Identifying my political spectrum and showing my personal political beliefs
Politics is a lot more complicated than you think, and when it comes to political issues, we always tend to let our emotions dominate over reason. Everyone has different positions within the political spectrum, and everyone has their own personal opinions about some specific aspects of it. So, for those people who have a very limited perspective on political issues, it's not just about black and white. It's not that you're either a conservative or a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, or a DDS or a Dilawan. We all have out own political compasses.
I already took this test about months ago, but I want to take it now again just to see if my political beliefs has changed over time. The test is called The Political Compass. So how is this test work? There are 6 sets of propositions that deals with economics, social issues, religious beliefs, sexuality, nationalism, and other things that deals with politics, and then there are four options that you can choose (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) in order to determine what you feel about those following propositions. The propositions are not questions or surveys, and some of them are extreme and moderate, and that is how they will determine whether you lean into extremism or moderation. The test said that my responses must not be so overthought, because some of the questions are intentionally vague, but I'm going to analyze the propositions anyway in order to justify why my answers are either strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. After you take the test, the results will show you in a Cartesian plane where the coordinate is located based on your answers to the propositions. The x-axis is the economic axis, where in the left side is the Left Wing spectrum (where the far left is usually associated with Communism), and the right side is the Right Wing spectrum (where the far right is usually associated with Capitalism or Neo-Liberalism). While the y-axis is the social axis, where in the top is the Authoritarian spectrum (which the extreme spectrum is usually associated with Fascism), and the bottom is the Libertarian spectrum (which the extreme spectrum is usually associated with Anarchism). Whereas anything that leans near the vertex (or the very center) of the spectrum is usually associated with moderates or centrists. For more information, read the analysis page of their website, they will explain it to you in a much more detail.
I might not explain to you my answers in a detailed manner, and I don't have a very deep comprehension of politics, but I'm going to at least try anyway. My answers are just my opinions, and I don't profess all of them as a fact, so you are not required to agree with all of them. That's okay, since we differ with some of our opinions. To take the test for yourself, here's the link.
Page 1: General Propositions about How You See the Country and the World
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Agree. Globalization's end goal must be for the benefit of all people, every people (and by extension, animals and environment), not just the interest of the few capitalists. I believe our goal as humanity must be to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. But don't get me wrong, I still support capitalism, I just think that it needs to be reformed in order to lessen (if not entirely eradicate) economic inequality.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
Strongly Disagree. That's not patriotism, that's blind toxic nationalism. Blind nationalism is also the reason why we got Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. Whenever my country is doing some bullshit, I condemn it. We want it to correct its mistakes. That's the true love for one's country.
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.
Disagree. It has a point, it's foolish to be proud of where you were born, but I think it's okay to be proud of your heritage. I am proud to be a Filipino not because I was born in the Philippines, but because I am proud of what my ancestor heroes done to fight for this country from the hands of Western colonizers like Spain and United States. The freedom and liberty that all Filipinos enjoy today was the product of the sacrifices of revolutionizers and intellectuals like Rizal and Bonificio, and we Filipinos must be grateful to them.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
Strongly Disagree. I am not a racist piece of shit, and everyone must not be one. As a humanist, I believe there is no such thing as race. We all belong to one species, and that is Homo sapiens. Biology tells us that we are all basically the same. No one is superior or inferior based on their skin color. It's pseudoscientific, it's prejudicial, it's bullshit. Maybe many people used to believe on racial hierarchy in the past, but that's the past and we know better now.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Disagree. This is a false dichotomy. It's almost similar from saying "Either you're with me or you're against me." Suppose that there are two opposing political parties (Party 1 and Party 2) and they have opposing political ideas and policies. And it happens that I condemn the political ideas and policies of Party 1. Does that mean I automatically support the ideas and policies of Party 2? Of course not. Perhaps I support another party that is neither Party 1 nor Party 2.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Agree. I'm not an absolutist. It depends on the circumstances, and if there's a sufficient reason to do so, then we should at least consider that.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
Disagree. I think it's actually a good thing that mainstream media can have their own ways to propagate information to the masses in an entertaining manner. Just make sure that they must not sensationalize and oversimplify the data, the accuracy must still be there.
