NationStates Jolt Archive

In an effort to find some good topics for discussion, I am turning to the Political Compass quiz. The majority of us have taken this quiz and put thought into each of these questions, so hopefully they can provide some useful debate. Maybe we will see some radical shifts in political compass scores.
______________________________________________________________

For each question post how you answered (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) and give your reasoning for your answer.

Question 1:

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

I said, "Strongly Agree."

This one is very tough for me. I sway back and forth between agree and disagree. I personally believe that economic globalization will in the end be beneficial to the people of third world countries if corporations are allowed to expand freely into those nations, but I don't think that corporations should be given benefits at the expense of the current citizens.

they should have had it would primarily serve the governments. that would have been my answer.

well in thinking that everything should serve humanity rather than the interests of a few individuals/corporations, i would choose 'strongly agree'

they should have had it would primarily serve the governments. that would have been my answer.

I would consider that to be the worst possible answer.

I strongly agree. I don't believe in the total free market, because frankly, the invisible hand has never manifested itself, and I don't see it doing so just because we open up more. However, I think that honestly, capitalism is here to stay for a while, so outright getting rid of it is not realistic. Making sure that capitalism is bound however, IS possible. Bound to respect human rights and the environment. I'd like to see this on an international, not just regional level.

Strongly agree. The question is not whether to allow globalisation. It is asking you if you think that wealthy corporations deserve to get rich at the expense of poor people.

If capitalism is going to be the driving force for globalisation, and globalisation is essentially the linking of all humans to eachother via the production and distribution of goods and services, then why should there only be an elite few that benefit?

Question 1:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
I agree, but not strongly. Large coporations are often agents for positive change by offering opportunities to the people of poorer nations, but globalization should be in service to all of humanity, rather than just a few profit-takers. It's a conundrum.

I agree, but not strongly. Large coporations are often agents for positive change by offering opportunities to the people of poorer nations, but globalization should be in service to all of humanity, rather than just a few profit-takers. It's a conundrum.
It is indeed. How do we approach that conundrum? Do we, as proponents of the free market advise, completely deregulate the market and let that good happen out of 'self interest'? Or do we not leave it up to invisible market forces (that have been sketchy in their effectiveness) and make sure that there are SOME boundaries that business must operate within?

The question is stupid. Of course every reasonable person believes globalisation should serve humanity not the corporations (except maybe CEOs).

That's not the issue. The issue is, is what is good for the corporations also good for humanity?

It is indeed. How do we approach that conundrum? Do we, as proponents of the free market advise, completely deregulate the market and let that good happen out of 'self interest'? Or do we not leave it up to invisible market forces (that have been sketchy in their effectiveness) and make sure that there are SOME boundaries that business must operate within?

The invisible market forces are there, and are very effective. The only problem is that the market must be large and established enough to maintain efficiency even through government regulation. In third world nations, governments often exercise complete control over their economies and offer special benefits to corporations.

I agree completely with Eutrusca. The introduction of corporations to developing nations is essential to their economic growth and development, but there is little there to keep the government and the corporations to enter into agreements that in general are detrimental to the work force.

The question is stupid. Of course every reasonable person believes globalisation should serve humanity not the corporations (except maybe CEOs).

That's not the issue. The issue is, does shock therapy and so-called 'ultraliberalism' serve humanity?

I believe the question is meant to distinguish whether you think the worker should be propped up over the corporation, or the corporation propped up over the worker.

It is indeed. How do we approach that conundrum? Do we, as proponents of the free market advise, completely deregulate the market and let that good happen out of 'self interest'? Or do we not leave it up to invisible market forces (that have been sketchy in their effectiveness) and make sure that there are SOME boundaries that business must operate within?
Like most things with a political component ( which is almost everything! ), we will probably wind up with some boundaries, the number and span of which will wax and wane.

The invisible market forces are there, and are very effective. The only problem is that the market must be large and established enough to maintain efficiency even through government regulation. In third world nations, governments often exercise complete control over their economies and offer special benefits to corporations.

I agree completely with Eutrusca. The introduction of corporations to developing nations is essential to their economic growth and development, but there is little there to keep the government and the corporations to enter into agreements that in general are detrimental to the work force.
Ok, I'll have to agree with you here. It's not so much that those invisible forces don't work at all, as you've said, but rather that they are only allowed to work in some cases. It's not just the developing world that has massive government interference...huge subsidies in the developed world benefit the few at the expense of the many. However, again realistically, I don't see the free market as something that is every really going to happen. Certain countries that will remain nameless will ALWAYS try to tilt things in their favour through bilateral or multilateral trade agreements. Which is why I don't want regional regulations, but rather international ones. Still difficult, but I think it would be more effective than hoping that some players won't 'cheat'.

