A very revealing political compas test

I just discovered an interesting political test from a friend on Facebook.
Here is a link to the results of me taking it.  You can try it yourself here.

Why is this so revealing to me?  Not because of the results I got.  It's really interesting because of the amount of bogus ideas the questions reveal.  I would assert that most of these bogus ideas come from public schooling - so most of us fall for one or the other.


It seems profitable to me to go over all the questions/statements here and comment on what I think of when I see them.  See if you agree with me.
Note that even I would have thought myself to end up on the far right of the test - but I'm smack dab in the middle!  Why?  See my conclusion at the end.


On with the questions:

• If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

What is it?  Economic globalization - what does that mean?  World Government?  Or does it mean unimpeded trade across national borders?
If Economic Globalization is defined as free trade between individuals or groups then how can it be treated as a single entity directed to "serve" a single purpose?  If it can be directed to serve a purpose, then the individuals in it cannot really be free can they?  So I guess this question has to mean that "Economic Globalization" means world government.
So this is a socialist premise and it is inviting you to put on your "Mr. Socialist Dictator" hat and make a nice decision for the test.  This happens a LOT in this test.

• I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Right and Wrong imply a worldview with a given morality.  What is "my country"?  Sounds like this has to mean "My Government".  If your government is a socialist dictatorship it doesn't really mater what you think now does it?  If your government were limited to only doing that which does not violate the rights of individuals (that in itself must be understood) then you'd have to be a loon NOT to support it.

• No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.

Once again what does "My Country" mean?  It would be foolish to be proud of the dirt or address where you were born - how does that matter?  But if "My Country" again means "My Government" then what kind of government that is would dictate whether or not we should be proud.  Past generations of Americans were generally very proud of their government because (they thought) it stood for liberty and justice - something to be very proud of because few governments in history have ever achieved that goal.  Then again, if your government is a socialist dictatorship, well that's not much to be proud of is it?

• Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Once again we have to define race.  Race could mean our culture and some cultures are certainly superior to others.  Americans of the past were proud of their culture of individual freedom and respect for the rights of the individual.  I personally have a hard time with the racist card since I believe we are all descended from one father and mother and thus we are all of the same "race" or "type" of life form.  If you define "race" as the color of your skin, well how can a color be superior to another in any absolute way?  An American of previous generations might see the "black" race as the stereotype of the typical uneducated black man of his time.  It was an unfortunate misconception if its day that the fruit of the culture bred an inferior or superior human being.  This idea showed itself in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century culminating in the Nazi regime.

• The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

A provocative statement for sure.  I happen to know friends who would never consider each other worthy of friendship.  I like the differences people have within themselves - it's just more interesting that way.  If you are planing on using your friends to get at your enemies then I suppose you would support this statement.  But is that really what friends are for?

• Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

I think you have to know WHICH international law you are talking about first.  Then you have to define the purpose of the Military.  Then you have to define who or what justifies any action.  If justification is defined as what you can get away with then you are living in a lawless environment.

• There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

What are we worried about?  I suppose the problem here is people not caring about what they see on TV or the movies.  The question is "is what I am seeing true or not?"  If you cannot know the truth of what you see, you cannot really make much of a judgement on it or get very worried about it.  We are living in a very post-modern era where truth is a fairly unimportant or nonexistent point.  The fusion of information and entertainment is a product of the overall philosophy of a society - it is not the cause of the problem.

• People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Class - that's a Marxian term.  It is actually a distinction made via the economic power of an individual - a power that often changes over time for most people.  There is a set of people however who seem to keep their wealth from generation to generation and I would have to say that being in or out of that class makes a big difference.  As we approach the destruction of national sovereignty it naturally is becoming more and more true that what class we are in makes more difference than our nationality.  But this doesn't mean that money means everything - it means that the cultures and governments of the nations are all becoming the same - postmodern, agnostic, socialist, fiat economics, etc.
Class distinction has historically been useful more as a propaganda tool to divide people.  Since there have always been the rich and the poor, what better distinction to use to divide people - I dubt any system in the world could ever "fix" this situation - just like I doubt we could all be made the same weight and height.

• Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. 

