Maybe the question transcends politics (like so much else) and has nothing to do with it? Why assume it does in the first place? What is the point of this futile exercise?

Sorry (not really) but you seem to be tiptoeing around the fact that you want to make some (likely american libertarian and thus immensely rightwing) statement about 'both sides' being equal. Well, for a lot of people, that's just not gonna fly. It's entirely possible one side is more right than the other, in terms of many measurement methods, such as human rights.

By the way, you have leftist friends? How did you manage that? With your bogus race science views and climate change denialism? I kid, I kid. Don't take it so seriously.

Seems i've come a tad to the left over a year or two, or the test changed somehow.. I was equally on the other side of the left-right line, last time.

Obviously the test is going to have some biases and such, but it's also worth the thought exercise.

It never ceases to amaze me that people across the pond have no notion other than being bipartisan, or have no realisation that democratic societies where left and right meet have been achieved and are in fact now in existence. It's like the US and the UK are the only political systems in the world. Two parties. That's it. Must be nice living in such a bubble and be so completely ignorant about the world.

You can say that again.

I put it to you that the modern american libertarian is a far right boogaloo in disguise. Also, these tests seem to be immensely skewed towards the right to begin with, based on the US.

Look - it's nice you pose thought-provoking questions on a vidya gaming forum. But I'm just questioning the whole point of the question in the first place. It seems like a 'gotcha' question, presenting an assumption-laden hypothetical situation where the answerer has to pick one option, as if there weren't any others. Condensed in such a simplified manner hinders any clarity and real conclusions that can be made. But! At least it sparks some conversation and discussion where people can contribute. That's always nice to see.

I don't know if that's the Nolan test or somethin based on it, but again, the world is way more nuanced than even that (and certainly way more than a two-party system).

Yet The modern US libertarian hides under the guise of freedom to propagate his or her notions of far right conservatism. Sure, there may be some minor sophistry and philosophical differences, but when push comes to shove the two align remarkably well and the modern american libertarian will do anything to 'own the libs'. Ask yourself this - did you/would you vote for le orange man? Because that in itself says a lot already - how all those high and mighty ideals come crashing down when there's a chance to see a snivelling leftist owned by DR (!!!) Peterson's and Bennie Shapiro's fact and logic.

It's also worth considering that all this talk about political affinities is highly idealised - there is no such thing as pure capitalism or socialism or communism or anything of the sort. See, the practicalities of the world and life come in the way. Capitalism without government intervention might as well be the devil, the same as authoritarian leftist utopias without some sort of individualist freedom and equality. So whilst you would LOVE to be an idealistic centrist libertarian, you actually are just far right. For better or worse (I know which one).

Of course I do, becoming a cruel tyrant who takes revenge on the world for all the indignities I've suffered is a big dream of mine.
Controlling other people through thought control sounds fantastic, can't wait to send my personal enemies to fight in the arena for my amusement.

for me : Economic Left/Right: -2.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31
looks like im ghandi
strange :O no wonder this left right thing is bs
exactly , it sounds a lot of fun , just watching them hit themselves

There is a strange left-bend on the site. It consistently views Donald Trump as authoritarian, but i'd say he's probably between 60 and 80% up the ladder (he's certainly fond of government, regulation, and power, but he leans more towards a meritocracy than a strict paper trail [which is where people accuse him of being unpredictable and erratic]), but I'd make no dispute on him being on the right economically. Meanwhile, i certainly do believe, based on their scale, that I should be on the right. The problem seems to be that it seems to view questions concerning corporations in particular as strictly economic. Meanwhile, my answers to the statements (when answering with my gut instead of overthinking them like the instructions said) would be that corporations are a top-right institution, so i fundamentally oppose them as authoritarian bodies rather than supporting them as economic bodies. This in particular is what has them saying that i'm down and to the right of someone like Hillary clinton: because the Clintons are very corporate, and very authoritarian.

