# Sticky  Political Personalities



## agokcen

*Political Personalities*

*In a way much like MBTI, I've come up with a very, very basic way of classifying political stances. In a way, it looks like MBTI, but acts like the Big 5 in that each trait absolutely IS a sliding scale -- NOT an absolute -- and it certainly is possible to be right on the line. People of the same type will definitely differ from others within the type; this is a very broad classification system, but I thought it was kind of interesting. It's not perfect, but...yeah, interesting. See what you think (I'm open to helpful suggestions), or perhaps what type you are! 

I'm a DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian), for example: weaker on the D but strong everywhere else. A dL|I|P, if you will. :happy:*

*The Dichotomies*
*Diplomatic vs. Unengaged:* International relations
*Hands-On vs. Laissez-Faire:* Economic issues
*Individualistic vs. Conventional:* Social issues
*Militaristic vs. Passive:* Military intervention

*Foreign Policy Temperaments*
*DMs:* Activist
*UMs:* Interventionist
*DPs:* Internationalist
*UPs:* Isolationist

*Domestic Policy Temperaments*
*HIs:* Liberal
*HCs:* Statist
*LIs:* Libertarian
*LCs:* Conservative

*The Sixteen Types*
*DHIM:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Liberal
*UHIM:* Unengaged, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Interventionist Liberal
*DHIP:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Liberal
*UHIP:* Unengaged, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Liberal
*DHCM:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Statist
*UHCM:* Unengaged, Hands-On, Conventional, Militaristic; Interventionist Statist
*DHCP:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Conventional, Passive; Internationalist Statist
*UHCP:* Unengaged, Hands-On, Conventional, Passive; Isolationist Statist
*DLIM:* Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Libertarian
*ULIM:* Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Militaristic; Interventionist Libertarian
*DLIP:* Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Libertarian
*ULIP:* Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Libertarian
*DLCM:* Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Conservative
*ULCM:* Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Interventionist Conservative
*DLCP:* Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Passive; Internationalist Conservative
*ULCP:* Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Passive; Isolationist Conservative

*Explanations*
*Diplomatic:* This deals with international relations. Diplomatic types favor cooperation, diplomacy, and interconnectivity with other nations. They’re often more internationally-minded. People of this type can range from those who simply want to maintain international alliances and cooperation to those who truly want a more united world with less (or no) focus on boundaries.
*Unengaged:* This deals with international relations. Unengaged types favor more autonomy as a country, less focus on international relations, and minimizing outer ties and obligations. People of this type can range from those who simply want to minimize their country’s dependence on others to those who truly want to stay separate from the rest of the world with nearly pure self-focus.
*Hands-On:* This deals with economic issues. Hands-On types favor either government intervention/regulation in the economy or, on the extreme end, government control of the economy. People of this type can range from those who simply want to regulate big business in a liberal capitalism sort of way, as well as cater to the needy, to those who support a genuinely socialist sort of economy.
*Laissez-Faire:* This deals with economic issues. Laissez-Faire types favor the minimization of government intervention in the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer the minimization of government spending and taxes to those who would rather the government simply steer clear of providing services in the realm of money and business, and everything left in private hands.
*Individualistic:* This deals with social issues. Individualistic types favor minimal government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions, determining right and wrong, and maintaining safety and security. People of this type can range from those who think social regulation should be left on smaller scales to those who think the government should stay entirely out of personal matters.
*Conventional:* This deals with social issues. Conventional types favor at least some government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions and determining right and wrong. People of this type can range from those who think some issues require government regulation for safety and the good of society to those who think it ought to be up to the government to regulate right and wrong and take any necessary measures to keep its people safe.
*Militaristic:* This deals with military intervention. Militaristic types favor a more aggressive approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a larger military. People of this type can range from those who think the military ought to be there to help other countries and causes when needed to those who want an actively aggressive military that wages wars when deemed appropriate.
*Passive:* This deals with military intervention. Passive types favor a less active approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a smaller military. People of this type can range from those who think it’s best to keep the military out of pursuing causes and getting involved in the matters of others to those who think wars should be defensive alone, or even those who disapprove of the use of force entirely (or at least think it ought to be reserved until there is no other option).

*Activist:* This deals with foreign policy. Activist types are both Diplomatic and Militaristic. They favor an active stance in the world, both in peaceful and forceful relations. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to be as involved as possible, although this often means promoting the country’s values on a world scale as opposed to uniting the world’s cultures. This can range from those who want to promote a more generally global-thinking world to those who would use any means necessary to spread their causes. Think modern-day America.
*Interventionist:* This deals with foreign policy. Interventionist types are both Unengaged and Militaristic. They favor a more detached yet forceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to remain independent while using force when necessary. This can range from those who want to stay relatively isolated but still fight when needed to those who would prefer for the country to pursue its own causes throughout the world without necessarily preserving outside cultures. Think Imperialist-era England or Spain.
*Internationalist:* This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who value varying cultures and pacifism as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a united global community. Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.
*Isolationist:* This deals with foreign policy. Isolationist types are both Unengaged and Passive. They favor a detached stance in the world in all respects. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus internally and avoid getting caught up in outside concerns. This can range from those who think it’s best to first solve the country’s internal issues before worrying about anything outside as well as minimizing unnecessary external obligations to those who would rather avoid dealing with non-domestic obligations altogether. Think Switzerland.

*Liberal:* This deals with domestic policy. Liberal types are both Hands-On and Individualistic. They favor a true mix of self-rule and governmental regulation, namely the freedom to make social and personal decisions but the help of the government in economic matters. People of this type can range from those who would prefer a regulated capitalist republic to those who would prefer a true socialist republic. Think social democracy or democratic socialism (i.e. most European countries) on the extreme end, or the American Democratic Party on the less extreme end.
*Statist:* This deals with domestic policy. Statist types are both Hands-On and Conventional. They favor an overall powerful government, from regulating individual actions to helping in economic matters. People of this type can range from those who think the government should get involved whenever there are problems to those who trust the government over the individual to make the right decisions and maintain order. Note that most Statists will be weak Statists and won’t necessarily be communists or anything remotely similar; modern-day America could be argued as having moderate Statist leanings. Think communism or fascism on the most extreme end (i.e. China or North Korea), or most politicians on the less extreme end.
*Libertarian:* This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.
*Conservative:* This deals with domestic policy. Conservative types are both Laissez-Faire and Conventional. They favor a true mix of self-rule and governmental regulation, namely a free market but the regulation of the government in individual actions. People of this type can range from those who prefer a largely free market with government intervention on important social issues to those who would have the government minimize any economic actions while having authority over right and wrong. Think theocracy on the extreme end, or the American Republican Party on the less extreme end.