Page 2: Economy
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Agree. Economic inequality seems to be more prevalent. Wherever country you from, the gap between the rich, the middle class, and the poor is broad, and it can be easily observed here in the Philippines, especially in Metro Manila. You can see luxurious condominiums and a group of shanty houses in a squatter area at the same time in just a few turns of your head.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Agree. If the government lose control over the inflation level, it will produce bad consequences. But if the question is if minimizing inflation is more important than minimizing unemployment, my answer is minimizing unemployment. I think it's alright if the inflation rate is high as long as the unemployment rate is low. If the prices of all goods are high but you have no job, then it's bad news for you.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Strongly agree. Many big corporations, especially the oil and mining industry, have businesses where they inevitably cause destruction to the environment. That's why the government (in the department of environment) must always keep track for all of their activities. The monetary profit from the business is negligible if the environment that they destroyed backfired some bad consequences to the company.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.
Agree. If the question is whether this Marxist idea is noble at its fundamental core, then yes, I agree. It's great to contribute to the society for all you can while asking in return those things that what you just actually need, so everyone have contributions and will equally receive something in return according to what they need. It's nice in theory, but is it also nice in practice? It depends.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Strongly Disagree. It depends on what you mean by freer. If that means government should not interfere in any businesses whatsoever (laissez-faire), then I strongly disagree. I think every businesses should be regulated and monitored, especially if the businesses sell dangerous or potentially dangerous products, or the manufacturing of their products causes environment destruction.
It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Disagree. The reason why basic commodities are being sold is for the masses to have choices. Different companies have different products to sell and different people have different preferences. In the case of bottled waters, not all people have strong stomachs to drink water from faucets, that's why we have distilled, purified, alkaline, and other kinds of water, in accordance of what people need and want.
Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Disagree. Land is a commodity. If it is privately owned, it is used more efficiently. I think that we should buy and sold land as a commodity, so that those people who can utilize it the best can generate more profit from it. However, just like every businesses, it too must also be regulated.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Disagree. Because it says nothing about whether those businesses are actually harming other people. If you're making money by manipulating money, it's alright, as long as your business is not doing any legally or morally wrong things. But I still prefer those millionaires and billionaires who are pursuing their goal of making the world a better place.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Agree, especially when the local businesses in my country are dwindling because of our massive obsession with foreign products. It's okay to love foreign products but we must also first make our own domestic industries alive.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Strongly Disagree. The Friedman Doctrine sounds absurd and morally wrong. A company's social responsibility should also include the welfare of their consumers.
The rich are too highly taxed.
Disagree. It depends on the circumstance. If they are highly taxed but they profit little, then I think that's unfair. But if they are highly taxed in order for the people with lower income to lessen their taxes to pay, then I think that's fine.
Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.
Strongly Disagree. Public Health Care is a fundamental human right that every people must acquire regardless of your economic capability. No matter how rich or poor you are, we all get sick and we all need our health to be taken care.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Strongly Agree. That's one of the reasons why governments must regulate private businesses because there are businesses that are willing to sell potentially dangerous products by lying to their customers. We can just generate profits without the need for deceiving people.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Agree. A degree of government regulations and restrictions will require to allow all markets, including free ones, to run efficiently. These regulations are imposed by subjective governmental regulatory policies to hold the threat of punitive monopolies by predator multinationals and by foreign governments. However the regulatory policies are subjective and can be changed depending on the current market environment.
Page 3: Personal Social Values
Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Disagree. Although I personally don't like the very idea of abortion, I don't see any reason to make it illegal at all. Since abortion is still illegal in the Philippines, it's now time to make it legal. Restricted, maybe, but illegal, no. I don't have the right to tell other women that they don't have the authority over their own bodies. Don't like abortion? Just don't have one. But that doesn't mean you have the right to control other woman's body. I'm personally pro-life but I'm pro-choice for the sake of all women.
All authority should be questioned.
Strongly Agree. As an advocate of skepticism and freethought, I couldn't agree more on this one. Every single one institution, be it the government and/or the church, must always be questioned. Repression of criticism and mass indoctrination is always a trait of fascistic and totalitarian governments, and fanatical religious institutions.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Strongly Disagree. The concept of lex talionis is an archaic and outdated idea. This idea may be nice for ancient people but this is not how we punish people nowadays. We now don't chop the hands of thieves and stone people to death for committing adultery. It's nothing but legalized violence.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
Disagree. Theaters and museums are money-making industries because they generate visitors and viewers, and they promote tourism. And besides theaters and museums gives service to people when it comes to entertainment and education. So, it's great to invest on them.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
Agree. I mean, you can't force students to learn what they don't want to learn, and there are other children where their greater potential can only be nurtured outside the classroom. If classroom attendance is optional, then disinterested students can just don't attend the class and stop being a nuisance to the teacher, while motivated but struggling students can have the teacher's attention in order to get the help that they need to succeed in that class. It seems to be a win-win situation to both.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
Disagree. "Keep to their own kind" is very vague. But it seems to imply that we should separate ourselves from people with different race, sexual preference, religion, and ethnicity. How can we learn to empathize with other people if we don't interact with people who differ from us? Multiculturalism teaches us to be more tolerant to other person. The more we interact with them, the more we accept them.
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
Disagree. There are a lot of ways to discipline your children other than corporal punishment. It's bad parenting, even if some parents say that they spank their children out of love. There's no love in violence.
It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Agree. Parents must respect their children's individuality. Even though they came from their own bodies, they are still people who needs their privacy to be respected.
Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
Strongly Agree. I am not a weed user myself, and I don't have any plans smoking any drugs any day, but I don't see any reason for banning marijuana at all, even for recreational use. Medical studies revealed that there is a very little risk of death from using marijuana in and of itself, although it can have a short term and long term effect in your body for using it excessively. However in the Philippines, you will never die for smoking marijuana, you will die because the police will shoot you for possessing marijuana (because of Duterte's abysmal War on Drugs campaign). Even if it's true that marijuana can kill you, marijuana addiction (or addiction to any drugs at all, whether prescription or dangerous) should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. I think this is the reason why the War on Drugs is a big failure.
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
Agree. That's the very purpose of going to school. We learn all the basic subjects, so when we go to higher education, we all have prior knowledge about the specific course that we will pursue, and those basic prior knowledge can help us in our future professions.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
Strongly Disagree. That sounds like eugenics, and it's morally reprehensible. What should we consider as "inheritable disabilities"? The same rhetoric was used by Nazis to filter the "inferior" people (like Jews) and eliminate whatever they consider as "disabilities."
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Agree. That's not the only thing that children must learn but this is one of the important: self-control and self-discipline. However, they should be teach in proper ways, without the need to implement corporal punishment.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
Agree, only in some extent. If by savage, you mean worse, and if by civilized, you mean better, then just because a society has more sophisticated culture than another, that doesn't automatically make that culture better than the other. But I don't think there are savage people, there are savage ideas practiced by civilized people. For example, I think the death penalty is a savage idea but even many sophisticated civilizations practice it. And we can also say that the civilization of present is much better than the civilization of the past technologically, epistemologically, and morally. We now know better than them, and we now have relatively more progressive ideas than the past. That's why we say that we should let go of the past and move forward for the future. We study the past because we want to learn from their mistakes and we don't want to repeat them.
Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.
Agree. But I think it's more complicated than that. It depends on the opportunity that is offered to someone. If the opportunity is pretty unfair, would you expect able-bodied people to accept that? I don't think so. And how about there are opportunities, but the criteria for getting them, make it difficult for other people to get it (e.g. they lack work experience, or they don't have college degree)? And those who are not able to work (physically or mentally), since they are part of society, it is the obligation of that society to help them.
When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
Strongly Disagree. Thinking about happy things will not make the problem go away. The most rational thing to do is to face them with strategic planning and intelligent decision-making. Don't let your emotions dominate over your reason.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
Disagree. They can be fully integrated if they adopt that country's social norms, culture, and if they contribute to that country economically. But not all first-generation immigrants fully integrate to their new country. Maybe they adopt some, but maybe they still practice the norms of their previous nation, culture or ethnicity.
What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Disagree. Corporations' main goal is to make money as best as they can, regardless of whether they are good for the humanity as a whole, and in the environment, or not. It would be nice if there are corporations that have a main goal of making the world a better place, but I think money-making is really their main objective.
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Agree. Public information is not something that you should pay for. It's the right of everyone, regardless of your social class, to know what's happening in your country and in the world through news. And do you really want to pay some news agencies who loves to peddle fake news? Since broadcasting institutions have the press freedom, it's their responsibility to deliver unbiased information to the masses.
