<p>Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.28</p>
<p>I got:</p>
<p>Economic Left/Right: 0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.38</p>
<p>Kinda suprises me, I thought I was more to the right than that. 
But some of the questions were hard to answer, as I would be either hard yes or hard no depending on the case. I was also answering based on my political views, not my personal ones. There are a lot of things I believe that I don’t expect everyone else to believe.</p>
<p>Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13</p>
<p>There are a lot of issues I wasn’t too sure about, especially the economic ones. I have a lot of vague ideas about many aspects of politics, so I’m not sure that this is an accurate reflection. For some of the issues, like abortion, education and LGBT rights, I was able to definitively answer- but for many of the other ones, I had to think pretty hard.</p>
<p>Economics Left/Right: 5.25
Social Libertarian/Authortarian: -2.43</p>
<p>This doesn’t suprise me in the least…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Why aren’t your personal views also your political views?</p>
<p>^ Because I don’t expect the government to force my standards onto the whole society. Some things, like murder, robbery, etc. are the governments job. But there are things that I believe are wrong that I do not believe the government should be involved with.</p>
<p>Okay, that’s fair. I thought you meant you subscribed to some political philosophy you didn’t agree with.</p>
<p>^ To be honest I think that idea accounts for why SO MANY people have economic scores on the far far left… You may not be a communist but if you answered I strongly agree to “From Each according to his ability, to each according to his need” you would be strongly agreeing to a tagline in Marx’s communist manifesto…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all – a free market is by definition one in which free exit and entry occurs. A market with restrictions is one with government regulation. Restrictions can actually (by definition) help make a market more free if they trust-bust, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That in itself is a personal/political view. I, for example, do believe that the government has a duty to create a just society.</p>
<p>Politically apathetic. Don’t really care who is president etc</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is, but it also explains his point. E.g. there are people who personally don’t support gay marriage, but don’t think the government should interfere with it. You’ll probably find that outside the stoner population, supporters of drug legalization don’t do drugs and wouldn’t recommend that others do it.</p>
<p>its obvious you guys just tried to out right me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the majority of us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, no doubt. But to say that his personal views are separate from his political ones is wrong, as this view in itself is a political view that personal ones should not enter the legal code.</p>
<p>And the question is, how far does this division go? I think murder is wrong, but also that it should be illegal. Does this apply to drugs? Actions with direct negative externalities? What about indirect ones?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That seems to be part of the purpose of the quiz though - to suggest that the political conclusions of one’s own personal beliefs don’t necessarily agree with how one votes politically. To do this properly though, you need to be very careful about wording.</p>
<p>Also, it seems like most people that recognize that saying as Marxist would adjust their answers accordingly, though I don’t know how many people do recognize them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Adultery? Lying while not under oath? I don’t think are many pressing problems with the legal code atm.</p>
<p>Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.87</p>
<p>“And the question is, how far does this division go? I think murder is wrong, but also that it should be illegal. Does this apply to drugs? Actions with direct negative externalities? What about indirect ones?”</p>
<p>Are you serious dude?</p>
<p>People think drugs should be legal because their doing drugs doesn’t hurt anyone else. Murder does. The phrase is “Victimless crime”</p>
<p>I can’t believe this needs to be explained.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does need to be explained because I don’t think that “victimless crimes” exist – drugs do have a negative impact on society. For the sake of argument, take that as a given. Should society protect only individuals, or itself as a whole? If the latter, then laws against drugs make sense.</p>
<p>I don’t see why a country should tolerate “crime” regardless of whether it appears to have a direct victim. Perhaps you could explain?</p>
<p>" Should society protect only individuals, or itself as a whole?"</p>
<p>The former. </p>
<p>If you believe that society should protect itself as a whole then you should also support enforced Eugenics, Communism (along with that religious policies that go with Communism), and genocide becomes easily defensible. Some people do but that is not the norm.</p>
<p>I don’t like political arguments though, so I’m leaving it at that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How convincing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not unless I’m operating in a particular framework in which those actions are acceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>