----------



## Lucretius

That's pretty damn cool, I think. 

I'm not sure whether I'd be a DLIM "Activist Libertarian" or a DHIM "Activist Liberal." My economic preferences are not developed enough yet.


----------



## General Lee

That is amazing. You have pretty much done it. 
I am a ULCM according to that.
Out of curiosity what are you?


----------



## dude10000

DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic, i.e. "activist conservative"

I'm one of the few people you guys will meet who openly embrace the neo-conservative label. I'm comfortable with the way "activist" was described above, though I can't say the same thing for conservative. 

A conservative wants to maintain a framework of behavioral incentives that allow the past and the future to link up in a rational way. This is the principle explaining why a conservative says markets and families go together. Too many baby-mommas, i.e., individualism, will lead to statism --more police to fight crime, more remnants of broken families clamoring for freebies, etc. -- which is why the ideas of libertarianism/permissiveness are never workable in the short-run. Statism is unstable for the opposite reason -- government handouts quickly lead to not more social solidarity, but more baby-mommas, so it easily degenerates into liberalism. This is why there is a only left-right dichotomy, and not a third or fourth alternative.

I also believe liberalism is unstable, though unlike statism and libertarianism, it is unstable in the long run, not the short run. Liberals want more and more entitlements to pass off to the next generation, while creating more and more incentives that delegitimize and decrease the number of families and children. More concisely, we can't rationally say we're going to pass our bills off to our children and not have any. This will be a huge problem during our lifetimes, though the worst to come is still a decade or two away.


----------



## agokcen

General Lee said:


> That is amazing. You have pretty much done it.
> I am a ULCM according to that.
> Out of curiosity what are you?





agokcen said:


> I'm a DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian), for example: weaker on the D but strong everywhere else. A dL|I|P, if you will. :happy:


Ta-da! DLIP, I am -- or dL|I|P.

I'm glad you like it!


----------



## Valdyr

Thank you, this is quite well made.

I'm a DLIM, or a DLIm if preferences are expressed. This would make me an "activist libertarian," to which the term Neoliberal might well apply. Indeed, it is on military issues more often than any other that I markedly disagree with the Libertarian party.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

I am a DHCP.

Socialist, and noticing that I get odd stares for even vaguely suggesting socialization.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

Addition: Thanks, Agoken.


----------



## kallisti

ULIP: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Libertarian

Cool system!


----------



## Shahada

I think this is pretty cool, thanks for sharing. I think it does have some limitations though, particularly in that it's not really precise enough. For example, if I'm, say, a Leninist, I'd seem to fall roughly in the same sphere as someone like FDR, but our ideologies couldn't be farther apart. This seems particularly problematic with political ideas like socialism, fascism, and many varieties of libertarianism and anarchism (from left-anarchism to anarcho-capitalism) that are kind of off the binary scale you seem to be using here. The criteria seems to be mostly built around the political divisions of modern liberal democracy and I'm not sure those apply so well to a fascist or a communist (for example). I also don't think the liberal/conservative/statist/libertarian thing makes a great deal of sense...those labels aren't necessarily opposed to each other (except liberal/conservative and statist/libertarian I guess). I understand these things are just models though and they're not going to be perfect, just giving you a little feedback 

For the record based on your model I'm either a DHIP or a DHIM, depending on whether you think support for class warfare (but not necessarily international warfare between states) is passive or militaristic.

EDIT: Actually after reading your descriptions of the liberal/statist/conservative/libertarian categories it makes more sense than I thought at first, sort of misunderstood that.


----------



## skycloud86

*sticks thread*

I would be, I think, a DHIP: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Liberal.


----------



## Van

This is a fun idea. I think I'd be ULIP.


----------



## Bunker Man

DHCP. As far as being militaristic, I'd have to do it on a situation-by-situation basis. It would be as rare as feasible, though.


----------



## The Exception

I'd be an xHIP, very strong on the I and P


----------



## SuperDevastation

I'm a republican who's hands-on and individualistic, as for any other temperaments I might have, I haven't done much research yet.


----------



## etherealuntouaswithin

Very interesting, a truly excellent composition 

DHIM: Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Militaristic; Activist Liberal

I enjoy thinking of the possibility of a "World Government" based upon diplomacy,a focus on potentials and a cultural variety that produces a fundamentality of common purpose(the action there-in) and the great potential(both good and bad) that this may entail..

(I'm a bit of a Utopian hehe..)


----------



## Psychosmurf

Wow! This is _way_ more descriptive than those silly political compass classifications. 

My type: *DL|I|P* Internationalist Libertarian.

*Internationalist:* This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who value varying cultures and pacifism as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a *united global community.* Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.

*Libertarian:* This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who *prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale* to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.


----------



## madhatter

agokcen said:


> *Diplomatic:* This deals with international relations. Diplomatic types favor cooperation, diplomacy, and interconnectivity with other nations. They’re often more internationally-minded. People of this type can range from those who *simply want to maintain international alliances and cooperation* to those who truly want a more united world with less (or no) focus on boundaries.
> 
> *Unengaged:* This deals with international relations. Unengaged types favor more autonomy as a country, less focus on international relations, and minimizing outer ties and obligations. People of this type can range from those who *simply want to minimize their country’s dependence on others* to those who truly want to stay separate from the rest of the world with nearly pure self-focus.
> 
> *Laissez-Faire:* This deals with economic issues. Laissez-Faire types favor the minimization of government intervention in the economy. People of this type can range from those who prefer the *minimization of government spending and taxes* to those who would rather the government simply steer clear of providing services in the realm of money and business, and everything left in private hands.
> 
> *Individualistic:* This deals with social issues. Individualistic types favor minimal government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions, determining right and wrong, and maintaining safety and security. People of this type can range from those who think *social regulation should be left on smaller scales* to those who think the government should stay entirely out of personal matters.
> 
> *Passive:* This deals with military intervention. Passive types favor a less active approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a smaller military. People of this type can range from those who think it’s *best to keep the military out of pursuing causes and getting involved in the matters of others* to those who think wars should be defensive alone, or even those who disapprove of the use of force entirely (or at least think it ought to be reserved until there is no other option).
> 
> *Internationalist:* This deals with foreign policy. Internationalist types are both Diplomatic and Passive. They favor a more involved yet decidedly peaceful stance in the world. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus on cooperation and diplomacy. This can range from those who *value varying cultures and pacifism* as well as recognize a need for global collaboration to those who would have a united global community. Think Canada or the smaller countries of Europe.
> 
> *Isolationist:* This deals with foreign policy. Isolationist types are both Unengaged and Passive. They favor a detached stance in the world in all respects. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus internally and avoid getting caught up in outside concerns. This can range from those who think it’s *best to first solve the country’s internal issues before worrying about anything outside* as well as minimizing unnecessary external obligations to those who would rather avoid dealing with non-domestic obligations altogether. Think Switzerland.
> 
> *Libertarian:* This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They favor an overall smaller government, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from those who *prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale* to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. *Think early America* on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.


