Political Test

[minionofmidas]

I got a 12.
Some loaded questions o/c, pretty obvious agenda but then they're clear about that. I've seen worse, is all I'm saying.

[minionofmidas]

Going answer by answer, let's see why this is a dreadful test:
If you don't vote you can't complain.
What does this have to do with anything?

It's a traditional debate. Should we vote for the lesser evil, or should we abstain since they're all fücks anyways?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. There might be some sort of trampled paths, but that's about it. Even in the middle ages, the maintenance of (and asking tolls for) roads was not a regalium for nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can bloody well be trusted to figure that out for myself, not sure what you're getting at?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really asking - what's your definition of the term "anarchy", ie are you aware of anarchist teachings?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should be "if you evade taxes...".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't you mean disagree on or fall into an obvious pitfall? My first response was, where's the neutral button, but as this is formulated as an absolute, the correct answer is no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question, once again, is how do you define democracy? Are you aware of anarchist teachings?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or do you have natural rights that the constitution merely spells out?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. Not from a doctrinaire Catholic position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends how you define weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now this is a really bad question, as it's not clear whether no means, no the majority should not rule or no the majority does not currently rule.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, since the whole test is about political philosophy, not political opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But "we" as a society do not "pay" taxes, "we" keep them. And what's "civilization"? Now this question is seriously loaded.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a good ole quote that people have even had in their signature here. False can indeed mean some very different things, but True means (supposedly) yeah, I buy into the traditional dem/rep legitimizing political thought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the law allows for it right now. I have a problem with the wording though...it doesn't ask should they have the right, it doesn't ask is it currently legal, it asks do they currently have a right? Which brings us back to the constitution question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look it up in a dictionary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same as question one, really, except that no government at all isn't an option when voting, so this catches those who believe in no government but vote for one anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what would that ominous something be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should the government follow moral rules in its behaviour? Or should they maximise their subject's profits by whatever means? A very much relevant question in the US, I would think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same as above really.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, anarchists would deny that your country, being as of now a purely artificial construct, is relevant at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what governments were originally set up for. Governments were originally set up to oppress the people and see to the fields being worked and the irrigation ditches tended. Governments arose during the neolithical revolution, remember, ie during the Fall of Man.
They only really assumed the abovementioned function, first in theory, then more and more in practice, since the Enlightenment era, when that whole "social contract" ideology that we're pretty much all subscribing to now was born. Yet there are still many relics in modern law of government's older function, which the anarchists always maintained was its main function (which is why they wanted it overthrown and replaced by what *could* be described as pure democracy.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For breaking it?
And no, I don't consider this one really relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. I do not want a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies. I am sane.

[Democratic Hawk]

I scored 18 - apparently, I belong in Authortarians Anonymous now

Dave

[minionofmidas]

It's right here, if anyone is interested.

http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=18043162995924668771

37%

[Alcon]

Going answer by answer, let's see why this is a dreadful test:
If you don't vote you can't complain.
What does this have to do with anything?

It's a traditional debate. Should we vote for the lesser evil, or should we abstain since they're all fücks anyways?

I asked what it has to do with anything, not what it means.  Is it relevant to authoritarianism/anarchy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. There might be some sort of trampled paths, but that's about it. Even in the middle ages, the maintenance of (and asking tolls for) roads was not a regalium for nothing.

Industry already builds roads for logging and whatnot.  Why wouldn't they continue that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can bloody well be trusted to figure that out for myself, not sure what you're getting at?

...Which is what I said, as far as I know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really asking - what's your definition of the term "anarchy", ie are you aware of anarchist teachings?

But that's like saying "Pies are made of apple."  It can be true sometimes, and not true other times.  And some people might actually like that chaos, and answer in the affirmitive, which would count them as authoritarian.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should be "if you evade taxes...".

But "evade" makes it sound like a cowardly thing to do!  Sort of like it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't you mean disagree on or fall into an obvious pitfall? My first response was, where's the neutral button, but as this is formulated as an absolute, the correct answer is no.

Yes, I do.  Sorry about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question, once again, is how do you define democracy? Are you aware of anarchist teachings?

I understand that, and it would have a place on a similarly biased "Do you know much about anarchism?" quiz, but this isn't that.  It has nothing to do with philosophy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or do you have natural rights that the constitution merely spells out?

Ah, that's valid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. Not from a doctrinaire Catholic position.

Yes, but you must ask yourself, on such a brief test, should a question be wasted on a different so unlikely to result in two different answers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends how you define weak.

Yes.  "Infirm" is just obvious connotation abuse, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, since the whole test is about political philosophy, not political opinion.

I should have used the word "philosophy" but my point still stands:  what does this have to do with anarchism?  Does it mean they are, or should be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look it up in a dictionary.

Obviously you know what I mean by that - monitor could mean follow a suspect or tap half the country's telephone lines.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should the government follow moral rules in its behaviour? Or should they maximise their subject's profits by whatever means? A very much relevant question in the US, I would think.

That makes sense, but that question could have been phrased much better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same as above really.

And this is how it should have been phrased.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, anarchists would deny that your country, being as of now a purely artificial construct, is relevant at all.

Yes, but this again falls into the "close to 50%" rule:  only extreme nationalists would agree with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For breaking it?
And no, I don't consider this one really relevant.

Well, this was the one I really couldn't find any relevance on.  I'm not sure why this would be an anarchist's pet issue like the rest of the test was, so I assumed I was entirely misunderstanding the question.

If it was as you think, then you're absolutely right - it's a horrible question.

[Ebowed]

10.

"You're a state-worshipping authoritarian; you probably vote Democrat or Republican along strict party lines."

[??????????]

12

[Jake]

14 on the 9/11 test. Good laugh that one.

[Storebought]

15, which, by the rubric of this test, means "normal"

[minionofmidas]

Going answer by answer, let's see why this is a dreadful test:
If you don't vote you can't complain.
What does this have to do with anything?

It's a traditional debate. Should we vote for the lesser evil, or should we abstain since they're all fücks anyways?

I asked what it has to do with anything, not what it means.  Is it relevant to authoritarianism/anarchy?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. There might be some sort of trampled paths, but that's about it. Even in the middle ages, the maintenance of (and asking tolls for) roads was not a regalium for nothing.[/QUOTE]

Industry already builds roads for logging and whatnot.  Why wouldn't they continue that?[/quote]And these roads would connect to where without earlier government roads?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can bloody well be trusted to figure that out for myself, not sure what you're getting at?[/QUOTE]

...Which is what I said, as far as I know.[/quote]Ah, okay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really asking - what's your definition of the term "anarchy", ie are you aware of anarchist teachings?[/QUOTE]

But that's like saying "Pies are made of apple."  It can be true sometimes, and not true other times.  And some people might actually like that chaos, and answer in the affirmitive, which would count them as authoritarian.[/quote]Which would be correct, as obviously they don't know what they're talking about and are therefore not Anarchists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should be "if you evade taxes...".[/QUOTE]

But "evade" makes it sound like a cowardly thing to do!  Sort of like it is.[/quote]What I meant is...if you don't pay taxes, might mean you earn so little you don't have to pay taxes...wording errors like this show it's an Ancap test, not really an Anarchist one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question, once again, is how do you define democracy? Are you aware of anarchist teachings?

I understand that, and it would have a place on a similarly biased "Do you know much about anarchism?" quiz, but this isn't that.  It has nothing to do with philosophy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but in parts this is just such a test. And of course, you're not likely to have an anarchist philosophy if you don't know what an anarchist philosophy is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. Not from a doctrinaire Catholic position.

Yes, but you must ask yourself, on such a brief test, should a question be wasted on a different so unlikely to result in two different answers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes...I don't claim this test is perfect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends how you define weak.[/QUOTE]

Yes.  "Infirm" is just obvious connotation abuse, though.[/quote]"Connotation abuse." Nice. Gotta make a mental mark of the term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, since the whole test is about political philosophy, not political opinion.[/QUOTE]

I should have used the word "philosophy" but my point still stands:  what does this have to do with anarchism?  Does it mean they are, or should be?[/quote]are. Which of course is not the factual reality in modern democracy, or at least is but one small facet of it...which I'd expect every anarchist to know. This question may produce false negatives, I'll freely admit that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look it up in a dictionary. [/QUOTE]

Obviously you know what I mean by that - monitor could mean follow a suspect or tap half the country's telephone lines.[/quote]My first association was surveillance cameras, actually...It's formulated as an absolute. It doesn't have any clause about measuring up one right against another, nothing about monitoring only those suspect of a specific crime etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, anarchists would deny that your country, being as of now a purely artificial construct, is relevant at all.

Yes, but this again falls into the "close to 50%" rule:  only extreme nationalists would agree with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? We all get authoritarian results on this test, don't we?

[Colin]

Okay this was a horrible test. I got a 14.

Wow Soulty that 9-11 test is just crazy. Seriously does JFern even believe that sh**t? I could only get through 15 of those questions before I felt like my head would explode.

[Gabu]

Hahaha, I got 10, and I'm "a state-worshipping authoritarian" or whatever the noun was.

That was one of the worst tests I've ever taken.

[Alcon]

Lewis, I do enjoy the talk we're having about this, but I can't get the freaking QUOTE tags to work so I'll just leave our conversation at that. 

[minionofmidas]

Lewis, I do enjoy the talk we're having about this, but I can't get the freaking QUOTE tags to work so I'll just leave our conversation at that. 

Good. I love to have the last word.