NationStates Jolt Archive

Around here the members seem pretty much one way or another...
republican/liberal.

What party do you really feel you are?

Take this quiz (http://www.neo-libertarian.com/polquiz.html#skip) if you don't know/are unsure.

I don't know how good this quiz is either...
its a bit different - but i think its interesting

"Yes! The government should own the air waves. We need a system like the BBC."

Fail.

I'm a Libertarian.

What party do you really feel you are?


"Decline to State"


Take this quiz (http://www.quiz2d.com/) if you don't know/are unsure.

I can't. Much like "The World's Smallest Political Quiz", this quiz appears to only provide a selection between "the state does it" or "the private sector does it." I reject both.

Hardcore anti-state libertarian.

Other: communist anarchist.

I could be called a libertarian, but not in the sense you are using it.

I don't support any political parties.

I can't. Much like "The World's Smallest Political Quiz", this quiz appears to only provide a selection between "the state does it" or "the private sector does it." I reject both.

Then who does it?

"Yes! The government should own the air waves. We need a system like the BBC."

Fail.

The quiz in question seems to be nothing more than a slightly larger version of the Libertarian "The World's Smallest Political Quiz." (http://www.quiz2d.com/about/) The Libertarian viewpoint is rather myopic, where in anything not private law-of-the-jungle for profit must be evil authoritarian government. Thus the complete misunderstanding of anything falling outside the essential ideological false dicotomy, like the BBC among other things.

I believe that quiz allows you to answer to several different degrees -- if you reject that either the public/private sector does it then who does do it? Private charities? psh... so we'll have religiously affiliated charities influencing our government?? or what were you thinking about?

Other: communist anarchist.

That's an oxymoron. How can you be communist, and yet have on government to make sure everything is "fair & equal"?

yet have on government to make sure everything is "fair & equal"?

Fairness and equality can be ensured by political and economic organizations not akin to the centralized bureaucratic state.

Indeed, state structures are, if anything, more suited to maintaining inequality than protecting equality.

Other: communist anarchist.

I could be called a libertarian, but not in the sense you are using it.

I don't support any political parties.Oh arse.. Guess I should've voted "Other" too. I'm a libertarian, but of the syndicalist sort. Pretty far from the US definition of a libertarian.

so to the "other":

do you mean to say that you want a very small government that is for social equality? (As in almost NO government?)


(I think that might be a little ineffective...?)

do you mean to say that you want a very small government that is for social equality?

I want a self-managed (stateless) society that adheres to communal ownership of the means of production and communist principles of egalitarian distribution by need.

This has to be the worst political axis quiz ever posted. Not only is it entirely US-centric, it also has horribly ridiculous options, with a generous helping of bias tossed on. The gun control question was pure idiocy.

so to the "other":

do you mean to say that you want a very small government that is for social equality? (As in almost NO government?)I want a syndicalist social organisation. I'm guessing Soheran wants commune-based organisation.

Then who does it?

Capitalism and the State both employ and prefer coercive social hierarchy, wherein the relative few possess exclusive, or the vast majority of, power in the decision making process in a given enterprise, and the relative majority do what they are told. The state maintains it's power through a monopoly ownership of coersive force (do what you're told or I'll imprison/kill you). The capitalist maintains it's power through exclusive ownership and exploitation of resource scarcity (do what you're told or I'll stand here and watch you starve).

They both (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#Private_economic_use_of_properties_acquired_through_eminent_domain) in (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) hand (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03).

They both also kind of suck.

Instead, I prefer equal ownership of the decision making process by all members of society, in all aspects of that society.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

Who will do it? Free individuals and voluntary associations there of. Two concepts that neither the present capitalist or government order understand or employ.

registered Democrat, fiscally conservative, socially very liberal

I got "Centrist Conservative".

I'm sorry - I forgot that this isn't an entirely US based group... let me edit and put another better quiz on there.

Centrist.

Partisanship and unilateralism will be the death of the US if it continues. Ever notice that our Congress has accomplished nothing in several months? It's all thanks to the split legislature, where the members all defend their party's platforms. It's the biggest puppet show on earth, and it's disgusting. Their inaction and incompetence embarrasses me. Don't even try to blame one side, because they're all pawns, and they're mostly crooks, and politics nowadays are contrary to leadership.