What a bunch of implied premises.  The root of this problem is the loss of true ownership of land - ownership that is tax free and crosses generations.  Originally, corporations could not own land allodially and this was a big check on them - but now "persons" are corporations and so nobody can own land allodially and if I don't have true ownership, why should I care about the property I am "renting"?  There are family owned corporations in America that have been using the same land for generations - these don't generally seem to be destroying their own backyards.
We have key parts of our law and society screwed up which is producing environmental destruction and waste.  But government regulation has historically never solved any problem - therefore its not really a solution for anything either.
Note also that corporations are no more trustworthy than is any group of people, or individuals for that matter.  What was it Jefferson said?  "Bind them from mischief by the chains of the constitution".  It's not a question of "who you gonna trust".  You can't  "trust" anybody.  You can however make clear boundaries to protect individual rights and try to put them in concrete so they can't be moved or eroded - then everyone must meet the standards of love and respect.

• "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

Word for word right out of the communist manifesto!  You agree?  Not me.

• It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Why should it be sad?  People live in cities and trust their governments to manage their water supply - so now good water is hard to come by and the entrepreneur is there to supply the need.  Nobody says you have to buy it.  But we have lost control of our own property/land so this is what we are left with.  Note that free enterprise like this is the natural way to redistribute wealth - from where it is abundant to where it is scarce.  This is done without theft and generally without prejudice.

• Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

This is also out of the communist manifesto - the abolition of private property.  Our problem is that land is no longer really ownable so no one cares about it.  "The Government will take care of it for us".  Land is not bought or sold in America - it's only rented - from the government of course.

• It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

True we have people making money mostly by theft via government systems of redistribution of wealth - including inflation/fiat currency.  But this is because we have allowed "theft" to be "OK" as long as it's "legal".  People however who make a living by exchange and not the generation of a service or the creation of a product, are not criminals and they have a great beneficial effect on society.  Traders make a profit by taking products/services from places where they are plenty to places where they are scarce.  This is a service in the distribution of wealth by free enterprise.

• Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.

What is protectionism?  Is this tariffs?  Is this regulated prices/wages?  The later is intrinsically repugnant to private property and personal freedom of choice and I reject it in all cases.  The former, however, can have good reason to exist and should generally be controlled by the will of the collective people via their representatives.  Tariffs are one of the least unfair ways for a government to tax a people but beware - the complexity of a tariff law belies its special interest influence.
I know I am saying the evil word should here but these shoulds come from basic maxims of law, something you are not taught in public (I mean government) schools.

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

I think the righteous goal of any corporate endeavor should be the betterment of mankind - but that's not the way things are.  Profit is central because we have rejected truth, law, love, and God.  Once again, the worldview of society is driving everything else.  Religion does matter!

• The rich are too highly taxed.

Who are the rich?  If you answer affirmative to this one obviously you don't consider yourself part of the "rich".  This is all about selective collective theft.  Theft is wrong (by the authority of God's word) and if that is accepted, taxing anyone more or less than another is collective theft and is equally wrong.

• Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

This one is really loaded!  What are rights?  What do rights have to do with medical care?  And where does the "should" come from?  Medical caregivers are people with skills.  What they do generally requires money, but not necessarily.  In a socialist system that controls medicine, the supply and quality of medicine is controlled.  If you can't get what you need in such a system, it isn't the medical provider that is the problem - it is the system that controls it that is the problem.  I recently discovered how good and cheap medical care is in some foreign countries where it's not "regulated to death" like it is in the U.S.  Bahamas medicine costs about one tenth of American on average.  This is not because the Bahamian's are more socially righteous than American doctors nor is it because "everything is cheaper there".  Socialist control of anything tends to create shortages because people just don't like to work as much in a controlled environment.  The best and brightest go where they can make good money and do what they want undisturbed.

• Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

Governments are given the mandate by scripture to punish evil and protect the Innocent.  Stopping the propagation of lies is core to that mandate.  Whether the source is an individual or corporation makes no difference.  Any lie is detrimental to society and should be exposed and the consensus perpetrator needs to reconcile with society for the damage done.
It is a known fact that many of the textbooks used to teach our children in government schools have known untruths in them.  The problems have been clearly pointed out to school boards and other related authorities for many years - yet they go on - producing the fruit of stuff like this test.

