And I absolutely stand against “unfettered” capitalism. Regulation is needed as long as greed exists. Case in point: Railroads, coal companies, sweat shops, in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Which is probably it's biggest flaw. I consider myself to be a personal conservative, but politically more libertarian, which means that there are a lot of things that I consider wrong and harmful to both people and the society as a whole, but I don't believe that they can be usefully addressed by a government. It's an idea that seems to confuse many people, especially in abortion statistics, where a majority are against abortions, but also against it being illegal.

I just can't look at the government as a genie, or as a god, while seeing the real effects of its (usually) well-intentioned laws.

Like I said, I’m a little suspect of the questionnaire since its run by people promoting third parties. Still, I agree that we ought to vote for the person we think is best able to do the job, regardless of political affiliation. Some people say that is throwing your vote away, but I disagree. I believe the 2-party system is the equilibrium point in our political system, but that doesn’t mean third parties don’t play a role in shaping those 2 parties. We should not measure the success of a third party only by whether they win elections. More here: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/t…

In 2008 I found myself disgusted with both campaigns and so considered voting for a third party. But Barr was too libertarian for my taste, and as I looked at the other parties I didn’t see anyone that seemed to have the basic qualifications (I’m not just voting for an ideology, but also a person of course). So in the end I held my nose and stuck with the major parties. On the other hand, it’s hard to have qualified candidates until you start winning more local elections, and and the more local the election the more probability there is to be a qualified candidate in a third party. So my principle is simple: vote for the person who would be the best in office. If everyone did that, over time that would result in more local officials who are from third parties, which would result in more qualified candidates for higher office, which would result in more pressure on the 2 major parties to adopt some of the principles of the 3rd party, which as I argue in the link above is the main purpose of minor parties.

Basically, I believe in a mixed economy (public/private), which the U.S. is, but to a much lesser extent than most of the other mixed economies in the world. On social issues such as abortion for example I think I'm actually more of a libertarian than a lot of people who call themselves libertarian.

P.S. And thanks for the kind words!

Emma Goldman quote that was part of the test “from each according to his ability and to each according to their needs.”

MSF – that is not a Emma Goldman quote. That is from Karl Marx in his “Critique of the Gotha Program:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

I may think you are socialist with almost communist leaning (and I do mean that not in a mean or insulting way, but in what seems to be your economic leanings, in a pure sense, not a Stalin/Mao sort of way), but I don't think you are an anarchist.

You think are a nice lady (who loves animals), with whom I have have strong disagreements on what would best help our country and Americans in the next 5 – 20 years. And who isn't afreaid to mix it up, either!

But I disagree with the test's vertical axis naming. I'd rate most progressives quite high on authoritarianism, just not in service to social issues.

As I mentioned in thecomments section to that post, there are some noteable flaws with Politcal Compass:

I just retook this test for the first time in a couple of years, and although it approximates my political leanings, I feel that it is a highly subjective and somewhat misleading tool.

For one thing, many of the questions asked have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. Whether I think abstract art is meaningful or not has nothing to do with my political leanings. Believing that most abstract art is meaningless does not indicate that someone has socially conservative leanings (as The Political Compass would imply), not does believing that most abstract art is meaningful indicate that someone has socially liberal leanings (as The Political Compass would imply).

Also, questions regarding the motives and appropriate aims of businesses and corporations are also not fundamentally political in nature. I might believe many corporations to be greedy and feel that they have a personal responsibility toward society as a whole (a supposedly economically liberal position), but that does not necessarily indicate that I feel that government should have the responsibility to regulate such practices (with opposition to governemnt regulation being a economically conservative position).

Since none of these questions offers a “none of the above” or “unsure” option, the test taker is given no opportunity to abstain from questions which are politically ambiguous (at best) or having nothing to do with ones political beliefs (at worst).

Secondly (and this is an admittedly minor objection compared to the first), the whole layout of the Compass itself is all wrong. Instead of assigning the terms “authoritarian” and “libertarian” their traditional meanings (with “authoritarian” meaning favoring broadly increased government power and “libertarian” meaning favoring broadly decreased government power) the creators of this test apply the terms “authoritarian” and “libertarian” solely to the social freedom axis. The result is the distorted labels that test takers derive from this test. People in the left lower quandrant will call themselves “Left Libertarians”, despite the fact that a good number of these people have views that are economically authoritarian. Similarly, people in the right upper quandrant will call themselves “Right Authoritarians”, despite the fact that a good number of these people have views that are economically libertarian. And finally, Authoritarians in the upper left quadrant and Libertarians in the lower right quandrant are labeled as on the “left” and “right” respectively. Such logic would erroneously lead us to conclude that Adolf Hitler was “left-wing” while Tommy Chong would be “right-wing.”

Personally, I'd recommend the political test at http://www.quiz2d.com. It's politically biased to some extent (as are just about any political test you'd take), but the chart makes more intuitive sense in its layout, the questions are more politically relevant and allow for middle-of-the-road type answers, and the test allows you to gauge how important each political topic is to you so that your answers can be weighted accordingly.

Political Compass results:
Economic left/right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05
Political label: (left-leaning) Right Libertarian

Political Quiz in 2D results:
Economic axis: ~65%
Social axis: ~95%
Political label: Left-Leaning Freedom Lover

I agree that the test was flawed; both of them were. Not only because of the “strongly” category, but also because there was no “I don't give a damn” option, which I for one would have hit on a few, simply because I could see agreeing in some instances but not in others. I found myself constantly wanting to ask “Could you please rephrase the question?” In the end, these tests didn't prove much, but were fun exercises. That's all they were.

The liberties questions posed can't discern a libertarian from a liberal because it did not link in the economic side into the same issue. There is no individual right on earth I would not grant to you…..abortion, pot smoking, joining the single payer Pelosi health plan…….just don't let any of it have any effect on my rights or my funds.

And what really is the logical demarcation between “agreeing” and “strongly agreeing”? I'm not prone to emotional histrionics, so it seems to me “agreeing” gets the job done.