Political Spectrums are too vague

This will likely be boring af to read through, but if I’m going to avoid being sucker punched because people are being labelled Nazis, White Supremacists, and “woman hating misogynists” then I should probably have my views listed somewhere so that I don’t have to spend more time rebutting than AntiFa take to think about their baseless accusals.


These questions are taken from https://www.politicalcompass.org/test which is considered a good test by many. However with the complexity of the questions and their ramifications, comes an over-simplification from the answer format. Furthermore placing oneself into a category/party/ideology/community based on some but not all of that group’s stated beliefs, will inherently cause both internal conflict and the result of giving that group the negative external appearance of the worst elements.

(Addendums will be added after the end if necessary as and when my views change with evidence.)



If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. An “if” question supposing a future hypothetical outside my control. Good start. If it’s economic then it will serve corporations by it’s nature. I wouldn’t be in favour of forcing economics to serve humanity further than maybe regulating the monopolisation of resources.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. No. Would anyone answer “yes”? How would that be justified? (please comment)
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism isn’t useful, but citizens contribute to the nation so there’s no reason here against being proud if one’s nation is worthy.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. All races have statistical variances in “qualities” but the ranges overlap such that I wouldn’t promote or disparage based on race rather than merit.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the purposes of overthrowing the enemy this can be a useful short term solution, but society often conflates association with overall shared views. Hence this post.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. Yes, by that if a nation justifies an action then they don’t agree with the international law. How can law be truly international in such circumstances?
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. The worry for me comes more from the public acceptance of each as the other. Whilst it is preferable that each media outlet stick to the field to which it advertises itself, I feel that consumers should research what they find before allowing it to instruct their behaviour. That would solve a lot more problems.


People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. Neither. We’re physically divided by nationality but the internet has helped in that regard. No-one knows what class you are when you post anonymously, and that’s wonderful.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I don’t know enough about economics to have much of an opinion on this, but I feel that it’s easier to control inflation directly. Employment is largely at the whim of the free market.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. I agree. Governments primary function should ideally be to grant and protect rights in accordance with the will of the people, those rights extend to others, animals, and the environment, if the people will it. If the people demand that nature has the right not to be unduly damaged by our presence (and thus possibly damage us in return) then I see no issue with the government granting and enforcing that right according to the researched effects of the actions of corporations.
“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea. Only if you want to deny personal  freedoms, in which case what’s the point of existing? To continue to exist? It’s circular, what’s the *point*?
It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. It’s amazing that we’re capable of such. In principle the demand and supply of portable clean water isn’t bad. The willingness of people to buy it at ludicrous prices because of some perception of quality beyond reason is the sad part.
Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold. A strange idea, nonetheless necessary in a population where nomadic lifestyle isn’t tenable.
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. If they contribute nothing to society then what’s the harm? It’s regrettable when that fortune isn’t wielded for the betterment of the species.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Anti-protectionism would only work if all nations did it.
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. If a company has no other social responsibilities then a rival would be more agreeable to consumers and the demand would surely force the hand of the greedy company. The only other necessary responsibility for a fair free market would be a level of transparency.
The rich are too highly taxed. “The rich” is too vague, and countries differ in their taxation. Disincentivising the accumulation of wealth removes the impetus for improvement in a capitalist society.
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . I don’t see why not. If they can pay more then the right is also applicable for someone else to provide whatever a “higher standard”.
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. If the public demand that detrimental action should be met with punitive measures, then this follows logically.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Monopolies restrict opportunities of others so; yes.

(Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?)

The freer the market, the freer the people. Only in terms of freedoms relating to the market. Capitalism has a track record of being in line with general higher standards of living, although when people are starving because they don’t have enough little green pieces of paper the whole thing looks a little silly.


Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal. “always”? Only a sith deals in absolutes..

Abortion is not a simple topic.

Only women give birth, but the right to choose to be a parent is inherently enmeshed in the debate, so as a man I’m anti-abortion until there’s a legal equivalent for me.

As a scientist I’m fine with abortion before 24 weeks from a neurological POV, but damage to the mother in terms of ability to carry in future etc should be considered too.

Philosophically the consequences of  sex should be part of the decision to have sex. Abortion past maybe 4 weeks(?) shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Economically the right to abortion shouldn’t mean the right to free abortion (i.e: at the tax payer’s expense) except in the case of  medical concerns.

All authority should be questioned. Nothing should be exempt from being questioned.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Seems fair. Intent should modify the punishment somewhat though.

Also if someone is repentant then punishment often has a negative psychological effect (i.e: If they’re going to get punished even if they feel genuinely remorseful then what’s the incentive for remorse and the behavioural change that follows?)

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. Taxes are spent as per the will of those we elect to serve our best interests. It’s much cheaper to keep these institutions going than to build and destroy them as the cycle of whim rolls forward. However, we are now in the position to make our own choices from a vast array of entertainment choices and the government supplying such art opportunities for the public is fast becoming outdated.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. Education is integral to the betterment of society and the economy. Classroom attendance should be compulsory in order to give each child the full range of opportunities arising from a basic education.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. “kind”?

