The Lockean synthesis

[Arkolon]

THE LOCKEAN SYNTHESIS

Propertarian libertarianism rests heavily on the notions of self-ownership and the entitlement theory of distributive justice. We can cut these huge axioms brief by considering that our consciousness is the gestalt production of our body, therefore entitling it to the sum of all that makes it, and as a result conscious creatures are entitled to the components and productions of their own bodies. Self-ownership leads to the entitlement theory, which considers that self-ownership gives every conscious individual the liberty to accumulate common property, thus turning it into private property. However, this short description overlooks major principles, such as rectification of injustices and justice of such a system through exchange, if not through initial acquisition.

In 1974, Robert Nozick popularised his entitlement theory with his highly-influential book, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”. It was almost wholly based off John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”, and outlined the very principles of propertarian libertarianism. His entitlement theory set the ground for all subsequent forms of such ideology, influencing statists and anti-statists alike. The entitlement theory does, however, include a very important, frequently forgotten principle of justice: what Nozick called the Lockean proviso. The Lockean proviso holds that, although we have the natural prerequisites for the appropriation of private property, its cogency is derived from the fact that land was once common to all, so any appropriation, or continued use, of it has to be compensated by the acquisitor. If such an act is not compensated, then it is considered an initiation of force according to propertarian libertarian ethics.

Since its popularisation, the Lockean proviso has been used to justify libertarian land redistribution, where land possession cannot be justified without compensation. This led to many minarchists suggesting that the state can be legitimately financed through systems of property taxes, as this would not fall under contravention of any libertarian principles. But we must ask ourselves, is the Lockean proviso solely limited to the acquisition of private property, as it has been used all this time? Moreover, if the taxation of land is justified according to this notion, why are all other forms of taxation considered coercive in the eyes of propertarian libertarians?

I will suggest this: the Lockean synthesis. The Lockean synthesis is the culminatory adaptation of the Lockean proviso, part of the entitlement theory’s principle of justice in acquisition of holdings, and all forms of exchange, which forms the entitlement theory’s second principle, the principle of justice in transfer of holdings. The Lockean synthesis holds that all mediums of exchange are entitlements to private property, and hold the equivalent opportunity cost in value. As a result, its continued possession as well as its initial acquisition equally has to be compensated for, in the very same vein as land’s acquisition and possession has to be compensated for in accordance with the Lockean proviso.

The Lockean synthesis, ultimately, justifies all sorts of taxation made by the state. While the minimal state, the one that Nozick in particular enshrined in his works, would only hold a protective and regulatory role in society, attempting to prevent all coercive measures in society, it remains entitled to financement through taxes based on land, thanks to the Lockean proviso, but now also on all forms of exchange between two private individuals, thanks to the Lockean synthesis. The synthesis therefore allows for the state to tax all things it deems necessary, be it income, consumption, wealth, land, capital gains, corporate profit, or anything else without contravening a single principle of libertarian propertarian ideology. It concludes naturally from this that, forcibly, taxation is not illegitimate. Coupled with the previous philosophical advancements made by Nozick in saying that the state is not an illegitimate institution according to propertarian libertarian ideology, this leads us to believe that, in complete and whole accordance of libertarian dogma, the modern state is not illegitimate.

--

Please read the short essay posted above, as it is a very necessary prerequisite for understanding what will follow.

Although I have not given anyone any talking points yet, I would first like to say a few words about what this means to me and the whole libertarian movement, both within and outside of NationStates. I am no longer a libertarian. I want to distance myself as much as possible from the libertarian movement. I am now a centre-rightist, except I remain grounded in philosophical deontology. The Lockean synthesis, if it holds any water, henceforth acts as the ultimate bullet against any libertarians for the foreseeable future, as it really uses the libertarian’s own ethics and ideology against them, showing them that what they yell against really does not contravene any of their beliefs. It, if anything, complements them. I think that, again, if it holds any water, the Lockean synthesis is a very important statement in contemporary political philosophy, as it blurs the line between deontological libertarianism and modern statism: what is the difference, really, with the Lockean synthesis included? As such, how can a libertarian dislike the state? Can you imagine what this means to anarcho-capitalists?

