So, sapply values is another political compass test. It tries to compensate for the inherent lib left bias of the other test. I don't like it as much as it tends to separate the libertarian and social issues axes from each other, leaving the "libertarian" axis to largely favor issues championed by RIGHT libertarians (basically anti government sentiment), but let's see how I do on this one. It's shorter than I thought it would be so I decided to answer this one too.
All industry and the bank should be nationalised.
Strongly disagree. That's tankie nonsense. I, at best, would support nationalizing only industries with significant market failures like education and healthcare. Nationalizing the whole economy is insane.
Without democracy, a society is nothing.
Kind of a weird statement but I cant disagree with it. Without democracy, society is authoritarian and unjust. Strongly agree.
The government should be less involved in the day to day life of its citizens.
Agree with the general sentiment, but I do believe in things like safety nets and healthcare and regulating stuff that NEEDS to be regulated. But yes, in principle, minimal intervention beyond its socially required purposes. Agree.
Transgender individuals should not be able to adopt children.
Strongly disagree, let them adopt who they want.
An individual's body is their own property, and they should be able to do anything they desire to it.
This is where I have issues with this particular test sometimes. I mean, should you be able to sell your organs? Should you be able to work and sell your labor at exploitative rates? Clearly the answer is no.
HOWEVER, backtracking and thinking in terms of general sentiment, I do inherently believe in self ownership, and Karl Widerquist supports a variation of it in his ideology. So...agree, but NOT strongly agree. Some limitations apply.
Freedom of business is the best practical way a society can prosper.
I mean, you need SOME business freedom, I don't support socialism. But at the same time, i clearly support very strict limits on this economic freedom to avoid things like exploitation and abuse and polluting the environment. Mixed (since this test gives you that option).
The harder you work, the more you progress up the social ladder.
Is this asking as a descriptive statement or a moral statement? Descriptively this is nonsense. Morally, there is SOME inherent justice to the idea. Even as an anti work guy, I do believe that we need some kind of reward structured tied to work to motivate people to do it, but I don't think that's what it's asking.
As an actual descriptive statement, this is largely nonsense. Disagree.
The current welfare system should be expanded to further combat inequality.
UBI, medicare for all, free college, expanded housing, absolutely. Strongly agree.
Parents should hold absolute power over their children, as they are older and more experienced.
I know I expressed some rather authoritarian statements toward children and obeying their parents in the political compass test, but this kind of statement is extreme and absolutist. Abusive parents exist. Absolute power, no, definitely not. Strongly disagree.
In times of crisis, safety becomes more important than civil liberties.
I mean, to some extent? I can see being more flexible during times of emergency and doing things we wouldn't do otherwise, but it should be done in a rather limited and temporary way. And some lines should never be crossed.
Like, after 9/11, we did a lot of unsavory things like the patriot act and torture, and yeah, i actually strongly disagree with such things. But then more recently we had covid shutdowns. And I actually did support the lockdowns and masking up and trying to make people vax up. I guess it's contextual and depends on the individual situation. Neutral/unsure.
A person should be able to worship whomever or whatever they want.
Strongly agree. Really big on religious freedom.
Authority figures, if morally correct, are a good thing for society.
Who says what a morally correct authority figure is? Do I support authoritarianism just because I support the authoritarian? No. Disagree.
Two consenting individuals should be able to do whatever they want with each other, even if it makes me uncomfortable.
Agree. But no mein teil level crap (sexual cannibalism, since this is the second time i made this reference).
Unless you're doing permanent and irreversible bodily harm to each other, i would say strongly agree, but given that precondition, just agree.
Wages are always fair, as employers know best what a worker's labour is worth.
HAHAHAHA.
Employers would use slavery if they could get away with it. Strongly disagree.
Sometimes it is right that the government may spy on its citizens to combat extremists and terrorists.
Only with a warrant showing probable cause. Disagree.
Only the government can fairly and effectively regulate organisations.
Agree. Not big on self regulation and it never works.
Laws based on cultural values, rather than ethical ones, aren't justice.
Strongly agree. Cultural values are arbitrary and generally BS.
Gender is a social construct, not a natural state of affairs.
I mean, a lot of it is socially constructed, but I think some of it is natural too.
Neutral.
Communism is an ideal that can never work in practice.
Not sure about the absolutism as maybe just maybe there is that one form of communism that has never been tried under certain conditions, but generally agree.
Strength is necessary for any government to succeed.
I mean technically yes. Agree.
Homosexuality is against my values.
I dont have values either way. Do what you want. Which i guess means strongly disagree.
Economic inequality is too high in the world.
Billionaires exist, there are starving children in africa, there are children working in sweatshops in Bangladesh....uh...yeah. Strongly agree.
"Exploitation" is an outdated term, as the struggles of 1800s capitalism don't exist anymore.
This is complicated one from me. The struggles of 1800s capitalism still exists. Especially in the third world. but even in the first the forces are still the same.
HOWEVER, I consider marxism and marx's exact idea of exploitation to be a dated interpretation of the concept. Remember how I consider marxism a 19th century ideology and how we need a 21st century ideology built on different principles? Yeah.
