http://www.politicalcompass.org/
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
I disagree with this statement. There never has been, and never will be, any consensus on what is in the best interests of humanity as a whole. So we're left with the interests of individuals, and the fundamental principle that each individual should be free to pursue happiness in their own way. Since some individuals will want to pursue happiness by forming trans-national corporations, I think that as a practical matter of human rights, "globalization" (of the economy, anyway), is probably best suited to serving the interests of trans-national corporations and the individuals that run them and work for them. This is probably about the best outcome we could--and should--hope for.
I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
"My" country is the country I have chosen to be a citizen of, and pay my taxes to, and vote in. I will always support it, on account of it being, in my opinion the best country going. Of course, if it goes wrong, I will always support putting it right again. I won't sell its interests out to the interests of another country, though. If I really favored that other country more than my own, I'd apply for citizenship there, not here. I assume the citizens of that other country feel the same way.
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
A country isn't just a bunch of lines on a map. It's a culture, a way of life, a value system. It's the society that produced your parents, and produced you. If there is anything good in the country of your birth, then it is right and proper to be proud of it. If there is anything good in you, then it is right and proper to give some credit to the society in which you were raised, which contributed to your value system and worldview. Even more right and proper to be proud of the country of your choice, though.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
And many inferior qualities, too, I'm sure. For some definition of "race".
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Sometimes, yes. Other times... not so much.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Yes. Not all laws--even international ones!--are good laws. And no law succesfully addresses all contingencies.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
There has always been a fusion of information and entertainment. I find it no more worrying now than it was a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago. What I do find worrying is this unrealistic assumption that information and entertainment should not be fused.
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
I disagree. At least in free societies, class boundaries are blurry and easily broken. People are more divided by nationality than class.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
I agree, but only because I perceive inflation as a big spooky macroeconomic phenomenon, and unemployment as a factor of how many people are offering jobs, and how many people feel like working. Let the government control inflation. Let individuals sort out employment amongst themselves.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Oh, absolutely. Everything else is just arguing about the details: what kind of regulation, how much regulation, etc.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
It's a fundamentally stupid idea, and demonstrably the root of some of the greatest evils of the 20th century. "From each according to his desire, to each according to his usefulness" is closer to what I think. But there must also be charity--true charity, not the state-forced taxation-and-welfare kind.
It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
It's a sad reflection on our society that so many people are convinced that "drinking water" is "basic". It's a happy reflection on our society that entrepeneurial individuals have figured out a way to solve the problem of drinking water in a world where it's no longer a simple matter of going down to the riverside and scooping fresh water into your mouth.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
I disagree, but I don't understand enough socioeconomic theory to justify this. As I learn more, I'm sure my opinion will either change or harden.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
I disagree. "Simply manipulate money" is another way of saying "engage in commercial activity, thus generating wealth". And wealth is by its nature a contribution to society. Others have pointed out how some of this money is spent employing people in a wide range of professions, and the rest is given over to banks, which then invest it in more commercial activity--home loans, business loans, etc. I think it is regrettable that so many people would stigmatize certain kinds of major commercial activity.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Sure. Sometimes.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
I disagree, even though the phrase "social responsibility" makes my teeth itch. And let's face it: A company has a clear and compelling legal and ethical responsibility to deliver a profit to its shareholders. I think it has other responsibilities, too, but those other responsibilities are usually too controversial and too poorly defined for companies to bother taking them very seriously.
The rich are too highly taxed.
I would say so. I strongly disagree with the philosophy that the way to get what you want is to find people who have more than you do, and take it away from them by force.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
I'd say that people should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If they can find a mad scientist who will cure their ills in exchange for ten million dollars, they should have the right to do business with such a mad scientist.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Yes. But not to the point where the public assumes it no longer has a responsibility to do its own due diligence and accept responsibility for its own business decisions.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
I get the feeling that these words are loaded with meanings I don't fully understand. I'm reluctant to answser this question, but at a guess, I'd say that a totally ("genuine"?) free market means a market free enough to allow monopolies. But maybe monopolies make the market no longer free? I'm not an economist, so I guess I should sit this one out.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Not so. A nation of slaves could still let those slaves compete freely among themselves for goods and services.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
I disagree, but only because absolutes like "always" in questionnaires like this make my teeth itch.
All authority should be questioned.
Yes. But don't forget how to recognize good answers when you get them.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Yes and no. The state, in pursuit of justice, should demand payment from criminals, in exchange for what those criminals have taken away. Individuals, in pursuit of peace, should seek forgiveness, grace, and mercy in all their dealings with individuals who have sinned against them. The family of the victim should forgive the murderer, and the state should execute him.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
I disagree. One of the state's most important roles in society is to encourage its citizens to produce great works of art and science. One way it does this is to fund institutions of art (and science), regardless of whether the public is particularly interested in these things. There are limits, of course.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
I'm not exactly sure what this means. If it means private schools, where enrollment is optional, then yes, classroom attendance should be mandatory. Can't be student if you're not attending the study sessions. Don't attend? Get a refund, get stricken from the list of students. If it means public schools, then yes, classroom attendance should be compulsory, just like school enrollment itself.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
It's often the case that like gets along better with like, and I generally have no problems with the formation of cliques and subcultures. But a little cross-pollination and inter-clique dialogue is a good thing, and should be encouraged.