ULIP/DLIP...I bolded the areas that I agreed with the most.


----------



## agokcen

For everyone's convenience, I added a poll to the thread. Have at it! :happy:


----------



## chaeriean

DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Conservative

i wasn't sure what to do so i picked the one which had all of my preferences. they aren't in order but i figure order probably doesn't matter much. i like order, okay!


----------



## Consistently Inconsistent

Cool system! I would say that I'm a DLIM, The Activist Libertarian.


----------



## Maiden

*DHIP:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Liberal


----------



## lumpunzik

DLIM, pretty strong I but undecided on the magnitude of the other three. Pretty freakin' neat. Have you considered developing subtypes?


----------



## agokcen

lumpunzik said:


> DLIM, pretty strong I but undecided on the magnitude of the other three. Pretty freakin' neat. Have you considered developing subtypes?


Oh, goodness. That'd take a while. :laughing:

Certainly, though, there could be subtypes -- namely based on the strength in which one's preferences fall. For example, as a DLIP, my order-by-preference would make me a IPLD/ILPD subtype, or something to that effect. I know there is some stuff like this in MBTI; I've seen a whole list of INTP subtypes to this effect. I may get to it eventually, but if anyone else wanted to get on it, I certainly wouldn't object!


----------



## PeevesOfCourse

kallisti said:


> ULIP: Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Libertarian
> 
> Cool system!



same here, ULIP


----------



## General Lee

fifty five voters. Four Conservatives. Thirty Libertarians. One Statist. Seventeen Liberals.


----------



## PrinceinExile

This is amazing, Activist Libertarian.


----------



## L'Empereur

I'm the activist liberal.


----------



## madhatter

General Lee said:


> fifty five voters. Four Conservatives. Thirty Libertarians. One Statist. Seventeen Liberals.


Take heart, @General Lee, I consider myself a conservative libertarian. You can give me a half vote for your side.


----------



## brendog10

Really interesting post. I'm a DLIP: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Libertarian


----------



## General Lee

Now there are five conservatives. Who is the one statist? I want to know who that is.


----------



## TheWaffle

I'm a DLIP.



General Lee said:


> Now there are five conservatives. Who is the one statist? I want to know who that is.


Political Personalities - View Poll Results


----------



## noexcuses

Your scheme assumes that a state structure is necessary, and that the dichotomy of domestic and foreign policy is a meaningful one. I'd substitute the following -

Social organization: egalitarian vs. hierarchical (power relations), and deterministic vs. undetermined (life choices)
Resource distribution: collective vs. individual (possession), centralized vs. decentralized (determination of proper uses)
Relationship to the world: isolationist vs. expansionist (trade), aggressive vs. amicable (diplomacy)

Social orientation styles:
Egalitarian deterministic - Syndicalist
Egalitarian undetermined - Anarchist
Hierarchical deterministic - Authoritarian
Hierarchical undetermined - Meritocratic

Resource distribution styles:
Collective centralized - Command
Collective decentralized - Welfare
Individual centralized - Monopolistic
Individual decentralized - Competitive

World relationship:
Isolationist aggressive - Defensive
Isolationist amicable - Neutral
Expansionist aggressive - Imperialistic
Expansionist amicable - Globalist

Of course, this gives us 64 types. This will be fun, so I will first give the 16 major groups of internal organization. These are all ideals, so even though some of these may have negative connotations, they are simply neutral terms

Anarchic command - Kleptocratic
Anarchic welfare - Communist
Anarchic monopolistic - Tribal
Anarchic competitive - Anarcho-capitalist

Syndicalist command - Fascist
Syndicalist welfare - Falangist
Syndicalist monopolistic - Corporatist
Syndicalist competitive - Anarcho-syndicalist

Meritocratic command - Bureaucratic
Meritocratic welfare - Technocratic
Meritocratic monopolistic - Plutocratic
Meritocratic competitive - Liberal

Authoritarian command - Totalitarian
Authoritarian welfare - Absolute monarchy
Authoritarian monopolistic - Aristocracy
Authoritarian competitive - Enlightened despotic

The international approaches pretty much speak for themselves.


----------



## agokcen

Naturally my system is more simplistic, so it's more accessible to the average (read: not so politically inclined) person. If you really wanted to get specific and technical, yes, a more precise system would be necessary.


----------



## noexcuses

agokcen said:


> Naturally my system is more simplistic, so it's more accessible to the average (read: not so politically inclined) person. If you really wanted to get specific and technical, yes, a more precise system would be necessary.


I see what you're saying, but at the same time, simplifying here misses a huge opportunity to teach people about different ways of organizing themselves. To me, at the very least, separating things by social, economic, diplomatic and military realms promotes the idea that all of these categories are separate spheres - which of course they're not! Likewise, the continuum model implies that the two ends are mutually exclusive, or at the very least opposed to each other in a meaningful way.

For example, the dichotomy of "militaristic vs. passive" - where does Switzerland fit within that model? It is officially neutral, but it has mandatory conscription, along with universal gun distribution. It's both militaristic and passive, but also neither.

Likewise, individualistic vs conventional - this mixes up traditionalism with collectivism. A society could be very collectivist, but constantly stays at the forefront of global trends. Texas is a very individualistic state, but it is also very conventional.

Hands-on vs. laissez-faire: this oversimplifies economic issues. For example, someone could be in favor of little federal regulation, but at the same time in favor of heavy state regulation. A person could also be in favor of strict regulation on businesses, but those regulations being enforced through the courts, rather than through direct administration. Another possibility is that a person opposes there being government regulation on businesses, but at the same time, supporting strict industry standards. Finally, who says there have to be any businesses at all?

Finally, I am unsure what you mean by diplomatic versus unengaged. That implies a level of choice in the matter that most countries simply don't have.

Moving on, the international categories unfortunately exclude trade policy entirely. The United States, even in its most "isolationist" days (propaganda seeking to normative the expenditure of tax monies on foreign adventures, to the profit of few) traded extensively and heavily, and shoved columns of soldiers down the throats of Latin American countries whenever they got tired of being sucked dry by American business.

Finally, as far as the domestic policy categories go, I think a couple of categories are fairly confusing. For example, you have liberals listed as being "hands-on" and "individualistic". However, many liberals I know of emphasize the extreme importance of communities in society, and also believe that the problem with economic policy is that the government is too pro-business, and not laissez-faire enough in certain areas. Many conservatives idealize the rugged individualist, and believe that the government should help private business be as competitive as possible. Libertarian is a word that is so broad and vague that it is potentially meaningless. Finally, statist is a word that pretty much only right-libertarians/minarchists/anarcho-capitalists use to denigrate those that disagree with them.

These conceptualizations are hazardous, because they're promoted by the established power structure as "how things are," so that we don't have the tools to question its governance.


----------



## General Lee

On @noexcuses's system I am an Enlightened despotic with a expansionist/agressive style of international relations.


----------



## Shahada

Just wanted to say thanks noexcuses, I feel like your system addresses a lot of the misgivings I had with the original one presented here, I just really wasn't able to put a finger on my objections and express them coherently. I'm particularly talking about the ambiguities the OP's model presented that you've pointed out. So thanks! No disrespect to the OP, I think yours is also a useful model and it obviously is the product of a lot of time and effort, I just feel like the noexcuses is more detailed and descriptive. 

To noexcuses: In your social organization/life choices group, are you referring to the idea that people should generally have their place in society determined for them versus they should be free to choose or is it referring to beliefs about personal responsibility vs. determinism in determining where one ends up/how successful one is in life? I'm thinking the former but I just want to be sure - I think some of your grouping names are throwing me off, but given that you've said they're not value judgments I might be putting too much weight on them (some of them aren't necessarily mutually exclusive though, i.e. "totalitarian" could coexist with a lot of the other categories). For the record, assuming the first definition of determined/undetermined is correct I'm "kleptocratic," though I'm not sure that's the best term, and on the gradient between "imperialistic" and "globalist" on your scale (again though, I'd prefer "internationalist" to "imperialistic"  )


----------



## noexcuses

Shahada said:


> Just wanted to say thanks noexcuses, I feel like your system addresses a lot of the misgivings I had with the original one presented here, I just really wasn't able to put a finger on my objections and express them coherently. I'm particularly talking about the ambiguities the OP's model presented that you've pointed out. So thanks! No disrespect to the OP, I think yours is also a useful model and it obviously is the product of a lot of time and effort, I just feel like the noexcuses is more detailed and descriptive.
> 
> To noexcuses: In your social organization/life choices group, are you referring to the idea that people should generally have their place in society determined for them versus they should be free to choose or is it referring to beliefs about personal responsibility vs. determinism in determining where one ends up/how successful one is in life? I'm thinking the former but I just want to be sure - I think some of your grouping names are throwing me off, but given that you've said they're not value judgments I might be putting too much weight on them (some of them aren't necessarily mutually exclusive though, i.e. "totalitarian" could coexist with a lot of the other categories). For the record, assuming the first definition of determined/undetermined is correct I'm "kleptocratic," though I'm not sure that's the best term, and on the gradient between "imperialistic" and "globalist" on your scale (again though, I'd prefer "internationalist" to "imperialistic"  )


Thanks!

As far as your first question - egalitarian means that one person's choice is considered as valid as another, while hierarchical means that one's choice has strict priority over another's based on their relative places in the social structure. Deterministic means that you do not make decisions on your own; an outside power ultimately has the final say, be it the group one associates with in the syndicalist model, or the higher castes/officials in the authoritarian model. Undetermined is the opposite - individual choice is supreme, and the consequences of these choices determine one's life path.

The reason I put "totalitarian" there is because what makes totalitarian states what they are is that a person has no control over their life whatsoever - where that person works, what that person eats, and what that person thinks are all predetermined by the state. That's unique to the authoritarian command society.

I don't think you're kleptocratic, because that model essentially describes Somalia's current situation. That's where the average person has no control over their economic resources, but there is no government. As such, it's where strongmen steal the production of others, with no means of counteracting their force.

Finally, the reason I used the term "imperialist" was exactly what you just described - it's been normatived for Western states to engage in imperialist activities, in the name of "internationalism."


----------



## Paragon

I generally like your scheme, @noexcuses, but how is communism welfare? Communism seeks to abolish money relations into worker's self-autonomy. Where would Kropotkin's anarcho-communist gift economy fall?


----------



## noexcuses

Paragon said:


> I generally like your scheme, @noexcuses, but how is communism welfare? Communism seeks to abolish money relations.


Yeah, that's the point - it's anarchic and egalitarian, but still has a collectivist orientation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


----------



## Paragon

noexcuses said:


> Yeah, that's the point - it's anarchic and egalitarian, but still has a collectivist orientation. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


So, you're not talking about welfare in the current sense? I hope not. :happy:


----------



## noexcuses

Paragon said:


> So, you're not talking about welfare in the current sense? I hope not. :happy:


No. I mean welfare as how it is used in the term "welfare state" - i.e. the society distributes goods in a centralized fashion for the benefit of all it's members.


----------



## Paragon

noexcuses said:


> no. I mean welfare as how it is used in the term "welfare state" - i.e. The society distributes goods in a centralized fashion for the benefit of all it's members.


edit: Nvm. But I think you mean decentralized.

So I would be Egalitarian undetermined, Collective decentralized, and Expansionist amicable.


----------



## silmarillion

DHCP, with a week H and a very strong C.


----------



## noexcuses

Paragon said:


> edit: Nvm. But I think you mean decentralized.
> 
> So I would be Egalitarian undetermined, Collective decentralized, and Expansionist amicable.


Centralized in the sense that there is a central economic ideal, and that for the society to function, everyone must follow it.


----------



## Indigo Aria

DHIP ftw!


----------



## Paradigm

I'm not very knowledgable or interested politics. I think I'm a:

DHCP, or... d|H|cP, if I did the notation correctly.

I'm not very strong on most of them. I wouldn't mind a well-done socialist-like society so I guess that makes me a strong Hands-on type. Diplomatically, I don't agree with sticking our noses in where it doesn't belong, but peaceful relations are important. With social issues, I think there's a limit to what the government should dictate, but overall we need some laws and regulations. As for military... well, I'm not _quite_ sure how I'd prefer that to go, but I like the idea of defensive wars a lot better than the current aggressive approach the US takes.


----------



## hmm

Not knowledgeable enough in this matter either, but apparently from this I tend to be an internationalist liberal, DHIP. Thanks for the descriptions and clarifications. Helpful to see a lot of different views.