To all of the moderates who complain about right-wing libertarianism and attempt to tear it apart with social contract theory or consequentialism, don’t. Honestly, even from the position I am in now, it is extremely bad form; using outdated political philosophy against people whose own philosophy is the reason social contract theory is considered heterodox philosophy. Instead, from here on out, I would advise you (again, again, if it holds any water), to use the Lockean synthesis.

If you are one of these aforementioned moderates and you do not fully understand the Lockean synthesis, please ask me in this thread. I am also going to remind you all that I am very open to criticism, as I am almost sure that I am overlooking a gaping hole in this synthesis. As for the libertarians who have come across this thread, please, throw whatever you can at me. It is very important that I get as much information, criticism, and concerns to this idea, as, and I don’t want to sound pretentious or condescending, I would aim to write a longer essay, or possibly a book, if the Lockean synthesis holds any water.

[Skeckoa]

The entitlement theory does, however, include a very important, frequently forgotten principle of justice: what Nozick called the Lockean proviso. The Lockean proviso holds that, although we have the natural prerequisites for the appropriation of private property, its cogency is derived from the fact that land was once common to all, so any appropriation, or continued use, of it has to be compensated by the acquisitor. If such an act is not compensated, then it is considered an initiation of force according to propertarian libertarian ethics.

A few questions I have right off the bat.

1. Why does one particular state have more of a right to acquire compensation from the landowner, as opposed to any other state? How do states go about claiming land that they can tax? What does this say about states that have fallen, and have been replaced afterwards? Some states have fallen, and have fallen into Civil War, why does one side have the right to tax in the name of the people, but the other does not (the only difference being that one side won the war)?

1.5 What if people do not feel that their state is a fair, or legitimate agent for acquiring that compensation?

2. What makes people more or less worthy of receiving compensation for the land use. I would think that it would have to do with prior use and proximity. How would this work with modern nations? Could it work with modern nations? I am in closer proximity to Tijuana, Mexico than I am to New York, New York. However, with modern states (ie. the USA), I would have to compensate New Yorkers for my use of land (if things stay as they are right now, maybe this is more appropriate to work with smaller states), but not Tijuanans.

3. How is the value decided? Should someone who owns a shack in the Sahara Desert have to pay the same as someone who owns land along the fertile part of the Nile River? Maybe a flat tax?

4. How is it that all land was commonly owned? Isn't it the idea that no one owned the land? If everyone owned it, I understand that people would have to be compensated, however, what happens to land that were truly never used, and previously barren? Also, the idea is that you compensate the people that you have gotten land from. However, being many plots of land have been owned for centuries, wouldn't the original people affected have all died by now? Did they pass rights to compensation on to their kin? If someone immigrates to California today, why are they privy to compensation for someone's use of land that was settled centuries prior?

5. This question is a bit different. Even if Lockean Synthesis justifies the powers that a modern state wields, does it justify all of their actions, such as how the money is spent?

Most of these questions can be dismissed if you tell me that this idea is supposed to function within a world where the state would be much smaller in geographical size.

But we must ask ourselves, is the Lockean proviso solely limited to the acquisition of private property, as it has been used all this time? Moreover, if the taxation of land is justified according to this notion, why are all other forms of taxation considered coercive in the eyes of propertarian libertarians?

Ownership, as I am sure you agree, comes with the ability to exclude people from its usage. Since cotton can be taxed under this principle, since it came from once common land, does that mean that I do not own my shirt, but that the state does? Since ownership also implies that you can charge for usage, the state taxes my shirt. Fine. Can they prevent me from using the shirt. (Assuming that the state has been declared a legitimate agent by which people can be compensated for the fact that they rented (essentially) the land used to grow the cotton)

Thank you in advance.Keep it solid bro.

[Arkolon]

1. Why does one particular state have more of a right to acquire compensation from the landowner, as opposed to any other state? How do states go about claiming land that they can tax? What does this say about states that have fallen, and have been replaced afterwards? Some states have fallen, and have fallen into Civil War, why does one side have the right to tax in the name of the people, but the other does not (the only difference being that one side won the war)?

The compensation that the state would extract from private landlords is but a small part of their role in distributive justice: what you are asking is similar to asking why one particular state has more of a right to protect people from coercion and breaches of individual sovereignty, as opposed to any other state? The question really falls into the larger question of just how legitimate the state, any state for that matter, really is, as the nature of the minimal state, as you should know, is protective. It doesn't feel like I'm totally answering your question, and I apologise if there is something blatant I missed, but this idea of the Lockean synthesis really just adds on a new module to the minimal state, giving it powers to tax legitimately. What it does to redistribute the compensation money, ie a welfare state, a safety net, or a NIT/UBI system, is also just as legitimate.

