Still a libertarian

Again, Jim started it, and a few of my other friends followed suit.

This is supposedly a more in-depth evaluation of one’s political leanings, although I have a problem with how a number of questions were worded. Just as that other test, it seems to ignore some of the key political areas (crime? foreign policy?) – but, maybe, those cannot be fitted into such study.

In any case, I certainly like this outcome better, even though it is essentially the same verdict – “moderate libertarian” (but it does call me an “economic conservative”, which is how I always viewed myself).

You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (71% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test

Explanation Of Results

We wanted to get beyond the two catch-alls of American politics, the Democratic and Republican parties, and see where people actually stand. Parties can bring together people with marginally differing values and make collective action easier. But party platforms can misrepresent their constituents, and blind loyalty to a party can convince individuals to harbor inconsistent views.

The goal of this test was to exactly classify your personal politics, without the traditional labels. We avoided the edgy party issues and focused on fundamental values. Your score is a measure of what you believe in, economically and socially.

Higher permissiveness, on either axis, indicates a “live and let live” philosophy. Of course, we’re almost conditioned in America, “Land of the Free”, to think positively of such a philosophy. But practically speaking, permissiveness (or its opposite, regulation) can create any number of outcomes:

For example, on the economic axis, a highly permissive system, like the American system of the early 1900s, might mean things like low taxes and increased scientific innovation. It might also result, as it did back then, in unrestricted child labor and millions of poor people with black lung.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, a highly regulated system might conserve the environment, establish national health care, and eliminate poverty. But as we’ve learned from the Soviet system, extreme regulation can also lead to stagnation, sameness, and unhappiness.