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.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
Proposition #23: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
…makes the whole world ugly and blind. SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.
Civilisation has long since recognised that actual physical punishment belongs to the Middle Ages. More specifically, it has recognised that time, money or liberty are the only things that may legitimately be taken from an individual no matter what their crime. The very worst punishment which most industrialised democracies can sanction in good conscience is lifelong deprivation of liberty: those whose actions cause suffering or damage to society, no matter how barbaric, must simply be removed from society, perhaps for ever. They may still contribute via their labour, creative output or as a valuable subject for research into the human mind, but they may not interact with the outside world in any way which risks them repeating their crime.
“But what of the victims?” goes the standard cry. “Having been brutally deprived of an eye, tooth or loved one’s life, are they not entitled to want the same done to those responsible?”
Of course they are entitled to feel these visceral, all-too-human emotions. But whether such a destructive thirst for vengeance, understandable though it may be, should motivate the actions of a civilised state government is another matter entirely. I feel that revenge is neither a valid moral basis for state action, nor an effective deterrent. Once my passionate rage had subsided, I would hope that I could see the wisdom of government not encouraging those feelings I naturally fell prey to, whilst still doing its utmost to deter and prevent future crimes via alternative punishments.
And so, the judiciary attempts to match the severity of the crime with the severity of the punishment, but not the nature of the crime with that of the punishment. I believe that in all cases that severity can be matched solely by deprivation of liberty. To attempt to match the nature of the crime would be to fall prey to medieval sadism in the name of justice.
