November 07, 2003

Brilliant!

The Two-Hour-Lunch's take on the Political Compass (with its four quadrants: conservatives, statists, positive libertarians, and negative libertarians) is brilliant:

2hrlunch: Are We Not Old Men?: The Political Compass.... Per the quiz that goes with the chart - I'm a left leaning semi-libertarian. I think that means that I think whatever adults want to do with sheep in the privacy of their own home is OK as long as the gummint pays for it. Or it could mean that I want the gummint to get out of the way and let the market provide the sheep for consenting adults. I'm so confused....


The other current members of the (-3, -5) faction include:

Adam Mansfield
Al-Muhajabah
Amanda Butler
Benedict @Large
Brad DeLong
Brock Sides
Enda Nasution
Jason and Stuff
John Constantine
Josh Cherniss
Lance Knobel
Michael Drake
Seth D. Michaels
The Two Hour Lunch
Uncertain Principles
Unlearned Hand

Our first order of business: finding a name for our tendency: (-3, -5) does not sound euphonious.

Posted by DeLong at November 7, 2003 07:46 AM | TrackBack

Comments

I've been linked to by a name brand blogger!

I have nothing to wear!

Thanks for the link (graph)cell mate.

Posted by: pops on November 7, 2003 08:34 AM

____

I am to the right of M.K. Gandhi and south of the Dalai Lama.

Posted by: Cal on November 7, 2003 08:57 AM

____

Looked at the questions and decided that i did not like them so..... to hell with it. i am happy not knowing where i locate in 2 space

Posted by: dilbert dogbert on November 7, 2003 01:29 PM

____

I graphed out at -.67 to the left, -.67 towards libertarianism. A little further to the left than usual for my score on tests like these, about average for me on libertarianism

Posted by: Steven Rogers on November 7, 2003 03:59 PM

____

Re: name

"We aren't negative. They just plot us that way."

(Apologies to Jessica in Roger Rabbit)

Posted by: Linkmeister on November 7, 2003 04:33 PM

____

I had to leave a couple of questions blank...I just could not bring myself to commit to either of two 'bad' options.

I wanted an extra choice for 'please don't make me face the reality implied by having to make a choice about that.'

For all that, I got -3.25, -5.33.

I have these fanatic swings in mood from moment to moment. The ground floor of my office contains the county social services office. So I often pass those on their way to seek assistence.

And I have these thoughts that the people choosing to play the game of money and business and financial success and the people playing the game of artistic poverty or free time and personal determinism are just on different planets.

And I have these freaky internal battles between the liberty and efficiency arguments for markets on the one hand, and the need to 'value' what markets don't value on the other.

But heck, why should I give a big hoot, beyond sort of basic 'everyone should have a place to stay and enough to eat,' about the economic troubles of those who rather actively choose the path that leads to economic instability?

Except, that a bunch of 'those people' are close friends and intellectual peers.

I'm not talking about those enmeshed in multi generational/no opportunity poverty here. Rather, of well to very well educated people who make the choice to say 'fuck the corporate state' and then, sort of need to live with the consequences...

I mean, I had a dog once that bit me. So I got rid of the dog.

Posted by: Rich Gibson on November 7, 2003 11:09 PM

____

"Our first order of business...finding a name for our tendency..."

Seeing the direction this has gone, euphoniously speaking, and in agreement with the ancient and modern harmonies, on this most harmonious of days, I would say that your name will have something to do with sheep, and whether or not they are good looking.

Posted by: northernLights on November 8, 2003 08:48 AM

____

Well, there is the old John Brunner novel, _The Sheep Look Up_...

How about "The Sheep Look Around, Nervously" tendency?

Posted by: Brad DeLong on November 8, 2003 10:21 AM

____

Just as long as they are good looking, harmonious, and euphonious.

Posted by: northernLights on November 8, 2003 11:44 AM

____

What, no link for me? http://sasnak.org

(-3,-5)... where the sheep are scared.

Posted by: Adam Mansfield on November 9, 2003 07:38 AM

____

I'm over in the crowded pigeonhole just to your left, and I suspect that the distinction is largely accidental; I strongly disagreed with one or two things instead of weakly disagreeing with them, or something. I give tests like this about as much credit as the Myers-Briggs.

Posted by: Matt McIrvin on November 9, 2003 10:35 AM

____

You levelling deviationist you!

:-)

Posted by: Brad DeLong on November 9, 2003 08:16 PM

____

Post a comment
















__