Eight Values - Political Quiz

[untermensche]

There is nothing vague about being opposed to dictatorship.

If a system is filled with big and little dictatorships there is nothing vague in being opposed to it.

Yeah, but almost no sane person in the world equates Capitalism with "dictatorship". Most people have not drank your kool-aid. Thus, almost no one else who opposes it does so for your same reason and almost no one who supports it does so because they support dictatorships.
That is why it is a completely meaningless dimension in the absence of more specific examples that clarify what one means by "Capitalism".

I could point to many people that equate actually existing capitalism with a bunch of little dictatorships.

You could start with Noam Chomsky. Not a light weight.

If you want more that isn't a problem.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yeah, but almost no sane person in the world equates Capitalism with "dictatorship". Most people have not drank your kool-aid. Thus, almost no one else who opposes it does so for your same reason and almost no one who supports it does so because they support dictatorships.
That is why it is a completely meaningless dimension in the absence of more specific examples that clarify what one means by "Capitalism".

I could point to many people that equate actually existing capitalism with a bunch of little dictatorships.

You could start with Noam Chomsky. Not a light weight.

If you want more that isn't a problem.

The fact that particular private companies are often run like dictatorships has nothing to do with whether a government that allows some degree of private enterprise must inherently be run as a dictatorship. I doubt that even a rabid dogmatist like Chomsky would make such a false equivalency.

Also, Chomsky is a radical extremist with whom only a small % of people who are free to say so agree. Most of those who'd say they agree live in actual dictatorships, which is in fact the only form of government capable of enforcing Communism and preventing the kind of capitalistic endeavors inherent to individual humans being free to pursue their own aims.

 

[Terrell]

Yes indeed. I've done some statistics on the numbers, and they indeed cluster on Libertarian Socialism. There are a few outliers that are far from this ideology, however.


I think that it is a result of who is taking the test. Are the test-takers clearly split between progressive and regressive leftists?

I think it is the divide between the progressives and regressive left. We appear to have very few conservatives here.

We do, in fact, have some, or at least sort-of conservatives. Axulus, Loren Pechtel, Derec, dismal, Lumpenproletariat, Jason Harvestdancer, ... Though they are often very talkative, none of them have posted any test results yet.

I agree, especially with the part I bolded. Neither this test, nor the original separates those two.
.

Not directly, but I don't think a classic liberal who values personal freedom would have as extreme of scores (e.g., above 80%) on the dimensions of this test, especially the "Equality" and "Globalization" dimensions. Extreme high scores on those basically require being and authoritarian communist who doesn't think that individuals or groups of people (like nations) have any rights of self-determination and that identical outcomes for all by any means neccessary takes primacy.

Ironically, even the "Progress" dimension cannot be completely endorsed, because it includes items about "progress, no matter what it takes". A classic liberal would be uneasy with that thinking. That kind of myopic, outcome over preservation of core principles (like personal liberty) is the hallmark of what your calling "regressive left".

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing, agreeing, or somewhere in between here. I do think that a person can favor progress in the sense of let's treat people fairly, but also think that the perpetually offended need to go somewhere and do something to themselves when they get there. I don't think the test differentiates between such views and simply makes them both as liberal.

I think the quizzes, both this one & the original, are too simplistic. One obvious thing it's lacking is the ability to rank the importance of each choice relative to the others.

 

[ronburgundy]

Hilariously, you just exactly that by labeling yourself "a child of the 90's".

What does that label mean? Does it the mean the generation of anti-science who believe against all reason that humans are so magical and themselves so unique that, unlike the rest of nature, they possess no definable properties or tendencies?

This particular measurement scheme may have flaws, but there is nothing in principle that prevents your beliefs and values from being accurately identified relative to those of others, and in a way that predicts what you are likely to think, say, and do in reaction to various situations and events. After all, this scheme is far more sophisticated and nuanced than the Dem-Republican or Liberal-conservative categorizations, and even those are often decent predictors those things.

I think that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek...

I don't think so. Read their other post below which makes it clear they think that even in principle, human psychological tendencies and traits cannot be validly identified.

I don't know why you're all trying to criticize the exact wording or obtuse nature of the questions asked. you might as well do that for the quiz that tries to tell you which game of thrones character you are for all the difference it makes.

 

[untermensche]

I could point to many people that equate actually existing capitalism with a bunch of little dictatorships.