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
Nah. A spanking from a good parent probably doesn't hurt (heh), but I'm pretty sure it's never strictly necessary.
It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Yep. It's also natural for children to sometimes piss their pants.
Marijuana should be legalised.
Yes. No. Maybe.
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
No. The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to think critically and apply the lessons of history to their daily lives. Do this, and the students will equip themselves to find jobs.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
I disagree. I regocnize that their children will probably be a burden on society, but a prosperous and charitable society should have no difficulty shouldering that burden, without interfering in the parents' right to decide for themselves if procreation is appropriate.
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
I'm not sure what really is the most important thing for children to learn, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it. It's probably in the top ten, though.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
Yes, and some cultures are more savage or civlized than others, producing people with the corresponding values. So I guess that's actually a "no".
Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
That's Fundamental Principle Number One, as far as I'm concerned.
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it's important to banish dark thoughts and focus on happy thoughts. Other times, it's the other way 'round.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
My father is a first-generation immigrant, and he's fully integrated. And yet he still maintains close ties with his homeland, and has worked there extensively on account of his affinity and understanding for the country of his birth (which he still feels proud of, in addition to feeling proud of the country of his choice).
What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Always? Probably not.
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
I disagree. A little public funding is part of government's role in promoting the arts and sciences. I draw the line at state-run television, though.
Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Excessively? No. I don't even think our civil conveniences are being excessively curbed by counter-terrorism.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
I believe that arguments that delay political progress is a sign of a well-designed democratic political system. A one-party state would short-circuit this design and allow the idealists to realize their ideals. This would have horrible consequences and should almost always be avoided.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
No. But the electronic age also makes it easier for the citizen to surveil its government, so the overall amount of worry should stay about the same over the centuries.
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Yes. A man takes something away from society, he should give something back. If he can't give back what he took, he should give everything he has. This is justice. Aside from promoting the arts and sciences, justice is one of the main points of having a government.
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
No, but I do think one will almost always find civlized societies organized in this fashion. It's practical and effective. It also accurately reflects the facts about human nature and the great variation in individual human personalities and capabilities
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Abstract art has been around nearly as long as representational art, I think. Art is art is art, and abstract forms open up new possibilities and ideas and beauties, that representational art does not.
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
Yes.
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
Hrm. Some criminals may never be rehabilitated, but I don't think it's ever a waste of time to try. I would rather see the rehabilitation efforts carried out by private charity, rather than the same state apparatus responsible for meting out justice.
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
No. All four are equally important.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Mothers? My short answer is "yes" (my long answer is a whole 'nother article, which I will try to write if anybody is interested). Women in general? No.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
Too many loaded words. I'm pretty sure this question is stupid and wrong and should not be answered. If I were forced to answer it, though (say, if I were filling out a questionnaire, and really truly cared about the results), I'd say "strongly disagree". Just because.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
Yes.
Astrology accurately explains many things.
No. Astrology depends entirely on coincidence and gullible minds.
You cannot be moral without being religious.
You can be moral without being religious. You probably can't give a compelling reason for being moral without being religious, though.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Have you seen the Social Security system? Anything would be better than that.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
It certainly appears that way.
It is important that my child's school instills religious values.
Not really, no.
Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
Oh, so NOW they use qualifiers like "usually", instead of absolutes like "always"? Anyway, yes.
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Tough call. On the one hand, I believe that the genders are complementary, and that society is best served by male-female pairs, each contributing their own unique gender qualities to the partnership. I also believe that children are best raised in an environment where they can see the two complementary genders each modeling their own complementary role in the family. I believe that a father and a mother provide a better child-rearing environment than two mothers or two fathers could, and that homosexual parents can't really compete with that (nor should they). On the other hand, a "stable, loving relationship" is a lot more than many hetero couples offer these days. That may actually more important than parental modeling of the complementary gender roles in society. I'd say, yes, homosexual couples in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
Yes.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Mostly yes. Obviously, black market arms deals or conspiracies to commit murder are the business of the state, no matter where they happen. Kinky sex? Probably best if the state stays out of it.
No one can feel naturally homosexual.
If the furry community is any indication, people can feel "naturally" almost anything.
It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.
Yes and yes. But then, there's different kinds of opennes, and different aspects of sex. Society has always been too open about sex in some ways, and not open enough in others. The good kind of openness is fine, the other kind... not so much.