Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

WTF!!!

Damn,

I’m a liberal…

24 Comments

  1. John Galt says:

    Well we knew this, but you seem surprised?

    Why?

  2. CountingCats says:

    Well we knew this,

    Hah.

    Just because I think gratuitous obscenities are unnecessary when forming a coherent argument I suppose…

  3. John Galt says:

    Among other things, but correct me if I am wrong, you still engage in the political process and think it is somehow meaningful?

  4. Bourgeoiser Nationalist.

    Mine was in German, but;

    XX Ohne die Basis des Glaubens an eine höhere Macht lässt sich kein glaubhaftes Wertesystem aufbauen.XX

    “You can not build a believable system of values without basing it on a “higher power.”

    WHAT is a “Higer power?????”

    “God?” “Government?” “Spaghetti monster?” “My Missus?”

  5. I got the same.

    I’m taking it that it means Liberal in the classical sense rather than the modern bastardisation of the word.

  6. RAB says:

    Democratic Merchantilist myself apparently and I am ze only one. So that’s going to work out well isn’t it? WTF! indeed. I am not Merchantilist in the slightest.

    These tests are just so much bollocks, aren’t they?

  7. RogerC says:

    Capitalist, apparently. Cosmopolitan, secular, anti-authoritarian, individualistic and anthropocentric. Apparently only 1% of respondents agree with me, which can’t be good. Okay, I’m flexible on the secular bit, but even so…

    http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/455142/

  8. John Galt says:

    Apparently I am a Capitalist…

    I feel there is a “…running dog” missing in there somewhere.

    http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/455168/

  9. Dioclese says:

    Interesting. Apparently I am a nationalist, secular, reactionary, authoritarian, capitalistic, pacific with anthropomorphic tendencies.

    A similar ‘test’ classed e as a centre right social moderate.

    I don’t believe either of them!

  10. John Galt says:

    No, Dioclese, neither do I.

    For the simple reason that both axis and measures are wrong. The vast majority of questions had either no relevance to me (those involving the great sky fairy) or did not have an answer that I could respond to (e.g. “Such powers shouldn’t exist”)

    Equally, libertarians don’t neatly fit into any such scale as they are minimal statists and this scale and others simply try to fit us into a spectrum where libertarians don’t exist.

    That is why it fails.

  11. RogerC says:

    John Galt wrote:

    “Equally, libertarians don’t neatly fit into any such scale as they are minimal statists and this scale and others simply try to fit us into a spectrum where libertarians don’t exist.”

    The one that gave me pause was “The state should concentrate on the core areas safety and justice”. This is a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife? (y/n)” question for libertarians. Yes, it tacitly advocates a smaller state than we have at present, but you might also strongly agree with this statement if you favour giving the state, rather than the individual, primacy in these areas. Inevitably that comes at the expense of liberty.

  12. Julie near Chicago says:

    Hah! Au contraire, RAB, you and I occupy the lofty peak of Democratic Mercantilism together! Why, I cannot say, but it’s always nice if stuck someplace with uncongenial view to have a most congenial companion with whom to discuss the important issues of the day, such as the heavenly bounty given us by the Lord when that entity created Dog. :>))))

    . . .

    I thought actually it was a better-than-average multiple-choicer, in that it implied at least that one’s answers to the questions as asked might need explanation. On the other hand, it was a multiple-choicer.

    It was obviously not written by someone fully fluent in English. (Neither are most Native English-speakers, of course. SNARK)

    . . .

    “What consenting adults do in the bedroom is no business of anyone else’s,” more-or-less: Touches on both Lawrence vs. Texas and Roe vs. Wade. I’m glad to snatch this opportunity to opine:

    There is a natural right of privacy (within some limitation or other, as usual). The problem with the question as stated (which is pretty much the usual statement) and with the Roe vs. Wade. decision is that some activities are wrong even if committed in private — say in the bedroom — because they are criminal in and of themselves.

    Murder, for instance.

    . . .

    I hope Saffie is enjoying this lovely winter weather, RAB.

    Your fellow Democratic Mercantilist (per the survey I am also the Only One, so perhaps you and I are each other’s Alter Egos),

    –J. ;)

  13. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG — I surely hope you are right, as a Running Dog is part of the Bounty of Heaven to which I referred just above. :)

  14. RAB says:

    Yes it is nice to know that you are in good company even when you can’t explain why Julie, isn’t it. So there are two of us merchantilists now? Wowie Zowie! We can set up tariff barriers! ;-)

    I am still at a complete loss to understand how I can be a Merchantilist when I am a completely Free Trade man. Maybe it was answering the question… should a foreign felon be deported after serving his sentence?… Yes.

    Well fuck it, I have invited him in and he’s crapped on my Shag Pile. That’s abusing my hospitality in my book, so bugger off and crap on your own carpet. If that makes me a Merchantilist, I am at a loss to see how.

