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.
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. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.
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.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
***Proposition #22: * All authority must be questioned.
**
SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Agree.
The Open Society has many enemies: its best defence is a free press. And how can the press be said to be “free” if it cannot question authority at every turn?
Of course, if one were to pick on the “All” at the start of proposition #22, one could perhaps think of specific instances in which questioning authority might be undesirable or even dangerous, such as in the midst of combat or surgery, or interrupting a school lesson or an important meeting at work. But the important point would be that, even then, there should still be some mechanism whereby the authority could be forced to account for itself and explain its position (even if the answer proved unpopular), and that the questioning mechanism ought to be used regularly in order to continually reassess best practise and explain important decisions.
Such questioning is essential if we are to convince ourselves, let alone others, that a given course is correct. This is by no means “treason” or “disloyalty” as those lacking the patience and intellectual rigour necessary for such introspection might have us believe. Criticism is not merely denigration, nor continual objection, nor automatic disapproval. It comes from the Greek kritikos, meaning to judge. We must judge our authorities and attempt to find faults in order that they be corrected. In line with Popper’s doctrine of falsification, we must put our beliefs and principles to the test, see how they fare, and if necessary reject them for others more robust.
That is the essence of democracy. Any reduction in the questioning of authority is detrimental to democracy. Indeed, I believe that even reporting “good news” can lead to complacency - we must constantly strive to identify what is wrong with the world which could feasibly be addressed, rather than rest on our laurels and slap each other’s backs at how hunky-dory everything is (although there is ever the temptation of greener-looking grass: again, our comparisons and introspection must be earnest and rigorous, not impatient and reactionary).
All authority must be questioned, if only to confirm that the old answer hasn’t changed.
