Left vs Right political test based on lifestyle choices

[RavioliAfficianado]

Not to always be a contrarian, but the idea that political beliefs exist on some sort of one-dimensional line is just beyond silly and even if it were true that line would bear little resemblance to the party affiliations we have here in the US. There are a whole multitude of different ways to come up with a belief system. You could use a certain religion, you could use science, or you could use a certain philosophical outlook. You could also attempt to use combinations of these.

However, what we see in the US is none of these. In the US there are dozens of special interest groups and demographics of different sizes which each have their own agenda. Unfortunately the "winner take all" electoral system forces them to join into two different diametrically opposed parties. It's important to understand that the platform of each of these parties is simply an amalgamation of the different groups it claims to represent and changes as the power of those groups change. In other words there is no actual logical or philosophical underpinnings to the platform of either major party in the US. Anyone you meet who appears to agree with one party or the other 90% of the time (or greater) can therefore reliably be assumed to be devoid of actual thought. Such people have become trapped by the multi-billion dollar propaganda machines that each party employees and have essentially ceded their belief system to that propaganda machine. Unfortunately as the scope and sophistication of the political machines that group of people has gone from a small minority to seemingly a majority of Americans. The result is that politics in the US has become much more akin to a sports game than an intellectual debate. Right and wrong are a question of what color jersey you wear and truth (like sports referees) is hated by all.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Not to always be a contrarian, but the idea that political beliefs exist on some sort of one-dimensional line is just beyond silly and even if it were true that line would bear little resemblance to the party affiliations we have here in the US. There are a whole multitude of different ways to come up with a belief system. You could use a certain religion, you could use science, or you could use a certain philosophical outlook. You could also attempt to use combinations of these.

However, what we see in the US is none of these. In the US there are dozens of special interest groups and demographics of different sizes which each have their own agenda. Unfortunately the "winner take all" electoral system forces them to join into two different diametrically opposed parties. It's important to understand that the platform of each of these parties is simply an amalgamation of the different groups it claims to represent and changes as the power of those groups change. In other words there is no actual logical or philosophical underpinnings to the platform of either major party in the US. Anyone you meet who appears to agree with one party or the other 90% of the time (or greater) can therefore reliably be assumed to be devoid of actual thought. Such people have become trapped by the multi-billion dollar propaganda machines that each party employees and have essentially ceded their belief system to that propaganda machine. Unfortunately as the scope and sophistication of the political machines that group of people has gone from a small minority to seemingly a majority of Americans. The result is that politics in the US has become much more akin to a sports game than an intellectual debate. Right and wrong are a question of what color jersey you wear and truth (like sports referees) is hated by all.

There are two basic views. The left wants to take control of things away from individuals and put it into the hands of the federal government. With enough laws, they believe that they themselves will each have more control and not be taken advantage of by rich people.

The right wishes to be left alone and that more federal government makes more problems and interference with the individual power and liberty.

There is a whole spectrum between right and left, and individual differences on various issues. However, the fundamental difference is about giving the federal government more control or less control. That's it. Those who can't distill it to that are confused.

 

[ceecee]

Very sure I've pushed from "Solidly Left Wing" into the "Hardcore Left-Wing" camp in 3 years time.

BTW, the left that I know is not interested in taking control of things out of individual hands and into the government's hands. Like, at all. They want things as local as possible but as a community on the local level, not hyper-individualism. That mindset has already caused most of the problems so no sense in continuing to keep trying a failing theory. It should be very evident that there are things that require the resources of the federal government - COVID and other pandemic responses for one. Their job should be to provide what the local/community requires so that the response is as easy as possible for the populations to access.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Very sure I've pushed from "Solidly Left Wing" into the "Hardcore Left-Wing" camp in 3 years time.

BTW, the left that I know is not interested in taking control of things out of individual hands and into the government's hands. Like, at all. They want things as local as possible but as a community on the local level, not hyper-individualism. That mindset has already caused most of the problems so no sense in continuing to keep trying a failing theory. It should be very evident that there are things that require the resources of the federal government - COVID and other pandemic responses for one. Their job should be to provide what the local/community requires so that the response is as easy as possible for the populations to access.

Power doesn't come from a vacuum though. It has to change hands. So, when the federal government has it, it is because they took it from individuals and individuals will have less of it, either by taking money and/or choices. I don't see that as a knock to big government as much as a statement of fact. And I know there are issues like abortion where the left does give people more freedom to choose.

 

[Kephalos]

Solidly Right Wing: 75/25.

This basically tests for Conscientiousness and Openness.

 

[SD45T-2]

I picked classical music because most of what passes for country today is awful, at least based on what I've heard on the radio and at the gym. If alt-country was on option I think I'd have picked that. I also picked motorcycle over minivan because I find motorcycles more interesting, but a minivan would be preferable for living with day to day.

This test was rather pointless.

I guess we're neighbors.

