http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Published on September 20, 2006 By stutefish In Blogging
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.

Comments
on Sep 20, 2006
Excellant!  I think I am about 85% Stutefish.  As it is long, would you mind if I copy and pasted and then answered the questions?  Dont want to bore your audience!
on Sep 20, 2006
Not at all, Guy! copy/paste to your heart's content.

But feel free to discuss your answers or mine here, as well.
on Sep 20, 2006

But feel free to discuss your answers or mine here, as well.

Good show!  Will be back in the am! Ahem. My wife is meowing.

on Sep 21, 2006

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

To Stutefish's answer I would just emphasize that should my country go wrong, I would work with others in my country to set things right again.  But I would not make a point of trashing in other countries.

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

All races have many superior qualities.  Together, all races make man the unique creature on the planet that it is.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Individually, perhaps.  But nations do not have friends, just an intersection of interests at times.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

I would add that often people confuse class with income status.  America is a classless society.  It was built that way.  There are no lords, ladies, dukes or Barons.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

I would add that while Unemployment affects the few, inflation affects all.  And that is what makes it the greater evil.

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Bottled water is not "basic".  It is a luxury.  And while not every river and stream is free from polution, almost everyone in the nation has access to clean drinking water that does not come in a bottle.  It is their choice whether to avail themselves of tap water, or pay more for bottled water.

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Land is a limited resource.  Just as oil, Water, and air are limited resources.  As such, the only way to put a value on it, and thus an incentive to maintain it, is to be able to buy and sell it.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

Very few times, but yes, sometimes.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

The ONLY social responsibility is to deliver a profit to its shareholders.  But like all things, if the company abuses the community and customers, it is not fulfilling its responsibility.  From the sole responsibility, all other actions of a company flow.

The rich are too highly taxed.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

No.  It requires restrictions when monopolies are created.  But if you invent a new widget, you get a patent on it, you have just created a monopoly for the life of that patent.  That is not a bad thing, but government has to assure you do not abuse that monopoly.

The freer the market, the freer the people.

While that sounds nice, the truth is that is not a truism as Stutefish pointed out.  As a GENERAL rule, it is true.

Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

I dont like the absolute either, but my beliefs dictate that the baby did not do anything to merit capital punishment.  Therefore I agree.

All authority should be questioned.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

I agree.  If a theater or museum cannot garner sufficient support from the community that supports it, then it is either not doing its job well enough, or the community has not placed a high enough value on that endeavor to warrant the necessary support. An example is Symphonies.  Very few get public money, yet many exist as the patrons pay and donate to maintain them.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

For adults, no.  For children, yes.  Children are learning to make decisions.  They are not at the point they know how to make them yet.

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Violent Criminals?  Yes.  All others should at least interact so that the synergism can take place.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Remove the Have to.  Good parents may at times spank their children.  Have to indicates a mandate, and there are none in parenting when it comes to discipline.

It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Marijuana should be legalised.

Yes.

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

No, the most important thing for a child to learn is that life is not fair.

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

Genetically, true. 

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

False.  While I am 3rd or later generation American, I am reminded of the first female Space Tourist.  I would say she is very well integrated.

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Absolutes are always wrong.

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

I agree.

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

"One party State" and "democratic political system" are contradictory.

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

From the government?  Perhaps.  But everyone should be worried since the government is the least of your worries when it comes to ID theft.

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

No.

In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

One peson should not set the definition of what art is.

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.

Again an absolute.  It would depend on the crime.

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Yes.

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.(Except about writing the article part)

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

It depends on the establishment.

Astrology accurately explains many things.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

You cannot be moral without being religious.

You can be moral without being religious.

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

True.

Some people are naturally unlucky.

Just as some appear to be naturally lucky.  It is literally "the luck of the draw".

It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

Never, unless it is a seminary school.

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Unsure.

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

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.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

No one can feel naturally homosexual.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.

It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.

Would not change a word of Stutefish's answer.