Seems about right:

I suppose it is customary to now explain your views on each of these sliders.

Constructivism vs. Essentialism: Generally, people who believe that “man is made in image of God” most often exhibit the desire to re-mold each individual piece of God’s work in their own image. While I do believe that there is something deep and essential to human nature, I cannot tell what it is, and therefore sincerely doubt anyone else telling me what it is. Imago Dei might as well be the least meaningless explanation of “what a piece of work man is”. Anything beyond that is a matter of choice, circumstance and/or construct, fully susceptible to being amended, if the need arises.

Rehabilitative justice vs. Punitive justice: Punitive justice, quite simply, isn't justice. Justice, in most ancient and deepest sense, is the Egyptian Maat, the Indic Rta, the Iranian Asha, the Jewish Tikkun olam, “Healing of the world”. It is the right, true and good order of the world and human society, that is ever to be restored in them. Restoration implies healing, salvation, and the recovery of whatever was once good, pure and noble in each individual human being.

However… because the world is not healed yet, and human beings are quite capable of turning it into living hell, sometimes, just sometimes, there will be situations when some people ought to be lined up against the wall and shot to make an example. This is then not justice, but a necessity, and no more pleasant one than a man drinking his own urine to survive through the desert. Naturally, we should not put ourselves in such situations, and allow societies to deteriorate into such brutal chaos, from which the only way out will be even more brutal order.

Progressivism vs. Conservatism: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...“

I suppose holding on to these kinds of quarter-milenia old, dead white men, antiquarian baroque views, makes me a progressive in our present-day political spectrum.

Internationalism vs. Nationalism: I hail from a small European nation which for centuries has survived, and indeed prospered, by cutting decent enough deals with large imperial powers. Our modern predicament, when we find ourselves as a newest member of, what is in essence, a Heiliges Römisches Reich das Europäischer Nation, is hardly different. Political clusterfuck that it is, we will not make it on our own without it in this globalised world - no more than we would if we remained just a pagan Slavic tribe of early medieval times, stuck between Frankish and Byzantine empires.

Communism vs. Capitalism: This is a completely pointless and arbitrary division which only needlessly murks things. The only real division that ever existed in economy is between industrialism and feudalism. Either we are going to have a society with a prosperous, industrious and educated middle-class, working on meaningful, creative and productive jobs that will generate enough surplus to make sure everyone can and will be supported - or it will be a society in which a rich, bloated and decadent oligarchy bores itself to death, while underneath it a vast, immiserated and dumbed-down plebs wastes its lives by toiling in the dirt.

Regulationism vs. Laissez-faire: From which, naturally, follows this. There is no such thing as unregulated economy! Someone who, like me in this quiz, demands higher living wages, less working hours, public-funded education and health-care, higher taxes on billionaires and corporations, is regulating the economy just as much as the guy who demands everything in opposite. One is not advocating “big government” no more than the other “free market.” It’s just the question on which side is the playing field being tilted. And if we want an orderly, prosperous economy which grows and favors the middle class, then the oligarchs and banks will be the ones to pay the piper.

Ecology vs. Productivism: More nuclear power, please! More fusion reactors! More space exploration! More genetic modification! More lasers, plasma, nanobots, high-speed rails and electric cars, if possible. Make no mistake - we need to take maximum care of nature, we need to preserve as much of our environment, and we need to take full responsibility for the planet, starting yesterday. But the way to do it is through the development and application of ever more advanced science and technology. The idea that we make Mother Nature cry because we no longer ride donkeys or drop like flies from smallpox, is an inhuman insanity of the most manifest, tree-huggin’ hippie proportions.

Revolution vs. Reformism: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Pragmatism: No surprises there! Seems a fairly obvious conclusion to everything listed above.

I never heard about this quiz before, but seeing how it was apparently quite good, I decided to give it a try. It was better than all that I have seen as of now, though still have it’s shortcomings.

Humanity - Justice - Socialism

Constructivism/Essentialism

There isn’t much to say, honestly. I believe most of that makes us what we are is a result of a social construct. There is, of course, some influence of biology in what makes a being - but I think that influence is rather small in comparison to societal constructions, the way we are raised, ect.

Rehabilitative/Punitive justice

I fully understand why the idea of vengeance may be appealing to some, and how some think one should suffer from the same pain that he caused - However, as understandable as they are, I think those views are somewhat irrational. The anger or sorrow that the victim and/or its family feel is, as harsh as that may sound, not a good base to base justice on. The main purpose of justice should be to rehabilitate offenders, to avoid recidivism so society don’t have to see the same things happening again. And from what I've seen as of now, a rehabilitative justice does that way better than a punitive one; Scandinavian countries are a good example of that. They have both one of the world’s most rehabilitative justice, and a recidivism rate which is way under the European average.

Progressim/Conservatism

I am not fond of traditions and conservatism as a whole. I think things like science, arts and technological innovations will make our society evolve, and that trying to conserve a status quo will not prevent them from influencing society; better just roll with it so we can adapt and integrate them in the best way we can. I also don’t care to one’s gender or ethnic origins, nor to the “homogeneity” of our society.

Internationalism/Nationalism

I understand why patriotism and nationalism can be appealing to some; but it just isn’t to me. My country is just the place I was born and where I was raised; the whole raising thing, while it may have been helped by the state in some ways, is still mainly a parental and societal affair, and I don’t feel the need to “pay back” for it. I don’t put my country at a place higher than any other (My government, perhaps, but that’s another thing), and i’ll prefer to stand up for my opinions than my nation.

Communism/Capitalism

This one genuinely surprises me, because I am not a communist. A socialist, surely, but I still prefer some kind of market economy to an entirely state-based one. That being said, I support tight regulations on the market economy, as I value the well-being of workers more than profit or economic growth. I also support the monopoly of the state in some crucial sectors such as energy or transportation, as I think the nature of the market and of the need to reduce costs would make them intended and meant to gain money, while their main function should always remain to offer services to the population.

Being classed as a communist, however, may have something to do with the origins of this test - I live in a nation where my ideas wouldn’t especially be fringe or communist, but our political range can be somewhat larger to the left than some other countries - notably the USA, where what would equal to around a third of votes up there in France would be judged as fringe.

Regulationnism/Laissez-faire

While I believe the market have some good idea, I also think the nature of competition may sometimes lead firms to take decisions that aren’t good for public health or the well-being of the consumers, in order to make prices fall. Competition also make sometimes make things like excessively firing employees way too common in my taste. I don’t think the market can really regulate itself, as even a good-willed firm would have to keep up with the others - in such cases, it is to the state to intervene.