You could start with Noam Chomsky. Not a light weight.

If you want more that isn't a problem.

The fact that particular private companies are often run like dictatorships has nothing to do with whether a government that allows some degree of private enterprise must inherently be run as a dictatorship. I doubt that even a rabid dogmatist like Chomsky would make such a false equivalency.

Also, Chomsky is a radical extremist with whom only a small % of people who are free to say so agree. Most of those who'd say they agree live in actual dictatorships, which is in fact the only form of government capable of enforcing Communism and preventing the kind of capitalistic endeavors inherent to individual humans being free to pursue their own aims.

Calling Chomsky, one of the most free thinkers in the world, a dogmatist is pure ignorance that could not be backed up with evidence.

The ideas that will dominate the future are usually only held by a few people in the present.

When slavery was dominant only a few at the time saw the inherent immorality.

Now that top down dictatorships that are not only immoral but incredibly destructive and leading us towards environmental disaster dominate many do not see the inherent immorality expressed in them.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes indeed. I've done some statistics on the numbers, and they indeed cluster on Libertarian Socialism. There are a few outliers that are far from this ideology, however.


I think that it is a result of who is taking the test. Are the test-takers clearly split between progressive and regressive leftists?

I think it is the divide between the progressives and regressive left. We appear to have very few conservatives here.

We do, in fact, have some, or at least sort-of conservatives. Axulus, Loren Pechtel, Derec, dismal, Lumpenproletariat, Jason Harvestdancer, ... Though they are often very talkative, none of them have posted any test results yet.

I agree, especially with the part I bolded. Neither this test, nor the original separates those two.
.

Not directly, but I don't think a classic liberal who values personal freedom would have as extreme of scores (e.g., above 80%) on the dimensions of this test, especially the "Equality" and "Globalization" dimensions. Extreme high scores on those basically require being and authoritarian communist who doesn't think that individuals or groups of people (like nations) have any rights of self-determination and that identical outcomes for all by any means neccessary takes primacy.

Ironically, even the "Progress" dimension cannot be completely endorsed, because it includes items about "progress, no matter what it takes". A classic liberal would be uneasy with that thinking. That kind of myopic, outcome over preservation of core principles (like personal liberty) is the hallmark of what your calling "regressive left".

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing, agreeing, or somewhere in between here. I do think that a person can favor progress in the sense of let's treat people fairly, but also think that the perpetually offended need to go somewhere and do something to themselves when they get there. I don't think the test differentiates between such views and simply makes them both as liberal.

I think the quizzes, both this one & the original, are too simplistic. One obvious thing it's lacking is the ability to rank the importance of each choice relative to the others.

I agree that this scheme has problems. I am saying that I think that some of the items being used as supporting "Equality", "Globalization", and "Progress" are anti-thetical to respecting core principles that classic liberals respect but an increasing number of leftist authoritarians do not. While the majority of items on those dimensions are things that both would endorse. As a result, pro-liberty liberals would tend to get scores in the 60-80 range on Equality and Global, while the regressive would tend to be above 80. Thus, that difference is an indirect indicator of whether one is a classic liberal or regressive leftist.

 

[lpetrich]

I did some Principal Components Analysis on the scores, and I found some correlation.

There was one large axis of variation, and it goes like follows:

• Economic +1 Equality, -1 Markets
• Diplomatic: -1 Nation, +1 World
• Civil: +1 Liberty, -1 Authority
• Societal: -1 Tradition, +1 Progress
• PC Economic: -1
• PC Social: -1

(about the same size relative to their standard deviations)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Didn't get rated as an anarchist?

It has no knowledge of Anarchism.

Anarchism to me and some others is mostly concerned with artificial human structures of power and the influence these structures have on society and individuals.

Dictatorial top down structures are considered immoral unless they can justify themselves, like the dictatorial power a parent has over a child for a while.

But this power is only considered moral if it is in the interest of the child to protect it.

Dictatorship is not considered moral if one is using it to exploit those below and steal from them.

That's a very long-winded way of saying "yes".

We do, in fact, have some, or at least sort-of conservatives. Axulus, Loren Pechtel, Derec, dismal, Lumpenproletariat, Jason Harvestdancer, ... Though they are often very talkative, none of them have posted any test results yet.

I've never claimed to be any sort of conservative. Ever. I've always been very open about how I'm a libertarian.