Stewart/Colbert '08! :D

I know what you mean.... towing the line is really starting to wear away the effectiveness of Congress,

I know what you mean.... towing the line is really starting to wear away the effectiveness of Congress,

and it is starting to show.

Additionally, just take the first question on spending (http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/quiz.php?from=homepage). What does "cut by 30%" even mean? As far as I can tell, these are just random numbers. Why not 34.9283747534939393938484cheese%? Never mind the quiz not recognizing my political ideology from the get go. The question is unanswerable because it doesn't mean anything in particular.

Again, the Libertarian myopia designed into this quiz causes it to focus only on the financial/numerical aspect, with the obvious prefered choice being 100% of course. No consideration for actually defining the political nature or consequence of the choices (thereby conveniently covering up the hierarchical, anti-individual nature of the Libertarian's preferred capitalist order; the existence of that order is built in and assumed).

EDIT: And sorry, the new quiz posted is also broken. I've seen it before, and it doesn't have a directly Libertarian bias. However, it is still making assumptions about the prevailing political and economic order. Thus, the same people left out before are left out again. If I recall correctly, the spectrum used is essentially the same as that used in the Libertarian "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" anyway. "libertarian" or "anti-state" is considered capitalist by definition.

okay... i changed the quiz :headbang:

Liberal

okay... i changed the quiz :headbang:Maybe you could change it to one that isn't exclusively US-centric and doesn't discount everything but capitalists? :p

okay... i changed the quiz :headbang:

In fact, you didn't :D

(I explained why in an edit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12909001&postcount=26))

I want a self-managed (stateless) society that adheres to communal ownership of the means of production and communist principles of egalitarian distribution by need.

So, what if someone, or group of people, in your system tell society to go stuff it? Without a state, how will communal ownership be enforced?

So, what if someone, or group of people, in your system tell society to go stuff it? Without a state, how will communal ownership be enforced?
Society will tell them to go stuff it.

So, what if someone, or group of people, in your system tell society to go stuff it? Without a state, how will communal ownership be enforced?

My guess is that Soheran is not opposed to all social organizations with the ability to defend themselves or enforce requirements upon members, but rather what is opposed is a particular kind of such social organization called "the state" which is often hierarchical, undemocratic, arbitrary, needlessly militaristic, and involuntary in membership.

So, what if someone, or group of people, in your system tell society to go stuff it?

Depends on how.

Without a state, how will communal ownership be enforced?

Self-managed communities would defend their property against thieves.

My guess is that Soheran is not opposed to all social organizations with the ability to defend themselves or enforce requirements upon members, but rather what is opposed is a particular kind of such social organization called "the state" which is often hierarchical, undemocratic, arbitrary, needlessly militaristic, and involuntary in membership.

Without a state, however, there is no way to enforce laws or carry out punishment upon members who break those rules; that is why we have a police (or, in days past, the local magistrate and the king's guards). In a stateless society, however, how can a police force exist?

Society will tell them to go stuff it.

Oh? And how? No state to support an army or police. The rest of society gathering up pitchforks and shotguns to mete out justice upon those that wish to break away? If so, congratulations, you have mob rule with justice enforced be a form of lynching.

Depends on how.

Simple: the individual or group of individuals say, "We're leaving to set up someplace else and we're going to create a state. Later."

Self-managed communities would defend their property against thieves.

How?

Without a state, however, there is no way to enforce laws or carry out punishment upon members who break those rules


Non-state social organizations grant and deny membership and sanction members' unwanted behavior all the time.


In a stateless society, however, how can a police force exist?


The members of society authorize such a force, granting and controlling its authority.

Again, "I oppose the state" does not necessarily mean "I oppose social organization, law, order, society" Opposition to the state does not equate to opposition to government. The state is a type of government, but not government in its entirety. Present society is filled with all kinds of organizations which govern relationships among their members. At most, the anarchist simply claims that the state doesn't possess some kind of special political monopoly.

But of course a society needs a means for governing relationships between members. Any anarchist (who makes any sense anyway...) will agree.

(Anarchists and others in the anti-state camp call for the abolishment of "government" all the time. They are, however, using a general purpose noun ["government"] as a specific proper noun which represents a specific form of government they find repugnant. I agree, they should stop doing this and be far more specific and careful in their use of words in order to avoid confusion)

Simple: the individual or group of individuals say, "We're leaving to set up someplace else and we're going to create a state. Later."


