Thread: Who is who? Political Compass

The “right” theory believe, that peoples are very “mobile”, haw D. Medvedev say, they can manoeuvre, learn new profession, etc. The “free market” idea do not know the word fair, it knew the word balance, equilibrium price instead fair price. And of cause, it’s just a theory. I do not believe, that somebody can be absolutely “right”.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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?

This is not as outrageous as it seems at first glance. There are numerous examples of "justfied" actions by corporations/businesses that involve "murder" (except it's not called by this word). Historically, murder of union organizers or striking workers has been justified (see, for example, the Ludlow Massacre). Currently, similar tactics are used around the world (see any number of documentaries and reports by independent human rights watchdogs on, for example, activities of Canadian mining companies in Latin America). Similarly, irresponsible actions by corporations can result in deaths of people -- industrial accidents, environmental disasters etc. Do we call this murder to increase stock or just unfortunate occurences? The answer to that depends on where your loyalties lie. This is also a reason why corporations enjoy the status of legal persons -- this provides them with protections from liabilities, so you can't call it murder. Whether it is or not, again, depends on how you label it.

So, the question is not whether "murder" is justified, but how that bare fact of taking someone's life is couched in ideological terms or in ideological label(this is true for both left and right, to be fair).

So yes, execution can be seen as good for the society. Or it can be made to appear to be good for the society. The distinction again depends on where your loyalties lie. Again, this is true for both left and right. It is enough to label someone, let's say, "communist agitator" or "capitalist infiltrator" or "saboteur" or "terrorist" and it becomes not only socially acceptable but also "necessary".

To get to your hypothetical situation now. Sure, if the company can say that these people are harmful to the state of things (pick your ideological reason here), execution is "good". In theory, if a company keeps killing people for no reason or for "wrong" reasons, it won't be successful. The question that started our exchange was specifically referring to "successful" corporations. This is in line with social Darwinism -- Darwinism applied to society/economics.

This might not be a position I personally agree with (or you... I dont know), but this has been a major factor in the Western ideologies (of all kinds) since the 19th century.

The question is not whether "murder" as such is right or wrong. Or whether death penalty is morally justified. These are questions for philosophy. Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?

Originally Posted by quartz

Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?

Yes, I agree. Indeed, it's a question of where you stand. Presently, the collective agreement is that the 'justified murder' is only the state' prerogative and only whenever they are enforcing the laws (whichever they invent themselves in that way or another). A company is just a legal person and as such if we recognize their abilities to invent laws for themselves and justify that on their own, we, in fact, plunge the society into the state of anarchy. So, perhaps, some people would say it's good, but most of the people (whomever I call "sane") would respectfully disagree. Just compare the tone of the two questions:

1. "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
2. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea"

Why not say something like that: "The success of the corporations is fundamentally beneficial for the society." (Agree/Disagree). People would be able to relate to that much easier than to the "always right" stuff, wouldn't they?

And that was my whole point.

Originally Posted by DDT

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."

I can't believe this but for once I am going to agree with DDT here... I finally had a chance to take a look at the SIX page test... and I need options of "I DON'T KNOW" or "I DON'T CARE" or it's really "NONE OF MY DARN BUSINESS" for answers!! Can you please create one like that for me?

What I found interesting is that for my daughter's final term paper she actually wrote a very good argument as to why Lincoln's actions of freeing the slaves were morally correct and yet legally unjustifiable as he took "property" away from people without compensating them!! And yet how his suspending Habeas Corpus was justifiably correct! A 14 year old! Maybe she should be participating in these political forums???

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by quartz

Ideology is about the spin -- "justified murder", no?

Yes, I agree. Indeed, it's a question of where you stand. Presently, the collective agreement is that the 'justified murder' is only the state' prerogative and only whenever they are enforcing the laws (whichever they invent themselves in that way or another). A company is just a legal person and as such if we recognize their abilities to invent laws for themselves and justify that on their own, we, in fact, plunge the society into the state of anarchy. So, perhaps, some people would say it's good, but most of the people (whomever I call "sane") would respectfully disagree. Just compare the tone of the two questions:

1. "What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
2. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea"

Why not say something like that: "The success of the corporations is fundamentally beneficial for the society." (Agree/Disagree). People would be able to relate to that much easier than to the "always right" stuff, wouldn't they?

And that was my whole point.

About "state of anarchy"
I assume here you use the term "anarchy" in the "vernacular" sense -- chaos. Anarchy, however, is not equal to chaos as there are many varieties of anarchist philosophy, including anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy simply means absence of a government, but social order is still possible. Except it's achieved without centralised authority.

Quote from Wikipedia (although yes it's not a reliable scholarly source): "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics."

