8 Values Political Quiz

[Wholehearted Shi'a 618]

https://8values.github.io

8values is, in essence, a political quiz that attempts to assign percentages for eight different political values. You will be presented by a statement, and then you will answer with your opinion on the statement, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, with each answer slightly affecting your scores. At the end of the quiz, your answers will be compared to the maximum possible for each value, thus giving you a percentage. Answer honestly!

Equality (Economic)
Those with higher Equality scores believe the economy should distribute value evenly among the populace. They tend to support progressive tax codes, social programs, and at high values, socialism.

Markets (Economic)
Those with higher Market scores believe the economy should be focused on rapid growth. They tend to support lower taxes, privatization, deregulation, and at high values, laissez-faire capitalism.

Nation (Diplomatic)
Those with higher Nation scores are patriotic and nationalist. They often believe in an aggressive foreign policy, valuing the military, strength, sovereignty, and at high values, territorial expansion.

Globe (Diplomatic)
Those with higher Globe scores are cosmopolitan and globalist. They often believe in a peaceful foreign policy, emphasizing diplomacy, cooperation, integration, and at high values, a world government.

Liberty (State)
Those with higher Liberty scores believe in strong civil liberties. They tend to support democracy and oppose state intervention in personal lives. Note that this refers to civil liberties, not economic liberties.

Authority (State)
Those with higher Authority scores believe in strong state power. They tend to support state intervention in personal lives, government surveillance, and at high values, censorship or autocracy.

Tradition (Society)
Those with higher Tradition scores believe in traditional values and strict adherence to a moral code. Though not always, they are usually religious, and support the status quo or the status quo ante.

Progress (Society)
Those with higher Progress scores believe in social change and rationality. Though not always, they are usually secular or atheist, and support environmental action and scientific or technological research.

My results 

Christian Democracy.

Economic Axis: Social

68.9%

31.1%

Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful

27.7%

72.3%

Civil Axis: Statist

38.8%

61.2%

Societal Axis: Neutral

57.6%

42.4%

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Wholehearted Shi'a

[hasanhh 10,073]

The quiz won't "load". Sorry.

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

@Wholehearted Shi'a

Liberterian Socialist here, 77.4% equality on economy, 25% nation on diplomacy, 61.9% liberty on civil liberties and 37.9% tradition on societal axis. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Heavenly_Silk
Replaced very long quote with tag.

[Gaius I. Caesar 8,696]

Quote

Democratic Socialist here ^

[hasanhh 10,073]

49 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

@Wholehearted Shi'a

Liberterian Socialist here, 77.4% equality on economy, 25% nation on diplomacy, 61.9% liberty on civil liberties and 37.9% tradition on societal axis. 

"libertarian socialist"  --What a schizoid combination! You cannot be both at the same time. Now l am afraid to take the quiz. lt might spew me out as a "liberal fascist" or something.

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

"libertarian socialist"  --What a schizoid combination! You cannot be both at the same time. Now l am afraid to take the quiz. lt might spew me out as a "liberal fascist" or something.

Lol, same as an anarcho-syndicalist, as Chomsky describes himself. 

[Ashvazdanghe 8,238]

8values

---

Results

Economic Axis: Social

66.5%

33.5%

Diplomatic Axis: Balanced

51.1%

48.9%

Civil Axis: Statist

34.2%

65.8%

Societal Axis: Neutral

55.7%

44.3%

Closest Match: Christian Democracy

[Husayni 1,149]

Christian Democracy, just like @Wholehearted Shi'a & @Ashvazdanghe

[Wholehearted Shi'a 618]

@Hussaini624 @Ashvazdanghe

C̶̷h̶̷r̶̷i̶̷s̶̷t̶̷i̶̷a̶̷n̶̷ Islamic Democracy. 

[notme 20,666]

5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

"libertarian socialist"  --What a schizoid combination! You cannot be both at the same time. 

I haven't taken the quiz yet, but if that's someone who values the egalitarianism of socialism but doesn't trust people in power, that'd be me. 

But yeah, it's a thing. Seriously. 

[notme 20,666]

Yep. I called it.

Economic Axis: Socialist

79.9%

20.1%

Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful

26.6%

73.4%

Civil Axis: Liberal

65.8%

34.2%

Societal Axis: Progressive

32.7%

67.3%

Closest Match: Libertarian Socialism

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by notme

[hasanhh 10,073]

11 hours ago, notme said:

I haven't taken the quiz yet, but if that's someone who values the egalitarianism of socialism but doesn't trust people in power, that'd be me. 

But yeah, it's a thing. Seriously. 

lGF (in good fun)(comic belligerent tone)

"egalitarianism of socialism" = absolute equality by state ownership

So, our tree-hugging friend, which "owner" do you want? Fascist, National (Nazi), or Scientific(Commie)?