----------



## Up and Away

DHCP

Descriptions for individualistic and conventional need more explanation.

Awesome job though.

aWESOME Awesomeness

is there a test though, with percentages, etc...?


----------



## lib

Isolationist Libertarian: 24% :happy:


----------



## agokcen

Souled In said:


> is there a test though, with percentages, etc...?


Naw. I should probably get crackin' on that. I wish someone less lazy than myself would do it. :mellow:


----------



## Nixu

dhcP; Internationalist Statist.

On the diplomatic side, but no so much the country would depend on others. Only enough hands-on to keep economy as stable as possible. Government should not have their hands and noses everywhere, but they should keep their country and people safe. Miliraty is for crisis, defensive wars and possible peace-keeping operations.


----------



## SQR

DLIM or DLIP but with a weaker P.
Yep that's it, DLIp. Libertarian i am!
That is way awesome, total props! roud: 
Percentage test would be sweet.


----------



## BroNerd

Another DLIP here!


----------



## StrangeFruit

I'm DHIP- Internationalist Liberal. Could be DHCP as well but I'm a fairly left leaning (Communist/Collectivism) and moderately favour Anarchism over Fascism (i.e. Libertarian Left) on the Political Compass (Test here if anyone hasn't taken it and wants to!) so I'll go with DHIP.


----------



## Valdyr

Valdyr's updated political personality: DHIx (P is intervention is defined as militaristic imperialism by national armies, M if defined as support for armed revolution).


----------



## pretty.Odd

I'm a xHIP.


----------



## silmarillion

Changing from DHCP to DHiP. Or something like that...


----------



## error

agokcen said:


> Naw. I should probably get crackin' on that. I wish someone less lazy than myself would do it. :mellow:


When it's done I hope to take the test. I haven't taken the political spectrum test in a while come to think of it.

Last I took that I was centrist concerning economic issues. I care little about the economic system and see flaws in both a capitalistic and socialistic system. I distrust the government and corporations equally. I see our current government system as currently equal parts corrupt and inept. Sure it's managing to keep order, but it's hands are tied in improving our lives. While corporations just sicken me. They could do so much good, but they choose not to.

I suppose my preference would be a system that rewards small and local businesses, which due to there smaller regional confines are more in touch and reliant to the community. This is technically still capitalist system, but obviously it requires a lot more government regulating.

As for personal and social rights, I'm a libertarian through and through on that front. What people do to and with there own bodies is mostly there own concern. If it involved the interaction of another person this acts should always be consensual, naturally. I've played with other ideas about crime, punishment, rehabilitation, education and preventative measures in dealing with crime and poverty. Not sure what works best, and I often conclude that despite my opinions, it doesn't matter much at all. I can't change the world into the perfect little utopia that I invision, it would probably be as flawed as any other system... so whatever...

It's still fun to think about.


----------



## GreenLadyBug

I can't tell if I'm DHIP (Internationalist Liberal) or DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian). I'm against capitalism, which seems to be supported more by the Libertarians, but I'm also not a fan of the government telling me what to do... I chose DLIP though because it seems more like me.


----------



## lemonlemon

noexcuses said:


> Your scheme assumes that a state structure is necessary, and that the dichotomy of domestic and foreign policy is a meaningful one. I'd substitute the following -
> 
> Social organization: egalitarian vs. hierarchical (power relations), and deterministic vs. undetermined (life choices)
> Resource distribution: collective vs. individual (possession), centralized vs. decentralized (determination of proper uses)
> Relationship to the world: isolationist vs. expansionist (trade), aggressive vs. amicable (diplomacy)
> 
> Social orientation styles:
> Egalitarian deterministic - Syndicalist
> Egalitarian undetermined - Anarchist
> Hierarchical deterministic - Authoritarian
> Hierarchical undetermined - Meritocratic
> 
> Resource distribution styles:
> Collective centralized - Command
> Collective decentralized - Welfare
> Individual centralized - Monopolistic
> Individual decentralized - Competitive
> 
> World relationship:
> Isolationist aggressive - Defensive
> Isolationist amicable - Neutral
> Expansionist aggressive - Imperialistic
> Expansionist amicable - Globalist
> 
> Of course, this gives us 64 types. This will be fun, so I will first give the 16 major groups of internal organization. These are all ideals, so even though some of these may have negative connotations, they are simply neutral terms
> 
> Anarchic command - Kleptocratic
> Anarchic welfare - Communist
> Anarchic monopolistic - Tribal
> Anarchic competitive - Anarcho-capitalist
> 
> Syndicalist command - Fascist
> Syndicalist welfare - Falangist
> Syndicalist monopolistic - Corporatist
> Syndicalist competitive - Anarcho-syndicalist
> 
> Meritocratic command - Bureaucratic
> Meritocratic welfare - Technocratic
> Meritocratic monopolistic - Plutocratic
> Meritocratic competitive - Liberal
> 
> Authoritarian command - Totalitarian
> Authoritarian welfare - Absolute monarchy
> Authoritarian monopolistic - Aristocracy
> Authoritarian competitive - Enlightened despotic
> 
> The international approaches pretty much speak for themselves.


I don't dare try, but I love your taxonomy, and think it might be useful to express some of these commitments in plainish language.

Maybe I will dare... it will be rough - please amend as necessary! 

*1. Social organization*: 
a) _Egalitarian_. "All members of a society should contribute equally to its strategic direction, and formally participate in its governance, as both a right and obligation". 
b) _Hierarchical_. "Some individuals or groups are better suited to govern a society than others, given their specialization of skills or knowledge."


*2. Deterministic vs. undetermined (life choices)* _Am assuming you're meaning this descriptively_
a) _Deterministic_. "Social forces - like a person's family, ethnicity, class, or gender - make an impact on the life choices available to him or her."
b) _Undetermined_. "We each have free will, and success in a society is only limited by ability and motivation."


*3. Resource distribution: collective vs. individual (possession)* 
a) _Collective_. "People and groups who are wealthy have an obligation to contribute a portion of their wealth to those who are vulnerable, like seniors or people with disabilities or illnesses." ... or, I guess, "Some or all of the goods and services we share - like water, education, and access to health care, rightly belong to all members of society." 
b) _Individual_. "Those who have achieved wealth have done so through legitimate effort, and shouldn't be burdened with caring for those unable or unwilling to make the same attempt." or "I'll care more about my own stuff than I would stuff I shared." (getting lazy)

*4. centralized vs. decentralized (determination of proper uses)*
a) _Centralized_. "I like the idea of one body making a long-term, strategic plan for our society - it's more consistent."
b) _Decentralized_. "Local groups know what's best for them."