Response: "Good luck and good bye."

Simple: the individual or group of individuals say, "We're leaving to set up someplace else and we're going to create a state. Later."

Let them.

How?

There are any number of possible ways... I don't really like the idea of a professional police force, but the community would have some sort of enforcement mechanism for people who egregiously violated the rules.

Other: communist anarchist.

I could be called a libertarian, but not in the sense you are using it.

I don't support any political parties.

:fluffle:

I don't really like the idea of a professional police force, ...

They do start to look disturbingly similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT) to a professional military force. Then again, if I were a hostage or in order similar dire straights, I can see the advantage in having individuals with greater than "just-a-hobby" skills coming to rescue me -- if only for my own safety (and the lack of safety of my assailant...)

EDIT: Its the anonymity provided by the ski-mask type covering over their faces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Counterterrorismwiki.jpg) that bothers me the most. Sure, it might provide personal protection from the particularly well-organized criminal element. It also provides personal protection from the citizenry in general...

Without a state, however, there is no way to enforce laws or carry out punishment upon members who break those rules; that is why we have a police (or, in days past, the local magistrate and the king's guards). In a stateless society, however, how can a police force exist?The cornerstone of any anarchist organisational form, is voluntary participation.Oh? And how? No state to support an army or police. The rest of society gathering up pitchforks and shotguns to mete out justice upon those that wish to break away? If so, congratulations, you have mob rule with justice enforced be a form of lynching.Where does a state get it's resources? Same place a commune do: from the individuals.Simple: the individual or group of individuals say, "We're leaving to set up someplace else and we're going to create a state. Later."And off they go...How?Depends largely on the particulars. Generally speaking though, community infrastructure and services do not have to differ significantly from the way we do things in our modern democracies. A bit less generally, job rotation and the absence of involuntary social organisation, can resolve most of the problems associated with law enforcement and community defence.
There are a few anarchic societies in the world, and lots of people have speculated at length on how to handle these things. Zmag.org is a great place to start looking for info.

I believe myself to be very liberal. However, I am often labelled as a conservative.

I believe all people have the right to life. Including those not out of the womb? Isn't that liberal?

I believe people should have the right to defend themselves and own property. Isn't that liberal?

Because of my strong belief in liberal human rights, I believe the United States should help procure these rights in foreign countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Isn't that liberal?

Because of my opposition to racism, I find affirmative action (at least racially based, not socio-economically based) to be repugnant at its core. Isn't that liberal?

I believe in Palestinian rights so I support Israeli attempts to combat the number one victimizer of Palestinians, HAMAS. Isn't that liberal?

I believe in allowing people to choose to freely express their religion wherever they wish, so thus, I support allowing prayer in school. Isn't that liberal?

wow... no authoritarians in here? I coulda sworn I heard a couple...

Non-state social organizations grant and deny membership and sanction members' unwanted behavior all the time.

The members of society authorize such a force, granting and controlling its authority.

Again, "I oppose the state" does not necessarily mean "I oppose social organization, law, order, society" Opposition to the state does not equate to opposition to government. The state is a type of government, but not government in its entirety. Present society is filled with all kinds of organizations which govern relationships among their members. At most, the anarchist simply claims that the state doesn't possess some kind of special political monopoly.

But of course a society needs a means for governing relationships between members. Any anarchist (who makes any sense anyway...) will agree.

(Anarchists and others in the anti-state camp call for the abolishment of "government" all the time. They are, however, using a general purpose noun ["government"] as a specific proper noun which represents a specific form of government they find repugnant. I agree, they should stop doing this and be far more specific and careful in their use of words in order to avoid confusion)

Good response, but I believe that such a bureaucracy would develop the need for a higher governmental system in order to harmonize (as best possible) all the various systems. Otherwise, I see nothing but increasing factionalism within society (for instance, the police force and health care system might get into a fight over who's more important to keep society running without a higher power to tell them to knock it off) and the exploitation of political minorities with the systems empowered by the majorities.

Response: "Good luck and good bye."

If (or, should it come, after) the system has proved itself, I can see this being allowed. While it is still under experimentation, however, I would argue that desertion couldn't be allowed, else it would encourage members to leave when the going is tough and thus deplete the available resources of society as a whole (unless trade is established, though that too is of no guarantee). Also, in today's world, the question would be of where that splinter group could go, as all land is claimed by one government or another.