Ecology/Productivism

One of the concerns where I am the least sure. While I do believe ecological concerns, and notably the preservation of biodiversity and biomes, should be considered, there is a limit in what I think we should sacrifice to reach those ends. I would notably oppose the replacement of all nuclear power plants, at least in the near future, as they provide most of my country’s energy, and replacing all of them with clean energy would be way too expensive. That being said, I still support the increase of the proportion of clean energies in the total of energy production, and in a farther future I would support the total replacement of nuclear power plants by those; forcing it, however, would prove too costly and have very harsh impacts on some local economies.

Revolution/Reformism

I like the whole revolutionnary spirit; it is quite beautiful, although sometimes quite naive aswell, and it is most likely the clearest translation of one’s ideals… However, revolutions have a sad but common tendency to go horribly wrong. Once the former form of power is abolished, do we truly know what will fill the power vacuum ? It often turns out to be as bad, or even worse, that what it replaced. Therefore, I prefer reformish, although one that apply reforms at a fast pace.

Fatherland, Liberty, Work. AKA National Libertarianism.

This quiz makes much more sense for me than some of the others I’ve tried…

I think those are just the type of results you’d expect from someone who is admittedly on the political right and who calls his politics “National Libertarianism.”

It also said this about me: Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

That is totally me. I don’t know how many times I’ve preached “common sense” as a political mantra. Got a problem? Figure out a workable solution and solve the effin problem, don’t BS around!

Here’s a link to it: PolitiScales

My washroom may be breeding Bolsheviks.

But I answered a number of questions neutrally, due to interpretive scruples of different kinds. I decided to do it a second time with no neutral responses. Turns out I’m much the same, only redder, and that hammer on the flag above is now a hammer and sickle. Otherwise, same colors, similar overarching result. Interesting.

Take 2:

That’s the “shit or get off the pot” version.

HThis was an interesting survey, more nuanced than others I’ve seen. My results might be a little skewed because I didn’t understand some of the questions, and chose the “neutral or hesitant” option for those. Otherwise, I am not very surprised by the results: justice, humanity, work. If asked about important social values, I would certainly rank those three the highest.

Source: PolitiScales

Fatherland ⋅ Revolution ⋅ Work

In addition, I earned the additional marker of ‘Pragmatist’:

Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

This more or less corresponds to what I actually believe but I should elaborate on some points:

• Constructivism v. Essentialism: I’m 50–50 on the ‘Nature v. Nurture’ debate, believing both that we are defined genetically with immutable behaviors as well as being formed from our experiences and environments. If I had to lean towards one however, I’m an essentialist, people are somewhat fated by their genetics, their behaviors and beliefs usually falling in line with similar genetic structures.
• Rehabilitative v. Punitive Justice: While I do recognize the efficacy of the rehabilitative approach to criminal justice, it’s ultimately not the solution. There must be equal punishments for equal crimes (e.g. death for rapists), punishment, if skewed enough towards overbearing, can radically alter the structure of society towards determined ends.
• Progressivism v. Conservatism: I have no love for traditions that ultimately serve little purpose towards advancing uniformed development. Living in the United States, this is a particularly fiery issue for me as I tend to loath conservatives for holding onto traditions that are ultimately backwards or counterproductive to society under the guise of ‘values’ or ‘patriotism’.
• Internationalism v. Nationalism: This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows my work. Politicians are beholden to their own people, their own interests, there is no incentive to sacrifice sovereignty for unity (unless through conflict) for a global community. An extension of this belief is my lack of faith in the United Nations, my disregard for the Hague, and my annoyance at stipulating treaties meant to curtail conflict along lines of proportionality. The international system is anarchic and we are humans, let’s not lie to ourselves that we’re somehow advancing due to this unusual lapse in significant conflict.
• Communism v. Capitalism: I have yet to really define my economic views but I lean towards Communism for two reasons: 1) the power of the State allows significant progress to be achieved at breakneck speeds (regardless of human cost) and 2) it allows for a more ‘equitable’ arrangement that speaks to the impoverished, creating a significant political force. Limited capitalism has demonstrated its efficacy in China but unrestrained capitalism has ultimately proven detrimental in the long run. There needs to be a middle ground between these two ideologies.
• Regulation v. Laissez-faire: Chen Yun expresses my views perfectly on this matter: ‘The bird should be allowed to fly, but only in the cage. If there is no cage, the bird will escape.’ The State should maintain direct control over the economy and regulate it accordingly but it should be allowed to grow organically and without significant government intervention unless national policy determines it’s necessity. The lack of governmental control is why the United States has lost tremendous footing in Africa to China.
• Ecology v. Productivism: I love nature, absolutely love it. Growing up in Washington, you really get to appreciate all the Earth has to offer. However, am I willing to sacrifice humanity so parts of the Earth can thrive? It will ultimately depend. An example for me would be how the exploitation of shale oil has seriously allowed the United States a way to extricate itself from serious commitments in the Middle East but at the cost of local environments. I would be for this if we could use it for geopolitical purposes as well as incentivize renewable energy development at the same time.
• Revolution v. Reformism: Yeah, I’m a fighter and believer in (conditional) political violence. You aren’t going to get significant progress without confrontation, violent confrontation. Sure, you could go the route of a reformer and play the reformist angle for 20 years until you finally get legal rights or you could get violent and assert your rights through force. Reformism requires patience and time, practically being stoic until you achieve your goals. I’m a human with a lifespan of roughly 70 years, I have neither the time nor the inclination to wait for people to change. You will change and who determines how you change ultimately rests with whoever is victorious in the battle between the revolutionary and the status-quo. As Alexander said: ‘To the strongest’.

I consider myself a member of the Pragmatic Left.

I was neutral a lot when it came to the way a lot of the ecology vs productivism questions were phrased.

But if it’d been an either or, I would have sided with the Greens.

By far, my favorite part of this was the last bit:

Not sure if you can read it:

Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

That’s me in a nutshell.