I believe the question is meant to distinguish whether you think the worker should be propped up over the corporation, or the corporation propped up over the worker.
Then it's a stupid question.

No reasonable person can say that what is good for corporations is an end unto itself. What is good for humanity is an end unto itself.

What is good for humanity is an end unto itself.
Why?

That's not the issue. The issue is, is what is good for the corporations also good for humanity?
I kind of agree that the central question is this. This is how I approach it, anyway. I don't think anyone would just say, "Transnationals first, humankind second". It boils down to what Berussland has said here.

Ok, I'll have to agree with you here. It's not so much that those invisible forces don't work at all, as you've said, but rather that they are only allowed to work in some cases. It's not just the developing world that has massive government interference...huge subsidies in the developed world benefit the few at the expense of the many. However, again realistically, I don't see the free market as something that is every really going to happen. Certain countries that will remain nameless will ALWAYS try to tilt things in their favour through bilateral or multilateral trade agreements. Which is why I don't want regional regulations, but rather international ones. Still difficult, but I think it would be more effective than hoping that some players won't 'cheat'.

1. I equate denying the forces of a free market with denying evolutionary forces. To deny either it would require either a misunderstanding of the ideas or the absolute faith in the the opposing value system.

2. Yes, even though I am a capitalist and believe fully in the free market, I understand that it is probably impossible to obtain, but I also believe that removing obstructions to the market is better than adding reactionary new ones.

Why?
What do you mean, why? Perhaps there are some things that are more important than mankind.

But transnational corporations are not one of them.

Then it's a stupid question.

No reasonable person can say that what is good for corporations is an end unto itself. What is good for humanity is an end unto itself.

Well, you changed your original question to a new updated question that I agree is the nature of this question.

As for my question, that is in essense what you changed yours to. If you believe that the best thing for the corporation is the best thing for the people, then you would think that the corporation would get precedent over the worker.

1. I equate denying the forces of a free market with denying evolutionary forces. To deny either it would require either a misunderstanding of the ideas or the absolute faith in the the opposing value system.
I agree, except when education (and to a lesser extent land) is rationed according to birthright, not merit.

1. I equate denying the forces of a free market with denying evolutionary forces. To deny either it would require either a misunderstanding of the ideas or the absolute faith in the the opposing value system.
I'm not sure if you misunderstood me here, but just to make sure, let me clarify. In an earlier post, I said that whether we like it or not, capitalism is going to be the main economic system for some time to come. When I say that the free market will never happen, what I mean is that the FREE market (completely unbound and unregulated) will never happen. Certain countries are not going to give up certain controls they have over the market. They just won't.

2. Yes, even though I am a capitalist and believe fully in the free market, I understand that it is probably impossible to obtain, but I also believe that removing obstructions to the market is better than adding reactionary new ones.Again, I think we have a misunderstanding.

I think we should try, whenever possible, to limit bilateral and multilateral agreements that impose restrictions on trade (as in, we can subsidise our sugar production, but you can't), or that strip sovereignty away from a nation and impair its ability to provide for its people. So, agreements that demand all labour laws and regulations be tossed out the window...all environmental regulations be discarded etc...those agreements need to be blocked. What we should be looking for is a way to open up the market, while respecting the basic systems that protect people....there should be a few services and goods that are not completely opened up. Staple foods, for example, should be protected (meaning cheaper imports should not impair a country's ability to feed itself, especially if those cheaper imports stop flowing one day down the road after domestic production dies). The regulations would be few, and far between. However, if we want a true level playing field, we've got to stop the developed nations from imposing restrictions on other countries, all the while benefiting from the same things that they are trying to restrict. (again, like subsidies)

I agree, except when education (and to a lesser extent land) is rationed according to birthright, not merit.

I agree that inheritance can be a definite problem with the free market system, but it is hard for me to reasonably justify the barring of someone from choosing what to do with any money he has earned.

What do you mean, why? Perhaps there are some things that are more important than mankind.

But transnational corporations are not one of them.
Well, I agree with that, but what I meant was why did you say that what's best for humanity is the most important thing? What leads you to say that?

I agree that inheritance can be a definite problem with the free market system, but it is hard for me to reasonably justify the barring of someone from choosing what to do with any money he has earned.
Let them do what they like with it, as long as it doesn't include passing it on to someone who hasn't earned it:) (is my anti-inheritance attitude showing? I thought I'd managed to keep it tucked in...then again, maybe I'm just bitter because my parents aren't going to be able to leave me anything?)

This one is very tough for me. I sway back and forth between agree and disagree. I personally believe that economic globalization will in the end be beneficial to the people of third world countries if corporations are allowed to expand freely into those nations, but I don't think that corporations should be given benefits at the expense of the current citizens.

ditto.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me here, but just to make sure, let me clarify. In an earlier post, I said that whether we like it or not, capitalism is going to be the main economic system for some time to come. When I say that the free market will never happen, what I mean is that the FREE market (completely unbound and unregulated) will never happen. Certain countries are not going to give up certain controls they have over the market. They just won't.