 

[RavioliAfficianado]

Power doesn't come from a vacuum though. It has to change hands. So, when the federal government has it, it is because they took it from individuals and individuals will have less of it, either by taking money and/or choices. I don't see that as a knock to big government as much as a statement of fact. And I know there are issues like abortion where the left does give people more freedom to choose.

Yeah, this is one of my big gripes about the modern, "left". They just completely refuse to acknowledge the violence inherent in the system. Whenever they propose a new tax or regulation it's always talked about who it will help, but never who it will hurt. Every dollar taken from one person has to be stolen from another. Every opportunity offered one race has to be denied another etc. If you disagree with the government the result is that eventually people with guns show up at your door and take your stuff away by force and/or lock you in a cage so small it would be illegal for a zoo to lock an animal in it. I'm not saying I inherently disagree with every liberal tax or regulation, only that they need to be honest about the level of violence required to enforce them and admit that people are being victimized by them. For instance if my kid wants to get into Harvard he will need to score 100+ points higher on the SAT than a black kid would. But liberals will never say, "we want less Asian kids going to the top colleges" even though that's the exact logical conclusion of their policies. Naked racism mascarading as, "justice". Same with all these new taxes punishing people who work hard while rewarding laziness and impudence. A lot of people my age gripe about how we can't afford kids, but really we are paying for kids, just not our own. We're paying for kids in the ghetto whose parents see them as a meal ticket instead of being able to provide our own kids with more opportunities. Once again the government is denying us of opportunity through violence, but you'll never hear those who advocate for such policies admit as much.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

 

[Stigmata]

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am sorry but I just don't see immigration control as the right wing. Since for me this is just another form of market deregulation. Plus with this you are likely to disrupt supply and demand when it comes to workforce and therefore there will probably be some reduction in financial rights. Why pay people healthcare when you can just import new third world workers any day ?

 

[Saturnal Snowqueen]

Well then...I'd say I'm pretty left, though I don't really pay attention to what I am, I just think about what I think is right.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I dislike the question "some people are more deserving." More deserving of what? It matters to me what they would deserve.

I did pick the minivan because I feel like in theory it would be fun to travel around the country in it. Harder to do in a motorcycle. Also easier to get into an accent with a motorcycle (as far as i know)

 

[RavioliAfficianado]

Well then...I'd say I'm pretty left, though I don't really pay attention to what I am, I just think about what I think is right.

And how do you apply morality to questions like "classical music vs country", "small town vs big city", "purple carrots or orange ones" etc? Half the questions in this quiz have nothing to do with morality. Only way I can really see someone getting 100% on either side of this quiz is by knowing enough about politics to know which answer the quiz makers are associating with each political persuasion even though it makes literally no sense to try and infer someone's political beliefs from their music preference. A lot of these questions are just looking for unrelated correlations. For instance liking country music is correlated to being in the South as is being politically conservative. The test is getting the causality backwards with questions like this.

I dislike the question "some people are more deserving." More deserving of what? It matters to me what they would deserve.)

Exactly. Are Jews "more deserving" of money than Muslims? Of course not. But are child molesters more deserving of harsh prison sentences than marijuana users? You bet your ass they are.

 

[Coriolis]

Very sure I've pushed from "Solidly Left Wing" into the "Hardcore Left-Wing" camp in 3 years time.

BTW, the left that I know is not interested in taking control of things out of individual hands and into the government's hands. Like, at all. They want things as local as possible but as a community on the local level, not hyper-individualism. That mindset has already caused most of the problems so no sense in continuing to keep trying a failing theory. It should be very evident that there are things that require the resources of the federal government - COVID and other pandemic responses for one. Their job should be to provide what the local/community requires so that the response is as easy as possible for the populations to access.

The federal government should set standards, then ensure the states have the means to implement them as they see fit. The patchwork of laws and regulations across our 50 states has never made sense to me, especially in an age where people are increasingly mobile. As Americans we should be able to rely on certain things being consistent, wherever in the US we live. The federal government is also the only entity able to protect individual liberties against incursions by anyone else, be they state or local governments, corporations, or other groups.

Power doesn't come from a vacuum though. It has to change hands. So, when the federal government has it, it is because they took it from individuals and individuals will have less of it, either by taking money and/or choices. I don't see that as a knock to big government as much as a statement of fact. And I know there are issues like abortion where the left does give people more freedom to choose.

People's choices are limited much more by how much money they have than by anything the government does. Yes, the government taxes people, but that doesn't seem to be the main financial consideration limiting choices. Across the board, people on the left are more supportive of measures that will reduce (not eliminate) income equality, resulting in more people having the wherewithal to exercise more choices. The absence of a government prohibition may be necessary for individual choice, but is hardly sufficient.

Abortion is a good example of where these two phenomena come to play. The patchwork of state regulations on abortion leads to people seeking abortion services in less restrictive states, provided they have the means (money, time off work, transportation) to do so.

