Political Compass #43: Society must have people above to be obeyed.

Great Debates
1

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. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below, not just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated), and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

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.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.
#40: One party states avoid delays to progress.
#41: Only wrongdoers need worry about official surveillance.
#42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes.
[/size]
**Proposition #43: In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.

Nonsense. One has laws to be obeyed, and those laws are essentially decided democratically, ie. by the people below. (One could even conceive of a society so civilised that “laws” were irrelevant historical relics, but I think that that is rather more esoteric a debate than #43 intended!)

This absurd appeal to hierarchy is, I believe, only in the test in order to identify those with a curiously Nietzschean, nay fascistic, approach towards authoritarian government. The dictator feeds on this “superman fetish”, convincing the gullible that sheer force of personality is all that is necessary to make things well. It is lapped up by all those with neither the patience nor the intellect to realise that might does not decide who’s right (on the contrary, it just decides who is left!).

I am not “commanded” by the policeman, nor the judge, nor the soldier, nor the politician, nor the monarch. We are, all of us (even they), commanded by the law.

2

7,15, -1,15

…when you look at the proposition with such philosophical glasses:

Disagree.
Neither are we commanded by the law, any law, or by any majority of people. Above all our own morality is what should command us. All laws are created by man, and thus imperfect. When a law is wrong it should be broken. When I teach my children about laws, I never forget to insert this disclaimer. The most important thing to know about law is that when you think they’re wrong, you should disobey them.

However I merely saw the proposition as stating that all civilized societies need certain hierarchies and authorities to function. Parent/child, school-teacher/pupils, manager/employees, general/soldier, SDMB Moderator/SDMB Charter Member. etc. And then I basically agree. Supposedly a communistic paradise doesn’t have any hierarchies or authorities. Well we all know how civilized any attempt to creat a such have been. Certain groups in the sixties and seventies tried to break down all hierarchies and remove authority, even that between child and parent (where children and parent relationships should be more like friends than any of authority) and teacher and pupil. This is certainly healthy to a degree, but not taken to extremis as denying all authority, always.

But there’s no denying that man’s ultimate moral authority is himself only – not the leaders, not laws, not democratic majorities. This is the central, all important, lesson the Nazis taught us, that must never be forgotten.

3

Agree, though it pains me to say so because of the vague nature of these questions. I can think of no worthwhile human endeavor that did not have leaders and followers.

What’s the difference between being forced to obey laws that are democratically decided and following people elected democratically?

I guess I just didn’t see the question as being quite so absolute.

You might say you’re being commanded by laws but those laws are enacted by human beings. So at the end of the day you’re still being commanded by people. What’s the difference between being commanded by 300,000,000 people and 300 people?

Marc

4

Because the people are irrelevant to the entity which I categorise myself as ‘obeying’, in the same way that my admiration for Gloucester Cathedral or Caerphilly Castle is different to admiring God or Edward II. The people are irrelevant to the institution.

5

Incidentally, MG, I haven’t got your score even though you are one of the most regular particpators in these threads (for which I am grateful) - what is it?

6

-5.62, -5.49

Agree.

Any sociologist or anthropologist will tell you that it is basic human nature to have leaders and followers. Any group of people will naturally gravitate toward either electing or allowing one person to be the “leader.”

Now, as to whether this is “moral” or “ethical” I make no judgement. I can only attest to it being an almost automatic function of society.

7

Well, again, Lissa, we might observe and report all we like on what “basic” human nature is and refuse to judge what is and is not ‘civilised’ (given that judging and criticising others certainly seems to be “basic human nature” to me, and thus cannot be wrong either to the non-judging observer.)

However, the proposition was that ‘people above to obey’ are necessary for civilised society. I argue that the ‘people’ aspect is unnecessary, and reducing every political proposition to behaviour which one might or might not find in a given group of proto-hominids is rather a non sequitur.

8

Can you explain how we have civilisation wihtout people “above” making laws, enforcing laws, and even interpreting laws? I understand that we can treat those people as interchangeable. Removing them and installing others. But your objection seems to be that we don’t need people in that position at all. Did I miss something?

Perhaps our view of this propostions is too colored by our relative freedom. I’m pretty sure I clicked disagree when I took the poll.

9

+7/-3

Strongly disagree. The proposition is appropriate for a military style organization, but is not descriptive of a modern democracy. The citizens are not “below” and they are not “commanded”.

Not really. There is a difference between “leading” and “commanding”.

10

Strongly disagree.

And agree with the tenor of SM’s comments. But lest anyone think we’re getting too pally, I wouldn’t echo his sentiments about laws:

I note the exclamation mark - and all the hedging - but feel this is too Utopian for comfort.

And such pie-in-the-sky thinking from a Karl Popper fan!

11

For what it’s worth, I am roughly -0.5, -2.0.

12

I put agree, but only because I believe that people naturally fall into hierarchical structures, and we would do so even if we were all “equal” intellectually, physically, economically, etc. I think it’s just human nature to organize ourselves in a hierarchical manner. I believe that it must be so because biology demands it, though I personally wish that were not the case. The question is very vague though.

(-7 social, -5 economic)

13

I am saying that the people themselves are irrelevant to the entity which I ‘obey’. In order to propose, interpret and enforce laws we (currently) need ‘people’, yes, but we also currently ‘need’ a stable oxygen atmosphere, buildings for those people and a whoel host of other peripherals without which society’s laws would not be possible. That is not to say that I obey the oxygen, or the buildings, or the people themselves.

14

Well, first my score: Economic 7.25, Social : -2.41

I strongly disagree with the questions as written. The reason are the word ‘commanded’ and ‘obeyed’. We will always have leaders and followers but those commanding, when they go astray, must be disobeyed.

Slee

15

Also, you’ll note, an Iain M. Banks fan (whose Culture series explores a vastly advanced and largely anarchic society) and furthermore an admirer of Rudolph Rocker (yes, a Popper and a Rocker: politico-musical eclecticism personified):

16

I disagree, for the same reason as sleestak. Which is along the lines of Sentient’s thinking (I think). It’s not so much the people you’re obeying - if they do wrong, it is right to disobey - but the code of conduct.

17

Economic: 3.62
Social Libertarial: -2.05
Though I suspect that could change depending on my mood when I take the test.

Marc

18

Well, I’m not sure this answers my question. Because my first instinct is to say that yse, you do. I understand there are other components to the government. but I don’t see that any of them has the same effect that the people do. I think I understand what you are trying to say. It is similar to the notion that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. But I think you are trying to emphasis it too much or in the wrong direction. I don’t think you can say that the people making, administering, and otherwise interpreting the laws do not rule the country. You have to say instead, IMHO, that the ruling people are bound by certain rules IYW which limit those aspects of life over which they have authority. But it seems silly to deny that they play no part, or to claim that their part is irrelevant.

I think, however, that I have misunderstood you. I think I agree with you. Your formulation of the point just sound odd to me. I suspect it is my own misunderstanding confusing me.

19

I don’t think society “must” have people above to be obeyed but I think societies tend towards a facisimile of that. I mean, we do obey the police officer, the judge, the political leader when they are commanding in their given jurisdiction of power.

But I think the question suggests a more “everyone has their place” fascist hint to it so that’s why I clicked disagree on the quiz.

Sure, we are technically just obeying the police officer because he’s enforcing laws that we passed by proxy but that doesn’t change the fact we do obey him.

20

I recently paraphrased G. K. Chesterton: