me at PHP) to program the back end for a 3D political compass site. I will volunteer my time and effort to design the front end. *thumbs up*

Now... write that paper, biotch! :D

I like this idea, personally (Libertarian Anarchist, myself), and if it is refined and made in to a site like political compass, it would be successful. Perhaps it could be adopted as a better measure of political beliefs than L-C-R is (that idea's been out of date since the French revolution)


Because I'm a college student without a bachelor's degree? And though I was on the Dean's list a couple semesters ago, I totally screwed up my grades for the last two semesters because I was depressed.

That's pretty unfortunate. Still, you should work on it. Many great ideas were developed by people who lacked formal training, and it's even more likely that a degree in PolSci might hurt your independent thinking.

Big fucking deal. Get over it.

Even though I want to strangle you on a daily basis....this borders on genius. Great idea. All we need now is someone (who is better than me at PHP) to program the back end for a 3D political compass site. I will volunteer my time and effort to design the front end. *thumbs up*

Now... write that paper, biotch! :D
I am better than you at PHP. I programmed my site in PHP and I know enough to design a new political compass. I'm working on it right now as we speak.

Take a look at my test-page, just to see if I knew what I was doing.
http://fapfap.org/quiz.php

It only records the value of the first question... The second page tells you the value for the answer you selected, and the the answer's number written twice, in different ways (one's just a copy, stored as a variable for PHP to alter, then re-post).

I am better than you at PHP. I programmed my site in PHP and I know enough to design a new political compass. I'm working on it right now as we speak.
now, now, that's no way to ease his wanting to strangle you on a daily basis :)

I can think of even more problems:

One - What about political freedoms? I know some people who are athenocratic litertarian socialists, and some who are democratic authoritan capitalists. Anarchy - dictatorship

Label Anarchism should read capitalizm, IMHO.

now, now, that's no way to ease his wanting to strangle you on a daily basis :)
*falls over laughing* :p

I've seen stuff like this before, still, it looks well thought out. Simple enough to be both understandable and applicable in an online form, and yet accepts most of the complexities of politics.
Well done.

I am better than you at PHP. I programmed my site in PHP and I know enough to design a new political compass. I'm working on it right now as we speak.

Don't be a cocky ass... but, alright. Good deal.

Take a look at my test-page, just to see if I knew what I was doing.
http://fapfap.org/quiz.php

I like the idea... but we SERIOUSLY need to work on the answers to the questions. Example: 1st question: You COMPLETELY forgot the idea (answer) that the government should have NOTHING to do with marriage.

It only records the value of the first question... The second page tells you the value for the answer you selected, and the the answer's number written twice, in different ways (one's just a copy, stored as a variable for PHP to alter, then re-post).

I can tweak CMSs, but building something from scratch is not my forte. I'll leave that to you. But, seriously, I'm offerring to help on frontend design and to help with the question/answer design. I think this is a great idea. TG me if you want to work together on this.
Replys in bold.

I can think of even more problems:

One - What about political freedoms? I know some people who are athenocratic litertarian socialists, and some who are democratic authoritan capitalists. Anarchy - dictatorship

Label Anarchism should read capitalizm, IMHO.
I considered that because that's how NS is designed, but political freedoms should not be included, because the entire reason for why a person would restrict political freedom is because they believe that they, as individuals, should have greater control over the government's economy or morality. So, generally, a person who is an extremist in either or both of those categories is going to be a fascist, and anyone who is moderate or liberal is going to be pro-democracy.

The basis for that, as well, is that people usually don't like control. When you look at the history of governments, ALL governments that completely or almost completely dictated morality or the economy were fascist. So, it isn't necessary, because it's automatically implied.

http://www.orgburo.com/pofo.php
I thought it was generally agreed upon that the Political Compass is found lacking.
I like this test better, it is longer and has many more dimensions.

I am better than you at PHP. I programmed my site in PHP and I know enough to design a new political compass. I'm working on it right now as we speak.

Take a look at my test-page, just to see if I knew what I was doing.
http://fapfap.org/quiz.php

It only records the value of the first question... The second page tells you the value for the answer you selected, and the the answer's number written twice, in different ways (one's just a copy, stored as a variable for PHP to alter, then re-post).

You're humble, too. :p

I second the "I'd like to strangle you, but I think you're on to something" bit. :D

Because I'm a college student without a bachelor's degree? And though I was on the Dean's list a couple semesters ago, I totally screwed up my grades for the last two semesters because I was depressed.

Sorry to hear about the depression, I hope you have recovered and/or gotten good treatment.

Been there. Doing that.

Anyway, the two bad semesters is no big deal. You'll bounce back. :)

Big fucking deal. Get over it.

Even though I want to strangle you on a daily basis....this borders on genius. Great idea. All we need now is someone (who is better than me at PHP) to program the back end for a 3D political compass site. I will volunteer my time and effort to design the front end. *thumbs up*

Now... write that paper, biotch! :D

Um. I'm glad you support his idea.

But telling someone "Big fucking deal. Get over it." doesn't really help depression. I hope you were just referring to the fact he had two bad semesters, and not his being depressed.

http://www.orgburo.com/pofo.php
I thought it was generally agreed upon that the Political Compass is found lacking.
I like this test better, it is longer and has many more dimensions.
It's still severely flawed and for the same reasons as politicalcompass. Only two dimensions (not many, as you said), no "unsure" choice, and it's actually worse, because "agree" is pre-selected, which would encourage people to automatically agree.

Um. I'm glad you support his idea.

But telling someone "Big fucking deal. Get over it." doesn't really help depression. I hope you were just referring to the fact he had two bad semesters, and not his being depressed.
CT.. STFU... I suffer from clinical depression. I HAVE a chemical imbalance. I take no drugs and I've learned how to regulate it myself. THAT is how I can say "get over it".

I don't mean it in a flippant way. Believe me, I know exactly how much it sucked before I got it under control. But, PS CAN get it under control...without drugs... that is all I referred to.