 

[Kephalos]

I dislike the question "some people are more deserving." More deserving of what? It matters to me what they would deserve.

Some make the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor -- people who are poor through their own actions and those who are poor through circumstances outside their control.

 

[RavioliAfficianado]

People's choices are limited much more by how much money they have than by anything the government does. Yes, the government taxes people, but that doesn't seem to be the main financial consideration limiting choices. Across the board, people on the left are more supportive of measures that will reduce (not eliminate) income equality, resulting in more people having the wherewithal to exercise more choices.

Problem with this logic is the fact that money isn't a zero sum game. When you start reducing the incentive for people to work and take risk and increase the incentive for people to live off the government you can find yourself shrinking the pie, not just dividing it differently. And that's just the beginning of your troubles. Because whether you want to admit it or not all of your egalitarian principles require military and economic power to enforce them. As the economy shrinks other countries (like say China) will begin to impose their will more and more forcefully. Your beliefs only matter if you're strong enough to impose them on others. If you're weak what you believe is irrelevant. This is something that has been understood since literally the beginning of History.

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
- Thucydides

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Some make the distinction between deserving and undeserving poor -- people who are poor through their own actions and those who are poor through circumstances outside their control.

Right, but they didn't specify. If that was what they meant, they should have been clear about it.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

The federal government should set standards, then ensure the states have the means to implement them as they see fit. The patchwork of laws and regulations across our 50 states has never made sense to me, especially in an age where people are increasingly mobile. As Americans we should be able to rely on certain things being consistent, wherever in the US we live. The federal government is also the only entity able to protect individual liberties against incursions by anyone else, be they state or local governments, corporations, or other groups.


People's choices are limited much more by how much money they have than by anything the government does. Yes, the government taxes people, but that doesn't seem to be the main financial consideration limiting choices. Across the board, people on the left are more supportive of measures that will reduce (not eliminate) income equality, resulting in more people having the wherewithal to exercise more choices. The absence of a government prohibition may be necessary for individual choice, but is hardly sufficient.

Preventing school choice, banning straws, and taxing cow farts probably doesn't make most people more free. The more sane policies cause problems too, imo.

Last year, at the start of the school year, my daughter's teacher said that my daughter's speech was impeding his social development. We were told to go through the school system for speech therapy. It took 2 months just for her to be seen for an evaluation. This was pre-covid, so that was standard. The school system officially decided at the end of the school that they would accept her into speech therapy, but they can't start until fall, cause school is out in the summer. So this is standard too, to let a child who needs speech therapy go all summer and start a new school year without providing ongoing therapy. It's a big deal beyond social development too. It hinders learning math and all sorts of things. So, I paid out-of-pocket and she got 6 speech therapy sessions this summer. She is so much easier to understand and it's made her life much better. I'm still trying to get speech therapy through the school. The speech therapist just messaged yesterday and said that I need to fill out more forms, but she's not sure which ones. lol. When that's all straightened out, my daughter will have virtual sessions with the school speech therapist. That's not as good as in-person. My daughter thinks she's playing when she goes to speech therapy normally.

A typical leftist would probably suggest making it so that poor kids should be provided speech therapy over the summer too, to even out things. What would wind up happening is that it will increase the prices of speech therapy for everyone across the board, so that I can't afford it anymore. Then no one will get adequate speech therapy over the summer. It'll just be crappier for everyone. I know that's not ever the intent. That's what happens though.

^Sorry about this long-winded thing here. It's just what's on my mind right now.

Abortion is a good example of where these two phenomena come to play. The patchwork of state regulations on abortion leads to people seeking abortion services in less restrictive states, provided they have the means (money, time off work, transportation) to do so.

It's very unfair, to even the people who can afford to get transportation elsewhere.

 

[Virtual ghost]

A typical leftist would probably suggest making it so that poor kids should be provided speech therapy over the summer too, to even out things. What would wind up happening is that it will increase the prices of speech therapy for everyone across the board, so that I can't afford it anymore. Then no one will get adequate speech therapy over the summer. It'll just be crappier for everyone. I know that's not ever the intent. That's what happens though.

I really disagree, this is probably what a liberal would do but typical social-democratic leftist wouldn't. The thing is that liberals like market and improvisations while people more to the left are pretty anti-market when it comes to education and healthcare. In other "industries" it is ok but the most basic things have to be guaranteed. Therefore such person would at least make a law that regulates the max prices, in order to prevent rip offs. However if they are for real they would organize free college for such professions to make sure that enough of them are trained and that they don't think about ripping people off, but instead focus more on their primary job which is helping people. Especially since specialized institutions would be set up and the whole thing would be paid through universal healthcare system. So that every child regardless of their parents and their lives can get this since this is too important (summer or no summer).


Just saying.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Oh interesting. It says here that I'm a potato.
That is correct.