Using the quadrant based system (scroll further down below the linear chart on the same link) you might understand it better (or not, since it is obviously, and always has been, somewhat inconsistent).
But basically one "government should play a small role in people's lives" is talking more about the economy and goes more toward the traditional left/right linear view where laissez-faire free markets are to the right and tightly controlled (or even state owned) markets are to the left.
The power of the state (police power, state spying, etc.) is more on the up/down model in the quadrant based one where complete libertarianism (at the top of the up/down line) is more progressive and authoritarianism (the bottom of the up/down line) is more conservative.

EDIT: There's a test somewhere on these internets (or at least there used to be) where you could answer some questions and it would plot you somewhere in one of the four quadrants. If you're interested, I could try and find a link (assuming it's still there). I always end up in the upper left quadrant.

ADDED: Here is the test I was talking about. if you've never read the home page, I would highly recommend doing that first as it explains some of these things much better than I.

ADDED2: Just took the test again, and am still in the same quadrant I've always been in (but it's the LOWER left quadrant on this test. In the link above, they had libertarianism at the top and authoritarianism at the bottom but in this test they reverse that with authoritarianism at the top and libertarianism at the bottom, so I'm I the bottom left quadrant, but it's same I've always been in every since I first took the test many years ago, so whoever coined the term if you're not liberal when young you have no heart and if you're not conservative when you're old you have no brain was wrong).

In the US that seems to be your best option. :P Actually though, during the Dubya era they were practically prophetic. A number of their articles went on to become true. I reckon Bush was getting his ideas from them.

Here's the very first question: What's a trans-national corporation? Sounds evil, I'd better not agree with this one!

Here's the fourth: Uh huh, sure, right. So my answer to this question will tell me which political party I should vote for, right? Gee, where do you think the bigots get placed?

If you think this test is scientifically organized to give a valid response, I would remain just a wee bit skeptical.

I didn't even bother to look past the first page.

What?!?!? You're assuming things that aren't there. It sounds like you're more interested in making sure you end up at a certain spot (on the right and supporting Republicans it sounds like) than in the nuances of how/why one gets there. Which is fine, and by all means don't take the test. This test isn't about telling you who to vote for OR judging your responses, it's merely a self learning tool to see where your own personal views match up in the grid and how it compares to others (after you take the test, they give you results from famous people/politicians).

Man I got some stuff started. Let me hit some of these.

- don't spend money you don't have

In the U.S. we call this "fiscally conservative." It's what most people are going crazy about with both Dems and Repubs. I consider this a rightist issue b/c leftists want more spending to do more programs to help people get what they need to survive/thrive. That said, I did just a quick googling of research and found that 23 Dem Senators support a balanced budget amendment. Way to go guys!

I am in no way implying that republicans aren't going spend-crazy. Everyone is! Including the gov't constituents. (I blame GOG)

- don't murder children

I can go to hell. I believe all abortion to be murder (I don't think the critter in the mom is the mom). Nonetheless, even current illegal forms of abortion (like partial-birth abortion -- let's be clear about what this is -- a woman gives birth to their child's head and then a doctor stabs them in the back of the head and removes their brain). Women should be cared for when their vulnerable, not convinced that abortion solves their problem. And babies should be guarded. We're at 1.3 billion abortions world-wide since 1980. That's a lot of babies and a lot of pain.

On supporting women's right to choose vs murdering children: Michelle Obama lobbied to keep late-term partial-birth abortion legal. I have a very hard time seeing how anyone couldn't see that as murder. It is considered murder today in the US.


- make sure people follow the written laws
This was mostly directed toward immigration. I have had illegal immigrant friends. I know it's a pickle. But it sounds like the right is trying to get the laws followed while the left are trying to circumvent laws. But in actuality, it was just the Obama administration issuing illegal executive orders. Sometimes it feels like the left wants some crazy stuff, but it just happens to be the left at the time. The right is just as guilty. It's just when the issue suits the side. (like the KY lady)

- people in the govt follow and obey the Constitution
This one's starting to get crazy. The Supreme Court has done a good job for the most part. Obama's issued some crazy executive orders that the USSC has knocked down. And kudos to them for that!

- the family unit is the core of society
We all seem on point here, plus or minus.

- gov't should not spy on people without reason
I think everyone's happy with gov't not spying on us. So I'm happy there.