Also, you left underseer off your list.

Finally...

Where do you stand on:
Economic: Equality vs. Markets
Diplomacy: Nation vs. World
Civil: Liberty vs. Authority
Social: Tradition vs. Progress

Me:
Economic Axis: Market -- 29.3% -- 70.7%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced -- 44.1% -- 55.9%
Civil Axis: Libertarian -- 77.3% -- 22.7%
Societal Axis: Neutral -- 41.5% -- 58.5%
Closest Match: Libertarian Capitalism

The Diplomatic axis had me intrigued, until I figured out their bias. Since I basically want to tell the world "bugger off, we'll do our thing you do yours" that means I'm neither putting the country under the thumbs of other countries nor invading other countries to put them under our thumb. It seems subservience or dominance are the two options, and I favor neither. I'm neither a nationalist nor an internationalist. Societal Axis, I wanted to agree with some statements, but with a rider of "but not if the government is doing it."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Strike that, I misunderstood which axis was which. I am not in favor of tradition for the sake of tradition, and I am not in favor of change for the sake of change, so being neutral on the societal axis makes sense.

 

[lpetrich]

We do, in fact, have some, or at least sort-of conservatives. Axulus, Loren Pechtel, Derec, dismal, Lumpenproletariat, Jason Harvestdancer, ... Though they are often very talkative, none of them have posted any test results yet.

I've never claimed to be any sort of conservative. Ever. I've always been very open about how I'm a libertarian.

However, a part of conservative Political Correctness is the absolute goodness of capitalism.

Also, you left underseer off your list.

He's being satirical about that.

Me:
Economic Axis: Market -- 29.3% -- 70.7%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced -- 44.1% -- 55.9%
Civil Axis: Libertarian -- 77.3% -- 22.7%
Societal Axis: Neutral -- 41.5% -- 58.5%
Closest Match: Libertarian Capitalism

Good that you did something positive.

JH, the averages and stdevs of everybody else's scores:
69.3 30.7 ... 39.1 60.9 ... 64.3 35.7 ... 25.1 74.9
13.7 13.7 ... 15.6 15.6 ... 14.6 14.6 ... 15.3 15.3

Number of stdevs JH is from the others' averages:
-2.9 2.9 ... 0.3 -0.3 ... 0.9 -0.9 ... 1.1 -1.1

The Diplomatic axis had me intrigued, until I figured out their bias. Since I basically want to tell the world "bugger off, we'll do our thing you do yours" that means I'm neither putting the country under the thumbs of other countries nor invading other countries to put them under our thumb. It seems subservience or dominance are the two options, and I favor neither. I'm neither a nationalist nor an internationalist.

So you think that that quiz has an axis of (belligerent nationalism) - (cooperative internationalism)?

Also that it should have included an option of a non-belligerent, non-cooperative foreign policy? Presumably what is meant by isolationism.

Typo for RavenSky: Economic Axis: Socialist -- 76.2% -- 23.8% not 24.8%

 

[LordKiran]

I think that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek...

I don't think so. Read their other post below which makes it clear they think that even in principle, human psychological tendencies and traits cannot be validly identified.

I don't know why you're all trying to criticize the exact wording or obtuse nature of the questions asked. you might as well do that for the quiz that tries to tell you which game of thrones character you are for all the difference it makes.

It actually was. I am not under any illusion that labels are something you can shake off completely. As for the latter post, the point I'm making is that you're criticizing the wording of the questionnaire when the wording and obtuse nature of the questions are very much intentional and a part of how little personality quizzes like this function. Almost every question asked could be effectively answered with "Not necessarily" but if you answer every question with the nearest equivelent "Not sure" you end up with Centrist, which isn't a satisfying way to 'validate' (For lack of a better word) yourself as labels go.

 

[funinspace]

I decided to retake the quiz with a slightly differing perspective. Some of the questions that I probably flipped on somewhat between before and now, as I took a more anal and relativistic to the current US status approach to the statements, such as the ones below. I also commented on each a little. I think one’s attitude will impact the results.