1.5 What if people do not feel that their state is a fair, or legitimate agent for acquiring that compensation?

If people do not feel that the state is fair, then I would not understand them. At this point, I would be puzzled as to how they could not judge the state as fair, especially with the synthesis. I don't want to say "they can always move", because I know how much of a hypocrite that would make me as well as how awful an argument it is, but you would really have to go deeper into what it is exactly about the state that they judge as unfair before I could completely answer this question.

2. What makes people more or less worthy of receiving compensation for the land use. I would think that it would have to do with prior use and proximity. How would this work with modern nations? Could it work with modern nations? I am in closer proximity to Tijuana, Mexico than I am to New York, New York. However, with modern states (ie. the USA), I would have to compensate New Yorkers for my use of land (if things stay as they are right now, maybe this is more appropriate to work with smaller states), but not Tijuanans.

It doesn't matter how the compensation is redistributed, as long as compensation is taken out from those that are taxed. Whether this money goes to public hospitals, prostitutes, Kalashnikovs or charities in sub-Saharan Africa, it does not really concern anyone else. Compensation must be paid; that is all that matters. Who it goes to does not matter. I think that this is where the democratic module of modern nation-states plays a very important role, by the way. Also note that this system is fundamentally different to compensation between individual aggressor and individual victim, as it is a compensation to society, and the minimal state is, after all, the collective incarnation of society.

3. How is the value decided? Should someone who owns a shack in the Sahara Desert have to pay the same as someone who owns land along the fertile part of the Nile River? Maybe a flat tax?

The value cannot be objectively decided. It is decided by the state, obviously, but the exact rates do not matter. There could be no rates and no state, for that matter, but the taxation itself, or the state itself, is not illegitimate. I would like to give my personal opinion, but for now this thread will take a more general look at the synthesis, and not only my own take on it.

4. How is it that all land was commonly owned? Isn't it the idea that no one owned the land? If everyone owned it, I understand that people would have to be compensated, however, what happens to land that were truly never used, and previously barren?

This concern is rooted in a very slight difference in terms: there is no right to land, but there is a right to accumulate land. As land is appropriated, its owner did not have any more or less rights to accumulate that land than anyone else, so, really, his actions of homesteading have proven to be nothing but a diminishment of everyone else's right to accumulate land. Shone in this light, I'm sure you can see how compensation must follow through, as a diminishment of rights is considered coercive according to the NAP and libertarian ethics.

Also, the idea is that you compensate the people that you have gotten land from.

Not necessarily. Just saying this because I don't want you to use this as a major assumption if the thread progresses.

However, being many plots of land have been owned for centuries, wouldn't the original people affected have all died by now? Did they pass rights to compensation on to their kin? If someone immigrates to California today, why are they privy to compensation for someone's use of land that was settled centuries prior?

The fact that the land has still been in continued use since its initial acquisition means that it has always been, since that acquisition, a diminishment of everyone else's rights to accumulate that property. This means that, whoever the owner is, not paying compensation for this diminishment of rights is coercive.

Thank you in advance.

And thank you for taking an interest!

[New HastoffMaljagan]

Although yes you can argue that consciousness is a outcome of all the bodily organs and whatnot, however the conscious is most affected by it's environment. Last time we had this argument you ended by saying that environment and individuals themselves are what mold the individual. Let me address your latter statement with this. Lets say that I'm a man who bikes to work everyday, I do this because I have a low wealth job that doesn't give me the money to buy a car. Now everyday as I go to work I nearly get run over by a person in their car, I develop a sense of hatred towards these self interested car drivers, and join a anti-car movement. I as the bike rider may think that I was free to make this decision but think again, If I had a better job I probably would drive a car myself and my beliefs would be opposite, I might hate bike riders instead of Car drivers. The Individual is a political animal, I believe that to be more true than the labor theory or whatever Locke said.

[Arkolon]

5. This question is a bit different. Even if Lockean Synthesis justifies the powers that a modern state wields, does it justify all of their actions, such as how the money is spent?

I hope I answered this in my last post.

Ownership, as I am sure you agree, comes with the ability to exclude people from its usage. Since cotton can be taxed under this principle, since it came from once common land, does that mean that I do not own my shirt, but that the state does?

I did not posit that the state owns all common land, merely that the act of appropriating common land and turning it into private property is coercive, and thus must be compensated for. This is largely the proviso, though, and not the synthesis per se. You do own your cotton shirt, as long as you acquired it either through the principle of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings (you either made it or you bought it), and it wouldn't belong to the state. In fact, the state doesn't need to "own" anything for it to tax anything, the very same way that the state does not need to "own" you to protect you from murder, rape, theft, or aggression. Compensation is merely an addition to the NAP and the role of the state, if you see what I mean.

[Arkolon]

Although yes you can argue that consciousness is a outcome of all the bodily organs and whatnot, however the conscious is most affected by it's environment.

This doesn't matter. Please keep evolutionary psychology out of a thread about political philosophy. Self-ownership doesn't even really appear anywhere but in the first paragraph, too.

[Constantinopolis]

I have found, after some study and extensive debate, that the link between philosophy and politics is far weaker than commonly supposed by political philosophers.

In other words, a given philosophy can be used to justify almost any set of political and economic arrangements. And, likewise, a given set of political and economic arrangements can be justified by appeal to almost any philosophy.

Thus, in my view, the attempt to draw clear political conclusions from philosophical first principles is doomed. As a result of this realization I have lost interest in political philosophy. I used to be a strong consequentialist, but today I no longer seek to justify my political views by appeal to any particular philosophy.

Sooner or later, anyone with a serious interest in political philosophy must realize that their philosophy can lead to a large array of different political conclusions, and therefore either:
(a) abandon their commitment to any specific ideology in order to remain true to their philosophy
or (b) abandon their commitment to any specific philosophy in order to remain true to their ideology.

I have chosen to do (b). It seems that your Lockean synthesis and abandonment of libertarianism represents a choice to do (a).

[Arkolon]

I have found, after some study and extensive debate, that the link between philosophy and politics is far weaker than commonly supposed by political philosophers.

I disagree.

You can't just walk in here, say that, and not back it up with anything, by the way.

In other words, a given philosophy can be used to justify almost any set of political and economic arrangements. And, likewise, a given set of political and economic arrangements can be justified by appeal to almost any philosophy.

No, I also disagree with this. Not everything can be justified, and philosophies can be wrong.

I used to be a strong consequentialist, but today I no longer seek to justify my political views by appeal to any particular philosophy.

Consequentialism is the opposite of justifying political beliefs with a philosophy.

The rest of your post does not contribute to the Lockean synthesis or libertarianism in general.

[Conserative Morality]

I have found, after some study and extensive debate, that the link between philosophy and politics is far weaker than commonly supposed by political philosophers.

In other words, a given philosophy can be used to justify almost any set of political and economic arrangements. And, likewise, a given set of political and economic arrangements can be justified by appeal to almost any philosophy.

Thus, in my view, the attempt to draw clear political conclusions from philosophical first principles is doomed. As a result of this realization I have lost interest in political philosophy. I used to be a strong consequentialist, but today I no longer seek to justify my political views by appeal to any particular philosophy.

Sooner or later, anyone with a serious interest in political philosophy must realize that their philosophy can lead to a large array of different political conclusions, and therefore either:
(a) abandon their commitment to any specific ideology in order to remain true to their philosophy
or (b) abandon their commitment to any specific philosophy in order to remain true to their ideology.

I have chosen to do (b). It seems that your Lockean synthesis and abandonment of libertarianism represents a choice to do (a).

Not necessarily. One can maintain the commitment to both. It's like realizing that a river has multiple branches. You go down one and someone else goes down another. It doesn't mean that you don't love the river. It just means that you should spend your time throwing rocks at the other fellow from your side of the stream.

[MERIZoC]

Wait, what? Ark's not a minarchist/libertarian anymore? I'll have to read this very, very closely then.

[Fortschritte]

Wait, what? Ark's not a minarchist/libertarian anymore? I'll have to read this very, very closely then.

No, he abandoned it.