• A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

This is a contradiction on its face - a "genuine free" needs "restrictions".  This is neural linguistic programing at its classical best.  As long as an economy remains truly free, monopolies that exist do so at the consent of the customer. 
Early in school I remember the old "robber barons" diatribe telling us how the evil railroad tycoons had "company stores" and prevented any competition from coming in - they got their power from government grants of land.  The Standard Oil robber barons were a little different in that I can't recall any overt government support for them but I suspect they were in cahoots with the FED types which were granted an economic monopoly by congress and leveraged that to control oil.  If today government simply let us dig oil wells wherever we wanted to and the courts simply held everyone to the same environmental standards - IE "don't make a mess" and "innocent till proven guilty", we would have so much cheap oil we wouldn't know what to do with it all and there would be no monopoly on oil - multinational or not.
Note also the label predator.  Kind of sounds like the equally loaded label robber barons to me.

• The freer the market, the freer the people.

Generally economic freedom is the result of lawful government and a moral people - not the other way around, but it can seem reversed when one is not taught the facts of history and observe that acts of congress tend to create the problems that government then offers to grow to solve.
Generally, I find that the culture moves government which moves law which moves economics.

• Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

Abortion is a taking of life so if a government wants to honor and protect life - yes of course it should be illegal.  This comes right from the preamble - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  People that disagree with this will soon find themselves in a euthanasia line.  Life is either sacred or its cheap.

• All authority should be questioned.

There is natural law - natural authority that, if questioned, tends to result in the death of the questioner. (just test the law of gravity sometime by jumping off a cliff without a parachute or other device to help you defy it)  It is not wise to question true legitimate authority.  It is wise however to identify true from fraudulent/usurped authority - something we have done a poor job at in the last century.  I believe a lot of this Pavlovian training starts in kindergarten (a German term from where the whole idea of social education came from) when we all stand in line to be counted and led back inside from recess.

• An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Quoted from the bible, this is the concept of pure justice.  It is a half-truth that will place a society in a ditch without its complement - mercy.

• Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.

First of all the term Taxpayer is a legal term out of title 26 (IRS code).  It is a deception in and of itself because it applies to anyone who happened to voluntary pay income taxes, which are not required for most Americans to pay, yet who will be severely punished if not complied with - which makes it not really voluntary does it?  Tax dollars, however obtained, are public property and so long as the public is properly represented, can be spent how the people want.  However we clearly see that our tax dollars are not spent how most people would want them spent and this shows that our system is broken, either due to a corrupt society or corrupt government - and probably due to both.

• Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.

By Schools this clearly means "government schools".  It is interesting that public school in America was first instituted in Virginia by Jefferson and in the west by the Northwest Ordinance.  Both of these systems were birthed with the idea that the reason we needed public education was to ensure a moral society by teaching the Bible and the tenants of "true religion" IE classical Orthodox Christianity.  The compulsion was justified by this end.  Once again the old adage "the end justifies the means" created a monster that is now so far from its cage as to be a sure and present danger to society.  When education leaves its mandate to tell the truth in love, it looses all authority to force attendance.  Biblically, education is the father's responsibility.

• All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

Another oxymoronic statement - rights except for shoulds.  "Kind" clearly must mean race and the argument for the should here is utterly absent.  In fact it is precisely the question: should ... which is asking for a moral judgement.  Where does the authority for this should come from?  If it has no legitimate authority then there is no argument - it is just an opinion and carries no moral weight.  Americans have been conditioned to consensus negotiation for morality - IE majority rule on morals.  Might (or numbers) makes right is what we have been taught - but is such a concept really true?

• Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.

Once again we are being asked to make a moral judgement here with no reference to any authority.  A Christian would site the commandments of the bible which tells children that it is wise to obey their parents - there is a promise of long life for doing so.  Discipline is required to turn a child into an adult - we know this by human nature which biblical authority tells us is fallen and evil by nature.  From that context this statement rings true.  But if you don't accept the biblical authority as true, then you're stuck here.  Any judgement on spanking, or anything else for that matter, without reference to a legitimate authority is just an opinion and without an authority for a society to operate by you have chaos and with chaos you must inevitably subjugate the majority to the whims of a minority of someone.  A society without a true authority for truth must become enslaved eventually.

• It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.

Well it does happen so I suppose from observation it's natural and thus this statement must be true.  But saying this statement is true is not a moral judgement that it should be true unless the meaning of natural implies a should somewhere, in which case, again, if you have no authority for your moral judgement - it's just an opinion.

• Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.