*5. Relationship to the world: isolationist vs. expansionist (trade)* 
a) _Isolationist_. "A nationalized economy will protect local jobs and prevent competition from the rest of the world."
b) _Expansionist_. "Free trade is the best way to lift up local and international economies." (err... inflation... help?)

*6. Aggressive vs. amicable (diplomacy)*
a) _Aggressive_. "The military option will always be more effective than diplomacy."
b) _Amicable_. "Sometimes we have to negotiate with societies with different values in order to achieve peaceful ends." 

I know I'm still relying on the paradigms we're used to, but am not sure how else to articulate things in a common-sense way (not saying I have).


----------



## noexcuses

lemonlemon said:


> I don't dare try, but I love your taxonomy, and think it might be useful to express some of these commitments in plainish language.
> 
> Maybe I will dare... it will be rough - please amend as necessary!
> 
> *1. Social organization*:
> a) _Egalitarian_. "All members of a society should contribute equally to its strategic direction, and formally participate in its governance, as both a right and obligation".
> b) _Hierarchical_. "Some individuals or groups are better suited to govern a society than others, given their specialization of skills or knowledge."


That's pretty spot on. Collegiality vs. chain of command.



> *2. Deterministic vs. undetermined (life choices)* _Am assuming you're meaning this descriptively_
> a) _Deterministic_. "Social forces - like a person's family, ethnicity, class, or gender - make an impact on the life choices available to him or her."
> b) _Undetermined_. "We each have free will, and success in a society is only limited by ability and motivation."


More that deterministic means that your life opportunities are limited by your social status, and undetermined means that very little consideration is given to social status.



> *3. Resource distribution: collective vs. individual (possession)*
> a) _Collective_. "People and groups who are wealthy have an obligation to contribute a portion of their wealth to those who are vulnerable, like seniors or people with disabilities or illnesses." ... or, I guess, "Some or all of the goods and services we share - like water, education, and access to health care, rightly belong to all members of society."
> b) _Individual_. "Those who have achieved wealth have done so through legitimate effort, and shouldn't be burdened with caring for those unable or unwilling to make the same attempt." or "I'll care more about my own stuff than I would stuff I shared." (getting lazy)


Collective: we, the people, have an equal share in the commonweal. Individual: individuals own specific portions of that wealth, regardless of proportionality.



> *4. centralized vs. decentralized (determination of proper uses)*
> a) _Centralized_. "I like the idea of one body making a long-term, strategic plan for our society - it's more consistent."
> b) _Decentralized_. "Local groups know what's best for them."


Centralized: power's best concentrated where it can make a larger impact
Decentralized: power's best spread out so we can minimize the potential danger



> *5. Relationship to the world: isolationist vs. expansionist (trade)*
> a) _Isolationist_. "A nationalized economy will protect local jobs and prevent competition from the rest of the world."
> b) _Expansionist_. "Free trade is the best way to lift up local and international economies." (err... inflation... help?)


Isolationist: we're better off doing our own thing, and will respect you for doing your own thing, as long as you don't bother us
Expansionist: it is in our interest to establish contact with as many different peoples as possible



> *6. Aggressive vs. amicable (diplomacy)*
> a) _Aggressive_. "The military option will always be more effective than diplomacy."
> b) _Amicable_. "Sometimes we have to negotiate with societies with different values in order to achieve peaceful ends."


Aggressive: it is better to use physical force to subdue those who are not like us
Amicable: it is better to use subtle forms of persuasion to convince those who are not like us to work together with us


----------



## Surreal Breakfast

I'm either DLIP or DHIP, not sure which one though.


----------



## TurquoiseBlue

agokcen said:


> *Political Personalities*


*No mention/option for Political Ponerology? ..."or is that a given?"*


----------



## Lemur Leaf

I found this interesting. Based on the explanations, I would be DHIP (Internationalist Liberal) or DLIP (Internationalist Libertarian) or something in between. I'd lean more to DHIP.


----------



## V3n0M93

UHCM: Unengaged, Hands-On, Conventional, Militaristic; Interventionist Statist


----------



## Falhalterra

Definitely a DHIP: Internationalist Liberal. Think it fits me pretty well. I've always been a mix of being a moderate/progressive, libertarian and liberal sort of person.


----------



## blackacidlizzard

Nine pro-war libertarians 

Please reconsider. Perhaps more research into the history of war (particularly of your home country?)

I think Frank Chodorov wrote some decent stuff on war (I'm assuming you're all somewhat "right" (even if you don't like to call yourselves that) I don't meet many pro-war left-libertarians.)


----------



## dotMute

DHCM-

D: Anti borders 
H: Make all sectors Public sectors, no private ownership
C: Close to I, but i support Government power under certain environments (developing countries etc..)
M: International Brigades type military


----------



## Spades

DHIP: The Internationalist Liberal

Social democracy! Gogo public healthcare!


----------



## Lev

DLCM: Diplomatic, Laissez-Faire, Conventional, Militaristic; Activist Conservative
Maybe a ULCM, but not so sure...

All war, all the time.

jk


Yes, a lot of liberals....
This is great, ingenious.


----------



## TaylorS

DHIP: The Internationalist Liberal


----------



## Dark Romantic

DHIM: The Activist Liberal

@agokcen: Nice classification; it actually sums up my political views fairly accurately. Did you come up with it yourself?


----------



## deSouza

activist liberal


----------



## agokcen

Dark Romantic said:


> @agokcen: Nice classification; it actually sums up my political views fairly accurately. Did you come up with it yourself?


I most certainly did. Though not without inspiration here and there from various places, of course.


----------



## DJeter

DLIP

Anarchist 

Syndicalist

Anti-Capitalist/Socialist

INFJ

FTW


----------



## legallyblonde502

DLIP ftw.

ten chars


----------



## she_sells_seashells

This is really neat! I think I'm an Internationalist Libertarian.


----------



## Dylio

DLCM

I'm kind of blown away by the high amounts of passivism as opposed to militarism. Many people are repulsed about the thought of going to war, but we have not yet reached that point where war is no longer a viable option to end civil unrest. The most recent example of this would be Muammar Gaddafi getting removed from power. It also turns out that this ruthless dictator and his family were one of the richest in the world! 
Muammar Gaddafi and his family's astonishing wealth revealed | Mail Online

We still need a strong country with an undoubtedly powerful military that is willing to intervene in the dabblings of corrupt governments.


----------



## Hypaspist

ULCM. Politically I classify as a Libertarian, but some views lean into the realm of being a conservative (a live and let live conservative though).