Anyways, to address the OP, I definitely found what you wrote to be interesting, well thought out, and intelligent. However, I find that you spend far to much time trying to base your political and economic ideology solely off of philosophy. Nothing is wrong with having political philosophy as a foundation behind your ideology, most people do that, but when your political and economic opinions must be determined by general philosophy, it makes you ideologically stubborn. In my opinion, it makes one blind to political pragmatism, and looking at what works best for societies and people.

But, hey, at least you're no longer a minarchist.

[Arkolon]

Wait, what? Ark's not a minarchist/libertarian anymore? I'll have to read this very, very closely then.

Well, in any case, I blurred the lines between libertarianism and modern statism. Although my philosophy hasn't totally changed, I ascribe to a different ideology, one that allows legroom for pragmatism.

[MERIZoC]

Wait, what? Ark's not a minarchist/libertarian anymore? I'll have to read this very, very closely then.

Well, in any case, I blurred the lines between libertarianism and modern statism. Although my philosophy hasn't totally changed, I ascribe to a different ideology, one that allows legroom for pragmatism.

Hmm. So what led you across this in the first place?

[Arkolon]

Wait, what? Ark's not a minarchist/libertarian anymore? I'll have to read this very, very closely then.

No, he abandoned it.

Anyways, to address the OP, I definitely found what you wrote to be interesting, well thought out, and intelligent. However, I find that you spend far to much time trying to base your political and economic ideology solely off of philosophy. Nothing is wrong with having political philosophy as a foundation behind your ideology, most people do that, but when your political and economic opinions must be determined by general philosophy, it makes you ideologically stubborn. In my opinion, it makes one blind to political pragmatism, and looking at what works best for societies and people.

But, hey, at least you're no longer a minarchist.

I think that, after coming across all the political philosophies and philosophers I have over the years, it is very hard to seriously justify consequentialism. It is too sloppy of a position to take, and it can, eventually, justify absolutely anything. That is not always right. I prefer the Kantian philosophies of humans as ends within themselves-- true humanism-- and really basing off philosophy from that. Whatever that might make me; stubborn, a minarchist, a libertarian-- I can only see it as more just, and more accepted, within the world of political philosophy. After all, what is happy living without meaning, reason, or purpose?

The compliments are nonetheless appreciated.

[Arkolon]

Well, in any case, I blurred the lines between libertarianism and modern statism. Although my philosophy hasn't totally changed, I ascribe to a different ideology, one that allows legroom for pragmatism.

Hmm. So what led you across this in the first place?

It was in the back of my mind for quite some time. I just very recently managed to put it into words. The synthesis is mainly an expansion on the proviso and the principle of justice in transfer, so I didn't really "create" anything. Just brought it all together, hence the name.

[Fortschritte]

No, he abandoned it.

Anyways, to address the OP, I definitely found what you wrote to be interesting, well thought out, and intelligent. However, I find that you spend far to much time trying to base your political and economic ideology solely off of philosophy. Nothing is wrong with having political philosophy as a foundation behind your ideology, most people do that, but when your political and economic opinions must be determined by general philosophy, it makes you ideologically stubborn. In my opinion, it makes one blind to political pragmatism, and looking at what works best for societies and people.

But, hey, at least you're no longer a minarchist.

I think that, after coming across all the political philosophies and philosophers I have over the years, it is very hard to seriously justify consequentialism. It is too sloppy of a position to take, and it can, eventually, justify absolutely anything. That is not always right. I prefer the Kantian philosophies of humans as ends within themselves-- true humanism-- and really basing off philosophy from that. Whatever that might make me; stubborn, a minarchist, a libertarian-- I can only see it as more just, and more accepted, within the world of political philosophy. After all, what is happy living without meaning, reason, or purpose?

The compliments are nonetheless appreciated.

I wouldn't say that what I'm arguing for is consequentialism. I'm not necessarily saying that in the end, all that matters are the consequences. I don't really know what to call what I'm arguing for, to be honest, since philosophy has never been something I've been interested in. That's one of the reasons as to why I was rather reluctant to reply to this thread, since I'm sure most NS'ers have a much more expansive knowledge of philosophies than I do.

Anyways, I'm simply saying that it's easy for one to become blinded by philosophy and not look at facts, statistics, and what the collective will of the people is. But, to me, it seems like you've "overcome" that stubbornness by proposing this so called Lockean synthesis. As a minarchist, you largely justified your beliefs by bringing up personal philosophy, and not taking into account the effects anarcho capitalism would have on the general population. But, it appears that you've grown past that, as evident in this thread.