The question is why should it be criminal?  If one accepts the idea of "innocent till proven guilty" and trusts people with liberty, then even taking drugs (much less possessing them) can't be a crime if there is no victim.  This I say based on the fact that I have no biblical authority to say that taking drugs is a crime - though our body is the temple of God and in such a case, taking care of it is the right thing to do, but how you do that becomes a pretty complex question. Note that I take criminal to mean Mala-in-se - evil by definition.  What we have become conditioned to accept is that Mala-prohibita is just as wrong as mala-in-se - that is, just because a law says something is right or wrong makes it so - which I don't subscribe to.  The law should reflect the authority we live under but it in itself should not become the ultimate authority of morality - this would be circular if true.
On the other hand, if we had a justice system that punished people that did true crimes under the influence of drugs, holding them responsible for their actions - including the action of deciding to mess up their head with drugs, then we have a logical and moral system of justice that enforces restitution to the victim(s) with mercy applied as deemed appropriate by the peers judging the case.

• The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

If this is true then you truly live in an economic social dictatorship.  So who schools the ones that make the jobs?  Or are businessmen just in a class above the average Joe because they don't need schooling to do what they do?  This kind of thinking leads to the common misconception that society just exists to support the individual's needs.  This is another lie from hell.  It cannot work that way because society is composed of individuals.  It's like trying to go to the moon by lifting your boot straps.

• People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.

Maybe this should be stated: Are you God?  Just what does serious mean?  And what probability of inheritance constitutes inheritable?  And just where do reproductive rights come from?  Anyone agreeing to this has just signed their own life away to whatever the state deems is necessary.

• The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.

Another pretty random statement meant to evoke an emotional response to the question.  I would say that logically, the most important thing a child should learn is how to learn which in itself can require some discipline to accomplish.  But what does discipline mean?  Spanking?  Public shaming?  Sitting in the corner?  Working 8 hours a day?  Bringing an apple to the teacher?  What would constitute acceptance of a discipline?  Does this mean children should just obey what they are told by any authority figure?

• There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.

Well there are different cultures but savage and civilized need definition.  Once again, generic or relative terms are being used to ask questions.

• Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Sounds good on the surface and I am sure I agreed to this but what is able?  I can think even if I am a wheel-chair bound Stephen Hawking but is that work?  If such a person refused to think would that be even detectable?  Once again, society is personified like a anthropomorphism.  Its like some creature or entity we can control and judge like an individual.  The individuals within that society are masked out completely and the whole assumes a personality of its own.  When we charge society to do something we must, by definition, enslave everyone in that society to perform our will or we must punish or ostracize any dissenting individuals.  Once you give society a job, you enslave yourself and everyone around you to do that job.

• When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.

Sorry, these questions are getting to me.  What does this have to do with anything?  Is this a measure of how well trained you are to work under duress?

• First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

A blanket statement to which I am sure there are exceptions whichever way you answer it.

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

Another absurd generalization meant to force an opinion one way or another on something that clearly should be handled on a case-by-case basis.  These kinds of generalizations are how the worst laws get written.

• No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.

I basically agree with this one but once again it's a should question.  Once again I am asked to direct society to do what I think is right without any reference to a valid authority.  The reason I oppose this is because of the biblical mandate against theft.  Taking taxes from one person to benefit another person is just theft and is therefore wrong.

• Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.

Clever.  Our civil liberties.  Those are the privileges granted by government.  They aren't mentioning the trampling of absolute God-given rights - oh let's not bring Him into it!

• A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

Arguments would still take place within the party.  Its just a matter of how you label it. What is progress in a democratic system?  Where are we trying to go?  The premise of all socialist systems is that government is the solution to every problem.  But historically, governments make far more problems than they solve.  It makes for a nice infinite job description for a tyrant - be he an individual or a collective.

• Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.

If the rights of man had never been trampled by governments throughout history, I might even want to believe this one.

• The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.

I have to agree because my authority, the bible, prescribes death in some cases.  However, I would actually prefer involuntary servitude to serve restitution over the death penalty if it is acceptable to the victim.  Mercy should always have room to work.

• In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

So civilized means hierarchical order?  Specialization and organization define civilization?  I beg to differ.  Civilization is defined by the culture which is defined by the world view of its people.  A great civilization is defined by how well individuals in the society fare and how glorious it is to the God of truth and love - not how efficient it is at overproducing.
In a good society the leaders are really the biggest servants of all.

• Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

This is saying that the term Abstract art is an oxymoron.  It may well be.  And what does this have to do with politics?  Nothing.  It just evokes an emotional response to help make all of us dictators over society IE ourselves.

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

Punishment's main argument is as a deterrent to crime.  Rehabilitation's main argument is to prevent repeated crimes.  What about Restitution?  Shouldn't THAT be our goal?