Let’s tackle a few of these in turn:

• Constructivism vs essentialism: Sometimes genetics are destiny; sometimes, they aren’t. It’s really an issue-by-issue thing for me. If I see a whole population group not doing as well as another, my bias is to assume that it’s due to social structure rather than genetics. Opportunity is almost never equitably distributed in any society. And this pattern is exacerbated in multiracial societies.
• Communism vs capitalism: this is the one that surprises people the most about me. I don’t think capitalism is inherently exploitative. Or, at least, I don’t think it needs to be. The capitalist, at least in theory, assumes greater risks, and is rewarded with greater rewards. I’m fine with that equation. But I do think that capitalism, left to its own devices, can have pernicious effects:
• It does a poor job of making sure industries pay for negative externalities. For instance, classical capitalism basically has no answer for the factory owner who dumps his waste into waters that everyone has to drink.
• It leads to worsening income inequality, which leads to political oligarchy.
• Rehabilitative vs punitive justice: Justice should not be about feeling good about meting out punishment; justice should be about achieving the best outcomes for society. All else equal, it is better for ex-convicts to be fit for employment, otherwise they will, by necessity, turn to crime once released.
• Regulationism vs laissez-faire. I want my capitalism to be regulated. We have ample evidence that businesses routinely take advantage of their customers, absent regulation. In the small measure in which I support laissez-faire policies, it is because I want employers to feel free to hire and fire, mostly as they please. For the workers thus fired, I support a robust state-sponsored short-term unemployment benefit system.
• Progressivism vs conservatism: I’m not one to keep supporting policies simply because it’s the way it’s always been done. Injustices of all kinds are always at work in every society. People who are on the receiving end of such injustices will complain: the Black slave, the “freed” Black, the woman who cannot vote, the interracial couple who cannot marry, the old person without money, the gay couple who cannot marry, the poor person without health insurance, the trans person who can get fired for being who they are. We should listen to them and reform society so as to make it a better and more inclusive place over time.
• Ecology vs productivism. Here, I am all for ecology, but the wording of the questions made it hard for me to side with the ecology side. It’s really that I can see the point of the other side. It’s very easy for liberals in Portland, OR, who don’t depend on extractive industries for their livelihood to talk about environmental protection. What do they have to lose? But the people living in rural Eastern Oregon will feel differently. I get that. This doesn’t meant that I don’t support environmental protection most of the time, but it does mean that I’m willing to compromise on some measures when people’s livelihood is at stake. I had a conversation with Anthony Zarrella recently about this. I’m sure he would be surprised to see the result I got here.
• Internationalism vs nationalism. I’ve been a foreigner longer than I’ve been an American. Jingoistic patriotism will never be my style. That said, I do think elected officials are beholden to the interests of their own countries. I just happen to think that, most of the time, internationalism will be better for the US than nationalism.
• Revolutionism vs reformism. I don’t like revolutions, except in the case of foreign occupation. It’s the only scenario in which I condone it. For domestic change, I like pragmatic reform. Americans see revolutions in terms of their own, which was very successful. When I look at revolutions, what I see are the myriad examples where it failed or went awry: France, Latin America, 1848, Russia, and the litany of examples in Africa. Disruption is too hard to control. Once you introduce violence into a political system, it’s almost impossible to curb it later, except at the cost of a repression greater than what you were trying to fight in the first place. Rare is the figure like George Washington, who will seek to be a Cincinnatus. Mostly, what you will get is a Sulla, a Caesar, or a Napoleon, or a man like Bolivar who can’t seem to figure out whether he wants to be a Napoleon or a Washington. I prefer my simple, boring reforms and trust that they will accumulate over time to produce the better society I want to see tomorrow. Violent protests, more often than not, are counterproductive. You wake up wanting a constitutional monarchy, you hope that the people will agitate and force your ruler to give up some power, and next thing you know you have a Lenin or a Mengistu in power. This prospect is infinitely scarier to me to than the prospect of a process of reform that unfolds over decades rather than months.

• Constructivism Vs Essentialism: I do generally favour the idea of nurture over nature, however I recognise both play parts, sometimes to different extents. For example, I believe that racial differences past the surface are purely learned, while sexuality is almost entirely inbuilt.
• Justice: I favour the idea that the point of the justice system should be to prevent harm, and it has been shown many times over that rehabilitation is better for both the criminal and society.
• Progressism vs conservatism: hardly a surprise if you read my answers, I give very little credit to ideas just because they're old and tend to like the way modern society has been headed. That said, there are some conservative ideals (such as freedom of speech) that I do hold very highly.
• Internationalism vs nationalism: Britain (indeed, near any nation in the modern world) cannot stand alone. We should seek good trade, and good deals with other nations. I concern myself deeply with the rights of those who are not my countrymates, for we all share the third planet from the sun.
• Communism vs capitalism: I'd expect this to be more central, though I suppose it depends on the definitions. I believe that power, infrastructure, healthcare (including pharmaceuticals), the military, education, transport, the emergency services, the environment, sites and items of large historical significance, and certain social programs should all be public matters and industries. I also believe that all else, but most importantly the media and religion, can or should be private. We've all had to get a drivers licence, I don't think anyone wants to have to buy their food from McDMV.
• Regulationism vs laissez faire: probably tying in with what I've written above, I do also largely support workers rights, including minimum wage and unions. However, if you want to accept a zero hour contract that's your choice.
• Ecology vs Productivism: the environment is very important, it's the world. Production is also very important, money makes the world go 'round. I feel this was shifted slightly by my support of nuclear power, meat, and GMOs, but I do tend to support the environment over production, and certainly think we need to work much harder on preserving it.
• Revolution vs reformism: we don't remember Gandhi, MLK, Rosa Parks, or Malcom X for the rules they decided to follow. At the same time, I could say the same thing about Lenin. I'm all in favour of passive resistance, I'm good with civil disobedience, I'm tentatively in support of hacktivism. Violent revolution, however, has no place in a democratic (doubleplus emphasis on democratic) nation, and most issues in countries like Britian can and should be solved with voting, both in elections, and with your money.

Work - Justice - Fatherland

Additional characteristics

Pragmatist

Politics objectively boils down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

The Axes

Constructivists consider that people build themselves from their environment (notably social) and that the characteristics that make them who they are, are acquired. On the contrary, essentialists consider that an individual is by nature how he/she is and that his/her characteristics which make this person who she/he is, are innate.

I am a Materialist, Nihilist and Atheist. I believe humans are animals, and all the laws of biology, ethology and genetics apply to humans like they apply to all animals. In my humble opinion, constructivism is a form of an anti-scientific lunacy.