I understood that. I didn't mean to suggest that you are denying the forces of the free market.

Again, I think we have a misunderstanding.

I think we should try, whenever possible, to limit bilateral and multilateral agreements that impose restrictions on trade (as in, we can subsidise our sugar production, but you can't), or that strip sovereignty away from a nation and impair its ability to provide for its people. So, agreements that demand all labour laws and regulations be tossed out the window...all environmental regulations be discarded etc...those agreements need to be blocked. What we should be looking for is a way to open up the market, while respecting the basic systems that protect people....there should be a few services and goods that are not completely opened up. Staple foods, for example, should be protected (meaning cheaper imports should not impair a country's ability to feed itself, especially if those cheaper imports stop flowing one day down the road after domestic production dies). The regulations would be few, and far between. However, if we want a true level playing field, we've got to stop the developed nations from imposing restrictions on other countries, all the while benefiting from the same things that they are trying to restrict. (again, like subsidies)

I think I understood your previous posts, but this is a little difficult. It appears that you want regulations to serve to protect the worker and very little else, correct?

As for your comments on sugar, here is an article on recent and past efforts of Big Sugar. http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8654

Let them do what they like with it, as long as it doesn't include passing it on to someone who hasn't earned it:) (is my anti-inheritance attitude showing? I thought I'd managed to keep it tucked in...then again, maybe I'm just bitter because my parents aren't going to be able to leave me anything?)

Don't worry, I had detected enough of a socialist nature in you to imagine you had that attitude and I like you anyway.

I personally have issues with inheritance, but I believe that inheritance is an act of charity that occurs in the last instance of life. I don't know how you could limit charity like that other than maybe taxing it.

I think I understood your previous posts, but this is a little difficult. It appears that you want regulations to serve to protect the worker and very little else, correct?

No, not very little else. Human rights, not just worker rights. And the environment. We should be able to come to a healthy medium between benefit to the corporation and benefit to humanity without making it an either or proposition. If the standard is that business is conducted with a mind to limiting the impact on the environment, and ensuring that human rights are respected, then we have goodness:). If SOME people have to adhere to those standards, while others are free to do as they please, we have inequity, and unfair advantage. Which is how I see the market going, until capitalism is more than just regionally (and spottily) regulated.

Don't worry, I had detected enough of a socialist nature in you to imagine you had that attitude and I like you anyway.

I personally have issues with inheritance, but I believe that inheritance is an act of charity that occurs in the last instance of life. I don't know how you could limit charity like that other than maybe taxing it.
I'm torn on the whole inheritance issue. Especially since really, the majority of inheritances are not in uber-rich families, but rather in working-class ones, and rarely amount to great fortunes. The inheritence tax is terrible...you're better off giving it all away before you die, or the government takes a huge chunk of it. I don't like the idea that some people get to laze around and live off the amassed wealth of others, then act like they somehow deserve to be filthy rich because of an accident of birth, but honestly, that happens much less than the working-class scenario I've given. I have no answers on this one, nor any firm opinions either way.

Poll added

Bump

Strongly agreed.

This one is very tough for me. I sway back and forth between agree and disagree. I personally believe that economic globalization will in the end be beneficial to the people of third world countries if corporations are allowed to expand freely into those nations, but I don't think that corporations should be given benefits at the expense of the current citizens.
I strongly agree with your answer.

I said *Strongly Disagree*.

What the fuck? I don't know what I was thinking. I meant *Strongly Agree*... Oh well.

Question 1:

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

I don't like the way that the question is phrased. I think that the interests of humanity will best be served by the transnational corporations rather than socialization, if that is what the question is after.

I don't like the way that the question is phrased. I think that the interests of humanity will best be served by the transnational corporations rather than socialization, if that is what the question is after.
Do think that the interests of multinationals are usually compatible with those of most humans?

Strongly Agree. (Hey, you'll be able to predict my answers on all of these!) :D

I chose strongly agree although I don't think that economic globalisation is inevitable.

Hey, Vittos... When you tally the scores, make sure to put this one as a *Strongly Agree* for me. That's what I meant to click!

Hey, Vittos... When you tally the scores, make sure to put this one as a *Strongly Agree* for me. That's what I meant to click!

What did you originally click?

Do think that the interests of multinationals are usually compatible with those of most humans?

So long as they are run ethically (as all companies should be run), then yes.

Strongly Disagree.

Reason: I think that corporations should be given benefits at the expense of the current citizens. Let the strong (corporations) live and the weak (citizens) die.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh