Thanks for an interesting thread, Vanilla, and some good links. Some good potential discussion starters on the Political Compass Test too I thought for anyone so inclined.

Yes, I turned up Libertarian Left, and again no surprises there. I tested further to the economic left (-8.5) than I did on the social libertarian scale (-5.38). Also, no surprises about that. It's why I can find myself in agreement with the socialist views of posters such as Passy and yet occasionally, and most scarily, also find myself on the same side of a debate as Gibo and BD. Though I hasten to add for very different reasons.

Left and Right will always be with us. I find the people calling it an outdated concept are usually those who either don't understand it or who know they sit on the right but want to disguise the fact. Simplistic? Probably. Biased? No doubt! But that's my take on it.

I must admit, my number one peeve on OLO is people who start statements with "the left say that" or the same for the right.

When people do that, my brain immediately categorises them as a politically ignorant ideologue. I assume they're the kind of people that won't listen to the other side of the debate, and worse still, it's the kind dumb that thinks it's smart and already knows everything.

I try not to, but I'll admit. I don't try very hard to resist that, because all too often it's accurate.

Sorry if you're one of those, but I'm being honest here. I suspect I'm not the only one who reacts with those thoughts.

As I see it, there are two separate spheres - economic, and 'social' or 'cultural'. Your economic issues are your issues like privatisation, tariffs, access to services, government handouts, welfare, measures to handle inflation - essentially, your socialism/capitalism debate.

The other side is your cultural/social issues. Censorship, abortion, crime and punishment penalties, drug or euthanasia legalisation, etc.

It all comes down to the level of government intervention in either. You're either 'libertarian' which means the government should keep their hands off, or there's the alternative. I'll use the word 'conservative' but it gets complex, because for some reason, people who are libertarian in one respect, tend to be conservative in the other.

Think of the 'neo-cons'. They speak of free markets and claim to be economic libertarians (which is crap actually, they presided over big-government spending like never before, but they talk as if they are). So while they preach economic libertarianism, they also preach cultural conservatism.
Same deal with Howard and the Liberal party.

On the other hand, your traditional left wing groups like the greens preach liberal conservative values, but high levels of government intervention on economics. Opposite altogether.

More or less, as the political compass demonstrates.

A genuine Liberal would be libertarian on both. Small government in all respects. Permit abortions, but lower taxes. They'd probably also be lax on gun control.

The alternative is a socialist type model of high intervention - high taxes, free healthcare for all, no abortions, no guns.

As you can see, few people would fit into either. I'd be very liberal on my cultural issues, but I'm keen on gun control. I don't mind privatisations, but only when it won't create a monopoly situation and I think for this reason, all the Australian examples have been stupid, from an economic point of view. I don't mind taxes, but I want well funded schools and healthcare.
I don't like tariffs or subsidies, but I'd be in favour of Australia using them only in cases where our chief rivals are using them as well (with us pegging our subsidies to a fraction of theirs to encourage them to drop them).

I'd call it the centre-left, a social libertarian position. Accepting the free market is the best solution to most economic issues isn't a traditional left position, so I wouldn't quite fit the 'left' stereotype.

For a long time, there has been a mantra that in order to be economically successful, you must adopt the most extreme right-wing economic models in order to thrive.

Problem is, the economic indicators tend to show that centrist economies are the most successful - witness Denmark and Finland, some of the world's most competitive economies, albeit with high taxes. Socialism is of course, no answer, but pure capitalism doesn't work either.

I don't think many people do fit into a stereotyped role. I think this monolithic 'left' that is referred to, is crap.

Insulting the 'left' or the 'right' en masse, is the tactic of simpletons who can't discuss the issues sensibly.

Dear Vanilla,

Thanks for the test. A few surprises. I scored as a Liberal(Left), and my husband scored - 'Centrist.'

Whereas the reality is - we fluctuate, depending on the issues.

Still it was interesting to see how we rated.

I think so little of left/right cept on footy field, I refuse to try to understand what is might mean

best comparison is why churches are so ineffectual, ie they HAVE a stance eg catholic say this must be truth [no thought allowed] and other mob say something else must never be given logical thought

so back to politics etc, to say you are left etc is simply to say you are just a puppet and no good to anybody

R0bert: "It's so easy in these debates to see "the other side" as less caring, less ethical or just plain evil. Often the truth is that it's about seeking the the same ends by a different path. Not always exactly the same end but close, we make different choices about what comprimises we are willing to accept to get there and what costs we are willing to pay. That does not make the heart less caring or the goal less noble, just a different perspective."

I'm glad I started this thread, just to house that pearl of wisdom.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of my dearest friends is a Liberal Party member who thinks we should abolish all "nanny state" subsidies — the dole, carer's benefits, everything — and turn the whole lot over to the private sector. She works her arse off for charity herself, and is brilliant at inspiring others, and really believes a US-style campaign to harness and create philanthropists would serve our cultural underbelly better than the government. I am not convinced she's right, but she's motivated by an ardent desire to improve the lot of others. Yet, when we became friends years ago, one of my leftie friends couldn't believe I was associating with the enemy and attributed her good deeds to a grab for power.

Meanwhile, a conservative relative of mine on a prominent leftie: "He's just motivated by the size of his d!ck."

Maybe there are some genuinely evil operators out there, maybe there are people with cardboard cutout personalities who are motivated by flashcard attributes like "power" and "size of dick", but they are few. Cynical dismissal of other people's motives is always the intellectually lazy option.

Of course, if we attribute base motivations to others, our own political personality gleams in comparison. It's all too easy, isn't it?

cont