The House Of Lords's Political Compass

Are you suggesting that Blinky969 "faked" answers to get an extreme result? Or are you poking fun at my particular response?

 

I shall never be like Gandhi, but I don't actually know which person I should be on the political compass.

 

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54


A very interesting little survey.
You're all wierd.

 

No, you must be a troll after all. No one could be that slow.

 

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

 

I don't fake anything, not even orgasms.

 

I didn't think you did, and I still don't (what reason would you have to?).

It's just that my mind got skeptical with the stimulus of Wolfsbane's post.

 

Yep, 'tis the Liberal Olympics here on HoL! Watch out for the "Bleedingest Heart" and "Most Accepting Soul" competitions. Our "Gandhingest Forumite" (that's Gandhi not Ghandi there, folks) competition seems heavily contested, with Xiao's initial bid for the gold quickly endangered by decisive action from multiple parties.

 

I out-Gandhi, Gandhi.

 

Oh well... no metal for me(I don't need such metal), because I am happy to be one of those who are not a liberal. So the gold metal should go to Xiao.

 

Aww, that's sweet.

Having said which, I bow to my master, Blinky.

 

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.72

 

And judging by your score, you want to be everyone's master? Makes for a good moderator at least

 

Ya can still have a structured system of government, but just give people their freedoms of choice, e.g: choice to abort pregnancies; choice to marry people of the same gender; choice to do drugs.

Maybe 3 political axes may be more accurate than two. One for left/right wing, one for what the government allows socially, and one for how much the government enforce and how authoritarian they are.

Suppose a dictator, who allowed the use of all drugs, allowed abortion, allowed gay marriage, allowed freedom of religion, freedom to not work, and etc, but enforced the law with an iron thumb, with CCTV cameras everywhere and everyone bugged, with capital punishment as the penalty for treason.

But then, suppose an elected counsel of government who were all religious in their ideals, and didn't allow drugs, gay marriage abortion or freedom of religion (you had to be what they were), but they didn't control the country much, and had few police and enforcement, and didn't punish people for blasphemy.

The dictator would be socially libertarian and authoritarian at the same time! And the religious counsel would be kinda neither.

So maybe there could be two separate axes for these two dimensions of extremes. One for authoritarian/anarchy, and one for libertarian/conservative.

There may be flaws in my proposal, but it has something to it I reckon.

 

Your entire proposal is one huge contradiction. Having a dictator who enforces complete freedom and monitors the citizens to ensure they're living free? An elected government that doesn't give any freedoms yet doesn't enforce any laws? Think before you post.