Those in favor of rehabilitative justice consider that the role of justice is to put the condemned on the “right path” again by making them understand why they should not do what they did and why they were condemned and by accompanying them all along the process. Conversely those in favor of punitive justice consider that the role of justice is dissuasive, both for the condemned (to avoid recidivism) and for the rest of the society (by making them examples not to follow).

I am Pragmatist enough to realize an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth leave both parties blind and toothless. Retributive justice has never produced good results, and my Pragmatism implies restorativity and rehabilitation are much better approaches here.

The progressives try to build social progress, make a better society without caring about traditions. They often consider the present as better than the past and that it is necessary to keep on this path. On the contrary the conservatives want to keep the status quo and even to reinsert some values already considered as disappeared or disappearing. Traditions, among those the religious heritage, are put forward as a source of wisdom.

Progressivism is the gas pedal of the society, conservativism the brake pedal. To run the society properly, you must use both. Mere the use of accelerator will lead the society into a crash, while mere brake will get it nowhere.

Internationalism is a set of different ides which have for common point to stop making a hierarchy between countries and their inhabitants and to promote as much as possible their cooperation. Pushed to its maximum the final objective is the abolitions of borders. On the other hand, nationalism is a set of heterogeneous ideas which, when applied, favor one country and its citizens over foreigners, it also justifies the idea that each people has a nation

I am a Finn and an EU citizen, in that order. Both matter to me.

Communism is a vast political doctrine. In this test a majority for communism simply signifies that you are for a public property of the means of production. Capitalism is as well an ambivalent concept. In this test a majority for capitalism simply signifies that you are for a private property of the means of production.

Communism does not work. Full stop.

Regulation vs. Laissez-faire

This axis represents the attitude that a government needs to have concerning the market economy in which an important part of the means of production are private. Liberals and Keynesians are opposed to the method that needs to be adopted without putting into question capitalism. If you are more capitalist, this axis represents your goal in terms of economy. If you are more communist, this axis represents the least bad that you can expect of the current system. Regulation or interventionism is an idea in which the economical activity should be regulated for the common interest. It can be through legislation, planning, subventions, a variable taxation. On the contrary, the laissez-faire is the ideas in which the economical activity should not be regulated because it would in itself correspond to the common interest. It can be through a weak legislation, few or no subventions, a fixed taxation and often weak or even the complete suppression of the role of the state in the economy.

I am an engineer enough to know that any system which has at least one positive feedback circuit, is inherently unstable and will blow up when left on its own devices without any control mechanisms. A certain degree of regulation (control circuits) is a must if you want a properly functional society and efficient economy.

Ecology in politics privileges the protection of the environment by limiting as much as possible the impact of human activities on the biodiversity even if it implies to limit the these human activities by modifying more or less radically our current way of life. Production privileges human needs notably by supporting the increase of the production or the use of methods that have an uncertain impact on the environment.

It is fun to play the Middle Ages, but I would not like to live in them, yet re-enacting the Age of Industrialization and all the environmental catastrophes it caused is no fun either.

Revolutionaries have a tendency to privilege direct action, often in the margin of legality, to reach their goal: replace the current political organization for totally different one. Reformers have a tendency to privilege legal action to reach their goal: reform the political organization step by step. This can be done through the institutions, via elections, authorized demonstrations, petitions...

Evolution produces always more durable and permanent results than revolution, but there is no use on appeasement of tyrants and hoping they will make any amendments.

I got (in the words of Disco Elysium) “the world’s most laughable centrist”, and also a cookie.

Many of the answers, I ended up staying neutral not because that is my default setting but I kept asking “in what context”? I would definitely pick a side in most contexts but it doesn’t make sense in some.

For instance, take the question “A language is defined by its users, not scholars”. Someone such as myself, who is generally against official language institutes and proudly peppers his daily conversation with foreign phrases should agree. Yet the question is wrong. Those scholars (where they exist) do define the language and the users take heed, one way or another. Either way, the users and the scholars do not exist in a vacuum but create the language, sometimes in opposition to each other. Rejecting scholars as highfalutin blowhards is all a piece of fine and dandy peasant wisdom but in the end is untrue.

So how do I answer this? I remained neutral, in spite of my very specific views on the subject.

Etc. I wish I had better results. Like one of those fashies with their sexy haircuts. I’m so sorry…

(Also I don’t really like that “work” part of “Revolution, Justice, Work”… I have no idea why that popped up. I’d rather be sleeping to be honest).

Four years after most other respondents.

Soft centre-left still, I see. Yeah, happy with that.

And good to do a test that isn’t US-centric. Other commenters are right on this one.

Quite content to see I’m a social constructivist (I miss cultural relativism), an advocate of regulation, cautiously trusting of the Market, and incrementalist. Not all that greenie. Also happy to see I’m less globalist than the liberal default. Yeah, happy with that.

Equality–Justice–Humanity is rather more popular, and I guess that’s my residual nationalism and corporatism…

So who do I align with most from other answers?

• User-13677480818063644744
• Carter Moore
• Scott Young
• Tom Bellinger
• Peter Hawkins, which I find very gratifying, both because I find him a serious thinker, and because I find him a bit centrist for my taste (and I know that deep down, I’m a bit centrist for my taste too lol.)
• Mike Jones. You know, the same as I said for Peter Hawkins, only in American.

Alright then. I forgot that question exists. But this question still gets the occasional new answer, so I thought I’d join in.

Oh hell yeah, my flag looks like a more fabulous version of the Scandinavian flags.

Some writers before me praised this test for being less US-centric than other political tests. I can see why.

In dealing with American right-wingers insulting me for years and years, I’ve become used to people thinking that I’m some radical leftist. Since this test isn’t based on American ideas of what “leftist” means, it seems like I might be less “far-left” than I initially thought.

Whenever there was a question I didn’t understand or didn’t have a strong opinion on, I often defaulted to “neutral.” That might explain some significant white gaps in some of the result bars.

I’m more cynical than the average liberal. And I think that was reflected in some of those low percentages. The most extreme scores were my placements for Nationalism, Conservatism, and Punitive Justice. Many of my politics are informed by my disdain for the US Republican Party. I may not be an enthusiastic supporter of every left-wing position, but I am firmly anti-conservative.

In my view, the most interesting part of my results was that little medal at the end.

I want my country to be more left-wing than it is, but I try not to be pushy or obnoxious about it.

Combined with the Justice-Humanity-Equality result, it looks like I might be a Social Justice Pragmatist. Hopefully, no one turns SJP into a generic insult like what happened with Social Justice Warriors (SJWs).

Curious, eh, Cameron?