So...I do agree exploitation as marx defines it is outdated, as marxism is outdated, but I don't really think it's because the inherent struggles dont exist any more. I just think that marxism is dogmatic, i dont agree with its exact framing of the issue, and I go a different way.
So...neutral/unsure.
It is "human nature" to be greedy.
I mean to some extent yeah, although the extent to which are are under capitalism is likely due to the environment and upbringing.
Agree.
A government that provides for everyone is an inherently good idea.
Hell yeah. But it should be done under more libertarian principles, meaning a UBI and some other social services covering the basics. Not full on communism or something. Strongly agree though.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
What an authoritarian statement, strongly disagree.
Nudism is perfectly natural.
I mean, it is, but i wouldn't want people to just go around nude in our society given the sexual connotations associated with it.
Still, I technically agree with the statement so agree.
Taxation of the wealthy is a bad idea, society would be better off without it.
Hell no. Tax the rich at the highest sustainable level and redistribute wealth to everyone in the form of a UBI and other social services. Strongly disagree.
State schools are a bad idea because our state shouldn't be influencing our children.
Disagree. While state indoctrination is one thing to consider, I don't want you teaching your kids creationism, Karen.
The police were not created to protect the people, but to uphold the status quo by force.
I would normally go by neutral as both interpretations are valid, but after the Uvalde thing and how they basically said that police don't have a duty to protect people so you have to wonder what the police are for then.....so...agree.
Thanks lazy cops in Uvalde. You literally shifted my opinion on this issue.
Autonomy of body extends even to minors, the mentally ill, and serious criminals.
Strongly agree. No exceptions.
Drugs are harmful and should be banned.
Drugs are harmful, and I wouldn't make all of them full on legal, and I do support restricting them in some ways, but the war on drugs is a failure and I largely believe in people being able to do what they want. I'd decriminalize drugs at least. So agree.
Mandatory IDs should be used to ensure public safety.
I don't understand this obsession with mandatory IDs. Strongly disagree.
One cannot be moral without religion.
Strongly disagree. Humanism is literally built on the idea of being "good without God."
Society requires structure and bureaucracy in order to function.
I mean to some extent yeah. We can try to minimize this, but with none we have anarchy. Agree.
Animals deserve certain universal rights.
I'm mixed on this. Depends on the animal, and depends on the right. Do I not have a right to kill a mouse i find in my house? Stuff like that. I don't like the idea of "animal rights" as absolute statements, but I do support animal cruelty laws and the like. So...disagree.
Victimless crimes should still be punished.
Eh, depends on the crime. Smoking pot? No. Having an illegal firearm but not using it? Yeah. Generally speaking I'd say most such crimes, no, but some really do exist for good reason. Eh...neutral.
The death penalty should exist for certain crimes.
Strongly disagree, I'm very much against it.
Class is the primary division of society.
We discussed this with the traditional political compass, and I'd say yes. All this racial division is false consciousness to distract people from the real issues.
Multiculturalism is bad.
Being a libertarian, I'm neutral. I ain't against it. You have a right to do what you want, but I also aint a flaming SJW like DIVERSITY IS GOOD! Like I don't celebrate it for its own sake.
Still, is it bad? Eh, not inherently. So disagree.
Jury nullification should be legal.
I mean technically, yeah. I'm kind of iffy about the concept but that's what screening jurors is for. Agree.
Charity is a better way of helping those in need than social welfare.
Strongly disagree, we need UBI.
The smaller the government, the freer the people.
It's not about size, it's about complexity and authoritarian overreach. My ideal government is very large, but wouldn't do a whole lot. Like our current welfare system is small, but highly restrictive of behavior. Whereas my UBI would cost $4 trillion a yeah and have zero restrictions on behavior.
And without government, we'd have people exploiting and abusing other people. So...disagree.
Organisations and corporations cannot be trusted and need to be regulated by the government.
Strongly agree. All they care about is profit. They need the government to restrict excessive behavior.
Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Disagree, not opposed to land ownership. Opposed to excessive land ownership that denies others a place to live and exploits them for profit.
The government should, at most, provide emergency services and law enforcement.
Nope, generous safety nets, strongly disagree.
Results:
Left/Right Axis (x): -3.67
Auth/Lib Axis (y): -1.33
Prog/Con Axis (z): 5.63
So, it basically has me left center.
And we can see the obvious issues with sapply. Like, you can see with my answers I have a very obvious libertarian bend to my politics, but because it's not this right libertarian anti government bend, i get a lot closer to center.
And then on social issues they have a progressive/conservative axis and I'm conservative.
On economics I'm center left, but given the far left seemed full communism, -4ish sounds about fair. I'm basically a libertarian socdem. I mean, I'm not gonna be an extremist on leftism here.
Only axis I really disagree with my results is the auth/lib one. I feel like I'm way more libertarian than -1ish. I mean keep in mind i was -5 on the political compass. I could see being a bit more moderate on a more corrected compass, but maybe like...-3ish? Like well within lib territory but not extreme lib. But that's the thing. This test seems to miss the point of my nuanced answers and thinks simply because i support "big government" I'm not really a lib.
No comments:
Post a Comment