Or maybe something more antiquitous? Greek, Roman, ... ?

How about something a little more nomadic  --attached to 'the grid' no more than necessary?

[notme 20,666]

3 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

How about something a little more nomadic  --attached to 'the grid' no more than necessary?

This is probably the safest, but it's leaning more toward libertarian than toward socialist. Like I said, I don't trust people in power. I'm in favor of democratization of public resources such as schools, research facilities, and infrastructure. Power always corrupts - the less we concentrate it in the hands of any individual, the less corruptive it is. 

No owners, just a society in which the people who have more must help those who have less, and nobody has to start at a disadvantage due to social "status" any more than biology dictates. (In other words, for example, if mom is an alcoholic the child might suffer brain damage but they shouldn't also inherit economic disadvantage.)

[hasanhh 10,073]

6 minutes ago, notme said:

...  Power always corrupts - the less we concentrate it in the hands of any individual, the less corruptive it is. 

No owners, just a society in which the people who have more must help those who have less, and nobody has to start at a disadvantage due to social "status" any more than biology dictates. (In other words, for example, if mom is an alcoholic the child might suffer brain damage but they shouldn't also inherit economic disadvantage.)

"No owners" --that is one way commie dictators trick people: the bureaucrats are the de facto owners.

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

10 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

"No owners" --that is one way commie dictators trick people: the bureaucrats are the de facto owners.

It basically advocates democratic ownership of factors of production, employee-owned enterprises, rather than few unaccountable shareholders owning everything. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[hasanhh 10,073]

3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It basically advocates democratic ownership of factors of production, like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea ?  

 employee-owned enterprises, employee-owned start ups are know as corporations, partnerships or LLCs 

 rather than few unaccountable shareholders owning everything. unaccountable to whom? The TAXman?       And what about property put up for bank loans? 

Points made?

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

53 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

It basically advocates democratic ownership of factors of production, like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea ?  

North Koreans don't own squat, the state controls everything. 

53 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

 employee-owned enterprises, employee-owned start ups are know as corporations, partnerships or LLCs 

Not quite, most employees earn a wage but have little or nothing to do with how the organisation is run, the decisions that are made, numerous employees lost their jobs as a result of poor decision making made at the top of financial institutions.

53 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

 rather than few unaccountable shareholders owning everything. unaccountable to whom? The TAXman?

Unaccountable to people whose tax dollars bail them out as they did in the financial crisis. While the profits are privatised, the costs are very far from privatised. 

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

@hasanhh there has been some interesting research to support the notion of worker-owned enterprises, and there have been some positive results. https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-working.

[notme 20,666]

I've worked for "employee owned" companies. They do have a more open workplace culture, but they're still run by the old white men who sit in offices and have little to do with the day to day workings of the company. 

[Reza 11,142]

5 hours ago, notme said:

Power always corrupts

Always?

[notme 20,666]

39 minutes ago, Reza said:

Always?

Except infallible people. 

If the person is conscientious and God-fearing, the corruption will be less, but are you prepared to assume that one monarch after another will be good. There are good monarchs, but bad ones are very bad. 

[hasanhh 10,073]

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

@hasanhh there has been some interesting research to support the notion of worker-owned enterprises, and there have been some positive results. https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-working.

Correct. So how does that support your argument? They hired professional managers.

[hasanhh 10,073]

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

North Koreans don't own squat, the state controls everything.   lt is still their and your  "democratic".

Not quite, most employees earn a wage but have little or nothing to do with how the organisation is run, the decisions that are made, numerous employees lost their jobs as a result of poor decision making made at the top of financial institutions. You didn't read what l wrote.

Unaccountable to people whose tax dollars bail them out as they did in the financial crisis. Wall Street in 2008 is not part of the discussion, but your attempt to divert constructive criticism.  

While the profits are privatised, the costs are very far from privatised.  Huh?

Ain't idealism fun?

[Hameedeh 19,986]

22 hours ago, Wholehearted Shi'a said:

https://8values.github.io

8values is, in essence, a political quiz that attempts to assign percentages for eight different political values. You will be presented by a statement, and then you will answer with your opinion on the statement, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, with each answer slightly affecting your scores. At the end of the quiz, your answers will be compared to the maximum possible for each value, thus giving you a percentage. Answer honestly!

I took the quiz twice and got Centrist both times. (First time was yesterday. Second time was today.)

Economic Axis: Centrist
53.7% 57.9%
46.3% 42.1%

Diplomatic Axis: Balanced
44.7% 45.7%
55.3% 54.3%

Civil Axis: Moderate
48.5% 41.9%
51.5% 58.1%

Societal Axis: Neutral
50.6% 42.3%
49.4% 57.7%

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Ain't idealism fun?

Lol but 2008 does come into it doesn't it? And corporations are anything but democratic, is general electric democratic? Is GM? Aren't those corporations? AIG? 