I’ll bite.

I will elaborate:

Essentialism: Even though I believe that circumstances and conditions are a major sculptor of cultures and personalities, so is their innate qualities. Cultures are results of not just the conditions they were born under but also the fundamental realities of their component parts. Once past the very initial development stage of human cultures, such deeply did the constructed changes in those periods took hold, that they are forever distinguishable and diverse no matter the conditions.

Justice: Some criminals deserve rehabilitation. But many don’t. Crime is anathema to order, corruption, murder, treason, anathema to the prosperity and safety of the nation. The wicked cannot be shown mercy, and intimidation is always a stouter defender of order than rehabilitation.

Conservatism: My readers know that I am a conservative, but first of all I am pragmatic. I will not fanatically be conservative and defend against all change: I would prefer tradition, but if you have an idea that works better I will not complain.

Nationalism: I am a very stout nationalist. The people of a nation are the only ones who can decide what is best for them, and no matter what might transpire, I will always look out first for my own.

Capitalism and Regulationism: I loathe communism. It’s a devourer of cultures, a fanatical religion of its own, genocidal and insane, born on the shoulders of the disillusioned masses. It destroys nations and cultures on a ridiculous pursuit of equality. But what I also dislike is rampant, unregulated capitalism, where the state is deprived of even the most crucial economic control. I am a corporativist. Workers and capitalists and state are not enemies: they are parts of a greater whole. Alone they are strong. Together they cannot be stopped.

Productivism: Humanity is supreme. We are to a fault the strongest species on the planet, we were when primitive, we were when we forged steel, we were when we split the atom. In the world, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must: nature exists for humans, who have earned their domination through the flames of industry, and the benefits to humanity come before everything else.

Revolutionism v Reformism: I am a pragmatist before all. I combine the goals of the idealpolitik with the methods of the realpolitik: I have a goal, an end I desire, and to reach it any method is acceptable, whether evolutionary change or sweeping revolution. I will succeed, and how does not matter to me.

Pragmatism: See above.

Monarchism: Partially. I am rather disillusioned about democracy, which in the modern world increasingly seems like ‘a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance’ as H. L. Mencken once put. I am not necessarily a monarchist, but I do believe that an autocratic regime with the will and the ability works better than any democracy can.

Missionary: In so far as I consider it, my religious beliefs aren’t any different than my ideological ones. They are all part of my complex belief system and I distinguish between its parts solely on a base of merit. And I won’t try to convert you to my way of thinking with force, but I will do my best to see you willingly join me.

I’m really more environmentally conscious, I disliked the questions.

Otherwise, it kinda fits me.

No surprise here. Though I would've expected ecology to be higher, but I think that's a result of how the questions were worded.

What did you get on the PolitiScales political quiz?

Seems about right.

Liberty. Work. Fatherland.

• I believe that people’s natural rights and freedoms are more important than any other civic goal.
• I believe that those who work harder and contribute more are entitled to more.
• I believe that each country may (and must) justly and rightly prioritize its own citizens above any other people in the world.

If anything, I’m actually further to the Right (actually left on these scales) than I expected, but not by much.

I’m a little surprised that “Justice” wasn’t one of my three keywords at the top, given my overall mentality and perspectives (I’ve seen it on other people’s results), but given who has and hasn’t gotten it, and given the nature of the questions asked, I’m guessing this survey treats “Justice” as being a function of distributive “fairness” (a la Rawls) rather than compliance with fixed rules and procedures, so that makes sense that I didn’t get it.

I think my 14% “Progressivism” might have come from places where I said things like, “Traditions should be questioned.” I’m conservative, but blind adherence to tradition is just foolhardy.

There were a few particular items on the survey that I wanted to make note of, because I found them ambiguous and I’m not sure how they affected my results.

The first I didn’t copy down, so I’m paraphrasing from memory, but it was something like,

“Revolutions always come to a bad end.”

Well… clearly not always, since I’m an American. But I do think most revolutions tend to “eat their young” like the French “Reign of Terror” did.

I think I answered “Unsure” because I didn’t know whether a “Disagree Somewhat” would be interpreted as meaning I think they often end badly but not always, or that I think they often (though not always) end well. And would “Agree Somewhat” (or however it was phrased) mean that I think they usually end badly… or that they always end sort of badly but not completely badly.

All in all, this one packed too many propositions into a seemingly simple statement.

Second:

“Sexual orientation is a social construct.”

If I answer Agree (to either degree), what does it mean?

Does it mean I think that no one is naturally gay or straight, and that orientations are caused by cultural influences?

Or does it mean that I think that people do have natural preferences, independent of culture, but that the categories are arbitrary “boxes” we put people into?

Either way, I think I still would have disagreed to some extent (I tend to think that most people have inborn leanings one way or the other, and that the categories are meaningful because “male” and “female” are natural, not constructed distinctions). But that’s me—I know at least a few people who would have agreed with one of those interpretations but not the other.

Third:

“Abortion should be limited to specific cases.”

I ended up saying “Agree Strongly”… but by implication, that means I think that abortion should be allowed at least in specific cases.

I don’t. I’m a “no exceptions” pro-lifer, and “no exceptions” means really, literally, absolutely none.

[And no, this is not the point of this answer, so if anyone wants to debate me on it, find one of my answers that is actually about abortion. I’m not debating it on this one.]

Lastly:

“Maintaining strong economic growth should be an objective for the government.”

The most ambiguous of the bunch…

Does it mean, “Government should have maintenance of economic growth as a major policy consideration”? If so, I agree strongly.

Does it mean, “Strong economic growth is an objective best left to government as a primary driver”? If so, I disagree strongly.

I don’t remember which answer I went with…

Anyway, all in all a very good test.

It could use a bit of polish on its English translation—which may have led to some of the ambiguities (it appears it may have been French in its original form). But it’s better than 90% of the political quizzes out there.

Unsurprisingly, my ideological match was Libertarianism.

I was a bit surprised with how I did on the societal axis; I had assumed I was pretty centrist on social issues — maybe the test was designed for a widely American audience.

Economically though, I do tend to think myself pretty centrist, with a slight edge towards free market policies.

I wasn’t surprised with what I got on the diplomatic and civil axes, I have a very “live and let live” attitude. Bob can go establish his Christian theocracy in the parking lot of Costco while Jill can sue the bookstore for *gasp* selling The Communist Manifesto for a profit — just so long as they don’t get in the way of me having my morning cup of Earl Grey.

