« Don't Fucking Touch Swords | Main | My Life, EatFoo »

I'm surprised they don't have Ron Paul at all in the lower quadrant. With the exception of immigration and arguably abortion, he's pretty damn libertarian. What's a guy gotta do to get lower down on that thing?

Also, check out the spelling question in the site's FAQ. Tim Boyd would approve.

Posted by: Jacob at November 2, 2007 9:33 AM

BTW, I was 6.6 economic right, -6.2 libertarian.

Posted by: Jacob at November 2, 2007 9:47 AM

I was 2.5 economic right, -5.2 libertarian, placing me in quadrant I. I'm pretty sure the last time I took it, I was firmly in quadrant IV. It's amazing what employment, and specifically paying ridiculous amounts of taxes, will do to your economic views.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2007 10:06 AM

2.5, -3.79.

As I recall this test was designed by libertarians and hence almost everybody turns out to be a libertarian by their standards to varying degrees.

Posted by: Brian at November 2, 2007 10:51 AM

Brian, you may be thinking of the World's Smallest Political Quiz:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I'm not aware of any libertarian affiliation with the site David linked to, though there may be one.

Posted by: Jacob at November 2, 2007 11:12 AM

Mike, my father always said that paying taxes would turn me into a republican. Hasn't happened yet. If anything, it makes me in favor of higher taxes for anyone who's not poor because I spent a couple years being poor before getting a relatively well-paying job, so now I feel like I'm rich and people who make the money I do can afford to pay muchos taxes.

(I'm a -4.38 and -8.82, so pretty much the same as Barzelay. When I first saw the inclusion of the candidates my thought was -- these positions for the candidates can't be right! How can I be so much more liberal than Kucinich and Gravel?)

Posted by: lsmsrbls at November 2, 2007 11:37 AM

Actually, I think there's quite a good explanation why all the candidates fall in Quadrant I. It's because candidates public statements rarely reflect their actual views.

Either Mitt Romney was lying when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts and claimed to be all for abortion, or else he's lying now when he says that he has seen the light and thinks abortion should be illegal. None of us like the current pundit culture where anyone gets called a "flip-flopper" when they change their mind, but it belies the reality that candidates' positions and beliefs are not their own, rather they are the perceived views of whatever segment of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal.

Is Ron Paul really way down in the Libertarian side of the compass? Probably. Could he have gotten mentioned in Time if he didn't moderate his actual views for public consumption? It's why Ron Paul is a respected, reasonable, legitimate candidate for President (albeit with no chance of winning) while Kucinich and Gravel are complete jokes.

Those who are bummed about the tax rates in this country also would do well to remember that about 51% (according to some random website I just looked up) of the federal budget is for current and past military spending (that includes pensions and healthcare for ex-military). As the prototypical "tax and spend liberal," I only probably support about 25% of the spending our government actually does, and even then, I usually disagree with how they do it, i.e. too much centralized accountability, etc.

I developed my views on taxation during college, when I saw the Student Activity Fund (about $750 per student, as I recall) do a WHOLE LOT of good for the quality of life. I reasoned, would I pay another $1 per year if it meant another group could be funded, or $5 if we'd get another concert? Absolutely. And even if some of my dollars went to groups I didn't support, I appreciated that a little bit more "taxation" led to significantly better quality of life. I would have preferred to have paid several thousand dollars of activity fees if the resulting increase in quality of life didn't have significantly diminished returns.

Posted by: Barzelay at November 2, 2007 1:22 PM

There's probably some truth to your idea about candidates' views, but I'm not sure how much it applies to Paul. The views he's in the spotlight for tend to be his socially liberal ones: ending the way, drug liberalization, personal freedoms. His anti-immigration views don't stand out as much in the GOP, and he rightly hasn't been emphasizing his views about the gold standard.

It's interesting that you should bring up activity fees as a comparison to taxation. When I was at Vandy I thought it would be cool to set up an activity fee voucher system. Everyone still pays the $750, but they get some of it back (say $400) to use on whatever campus causes they choose.

Unfortunately I don't think taxes work nearly as well as the activity fees. For one, the vast majority of taxes are used on defense and entitlement programs. And second, there's a lot more disconnect between a federal government and 300 million people than between a Vandy office and 7,500 students.

Posted by: Jacob at November 2, 2007 1:36 PM

I meant "ending the WAR" above.

Posted by: Jacob at November 2, 2007 1:39 PM

I have to doubt the methods the Political Compass people are using here. Do they try to infer the positions of candidates from their public statements? If so, how? And how do they add a "strongly" to a particular issue stance?

I definitely wonder because I don't think I'm more of a social libertarian than Rep. Paul. Or at least not that much more. The economic thing seems pretty spot-on... just not sure about the up-down scale here.

I was -1.9, -5.6, btw

Posted by: Jeff at November 2, 2007 2:35 PM

Oh yeah, and how the heck is Rudolph the Red-Faced Mayor (one of the most strident authoritarians out there) near the "libertarian" end of the Republican spectrum?

Posted by: Jeff at November 2, 2007 2:37 PM