(September 21, 2017 at 11:51 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 21, 2017 at 11:33 am)Aegon Wrote: Or the graphic I provided is the one that's flawed. Also maybe you guys like anarchy more than you think muhahaha

Like I said, look around the area you're in and check out the others.

I think the questions are flawed. Some appear to be trying to discern our underlying philosophies on these respective issues, but the questions are too binary and oversimplify them. Meaning that the questions are more about our pragmatic views than our philosophy, but they don't necessarily still get at what we think the role of the government should be in a given scenario. 

For instance:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

I put "disagree" but only because I can't answer "both" or "neutral." Disagree doesn't mean that I think the government should or shouldn't do one or the other, nor does it mean I think it should actually concern itself with one more than the other. This question attempts to get at my pragmatic view of government, but oversimplifies it. 

Huh? Of course you can't put "both" lmao.

And yeah, disagree DOES mean you think controlling unemployment is more important than controlling inflation. And that means you would want the government to prioritize unemployment over inflation. The two are linked, it is an inverse relationship.

Quote:"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."

I strongly agreed, but that is primarily because I see this as also being in the company's best interests in the long term too. So my "strong agree" in this case actually doesn't get at my underlying philosophy as much as it gets at my pragmatic view of the function of government. 

I fail to see the issue. It doesn't matter what is in the corporation's best interest. And it doesn't matter you thought that. It's getting at the idea of over regulation, and if you do not think that private corporations can be trusted to do that without government oversight, then you believe that, which is a key characteristic of economic left. I don't know what your addition changes about that.

Quote:color=#000000]" 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a fundamentally good idea."[/color]

This might be the best one. I put "disagree," which would likely push me to the "left" and up the "Authoritarian" axis, but that is because I don't like the subjective idea around what a person is or isn't "able" to do. I think a lot of people believe that the able-bodied among us must work in order to be supported through government assistance. And while I don't disagree in principle, I disagree with how people may or may not define "able" with respect to "able-bodied." There are people out there, for example, who don't believe in mental health disorders. So if someone suffers from a mental health disorder that makes it difficult for them to work certain jobs, they wouldn't be "able-bodied" to do that job, but the person who doesn't believe in mental health disorders would probably disagree. So I actually agree with the statement as long as we use the government to negotiate agreement on what constitutes "able-bodied." And had I clicked "agree," it would have moved me in the opposite direction because it failed to understand both my underlying philosophy and my pragmatic view of how a government should or should not consider this principle.

Able-bodied has historically meant not physically disabled. But none of your objections or definitions matter. They didn't just make up that statement, it's one of the key principles from Marx. You would go by that meaning. Look it up if you'd like.

(September 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(September 21, 2017 at 11:51 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I think the questions are flawed. Some appear to be trying to discern our underlying philosophies on these respective issues, but the questions are too binary and oversimplify them. Meaning that the questions are more about our pragmatic views than our philosophy, but they don't necessarily still get at what we think the role of the government should be in a given scenario. 

For instance:
"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

I put "disagree" but only because I can't answer "both" or "neutral." Disagree doesn't mean that I think the government should or shouldn't do one or the other, nor does it mean I think it should actually concern itself with one more than the other. This question attempts to get at my pragmatic view of government, but oversimplifies it. 

Huh? Of course you can't put "both" lmao.

And yeah, disagree DOES mean you think controlling unemployment is more important than controlling inflation. And that means you would want the government to prioritize unemployment over inflation. The two are linked, it is an inverse relationship.

Quote:"Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation."

I strongly agreed, but that is primarily because I see this as also being in the company's best interests in the long term too. So my "strong agree" in this case actually doesn't get at my underlying philosophy as much as it gets at my pragmatic view of the function of government. 

I fail to see the issue. It doesn't matter what is in the corporation's best interest. And it doesn't matter you thought that. It's getting at the idea of over regulation,  and if you do not think that private corporations can be trusted to do that without government oversight, then you believe that, which is a key characteristic of economic left. I don't know what your addition changes about that.

Quote:color=#000000]" 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is a fundamentally good idea."[/color]

This might be the best one. I put "disagree," which would likely push me to the "left" and up the "Authoritarian" axis, but that is because I don't like the subjective idea around what a person is or isn't "able" to do. I think a lot of people believe that the able-bodied among us must work in order to be supported through government assistance. And while I don't disagree in principle, I disagree with how people may or may not define "able" with respect to "able-bodied." There are people out there, for example, who don't believe in mental health disorders. So if someone suffers from a mental health disorder that makes it difficult for them to work certain jobs, they wouldn't be "able-bodied" to do that job, but the person who doesn't believe in mental health disorders would probably disagree. So I actually agree with the statement as long as we use the government to negotiate agreement on what constitutes "able-bodied." And had I clicked "agree," it would have moved me in the opposite direction because it failed to understand both my underlying philosophy and my pragmatic view of how a government should or should not consider this principle.

Able-bodied has historically meant not physically disabled. But none of your objections or definitions matter. They didn't just make up that statement, it's one of the key principles from Marx. You would go by that meaning. Look it up if you'd like.

"Huh? Of course you can't put "both" lmao. "

Yes, you can. There are times when it may be more important to control one than the other. And then times when the reciprocal is true. It isn't a zero sum game.

"I fail to see the issue. It doesn't matter what is in the corporation's best interest. And it doesn't matter you thought that. It's getting at the idea of over regulation,  and if you do not think that private corporations can be trusted to do that without government oversight, then you believe that, which is a key characteristic of economic left. I don't know what your addition changes about that. "

And it is grossly oversimplified.

(September 21, 2017 at 2:26 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Aegon Wrote: Huh? Of course you can't put "both" lmao.

And yeah, disagree DOES mean you think controlling unemployment is more important than controlling inflation. And that means you would want the government to prioritize unemployment over inflation. The two are linked, it is an inverse relationship.


I fail to see the issue. It doesn't matter what is in the corporation's best interest. And it doesn't matter you thought that. It's getting at the idea of over regulation,  and if you do not think that private corporations can be trusted to do that without government oversight, then you believe that, which is a key characteristic of economic left. I don't know what your addition changes about that.


Able-bodied has historically meant not physically disabled. But none of your objections or definitions matter. They didn't just make up that statement, it's one of the key principles from Marx. You would go by that meaning. Look it up if you'd like.

"Huh? Of course you can't put "both" lmao. "

Yes, you can. There are times when it may be more important to control one than the other. And then times when the reciprocal is true. It isn't a zero sum game.

"I fail to see the issue. It doesn't matter what is in the corporation's best interest. And it doesn't matter you thought that. It's getting at the idea of over regulation,  and if you do not think that private corporations can be trusted to do that without government oversight, then you believe that, which is a key characteristic of economic left. I don't know what your addition changes about that. "

And it is grossly oversimplified.

I'm not saying you literally cannot want the government to control inflation and unemployment... who doesn't? I'm saying it makes perfect sense for the quiz not to give you that option.