Political Compass #19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them.

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are:
Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.

*Proposition #19: * Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Agree.

As with many of the propositions, one must draw some kind of arbitrary line here. Is a claim that such and such a product is “the best on the market” misleading? This would appear to unduly restrict the entire advertising industry to dry, falsifiable claims. (Tempting, I know!) On the other hand, outright fraud is simply illegal. In the UK the Trade Descriptions Act makes it a criminal offence for a trader to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements, or to knowingly or recklessly make such statements about services. Is this what is meant by “government penalty”?

Surely every government must have some Consumer Policy which prevents exploitation of the public? I’m afraid I cannot see anyone except a near-anarchist Disagreeing here, unless “government penalty” somehow does not refer to a criminal offence. If you feel I’m missing some important aspect, please enlighten me. As usual, accompanying your answer with your score provides useful context.

I would also tick Stongly Agree here, although “mislead” could be open to some interpretation.

For example, take an advertisement that claims “XYZ Magazine says our product is the best!”–not bothering to mention that XYZ Magazine’s journalism is on a par with The Weekly World News. It’s a true statement, yes, but you couldn’t trust it further than I could throw Ralph Nader. So, is it misleading?

Also, what should the punishment be: proactive (government actively seeks out misleading claims) or reactive (it’s up to the consumer to identify false claims)? IIRC in the UK the Advertising Standards Authority is a little more proactive than similar bodies in the US.

+7/-3

Agree.

Although I’ll echo the sentiments that “mislead” is a strange word to use. I’ll assume it means something stronger in Europe (where the test originated) than in the US. “Mislead” certainly can mean lie, deceive, defraud… but it is generally used in a much softer mode.

I’ll just say that I don’t see a problem with laws being passed that require some level of truth in advertising, especially if it could cause harm to individuals: “Buy our Rat Poisoning. It’s more nutrtitious for your kids than fruits and veggies!”

I don’t even know how to answer this. Does anything that could possibly constitute “misleading” mean government force? Gosh, that could include almost anything.

RickJay: Of course “Penalize” can mean just about anything, too. From sending the CEOs to jail, to giving the company a “B” rating instead of an “A” rating on some consumer watch list.

Again, Rick, this is probably best described as another “gut feel” proposition which was never intended to undergo rigorous analysis - I rather liked John’s characterisation of some propositions as more like a “Rorschach test”. Those who hold protection of the consumer as their primary concern might Strongly Agree, while those who wish to stress the importance of, say, voluntary codes of conduct might choose another option.

I would dearly like someone who didn’t tick Agree or Strongly Agree to check in and give their reasons.

I would think even the absolute libertarians would say that the government has a role in ensuring a fair marketplace.

I picked Strongly Agree. I was not thinking about puffery in ads or anything of the sort, but genuine attempts at deception. I wonder how effective this question is in determining the political bent of the testee - who would not agree?

[hijack]My favorite ad by Stan Freberg, even above the Great American Soup commercial with Ann Miller or the Sunsweet Pitted Prune ad campaign.

Magazine ad. Ten men in white coats face the camera. Nine are Asian, one is Caucasian. All are carrying stethescopes. The ad copy reads:

"Nine out of ten doctors recommend Chun King."

Regards,
Shodan

Strongly agree. You certainly could debate how much to penalize but intentionally misleading the public is grounds for some penalty.

Is this true? I thought that they would think that the free market would take care of this, that once the private watchdogs consumers hire found evidence of deception, that people would simply stay away from that business and it would fold?

This must be why the test doesn’t work for me. I think hard about questions before I answer them. :slight_smile:

So what’s Question #20?