- military should be used for defending our nation, not screwing with other people
The Iraq war was unanimous -- left and right. And the original mission was, well, screwed up, but we didn't think it was. Nonetheless, I was talking more about the far-right nut-jobs like Ron Paul who thinks we should stop screwing around with the world. Left and right sound like they're happy with some killin'. The left sounds like they want to defund the military into oblivion. The right sounds like they want to use it into oblivion. But there's a far-right that wants to keep it at home. (I tried to insert a Skyrim joke here but to no avail)


Anyway, good chat, guys! I think we agree with most points, which is surprising to me. I think that's part of this polarizing thing going on right now. We have so much venom and different ideas, but they're really mostly the same. The right blames the left, left blames the right, and really, they're mostly just doing the same stuff, but maybe a bit in a different way. I hope that in the future, we start spending well, treating people fairly and with respect and holding our gov't to account for their actions.

BTW, my bro is super-left. He and I agree that abortion is wrong, but disagree on where the baby/mom's rights begin and end. But we can still get around a table and enjoy each other's company. It's been the same here. Thanks for (mostly) keeping it civil.

Oh, one last thing. Fascism is far-right. But the far-left and far-right tend to prove that the political spectrum is not a line, it's a circle.

What I'm saying is the questions themselves are nonsensical, so you can't get a valid analysis of beliefs.

Look at that first one again: Who's clicking against humanity? Who's going to click that button? Who is going to parse this nonsense and give a valid political opinion that humanity should be damned if favor of (what is clearly written to be construed as) evil?

This is like a politician saying he supports "the children". Everyone supports the children. Who doesn't support the children? Show me the politician who says "screw the children".*

I'm not interested in being sorted into any particular box. But even if i were, how would that question do the job? There's no valid, meaningful answer. If I say that I support humanity, does that put me to the left or to the right? Does that mean I believe in more government or less government? It's gibberish.


_____


*That reminds me of a joke:

A Doctor, a Lawyer, and a Priest are in an orphanage. Suddenly, the place bursts into flames. The three of them are poised at the door, ready to flee to safety.

Suddenly, the doctor shouts. "But the children!"

The lawyer answers, "F*** the children!"

The Priest responds, "But do we have time?"

That was fun! I disagree with even having a few questions. Some* were just stating facts, which I agree with. But they weren't things that were things I wanted for my country.

Nonetheless, here I am:

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92



*edited "so" to "some" as originally intended.

Yeah, you're definitely better off not taking the test. Most definitely.

My doctor says I'm better off just not leaving the house entirely.

I'm glad I had this conversation. My left/right vision is mostly based on my family's left/right vision. I suppose I should pay more attention to what more folks are saying. When you're cloistered in your own micro-world, it's hard to see the whole one.

Sorry for not keeping it civil. I should have put a more post-modern spin of "What *I* see as murder" instead of stating it empirically. It's a hot-button topic in my household right now and I sometimes get my passions turned up to 11.

Consider this situation: A woman is pregnant; however, if she carries the baby to term, both she and the baby will die.

Which is the better solution:
1. Allow the abortion: The child dies, but the mother is healthy and *maybe* can try again? (Then again, it might not be safe for her to try again in this sort of situation.)
2. Disallow the abortion: The child still dies, but the mother dies as well.

Which is the better outcome here?

My mother was met with that with my older brother. She kept the baby and both lived. It was very courageous.

In your situation, it would be a tremendously difficult decision. I'd want all the facts, the best stats the I can muster and try my best to keep the baby and the mom alive. But if it comes to a one-lives, one-dies or both-die scenario, then I'd have to advocate for the termination of the pregnancy. I don't know if I'd consider it murder in those terms. It was life-and-death, so there's a self-defense thing going on.

Murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I'd put unlawful with a more general, universal unlawful vs state-lawful. For instance, if you kill a prostitute in your country where prostitute-killing is just fine, I'd still say it's murder.

But let's be clear. Most abortions in the US are young women who are afraid of what it means to raise a child to their career or socio-economic state. I would rather give my money and time to helping her raise the baby or adopting the baby out than just end the baby's life.

Keeping abortion legal is something that will probably always remain so. But allowing a woman to choose is different from supporting murdering children. And I've definitely seen that (such as Michelle Obama's support of late-term partial-birth abortion which is now defined as murder under the law).

All in all, it comes down to a personal choice. And although I despise murder and abortion and death, I value freedom. I'm at least glad that the woman can get it done in a clean, sterile environment if she can find one (the SC just ruled that it's illegal to keep them up to the standards of surgery centers, but at least there are some rules for them).



P.S. That's my last post for the night. have a good night all!

Their coverage of the 2012 election was pretty hilarious as well.

Missed it. The US 2004 election coverage by just about any actual news agency could have come from the Onion, so I'm not surprised they find their job really easy come election time.

2016 should be good. Neither party has a single viable candidate. Hilary Clinton is dead in the water already and the best the Republicans can do is Donald Trump. Unless it's still 1956* in America he doesn't stand a chance. But then if none of them stand a chance, maybe they all do?

*Yes, I know it is still 1956 in some parts of America, but most of it's moved on a bit though, right?