Page 4: Perception of Wider Society
Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Strongly Agree. This is especially true when Duterte signed the Anti-Terrorism Bill as a legislation. Although it still hasn't been fully implemented yet for now, but it has a very great potential to be abused. The difference between a "terrorist" (especially Communists) and a mere government critic can be indiscernible. Even though terrorism is also a national problem, I personally think that the passing of Anti-Terrorism Bill is for silencing the critics of the current administration.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
Strongly Disagree. A one-party state is a characteristic of a fascist government. It's still favorable to have a multi-party state, in order for voters to choose from them who has the best platform to offer. A dialogue (or should I say, multilogue) from different opposing parties is a great way to compare and contrast their political ideas and policies. Every party needs an opposition.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Agree. Better surveillance system is our way to detect criminals in an easier and more efficient manner. However, the government must also make sure that the right for privacy of anyone must be retained in some form or another.
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Strongly Disagree. The death penalty doesn't work, and there is no evidence that it deters crime, including murder and rape, effectively. Why would we want to bring back a medieval barbaric idea that is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice? It's disgustingly inhumane. You don't prevent murder by exercising legalized murder.
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
Agree, only in some extent. Government is still a crucial ingredient for a civilized society. Fascistic government is a bad idea, but anarchy is also a bad idea. However, it is also important that the masses to have the opportunity to question the government's actions. If the people have a good and rational reason to disobey the government's bad, inhumane, and stupid policies, then they must a right to disobey it. A lawless society is undesirable, but an Orwellian government with blind constituents is undesirable too. There should be a middle ground.
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all.
Disagree. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter if an art represents anything or not. As long as it is aesthetically appreciated by someone, it's art.
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
Disagree. Punishment is alright if it has the capacity to deter other future criminals from doing crimes. But I think rehabilitation must be given more attention, especially for drug suspects. Because as I've said earlier, drug addiction must be treated as a medical problem, not as a criminal problem. And rehabilitation is also a great way to give prisoners with bailable crimes the opportunity to make their lives better.
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
Disagree. I believe that every people, no matter how bad they are, still have the capacity to make a better version of themselves. They still have a chance to change, and we must not take away that chance, however improbable it may seem.
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Strongly Disagree. Every professions have contributions to the society in one way or another. No profession is better or more important than the other. They are all equally important in their own rights.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Strongly Disagree. Why can't fathers be homemakers? Why is homemaking must automatically be the mother's duty? I don't see any adequate reason why the mother's first duty is to be a house wife. And how about single mothers who have no choice other than having careers in order to feed their children, like my own mother?
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
Disagree. Since there is no neutral option, I just say I disagree, since I don't know the context of the proposition.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
Agree, only in some extent. If you make peace with a positive establishment, just accept the good stuff and reject the bad ones. But if you make peace with an establishment like the Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, you are not making peace, you are collaborating, which I don't think is mature. It's okay to pick your own battles but it's not okay to collaborate with an establishment that actively harms people.
Page 5: Religion
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Strongly Disagree. Astrology is nothing but bullshit. I think Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory got it perfectly when he said that astrology is a "mass cultural delusion that the Sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality." I respect people who genuinely believes it, but if you base your decisions on what you think the stars are telling you about your destiny, I genuinely think that you should reevaluate your whole sense of epistemology.
You cannot be moral without being religious.
Strongly Disagree. The mere existence of atheists and nonreligious people that live a good and moral life utterly disproves this moronic idea. Morality didn't even came from religion, it came from humanity, ourselves. If you can't distinguish the difference between right and wrong, you lack empathy, not religion.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Agree. Although ensuring people that they have a place to live, potable water to drink, food too eat, basic healthcare, and fairly waged jobs to work on, is also an essential thing for all citizens, I think directly giving something to the needy is a sign of genuine compassion and generosity. Charity can be more appreciated because it is directly given. But charity alone, without social security, is not enough. It's better if they go hand in hand.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
Agree, only in some extent. There are people who are unfortunate, but not in a sense that they are "destined" to be unfortunate. I don't believe in a metaphysical karma (but I believe in practical karma, as in the Golden Rule). And I don't also believe in the existence of any personal god/s that controls human destiny and has a grand divine plan. Maybe they are unlucky by coincidence, but that's it. I don't think there's something more than that. A coincidence, however improbable it may seem, can be repeated multiple times. So it's possible to be unlucky for many times in a row, even though there is no intelligent agent manipulating it.