Um. I'm glad you support his idea.

But telling someone "Big fucking deal. Get over it." doesn't really help depression. I hope you were just referring to the fact he had two bad semesters, and not his being depressed.

I know Tex better than that to insult someone over dperession. He was reffering to the two bad semesters, I believe.

http://www.orgburo.com/pofo.php
I thought it was generally agreed upon that the Political Compass is found lacking.
I like this test better, it is longer and has many more dimensions.

Ooohhh. Haven't seen that one yet. Thanks!

It's still severely flawed and for the same reasons as politicalcompass...
How long is yours gonna take then?
But if you look at the result, it gives you many scales from Nationalist - Internationalist over Theist - Materialist to Marxist - Non-Marxist. Wouldn't that qualify as many dimensions?

I was joking about writing the paper. The whole point of having a visual spectrum is that it helps you to visualize and plot political beliefs. Because your model has three axis, it doesnt help visualize things. Assuming you manage to write the metrics properly, your model will be more accurate than the "political compass", but it will also be less legible and thus less useful. The more axis you begin to add the more difficult to understand it becomes. You could go on for ever adding more and more axis because politics is a complex thing. At different times and in different places all of the following axis have been important (and in todays world many of them continue to be important):

positive liberty vs negative liberty
radical vs conservative
progressive vs reactionary
urban vs rural
globalization vs autarky
socialism vs capitalism
clericalism vs anti-clericalism
multiculturalism vs nationalism
interventionism vs isolationism

The list could go on and on for ever. Just because your model is more accurate does not mean it is more useful. You could create a 15 or 20 axis model that is very accurate but utterly useless because it is so difficult to read. Two axis is enough, if you want to switch the axis to reflect things you find important, thats one thing but to just keep adding more and more axis to the model is not a good idea, you are making it less legible.

A more worthy project would be to fix the metrics on the political compass to make it more accurate.

I was joking about writing the paper. The whole point of having a visual spectrum is that it helps you to visualize and plot political beliefs. Because your model has three axis, it doesnt help visualize things. Assuming you manage to write the metrics properly, your model will be more accurate than the "political compass", but it will also be less legible and thus less useful. The more axis you begin to add the more difficult to understand it becomes. You could go on for ever adding more and more axis because politics is a complex thing. At different times and in different places all of the following axis have been important (and in todays world many of them continue to be important):

positive liberty vs negative liberty
radical vs conservative
progressive vs reactionary
urban vs rural
globalization vs autarky
socialism vs capitalism
clericalism vs anti-clericalism
multiculturalism vs nationalism
interventionism vs isolationism

The list could go on and on for ever. Just because your model is more accurate does not mean it is more useful. You could create a 15 or 20 axis model that is very accurate but utterly useless because it is so difficult to read. Two axis is enough, if you want to switch the axis to reflect things you find important, thats one thing but to just keep adding more and more axis to the model is not a good idea, you are making it less legible.

A more worthy project would be to fix the metrics on the political compass to make it more accurate.
All those categories you mentioned are merely sub-categories of the three I've listed. And although a 4-D graph (3-dimensional, with an animation to represent time as a fourth dimension) would be fairly difficult to view, my model will be easy to view, as the dot will be split into three sections and colored from red to blue (red being more right, blue being more left) in order to give the person a more accurate idea of where they stand. If I also manage to program it properly, the 3-D model will also size the dot appropriately, to give the person a sense of three dimensional perspective. The ultimate goal would be to convert the PHP into a C++ program, Shockwave movie, or Java applet, to allow a person to rotate the view, to get a perfect sense of perspective. And finally, it's still going to have extra graphs with the 2-dimensional scale, the traditional 1-dimensional scale, and a new 1-dimensional scale I'll design that's a composite of all the factors in my 3-D scale combined.

Believe me, I've considered all of this. 3-dimensional graphs are unorthodox, but they're useful and not hard to understand, if done properly. Travel through space, air (to some extent), and water all need to be graphed 3-dimensionally and they're helpful for people within those fields. There's no reason why a 3-D graph for political science wouldn't be useful as well.

All those categories you mentioned are merely sub-categories of the three I've listed. And although a 4-D graph (3-dimensional, with an animation to represent time as a fourth dimension) would be fairly difficult to view, my model will be easy to view, as the dot will be split into three sections and colored from red to blue (red being more right, blue being more left) in order to give the person a more accurate idea of where they stand. If I also manage to program it properly, the 3-D model will also size the dot appropriately, to give the person a sense of three dimensional perspective. The ultimate goal would be to convert the PHP into a C++ program, Shockwave movie, or Java applet, to allow a person to rotate the view, to get a perfect sense of perspective. And finally, it's still going to have extra graphs with the 2-dimensional scale, the traditional 1-dimensional scale, and a new 1-dimensional scale I'll design that's a composite of all the factors in my 3-D scale combined.

Believe me, I've considered all of this. 3-dimensional graphs are unorthodox, but they're useful and not hard to understand, if done properly. Travel through space, air (to some extent), and water all need to be graphed 3-dimensionally and they're helpful for people within those fields. There's no reason why a 3-D graph for political science wouldn't be useful as well.

I dont see how your chart purports to show all of the axis I mentioned and all of the ones I did not. Neither do I see how you plan on making it useful. But good luck.

Bah.
MY political specture has SEVEN dimensions, on FOUR cosmic planes and somehow employs quantum.
So NAH :P

Bah.
MY political specture has SEVEN dimensions, on FOUR cosmic planes and somehow employs quantum.
So NAH :P

Only seven?! Try twenty-four! And it not only employs quantum, it gives you an entire college course in a quarter of a second! :p

CT.. STFU... I suffer from clinical depression. I HAVE a chemical imbalance. I take no drugs and I've learned how to regulate it myself. THAT is how I can say "get over it".

I don't mean it in a flippant way. Believe me, I know exactly how much it sucked before I got it under control. But, PS CAN get it under control...without drugs... that is all I referred to.

Tex ... I suffer from clinical depression as well. I am sorry to hear you share that affliction.

I don't believe that entitles you to belittle it in others. I glad to hear that was not your intent. You may have noted that I did not assume you did, but asked for clarification.

Your personal experiences may justify your belief that depression should be treated best through self-control. That is a separate debate.

I know Tex better than that to insult someone over dperession. He was reffering to the two bad semesters, I believe.

I tried not to asume he was.

We were both wrong and right. Tex has said he was referring to the depression, but did not mean it as an insult.

Cat-Tribe, Texpundistan, and anyone else, I don't care.

How long is yours gonna take then?
But if you look at the result, it gives you many scales from Nationalist - Internationalist over Theist - Materialist to Marxist - Non-Marxist. Wouldn't that qualify as many dimensions?
I'm estimating a little over 100 questions. So far, the questions for the first section is finished, and there's going to be three sections and one mini-section. But the last section can be skipped, because it's mostly for entertainment, to try and guess, specifically, what your political ideology is. So, about 90 questions, plus a dozen or so novelty questions. Probably less, too, because there might be less than 30 questions for economic policy and foreign policy.

I dont see how your chart purports to show all of the axis I mentioned and all of the ones I did not. Neither do I see how you plan on making it useful. But good luck.
Okay, let me break apart the ideologies you mentioned:

positive liberty vs negative liberty
I don't understand what you mean, but this seems to be the same basis for all three scales, with "Libertarianism" (pro-liberty) and Authoritarianism (anti-Liberty).

radical vs conservative
First of all, radical and conservative aren't exactly opposites, but they can be, if you're talking about culture. And how you define "radical" is extremely subjective. Many consider abortion and gay marriage to be extreme deviations from American culture, many consider them minor deviations, and many don't consider them deviations from our culture at all. So, quantifying them is arbitrary. You also need to define what the current culture is and would be deviations from it (and how much certain policies deviate from it), otherwise, it's impossible to develop a test for it.


progressive vs reactionary
"Progressive" and "reactionary" are also highly-subjective terms that, most times, are meaningless. Just as with radical, you also need to define what the current culture is. Some Liberals are "reactionaries" to increased control over morality. And some Conservatives are "progressives" in promoting unprecedented government involvement with religion and morality, such as with faith-based initiatives.


urban vs rural
I don't see how that's an ideology. In terms of pro-industrialization (most people) vs. anti-industrialization (unabomber, conspiracy-theorists, survivalists), there's a conflict there, yes. Someone else suggested environmentalism in another forum and my answer to them is the same to you: It could, arguably, be a separate category because it is encompassed by both the economy (should we spend money on it?) and social policy (is it moral?, but it's not really expansive enough (it's a very specific issue) and it'd be impossible to draw an easy-to-view 4D graph. But I'll take into consideration, though, and toss it in with the "miscellaneous" section, taking it into account with the 2D and 1D graphs. Thanks.



globalization vs autarky
This is part of foreign policy and is a reason why I added the new factor.


socialism vs capitalism
That's the core of economic policy.


clericalism vs anti-clericalism
A sub-category of social policy, and not relevant, because a person being "evangelical" is not going to inherent support certain political policies, even though the most well-known evangelicals are conservatives, morally.


multiculturalism vs nationalism
Taken into account in social policy, in terms of how much people want immigrants to affect their country, and how many (and if they) should enter the country, and if flag-burning should be legal. It's also taken into account with foreign policy, to determine how much involvement (including with immigrants) people want with foreign countries.


interventionism vs isolationism
That's practically the basis for foreign policy scale.


The list could go on and on for ever. Just because your model is more accurate does not mean it is more useful. You could create a 15 or 20 axis model that is very accurate but utterly useless because it is so difficult to read. Two axis is enough, if you want to switch the axis to reflect things you find important, thats one thing but to just keep adding more and more axis to the model is not a good idea, you are making it less legible.

A more worthy project would be to fix the metrics on the political compass to make it more accurate.
Like I said before, 3D graphs are used by many experts for certain tasks. Just because they are uncommon and unconventional does not mean they are too difficult to read or unuseful. The only major reason 3D graphs are rarely used is because, aside from physics , mathematics, and aerospace, there rarely is a reason to use them.

Cat-Tribe, Texpundistan, and anyone else, I don't care. *snip*

Good for you. Sorry for the minor hijack. :)

I think that after the third demetion it is too dificult to try and place all the axises on one graph. Using seperate spectrums for each issue. If you had to use one image you could change the color of the marker.

ie a orange dot means a person favors a free economie while blue means a restricted economy.

do not comment on the spelliing/grammer.

Just use OkCupid.com... I don't know if anyone's suggested that yet, but it would be easy to make a three-dimensional politics test on that, with a bunch of categories.

Cat-Tribe, Texpundistan, and anyone else, I don't care.
Fine. I offered. F'ing SUE ME. No matter our political differences, I acknowledged the intelligence in your endeavor and offered to help. FUCK ME.

This will be the last time I go out of my way to help some ungrateful prick.

/me signs off.

Tex ... I suffer from clinical depression as well. I am sorry to hear you share that affliction.

I don't believe that entitles you to belittle it in others. I glad to hear that was not your intent. You may have noted that I did not assume you did, but asked for clarification.

Your personal experiences may justify your belief that depression should be treated best through self-control. That is a separate debate.


There are many degrees of clinical depression and some CANNOT be corrected without medication, EVER. Don't assume your situation is exactly the same as others. Self control is IMPOSSIBLE for some degrees of depression. I would venture to guess your depression was not on the lowest end of the scale. You may think it was, until you experience something worse. You never know until you experience it.

A person who has never experienced depression can never understand how painful it is. I would rather have my arm hacked off with no anesthesia than go through depression. Mental pain is far far more painful than any physical pain, and I've had cluster headaches...