----------



## drowninthefear

Stuck between 'The Internationalist Liberal' or 'The Internationalist Libertarian'... 

I voted DHIP on the poll anyway.


----------



## NingenExp

dh|I|P
Internationalist Liberal


----------



## PeterTheGreater

I am a DHCP (Diplomatic, Hands-On, Conventional, Passive), i.e. an Internationalist Statist.

A summary of my ideology: 
*Peace among nations and peace within nations.*
---> Peace is a moral value that entails certain behaviors in society.
---> Not all individuals in a state will be sharing such value and related behaviors.
*---> There needs to be a sort of "moral guidance" by the state or any other authority.*


----------



## mmoigoldflyff

Do not know whether the Right?


----------



## Seeker99

I love this so much!  I'm a DhIP.


----------



## Graficcha

DHIP myself.

I notice in the descriptions that the liberal-libertarian views, which seem to turn up a lot in the poll results, are described as typical for respectively Europe and the USA.

Wouldn't it be interesting to test if the DHIP-'voters' are EU-based and the libertarians US or other countries? You have to admit, those two/three categories really spike out a whole lot.


----------



## Saira

*D*iplomatic
*L*aissez-Faire
*I*ndividualistic
*P*assive

Ideally, I'm all for some sort of anarchistic world, although I don't think it would work in practice, at least not yet. The world is full of unintelligent, close-minded people who need someone to lead them (I volunteer, lol).


----------



## Xn18

DLIP: The Internationalist Libertarian. It's a pretty kewl system. Now what you need is to write up a test for it, publish it in a book, and strike it rich.


----------



## Miss Mimmi

I'm a
*D*iplomatic
*h*ands-on
*c*onventional
*P*assive.

I've only got small tendencies to *H*ands-On and *C*onventional, depending on the situation at hand I would become more *L*aissez-Faire and *I*ndividualistic. I don't believe in Socialism and Communism. Diplomacy, peace, equality and human rights are what count for me.


----------



## Planisphere

Definitely ULIP all the way. May not be the most perfect system, but hey, I prefer it over others.


----------



## NuthatchXi

The closest is "isolationist libertarian", but I'm not an isolationist. I'm a non-interventionalist. It's really not the same thing at all, in general usage (though I appreciate that you included a broader definition for the sake of clarity.)


----------



## Consistently Inconsistent

You know, now that I'm taking a second look at this, I think the economic dimension needs to be changed. Anarcho-communists & other left-wing anarchists would consider themselves laissez-faire on the spectrum, because they oppose the existence of government, but are obviously economically left-wing & in practice they are more likely to agree with economically hands-on politicians than economically laissez-faire politicians. I think a better dimension would be *E*galitarian vs. *S*elf-reliant, which would make me a DSIM & most left-wing anarchists would be DEIP.


----------



## Zegaray

I picked the DHIP: The Internationalist Liberal. It seems like most people did too.


----------



## tberg

DHIM, the Activist Liberal. If only more leftish Enlightenment people would begin to realize that there are some political movements out there that just NEED to be eviscerated, both for moral and for practical reasons. Some people just are not willing to defend the life they cherish and secure it for future generations, I guess. They don't put up with Christian conservatives doing anything that even has a hint of nastiness, a la Chik fil A. How come no backlash against the masses of Muslims in the West who mutilate their daughters genitals to keep them chaste?


----------



## ChaosEqualsFun

I am DLIM - Activist Libertarian.This was an amusing post.


----------



## castigat

agokcen said:


> Ta-da! DLIP, I am -- or dL|I|P.
> 
> I'm glad you like it!


I got the same as you, except I think I might be a bit stronger D-wise. roud:


----------



## Saturn Fox

I suppose Marxism-Leninism falls under "Internationalist Statist", right?


----------



## Diphenhydramine

UHCM. one of two


----------



## AndresBrauer

Internationalist Liberal here!


----------



## Sapphyreopal5

agokcen said:


> *ULIP:* Unengaged, Laissez-Faire, Individualistic, Passive; Isolationist Libertarian


I bolded the parts below that I agree with most for each dichotomy. 



> *Unengaged:* This deals with international relations. Unengaged types favor more autonomy as a country, *less focus on international relations*, and minimizing outer ties and obligations. People of this type can range from those who simply *want to minimize their country’s dependence on others* to those who truly want to stay separate from the rest of the world with nearly pure self-focus.


I would LOVE to see more "made in the USA" tags in stores. Anyone else agree?



> *Laissez-Faire:* This deals with economic issues. Laissez-Faire types favor the minimization of government intervention in the economy. People of this type can range from those who *prefer the minimization of government spending and taxes* to those who would rather the government simply steer clear of providing services in the realm of money and business, and everything left in private hands.


Spend your money wisely… err rather, in this case spend someone else’s money wisely. I don't think that businesses should be able to do whatever they please; however, I don't think anyone should be babysat by Big Brother 24/7 to make sure all the children behave. 



> *Individualistic:* This deals with social issues. Individualistic types favor *minimal government regulation and authority in terms of peoples’ actions, determining right and wrong, and maintaining safety and security*. People of this type can range from *those who think social regulation should be left on smaller scales* to those who think the government should stay entirely out of personal matters.


This is the dichotomy I agree with the most for myself, followed by unengaged and passive. 



> *Passive:* This deals with military intervention. Passive types favor a less active approach to dealing with the rest of the world and likely a smaller military. People of this type can range from those who think it’s best to keep the military out of pursuing causes and getting involved in the matters of others to those who think wars should be defensive alone, or even those who disapprove of the use of force entirely (or *at least think it ought to be reserved until there is no other option*).


I believe that there are often times better ways of resolving international conflict than using military force firsthand.



> *Isolationist:* This deals with foreign policy. Isolationist types are both Unengaged and Passive. They favor a detached stance in the world in all respects. People of this type think the best approach to dealing with the rest of the world is to focus internally and avoid getting caught up in outside concerns. This can range from those who *think it’s best to first solve the country’s internal issues before worrying about anything outside* as well as minimizing unnecessary external obligations to those who would rather avoid dealing with non-domestic obligations altogether. Think Switzerland.


Help yourself first before helping anyone else (I mean resolve your own problems before helping someone else resolve theirs that is). 



> *Libertarian:* This deals with domestic policy. Libertarian types are both Laissez-Faire and Individualistic. They *favor an overall smaller government*, largely avoiding regulation of both individual actions and the economy. People of this type can range from *those who prefer minimal regulation that remains on a smaller scale* to true anarchists who trust the individual over the government. Think early America on the less extreme end, and anarchy or anarcho-capitalism on the more extreme end.


