some of these questions sound like trick questions, or maybe its just me thinking too hard
I’m a bit torn about these tests. I think these questions, on an individual basis, are totally worthless. But when taken together they can actually be somewhat useful. (Sort of how polling one person is useless for predicting election results but polling a thousand people is a much better indicator). That said, I think I could have easily appended a paragraph or two to each answer explaining a few different ways I could approach the question and come up with a different answer. Maybe that just means my username is appropriate.
Most of my answers were “agree” or “disagree” rather than “strongly ____” for two basic reasons:
I inherently shy away from absolutist statements.
I was always thinking of exceptions.
For instance, the question about the death penalty: Generally I’m opposed to the death penalty because it’s an inordinately expensive option, if you’re afraid of escape you should lock them up tighter, and I think the current methods are unnecessarily cruel and complex.
On the other hand, if the death penalty were carried out by firing squad, and didn’t cost the state millions of dollars more than locking someone away forever, I would feel better about it. And the one crime I absolutely support the death penalty for is treason. So I answered “agree” for “The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.” but, depending on how you interpret the question, I should have answered “disagree.”
Unfortunately, I think this makes me the most left-wing nutjob here so far.
ETA: Nevermind, looks like montanadave kicked my ass in that respect.
about what I expected
ETA: But it can be messed with…
I like Pournelle’s Axis a bit better, but most of the coordinate systems are better than the Left - Right thing that we have had since the French Rev.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Political_spectrum
Has a concise descriptor of several of them.
Thanks for the link. Since reading Isaiah Berlin’s essay on the subject, I have always been intrigued by the tension between positive and negative interpretations of liberty. An elucidatory discussion of that topic can be found online at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Interesting food for thought to nibble on over a long weekend.
Def some issues with some of the questions. Oh Well …
If you want something else that is interesting in this regard. Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions” is worth the time.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688079512
Just blundering through it and punting on the questions that were obviously loaded.
As with other posters, I too have issues with the questions. I don’t expect other people to believe what I believe and so I answered free of what I believe are my own preferences (compared to what I believe should be standards in society), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I personally feel that way. For example, I believe that praying should be allowed in schools, but it is NOT the school or the state’s position to teach kids about religion - (religion being anything that requires faith to prove, including Evolution).
Anyways, I’m not sure if this is good or bad, lol:
Economic Left/Right: 3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.10
well you landed right next to me, so it must be perfect. :laugh:
I took it again, trying to focus on my political beliefs versus my personal moral beliefs… I crossed the line and went down into the libertarian realm a little. Kind of like where they placed “Friedman”
One question that struck me was
“A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.”
This is factually true. Does agreeing with me make me more authoritarian? I cannot disagree with facts but that does not mean that I support one party systems at all. From an organizational standpoint, one party systems have some advantages (China being a good example – they can react faster to economic instability for example). That does not make them an ideal or wanted system however.
It’s not factually true; it’s potentially “objectively” true. Factually true would be redundant wording (since fact is a synonym for truth). And it’s only “objectively” true when the objective is to save time in passing said measures. Ergo, it’s only an advantage if saving time is indeed an advantage (which would only be the case when the legislation being passed is beneficial). However, not every legislation passed would be good (since there would be virtually no opposition), it’s only an advantage when “good” legislation is passed. Therefore, since the advantage of a single party system would be derived entirely from the legislation passed (and not how it’s passed), the speed at which it is done is not an advantage in and of itself (consider that bad legislation would be passed at the same speed), therefore making the statement false.
Any argument outside of this is philosophical debate. Excuse me - my critical thinking and debate background is coming out.
Here we go.
S.M.
Except that you are wrong. 
The statement is
“A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.”
It “trueness” does not depend on the outcome. It is an organizational thing independent of the outcome.
And things can be “factually true”. That means that it is true based on a fact, not on a subjective reason. “Factually true” is not redundant either since “factually” is an adjective that tells us more about the “true”. They are not two synonyms being grouped together.
Reading back through the analysis page on that site, I’ve noticed none of their listed leaders through history have fallen in the bottom-right quadrant. I’m sure there’s some they just aren’t listing, but it’s somewhat ironic.
EDIT: Except Friedman.
Again, it’s ONLY an advantage if the legislation passed is good. What advantage is there to passing bills quickly if the legislation isn’t good? Consider that a one-party system passing nothing but self-destructive legislation would simply destroy itself faster. It’s ONLY an advantage when the measure of the “advantage” is he speed at which bills are passed; and if that’s your measure of advantage, is it even an advantage? How so? It’s an advantage because it’s faster and it’s faster because it’s an advantage? That could pass for both circular reasoning as well as an “infallible argument.” But I digress 
And further (the question didn’t address this), WHO is it an advantage to?
I see what you’re saying with “factually true,” but something that is true is a fact, period. Go review “unions”. Something that is factual is true, something that is true is factual; you don’t have to state a truth is based on fact because IT IS fact. It’s redundant.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90
Damn, I’m almost right in the center:
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.51
again, it is an organizational advantage. It does not depend on the outcome.
And further (the question didn’t address this), WHO is it an advantage to?
I see what you’re saying with “factually true,” but something that is true is a fact, period. Go review “unions”. Something that is factual is true, something that is true is factual; you don’t have to state a truth is based on fact because IT IS fact. It’s redundant
True is more than black/white. Subjective truth exists as well. So factually true clarifies.