There are many degrees of clinical depression and some CANNOT be corrected without medication, EVER. Don't assume your situation is exactly the same as others. Self control is IMPOSSIBLE for some degrees of depression. I would venture to guess your depression was not on the lowest end of the scale. You may think it was, until you experience something worse. You never know until you experience it.

A person who has never experienced depression can never understand how painful it is. I would rather have my arm hacked off with no anesthesia than go through depression. Mental pain is far far more painful than any physical pain, and I've had cluster headaches...

Wow. Don't point that thing at me!

We have the same view! And, unfortunately, some of the same experience! (Sorry to hear that.)

Your dispute is with Tex.

(And Shrub would rather we not fight it here. Sorry, Shrub!)

Ultimately, a 4D graph might need to be made (in other words, an animation, with time representing the fourth dimension). But I see no need to add a further dimension, unless anyone has a suggestion.

I think your model grasps many aspects, but if you look at World History you can pick some points in time where the world changed dramaticcally and irreversibilly. I gues many of them are technologically in nature, i. e. the book press, the steam machines. I think it is fruitfull to say these points establish important before/after differences

No matter if you agree with this I wish you good luck with your promissing project.

Fine. I offered. F'ing SUE ME. No matter our political differences, I acknowledged the intelligence in your endeavor and offered to help. FUCK ME.

This will be the last time I go out of my way to help some ungrateful prick.

/me signs off.Gee, get a grip, Tex.
He just said he wasn't interesred in the side subject.

Gee, get a grip, Tex.
He just said he wasn't interesred in the side subject.

Call me crazy, but I think Tex was being remotely sarcastic in his rant, as he was seemingly getting frustrated and depressed at the drop of a hat... I think it was meant as a joke... or maybe he's insane. I'm pretty sure it's the former, though.

When I first saw political compass, I thought the three should be:

x-axis: social (liberal/conservative)
y-axis: economic (left/right)
z-axis: political (libertarian/authoritarian)

Foreign policy would be better suited under the z-axis.
But hey, there's always the hypercube...

Mr. Young (President Shrub), I thought about a 3D spectrum since last year (after encountering the Political Compass) and it's a little different to yours.

Instead of foreign policy, I had "Imposing" for the z-axis. It should be able to measure how one is willing to impose his views (scored on the x and y axis). If one's views are extremely imposing, then he or she would be likely to proliferate these views overseas through means of fair or foul. Unimposing (negative score) means that the person is likely to get along with society or hide his views for the status quo. To cut a long story short, it's basically how strongly a person feels about his views.

I hate to surprise you further, but I'm an engineering student. My idea just sprung up when I was taking a leak.

x-axis: social (liberal/conservative)
y-axis: economic (left/right)
z-axis: political (libertarian/authoritarian)


Isn't social and political very similar.

Economic Policy
Anarchism---Socialism

those aren't opposites.

Fine. I offered. F'ing SUE ME. No matter our political differences, I acknowledged the intelligence in your endeavor and offered to help. FUCK ME.

This will be the last time I go out of my way to help some ungrateful prick.

/me signs off.
Cat-Tribe, you can start defending me again. But don't report him for flaming. This is amusing. He says, "Big deal", about my emotional problems (although he nicely encouraged my intellectual endeavors), but thinks he deserves some credit for basic human kindess. And all I said was, I don't care. Frankly, I don't care. Texpunditistan, your opinions of my emotional problems make no difference to me, but I appreciate the somewhat kind words. <Insert inappropriate Nazi joke involving "gold stars" here>

Mr. Young (President Shrub), I thought about a 3D spectrum since last year (after encountering the Political Compass) and it's a little different to yours.

Instead of foreign policy, I had "Imposing" for the z-axis. It should be able to measure how one is willing to impose his views (scored on the x and y axis). If one's views are extremely imposing, then he or she would be likely to proliferate these views overseas through means of fair or foul. Unimposing (negative score) means that the person is likely to get along with society or hide his views for the status quo. To cut a long story short, it's basically how strongly a person feels about his views.

I hate to surprise you further, but I'm an engineering student. My idea just sprung up when I was taking a leak.
Yes, but "imposing" is a very broad term. And the basis for the other two scales is whether or not they're more imposing or less imposing on others' freedoms.

Isn't social and political very similar.
No, they aren't. But, as I said before, political is encompassed by economic and social. Low social freedom and\or low economic freedom implies low political freedom.

Yes, but "imposing" is a very broad term. And the basis for the other two scales is whether or not they're more imposing or less imposing on others' freedoms.

Perhaps we could replace that with "firmness" or "extremism". In my opinion, the z-axis is best used to measure how strongly one feels about his beliefs and a measure of how willing one is going to bring about his 'political utopia'.

No, they aren't. But, as I said before, political is encompassed by economic and social. Low social freedom and\or low economic freedom implies low political freedom.

I don't understand this entirely, Sino (my RP'ed nation) is like Nazi China meets Uncle Sam (high economic freedoms, low political freedoms, besides that, we're ultra-nationalistic, militaristic and highly moralistic).

Big fucking deal. Get over it.

Even though I want to strangle you on a daily basis....this borders on genius. Great idea. All we need now is someone (who is better than me at PHP) to program the back end for a 3D political compass site. I will volunteer my time and effort to design the front end. *thumbs up*

Now... write that paper, biotch! :D
and i can help with any graphics you may need, though Tex might well be better (more sophistocated) than me on that front :headbang:

and for the record, depression isn't something you can just "get over" :rolleyes:



oh and this is indeed a darn good idea :)



edit: wow! i got a score of zero on that test page! :D

oh and this is indeed a darn good idea :)

Indeed. About time mathematical logic and should politics mix!

Indeed. About time mathematical logic and should politics mix!
:eek: mathematical logic!? :eek:


*leaps behind sofa & hides*

:eek: mathematical logic!? :eek:


*leaps behind sofa & hides*

Yes, run and hide, Gweilo (White man)! Pity those fail to see the link between logic.

those aren't opposites.
Well, I use the term "Anarchism" rather loosely. In fact, all three categories are characterized in terms of allowing greater freedom or restricting freedom. Using different economic policies that focus on less\more individual financial freedom, anarchism overall supports individual economic freedom and Socialism ("Communism" or "Marxism" might be appropriate) advocates greater government control.