There are any number of possible ways... I don't really like the idea of a professional police force, but the community would have some sort of enforcement mechanism for people who egregiously violated the rules.

Without a professional police force, the only real option is similar as I mentioned above: lynch mobs.

They do start to look disturbingly similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Counterterrorismwiki.jpg) to a professional military force. Then again, if I were a hostage or in order similar dire straights, I can see the advantage in having individuals with greater-than-"just-a-hobby" skills coming to rescue me -- if only for my own safety (and the lack of safety of my assailant...)

Police as depicted in that pic, I have no problem with (soldiers stopped using shields centuries ago). It's when they start applying camouflage (which Chinese police do now) that I start calling them military-police.

Moderately conservative, I'd say. Of course, that translates to right-wing Nazi extremist animal in certain countries. :p But really, I prefer center-right candidates with somewhat libertarian social policy in mind. :)

Good response, but I believe that such a bureaucracy would develop the need for a higher governmental system in order to harmonize (as best possible) all the various systems.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

The physical size or extent alone is not really what is most important. What is most important is how political power is divided among members of the society. The key is to make political power equally shared among societal members and the decision-making process decentralized and democratic to the greatest extent possible; after that, it's just a matter of federation.

For example, the perceived inefficiency or inevitable failure of workers' self-management is often based on the idea that a potentially huge number of workers cannot possibly vote all the time on every tiny little issue; some higher authority (the boss/manager) is needed. But the advocates of workers' self-management agree, but instead compensate for this problem by federalizing the enterprise. Independent work groups handle their own affairs, and come together to make the large decisions only when necessary. This is how cooperative enterprises often work in real life.

Federation has long been a cornerstone of anarchist thought. Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism and use your browsers text search function and look for "federal" or "federation" or just "federa."


If (or, should it come, after) the system has proved itself, I can see this being allowed. While it is still under experimentation, however, I would argue that desertion couldn't be allowed, else it would encourage members to leave when the going is tough and thus deplete the available resources of society as a whole (unless trade is established, though that too is of no guarantee). Also, in today's world, the question would be of where that splinter group could go, as all land is claimed by one government or another.


The pacifism/gradualism vs. revolution debate in anarchist theory also has a long history...


Police as depicted in that pic, I have no problem with (soldiers stopped using shields centuries ago). It's when they start applying camouflage (which Chinese police do now) that I start calling them military-police.

It's not the appearance alone that bothers me. It's the modus operandi.

There aren't any political parties here that I really agree with. I'm an ardent antifederalist and a social democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat). The Socialist Party of Michigan (http://www.spmichigan.org/news.php) is a bit too left wing (I'm not quite a democratic socialist) for me and not quite antifederalist enough. I quite liked the Michigan Green Party candidate for Governor's platform (http://www.votecampbell2006.org/?q=node/9) in 2006, but I disagree with him on some of the environmental issues and his "OMG teh j00z!" comment about the Israel lobby.

As for Federal parties I tend to vote Libertarian because I want much less of the Federal government. I did vote for Kerry in 2006, but that was only because I was afraid he might not win in Michigan, and in that instance I decided to vote practically rather than ideologically.

I am a Pirate! Really, I am member of the german Pirate Party (http://www.piratenpartei.de).

Radical-Conservative: 28
Liberal-Populist: 11
Capitalist-Socialist: 2

They're crazy enough to think I'm a liberal-leaning republican -- probably because some of the questions are poorly designed. For example, both democrats and republicans believe in a balanced budget, but have different ways of going about it (high taxes, high spending vs low taxes, low spending).

There's also the fact that Republicans and Democrats should NOT be on the same side of the radical-conservatice line.

Oh lolz
I'm liberal-leaning republican

You learn something new everyday... :D

Radical-Conservative: 28
Liberal-Populist: 11
Capitalist-Socialist: 2


I got 2 from the Capitalist-Socialist quiz too. That's almost socialist. You think that any real liberal-leaning republican would score only 2 on that quiz?

edit. ok I could have read the text on the page first. But hey, It WAS boring.

I'm a libertarian. A libertarian communist, specifically.

/snipDissonant Cognition?

There's also the fact that Republicans and Democrats should NOT be on the same side of the radical-conservatice line.Why not? They are in reality.