[Arkolon]

I think that, after coming across all the political philosophies and philosophers I have over the years, it is very hard to seriously justify consequentialism. It is too sloppy of a position to take, and it can, eventually, justify absolutely anything. That is not always right. I prefer the Kantian philosophies of humans as ends within themselves-- true humanism-- and really basing off philosophy from that. Whatever that might make me; stubborn, a minarchist, a libertarian-- I can only see it as more just, and more accepted, within the world of political philosophy. After all, what is happy living without meaning, reason, or purpose?

The compliments are nonetheless appreciated.

I wouldn't say that what I'm arguing for is consequentialism. I'm not necessarily saying that in the end, all that matters are the consequences.

That's what consequentialism is...

Deontological political philosophers would not believe in what they did if they knew the outcomes would be disastrous. Depending on your axioms, goals, and influences, it is very hard to justify anything in political philosophy, hence its relatively slow progression. Consequentialism, however, takes the view that "if it works, it's ethically just", or "... we should do it". There are plenty of ways to disprove this utilitarian argument, and Nozick was probably more famous in general academia for his critiques of classical utilitarianism than for his political philosophy. Might I add that the most famous consequentialist is probably Macchiavelli, by the way.

You can be pragmatic while not being a consequentialist. Political theory is by and large a philosophical realm.

[Fortschritte]

I wouldn't say that what I'm arguing for is consequentialism. I'm not necessarily saying that in the end, all that matters are the consequences.

That's what consequentialism is...

Deontological political philosophers would not believe in what they did if they knew the outcomes would be disastrous. Depending on your axioms, goals, and influences, it is very hard to justify anything in political philosophy, hence its relatively slow progression. Consequentialism, however, takes the view that "if it works, it's ethically just", or "... we should do it". There are plenty of ways to disprove this utilitarian argument, and Nozick was probably more famous in general academia for his critiques of classical utilitarianism than for his political philosophy. Might I add that the most famous consequentialist is probably Macchiavelli, by the way.

You can be pragmatic while not being a consequentialist. Political theory is by and large a philosophical realm.

Well, then you've given me quite a few things to think about regarding philosophies in general. I know very little about philosophy, and only know the basic ideas behind certain philosophies. Perhaps I need to do some research.

[Kelinfort]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

[Fortschritte]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

Kelinfort, I thought you were a centre leftist, not a centre rightist? Or have your political beliefs shifted?

[MERIZoC]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

Yeah, building off of this, why did you become a bit more authoritarian? You used to be around -7 or so, I believe. How did this influence your beliefs on one's personal and civil rights?

[Kelinfort]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

Kelinfort, I thought you were a centre leftist, not a centre rightist? Or have your political beliefs shifted?

Centrist, though I was referring to the family of statists.

[Immoren]

"The lockean synthesis" sounds like a name for band, or maybe some sort of magic spell.

[Arkolon]

That's what consequentialism is...

Deontological political philosophers would not believe in what they did if they knew the outcomes would be disastrous. Depending on your axioms, goals, and influences, it is very hard to justify anything in political philosophy, hence its relatively slow progression. Consequentialism, however, takes the view that "if it works, it's ethically just", or "... we should do it". There are plenty of ways to disprove this utilitarian argument, and Nozick was probably more famous in general academia for his critiques of classical utilitarianism than for his political philosophy. Might I add that the most famous consequentialist is probably Macchiavelli, by the way.

You can be pragmatic while not being a consequentialist. Political theory is by and large a philosophical realm.

Well, then you've given me quite a few things to think about regarding philosophies in general. I know very little about philosophy, and only know the basic ideas behind certain philosophies. Perhaps I need to do some research.

You should get into philosophy. Everyone should. It's really interesting, especially when we get to the nitty-gritty of the philosophical axioms.

[Arkolon]

Welcome to the family, Ark.

Although, I wish that second number was a bit more negative.

Thank you.

Oh, that. Yes, I basically did the same as last time I took the compass test except I refrained myself from clicking on any of the "strongly"s, and I changed some of the views up re: how society should be organised, if I remember correctly. The Go To Quiz one put me at -6, so I think we should consider the -3 simply a small error we should overlook. I mean, despite the synthesis, my actual pragmatic views haven't changed-- just my philosophy and perception of the state mechanism.