Perhaps we could replace that with "firmness" or "extremism". In my opinion, the z-axis is best used to measure how strongly one feels about his beliefs and a measure of how willing one is going to bring about his 'political utopia'.
That's so hard to quantify, though, hard to test, and not relevant to one's political ideology, which is what I'm concerned with, here, not their feelings, but their thoughts and ideas.

I don't understand this entirely, Sino (my RP'ed nation) is like Nazi China meets Uncle Sam (high economic freedoms, low political freedoms, besides that, we're ultra-nationalistic, militaristic and highly moralistic).
Realistically, a military dictatorship IRL would not stay out of economics or morals. They'd be too tempted, with the power. Look at Feudal Europe. Nothing but military and religious fascism there, though sometimes benevolent, it always ends in corruption as an ideology.

....and Socialism ("Communism" or "Marxism" might be appropriate) advocates greater government control.
Careful with the definitions...you don't wanna trip and fall on something as basic as that.

Well let us know when your project is finished, so I can find out my results.

I expect my results to look like this:

Social Policy - Authoritarianism (Moralism)

Economic Policy - Socialism

Foreign Policy - Isolationism

If for any reasons my results do not reflect this, then that would mean that you would have to go back again and make more changes. As they say: Practice makes perfect.

I am better than you at PHP. I programmed my site in PHP and I know enough to design a new political compass. I'm working on it right now as we speak.

Take a look at my test-page, just to see if I knew what I was doing.
http://fapfap.org/quiz.php

It only records the value of the first question... The second page tells you the value for the answer you selected, and the the answer's number written twice, in different ways (one's just a copy, stored as a variable for PHP to alter, then re-post).
i think that there's a problem with that. you shouldn't include religion along with authoritarianism, for most totalitarians were against religion(stalin, mussolini, mao, pol pot, and others, these just some. (me included)) there is the noticable people that aren't, such as hitler, but i regard him more as a militant centrist. otherwise, good idea! this idea has been done before though, i've come upon another political test that did the same thing, except it only had about 10 questions.

Well let us know when your project is finished, so I can find out my results.

I expect my results to look like this:

Social Policy - Authoritarianism (Moralism)

Economic Policy - Socialism

Foreign Policy - Isolationism

If for any reasons my results do not reflect this, then that would mean that you would have to go back again and make more changes. As they say: Practice makes perfect.
same for me. have you taken the political compass yet, if so, what was your results??

Well, I use the term "Anarchism" rather loosely. In fact, all three categories are characterized in terms of allowing greater freedom or restricting freedom. Using different economic policies that focus on less\more individual financial freedom, anarchism overall supports individual economic freedom and Socialism ("Communism" or "Marxism" might be appropriate) advocates greater government control.

and what anarchism actually supports is collective ownership of the means of production and distribution, either by the community as a whole or the workers directly. which falls in neatly with the broad scope understanding of socialism. but the reason we hold this position is that it is most in line with the goal of freedom. we certainly don't support the unjust privilege that allows a tiny elite to own pretty much everything (aka 'individual financial freedom'), because that is patently unfree.

the defining questions of economics are going to be about who owns and controls what, and how wealth is distributed. your opposite extremes would probably be those that favor complete elite control (rich people own the sidewalks - neoliberals and other free marketeers, essentially) and those in favor of egalitarian economic relationships.

After seeing politicalcompass.org, I was interested to learn that the characterization of "left" and "right" is highly incorrect, because they do not inherently lean towards the same tendencies. They lean towards the same permissiveness vs. control, yes, but in different areas: economics and morality. However, I also believed that a 2-dimensional political spectrum was incorrect as well, because it does not take foreign policy into account. In other words, past Republicans who believed in Conservative economic and social policy were isolationists. The Neoconservatives and plenty of modern Republicans are expansionists. The reverse is true for Democrats. But they have switched roles, despite believing in pretty much the same policies. Dictators, such as Hitler, were expansionists. Whereas many other dictators (like the Chinese Emperor who built the Great Wall of China) were isolationists. Some Communists, for example advocate expansionists in terms of promoting worldwide revolution. Many other Communists do not. So, there needs to be a distinction.

Now, you could consider "isolationism" and "expansionism" to be part of economic policy, but that's not exactly true. Isolationism and expansionism involve how much outside involvement a government should have with foreign governments, though that is usually and is supported by economics, not always. Even social policy and economic policy intersect, such as with the cost for the death penalty, or social welfare could arguably be considered either as well. Conservatives and Neoconservatives both support Conservative economic and social policies, and both advocate expansionism, but Neoconservatives seem to advocate greater expansionism, not just by encouraging free-trade, but also by invading non-democratic countries or democracies we don't like. And they don't seem to do it for strictly economic reasons (as with Hitler), but also for moral reasons, possibly related to Judeo-Christianity. Islamic countries also seem to be expansionist for the same moral reasons: That a worldwide Muslim Theocracy is what they believe would be the best for the world.

So, I've proposed a 3-dimensional political spectrum:
http://fapfap.org/youngspectrum.gif
The three factors are:
Social Policy
Libertarianism---Authoritarianism (Moralism)

Economic Policy
Anarchism---Socialism

Foreign Policy
Isolationism---Expansionism

In essence, the "left" and "right" characterization is still there, but it's been further refined. The "left inherently represents greater freedom for the individual and government permissiveness. The "right" inherently represents greater governmental control. That may not be the way we typically view "left" and "right", but that is because we've been using a flawed one-dimensional spectrum for so long, which only takes social policy into account. But, in truth, modern Republican economics are what Libertarians claim: classical liberalism. Modern liberal economics draws from a change in liberal ideology, probably also greatly influenced by Marxism.

