Political Compass mega thread 2011

gandalf

Interesting, it is skewed towards the US definition of Left and Right.

Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26



However I will be giving FG my first preference.

NSNO

nesf wrote: »

Um, do they? Definitely younger people do but there's still quite a lot of conservatives amongst the older generations uncomfortable about the issue or who just plain don't care whether it's legislated for or not.



You're making the mistake of looking at them as if they were absolutes. One can be centrist while holding some hard liberal views and some hard conservative views. Not everyone is simply all liberal or all conservative. It's the balance of your views and whether you overall trend liberal or conservative that matters not your view on a single issue that defines you.

67% support gay marriage

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0915/1224278900109.html



I still think that the poll puts too much stock into issues that we in Europe are generally more liberal to as opposed issues that truly divide us on that axis such as attitudes to European Federalism etc.

nesf

NSNO wrote: »

67% support gay marriage

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0915/1224278900109.html

Just one poll though. Also the kind of issue which would be prone to PC answers being given in a poll but not necessarily people voting that way in a referendum.

NSNO wrote: »

I still think that the poll puts too much stock into issues that we in Europe are generally more liberal to as opposed issues that truly divide us on that axis such as attitudes to European Federalism etc.

I'm not sure how European Federalism would play to be honest because both the extreme left and extreme right oppose it (for different reasons) and much of the centre left and centre right are divided on the issue. It's not a clearcut social or economic issue but an extremely complex issue not limited to ideas of political nationalism, economic nationalism, economic/social competition on policy and other areas.

Pete M.

Interesting alright.

and Wow! Whole lot of Anarcho-Syndicalists knockin round.

nesf

NSNO wrote: »

I agree that the test is useful when comparing two people. I'd still prefer if someone did a more European-focused test. Unlike America, many of the central tenets of social democracy are accepted even by our rightist parties. Trade unionism, universal health provision and generous benefit systems highlight this.

Sorry, I should have addressed this point. The fact that FG/FF/Lab are on the right highlights how international a test this is. If the centre was based on American politics all three would be on the left. Outside of the US social democracy in some form is the norm with heavy engagement with unions typical, universal healthcare supported by every party regardless of left or right and the argument on benefits isn't about minimising them but making them work better at getting people back to work.

The US is the odd one out in the West on these three issues and it's hard to find people on the right in Europe who don't subscribe to some of the major tenet of social democracy, they just have different ideas about how to achieve them. As an example, I believe in universal healthcare I just believe it should be provided by the private sector not the public sector, I believe in generous benefits systems so long as the incentives within them encourage people to stay on them for the shortest period possible before going back to work, so I'd favour cutting benefits for the long term unemployed who refuse training while arguing to give good benefits to the recently unemployed. Trade unions I'm not a fan of at all in the public sector and I'd love to see large mega-unions abolished but I think small single company unions can work well but mainly I believe that we're better off with employee protection legislation than mass unionisation because all workers benefit from said legislation rather than the narrow group that benefit under unionisation.

Eliot Rosewater

The last time I did this test I was amongst college friends. One girl's response was "really?" I'm generally not quite as, well, cornered as Permabear, but I'm certainly in that direction.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

Very heartening to see so many fellow lefties anyway.

RayM

Just out of interest, did anybody 'agree' or 'strongly agree' with either of the following questions?

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

Wolfe Tone

I hope not!

takun

Odd though how far removed from ALL of our political parties most people here appear to be.

Still, I am ok with being more or less with Gandhi. Interesting that there is no one so far in the top half.

Kinski

RayM wrote: »

Just out of interest, did anybody 'agree' or 'strongly agree' with either of the following questions?

I'd imagine some did. I just want to know if anyone 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with this proposition:

Astrology accurately explains many things.

I suspect it increases your authoritarian score. People who take horoscopes seriously are all crypto-fascists!

Indigo Sunrise

I was in the middle of the green square when I did this a year or two ago, though I wasn't really interested in politics at that time. I vaguely considered myself to be somewhere on the left, but now I'm leaning towards libertarianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

evercloserunion

I strongly agreed. Companies are not NGOs or charities, even though they are often confused with them. They exist to profitably carry out their enterprises, nothing more.

Do you disagree with, for example, employee/environmental protection regulation then?

Again, I strongly agreed. Corporations are only successful when they are producing or supplying products or services that people need, so their success is an index to the benefits they provide for all of us. When companies are successful, they generate profit, which enables corporations to expand, invest, provide employment, conduct research and development, bring new products and ideas to market, and do other things that we generally agree are "good for all of us." (You cannot put "people before profit," because people can only benefit from profits that have been made.)

What about monopolistic or near-monopolistic firms? Preventing them from abusing their market dominance might be worse for them than allowing them to exploit it at the expense of consumers, but it is arguably better for society.

I strongly disagreed. Your answer to this question reveals a lot about your attitude toward power and authority. Someone who believes in astrology essentially has faith that an unexplained cosmic force is controlling his personality, life, and destiny. Such a person will probably be more likely to submit to a totalitarian political authority than someone who believes that her life is shaped by her own free choices.

This is possibly a cause of the left/libertarian-leaning bias of the results, because surely virtually everyone disagrees with this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

evercloserunion

Not necessarily—but a social responsibility is not the same thing as a responsibility to comply with the law. We might feel, for instance, that because McDonald's peddles French fries and greasy hamburgers for profit, it has a social responsibility to fund campaigns that promote healthy lifestyle choices. If McDonald's doesn't do this, it will not be in breach of the law, but may be accused of lacking a sense of social responsibility.

Laws like employee and environmental protection legislation reflect a belief that corporations have a social responsibility to protect these interests. Legal responsibility is not born out of nowehere, nor does it come about for no reason.

Some social responsibilities attain legal force through legislation, others don't. Believing that a corporation's only social responsibility is to deliver a profit to its shareholders means rejecting the idea that corporations have social responsibilities corresponding to those enshrined in the legislation.

Some companies are so-called natural monopolies, meaning that competitors cannot profitably enter the marketplace and that the consumer is best served by the existing firm. To break up a natural monopoly would put the consumer at a disadvantage. Monopolies which are not natural monopolies, and which are not backed by the power of the state to prohibit competition, will be broken down over time by the market. Even if the government had not intervened, Microsoft would not have been able to hold on to its advantage indefinitely. Other companies (Apple, Google) and technologies (open-source, mobile technologies) were always going to threaten its position.

I'm not sure I buy that, in all cases at least. Undoubtedly some natural monopolies can be broken down over time by the market. But where a dominant firm controls access to essential facilities or resources which it denies to potential competitors, or engages in practices like predatory pricing to foreclose the market, surely there is potential for a monopoly to continue past the point where it is most beneficial for consumers.

Following from this, a similar question to the above; do you disagree with the existence of competition regulation in (in particular) the EU and US? It seems to me that you must if you believe that the interests of large corporations and the interests of society are always aligned.

C14N

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So if they chop down a rain forest and destroy a natural habitat in the name of making money, that's okay for them? Or if they use child labour to further their profits?

I did agree with this question but not strongly. I know companies need to make money and that it's really their main purpose, but at the same time they are made up of people who should have a conscience.

nesf

RayM wrote: »

Just out of interest, did anybody 'agree' or 'strongly agree' with either of the following questions?

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

I agreed with it because that's how SMEs should work. In general, what's good for business in a free market is good for society because the price mechanism and competition. Think of it in terms of the market for shoes, the price mechanism helps consumers buy the quality level they want and competition means companies have a very strong incentive to give us good shoe experiences because it'll mean repeat business. This doesn't apply to all markets, the housing market is an example of a market that requires heavy enough regulation due to the one-off nature of both sales and purchases in general and the externalities involved in building a house but in general for broadly traded goods like food, shoes, nails, clothes etc the company's interests align with consumer interests for the most part so long as there is competition in the market place.

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

I agreed with this for a variety of reasons. The first is as above, company interests and consumer interests align so long as there is competition in the market because companies to be successful need to provide consumers with what they want. The second reason is that a successful company gives a lot back to a country by a) creating jobs either of the mass employment variety or the low numbers, high wages variety and b) through taxation of said company. We want our industries to be successful because through the jobs and taxes they provide we can afford social schemes like universal healthcare and the welfare state. Without successful business we don't have the money to fund the State.

Yes, one can come up with individual cases where a business' success was not in the interests of the State at large but these tend to be exceptions and the average successful business in this country is a net benefit for the State and its people, it's just we barely notice them. Think of all the successful shops, export businesses, hotels etc et al that provide jobs and taxes for our State to see how business interest coincides with national interest in general. This isn't an argument for zero regulation or zero taxation of business but it is an argument for fostering a pro-business environment with regulation that is not burdensome (not not necessarily "light touch" either).

Colmo52

Ec -3.12,
Soc -2.82

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Same as one year ago.

Catsmokinpot

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

except i wont be voting socialist or greens.

i think the survey needed a "neither agree nor disagree" "both agree and disagree" option for some

Newaglish

I remember doing this test before and I don't think it's changed at all. The main problem being that unless your a neo-conservative religious homophobe there's no way you're going to come out as authoritarian or right wing on that chart. So everyone ends up in the bottom-left quadrant.

Edit: Also, because the quiz isn't region specific, it's impossible for it to be accurate. One question is "Are the rich taxed too highly" or somesuch. I mean, I could like in some sort of super communist 100% tax country, or I could live in, say, America. Your answer has to be specific to your country, which isn't accounted for by this test.

redz11

Kinski

Newaglish wrote: »

One question is "Are the rich taxed too highly" or somesuch. I mean, I could like in some sort of super communist 100% tax country, or I could live in, say, America.

It's only supposed to be useful for those living in Western democracies.

Newaglish

Kinski wrote: »

It's only supposed to be useful for those living in Western democracies.

True, but even so; there's a huge difference between Ireland, Luxembourg, the UK, the US, Canada, Germany etc.

nesf

Newaglish wrote: »

One question is "Are the rich taxed too highly" or somesuch. I mean, I could like in some sort of super communist 100% tax country, or I could live in, say, America. Your answer has to be specific to your country, which isn't accounted for by this test.

Nah but when you think about it it's fairly telling as questions go. A hard right or hard left person will answer strongly agree or strongly disagree respectfully almost regardless of country you're in with centrists answering agree or disagree depending on leaning. Yes you'll get some difference country to county but generally speaking whether you think the rich are taxed too much or not comes down to your political stance and general outlook on whether wealth should be heavily redistributed rather than a country specific question.

ei.sdraob

Ugh oh should I be worried, it seems i moved to the Left in 3 weeks :P

phantom_lord

+6.19 right
+5.47 libertarian