h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I do think that the questions are biased in such a way that it's easier for me to feel good about being left wing libertarian than a right wing authoritarian might.
If that makes sense...

Economic Left/Right: 5.13
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.90

The American Libertarians have something similar called the World's Smallest Political Quiz [http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html].

It's been around for years. The version I linked to is a little short. It just scored me as a slightly leftist leaning libertarian. Usually I score very as a Libertarian very close to the junction of Conservative and Centrist.

The compass seems to be better becaus it has more questions, but the reuslt isn't very clear to me.

I do think the right versus left thing is hopelessly inadequate.

Only because at 5.13 you feel it made you a little wishy-washy I'd guess
Seriously, that just about puts you where I would have expected having spoken to you on site.

Economic Left/Right: -7.13
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.38

About where I would have guessed given I view myself as an OLD Labour type of socialist in the Tony Benn/Ken Livingstone school of thought.

I did think some of the questions odd in isolation, but taken as a group on each page they made much more sense.

Just been thinking, if I'm correct the questions are designed so you give an instant answer with out thinking too long over your response (like on psyco tests). You may skew your answers to what you want to be by thinking about what they mean.

I think Ross has got it right, alone the questions make may make no sense but link the answers together to give you final score. They are probably odd so that you don't know exatly what the quiz is looking for, again to prevent you skewing the results.

Still it looks like it may be a little flawed, but to be more accurate you'd need to sit many more questions.

>Only because at 5.13 you feel it made you a little wishy-washy I'd guess.



I thought the results pages wasn't really clear. The explanation seemed too complicated or something. Maybe it's because it was explained in terms of British politics.

I got the feeling that Gandhi had sort of been thrown in to lend it an international favour, I must agree.
I can't remember, but I'd guess 5.13 puts you somewhere just inside Maggie Thatcher? If that's so, thinking Cowboy Ronnie and you aren't too far off the scent.

Thatcher looks like she's around a 7, but then again she's over there on the authorataian side.

I suspect President Regean, and this is off the top of my head would be about a little more to the right and a little less towards the authoritarian than she is.

My score is probably a tad bit lower becaue there are many issues where I don't strongly believe in one thing over another. Very few of my answers were strongly anything.

I've only just spotted this thread so my apologies for being late

Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.62

Two bit I agree some of the questions seem to be targetted at the UK.
which may be why your results seemed skewed to you.

Haven't taken the test yet (BB alerted me to this thread just now) but I did want to throw in the thought that H2G2, at least the pre-Foop old guard, is a self-selecting population sample and could generally be expected to comprise a set of independent thinkers, regardless of their views on economics.

Economic -4.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian -5.33

Pleased to be in the same bed with Thomas Paine and J.K. Galbraith, but who let Nader in here? Didn't he put the Jerk in "Knee-Jerk"?

Economic -6.63 Auth/Lib -2.00

????? Not Ox!

Nader, I didn't see anything on him. I would think he'd be around a Economic -7 and Authoritarian/Libertarian +3.

I don't know a great deal about Nader's views, but I would have thought he wouldn't be as economically left as Two Bit suggests, and I would imagine he would be on the libertarian side rather than the authoritarian.

The enviromental movement in the United States, including the Green Party, is being flooded with socialists. Some of their ideas that they posted during the last election were quite shocking to me. Economically, my estimation was probably conservative. Some of their ideas including a cap on executive salaries and public stewardship over large companies.

Both of which, if introduced in this country, would get my vote.
From what I've read about nader in 'Stupid White Men' I had a feeling that I would like him. Now I'm convinced.

"public stewardship over large companies"

Two-bit, think about it. If it said "public control over central government" you'd be all in favour of it, I would assume. A huge corporation is a seat of power, like a government. If it is not controlled then, by the law of history and human-nature, it will use that power to intimidate, control, annex, etc.

This, I think, is the flaw in the libertarian right's argument. It assumes that only the State can hold power over anyone.

Agree with both Zagreb and Blue shark.

In the western world, in particular, corporations have as much, if not more, power than many nation states. However, there is little or no control over their activities.

Public stewardship is one method of ensuring that corporations accept some element of social responsibility towards not only their workers, but also to their customers.

Two examples:

a) despite the well documented causal link between "fast food" and obesity in the US and Europe; the corporations involved in this business still continue to push their products at young people as nutritious etc. Further most of these outlets only pay minimum wage.

b) Nike make their trainers in Indonesia where trade unions are illegal, paying their workers an average US$4 per day, for producing approx 100 pairs of trainers each. Nike then sell these trainers at an average retail price of US$100 per pair. Nike also sack anyone in their factories who asks for a fairer wage or tries to organise the workforce.

In both examples these unaccountable corporations are not only ripping off their staff but also their customers.

If the government did this we would throw them out..........

>Two-bit, think about it. If it said "public control over central government" you'd be all in favour of it, I would assume.

Not at all. I think the funadmental value of American government is that the people control it at arms length. Minorites are protected from the majority by law.

The purpose of a company is to make money for its investors. It does this by producing value for their customers and employing people to produce whatever the company sells. The customers are free to go to serveral sources for what they need, and therefore the company must compete. Employees are free to work wherever they want, therefore the pay and working condtions must be competative. The forces should balance, although there does seem to be some need for regualtion.

The problem with government involvement is that government has the power to throw the balance completely off. Government bureaucracy concetrates power, and centrally planned political economies don't work.

The weakness of the left is that it concentrates power in the hands of the government. That power may only be economic to start off with, but I believe that it will lead to potical oppression as well as economic oppression.

Where is the freedom of a child in a thrid world economy making trainers?
Where is their freedom of choice, their right to choose?
Their right not to be oppressed by big business?