Why 8 Values Falls Short in Representing Political Positions

While it's clear that simply dividing politics into left and right does not reflect all the nuances in opinions. A more comprehensive tests, such as political compass or 8 values still fall short of the true nuances in values.

Equality

Take the very first axis for example.

Equality vs Markets. Even something like Equality is not as simple as it first looks. Does it stand that everyone gets the same among of money per any given time? Like a fixed fortnightly allowance for example. 

However, with flat equal amount allowance for everyone some can argue that is not true equality and instead propose that people with higher needs should get more to compensate for their higher needs compare to others. This idea in turn opens a whole new set of issues, for example who will determine who needs what and how people will be assessed.

Fundamentally 1st and 2nd equality are nothing like each other. People who support 1st equality may as well oppose those who support the 2nd. 2nd version can have many sub variations, who will oppose each other over their conflicting assessments of needs.

Markets

The opposite is called markets, but what that truly stands beyond plain opposition to redistribution in any form. Those with more money can spend more and those with less, less?

However, doing nothing will fundamentally lead to a situation where rich will get richer and poor poorer. It will be a system where people with a lot of inherited wealth will simply control society like shadowy puppet masters. A system where cronyism and favoritism will determine one's wealth. Being a relative of someone rich or sucking dick of such person will make one much wealthier than all the hard work someone else might do. Do proponents of "markets" truly want this "system", or is it something else?

What for example a system of technogenic meritocracy, where amount of one's remuneration will be determined meeting pre agreed objectives for which set amounts of money are given. Similar to how progression in RPG games work. That is different from cronyism/favoritism but does fall on the same end of the equality-markets axis.

No one openly endorses cronyism/favoritism nowadays, but it often manages to crawl back through the cracks in any system, like a weed. What safeguards your system has to prevent it.

Progress and Tradition

Term progress is misleading. It can mean technological progress for example, development of computers, robots or space program. The opposite would be to oppose all or most technological innovation like luddites who burned down factories and late Tokugawa Shogunate that banned guns and other technology. With that definition its rather simple.

However here these terms are used for social policies. That is a total mess. What exactly can be considered traditional in this definition, different countries have different traditions. Afghans for example make women cover their faces and obey husbands unquestionably. Spartans in contrast give them more freedom than to men.

Progress is even more misleading in this axis. That erroneously assumes, that there but one alternative to tradition, but there could be many different ones. Neither feminism, nor Afghan style women treatment aligns with traditional Christian values, but they also disagree with each other. There could be more systems then just these three.

What if you do not like traditions, but neither do you like the most common alternative, labelled progressive by someone who you think is an idiot.

Liberty vs Authority

Here theoretically its simple, liberty is live and let life, authority is the opposite of that: busy bodies that tell everyone what they should do with their lives.

However, does the axis truly reflects that and not some other factor instead? I look this test long ago to remember this part well. I just remember that I scored high on Liberty.

Also, while liberty is simple enough, authority is much harder. What if the morals or ideology, the authority enforces, conflicts with your own believes. Will your sill support this authority for the sake of unity or oppose it instead. What if you support more enforcement in some areas and less in some others. What if some rules, on business for example, are needed to maintain freedom of markets from cartel like agreements?

Nation vs World

Dichotomy between parochial "our country and town only" vs "all people are brothers" internationalism is simple to understand. However, it is inadequate to cover all possible spectrum of ideas. 

What if you support something like NATO, it's both international and interventional-militaristic at the same time. There is even ideology, called neo-con, that reflects that. It's not like one country isolationism, but neither it's like embrace the world internationalism.

What if some people are allies and others not? World does not end at national borders, but you are not willing to welcome just anyone.

What if your loyalty to a country is conditional to what the country does? You desire to interfere with the world stems from security and not fervent nationalism.

Conclusion

There is more to that that just these four axis to consider. 

For example, relationship between parents and children or between different age groups in general. Often disguised by term "experience", undue benefits for old people keep creeping in into various social systems. I by one clearly oppose all sort of special privileged, based on age only.

So overall we need more comprehensive system for political assessment.