I am too far-left for the US, therefore I should join the IRC and make big government better!

my party is anything anti-tory.

i kinda support Labour largely for the last 10 years of relative economic stability, but they aren't left enough for me. i'm still very much a socialist in the way i want things to be, but i'm also becoming something more of a pragmatist in the realisation of just how entrenched and set in its ways our society is.

if you want steak and all there is on offer are beefburgers, then i guess you have the burgers, but be on the look out for the steak.... or some weird analogy like that anyway ;)

if you want steak and all there is on offer are beefburgers, then i guess you have the burgers, but be on the look out for the steak.... or some weird analogy like that anyway ;)

What if they're Tory beefburgers?

i have no party affiliation.

i'm a libertarian socialist of sorts but i've never really pinned it down further than that. i like bits of what the syndicalists espouse i like bits of the communist ideology. basically i'm for organisation around small community lines with no higher authority. but what form that organisation takes is i think entirely up to the community, i just wouldn't live in one that was based on hierarchy or followed any sort of charismatic leader.

What if they're Tory beefburgers?

then i don't trust them and assume they're poisoned. i'll let fatty John Prescott eat them instead :D

You know, as time passes, I'm getting more and more pissed off with politicians, they're all a bunch of self-serving fork-tongued scheming bastards. :gundge:

Any politician who actually has some integrity will get nowhere, because they won't make progress in any political party unless they "play the game".

These days I put all my effort into lobby groups, at least they'll keep fighting for what they believe in from one dodgy government to the next.

I scored
Radical/conservative 26
Liberal/populist 9
Capitalist/socialist -13

which apparently makes me a "Liberal leaning socialist leaning republican"
whatever strange beast that is...

it depends, for some issued I go to the Left others to the Right so i picked center

The Dead Baby Eater Party.

I just founded it this morning!

Hardcore anti-state libertarian.

What? You're the leader of the Absolutist Party!

I am a Pirate! Really, I am member of the german Pirate Party (http://www.piratenpartei.de).

Man, the US party never got off the ground. I watched and waited with interest when they said they'd have official status in a week. That was a year ago.



Democratic Socialist.

Man, the US party never got off the ground. I watched and waited with interest when they said they'd have official status in a week. That was a year ago.


:o I thought you were German...

:o I thought you were German...

*happy overload*

I would be considered something of a Germanophile, since my great grandparents are from Germany.

Flattered.

What? You're the leader of the Absolutist Party!


So one abolishes the state and replaces it with a sovereign individual.

A sovereign individual.

It's at least a unique interpretation of "hardcore anti-state libertarian" anyway...

My "3 line quiz" result:

"republican libertarian planner."


Republican - This includes a large bulk of modern-day American politicians, whether Republican or Democratic. This includes values of basic racial equality but not necessarily affirmative action. It's a strong rejection of racism and a strong embrace of democracy, but not into the social levelling or hyper-secularism of the democrat level.


OK


Libertarian - Many people in the US Libertarian Party are minor heretics or simply adhere to certain social controls while remaining otherwise nearly anarchical. These people, in addition to a number of especially independent Democrats and Republicans, fit into the libertarian category. They do not seek the philosophical uber-consistency of the anarchists, but they propose most or nearly all of the same ideas and policies. Someone in the ACLU or the Republican Liberty Caucus would likely fall here.


OK


Planner - Few Democrats fit here, but FDR is probably the most aggressive move in this direction, followed by LBJ. They believe that the market is useful for many areas, but overall it is too chaotic, irrational or unfair, and it takes the keen eye of the state or bureaucracy to correct market imperfections. They support nationalization of industries, guaranteed employment for all, massive welfare entitlements, and massive public works. They associate economic success with high employment, high production, and massive government involvement; the super-rich are usually allowed to still exist normally, but less so in business or managerial capacities. Ultimately, the market is either short-sighted or unfair, and some outside force must step in to correct it.


Bzzzzzz. Wrong. I dislike FDR. I oppose state nationalization. I oppose state welfare. I oppose "massive government involvement."

Once again, the quiz assumes that those falling along the left-hand side of the economic spectrum embrace the state in order to enact their ideology. And once again, this is the result of a myopic Libertarian ( or "neolibertarian" (http://www.neo-libertarian.com/index.html)) bias.