I got this:

I was expecting to get higher on the progressive since I support transhumanism.

What did you get on the Politiscales political quiz?

I hadn’t done the Politiscales quiz, so off the back of this question I thought I’d give it a try. I’ve done all the other major ones, but not this one.

I didn’t even finish it. This quiz is terrible. Many of the questions are so poorly phrased I don’t even know how to answer.

Case in point:

What does that mean? Free to choose what? Free to choose between employers? Free to choose when they sign the contract? Free to choose their own contractual terms?

It’s meaningless. And it was the last straw— that’s as far as I got.

All in all, not recommended. There are better quizzes out there if you want to determine your political alignment.

I like this test. I feel more represented by it than with most similar ones.

I took it, but like others have said, this is too nuanced to really capture someone’s real views. I wasn’t very impressed with the 8values version, either, but it was closer than this:

I’m not really authoritarian or a militarist; I believe in a strong national government whose bounds of authority are strictly defined and cannot be exceeded. And I believe in a strong military, but war only as a last resort—peace through strength.

The PolitiScales test is the most accurate at capturing my point of view: John Cate's answer to What did you get on the PolitiScales political quiz?

So, not too bad relative to other tests! Each question I was unambiguous as to my answer. Spekr did not suffer the same problems that other tests have where they conflate personal and political positions. (See for example: What are your results on 8values political ideology test?)

This test does not differentiate anarcho-capitalism from voluntaryism which is how I conceive of myself. Because voluntaryism is a much smaller subset, it is understandable. (See How does voluntaryism differ from other forms of libertarianism?)

Given my ease answering these questions, I’m wondering whether this test is biased libertarian? As it is hard for authoritarians to see the bias they put in their tests, so it may be hard for me to see the bias in a more libertarian test. I would love to hear if people who are more authoritarian on either the economic or the culture dimensions found this difficult or biased.

I’d be happy to recommend this test! :)

From the site’s description of the Spekr of me.

I guess these results are fairly accurate.

(the checkmark is for me indicating my favorite party from the list, the top party was the “Peace and Freedom Party” before I put a checkmark)

I am not all that surprised that I got the Peace and Freedom Party, Socialist Party, and Green Party. However, I am sort of disappointed with how I got the Democratic Party up there (81% matching, anyway, though thankfully it’s only in the bottom half of the list.), considering how I dislike a lot of their politics.

Here’s what I’m really glad about:

I don’t care if you are left or right; I just hope you’re at least somewhat anti-imperialist. The fact that both Establishment parties disagree with me is truly based.

Fatherland, socialism and family; pragmatism and monarchism

Constructivism versus essentialism

I believe there are some truths about mankind and people that simply can't be changed: you can't change your gender, some people are naturally smarter or stronger than others, etc. I do however accept some constructivist beliefs as well.

Rehabilative versus punitive justice

As a Christian, I support forgiveness but from a secular point of view, I do believe that criminals should be punished, because if the only punishment is being reintegrated in society, what is stopping you from commiting crimes?

Progressive versus conservative

I firmly believe that progress should happen slowly and that progress as it's meant today should–for the most part–not happen at all. Seriously, I don't support talking to kindergardeners about homosexuality, allowing 10-year-old children to legally change their gender, and I definitely don't support polyamory.

Internationalism versus nationalism

I'm very much a nationalist. I think internationalism is nonsensical utopian idea that in the long term, will only cause more harm than good.

Communism versus capitalism

While the test would make you believe I'm a socialist, I'm not. I'm a corporatist

Regulation versus laissez-faire

Regulation is nessecary for an economy to function and–more importantly–prevent monopolies and poor working conditions.

Ecology versus production

I support ecological preservation. I dislike many aspects of the Industrial Revolution, but I'm not an Anarcho-Primitivist. I think that industry is also very important.

Revolution versus reform

I don't really like revolutions except when it truly is needed. I prefer reform, with revolution only being a second thought.

Pragmatism

I'm actually very idealistic but I'm not a utopian. I am willing to make certain concessions if it's the only way to achieve my ideals. In that way, I'm indeed a pragmatist.

Monarchism

I'm very much a monarchist. I believe it to be a preferable system to a republic. As I believe that a) it's more stable and b) a king is less polarising than a president.

Footnotes

First, I want to say that these tests are an exercise in intellectual narcissistic onanism. They make you feel that you have a unique constellation of positions that give you a precise square on your country’s political chessboard. But in reality, your choices are almost always much more limited. That said, since I’m every bit as narcissistic as the next guy, and since it’s hard to turn down a little onanism, intellectual or otherwise, I’ve decided to give it another go.

Federal vs Unitary:

I want the central government to be firmly in control, and to win every time it comes into conflict with local authority, but I don’t want to entirely eradicate the power of localities.

Democracy vs Authority:

I’m not fan of authoritarianism, but there are instances when the central authority needs to be able to override the will of the majority. I want, for instance, a government with the power to abolish slavery, even when a majority of citizens oppose abolition.

Globalism vs Isolationism:

The way I see it, that ship has sailed. Globalism has won. You can’t lock out foreigners Tokugawa-Shogunate style. That being said, I do believe in national sovereignty, and the more powerful a nation-state is, the more jealous of its prerogatives it’s going to be.

Militarist vs. Pacifist

I don’t like war, if I can avoid it. But you can’t always avoid it. You should always give diplomacy a good-faith effort, but you will pay dearly if you don’t have the military muscle to defend yourself when all else fails. People like Hitler are never going to be stopped by pretty speeches.

Security vs. Freedom

I mostly side with defending civil liberties. Too often, the threat of terrorism or external attack is used to justify a government’s voracious encroachment on civil liberties. And yet, the government must have some tools to fight potential threats. The use of such tools should be safeguarded by a process designed to prevent abuse.

Equality vs. Markets

I’m a capitalist, but I’m a huge fan of regulated capitalism. I am especially skeptical of large financial institutions.

Secular vs. Religious

I want religion out of the business of statecraft. And I want the state out of the business of religion. Public policy should be secular. No taxpayer funds should go to any religious institution whatsoever.

Progressive vs. Traditional

I have very little use for tradition, for which I see little intrinsic value. Tradition should only be preserved when it is not demonstrably inferior the newer ways of doing things.