  15. John Galt says:

    I seem to recall wooden flooring rather than shag pile at your gaff RAB, unless you have moved into Michael Winners old place? :-)

    With regards to this test, it only measures people based upon a 3-axes model:
    - Anarchistic / Authoritarian (x-axis)
    - Nationalistic / Cosmopolitan (y-axis)
    - Communistic / Capitalistic (z-axis)

    The naming of each segment being a somewhat suspect subjective analysis of how the testers think these attributes mix to define your political character.

    If it gives an answer you expect then you accept it, if however (as with the majority here), it gives an answer which is suspect, you reject it, or at the very least query it.

    Equally, looking at the stats for the test, even based upon a 450,160 responses, the commonest attribution is “Other” at 34% with the nearest actual classification “Cosmopolitan Social Democrat” coming in at 13%

    Classification of test respondants

    All-in-all, it is as meaningful as horoscopes and has the scientific validity of phrenology.

  16. RAB says:

    Well we have the odd rug to leaven the ubiquitous trendy and Bohemian atmosphere of stripped and stained boards, that we residents of the district of St Andrews Bristol like to cultivate, as I’m sure you noticed when you were here John. A proper Turkey rug, as they used to refer to them in the 1700′s, in reception room 2.

    What an utter fraud that Michael Winner was though eh? More front than Harrod’s, made one average movie, then spent the rest of his life spending his inheritance (or what was left of it after his mum had visited the tables of Monte Carlo a few times too often), and left his loyal girlfriends with bugger all.

    And yes these bloody tests are utter nonsense, but fool that I am, I am a sucker for taking part. :-) One of these days I may very well go on ITV’s the Chase and take on Mark Labbett. We have issues to be resolved he and I.

  17. Julie near Chicago says:

    Now JG, I detect a note of sarcastic disbelief in horoscopes there. While I do realize that the prognostications are highly questionable, I have to tell you that to know me is to know exactly how accurate the traditional description of those born under the sign of the Twins is.

    And as to phrenology, don’t you think that my comments here & there illustrate the ill effects of having many bumps to the head?

    Sssshhh…. Careful how you answer that! *lol*

    RAB, I don’t see why I’m a mercantilist either, but ours is not to question why. This is Science. *severe frown* ;)

  18. John Galt says:

    This is Science. *severe frown*

    I know this is said in both humour and sarcasm, but no, it’s not. It might be what is poorly described as “Political Science” in the curricula of various Gramscian universities across the world, but even that is a joke without humour.

    Anyone who opts for “Political Science” or god help us “Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE)” should be hung, drawn and quartered.

    When they talk about Cannabis being an entry-point for serious hard drug taking there is some dispute, but Political Science and PPE are pre-cursors for parasitic forms of life feeding on the body politic.

    Is PPE a passport to power – or the ultimate blagger’s degree?

    P.S. I found the ideal rug for NickM, which brings full expression to his Dudeist beliefs:

    The Dude Abides

  19. Julie near Chicago says:

    Well, look over your shoulder before criticizing the PPE. *grin*

    . . .

    Perfectly happy to give you a line as springboard for a frank expression of your views. Lord knows I use other people’s remarks as an excuse for self-expression when it suits me.

    Actually, I can’t imagine that anybody would take such a “test” or quiz seriously. People tend to be fascinated with them; they’re a mainstay of the women’s magazines still, I imagine.

    . . .

    Hm. Latchhook, or else Machine-Made. Maybe Nick should take up latchhook as a hobby. It might relax him. :>))

  20. Lynne says:

    Reactionary anarcho-capitalist here.

  21. Plamus says:

    Julie: ““What consenting adults do in the bedroom is no business of anyone else’s,” more-or-less: Touches on both Lawrence vs. Texas and Roe vs. Wade. I’m glad to snatch this opportunity to opine:

    There is a natural right of privacy (within some limitation or other, as usual). The problem with the question as stated (which is pretty much the usual statement) and with the Roe vs. Wade. decision is that some activities are wrong even if committed in private — say in the bedroom — because they are criminal in and of themselves.

    Murder, for instance.”

    Erm, I beg to disagree here, Julie. Or, rather, I think we may have a semantic difference. I claim it’s not murder if both parties are consenting and informed – it’s euthanasia, which I am for.

    As for the test, c’est moi: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/458951/

  22. Julie near Chicago says:

    Plamus: Or, really, a suicide pact I suppose.

    But my point is, that if a mother can’t be prosecuted for the murder of her unborn baby because she’s doing it privately (presumably with the help of her doctor, who may or may not be present, and supporting staff if any; which still we take to mean “privately,” and rightly so I think), why isn’t it OK for her to murder her husband/lover/postman/Senator “privately”–whether in her bedroom or elsewhere, with or without the help of a doctor or somebody else?

    The bare “right of privacy” ought not to be an insurmountable bar to the commission of murder (or any other criminal aggression).

    Mind you, as far as I’m concerned the right of privacy, as such, is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment. But that’s a whole ‘nother subject.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: