[PLUG-TALK] Rate Your Position on the Political Compass

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sat Jan 7 02:24:09 UTC 2006


On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Rich Shepard wrote:
>  I learned of this web site years ago, and discovered that it's still in 
> business. If you're curious where you are positioned on the 
> two-dimensional political compass, take the test here: 
> <http://www.politicalcompass.org/>.

This is some ignorant shit, I tell ya.

The "test" consists of a bunch of knee-jerk inspiring statements without 
any context or depth.  Each are rated as to whether the examined would 
"strongly disagree", "disagree", "agree", "strongly agree".

Consider these (found on the same page and just a tiny representation of 
the bullshit in this propaganda piece):

*  In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than 
rehabilitation.

First and foremost, imposed rehabilitation is still punishment.  In legal 
moral philosphy, punishment is typically defined in some way like "an evil 
inflicted upon an offender by an agency authorized by the offended 
institution".  Surely forcing someone to do something they don't want to 
do is an evil (violating the basic principle of freedom), so 
rehabilitation is punishment under some circumstances.

Second, any support of punishment (including punishment by imposed 
rehabilitation) is authoritarian.  No answer to this question can be 
perceived as libertarian.  Also, rehabilitation has been shown to cost 
punishing institutions about the same as other forms of punishment, so 
there can be no economic conclusions from this question.

*  It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

I don't even know what to make of this one.  To have a criminal, you need 
to have authoritarianism.  That aside, how does one rehabilitate a person 
who has committed an offense against the authority?  The offense is done 
and committed.  What does "rehabilitation" mean in this context?  If a 
person breaks their legs, you rehabilitate them by helping them to achieve 
their former quality of life.  What is it about committing a crime that 
prevents you from maintaining your former quality of life?  Is 
rehabilitation in this context merely the prevention of recidivism? 
Surely that can be done absolutely by committing greater and greater evils 
upon the criminal (death penalty, for example).  So is that 
rehabilitation?

What the fuck?

* The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the 
writer and the artist.

Writers and artists are manufacturers.  And a place like the USA where the 
market is pervasive, everyone is a "businessperson".

Again, what the fuck?

*  Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.

The first duty of any parent should be the care of their children.  That's 
a no-brainer.  But why just mothers and why "homemakers"?  Is this a 
question about sexism and duty to other members of the household besides 
the children?  If, like me, you believe that parents (be they mothers, 
fathers, or some other type) have a first duty to care for their children 
and that such care is best provided by ensuring that home is a nurturing, 
supportive place, then are you qualified as a sexist authoritarian by 
marking "strongly agree" or are you anti-family if you mark "strongly 
disagree" because you aren't a pig?

Of course, I also find this two-dimensional scale to be woefully lacking. 
First, this economic "left<-->right" dichotomy is absurd and not distinct 
from the "authoritarian<-->libertarian" axis.  One can either rigidly 
control markets (authoritarian) or open and free them (libertarian).  We 
see immediately that those things which are considered to be part of the 
marketplace are more or less arbitrary.  For example, edible food is (for 
the most part) a market element, but breathable air and (for the time 
being) potable water are not.  By allowing abundance and changing social 
values, we can remove things from the marketplace and make them like 
breathable air.  As a result, the freedom or restrictiveness of a given 
market may have absolutely no effect on the needs of the masses.  By 
encouraging abundance and allowing markets to fail (as Smith describes in 
Wealth Of Nations as a desired result), monied firms lose power over 
individuals and the potential for living outside tyranny is increased. 
It takes a whole lot of controls to prevent this kind of economic freedom 
(agricultural subsidies, military/prison-industrial complexes, the 
pseudo-martial law required to protect the property of the opulent, etc.).

Consider even a simple three dimensional system of logos, pathos, and 
ethos defined by, say, "liberalism<-->fundamentalism", 
"progressivism<-->conservatism", and "populism<-->elitism".

While this is also deeply flawed, at least you have separable concepts.

However, it doesn't make for a nice T/F test that can help you pigeon-hole 
your self-righteousness.

J.

PS.  Just southwest of my man Mohandas K.
-- 
    -----------------
      Jeme A Brelin
     jeme at brelin.net
    -----------------



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list