@TheGhostmaker: "That's because everyone knows that free markets work, but in practice everyone responds better to suggestions that are not free market." That is true... but in what sense? I suggest that people's feeling that "free markets work" is mostly because they have had that drilled into them all their lives... it is "common sense" - right up there with "we live in the best country in the world"... it is a feeling more than a well supported thought. When you actually define what a free market is people give a more nuanced view.

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

dexter, or maybe the right in america have done an awfully good job of demonizing the word "liberal"

@ Kaptain Kool, re: @Xapi - I think that is a good indication that your views are unrealistic. Basically the political compass as we know it applicably in society starts at: [(-.5<=x), (0<=y)] Views held outside of that realm would have adverse effects on nations governed by them.

I think this post is a good indication that you are, in fact, a troll. Many people have posted with numbers similar to mine, and your absolute frame for views is something you pulled out of your ass.

economic left right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.67

Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

@Xapi - no one could possible govern well with numbers outside of the limits I posted. Anyone who is a modern politician regardless of their party ended up within those limits other than Nelson Mandela who was a terrible leader economically. Just because there are quite a few people with ridiculous political philosophies doesn't mean they are realistic. In the following charts leaders positions are evaluated. Even the most left-wing parties come no where close to you:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates (check the ones you want they are all in line)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008 (the only parties out of line will never govern, seriously one of them doesn't even have any seats the other one is regional)
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 (any modern Head of State is within that range)

Also a troll refers to someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Usually my posts are none of these things.

*not usually, my posts are never any of those things

@Xapi, lol. Kaptain Kool's post was ridiculous and it needed a slap down.
@TheGhostmaker, a further thought on the topic... we ARE a center-left/liberal country on the whole... it just sometimes feels center-right if we compare ourselves only to western Europe. Compare us to Asian, South American (other than Bolivia and Venezuela) or African democracies and you'd probably get a completely different picture. ...also, I completely agree with sean - the right has sold us a product called center-right and demonized "liberal". I am reminded of the cola taste tests when New Coke came out... in blind taste tests people liked New Coke better... but image wise, people wanted to like "Classic Coke"... Center-right conservative sounds all good and righteous and wholesome - especially when compared to those damn effeminate near-communist surrender monkey Europeans... (except when you do the actual blind taste test...).

"@TheGhostmaker: "That's because everyone knows that free markets work, but in practice everyone responds better to suggestions that are not free market." That is true... but in what sense? I suggest that people's feeling that "free markets work" is mostly because they have had that drilled into them all their lives... it is "common sense" - right up there with "we live in the best country in the world"... it is a feeling more than a well supported thought. When you actually define what a free market is people give a more nuanced view."

Perhaps, and what you say is a valid interpretation of the results (clearly you can read either way) but I think that in fact looking at the specific case can remove the clarity of the original arguments. You become increasingly open two a few errors of reasoning:

1. "Something must be done". If anything gets discussed in politics, doing nothing stops being an option that people consider, particularly politicians. In a free market approach, you are doing nothing most of the time.
2. Nirvana fallacy. People compare the imperfect solution of the free market (necessarily imperfect) with an idealistic view of government. The issue is that with government regulation and support programs, there will be errors made as well.
3. Ignoring special interests. A kind of Nirvana fallacy, in a way. People stop remembering that even if a good solution is possible in government, there is the inherent risk of a good program being worsened by the actions encouraged in the political process, which are not necessarily beneficial.
4. Ignoring unintended consequences. It is very hard to credibly identify unintended consequences, but they certainly exist. Often the claims appear silly, but prove true (e.g. seatbelt laws increasing number of accidents)
5. Nobody can be missed. It is often wrong to claim that nobody in the whole of society can be allowed to suffer something. Normally making this claim requires programs costing much more than what is being provided for, since it is commonly prohibitively expensive to identify the final few who are in need, and prohibitively expensive to provide for everyone.

This by no means sum to an argument against all government action in the economy (though the public choice theory ones could be expanded to perhaps argue that point), but they do I think justify why people are more right wing in the abstract than in practice.

Economic: 3.38
Social: -1.95

This isn't that accurate. I feel I'm more to the reight and more Libertarian.

Certainly the legacy of the cold war in America seems to have been the reverence of Capitalism as an ideal. Obama calls himself a capitalist, yet he clearly is not a free-marketeer in the proper sense, and capitalism is all about free markets.

@dexter morgan

My post was not ridiculous. I supported it with the positions of those who actually govern, those who are in power, no matter how left wing they appear, always end up in those bounds.

KaptinKool, politicians are rich (almost exclusively) and part of the ruling elite, class-wise... they often come from business and return to business (often with shady deals involved). It is not surprising that their perspective might on average be to the right of the general population. These are people, after all, that rub shoulders with Goldman Sachs and Halliburton representatives on a daily basis... we're not talking about Cesar Chavez here - joining protest marches and talking to migrant workers. The last major politician in the U.S. to truly reach out to the poor and truly say that he was going to give them all a better deal was, debatibly, R.F.K.... and he got shot. It doesn't tend to be that the leader of the power structure is actually for the re-distribution of power.

@KaptinKool:
Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez? Those are not valid? I saw a poll with an argument attached that said Ralph Nader would have been elected president of the US, if the electoral system allowed people to vote for more than one candidate.

@Tantris, that poll was pure bullshit, not evern Ralph Nader likes Ralph Nader. And in an alternate universe where Ralph Nader was President... Ralph Nader would never be President. Not to mention first past the post is the best polling system we have.

@dexter morgan - in Canada politicians are not rich, the bounds I gave you are simply realistic bounds for governing.

Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54

I'm apparently Ghandi and Friedman's love child. Which I'm sure shocks no one

@KaptinKool:
If we switched to acceptance voting with first past the post, there would be a wider range of parties. And, actually, our voting system is fairly poor in many ways. For instance, it allows for a spoiler candidate, which is a strong candidate on the more popular side to throw the election to the other side. It also nearly forces two parties to exist. If you vote for a third, you could actually hurt your candidate. It also doesn't select the most popular candidate amongst the most people, it just selects between the two. It also dictates the positions of the candidates to a greater or less extent. They have to pretend to be all things to all people, and end up fairly moderate and hard to lock down. We have also had 30 years of the Overton Window being pulled to the right by talk radio and a constant attack on any news media to discredit them.

It is great isn't it, to just be able to throw out any inconvenient facts?

@TheGhostMaker:
The free market also works much better in theory than in practice, and in smaller scales. The global corporations more powerful than most companies is not a healthy thing. Monopolies are more and more commonplace. Those are failures of the free market.

@KaptinKool, "the bounds I gave you are simply realistic bounds for governing"
Based on what? Of the group posted on the website, it could be reasonably argued that Nelson Mandela did the best job of the bunch... he guided a country on the edge of a very bloody civil war / race war and forged a democracy... while still facing up to the crimes of the past. Not an easy path at all... and he pulled it off. The fact that the website lists more leaders in the upper right quadrant certainly doesn't prove that that is what it takes to lead... any more than if you charted the skills of athletes and decided that the average athlete was a guide for the exceptional athlete... simply because there are more average than exceptional ones.

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.44

I always thought I was on the "authoritarian" side of things.

This quiz just might be stacked to create an impression that everyone is libertarian lol.

I think people who like games like diploimacy tend to be libertarians generally speaking. the economic L/R line has a lot more variety, im keen for more members to do the quiz and ghost do compile them

Of course, on the other hand, Diplomacy players that play on-line and feel compelled to comment on politics in the Diplomacy Forum is probably not a particularly accurate cross-section of society in general.

jinx

Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85