Friday, October 22, 2004
Political Spectrum Scams
I recently posted my own to-the-point political spectrum test. As I had stated before, some tests can provide a general insight into degrees of "Right" or "Left" on the political spectrum. Some are clearly skewed – intentionally or otherwise – to reflect a certain bias of the test maker. Here’s an example question from one such test I recently received in an e-mail: "If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." (one’s options are varying levels of agreement or disagreement with the statement).
Now, how exactly are you supposed to answer such a question? "Strongly agree" to primarily serve the "interests of trans-national corporations" over "serving humanity?"
The ridiculous false choice of the question is definitely skewed to make one choose a kind and caring stance (alluding to the Left’s phony humanitarian posture), or to a "mean-spirited," pro-market, "Right Wing" stance. What if -- like me -- you don't think globalization should "primarily serve" anybody or anything.
A free market among the citizens of the world results in "globalization." There needn't be a plan or "purpose" to it at all -- it's merely the result of individuals acting freely, making their own choices as to how they wish to allocate their resources. The test question is basically saying, "Do you believe in warm and fuzzy caring people or big, mean cold corporate institutions?" It's meaningless as a question. It doesn't gauge anything. It pigeonholes you into appearing either "nice" or "mean" -- it's total nonsense.
The thing is, people fall for such phony scholarship like this and think it really is some profound scientific indicator regarding where one stands on some phony "spectrum" or "compass" or whatever.
Do you think the role of government is to get out of our way, or to push old ladies down stairs?
********************************
The Electoral College is a concept many have little understanding of. It’s not all that complex or difficult to understand really. On the surface, it sounds terribly unjust. It’s not. Jonah Goldberg’s brief article not only covers the basic concept, but also argues why it’s ultimately a good idea. One must remember that "democracy" means, "rule by The People." While that sounds nice, it ultimately means mob rule. The American system of government was intended to establish the virtues of self-government. The few chores assigned to federal authority were to be dealt with by representatives who would ideally represent the various factions and interests in the country. Mob rule (e.g. "Democracy") is not a pretty picture and has little to do with the kind of society one imagines when one hears the word democracy.
When asked what kind of government the founders had finally ironed out for the new American nation, Ben Franklin famously answered, "A republic…If you can keep it" -- good idea.
Now, how exactly are you supposed to answer such a question? "Strongly agree" to primarily serve the "interests of trans-national corporations" over "serving humanity?"
The ridiculous false choice of the question is definitely skewed to make one choose a kind and caring stance (alluding to the Left’s phony humanitarian posture), or to a "mean-spirited," pro-market, "Right Wing" stance. What if -- like me -- you don't think globalization should "primarily serve" anybody or anything.
A free market among the citizens of the world results in "globalization." There needn't be a plan or "purpose" to it at all -- it's merely the result of individuals acting freely, making their own choices as to how they wish to allocate their resources. The test question is basically saying, "Do you believe in warm and fuzzy caring people or big, mean cold corporate institutions?" It's meaningless as a question. It doesn't gauge anything. It pigeonholes you into appearing either "nice" or "mean" -- it's total nonsense.
The thing is, people fall for such phony scholarship like this and think it really is some profound scientific indicator regarding where one stands on some phony "spectrum" or "compass" or whatever.
Do you think the role of government is to get out of our way, or to push old ladies down stairs?
The Electoral College is a concept many have little understanding of. It’s not all that complex or difficult to understand really. On the surface, it sounds terribly unjust. It’s not. Jonah Goldberg’s brief article not only covers the basic concept, but also argues why it’s ultimately a good idea. One must remember that "democracy" means, "rule by The People." While that sounds nice, it ultimately means mob rule. The American system of government was intended to establish the virtues of self-government. The few chores assigned to federal authority were to be dealt with by representatives who would ideally represent the various factions and interests in the country. Mob rule (e.g. "Democracy") is not a pretty picture and has little to do with the kind of society one imagines when one hears the word democracy.
When asked what kind of government the founders had finally ironed out for the new American nation, Ben Franklin famously answered, "A republic…If you can keep it" -- good idea.