Hardcore anti-state libertarian.

yeah.

that's not what I am registered to vote as though.

The quiz told me democratic socialist-leaning libertarian.

Radical-Conservative >30
Liberal-Populist 25
Capitalist-Socialist -8

I scored
Radical/conservative -6
Liberal/populist -9
Capitalist/socialist 25

So a conservative leaning, Poplist Leaning Free marketeer, that sounds aboout right, though I would have thought I was slitly more conservative than the results gave me...

Minarchist Libertarian

I'm a state socialist but there are no party for that.

*Ponders*

This poll is terrible *shrug*. Democratic Socialist.

I like this quiz more: Moral Politics Quiz (http://www.moral-politics.com)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

The physical size or extent alone is not really what is most important. What is most important is how political power is divided among members of the society. The key is to make political power equally shared among societal members and the decision-making process decentralized and democratic to the greatest extent possible; after that, it's just a matter of federation.

For example, the perceived inefficiency or inevitable failure of workers' self-management is often based on the idea that a potentially huge number of workers cannot possibly vote all the time on every tiny little issue; some higher authority (the boss/manager) is needed. But the advocates of workers' self-management agree, but instead compensate for this problem by federalizing the enterprise. Independent work groups handle their own affairs, and come together to make the large decisions only when necessary. This is how cooperative enterprises often work in real life.

Federation has long been a cornerstone of anarchist thought. Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism and use your browsers text search function and look for "federal" or "federation" or just "federa."

Yet even governments that are a federation, such as Brazil, Germany and the United States, have a national government that sits above the rest. I'm all for local automony, but too much will lead to the local groups drifting away, seeking advantage and eventually splintering; that's what was happening to the US under the Articles of Confederation. So again, a higher power is needed, whether a centralization or federation (I believe confederations to be doomed, but that's a different issue), else the group that the members claim membership in will eventually dissolve.

It's not the appearance alone that bothers me. It's the modus operandi.

Aside from some police snipers, I don't see how the police operate like the military.

Around here the members seem pretty much one way or another...
republican/liberal.
Only USAmericans have an almost exclusively two-party system, afaik. Pretty reductive.


What party do you really feel you are?


I *know* I am in this party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Italian_Communists
I am one of the founding members, also.:cool:

So again, a higher power is needed, whether a centralization or federation (I believe confederations to be doomed, but that's a different issue), else the group that the members claim membership in will eventually dissolve.

wait, if nobody wants to be a member of the group anymore, why should the group keep existing?

Left the conservative party when the full stupidity of David Cameron became apparent, and am now happily UKIP.:)

Without a professional police force, the only real option is similar as I mentioned above: lynch mobs.

Or, you know, a rotating body of enforcers drawn from the general population.

Or, you know, a rotating body of enforcers drawn from the general population.

i wonder if volunteer firefighters count as the firefighting equivalent of a lynch mob. they ain't professionals, after all.

My "3 line quiz" result:

"republican libertarian planner."



Me too. Only in my case I find it accurate in all three instances.

Radical libertarian, according to the quiz. It's quite accurate.

I am a libertarian (most heavily influenced by Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe) and therefore staunchly anti-state, anti-war, and pro-free market. While I tend to lean supporting a big tent libertarian moment, I staunchly oppose the "neo-libertarians" who are referred to either as "pro-murder libertarians" or "libertine conservatives" on the opinion websites I read most often.

Oh, anywho, according to the quiz, I got democratic libertarian communist, so my first instinct was fine.

I am an anarchist. I don't believe in political parties. I am far left and extremely anti-authoritarian, so statecraft is of little interest to my philosophy.

I've never seen an anarchist over 30. Not that I'm saying anything, I'm just putting my observations out there. :p

There's actually a four line quiz on the same site... lol - I'm not sure I want it to be so precise.

libertarian republican free marketeer

pretty damn good if you ask me

Liberal
Emphasis on freedom, markets, democracy; free democratic states are good and fair, but autocratic states are immoral. We must push for democratization and liberalization around the world using open trade and international organizations: all people should be free. Wilson, Reagan, Kant, Shultz.

Seems about damn right.

I just took the substitute for the four line test, and it seemed relatively accurate.

It was a tad off for foreign policy for me, but that's okay.

I really prefer the three line - I didn't notice very much bias at all in that one.

On the three-line quiz, I just scored flatly Republican.