It is necessary for the government to intervene in the economy to protect consumers. – but what if one thinks the govt oversteps sometimes already?
It is better to maintain a balanced budget than to ensure welfare for all citizens. – Do you prefer chocolate ice cream for desert, or lamb chops for dinner?
Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market. – Always? Can there be a mix?
International trade is beneficial. – Sounds like it’s an “always”, and does it matter how the trading partner is acting?
Taxes should be increased on the rich to provide for the poor. – Could not the military take a spending cut to provide for the poor?
Excessive government intervention is a threat to the economy. – Of course it is, by the definition of “excessive”, so the point of the statement?
Those with a greater ability to pay should receive better healthcare. – If the rich want Rolls Royce care, and I am getting Mercedes care, should I care? Or should I expect VA care?
Military action by our nation is often necessary to protect it. – How often is “often”?
It is important to maintain our national sovereignty. – What is the level of “maintaining”?
Wars do not need to be justified to other countries. – Uh, justified to what group/body?
Military spending is a waste of money. – In the US, the amount spent is certainly a waste, yet I wouldn’t want it zero’ed out.
Research should be conducted on an international scale. – How much?
Governments should be accountable to the international community. – How accountable is accountable?
Even when protesting an authoritarian government, violence is not acceptable. – It depends
It is very important to maintain law and order. – Sure, but it can also go too far, as we have seen in the US at times.
The sacrifice of some civil liberties is necessary to protect us from acts of terrorism. – How much is “some”?
Government surveillance is necessary in the modern world. – How much surveillance, and what if I think we way over survail?
It is important that the government follows the majority opinion, even if it is wrong. – yes/no.
The stronger the leadership, the better. – Well weak leadership can be pretty bad as well…
Climate change is currently one of the greatest threats to our way of life. – What if our way of life is a great threat to the climate?
If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture. – How important and how assimilated?
Maintaining family values is essential. – Who’s family’s values?
We should open our borders to immigration. – They are open. Or is it suggesting no borders?

Done more anally and relativistic:
Economic Axis: Market 32.3% -- 67.7%
Diplomatic Axis: Balanced 48.9% -- 51.1%
Civil Axis: Liberal 66.5% -- 33.5%
Societal Axis: Progressive 35.4% -- 64.6%
Classical Liberalism

Originally from a more hypothetical approach (post #15)
Economic Axis: Centrist 57.3% -- 42.7%
Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful 35.1% -- 64.9%
Civil Axis: Liberal 70.4% -- 29.6%
Societal Axis: Very Progressive 22.4% -- 77.6%
Closest Match: Social Liberalism

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think so. Read their other post below which makes it clear they think that even in principle, human psychological tendencies and traits cannot be validly identified.

I don't know why you're all trying to criticize the exact wording or obtuse nature of the questions asked. you might as well do that for the quiz that tries to tell you which game of thrones character you are for all the difference it makes.

It actually was. I am not under any illusion that labels are something you can shake off completely. As for the latter post, the point I'm making is that you're criticizing the wording of the questionnaire when the wording and obtuse nature of the questions are very much intentional and a part of how little personality quizzes like this function. Almost every question asked could be effectively answered with "Not necessarily" but if you answer every question with the nearest equivelent "Not sure" you end up with Centrist, which isn't a satisfying way to 'validate' (For lack of a better word) yourself as labels go.

As a statistical reality, most people are "centrist", so even the most valid assessment of people would put most as centrist. Some people will not think of qualifying conditions and thus not think "not necessarily. That lack of nuance and contextual thinking is a hallmark of ideological dogmatism and extremism. Such people will tend to select "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree", which would give them a more extreme score on that dimension, and that will be valid more often than not.

So contrary to your equating such a measure to a Game of Thrones character match, the scores on these dimensions are likely reliably correlated and predictive of all kinds of meaningful political values, attitudes, and voting behaviors. Thus, the flaws do not lie in some inherent invalidity of such measures as you imply, but with the particular wording of some items which could be improved.

For example, this particular measure uses "My country is great." while the prior political compass measure uses a more specific item of "I support my country, no matter what." These will be correlated by the people who endorse the latter are likely to highly endorse the former, and many of the people you don't endorse the latter, will hesitate to endorse the former because it sounds too much like a nationalistic chant. However, the former doesn't actually imply supporting your country's actions no matter what and can be interpreted as just thinking that one's country is relatively great compared to most in terms of democratic and constitutional principles and rights, even if it doesn't always live up to those ideals. The greater vagueness of the former items leads to more error in measurement, even if it does likely predict political behaviors to a modest degree.

