Political Compass test
03-08-2012, 10:26 AM
#103
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
??? I never said "Hey Joe, let's all do this so that...". I said, here' s a bunch of plausible scenarios why power might de-centralize. Of them all, a fiscal crisis of the Fed Gov I think is the most likely.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2012, 11:33 AM
#104
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,015
Total Cats: 6,587
Really? Because that's how I interpreted this:
Unless what you meant is "De-centralization of power and for people to wake up (...) would be a good thing, so let's all NOT do that."
(pauses for reflection)
But rather than engaging in he-said / she-said, I'm really more curious as to how you believe that a mature nation with a strong central government (such as the US) could be, as you put it, de-centralized, and then maintained in a state of utopia, without one or more of the following outcomes:
1: Absent any strong central authority, power begins to concentrate in the hands of local military / police officials, who wield it against the population in a feudalistic manner. (eg: half of Africa at this point)
2: Unable to raise a strong and coordinated military, the US is simply conquered outright by a strong foreign power such as China or the Canada / Mexico alliance.
3: Civil war leads to totalitarianism and re-unification as a police state. (eg: USSR)
4: Any of the various Max Mad scenarios.
5: We return to the style of strong local government of the early 20th century US. Power is concentrated at the level of the state and city office, and sold to business interests and organized crime syndicates in an ad-hoc political marketplace.
6: (etc)
The problem is that power abhors a vacuum, and for any sufficiently large population sample, there will always be within it certain individuals who possess both an aptitude and a willingness to concentrate and exploit power for their own gain, usually at the expense of the larger community. We could go anywhere from the local mob boss collecting protection money under the nose of a corrupt mayor all the way to Reductio ad Hitlerum with this concept.
In a democracy the psychopathic megalomaniacs just need to propagandize the people to allow the gov't to do this or do that for "the common good". All this does is increase gov't power.
The answer is de-centralization of power and for people to realize that a free society solves numerous problems which they think only gov't can solve.
The answer is de-centralization of power and for people to realize that a free society solves numerous problems which they think only gov't can solve.
(pauses for reflection)
But rather than engaging in he-said / she-said, I'm really more curious as to how you believe that a mature nation with a strong central government (such as the US) could be, as you put it, de-centralized, and then maintained in a state of utopia, without one or more of the following outcomes:
1: Absent any strong central authority, power begins to concentrate in the hands of local military / police officials, who wield it against the population in a feudalistic manner. (eg: half of Africa at this point)
2: Unable to raise a strong and coordinated military, the US is simply conquered outright by a strong foreign power such as China or the Canada / Mexico alliance.
3: Civil war leads to totalitarianism and re-unification as a police state. (eg: USSR)
4: Any of the various Max Mad scenarios.
5: We return to the style of strong local government of the early 20th century US. Power is concentrated at the level of the state and city office, and sold to business interests and organized crime syndicates in an ad-hoc political marketplace.
6: (etc)
The problem is that power abhors a vacuum, and for any sufficiently large population sample, there will always be within it certain individuals who possess both an aptitude and a willingness to concentrate and exploit power for their own gain, usually at the expense of the larger community. We could go anywhere from the local mob boss collecting protection money under the nose of a corrupt mayor all the way to Reductio ad Hitlerum with this concept.
Reply
1
1
03-08-2012, 12:20 PM
#107
Really, though, the questions are ridiculously ambiguous. And yes, I've read their "explanation" -- and I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about something like this:
Agree or disagree?
Well, that's tough. If I say I disagree, am I disagreeing that it's an advantage? Or disagreeing that a one party system avoids arguments? Or disagreeing that delaying "progress" is something to be avoided at all, rather than being a fundamental part of the democratic political system?
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
Well, that's tough. If I say I disagree, am I disagreeing that it's an advantage? Or disagreeing that a one party system avoids arguments? Or disagreeing that delaying "progress" is something to be avoided at all, rather than being a fundamental part of the democratic political system?
Reply
0
0
03-08-2012, 12:32 PM
#109
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,015
Total Cats: 6,587
Look at it conversely. If you put "Agree", then you agree that
1: A one-party state avoids arguments which delay progress, and
2: Avoiding arguments which delay progress is advantageous.
Thus, disagreement could plausibly indicate that you believe either
1: A one-party state does not avoid arguments which delay progress, or
2: Avoiding arguments which delay progress is not advantageous.
Or disagreeing that delaying "progress" is something to be avoided at all, rather than being a fundamental part of the democratic political system?
You could infer that one's answers to the question indicate a preference as to whether progress itself is advantageous or disadvantageous, but the question does not actually ask that. (It also relies upon an assumed consensus as to the definition of what "progress" means.)
Reply
0
0
03-08-2012, 12:43 PM
#111
The question does not ask you to judge whether progress is good or bad, or whether delaying it is good or bad. Only whether a single-party system avoids arguments which delay it, and whether avoiding arguments which delay progress is advantageous.
You could infer that one's answers to the question indicate a preference as to whether progress itself is advantageous or disadvantageous, but the question does not actually ask that. (It also relies upon an assumed consensus as to the definition of what "progress" means.)
You could infer that one's answers to the question indicate a preference as to whether progress itself is advantageous or disadvantageous, but the question does not actually ask that. (It also relies upon an assumed consensus as to the definition of what "progress" means.)
In other words, even once we move beyond the ambiguous language of the question, the lack of context means that I don't trust the test-writers to interpret my answer correctly, and at best can only guess which response best represents my position in terms of numerical score.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2012, 02:04 PM
#115
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,015
Total Cats: 6,587
In other words, even once we move beyond the ambiguous language of the question, the lack of context means that I don't trust the test-writers to interpret my answer correctly, and at best can only guess which response best represents my position in terms of numerical score.
If we consider a black-box analysis, then I think it's reasonable to make certain assumptions, however.
For instance, if you agree that a one-party state is advantageous in that it avoids arguments which impede progress in a democratic system, this indicates that you are likely to hold other beliefs which, collectively, suggest that you might lean more towards an authoritarian point of view, as authoritarianism generally implies a tendency towards mandate rather than consensus.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2012, 02:40 PM
#116
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I bet you're all wondering what y8s is!
I'm going to liberaltarian up your business!
Imagine if I hadn't said "corporations can't be trusted" so many times in that survey!
I'm going to liberaltarian up your business!
Imagine if I hadn't said "corporations can't be trusted" so many times in that survey!
Reply
0
0