Oh, and I'm also developing a new political compass. Because there are a series of fundamental flaws in two political quizzes I've seen (including politicalcompass.org), which can be corrected. A third quiz may have also have been flawed, but I'd need to further analyze it. But in any case, I didn't like, and I don't believe it took a 3D spectrum into account. Ultimately, a 4D graph might need to be made (in other words, an animation, with time representing the fourth dimension). But I see no need to add a further dimension, unless anyone has a suggestion.

good job, shrub

BTW

I figure my dot would likely (depending on your questions and measuring methods) end up on the y axis, slightly-to-moderately above the x axis.

This is a fabulous idea. Ever since I took the political compass quiz and scored conservative/authoritarian when I am in fact an anarcho-capitalist I thought something was wrong with it. This is quite an accomplishment and should fix the situation. You should make questions for this too. However, it kink of scares me that politics has been mixed with math. I thought I wouldn't have to think about the x,y, and z axis this summer!

We could have the z-axis for "assertiveness" (I've been thinking all night, trying to find that word), to measure how strongly one feels about exerting his views on others.

Realistically, a military dictatorship IRL would not stay out of economics or morals. They'd be too tempted, with the power. Look at Feudal Europe. Nothing but military and religious fascism there, though sometimes benevolent, it always ends in corruption as an ideology.

Sino isn't feudalist, so your comparison would be invalid. Our high moral views stem from the natural conservatism (of the Chinese culture) and nationalism (morals boost the national image that ultra-nationalists would kill to protect).

Burning down whore houses, meth labs and setting up forced labor camps won't damage the economy at all. We call it business ethics. The government gives a good degree of individual freedom provided that the actions of a person or group does not harm or undermind the State or public safety. There's a free press but no elections.

Sino isn't feudalist, so your comparison would be invalid. Our high moral views stem from the natural conservatism (of the Chinese culture) and nationalism (morals boost the national image that ultra-nationalists would kill to protect).

Burning down whore houses, meth labs and setting up forced labor camps won't damage the economy at all. We call it business ethics. The government gives a good degree of individual freedom provided that the actions of a person or group does not harm or undermind the State or public safety. There's a free press but no elections.
Umm, then you have no social liberty, as I explained. You have very low, social liberty (freedom to determine one's own morality). Any country with low social liberty or low economic liberty has low political liberty, implied. The culture you just described would not be possible, without refusing to give minorities political rights.

Anyway, I'd like to speak a bit more on this... It's important to emphasize that the goal of a political spectrum is not to characterize a person's political stance exactly as that is mathematically impossible, unless every possible issue and its answers (literally in the hundreds or even thousands) is listed, and a person is to answer every single one of those issues. But that would not be efficient. Therefore, the goal is to give a very general idea.

Breaking down what a politician is, a politician supports either one of two things, on all issues: "Supporting liberty" or "Protecting liberty." How they protect liberty, why they protect liberty, and what specific liberties they protect are not appropriate to be in a spectrum, as they are sub-categories and too specific for a general scale.

The original 1-dimensional scale was basically: "Limiting Economic Liberty, Promoting Social Liberty" (Left) Vs. "Limiting Social Liberty, Supporting Economic Liberty." That's clearly a poor-scale, as the Labour Party would not fit on either side.

Many have proposed a new, 2-dimensional political spectrum, with "Limiting Economic Liberty Vs. Supporting Economic Liberty", and "Limiting Social Liberty Vs. Supporting Social Liberty." This is better, however, it only applies to citizens within the country. Some governments support liberties for their own citizens, but not in their foreign policy (or vice-versa). So, my spectrum adds a third category, as the following:

DOMESTIC POLICY
Liberty in Social Policy (X)
Liberty in Economic Policy (Y)
INTERNATIONAL POLICY
Liberty in Economic and Social Policy (Z)
Yes, according to what I've done, it would be most preferable to have a 4-dimensional scale, but that would be difficult to diagram. So, lumping social and economic policy into one category is appropriate, but admittedly not perfect.

The Economist's diagram, including "political policy" is inappropriate, because political liberties are realistically implied in relation to social and economic liberties, even if they can theoretically can contradict (though they never have, nor ever will). If you'd noticed, the category with the least amount of political liberties is "monarchy", but that's ridiculous, because dictatorships (not necessarily monarchies) restrict freedom far more than monarchies as a whole. Using "monarchy" is deceptive as well, because it implies that it is possible to have a dictatorship without strong economic and\or social control, which is never the case. There is no dictator who did not rule with an iron-fist over economic and social liberty. If they had written, "Social Fascism", people would have laughed. Even if such events happened temporarily, ultimately it did not, and though they are theoretically possible, they do not exist within reality. And being that the dictator or king has the last-word on all economic or social issues, they inherently do restrict liberty based upon their own relative ideals, which is why dictatorships never work.

I am going to account for a few, specific issues or inappropriate categories in separate 2-D scales. Among those, including what you and others have suggested, they will include:
Environmentalism Vs. Industralism
Proletarianism Vs. Plutocracy
Secularism Vs. Dogmatism
Overall Political Anarchism Vs. Overall Political Authoritanism

economic liberty

this sounds like a completely loaded term to me. it assumes that the system of private ownership of the means of production equals economic liberty. but the whole point of socialism is that that system is a system of privilege, not liberty - that economic liberty requires the abolition of private ownership of the m of p. its social democrats that think that the m of p ought be privately owned and that the state can and should restrict the 'economic liberty' of those rightful owners. and any political scale that puts social democrats out on an extreme is rather misguided if you ask me.

We could have the z-axis for "assertiveness" (I've been thinking all night, trying to find that word), to measure how strongly one feels about exerting his views on others.

That's what I said when I called the z-axis political!!1one
Libertarian vs. Authoritarian...