Assimilationist vs. Multiculturalist

Here, I’m torn. I’m an immigrant myself, and I believe that wherever the immigrant’s own culture conflicts with the laws—not the culture—of the host nation, the law should prevail. But I recognize that first generation immigrants, especially if they move as adults, are only ever going to assimilate to a limited extent. But their children, and especially their grandchildren, will be fully assimilated.

So, there you have it. Much as I would like to have my own party, in the US where I live, and where I intend to live for the foreseeable future, this makes me a Democrat.

I've been seeing this question answered by many Quorans I follow, so I figured - why not give it a shot?

This is the first question that popped up:

A difficult question, I don't doubt. Let's narrow it down and focus on the important issue at hand, namely:

*rubs eyes*

Look, guys, I don't know how to put this gently, but I'm not answering 117 questions just to post a stupid result as an answer on Quo-

Ooh, look! There's a ‘see a random result’ button!

Excellent. My randomly generated results are as follows:

Reaction: sure, whatever.

EDIT: all right, all right. I caved. Happy?

I liked the previous flag better.

Equality-Socialism-Humanity

This quiz is surprisingly nuanced in Its questions and It’s certainly a lot more comprehensive and can tell more about your political ideology than the political compass quiz.

It shows the variety of opinions within many ideologies, specifically on many issues, even though I’m very Left-wing socially(seen in Constructivism vs Essentialism and Progressivism vs Conservatism) as I believe that humans are largely malleable and a lot of gender differences in our society can be accounted for by social conditions and the environment which we were raised in. Hence, we have little needs for societal-enforced gender norms which forces us into a binary gender category which causes inequality for both sexes.

But at the same time, I also subscribe to some ideas that are commonly associated with the Right-wing, especially conservatives. I believe in rehabilitation, as It’s economically a lot more beneficial and morally humane than merely punishing people for everything, but I also believe that It’s morally acceptable to punish certain crimes with death and that justice should be swiftly delivered to those who need it.

And representing a classic divide in the Left, even though I’m far from a nationalist(Internationalism vs Nationalism), I support limited immigration as I believe that free immigration is a neoliberal ploy to drive down wages and destroy the solidarity of the native working people. Thus, the unchecked flow of capital and labor largely serves the interests of the elites who support such policy for obvious reasons.

Of course, my fellow Leftists would accuse me of creating a distinction between the proletariat and argue that true Socialism is about Internationalism, and that I should protect all workers legally rather than only those native to my country alone. But It’s an argument for another day.

Regulationism vs Laissez Faire is also a point which I hold strongly. It may seems radical but a lot of countries that have a heavily regulated economy have done very well, like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Finland. It's because rather than harming, many regulations are actually good for business. It can help businesses by limiting the ability of firms to engage in activities that bring them greater profits in the short run but ultimately destroy the common resource that all business firms need to profit in the long run. Like regulating the intensity of fish farming to preserve the quality of water and improve the quality of labor through job training and banning child labor for example.

Good regulations help preserve the common-pool resources that all firms share and raise their collective productivity in the long run. This is not to say that all regulations are good and that we always need a lot of regulation, It's the quality, not the quantity of the regulations that really counts.

Finally, I also believe that revolutions and violence are sometimes necessary, but they won’t always lead us to success as the radicalism produced by a revolution is the breeding ground for demagogues and most of them would only enrich themselves in the end. Revolutionaries existed from hitherto, but finding one that can really lead a country is really hard. A peaceful and democratic transformation is the best way for us to achieve our objectives with the least bloodshed and the most stability.

The result of this quiz also came as a surprise for me because somehow I’ve become more Left-wing than I was a few months ago. People often say that you become more Right-wing as you mature but apparently It’s not the case for me.

For the Image averse

We’ll be rich, but if you’re looking for massive societal changes, preferably long after I’m dead.

These are the results I got when I did the PolitiScales quiz earlier this afternoon:

Not really any surprises there.

Although I must say that I found this quiz to be only marginally better than the Political Compass one. For example, what does this question even mean?

How are we defining “justified" here?

Don't really understand this one either:

The following question has got to be the worst one though:

Umm… yes? As opposed to what? Being literally enslaved?

*facepalm*

I am obligated to answer any and all A2As from Aster now, so, here it goes.

Work, liberty, fatherland.

Seems pretty accurate to me for the most part.

Constructivism vs. Essentialism: I firmly believe that things like gender are not social constructs, and I tend to laugh at people who go around saying that gender is all a social construct and say that the general differences in the choices and interests of men and women are caused by society.

However, I also firmly believe that things like gender are not the great determiners of what you can and cannot do in society, and I definitely don’t think the government should be messing around with things, preventing women from going into certain fields or trying to get them to go into others in an attempt to make sure such fields are equally male and female.

Rehabilitative Justice vs. Punitive Justice: I think the justice system should be both in part rehabilitative and punitive, but, far more importantly, it’s main purpose should simply be to protect society and ensure that dangerous individuals are not walking around society freely, harming others and trampling on their rights unstopped.

Progressivism vs. Conservativism: In my personal life, I am extremely conservative. As a matter of public policy however, I tend to lean more libertarian than anything else on any issues that I do not see as directly harming other individuals, such as drug use or same sex marriage.

Internationalism vs. Nationalism: I think that elected officials have a primary responsibility to care for the country and citizens that they were elected to lead, and prioritize their country over foreigners.

I strongly dislike the idea of globalism, because I like power to be as decentralized as possible, and I think individual nations have a right to govern their societies as they see fit, allowing citizens to chose what kind of society they personally want to live in.

Communism vs. Capitalism: What can I say? I abhor communism and I do think that people have a right to own their own property and the products of their labor, and I think that the idea that the rest of society gets to tell you what you have to do with your own property is an immoral as well as a distructive principle.

Regulation vs. Laissez-faire: A lightly regulated economy is best for just about everyone. I find that government regulations, while often done with just the best of intentions supposedly, cause significant harm to the economy, the country, small businesses, employees, consumers, everyone, save perhaps tyrants, politicians, and the very corporations they are supposedly protecting against.

Ecology vs. Productivivism: I think the environment is very important, but, honestly, I think most of the concerns over the impact of humanity upon the environment are exaggerated, and that most of the policies put in place to try to protect the environment really are not very effective at doing so, while imposing undue burdens on society. I have little faith on the government to address these problems effectively, and I think that solutions can be implemented as effectively, if not more effectively if the government just stays out of things.

