Thread: Who is who? Political Compass

I didn't bother to waste my time taking the test because the questions are in most cases irrelevant to the truth. Who ever wrote the questions has presupposed the test taker to their version of what is political.
I am of the same political orientation as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams. You can call it what you want. I call it, "Touch my things and I will kill you."

Originally Posted by DDT

Touch my things and I will kill you

However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Originally Posted by DDT

Touch my things and I will kill you

However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.

I think he'd be in the upper right quadrant. DDT, indulge us!

[quote=почемучка][quote="mishau_":27inzd94][s:27inzd94][color=#BF0000]Surprizzed[/color][/s:27inzd94] [color=#0000FF]Surprised at[/color] how much in common I have with some forum dwellers here despite numerous [s:27inzd94]heat[color=#FF0000]ing[/color][/s:27inzd94] [color=#0000FF]heated[/color] debates. [/quote]

Хотя было много политических споров на этом форуме, я думаю, что все согласились, что зимой отопление хорошо. [/quote:27inzd94]
Both surprised how and surprised at how are acceptable ([url="http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic12085.html#33834"]http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopi ... html#33834[/url]).

Heating debates at BBC

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Any “yes” will move you to the left.

I think it's also not about helping or nor helping those in need, but more like how it should be done. Should you pay less taxes and contribute directly to the causes you find right, or you give everything to the government and let them decide. Any "yes - I believe the bureaucrats know better than me" will move you to the left, and any "no - I think I know better" to the right.

But, even that kind of "yes" would be ok as long as the questions are fair. But look at the following questions:

1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.

Please, tell me what sane person would reply "strongly disagree" to that?! That question is absurd! But answering "agree" would move you to the left.

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

That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.

That's what I meant by mentioning the questions are biased. Many people would find themselves more on the left than they actually are. And if the test is given to the young audience (perhaps it's primarily target), I think it can influence the young minds convincing them (as though from their own experience) they are actually on the left before they realize where they are really.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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

That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.

Actually, they would. Unless you are saying that people on the economic right are insane...?
That is the essence of neoclassical economics and their most famous proponent, Milton Friedman. The only social responsibility of business is to pursue profit. Only the strong ones survive (Darwinism applied to economics). This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
Check out "Cato Institute". They support that statement wholeheartedly and they have major influence on public policy in the states.

Originally Posted by quartz

This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).

All I was saying the audience should be familiar with the interpretation before being asked that question "as-is". There are lots of other conditions that should be fulfilled prior to that sentence being useful. For example:

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

I can also interpret that as if a corporation wants to become successful, it is allowed to break the law. It is the "always" that is wrong. That's why no sane person (be him on the utmost right) would agree to that saying as-is.

Here's another absurd question: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."

Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.

A company does not have ANY social responsibilities. Whatsoever. People do.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by quartz

This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).

All I was saying the audience should be familiar with the interpretation before being asked that question "as-is". There are lots of other conditions that should be fulfilled prior to that sentence being useful. For example:

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

I can also interpret that as if a corporation wants to become successful, it is allowed to break the law. It is the "always" that is wrong. That's why no sane person (be him on the utmost right) would agree to that saying as-is.

Here's another absurd question: "The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders."

Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.

A company does not have ANY social responsibilities. Whatsoever. People do.

In a free-market economy as understood by neoclassical economists, *always* is right. If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference. So yes *always*. (Besides, in such conception of economics, the role of goverment in creating laws is severely limited but this is beside the point)
And that is not absurd -- because in current economy, a corporation is a legal person. Look at any corporate PR which speaks of social responsibility, corporate citizenship, etc. If corporation is legally a person, it is not absurd to ask what kind of a person should it be? Does it have any responsibilities a person should have? Read what Milton Friedman wrote on this. The argument is not that it doesn't have any responsibilities, but rather that pure pursuit of profit is a social responsibility because self-interest will generate social good.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Say, if a homeless person would try to walk through the doors of the Most Socialist of All Socialist Republics Government building, he would not be allowed in to have his sleep inside the warm building on a cold night just as he wouldn't in the headquarters of the Most Capitalistic of All Capitalistic Corporations.

Yes, of course, that is very true.

I wonder what would happen if the homeless person went to "the most Christian of all Christian Churches" instead? According to its' own scripture, it MUST help him! Jesus repeats over and over that people must be charitable towards the poor, etc.
But really, what would the church do? I am not really sure, and it probably varies depending on the circumstances...?

At the "Most Socialist..." government building, in THEORY the staff should refer the homeless person to the emergency social services shelter, where he could spend the night, prior to getting an emergency appointment to assess his accomodation needs....

I think that would happen in Scandinavia at least. They could hardly throw the man out on the street, in the middle of the WINTER. He could freeze to death! They would say "you cannot stay here, you have to go to the emergency social welfare shelter" at XX street".

Most of the homeless people there have had plenty of opportunities to get off the street; there are LOTS of programs to help such people. Some such people get sent to mental hospitals.

This place would take care of the homeless person if he went there:

Originally Posted by quartz

If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference.

That is technically impossible. Because who is establishing the law? The free market?

Originally Posted by quartz

And that is not absurd -- because in current economy, a corporation is a legal person. [...] If corporation is legally a person, it is not absurd to ask what kind of a person should it be? Does it have any responsibilities a person should have?

Exactly!! It's a legal person! Therefore, the law (which is established and enforced by the states) makes the corporations responsible when they break the law. But the corporations are governed by the persons who have or do not have any social/moral/religious/ethical/etc. obligations.

Originally Posted by quartz

Look at any corporate PR which speaks of social responsibility, corporate citizen, etc.

That does not enforce the board of directors making the so-called 'non-predatory' decisions that might hurt the value of the corporation.

Originally Posted by Hanna

At the "Most Socialist..." government building, in THEORY the staff should refer the homeless person to the emergency social services shelter, where he could spend the night, prior to getting an emergency appointment to assess his accomodation needs....

So, you're saying there are no service shelters in the US? I know there are in Canada (which is not a socialist state), but there are still homeless people.

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Originally Posted by DDT

Touch my things and I will kill you

However, what could you say about social equality, protectionism, government’s responsibility for economics? Should a government control market and market’s players or they can find balance singly; should a government subsidize theaters or they must be compensated without any help? Any “yes” will move you to the left.

I would say "no". But in reality even a people getting together to create any government is a "move to the left."

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Звездочёт

Any “yes” will move you to the left.

I think it's also not about helping or nor helping those in need, but more like how it should be done. Should you pay less taxes and contribute directly to the causes you find right, or you give everything to the government and let them decide. Any "yes - I believe the bureaucrats know better than me" will move you to the left, and any "no - I think I know better" to the right.

But, even that kind of "yes" would be ok as long as the questions are fair. But look at the following questions:

1. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.

Please, tell me what sane person would reply "strongly disagree" to that?! That question is absurd! But answering "agree" would move you to the left.

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

That is another absurd statement beautifully portrayed in "Catch-22". No sane person would agree to that saying as-is. But answering "disagree" would move you to the left.

That's what I meant by mentioning the questions are biased. Many people would find themselves more on the left than they actually are. And if the test is given to the young audience (perhaps it's primarily target), I think it can influence the young minds convincing them (as though from their own experience) they are actually on the left before they realize where they are really.

Exactly!
I read the first few questions and dismissed the whole thing as a farce.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, you're saying there are no service shelters in the US? I know there are in Canada (which is not a socialist state), but there are still homeless people.

No I did not say that there are no service shelters in the US, because I don't know anything about it. The United Kingdom has no such service though.

I am just happen to know the basic social welfare law in Sweden, and that is that a person has a right to get a bed in a state run shelter if he turns up sober, before a certain time in the evening. It's a very unusual situation though - but if someone should find himself in that situation, that is his right as a citizen. The shelter will then try to find a better situation for the person so he does not end up staying there permanently.

I have no idea whether the US has any similar laws or not. My impression is that most welfare in the USA is charity based though, and not tax based.

...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by quartz

If the company is doing something like breaking the law, the free market will act as a corrective. There is no need for any governmental/societal interference.

That is technically impossible. Because who is establishing the law? The free market?

I recommend reading some basic introductory texts to poli-sci or economics. Especially chapters on free market economy.

And I will gladly continue this debate, if you provide an argument. Because, yes, once again, in a pure free-market economy (which doesnt exist currently and you can debate on whether it can exist) creation of laws is guided by, you guessed it, the market. That is what "deregulation", "laissez-faire", etc, means.

cheers.

Originally Posted by Seraph

Originally Posted by quartz

That is the essence of neoclassical economics and their most famous proponent, Milton Friedman. The only social responsibility of business is to pursue profit. Only the strong ones survive (Darwinism applied to economics). This pursuit of profit or self-interest is ultimately good for the whole society (and that kind of free market economy is the sole source of good).
Check out "Cato Institute". They support that statement wholeheartedly and they have major influence on public policy in the states.

There are errors in this, and it is known where there are. Unless the definitions of what 'good for society as a whole' means includes input from all parts of society, then it is not possible to have a meaningful conversation about it. There is an obvious false syllogism going on where-by the debate is controlled by factions that provide definitions from their self interest, and exclude input from others.

There are several errors in neo-classical economics. It is necessary to inspect political agendas, political process, corporate agendas, and tax policies, to name just a few, in order to see what is really going on, and it ain't in society's interest at all. Just the interest of a small extremely powerful faction. The Cato institute is not speaking for everyone.

Remember, neo-classical economics do not represent all economists.

Neo-classical economics is not my personal economics of choice, so to speak. The point however is that if you accept the premises of such an argument, the conclusion is rational. There is nothing "insane" in that belief.
I think we would agree on that.

...

Let's agree that this "test" is just an approximation and not a definitive map of you or anyone else. Take it for what it is.

I would be more upset if some online test told me that, based on my responses, I'm most likely a fan of "Sex and the City" or, even worse, "The Bachelorette".

Originally Posted by quartz

I recommend reading some basic introductory texts to poli-sci or economics. Especially chapters on free market economy.

So, let me ask one extreme question and I'll let it go. If the board of directors of a company has decided to execute ten people they think decrease the value of their stock, could that ever be considered something ultimately good for the society?