Ok, so those weren't the best of terms, but that's what I had in mind.

this sounds like a completely loaded term to me. it assumes that the system of private ownership of the means of production equals economic liberty.
You're thinking of terms of what comes years later, when the corporations own all of the wealth. Being rather socialist, I'd agree with you, the ultimate way to protect economic liberty is through government intervention. However, we're talking about the law itself, not the end result. Making a scale based on results, rather than principles is bad, because it's incredibly subject to bias. While you may think free-market economies ultimately restrict liberty, many others do not. But no one can disagree that if the government stops a person from spending their money (taking it as taxes, or restricting what they can do with it), that restricts economic liberty. Whether that's good or bad is left up to the individual.

but the whole point of socialism is that that system is a system of privilege, not liberty - that economic liberty requires the abolition of private ownership of the m of p. its social democrats that think that the m of p ought be privately owned and that the state can and should restrict the 'economic liberty' of those rightful owners. and any political scale that puts social democrats out on an extreme is rather misguided if you ask me.
Modern Socialism, yeah. But Socialism, as an ideology, supports greater government intervention in the economy more than any other political policy. However, to avoid offending Socialists, I'll change that, because I recognize that Socialists today do not advocate complete, total control.

You're thinking of terms of what comes years later, when the corporations own all of the wealth. Being rather socialist, I'd agree with you, the ultimate way to protect economic liberty is through government intervention. However, we're talking about the law itself, not the end result. Making a scale based on results, rather than principles is bad, because it's incredibly subject to bias.

no, that's not what i said at all.

While you may think free-market economies ultimately restrict liberty, many others do not.

which is related to why i find it to be a loaded term. my disagreement with these others is over whether some particular system used by a society to determine just ownership is an instance of liberty. if you use 'economic liberty' when all you mean is capitalism, you are using words in a propagandistic fashion.

But no one can disagree that if the government stops a person from spending their money (taking it as taxes, or restricting what they can do with it), that restricts economic liberty. Whether that's good or bad is left up to the individual.

first off, you are talking about social democrats rather than revolutionary socialists. they are the ones who view the capitalist welfare state as a principle, an end goal. over here in revolutionary socialist land, i don't even see the point of taxes - why bother when the vast wealth created by the economy is already socially owned?

secondly, that depends on if that money has been gained justly. or would you hold that it is a restriction of 'economic liberty' to refuse to allow bank robbers to freely spend their loot? of course you wouldn't - it doesn't properly belong to them, therefore it is a protection of other people's liberty to not allow them to do so. but this is precisely the thing at issue. based on socialist principles and conceptions of 'property rights', capitalists are parasites stealing the product of other people's labor. stopping them is similar to stopping a bank robber.

using the term 'economic liberty' means choosing sides in this argument, as the only groups that favors reducing 'economic liberty' (in terms of both their own principles of who rightfully owns what, and everyone else's principles) are the completely middle-of-the-road social democrats, the stalinists, and the fascists. so unless you are going to put them as one of the extremes on this scale and shove both the free marketeers and the libertarian socialists on the other, it seems like an inherent bias must be built in as to which set of economic principles are the 'right' ones.

Foreign Policy
Isolationism---Expansionism


Wher would an Internationalist come on this scale?

Wher would an Internationalist come on this scale?
Same as expansionism, as it's the same goal: Greater, centralized political control. But internationalists just prefer doing that through peaceful methods rather than war.

first off, you are talking about social democrats rather than revolutionary socialists. they are the ones who view the capitalist welfare state as a principle, an end goal. over here in revolutionary socialist land, i don't even see the point of taxes - why bother when the vast wealth created by the economy is already socially owned?

secondly, that depends on if that money has been gained justly. or would you hold that it is a restriction of 'economic liberty' to refuse to allow bank robbers to freely spend their loot? of course you wouldn't - it doesn't properly belong to them, therefore it is a protection of other people's liberty to not allow them to do so. but this is precisely the thing at issue. based on socialist principles and conceptions of 'property rights', capitalists are parasites stealing the product of other people's labor. stopping them is similar to stopping a bank robber.

using the term 'economic liberty' means choosing sides in this argument, as the only groups that favors reducing 'economic liberty' (in terms of both their own principles of who rightfully owns what, and everyone else's principles) are the completely middle-of-the-road social democrats, the stalinists, and the fascists. so unless you are going to put them as one of the extremes on this scale and shove both the free marketeers and the libertarian socialists on the other, it seems like an inherent bias must be built in as to which set of economic principles are the 'right' ones.
You're assuming "Liberty" and "Freedom" are good, using their connotations, when their denotations don't explicitly imply that. But your objections to using the term "Socialism" are duly noted. However, Socialism does not necessarily refer to the ideologies, either. In other words, it could refer to Socialization (with the opposite being Privatization). Yes. There are some Libertarians who don't advocate complete, economic anarchy. Yes. There are some Socialists who don't advocate complete, economic control. But that doesn't mean their ideologies don't inherently lean towards those areas, or that they are ideologies with the greatest amount of political control. It's not good or bad. It's fact. As for the rest of what you said, I'm not interested in being drawn into an argument over how evil capitalists are.

To settle this argument, basically: You have valid reasons to complain, but they're very minor. Even though it isn't really that big of a deal, I'm planning on revising it, to remove any references to ideologies, like Socialism.

Anyway, I've finished the first section of the quiz (social policy). Go here to view it:
http://fapfap.org/quiz1.php (Javascript should be enabled.)

So, I've proposed a 3-dimensional political spectrum:
http://fapfap.org/youngspectrum.gif
The three factors are:
Social Policy
Libertarianism---Authoritarianism (Moralism)

Economic Policy
Anarchism---Socialism

Foreign Policy
Isolationism---Expansionism

Let's say that 10 is full isolationism and -10 is full expansionism.

I would be at

Economic Left/Right: -2.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90
Expansionist/Isolationist: -4.00

In other words, it could refer to Socialization (with the opposite being Privatization).
Inaccurate. The opposite of privatisation is nationalisation. Socialisation is a word improperly used here.