Revolution vs. Reformism: I think there’s a time and a place for both. I strongly prefer a peaceful reformation, and don’t like when people use violence to achieve their goals. However, that don't mean that revolutions are never justified. The founding fathers are not remembered for fixing things through democratic elections and petitions, Rosa Parks isn’t remembered for her authorized demonstrations, they are remembered for putting their foot down and saying enough, and sometimes, that needs to happen.

Pragmatism: That sure sounds like me. I think that all policy should be practical and based in fact and reason, and while there are ideas that we should work towards and hold dear, because we do not live in a perfect and ideal world, things need be dealt with realistically in relation to the state of society.

I think this was pretty accurate. There was nothing I seriously disagreed with, and I think these results pretty accurately portray a libertarian leaning conservative.

Frowny face. I can start a new political movement with this. :(-ism!

(Just kidding, this is what you get when you answer ‘Neutral or hesitant’ to all questions.)

Here are my actual results:

Humanity • Equality • Work

I get this neat little flag that looks a little too much like the Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, English, and Icelandish flags.

Here are my stances on each of the axes:

• Constructivism vs. Essentialism
• What constructivism means is that biological differences can't explain most differences between groups, such as gender and race. Gender differences are somewhat true (due to hormones and all that), but racial differences are negligible at most.
• There are more factors such as upbringing that affect these differences, too. Basically, nature vs. nurture.
• Rehabilitative justice vs. Punitive justice
• I would much prefer to educate and help criminals to reintegrate back into society.
• Don't get me wrong, punishment is important too, but that shouldn't be the main focus.
• Prisons should hold lessons and have facilities that simulate society, while offering psychological help to those in need.
• Progressivism vs. Conservativism
• LGBTQ+ rights? Racial equality? HELL TO THE YES. (Though I don't care much about SJWs on both sides of the political spectrum. All they do is whine at this point.)
• I oppose racially determined affirmative action. Just because you're black doesn't mean you're piss-poor. Just because you're Asian doesn't mean you're rich and smart. Rather, it should be replaced with socioeconomically-based affirmative action.
• I'm not much of a traditionalist. Some traditions do hold a lot of cultural significance and should be preserved, but those that hinder progress, social or economical, should be abolished.
• Internationalism vs. Nationalism
• I find blind patriotism quite silly. You don't have to be proud of literally everything about your country. Every country is just about as good as any other. No one is inherently superior. And chauvinism is just a big no-no.
• National borders, to me, should serve more of a cultural purpose than to divide the global population politically. Free speech for all, y'all. This should facilitate policies that suit the local cultures and virtues within the country.
• Communism vs. Capitalism
• Theoretically, communism is a great way to get rid of socioeconomical differences. Realistically… not so much. See: the Great Leap Forward in China.
• I'm all for money being a thing. While there should be policies to help the disadvantaged, they shouldn't go as far as to go full Robin Hood — rob the rich to give to the poor.
• Capitalism's been working perfectly fine, from my perspective. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
• Regulationism vs. Laizzez-faire
• I lean towards a somewhat freer market. Freedom is good when it comes to economics.
• But, there should be regulations to stop the market from causing financial crises. 2008 wasn't such a fun year.
• Ecology vs. Productivism
• Green, green, green. We should bear part of the responsibility for climate change and species extinction. We've pretty much devastated the Earth at this point.
• Notice how I said ‘part’ in the last point. I am well aware that some of it is completely natural.
• However, environmental protection shouldn't hinder productivity. Take Hong Kong, for example — 40% of the land here is composed of untouched country parks, yet we never seem to have enough land to build houses. Goddamn Greenpeace. Now our housing prices have been skyrocketing for, like, 20 years.
• Revolution vs. Reformism
• I'm not a fan of revolutions whenever something goes ever-so-slightly wrong. It is a good thing when it's clear that the government is in shambles, though. Change anything you want.
• When something goes wrong, governments should make minor tweaks to existing policies or roll out some improved ones. Not every single presidential change warrants an all-new policy plan completely different from the previous ones. Continue with existing policies if they're fine. Small tweaks can change a lot in a country over time.

I also have these additional traits at the bottom that Jimmie Hicks and Shell Majumdar told me about (thanks guys!):

• Anarchist
• Abolition of the state. I would much rather have people make their own decisions, though that seems a tad bit idealistic to me. I don’t really trust the state when it comes to implementing useful policies at the moment.
• Pragmatist
• I don’t like overly idealistic politicians. In theory, their ideas seem amazing. In reality… well… you know. Nothing ever happens.

Aaand that's it! I'm so sorry for the long answer.

Work - Fatherland - Order

I think its pretty self-explanatory.

(The two at the bottom are “pragmatism” and “monarchism” in case you’re wondering).

I’m disappointed I’m not as red as the fine Michael Masiello. Where did I fail? Interesting quiz though.

My results are: Ecology, Revolution, Equality

Many questions are formulated in a way there is no strict answer. That is why I had to choose many neutral answers.
I live in a country where political elites did not want to make reforms. The positive changes happened only after revolutions. That explains my choice here. However in general revolutions are required only in desperate dead end situations. Should I live in another country and society my answer could be different.
Protecting environment is an absolute must for me. People should switch to the way of production less harmful for environment. In my country people destroy nature and government usually does nothing about it.
I am neutral in Nationalism/Internationalism despite considering myself as “light nationalist”. I am strictly against making World a one big country without borders. I am for defending of key national concepts such as language. Yet I am very far from far right ideas. I am against interference in neighboring counties because of the “national interests” and other similar things.
I am less Conservative and more Progressive. I think we should keep our values and traditions only if they are really worth keeping. I am against keeping traditions that are inhumane or harmful. I think every religion should be reformed to be up to date with modern World and to consider humanism. I am not religious myself.
I am more Capitalistic, yet I think some ideas of Socialism should be taken into account. I am anti-Communistic in general but pure Capitalism is also not an option.
I am neutral in the question of Regulation - I think regulation is sometimes necessary. I do not like ”everything belongs to everyone” but I consider that some things should be free of patent.
I am against death penalty and for gradually increased penalty for many crimes committed not for the first time. I am against transition of prison into building with ”home arrest” conditions.
I am for Constructivism rather than Essentialism. But I agree that some natural sciences like Physics and Chemistry are based on strict axioms and rules and that objects can be strictly described and identified. But I still consider that our level of knowledge may be not enough to describe some phenomena. Anв all those axioms and rules do not work as expected when we talk about such extremely complex concept as human being. Person may be born with some sex sexual orientation,, race, nationality, ethnicity - but many of this may be changed when person becomes self-conscious.