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? [size=2]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. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)
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.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
[/size]
Proposition #37: What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Disagree.
Oh, to live in an ideal world, where “trickle down” actually worked, natural resources were inexhaustible and both society and the planet itself were invulnerable to any negative consequences of capitalism.
Unfortunately, I live on a planet called ‘Earth’ where what makes a corporation successful is not always “good for all of us”. Certainly, sometimes it is good for some of us. I would even say that it is usually good for most of us. But always, for all?
The principal issues appear to be [ul][li]The environment[/li][li]Public Safety[/li][li]Slave labour[/li][li]Sexism/racism/discrimination.[/li][li]Biodiversity[/li][li]Indigenous peoples[/ul]Now, one might say “Ah, but if the corporate decisions lead to violations of those principles, the corporation’s image (and thus ultimately success) suffers accordingly. In any case, most of those violations are against the law.”[/li]
This attempt to nigh define profitable corporate actions as good for all of us is, I feel, wishful thinking. The law is not uniform, globally speaking, and thus the countries where the law is weakest in some respect are most vulnerable to exploitation. And would that the global market of consumers were so visionary regarding the consequences of their purchases and so discriminating and well-informed of the corporations they were paying! It is simply not the case that a corporation which achieves success to the detriment of “all of us” as embodied by the above will necessarily suffer a consumer backlash.
Union Carbide was a successful corporation. In an attempt to maintain its success by minimising costs, it compromised safety protocols designed to prevent pressurisation of methyl isocyanate in its Indian plant and killed, maimed or blinded 50,000 people. Vast quantities of toxic waste have still not been cleared up, and still appear to affect the health of the people in the region.
Exxon was a successful corporation. In an attempt to maintain its success by minimising costs, it neglected to repair or replace the radar equipment on one of its ships, the Valdez, which effectively sailed without any radar for over a year. It crashed and spilled millions of gallons of oil onto over a thousand miles of Alaskan coastline. It is projected that ecological recovery will take 30 years.
In 2001, Union Carbide and Exxon became subsidiaries of the Dow Chemical Company, the producers of napalm and Agent Orange during the Vietnam war and one of the companies responsible for several ‘creeping dead zones’ worldwide from its pollution. It is the second largest chemical company in the world - how’s that for “successful”?
At the present rate of destruction the world’s rainforests will disappear during this century, yet multinational logging corporations like Rimbunan Hijau remain successful. Overfishing has depleted many stocks to below their critical biomass level, yet multinational fishing corporations like Mitsubishi remain successful. Sweatshop workers may be exploited throughout the developing world, yet multinational sports clothing companies like Nike and Reebok remain successful, somewhat appropriately winning the race to the bottom.
Sometimes, what is good for the most successful companies is not ultimately good for all of us. #37 is hopelessly dogmatic in its universals.