Ruby said
I'm left leaning. If only because Capitalism has no soul.I'm right leaning. If only so I can keep my guns and get a smaller government.

Gun-rights is actually not exclusively a right-wing issue; the radical left supports gun rights. It's generally just liberals who oppose it.

According to this thing, I'm left leaning libertarian.

If I had to quickly sum up all my beliefs: Racial equality, pro-abortion, pro-welfare, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay marriage, pro-hunting, pro-religious freedom, pro-freedom of speech, a bit Euroskeptic, anti-political correctness, anti-privatisation, anti-handgun/automatic weaponry, anti-foreign intervention, anti-religious extremism, anti-corporation, anti-censorship/government surveillance, secular, atheist, undecided on immigration and pro-transgender.

Basically, I think the government should be here to look after the people and nothing else.

Very strongly Left Libertarian, RPG is.

The Nexerus said
Very strongly Left Libertarian, RPG is.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily a good thing. The last forum I was on had a very strong left-libertarian community and the Politics section basically devolved into a massive socialist circle jerk where people bitched at others with differing opinions to themselves and argued about trivial politics that they didn't understand. I'm a lefty and even I saw that. It's nice that this community is actually mature enough the respect other peoples opinions and aren't pushed out.

The Nexerus said
Very strongly Left Libertarian, RPG is.

I'm not surprised.
From personal observation the Authoritarian Right wing people are more likely to be the kind who want to Judge/force their views on others (Hence authoritarian) and usually dislikes Governments getting involved in matters so they often have strong and/or aggressive views in politic's. This can lead to those who disagree (Left wing fundamentalists) to feel more ignored or discriminated against when the right wing authoritarians start to get mad or bash on them for their views.

Causing them to find acceptance in online communities such as the Guild.

Chapatrap said
I wouldn't say that's necessarily a good thing. The last forum I was on had a very strong left-libertarian community and the Politics section basically devolved into a massive socialist circle jerk who bitched to people with differing opinions to themselves and arguing about trivial politics that they didn't understand. I'm a lefty and even I saw that. It's nice that this community is actually mature enough the respect other peoples opinions and aren't pushed out.

That has more to do with a person's maturity when it comes to politic's and different view points than it has to do with their actual political stance.

Chapatrap said
I It's nice that this community is actually mature enough the respect other peoples opinions and aren't pushed out.

Not necessarily. I have been attacked in the past for my communist views. This thread has remained civil though.

Just wanted to post up my results. Looks like several of us are in the same quadrant, but I find the distance from Authoritarian or Libertarian very interesting. After doing my test I checked out some the reading lists and the area I fall into, Left Libertarian, has a number of which I've already read. Not the biggest surprise there. Anyone else think they're going to do some reading to do with those minds outside our views, according to this?

Magic Magnum said
I'm not surprised. From personal observation the Authoritarian Right wing people are more likely to be the kind who want to Judge/force their views on others (Hence authoritarian) and usually dislikes Governments getting involved in matters so they often have strong and/or aggressive views in politic's.

By definition, someone who's authoritarian governmentally does want government involvement. The word 'authoritarian' doesn't have anything to do with forcing beliefs on others, it's all about the government having authority.

Stalinism and Maoism are both authoritarian ideologies, for instance. They both call upon the government having a strong degree of authority.

That's true. On the contrary to what my test results would have you believe, I'd be considered somewhat 'Authoritarian' on the basis of supporting government authority over a lot of aspects of life. I'm against it when it starts to infringe on our liberties (ie: NSA), but I trust the government to control and manage certain parts of society far more than I'd trust common people or corporations.

EDIT: Prisons, for example, should not be fucking privatized. That's ridiculous.

Pepperm1nts said
That's true. On the contrary to what my test results would have you believe, I'd be considered somewhat 'Authoritarian' on the basis of supporting government authority over a lot of aspects of life. I'm against it when it starts to infringe on our liberties (ie: NSA), but I trust the government to control and manage certain parts of society far more than I'd trust common people or corporations. EDIT: Prisons, for example, should not be fucking privatized. That's ridiculous.

And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.

For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.

* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.

Goldmarble said
And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.

I can dig it, though, I do think the body becoming a flying projectile could endanger someone else (or turn a minor accident into manslaughter). I would add something though too.

I believe government is a useful tool for large scale programs like social services. Things that operate across the whole state or nation, these big sweeping programs that push tons of money, require many figures, and take weeks of dedication to produce make sense to fall onto a group focused on such. Meanwhile, I expect smaller programs to run within communities as well formed by, and agreed upon by the community. In my eyes, every community should have a shared governance that they're involved in directly. In my country, America, this is usually not the case. Communities trying to create their own rules and support systems are often associated with something else and categorized as a sub-culture or something other 'fringe'-like sort of idea that makes them appear off the norm. Really, the fact is it is a bit difficult for the average joe directly involve themselves in large-scale programs without a position or some other 'authority' to wear. By creating communal agreements that are actively engaged with (not just town/city laws we inherit and may or may not even be aware of) you give the ability to every individual to become directly involved. I see the need for government, but I believe in the adage that absolute power corrupts, so I believe power should be shared and shifted based on those with the most experience to lead given the situation. In other words, more than one leader, emphasis on those with experience/training/education relevant to the issues being engaged with (i.e. Boasting Commander and Chief status=Nothing when trying to solve deforestation). Again though, larger government would be expected to maintain larger programs, and possibly even provide incentives to those communities that actually operate in this way. When individuals are more responsible and politically active, you don't need massive protests to be heard -- you just talk.

Goldmarble said

There are costs and risks that come when your body goes flying out the windshield because you carelessly thought seat-belts were dumb.

Goldmarble said
And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.

I do agree with the general point you're making.

But in terms of seat belts specifically the others are right.
Not wearing one can turn you into another projectile/danger to others in an accident.

I agree, someone not wearing a seatbelt can, potentially, become a hazard to others.

But is it often enough to give a shit about? In a two minute search, I found no statistics about "human projectiles" causing harm, which to me means that it is not a significant factor in accidents; otherwise pro-seat belt lobbies would have something on it.

I'm a realist, and a cold statistician when it comes to shit likes this: Yes, people may die, get injured, or otherwise be hurt by shit. They always will. But unless it is a significant risk? I feel it should not have bearing in the discussion of restricting the rights, and freedoms of the people.

Statistical improbability doesn't matter here. It's a danger. To you, and everyone around you. When we're talking about the chances of a mass-extinction via massive meteor or something, then yeah. We can shrug it off as improbable or impossible to prevent anyway. But when we're talking about societal issues that affect you and everyone around you - that we can prevent - it's different. It's selfish to think you ought to be allowed to drive without a seat-belt, simply because you think the chances of you flying out the windshield and causing further harm and damage are few. Prevention is a real necessity, and a priority. We don't ignore dangers to society because "eh, it's unlikely". And we don't wait for something horrible to happen before we decide "You know, maybe we should have some preventive measures."

You might think something is improbable up until the point where you or someone you love is the one in danger. Then you'll be wondering, maybe even outraged, as to why no-one ever took preventive measures. And suddenly, lawsuits. Lawsuits everywhere. Or worse, you die.

So let's not wait for horrible shit to happen before we put safety measures in place.

As a half-joking side note: Being someone who studied, practiced, and is soon to graduate as an EMT, I'd prefer you didn't fly out the window. Makes everyone's job easier. And you know, less chance that you're dead. That would suck. For you and me.