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

While the profits are privatised, the costs are very far from privatised.  Huh?

In the sense that the bailouts relied on taxpayer money and the returns pretty much went into CEO bonuses. Is your argument that the bailouts shouldn't have happened and that banks should've just been allowed to fail and just have the government stay-out? The argument against that is the short-term consequences of such a move may have led to disastrous outcomes.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[hasanhh 10,073]

16 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Lol but 2008 does come into it doesn't it? And corporations are anything but democratic, is general electric democratic? Is GM? Aren't those corporations? AIG? 

Where their democratic elements? Each shareholder votes once for each share owned. No own-no vote.

[hasanhh 10,073]

17 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

In the sense that the bailouts relied on taxpayer money and the returns pretty much went into CEO bonuses. Is your argument that the bailouts shouldn't have happened and that banks should've just been allowed to fail and just have the government stay-out? The argument against that is the short-term consequences of such a move may have led to disastrous outcomes.

That was voted on by the 'democratic' Congress, not the taxpayers.

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Where their democratic elements? Each shareholder votes once for each share owned. No own-no vote.

It's not democratic in the sense that the shareholders bear the responsibility of irresponsible decisions made by the corporation, but the taxpayer bears the burden of bailing them out when they do so. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[hasanhh 10,073]

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It's not democratic in the sense that the shareholders bear the responsibility of irresponsible decisions made by the corporation, but the taxpayer bears the burden of bailing them out when they do so. 

You have it backwards. A corporation is limited liability for the shareholder: dividend loss; decline in stock price; insolvency; etc That happen to me twice with Bethlehem and Kodak. Then there was a closed-end fund that was run as a scheme and the price crash from $14 at open to $2 by the time l got it unloaded. l didn't get any taxpayer monies, tax-supported compensation or anything of the kind. So where is there a bailout?

 

Addendum: The money appropriated by Pelosi's Congress was put on the national credit card.

Edited March 18, 2018 by hasanhh
Addendum

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

19 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

So where is there a bailout?

Not talking about you specifically or small businesses for that matter, but GM did get bailed out, as did numerous companies in the financial crisis. http://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[hasanhh 10,073]

3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not talking about you specifically or small businesses for that matter, but GM did get bailed out, as did numerous companies in the financial crisis. http://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/. 

Correct. GM and Chrysler, but not Ford .  BUT you forgot to mention this was all paid back as required -- and ahead of schedule.

Edited March 18, 2018 by hasanhh
grammar

[Murteza 58]

Marxism

[Mohamed1993 1,803]

8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Correct. GM and Chrysler, but not Ford .  BUT you forgot to mention this was all paid back as required -- and ahead of schedule.

Not quite, On Chrysler the taxpayer lost $1.2 billion dollars and on GM, $11.2 billion. Not all of it was paid back. The moral hazard issue remains, you can't defend capitalism and talk about how well we can't have single-payer or funded state college education and then have the government step in to bail out huge companies justifying it as saying well the money will come back (even though it doesn't all come back), because you could make the same argument for a well educated and healthy workforce, not being in so much debt. If the argument is if these companies fail it would devastate the workforce and the economy, then maybe the policies we have that allow companies to get to this stage need to be evaluated. Because besides giving them these bailout assurances, you're also in many ways deterring other smaller startups because they don't have the shield these bigger companies do.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[hasanhh 10,073]

6 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Not quite, On Chrysler the taxpayer lost $1.23 billion dollars and on GM, $11.2 billion. Not all of it was paid back. The moral hazard issue remains, you can't defend capitalism and talk about how well we can't have single-payer or funded state college education and then have the government step in to bail out huge companies justifying it as saying well the money will come back (even though it doesn't all come back), because you could make the same argument for a well educated and healthy workforce, not being in so much debt. If the argument is if these companies fail it would devastate the workforce and the economy, then maybe the policies we have that allow companies to get to this stage need to be evaluated. Because besides giving them these bailout assurances, you're also in many ways deterring other smaller startups because they don't have the shield these bigger companies do.

You didn't cite your source(dated 16Feb18):  https://www.thebalence.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670 where the Fed made $2.4 Billions on GMAC. The price sold in Dec 2013 is nearly equal to todays price --down from the Oct 2017 high. Plus GM also pays a 4% dividend. (Gov't sold too early)

Bailout money also went to pay business related taxes -state, local, county...

Ford was under the Student Loan program group with other things.

So, in observation, by willfully denying GM and Chrysler(forced into Fiat) otherwise unavailable credit (because the banks collapsed from gov't allowed overleverage)  you are perfectly willing to implode local gov'ts and school systems on the pretense of "democracy" to advance a socialist agenda.

Ugh

Edited March 19, 2018 by hasanhh
Article Date: plus sold date