Yup. Great survey, really awesome post!


----------



## Consistently Inconsistent

Starflier said:


> Where would an anarchist fit? I'm not one. I just don't see where they would fit.


I guess it would depend on what you mean by "anarchist", since there are a surprisingly large number of variants. In my personal experience, most anarchists tend to be of some far-left variety, which in this thing would come closest to DHIP (internationalist liberal) I think, though to use another example an anarcho-capitalist would probably be a ULIP (isolationist libertarian).


----------



## onmyown23

I have started to loathe our current political systems, as the leaders are always narcissistic, sociopathic machivalllianists. The reason is, that they are simply the most ruthless, thus they are able to push out everyone else. What I honestly think worth trying is a concept like *governance by jury*. People are randomly choosen and supported by various experts. Icelanders wrote a very modern constitution that way, after the economic crisis broke out (but politicians stopped the implementation, who could have guessed that).


----------



## dulcinea

I don't really get involved with politics, but I'm finding a lot of my ideas lean towards Isolationist Libertarian. I 100% believe that big government is making every single working person in America signficantly poorer as the decades pass by. It give corporatist lobbyists too much power, and it draws too much money from the Federal Reserve, which devalues currency. Also, being too involved in other nations is costly to government. Why spend all this money trying to fix other nations when your own people are losing their home and going to bed hungry?


----------



## Turboglo214

Ulcm


----------



## Taileile

Either ULCP or ULIP, but I'm pretty sure I'm ULCP.


----------



## Winter Queen

I wish there was a test based around this. I might be either UHCP or DHCP.


----------



## PiT

I would be a ULIP, though a more moderate one than I was five years ago.


----------



## Justmeonhere

Cool system! I'm a DHIP, the Internationalist Liberal.


----------



## Knot in a Tree

DHIP I think...only with diplomatic versus unengaged I'm more conflicted.


----------



## TeamPB

...wow, as a conservative (actually, I'm pretty much a nationalist), I feel like a stranger, here


----------



## felina

ULIM, "Interventionist Libertarian"

Cool. Sounds about right!


----------



## Malandro

DH*P, I've been questioning my view on the law for years but when I played Devil's advocate to a girl who wants to join the police force in my class, I realised the suggestion of getting rid of the law and letting civilians handle things themselves isn't as crazy as you'd think since it's not like the government is perfect or 'more regulated' than anyone else. 

It's literally why gangs started in minority groups. When the system is against you, you make your own personalised and much smaller system.


----------



## Judson Joist

Pino1 said:


> ...wow, as a conservative (actually, I'm pretty much a nationalist), I feel like a stranger, here


I define myself a "Constitutional conservative" (or just plain "Constitutionalist") and as a "Civic Nationalist," but my result here was "Activist Libertarian." Nationalism is *not* authoritarian. Nationalism is Resistance!


----------



## TeamPB

"Civic Nationalist"

yeah, nah


----------



## calicobts

I got ULIM: The Interventionist Libertarian. Sounds about right, but I think I'm quiet flexible when it comes to military intervention.


----------



## Electra

Not sure if:

DHIM: The Activate Liberal or 

DHIP: The Internationalist Liberal

I vote for social democracy

Left.


----------



## Jaune

Apparently I voted XXXX a while ago, but I identify with ULIP: The Isolationist Libertarian now.


----------



## Sava Saevus

Seems I'm a DLIP. Not surprised.


----------



## Literally Gone

ULIM makes sense for me 
Or Maybe ULIP

Sent from my ASUS_A002A using Tapatalk


----------



## Rventurelli

Looks like I am a pretty special snow flake -- *UHCM* or *UHCP* depending on my mood.


----------



## AzV

I am Internationalist Libertarian, but 3 months ago I tested as Activist Libertarian in 16personalities.com. I can't decide my type. 

Oh Interventionist Conservative seems powerful. I'll just mistype myself as one.


----------



## Moo Rice

*DHIP:* Diplomatic, Hands-On, Individualistic, Passive; Internationalist Liberal


----------



## dizzycactus

DHIM/P (last probably balanced between wanting to be strong in order to be free of other's influences, but having no desire to attack others)


----------



## Strelnikov

DHCM: Activist Statist... Yep, that's me in a nutshell. Long live the State! 

By the way, is there a test associated with this? I just selected what seemed to describe me best.


----------



## X A N A

I am a ULIP


----------



## Bimbo

Very interesting agokcen.


----------



## attic

My answers would depend a lot on what is considered government I think, if in a more wide sense I might choose differently than if it just means the state. I don't believe that alone is strong. I am not sure about militaristic either, I am not a pacifist, but I believe in defending ourselves, and I don't see us as just me and my countrymen, it can be other groups, or just "humans under attac" (say like when IS slaughtered civilians in villages that could not protect themselves, I don't think it is wrong to intervene then), but I am all for putting in much more effort on peacebuilding efforts to hopefully reduce the amount of times that kind of intervention might be needed. The choice of hands-on or laissez-fair seem to be within a capitalist society. I would rather see some other way to regulate economic power than the state, but I do think it needs to be done and rather it be a somewhat democratic government that does it over leaving it up for big business to do whatever they like. So as things are today I'd say hands-on, but with the future ideal of a society where power is distributed differently, more decentralised, more active involvement from people.

So pragmatically in today's world perhaps dhim on the verge of dhip, but ideally in a better world perhaps more dlip.


----------



## Xool Xecutioner

Chose ULIM for knowingly wanting sorta a minarchist state in the path way to anarcho-capitalism. But really, having an active military is good as a deterrent (and makes me/the state look xool and badass)


----------



## Lollla

I try to stay away from politics


----------



## Judson Joist

At this juncture, the three highest ranking "factions" are Internationalist Liberal, Internationalist Libertarian, and Isolationist Libertarian, respectively. Despite the fact that I define myself as a "civic nationalist," this thingamadoozer defines me as an "Activist Libertarian." Assume that it means "libertarian" in the original sense of the term (one who advocates Liberty). I don't believe that the individual's life should be governed by either the state (Moloch) or the market (Mammon).

So my question is this: What's the appeal of internationalism? Since that defines most of you, what is it that you like about it? How are you able to differentiate it from imperialism or globalism? Wouldn't you rather live in a free world of free nations populated by free citizens? Why do you value order over freedom? Why do you value the collective over the individual?


----------



## Ziegel

>ulip
I guess...


----------



## Karsdorp

I think the first one is the best, don't you think so?


----------



## cyber-bully

This is really interesting I’d like to develop my own models of random things based on this
I’d fall under ULIM or ULIP


----------

