slightly left wing libertarian.

[moorobot]

The cutoff lines are arbitrary, probably necessarily so.

The democratic party in the U.S., has about, on average, a slightly less liberal view socially and about an equal view in terms of economics. Your view, as this test measures it, is very close to what the view of the average politican from the democratic party's view is.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty funny. I scored almost the same as you (83/55) but that termed me a "strong democrat." Which, for the record, I am not.

[/ QUOTE ]



If you look at the chart, it's right where the line between libertarian and Democrat is. I find the entire area rather interesting. Apparently if you're socially permissive, then you also get to be economically permissive and still a Democrat. But if you aren't very socially permissive, then you can't be economically permissive either. The bottom-left section of "Democrats" is totalitarian, and the top-right section is anarchistic! Just goes to show the party doesn't mean anything any more.

The test is awful, however. I hate the "strongly agree" stuff. I can be an anarchist even if I don't feel strongly about anything, how strongly I feel about it is a separate issue. I believe the reason I'm not at about 95%,95% is because I often used the more moderate "agree" and "disagree," without the "strongly" part. I'd be willing to bet that hmk, pvn, and Boro answered "strongly" in almost every case.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet that hmk, pvn, and Boro answered "strongly" in almost every case.


[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly agree.

[Chips_]

To me this chart is not right. Libertarians are not closer to Democrats than they are to Republicans, with huge standard deviations within the party on that scale vs either other major party. But on avereage most of the analysis I have seen is that they tend to take away more votes from Republicans than from Democrats. I would wager that Libetarian candidates in upcomming elections in 2006 and 2008 will take more from Republicans.

[hmkpoker]

Depends on the Republicans and Democrats. This might have been the case when Republicans had the illusion of being tox tax, small federal government advocates, but that is clearly not the case now.

You're saying that Libertarians "would otherwise have voted" for Republicans, but that is simply not the case. The vast majority of us HATE Bush. We don't support his Democratic competitors less than him, we actively hate him. Most of us would rather not vote than vote for a Republicrat.

The Bush administration has done an excellent job of showing the country that the Republican party does not support libertarian values.

[RagnarPirate]

right on brother. I would add that that food example was not contrived AT ALL.

Since this is a poker site, consider online poker. It is about as laissez-faire as you can get. They are offshore, essentially unregulated multi-billion dollar businesses. Website reputation is worth gold. They go to great length to present their independent accounting and anti-collusion provisions. In addition, as a player, I am highly vigilant towards the possibility of fraud. I think it is the case that people are like sheep being lulled into a false sense of security by the supposed protection of government regulation. After all Enron had the SEC seal of approval on its accounting practices. I doubt that billions would have been lost in that same company if hyper-vigilant investors were rationally considering this company's valuation.

[Borodog]

I will remind you that it was the private entities, i.e. the market, that noticed the funny business with Enron in the first place. I will also remind you that Enron didn't do anything all that unusual or underhanded; they just shifted some accounting from one column to another to try to put makeup on the hog that was their financial condition. If that is fraud, WTF do you call what the government does with its "books"? The federal government has simply LOST trillions of dollars (after they were stolen in the first place), and not a single one of the [censored] will be punished in any way for their incompetent and fraudulent accounting practices.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the reason I'm not at about 95%,95% is because I often used the more moderate "agree" and "disagree," without the "strongly" part. I'd be willing to bet that hmk, pvn, and Boro answered "strongly" in almost every case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'd be at 95/95 or anything, but I also answered the "moderate" choices most of the time. I have defined opinions on almost all the questions, but not that many of them are super-strong. I usually at least kinda understand both sides.

I also wasn't concerned with proving how libertarian I am, which I am sure was the goal of several 2+2 test-takers. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

For the record, I was 68/66.

[hmkpoker]

There's a wide range of libertarians there.

Hell, I voted for Kerry. (Yeah, yeah, shut up)

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a wide range of libertarians there.

Hell, I voted for Kerry. (Yeah, yeah, shut up)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's one thing I won't forgive Bush for [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] I really really wanted a Democrat president and a Republican congress. Can you imagine all the nothing that would have gotten done? I couldn't stand Kerry though.