Inaccurate. The opposite of privatisation is nationalisation. Socialisation is a word improperly used here.
I'm sure it means something different in European countries, but it can mean either one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalize
1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialize
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.

"Nationalize" isn't appropriate to use, either, because a "Nationalist" or "Nationalism", is a patriot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalist

Yes. There are some Libertarians who don't advocate complete, economic anarchy. Yes. There are some Socialists who don't advocate complete, economic control. But that doesn't mean their ideologies don't inherently lean towards those areas, or that they are ideologies with the greatest amount of political control.

i suspect you missed my point. let's try it this way: define 'economic liberty', 'economic anarchy', and 'economic control'.

Good idea, but the questions on that quiz seemed quite dumb and I got a really messed up answer (Moral Centrist), which really doesn't describe me.

i suspect you missed my point. let's try it this way: define 'economic liberty', 'economic anarchy', and 'economic control'.
"Liberty" is defined as:
The ability for an individual to take action and make decisions: that are not influenced, coerced, controlled, or limited through mental, physical, emotional, social, moral harm, the threat of such harm, or legally stated or implied denunciation of such actions or decisions, regardless of who that individual may be.

Economic Liberty is defined as:
"Any liberty involving the usage, ownership, or ability to increase one's wealth."

It's not subjective. Does this law stop people from doing something, or does it not? Stopping liberty is not always bad. All laws inherently violate liberty, in one form or another. And this does not seek to value the laws, as it's only judging how restrictive they are, not whether or not that is a positive or ultimately useful thing. Is it clear now?

Good idea, but the questions on that quiz seemed quite dumb and I got a really messed up answer (Moral Centrist), which really doesn't describe me.
I'm working on re-designing it.

Me too, I'm apparantly a Moderate Moral Libertarian, which doesn't make any sense. Example, I believe that everyone should make up their own personal morality, and I said so on the question.

Needs work methinks...

Good job, and I'd like to see this developed further, but:

1. You're not the first one to think of a 3D political chart.
2. The fact is that there is no limit to the number of dimensions that could be used to define a political spectrum. The more dimensions you have, the greater the accuracy, but also the greater the complexity of the model and the confusion that can result from it.

Ideally, the perfect political spectrum would have one dimension for each possible issue, but that would result in a ridiculously complex n-dimensional chart. So we have to compromise by grouping issues together into more or less vague categories (like "civil rights" or "economics") in order to keep the number of dimensions reasonably low. 2 dimensions seems to be the current fashion.

However, we must always keep in mind that any such system is only a compromise, and therefore not perfect.

Furthermore, any attempt to define an axis in terms of "freedom" or "liberty" is inherently flawed, because these are such imprecise terms. When you hear about "freedom", the first question you should ask is "freedom for who, to do what?" Freedom for anyone to do anything is logically impossible, and so is its opposite. You can't have absolute freedom and you can't have absolute "unfreedom". Totalitarian states don't destroy freedom - they just take it away from the people and give it to whoever is in charge.

An absolute dictator is the freest man on Earth. He has the freedom to do anything.

Economic Liberty is defined as:
"Any liberty involving the usage, ownership, or ability to increase one's wealth."

It's not subjective. Does this law stop people from doing something, or does it not? Stopping liberty is not always bad. All laws inherently violate liberty, in one form or another. And this does not seek to value the laws, as it's only judging how restrictive they are, not whether or not that is a positive or ultimately useful thing. Is it clear now?

maybe. it still can't differentiate libertarian socialism from free marketeering capitalism, since both ideals leave full control over the usage of things with those they recognize as the rightful owners of them. as does an absolutist monarchy for that matter. if this will be reflected in your chart, it might work - though i still find it to be a weird and stupid way to do it.

Perhaps it would be better to measure whether one believes the economy should be controlled by individuals or by a collective body. Economic Individualism vs. Economic Collectivism is the best way to model the economic axis, IMO.

Perhaps it would be better to measure whether one believes the economy should be controlled by individuals or by a collective body. Economic Individualism vs. Economic Collectivism is the best way to model the economic axis, IMO.

certainly better than 'economic liberty'. the major question left by that is where to put people who think that the state should control the economy and that the state itself should be controlled by an individual or small set of individuals.

I'm sure it means something different in European countries, but it can mean either one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalize
1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialize
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.

"Nationalize" isn't appropriate to use, either, because a "Nationalist" or "Nationalism", is a patriot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalism
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nationalist
Nationalise has always been the accepted term for government ownership of businesses. "Socialize" is just an American buzzword that has come to recent popularity.

Your quiz doesn't make sense. It called me a Moderate Moral Libertarian, but I'm not a libertarian. Take away the evolution/creationism and other absurdly America-centric questions and add some about foreign policy and trade.

Take away the evolution/creationism and other absurdly America-centric questions

perhaps the evo/creo questions could be fixed to be more general by asking whether we should lie to children if the scientific method leads us to knowledge that opposes traditional beliefs

What the hell is "half-human cloning"?

Anarchism is actually a form of socialism, not the opposite. This quiz relies on the incorrect assumption that socialism limits economic freedom and is based on government ownership of property.

I appreciate that it has some teething issues, but every otehr test I've taken shows me as a Socialist, which is what I am. And yours says I'm a moralistic liberetarian. Some work needs to be done still, but I love the premise.

http://www.orgburo.com/pofo.php
I thought it was generally agreed upon that the Political Compass is found lacking.
I like this test better, it is longer and has many more dimensions.
wow thaNKS FOR SHOWING that to me thats great! i'm a marxist

I appreciate that it has some teething issues, but every otehr test I've taken shows me as a Socialist, which is what I am. And yours says I'm a moralistic liberetarian. Some work needs to be done still, but I love the premise.
same here

I still want to know what the hell half-human cloning is.

It sure as hell isn't a scientific term.

If you meant to talk about therapeutic cloning, in which a clone would be created in order to extract stem cells that could then be used in different therapies versus reproductive cloning, in which a clone would be created and implanted in a womb to produce a new person, then please use these terms.