Hmmmm...probably a 2. I can see from most peoples viewpoints though...up till about an 8. *s*

about a 3

I'm about a 6.

Well, since your question requires an answer that is a statement of what is one's own political opinion.... My political beliefs defy placement on your one-dimensional number line. I can't say that I'm 1 (extremely conservative), nor can I say that I'm 10 (extremely liberal), nor can I say that I'm 5 (moderate). I'm extremely liberal on social issues: I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of lifestyle, etc. But I'm extremely conservative on fiscal issues: I believe in free enterprise and in allowing people to interact any way they choose to that is mutually consensual and doesn't impose force or violence upon non-participants. [Edit to Teknimage: That's a lot of philosophy to ponder. I'd practically have to write a whole book to cover what you're asking. But let's take same-sex marriages for example. I believe in live-and-let-live. The problem is that marriage these days is a legal condition sanctioned by government. Because of that, government wealth-redistrubution programs such as Social Insecurity, Medicaid, etc. could result in taxpayer money given to people "living in sin." So religious fanatics and other intolerant types use that as an excuse to oppose the rights of people to freely choose their partners. If marriage were truly a religious condition without government involved, and there were no redistrubition programs, conservatives would have no ammunition to oppose same-sex marriages.]

about a 7

Around a 3 to a 5 (depending on the issue).

On social issues I'm a 10. I won't give up any rights or expect anyone else to. Civil rights are critical to quality of life. Fiscally I'm a 3. I don't like taxes being collected without accountability. I don't like social security being taken from my paycheck without any guarantee I will be able to access it. That said, there are people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to survive without government assistance so I do support funding them. I also expect the government to enforce our rights whenever necessary, so I agree with funding those actions.

It will be interesting to see the results of your question. I have a theory -- that most of those on whatever the "opposite of conservative" is really do NOT like the label "liberal", and will resist self-identifying that way. This is just theory, I don't know if it's been studied. The idea is that conservatives are more comfortable with the blanket "group membership" acquired by labelling, while "progressives / liberals" don't like being pigeonholed -- they see the spectrum of issues as being too complex, and think of themselves more as independent thinkers. These traits make them resistant to adopting "liberal" as a label. Collect your answers, then let's see... !

Its interesting, my parents would definately be in the range of an 8 but I am more in the range of a 3. Although, there are many issues in which I even agree with my parents liberal viewpoints; the majority of fiscal and some social issues rest on the conservative side of the fence. Interestingly, I have voted for 3 different political parties in the last 3 elections in Canada (my political affiliation is independant).

3-4, although, with certain issues those numbers could fluctuate.

I'm around an 8 or 9... I'm a fan of free will, but see the necessity of laws to keep order. Laws that keep order and safety are great (DOT, FDA, DEA,). Laws that dictate lifestyle and advancement (marriage, abortion, censorship) are not so great. Education should be an all around priority. Knowledge will solve our problems.

Ok, ptrask insists that I have to give a REAL answer, not a meta-answer. He's a pest. You have my permission to make fun of his avatar. Helping the poor, victimized, weak: I'm very much in favor of this, which is traditionally a liberal orientation -- however I strongly feel that the KIND of help that's provided has to be very precise and carefully selected. For example, merely handing out money or food tends to produce an addiction to hand-outs, perpetuating a cycle of dependency. So doing this sort of thing at a government level requires a high degree of intelligence. You have to actually care on the one hand, and on the other hand you have to understand what makes a difference and what doesn't. Fiscal policy: I'm not an expert on economics, but it seems like we actually can run a small deficit chronically without serious negative effects. Big deficits seem to be a problem, and a fixed "never run a deficit" viewpoint seems to be just absolutist without much connection to anything but philosophy. Foreign policy: It's critical that we recognize our interconnectedness with the rest of the world. America is prone to fall into isolationism and a kind of national egotism that we're blind to. We're really prone to the illusion that we can install democracy and freedom with sheer military power, we are re-learning the shortcomings of this apparently. But will this lesson last longer than the previous one? Social issues: government should just butt out of the bedroom. Gays should be allowed to marry. The current compromise on abortion (Roe v Wade) is a reasonable balance between valuing a human life and respecting the rights of the mother. Protection of free speech, and general civil liberties, is crucial. The current trend toward eroding these freedoms should have both liberals and conservatives beating down the doors of their congressmen -- what exactly did we fight for in 1776 if it wasn't those liberties? Exactly what values do we think we're defending with our massive military spending if it isn't those liberties? Anyone trying to talk us into compromising those for a teeny bit of safety is the enemy of freedom. Septicemia kills WAY more people than terrorism: where's the "War On Septicemia"? It's the #9 leading cause of death in the U.S. -- terrorism is so far down the list it doesn't even cause a blip in the statistics. The definition of IRRATIONAL is "out of ratio": i.e. responding to something disproportionately to it's value as a threat or benefit. That's the best word to characterize our over-the-top response to terrorism: irrational. Environmental issues: we better start getting real about the damage we're doing. We are damn fools for thinking that we can go on consuming and destroying natural resources on the ONLY planet we have without exerting every effort to reach a stable and sustainable balance. This is sheer stupidity and greed on a global scale. Our unwillingess to rein in our own appetites will render the Earth unsuitable for human life if it continues much longer. Basically, we're crapping in our own swimming pool and thinking it won't ever affect our backstroke. Ok, so I got a little worked up. Breathe.... ah, yes! It's a wonderful day again, so glad to be alive. Even if we are a bunch of fools, at least we're OUR fools!