You can see leanings towards this in the US in such things as privatisation of some law enforcement and privatisation of the correctional system, where, absurdly, it is profitable for private companies if a country imprisons more of its own citizens. But that is another topic.

Someone to such extreme right as an anarcho-capitalist, the answer to question 1 is complete agreement. If you disagree, a little, there is the gradation down to "agree".

While I personally am on quite the opposide side of the spectrum, I would hesitate to call proponents of free market anarchism "insane". There are nuts on every point of any spectrum, and there are many highly intelligent people who advocate anarcho-capitalism.

I see what you are saying, but at the same time, if the question is made "comfortable", then the gradation of complete agreement and some agreement wouldn't be as meaningful. As it stands, I see both 1. and 2. as extreme positions (indicated by words like "ultimately" and "fundamentally"). If something is "fundamental" it is naturalised and universalised, no? So your rephrasing would be equally an extreme position.

Perhaps the question is then how do people understand these words in these contexts and how it inflects their understanding of the question/statement. But there is no way to use language "objectively" as anyone's perception of language (especially more abstract language) is inflected by their experiences, ideologies, level of education, cultural background, and so on and so on. That's another reason why a test like this is just a tool for general approximation but not an absolutely irrefutable measurement of anything.

Oh wow, I know that test, did it once... I too ended up with Gandhi and Mandela... left libertarian.

I do not have to do it. I know I'd be in the South-West corner.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

What I found interesting is that for my daughter's final term paper she actually wrote a very good argument as to why Lincoln's actions of freeing the slaves were morally correct and yet legally unjustifiable as he took "property" away from people without compensating them!! And yet how his suspending Habeas Corpus was justifiably correct! A 14 year old! Maybe she should be participating in these political forums???

She sounds recruit-able maybe she would like to join the Militia Movement?
If she would like any additional information about the Founding Documents or things like the 14th Amendment she can find some well written articles here, look for posts particularly by "Enforcer" or "Eagleclaw2".
https://unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/f ... y.php?f=40

Originally Posted by Hanna

@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun

Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Hanna

@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun

Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela?

You'd have learnt a great deal about being imprisoned.

I don't think the placement of politicians on this map really reflects their personal views. If they had passed this test personally I think their results would differ from those we see. I suspect that the base for their placement here were quotes from different speeches or books they (personally?) wrote.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Hanna

@Croc...
Your political buddy is Milton Friedman. Apparently he was very boring.... At least with Nelson Mandela and Castro I'd have a bit of fun

Hmm... the more I think about it the more I'm puzzled.. What kind of [a bit of] fun would you have with Nelson Mandela?

You'd have learnt a great deal about being imprisoned.

And you'd get to hang out with Bono!!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Кто же я??

Here's my result:

Fine. I suppose that's about where I really stand, but I'll take it as a rare incident. I basically don't believe in such "tests". As Crocodile has already mentioned, the questions are often biased and the result merely provokes a sarcastic smile.
But I'm glad I'm not at extreme ends!
1-How long does it take to establish firm political opinions? Once you're past your teens? Once you get a serious, full-time job? Once you get married?
2-Is it a good thing to have firmly established opinions on anything at all? And especially on a ticklish matter like politics? Is it safe to have fixed opinions only as long as you don't have the power to put them into action? How do you describe a good politician's mentality; stable or flexible?

Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative.
HATE nanny states. Fry murderers. O'Bama is an idiot (Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the whole political state sucks). Extremism in any form is wrong. I'm not going to pay for welfare queens (can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em). Yankees are better than Rebels/ Red Sox are better than Yankees. Be a nice guy is where religion shines / I'm right, your wrong is when religion fails. Take responsibility for your own actions.

I could go on.

Since I have worked in multinational corporations for a while, I can see that they are just as ruthless as socialism says; exploiting the third world, the environment, weak people in society and even their own employees.

I think it is multinational corporations that really run the world today (through lobbying, through their power in Washington, Brussels and with the backing of the US Army)

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Кто же я??

Еще чуть подальше в фиолетовый угол, и был бы Новодворской.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Кто же я??

Еще чуть подальше в фиолетовый угол, и был бы Новодворской.

Не, Баба Лера слишком далеко у края должна быть. Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.


Оказывается, я совпал по взглядам с Крокодилом.
Неплохая компания.

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.

Неужели Гоблина можно считать леваком?

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Оказывается, я совпал по взглядам с Крокодилом.
Неплохая компания.

Йо!

Originally Posted by BappaBa

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Как и Гоблин с его компанией. Только с другого края.

Неужели Гоблина можно считать леваком?

Скорее праваком. Но что он должен быть у верхней границы, это ведь очевидно?