It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.
Strongly Disagree. Moral values? Yes. Religious values? No. Religious values must stay inside of churches and private religious schools, and they cannot cross the borderline between the church and state. And besides, what kind of religious values are we talking about here? If you're a Christian, what would you feel if your children are being indoctrinated with Islamic values? If you're a Muslim, what would you feel if your children are being taught with Hindu values? That's why all public schools must be secular, they must not favor any religion in order to give way for the toleration of all religions, including no religion. I am in favor of teaching world religions in public school students, as long as it's for academic purposes and doesn't meant to indoctrinate children. However, moral values that is being teach to children must not favor any religion in any way. They also must be secular. Any public school must always be secular, at all times. Secular education is for public schools, religious values are for churches and religious private schools, let's keep the separation that way.
Page 6: Sexuality
Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
Strongly Disagree. Sex is only immoral when it is done without the consent of one's sexual partner. That's not sex, that's rape. There's nothing wrong with premarital sex, as long as it is done carefully (with protection) and as long as they will keep in mind the consequences of what they will do in bed.
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Strongly Agree. No couple should be discriminated and be called as bad parents just because they belong on the same sex. It doesn't matter if the parents are mommy and daddy, or two daddies, or two mommies. As long as they are capable of taking care of children out of love and compassion, they are qualified as parents.
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
Agree. If the adult film industry are composed of consenting adults, then it's fine, but if there are children involved, it's definitely not okay. Some people view pornography as an art and pornstars view themselves as artists, so what's the deal with that? It's okay, as long as there is no human trafficking and sexual child abuse involved.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Strongly Agree. Everyone has a right for their own privacy. No one should be punished by the state just because some people are practicing homosexual acts. That's a very archaic and barbaric idea. However, in the context of reproductive health, this must not be confused with government implementing reproductive health measures for the safe sex of couples, whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, or whatever gender you identify. That's another issue.
No one can feel naturally homosexual.
Strongly Disagree. There are still scientific disputes on whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental, but one thing for sure is, homosexuality is not a choice. No one can choose themselves to be gay. That's their nature, and no one can forcefully change that. Maybe you can control your homosexual attractions but you cannot remove that altogether. Let me ask you this: can you choose to be gay for one week? No, of course not. You cannot choose to be attracted to your same sex, so why would you expect homosexuals to force themselves to choose to be attracted to their opposite sex?
These days openness about sex has gone too far.
Disagree. I actually think that it's a good thing that people are not being shy to talk about sexuality, and we should normalize it. Comprehensive sex education must be teach to all teenagers in order for them to make wise decisions during their sex lives, and family planning must be encouraged to all future families in order to control the overpopulation, and contraception use must be introduced and be accessible to anyone who needs it primarily to prevent to spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Results
It turns out that I lean towards moderate Libertarian Left. Personally, I call myself as a liberal, in a classical sense, because neo-liberals are different and they lean toward the Right wing spectrum. I lean myself toward moderate Left because I favor Socialist policies, not because I think Capitalism must be overthrown, but because I think Capitalism is flawed and must be prevented from eating everything on its path. More like Social Democracy. I also favor environmentalism and climate change policies; public understanding of science; separation of church and state; civil rights such as women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and indigenous people's rights; sex education, legalization of marijuana and abortion (although I don't smoke any drugs and I personally don't like abortion); freedom of speech and expression; freedom of and from religion; and social equality that condemns racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religious bigotry. Basically, with these things that I support, I am the typical liberal guy that you would expect. But make no mistake, I don't support any political party in the Philippines, especially the Liberal Party, so don't call me a "Dilawan" anytime soon because I'm not. My loyalty is to my countrymen, not to any political party. I equally condemn the incompetent policies and bad decisions of any leaders regardless of their parties. But whenever the time has come that I can finally vote (I am not yet 18), I will vote any candidate that shares my same political values, and will implement them not only by mere words and promises, but with actions.
So, what is your political compass? Do you share my same views or not? Tell me in the comments, I would like to know them.
Date Published: July 12, 2020
留言