Here, amongst fellow Canadians, probably I'd be a 5. Some Americans would, depending on their own views, put me as either a 9 or a 50

I'm probably a 3 - and here again, it depends on the issues.

Screw your scale. I'm all for democratic socialism if it means greater freedom and ease of life. Hell, if we have a chance of achieving anything close to Communism some time in the future we should take that chance. And before you start berating me with Stalin's fascist Russia, have a look at this link and learn the difference between socialism and communism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism I know one thing though, and that is while we worship money and consumer goods, not to mention conservative social practises, we'll never be enlightened or free.

7.3535353535353535353535353535repeating

On average, about a 6. I tend to be socially very liberal but financially somewhat conservative.

I'm about a 5. I think its dangerous to be at either end of this scale.

Seeing as you wrote liberal with a lower-case L (and therefore not the Liberal political parties, who hold some views which aren't very liberal at all in the true sense of the word) - I don't have a problem with saying at least 8. I generally believe that provided it doesn't cause any harm to any other reasonable person (and choosing to be offended at unmarried people living together doesn't count- that's your own damn problem!) the government and society in general should mind its own bloody business and let people get on with it. So I think freedom to practice any religion, have sex with any other consenting adult, and any similar activity- fair enough. There are awkward issues when it comes to fredom of information- generally unless it is an actual real incitement to violence I think as an adult you should be able to publish and access whatever material you want- whether that's pornographic, violent, or political in nature. I tend to think even in the case of dubious material, people are going to look at it anyway, and its better off out in the open where it can be monitored than pushed underground. I'm in favour of the Welfare State up to a point- when it comes to basic health care and education in particular (I don't think anyone should be denied a good education and the chance to better themselves because their parents happen to not be very well off),- but I think that the British government at the moment has got the benefits system all muddled- to the point where teenage girls get pregnant on purpose because they know they will likely get a free house and be able to live off benefits for a few years. But then- I'm not sure that's so much liberalism as just plain disorganisation. I know a lot of people associate Socialism with liberalism- but to me liberal in the dictionary sense would be more in line with Capitalism- everyone free to make as much money as they want in whatever way they want. Where harm to others is likely to occur I think the government does need to interfere- that's what its there for- for example, I think that controls on owning firearms ought to be as strict as they can possibly be and that there is never an excuse for someone who has commited a violent crime to get off with a caution.

7ish

I would probably be a 2. Maybe a 3 at the most.

about a 5.5

about a 4

About a 9

Ok with the new social issues such as religion, homosexuality, abortion comming into play. I'm a 2.5 on social issues. (maybe a 3) On economic issues I'm like a 8. Here I stand and can do no other, God help me. -Martin Luther

6 to 8, depends

SOME ISSUES I would say 1 others a 10, you cannot be an all rounded person if you do not feel differently on certain subjects. Death penalty for Child killers and Rapists YES Definately , so a 1.No little lefty social worker here. Being happy to let people live exactly as they choose and think what they like as long as it hurts nobody else 10 So what am I?

In the current misleading American use of the terms liberal and conservative, I’d probably be classed as a 10; yet a libertarian streak contradicts that. For example, I’m an atheist, naturist, think that same-sex marriage or multiple wives or husbands are fine; legalize drug and prostitution? Sure. And I’m not “liberal” in the sense of “political correctness” nor do I respect ignorance or superstition in others. And I don’t want planners to tell me how or where to live. When I was young, I was an Edward Bellamy Looking Backward “communist idealist”:; then I visited the USSR and eastern Europe! Basically “planning failure” (misuse of power, greed, ignorance) is just as bad as “market failure”(unbridled capitalism’s abuse of power, monopoly, unjustified inequality) So by default I’m pushed to a social democratic position which aims to respect individual initiative, but works to prevent monopoly power and exploitation. This is ultra-left on the American standards! No society has come close to figuring out how to do this, even Sweden, where I have also lived. It’s a can of worms, as my mother-in-law used to say.

8, because there are still some things I can't accept.

about a 7 probably

To finally answer your question: I'm probably a 3

(-3,-6) You need coordinates for my politics.