If this means race then no, if this means class then no, if this means sex then no, if this means age then no, if this means ideology then no, if this means keeping dangerous mentally unstable criminals in unsafe circulation then yes.

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children. Pain is a quick was for the brain to associate behaviour with action, but I’ve never had to spank my children so I don’t think it necessary in such a safe society when our biological development takes such a relatively long time as this gives greater opportunity for slower, more conscious methods of learning.
It’s natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents. Yes, it develops specific areas of the mind.

Also as parents we don’t own our children. We are their wards and thus don’t necessarily have the right to know everything they think.

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence. If it were legal I wouldn’t have to buy it from a guy who also sells heroin, so it would be safer for society not to criminalise such a drug, especially when compared with the effects of alcohol and tobacco etc..
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. *to have the opportunity (in terms of knowledge) to follow any career/artistic endeavour/interest they enjoy and are suitable for, whilst entering society with as few incorrect beliefs as possible.
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce. Given advances in genetics this won’t be an issue. Restricting something we can work on limits our advances in those fields.
(Take pesticides for example, sure we made mistakes, but if all farms were forced to be organic, we couldn’t learn from the mistakes we’re not making and couldn’t get any better.)
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. That would lay the groundwork for an authoritarian society. Who do you trust to decide what your child should be disciplined for?
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. There’s no sense in labelling a culture “savage” unless the people within that culture display savage behaviour.

People can learn however, and given the opportunity, shouldn’t then be forgiven for continued savagery because of the culture they came from.

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support. Without merit, why reward?
When you are troubled, it’s better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. If the source of the trouble is ignored then it can have potential to get worse. Troubles should be analysed and addressed if necessary.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. “never”? These absolutes are silly. Of course they potentially can. Factors like individual capacity and culture of origin massively affect the outcome. It may be much more difficult to acclimate an 80 year old fundamental muslim into a secular humanist society than a 5 year old atheist, but that doesn’t mean “never”,
What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. “always”? The wording of these questions inherently ensure my disagreement and skew the result, despite for example the consequence of growing companies employing more people and stimulating the economy etc etc
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding. Public can fund whatever broadcasting they want. On what grounds would anyone even argue the restrict that? (comments welcome)


Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. If we’re not free to potentially revolt then what protection do we have against the misuse of our governments?
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. That advantage comes at the heavy cost of removing the influence of the people and their differing ideologies. Not worth it.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried. Privacy doesn’t imply wrongdoing.  Surveilling those who do no wrong can only be the result of the public becoming a product. Who finds our personal information so valuable as to expend the resources necessary to gather it?
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes. Death denies the opportunity for remorse. I don’t consider the taking of life to be suitable as a punishment.
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. In the governance of a free society those positions should always be reversed.
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at all. Abstraction isn’t the same as meaninglessness. This question however seems less to do with politics and more to do with personal aesthetical considerations. What bearing does it have?
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation. Punishment implies rehabilitation (in the same way that consent must be informed).
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. Definitely. But until we try, until we give the opportunity, how could you possibly make any determination as to who should be denied?
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Production could survive without art, but art could not survive without production.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Not unless they choose that duty.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Some of them, more than likely yes. What does this have to do with my politics? You want me to be against people having the opportunity to earn more in a sweatshop than they would in the field due to the governance of other countries? I don’t have the right to directly intervene in the policies of other sovereign nations, all I can do is appeal to the people to better inform their government as to what they want and need.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.


Astrology accurately explains many things. Astrology is evidentially inaccurate.
You cannot be moral without being religious. Morality is subjective, but as religion is evidentially inaccurate I can’t find cause to find it would be morally worth while.
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Without a low level of social security not everyone could have the same opportunities. I would say that basic human rights should be afforded to those without the means to self supply but beyond that I leave it to an informed democracy to decide which causes warrant charity.
Some people are naturally unlucky. Luck is a description that which happens despite influence or lack thereof. It is not something people *have*.
It is important that my child’s school instills religious values. *It is important that my child’s school DOES NOT instil religious values, but seeks to rid the child of a many false beliefs as possible.


Sex outside marriage is usually immoral. As marriage isn’t the only standard of consent; I disagree.
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. I see no reason the should be excluded. If there is an overabundance of people seeking adoption, all other things being equal then statistical likelihood of abuse should inform as to which combination of sexes should be preferred.
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population. There is no obvious reason for this not to be the case.
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. Agreed. Consent being the key word there in regards to sexual activity.
No one can feel naturally homosexual. If sheep and deer can I see no reason that humans cannot.
These days openness about sex has gone too far. Openness as in; freedom of access to information about? When has that ever been a bad thing?

Thus ends the quiz.

Out of curiosity whilst collecting these questions I arbitrarily clicked “agree” to all, the result would seem to imply a slight bias on behalf of the questions. Thoughts and comments welcome 🙂



About (V)nemoni)(s

The views and opinions expressed here are purely my own. I am not affiliated with and business or political body. All content is either my own work, items in the public domain, or items used under the terms of Fair Usage for criticism, commentary, or education purposes. (Also; only a fool would take anything posted on here seriously.)
This entry was posted in politics, society and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s