OTOH, this current measure is better than the political compass in general (contrary to your claim they are all equally useless), because it divides the items into 4 dimensions rather than just 2. Likewise, the 2 dimensions are more valid than the most common surveys that divide people on the single dimension of liberal to conservative without separating economic and social issues. And yet, even just asking people to rate themselves on that one dimension has some validity in predicting many real world behaviors from how people vote to how they parent their kids.

In sum, your blind dismissal of such measures is unscientific and irrational, just as much as treating their results as definitive and without any flaws.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't think so. Read their other post below which makes it clear they think that even in principle, human psychological tendencies and traits cannot be validly identified.

I don't know why you're all trying to criticize the exact wording or obtuse nature of the questions asked. you might as well do that for the quiz that tries to tell you which game of thrones character you are for all the difference it makes.

It actually was. I am not under any illusion that labels are something you can shake off completely. As for the latter post, the point I'm making is that you're criticizing the wording of the questionnaire when the wording and obtuse nature of the questions are very much intentional and a part of how little personality quizzes like this function. Almost every question asked could be effectively answered with "Not necessarily" but if you answer every question with the nearest equivelent "Not sure" you end up with Centrist, which isn't a satisfying way to 'validate' (For lack of a better word) yourself as labels go.

As a statistical reality, most people are "centrist", so even the most valid assessment of people would put most as centrist. Some people will not think of qualifying conditions and thus not think "not necessarily. That lack of nuance and contextual thinking is a hallmark of ideological dogmatism and extremism. Such people will tend to select "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree", which would give them a more extreme score on that dimension, and that will be valid more often than not.

So contrary to your equating such a measure to a Game of Thrones character match, the scores on these dimensions are likely reliably correlated and predictive of all kinds of meaningful political values, attitudes, and voting behaviors. Thus, the flaws do not lie in some inherent invalidity of such measures as you imply, but with the particular wording of some items which could be improved.

For example, this particular measure uses "My country is great." while the prior political compass measure uses a more specific item of "I support my country, no matter what." These will be correlated by the people who endorse the latter are likely to highly endorse the former, and many of the people you don't endorse the latter, will hesitate to endorse the former because it sounds too much like a nationalistic chant. However, the former doesn't actually imply supporting your country's actions no matter what and can be interpreted as just thinking that one's country is relatively great compared to most in terms of democratic and constitutional principles and rights, even if it doesn't always live up to those ideals. The greater vagueness of the former items leads to more error in measurement, even if it does likely predict political behaviors to a modest degree.

OTOH, this current measure is better than the political compass in general (contrary to your claim they are all equally useless), because it divides the items into 4 dimensions rather than just 2. Likewise, the 2 dimensions are more valid than the most common surveys that divide people on the single dimension of liberal to conservative without separating economic and social issues. And yet, even just asking people to rate themselves on that one dimension has some validity in predicting many real world behaviors from how people vote to how they parent their kids.

In sum, your blind dismissal of such measures is unscientific and irrational, just as much as treating their results as definitive and without any flaws.

Fair enough then. I'll reconsider my thoughts.

 

[ronburgundy]

I've never claimed to be any sort of conservative. Ever. I've always been very open about how I'm a libertarian.

Yeah, but equating unregulated economic behavior and being anti-government with "libertarianism" is something that conservatives and corporatists tend to do, and has no basis in rational application of libertarian principles. Libertarianism actually requires regulations that protect people's liberties and rights against abuses by other individuals, which as important to human liberty as ensuring that government does not overstep and impede truly private behaviors that don't infringe upon others.

The issue is that most economic behavior is not entirely private and often directly impacts others and impacts property and environmental resources that are inherently communal because they cannot be confined to any specific location. Although your economic score isn't highly extreme, it could easily be closer to the midpoint and still be compatible with libertarian values as applied to

The Diplomatic axis had me intrigued, until I figured out their bias. Since I basically want to tell the world "bugger off, we'll do our thing you do yours" that means I'm neither putting the country under the thumbs of other countries nor invading other countries to put them under our thumb. It seems subservience or dominance are the two options, and I favor neither. I'm neither a nationalist nor an internationalist.

So you think that that quiz has an axis of (belligerent nationalism) - (cooperative internationalism)?

He seems to be largely correct about that. If you endorse your country imposing its will on others you get a "nation" score, and if you support a global collective imposing a collective will on your country, you get a "global" score.

Also that it should have included an option of a non-belligerent, non-cooperative foreign policy? Presumably what is meant by isolationism.

