i think htat the government should nationalize major utilities and force the rich of the country to help pay for it, then the people who have no heat in the winter and no water in the summer can live better. I also thin a great deal of other more radical things that i wont post cause i dot want to have all the god-lovers on here hating me:p
Libertarian…
i am changing that for amusment value.
Librarian.
I got LIBERTARIAN too.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 80%.
Actually, yes…I didn’t know the definition of libertarian, but now I know that I actually share of of that group’s values.
I scored as a centrist, probably because I checked “maybe” too many times. I kept thinking of circumstances to agree or disagree for all of them. I guess I wouldn’t be a very good politician.
You’re missing my point…I’m not disagreeing with you here. 2 rich people are better than one rich person and one poor person. It’s a win-win situation for both of them.
However, the government should not get involved. It’s completely inefficient, self-serving, and overbearing. If I have the money to help the poor, I will give my money to the charities.
I got smack bang in the middle
Seems to me that you’re even more liberal than the quiz determined you to be. Liberals have a strong social conscience, clearly you do too.
Would you agree that it isn’t the principle of giving money to the government to aid the poor that offends you, but instead that it is the knowledge that the government is an unweildy beast that will make a poor job of distributing funds appropriately; it is therefore better to avoid it and maximise the benefit to those in need.
To me, that’s not an argument against the welfare state; it’s an argument against the state in general. The gist of of the questions appears to be aimed at determining your level of charity. You’re clearly a charitable individual, but that quiz would only highlight the uncharitable No Handhouts brigade.
I am a right sided cemtrist.
I prefer a web of peers (community), instead of the chains of government (force/war). At least then, even with some holes, there is always some support left.
Now days in the US, with the government taking half the fruits of everyone’s labor, it tighens the pockets of everyone which means less for one to put in to their own community because they have little left after providing for their basic support.
It’s not all red and blue, which is what this quiz is about, 2 dimensions, not one.
As for diversity, red and blue both discourage diversity. Red indocrinates their “moral” ideals (mostly religion based), while Blue indocrinates it’s economic ideals (government can manage your money best). Diversity would require allowing morals to be diverse as long as a person’s action does not infringe the rights of someone else, and it would allow the people to pursue their own economic choices in a free market.
Left liberal, which is no surprise at all. You could also try this one http://www.politicalcompass.org/.
It amazes me how many Americans prefer a political economy that ensures the transfer of wealth from the poor to the already rich, such as the long-ago discredited “supply side” or “trickle down” economics, and Bush’s enormous tax cuts for the wealthy.
I believe governments should serve the interests of the people, not corporations. Nothing against people being wealthy but, again, governments should serve to protect the general public from the ravages of naked capitalism.
The American Dream? It’s a myth. A great many people work extremely hard just to stay poor. Why, in the richest nation in all human history, are over 40 million people without health insurance? It beggars belief.
Al
TUFKAATA
Centrist, leaning towards left libertarian.
I’d like for the world to move in a direction that would convince me to move more towards libertarian. Right now I’m worried about other factors moving in to claim fill the void left by the smaller government.
YaY I win the jackpot I’m officially neutral hahahahhahahahhaha.
If you can’t see a difference between killing innocent little babys, and killing evil murderous terrorists (while saving lots of lives at the same time), then it’s pointless to discuss morals with you. 
I’m just saying that the quiz was rather vague…
All taxation results in transfer of wealth to the wealthy. Even when it’s sold to us as welfare for the poor. Most of the money in government goes to corporations… Military industrial complex. Big Pharma. Etc.
Very little actually goes to education and helping the poor get on their feet.
Ravages of naked capitalism is a myth, in a free market society. The US is not a free market society. A free market naturally puts the consumers in control to choose the best products and services, which means the resources are used the best. Even those who can’t afford the best of everything benefit because the competition is there to weed out the bad products. On the other hand, government is force, meddling with the market to artificially encourage/subsidize an action which is inefficient.
It’s the ravages of corporatism that needs to be protected from. A system of money that gives government a near unlimited ability to steal from the public at will is the main cause. When there is an organization that has this unlimited ability to create money, everyone chases the money they create, and large corporations are able to do so more efficiently than the people. Plus, there is always an endless amount of “causes” in the welfare state, which unfortunately perpetuates the problem.
Today, in the US, the American Dream is much harder to achieve, as is quite obvious when someone else takes half the fruits of your labor because they claim to know how to use your earnings best.
The American Dream was where one could obtain and keep property and use their property acheive personal prosperity. Since those early days of our country, we have rejected the individualism and have embraced collectivism.
How many lives were saved by us installing dictatorships in the Middle East? How many lives were saved by us supporting Israel? How many lives were saved by funding Osama bin Laden? How many were saved by putting Saddam in power? How many were saved by killing half a million kids with economic sanctions in Iraq? How many were saved by bombing Iraq? How many were saved by us continuing warfare in Iraq? How many are saved by our threatening Iran with a nuclear attack?
If you look at the complete history of our foreign policy, you will see that it was us that put most the “terrorists” or bad guys in power and it is us that have continued to fund many of the bad governments who perpetuate the warfare.
War is the health of the state. Whether it is “nation building” warfare, or domestic warfare such as drugs and poverty. In all cases, government perpetuates the war. Their power depends on it.
extreme lower left of centrist: well I knew that already since I am both a “liberal” (in the european sense: I like local initiative) and a marxist ( I think there are always bias to skew the rules of liberty) . I am both an avid reader of the “Economist” newspaper (which is an advocate of “the invisible hand of the market”) and member of a crypto-something trade union (which frowns upon this notion of invisible hand by pointing out to class bias and is an advocate of strict controls). call it creative contradictions 
Exactly. Serve me. Take a (smalllll) percentage of my money, and protect me from murderers. Do NOT, however, take half of my income and help my lazy neighbor with it.
Why yes, with government taxing, of course they can’t get anywhere.
I tried it, and I got economic right, and libertarian. Seems about right to me.
Doublethink, one could say. 
Exactly. Serve me. Take a (smalllll) percentage of my money, and protect me from murderers. Do NOT, however, take half of my income and help my lazy neighbor with it.
Yes, capitalism is actually a real creature going around stealing money from poor people. It’ll get you too if you aren’t careful.
Have you ever read the famous article about the Invisible Hand called I, Pencil?
Why yes, with government taxing, of course they can’t get anywhere.
I tried it, and I got economic right, and libertarian. Seems about right to me.
Liberals don’t have a dominance on social conscience any more than conservatives have a dominance on religion.
Actually, no, I wouldn’t. Even if the government was completely efficient, it can’t (shouldn’t) be able to force me to give my money to the poor. If I want to be a close-fisted ass, I have the right to be.