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

Probably right.  Forget rehabilitation.  If possible restore that which was lost - and if you can't do that, then forfeit the same thing you destroyed for someone else as a fair deterrent.

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

On what basis?  By what authority does one support Green and oppose Yellow?  Indeed, the poet might be argued to be the founder of the inspiration that allow all other classes to exist.

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

This is true because nature dictates it so.  It is logical from the facilities that females are endowed with that rearing the next generation is best suited to them.  If more mothers did this we wouldn't need public education which is where most of these crap questions came from IMHO.  Notice the may - we shall assume the right to dictate to others what may or may not be done - without any moral authority I might add.

• Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Give me a case in point.  What is unethical when you have no moral authority?  How are genetic resources of any value at all in a post-modern evolutionistic society?

• Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Making peace with the establishment has to mean conforming your conscience to the morality of the majority.  I cannot concur.  You must hold to what you think is right - to deny that is to deny the your soul.

• Astrology accurately explains many things.

Huh?  So let's set the congressional budget by astrologers and fire these cotton picking politicians!

• You cannot be moral without being religious.

An absolute truth.  Moral judgement requires a world view and that requires a religious position - a position of faith.  Few realize that Humanism/Secularism is in itself a religion.

• Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

True.  The alternative to charity is theft and theft is neither productive or efficient.

• Some people are naturally unlucky.

And some would naturally have to be lucky then.  So should we punish the lucky to care for the unlucky?  You know, make the luck thing an even playing field.

• It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

Yes and they should be YOUR values not that of a central authority that can mold society over time into the model it desires. I have always contended that a variety of viewpoints in a society is more healthy and productive than a single mindset - especially if that mindset is enforced by a centralized force.  This way errors tend to cancel each other out and people will tend to think more for themselves if confronted with differing views.  A herd mentality can lead the whole society over a cliff.

• Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.

Its also generally hurtful, selfish, unproductive, costly, unhealthy and undermines the family which is the unit of civilization.

• A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

I could rant on this one all day.  There is an inherent DESIGN in nature that REQUIRES a male and a female to reproduce.  Adoption is a redistribution of reproduced people but the true creation of people can ONLY happen between a man and a woman.  To deny that natural order is another case of trying to test natural law.  You will eventually destroy the family and civilization by messing with the man/woman law.  It takes a few generations to do so but historically it has been a pretty consistent pattern.  Not to mention that biblical authority calls such an abomination.
Why is it that majority rule is fine for most concensus negeotiations but somehow Gay/Lesbian issues are absolute rights even if only a few percent of the population is really in that class and even if the statistical data (see Steve Pidgeon's research on this) shows that same-sex partners have a horrible record for health and well-being compared to the normal man-woman relationships.

• Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.

This is a slippery slope and it is difficult to define the damage pornography does to families, relationships, and children. The premise of this statement is found in the word consenting.  It implies that the decisions of man carry moral weight.  It implies that man is the measure of all things.  It is a religious statement - a Humanistic statement if you will.  What is your authority? 
Why would something be wrong for children and right for adults?  That seems like an arbitrary line to me.

• What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

See the previous comment.  This has more merritt though in that privacy is an inherent natural thing especially in our thoughts.  The state certainly has no business invading privacy but God does because He created all things and thus has full ownership.  If what you are doing you could not do before a perfect God, it cannot be completely right, regardless of what the state thinks.  And I don't think anybody is completely right - based on my biblical authority of course.

• No one can feel naturally homosexual.

You can FEEL anything you want.  Is this a justification for something?  Are feelings the measure of what is right?

• These days openness about sex has gone too far.

Honesty about sex is good.  Display of sex, especially to make buck, is not.  The lust of the flesh has never been known to build up civilization.

Conclusion

Here's my point.  This test is mostly a series of imprecise questions designed to evoke an emotional response.  Your political position is measured by your emotional responses.  This implies that there is no real substance to any political stance.  Like the test says there is no right answer.

So why did I score right in the middle?  I think it is because I have decided to use the word of God as my measure for what is right and wrong and I think God is actually the most balanced person(s) there is/are.   As you can see from this blog, I like to think about these kinds of things.  I don't consider myself any better than anyone else inherently - I just have a great God that lends me his wisdom sometimes but I am certainly very flawed and covet your feedback.
The test simply enumerates so many misconceptions and inaccuracies in one place, I just had to comment.  I hope it was of some help to someone.