Isolationism is only 1 way to arrive at a "balanced" score in the middle of those two extremes. Another is to view international cooperation as something that one's nation should engage in rationally and thus contingent upon whether the aims of that cooperative are compatible with the goals and values of one's nation, rather than blindly assuming that a global organization will always do the right thing. Classic liberals and progressive recognize that the majority within each country is often objectively and morally wrong, requiring people of conscience to go against it and even its unjust laws. It is equally true that the majority of the decision makers in international organization (who often don't even reflect the majority interests of people among those nations) can be objectively and morally wrong, requiring people of conscience to favor their nation going against that majority, and potentially even violating its unjust laws. Knee-jerk haters of US foreign policy are too often hypocritical and inconsistent in acknowledging one but not the other.

A thoughtful, moral person who realizes this could get a score on that dimension closer to the midpoint (though probably on the "global" side). An extreme "Global" score on that scale requires a kind of authoritarian blind deference to global authorities that are irrationally viewed as infallible.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, but equating unregulated economic behavior and being anti-government with "libertarianism" is something that conservatives and corporatists tend to do, and has no basis in rational application of libertarian principles. Libertarianism actually requires regulations that protect people's liberties and rights against abuses by other individuals, which as important to human liberty as ensuring that government does not overstep and impede truly private behaviors that don't infringe upon others.

See, that's part of the problem there. Corporatism is by definition not the Free Market, because Corporatism by definition is using the government to benefit your corporation. Usually it takes the form of protective tariffs, import quotas, but also regulations that apply to "me but not to thee." A business will convince the government that other businesses do what the initial business is already doing, and enjoys a lead while others play catch-up. Yes, there are conservatives who are free market, but there are conservatives who are not. And there are free-marketers who are conservative, and there are free-marketers who are not. The two terms are not synonymous.

It is the difference between bad regulation and no regulation. Too many progressives and liberals see the bad regulations of the corporatists and insist in spite of all evidence that it is absent regulation when it is not.

The issue is that most economic behavior is not entirely private and often directly impacts others and impacts property and environmental resources that are inherently communal because they cannot be confined to any specific location. Although your economic score isn't highly extreme, it could easily be closer to the midpoint and still be compatible with libertarian values as applied to

You forgot to finish your sentence, but I think I know what you meant. There are those who are civil libertarians but not free marketers, who disagree when I say the two do go together.

He seems to be largely correct about that. If you endorse your country imposing its will on others you get a "nation" score, and if you support a global collective imposing a collective will on your country, you get a "global" score.

Isolationism is only 1 way to arrive at a "balanced" score in the middle of those two extremes. Another is to view international cooperation as something that one's nation should engage in rationally and thus contingent upon whether the aims of that cooperative are compatible with the goals and values of one's nation, rather than blindly assuming that a global organization will always do the right thing. Classic liberals and progressive recognize that the majority within each country is often objectively and morally wrong, requiring people of conscience to go against it and even its unjust laws. It is equally true that the majority of the decision makers in international organization (who often don't even reflect the majority interests of people among those nations) can be objectively and morally wrong, requiring people of conscience to favor their nation going against that majority, and potentially even violating its unjust laws. Knee-jerk haters of US foreign policy are too often hypocritical and inconsistent in acknowledging one but not the other.

A thoughtful, moral person who realizes this could get a score on that dimension closer to the midpoint (though probably on the "global" side). An extreme "Global" score on that scale requires a kind of authoritarian blind deference to global authorities that are irrationally viewed as infallible.

I actually prefer "peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none." That would lead to trade but leave out the military intervention, while true isolationism cuts off a country entirely. Based on the way the questions were worded, yes, you understood my complaint. I would not cut the country off, but I do not believe that what happens outside the US is essentially the concern of the US government. The people can be concerned, yes, but that doesn't translate into a government mandate.

 

[rousseau]

I recall a pretty extensive poll done on Freeratio. The gist was our community are primarily left leaning libertarians.

 

[bilby]

I recall a pretty extensive poll done on Freeratio. The gist was our community are primarily left leaning libertarians.

It rather depends upon the population against which the test is normalised. If the 'average American' is taken as the midpoint, then anyone from the rest of the OECD is very likely to be labeled a 'left leaning libertarian', but that's really just a reflection of the fact that the USA has more than its fair share of right wing authoritarians.