Your response is odd, though. Your answer to this thread's question has consistently come off fairly authoritarian, making you a little closer to the top. I'm rather curious what causes this discrepency.

dunno, im not authoritarian, I don't like strong governments, imho they are responsible for the most bad things we have, with their over regulations etc.
and with corporations , I like corporations as I like capitalism. I just don't like super huge corporations which are infused with political parties.
fe first question: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." I answered strongly agree i bet that put me very left instantly. I just can't see the difference between these super huge corps and our current governments as these are usually the same families and interest groups. Would be nice to see what points each question gives.

Except, if you had the power, you'd use it yourself. In other words, your first reply to this thread suggests you're fine with authoritarianism if you were the leader. To use the power is to be authoritarian: you're subverting their free will, in exchange for having things your way. That's where i put, "agree,' because the question is intentionally vague. However, there are many more questions. It would seem then that your libertarianism spawns from cynicism, which is likely valid in this current political climate. However, indeed, that likely is why i went to the left a bit as well on their scale. Their equation of corporations with "right vs left" shows a fundamental issue with the test, really. I tended to have very few strongly agree or disagree, where you seem to be a bit more adamant. That would, indeed, explain it.

yes because i trust myself :P but i won't trust others with such powers, this is egocentric as it should be

oh, yes probably my answers would be very different in a different political climate, imho that's normal for everybody
if we would live in a strong but effective and caring government we wouldn't be against it at all

i had plenty of strongly agree/disagree-s
like “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea."
Strongly disagree still landed on the left

I most certainly trust myself, too, but I still see it unethical. In fact, in my personal relationships with others, i try to make the best arguments for one side or another, often times also giving arguments for viewpoints i don't agree with, then ensuring the other person knows that the decision is theirs to make not mine, and that I cannot be blamed for the outcome. Reason being, i can often be wrong, and I want to ensure people have the best information, no matter how much i don't like how that information may affect their decisions, because, in order for people to learn and change, they need to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. I used to feel otherwise, until i realized that you cannot legislate goodness into the world, no matter how well your enforcement methods. Instead, you can only, with your hubris, legislate a choice between obeying the law and immorality. A person cannot be good if their choice was made for them, but putting them into a situation that is, for them, a moral gray area is most certainly not ideal. Take religion for example: requiring prayer at certain times of the day does not mean that the person will actually believe in and follow a god, but instead deprive individuals the opportunity of doing so of their own volition. Meanwhile, making prayer illegal forces the religious person to choose whether their god or their country (good luck enforcing that one, so most likely simply aggrivates them). It is better for both the atheist and the theist to not mandate at all. I want to say otherwise, but I used to be one of those people who would argue that an atheist has no hope of being moral, and thus prayer should be mandatory. Perhaps i could say it, but I cannot speak with honesty and say i know it was truely becoming an adult or personal experience with malevolent forces with authority over me that changed my mind. What i can say is, i certainly know better, right now, than i did as a child. That one was really hard for me. On one hand, that could be an argument for meritocracy (you should end up with the value equivalent to that which you provided to society), but on the other, hand it doesn't really state who is the arbiter of ability: democratically decided values (like what you woul get with capitalism) or bureaucratic institution (corporate approved degrees or government ordained licenses). I think i put agree for that one on the basis that it appeals most closely to meritocracy.

hmm, my interpretation of that is: that system don't give you the value you produced, instead, it takes from everybody what they can and willing to produce and give them back what they want regardless of what they produced.
just read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

Imho it is the opposite of meritocracy, that's why i strongly disagreed with it.

Seems my caution to suggest strongly was indeed justified. The question is always "who decides need, and who decides value of abiltiy?" With every policy decision like this, you have to ask who enforces it, and whether they are competent enough for the task or not. Of course, the quote by itself doesn't actually specify the answer to that, which should immediately result in hesitation either way and prompt for more information. The test, however demands a vote iwthout question.

It depends on the interactions I get from other people. I'm hesitant about interfering with people who won't escalate beyond a disagreement. However, if it's someone who wants to harm me in some way, I'll have to use whatever is necessary to defend myself.

Now imagine that without the unprecedented power part and that is my waking world EVERY F*CKING DAY.