Was shown this political social/economic test that places you on a four-way axis, opposites being Libertarianism/Authoritarianism and Left and Right.
Although clearly not completely accurate, it's interesting.
Just thought I'd share this, I found it quite interesting, where do you lie?
My result showed me to be Centre-Right Libertarian: 6.75,-2.41
There is a fruitful discussion to be had about the questions themselves. For example, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." I assume that agreeing indicates a preference for a certain strain of foreign policy (realpolitik?). What scale am I moving along with that question? And which direction does it move me in?
The racism and nationalism questions raise similar issues. I assume agreeing with either will slide one further towards the right, as I've most often heard Naziism categorized as "far-right". Is this justified by the principles of "right-wing" ideology (which I suddenly am at a loss to define)? And if so, is there a question about eugenics (a favored policy until Hitler made it ugly) to balance things out? It seems to me that the right-left dichotomy is either arbitrary or the creation of academics of a certain persuasion.
And what about the very first one, which places the welfare of trans-national companies in opposition to the interests of humanity regarding who should benefit from globalization? What if I believe that the increased specialization this trend has enabled can benefit both parties? Where do I go now?
And I'm only on page one. I think I'll do the first one for real, and then try and manipulate it into putting me into a target group to see what the authors believe about different ideologies.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
I suspect that personal beliefs (as in, what should people do?) and political beliefs (what should be enforced by law?) are being conflated here. Is this appropriate on a political compass?
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
There's a vital assumption about the nature of a right being made here.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Penalize how? By direct regulation of advertising and labeling, or by writing laws allowing those who have been victimized by fraud (also, defining fraud) to bring suit against these businesses?
I've finished page two. I believe the authors are European. I also feel like I'm trapped in a "choose your own adventure" story where the only options are to drop a nuke or hug a puppy, and I don't even have context.
Why not "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds"?
I mean, really, if a man is only able to be a janitor and his needs are the same as the CEOs should they each 'get' the same compensation? If we go by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and meet each one of the physiological needs for all individuals then by the def. of the highlighted statement in your post would be met by any individual working and all working individuals should have their physiological needs met and no more would be required.
The ideology described in the first sentence is socialism (Right, Shane?).
That doesn't answer the question, which wasn't rhetorical. I really meant to ask the question and expected an answer.
I'll admit I've read your post, and his, a couple of times, and I'm having trouble following the conversation.
Assuming I've figured out what you're asking -- which may be assuming too much -- the base problem is that it requires an external determination of "needs". Or "ability". Or "deeds". That's an awful lot of power over your life to just quit claim to somebody else.
Capitalism is the economic system that emerges when people are left alone. Anything else requires command-and-control of some sort.
He appears to be ranting about the context of the questions, without any context.
I thought Bouchard was ranting about the questions ... though most seem to be responding as if his question-restatements were his personal beliefs (which may be what Rick did).
I'm still not clear on what Rick was asking, though. The CEO/janitor example didn't help, so I ignored it and answered the top-line question as if he hadn't elaborated.
It looks as if Rick is responding to Bouchard as if Bouchard was presenting his own ideas, rather than a rant against the questionnaire. Rick's out of context retort is standard anti-communist fare. In order to create a classless society, all of society must be drug down to the level of the lowest common denominator; those who do not produce enough even for their own basic needs. He fails in that there wouldn't be any CEO's under Marxism, but, eh.
I was not responding as though Bouchard was presenting his own ideas, I am much more well read than that. I was offering an alternative phrase using 'deeds' (as in what one does in respect to importance to the company), which rhymes with 'need', in place of 'needs'. Here I am hoping you understand my logic but that may be asking too much. I used the CEO and janitor as examples of 'deeds' (again the work done for the company ranked by importance of that work to the company). I used Maslow's 'needs' as the starting point and the phyisical needs as the bare minimum that would be met by the system.
That's fine. You should limit your rants to non imaginary adversaries. It will keep us onlookers from chiming in.