Tag Archives: mazardeus

My Political Spectrum of 2017

After Donald Trump’s inauguration, I decided to take a political compass test. Here is my reflection on some of the propositions I am passionate about sharing:

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

Strongly Agree.

This is obvious. All countries benefit from economic prosperity when the system serves humanity as a priority. The interests of trans-national corporations may conflict with the interests of the common people. A great example of this is the United States of America. If anything, corporations or any company or group should serve the people. Not the other way around. That is what democracy is all about.

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Strongly Disagree.

If my country is in the wrong, I will not support said country. Like the protest of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, I would hold my country accountable for their actions by practicing my first amendment right. There is nothing patriotic about showing unconditional allegiance to a country in the wrong.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Strongly Disagree.

Propositions like this approach political ideologies in relation to Nazi Germany and KKK white supremacy. Obviously, that is the most extreme reflection of this statement. I can understand that some racial groups can possess qualities that are common to their group compared with another group, but reality always has its complexities. This is not always the case for all. Over time, this proposition will be less legitimate as mixed races are on the rise.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Strongly Disagree.

Not always the case. Just because I am opposed to that person (my enemy), that does not make the other (the enemy of my enemy) my friend. People are not only more complicated than that, but I also treat all people with dignity and respect whether or not they are my friend or enemy.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Strongly Disagree.

It is never justified to take military action that defies international law. Take the United States military action of invading and occupying other countries like Iraq, a violation of international law. This action, like the war in Panama, led to the killing of innocent civilians.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Strongly Agree.

This is a huge problem in industries like Hollywood. Some of its manufacturing of information that indoctrinate the public that normalizes neoliberalism are sold under the protection of entertainment.

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Strongly Agree.

Even though there are cases where the latter is true, class division is more commonly relevant in our history and still unfortunately exists today. There are more cases where rich people will surround themselves with their own class than the poor.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Strongly Agree.

A controlled inflation rate is more important, because it would benefit the purchasing power of the people. Then, the economy will prosper. Unemployment will be taken care of without the need to control it. If unemployment becomes a problem, there are factors like inflation that will counteract it.

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

Strongly Agree.

This is a very good idea. Other countries outside of the United States actually require (by law) to have a philosophy advisor review the actions of a corporation of environmental concerns like oil companies. This helps regulate corporations from violating environmental concerns to the planet.

“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.

Strongly Agree.

This is a very good idea. Democratic socialism would greatly benefit the United States in comparison to Capitalism. The covering of all basic human needs for the people to live a happy life like the right to good and affordable healthcare, education, food and shelter are all covered by the contributions of all people through taxes and jobs that meet the sense of happiness in every human being.

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Strongly Agree.

Like healthcare, it is sad that water is being sold for profit. Not only that, bottled water is not guaranteed to be clean or healthy for the body. Human beings have a right to have clean, healthy water available to their homes. This was the case decades ago in the United States, then the government decided to not clean the water as much in order to save and make money. Then, they decided to bottle and sell it to make even more money. Imagine, we used to have clean water for free.

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Disagree.

I am suspect on the origin of the idea that started land ownership. Homo sapiens originated in Africa as immigrants sharing land, relocating and exploring. This is how it should have been. Since there is almost little left to explore new land on Earth, over time, people proclaim they own land after colonization and war that led to too much genocide. No nation deserves land that originated from a history of violence. However, I am not extreme about this idea that would lead me to complete anarchy. If land is to be bought and sold, I am hoping it contributes to the good of humanity and to be used as a value to support families. If I own something, I do not mind sharing some of my goods like apples and oranges to others in need. If it is land I own with apples and oranges sold on a massive scale that may limit my ability to feed my own family, then I will sell fruits for money to those interested in buying in high quantities or share part of the land I own as long as it does not affect my ability to support myself and my family. I balance consistency and kindness to my neighbors. This is a complex issue that, I admit, requires me to reflect more on it.

See, I am in favor of land used as a natural resource to build a home and food to support others. Land can be divided and shared to groups of families. But to put a price on land? That, I must think over. See, if one wants to move, perhaps they can trade with another’s land. So, perhaps to put a price on land may be consistent. However, this is under the impression that we stick with this strategy of groups owning sections of land. Perhaps I would propose that things would be more effective if everything is collected socially to support all. The land is free from restrictions. One may argue that if land is free from restrictions, how will the land be self-regulated? Would it be best if land is split up? Well, collectively, people will take care of it.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Strongly Agree.

This is commonly found from the elite in the United States and the manipulative activities of Wall Street.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Strongly Disagree.

A company should focus on selling good products and serving the people first. This creates a self-generated prosperity that will help everyone. There are so many aspects of social responsibility that must be prioritized over profit for shareholders. American capitalism endorses this viewpoint, and it negatively affects people economically.

The rich are too highly taxed.

Strongly Disagree.

In the United States, the rich have been taxed a lot less for the past few decades. This is wrong. The rich must pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else. Tax breaks for the rich is not going to help.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Strongly Disagree.

Medical care is a right for all people regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Everyone should have the same high quality care.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Strongly Agree.

This is a step forward to regulating the system of Capitalism to be less corrupt.

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

More coming soon.

After Donald Trump’s inauguration, I decided to take a political compass test. Here is my reflection on some of the propositions I am passionate about sharing:

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

Strongly Agree.

This is obvious. All countries benefit from economic prosperity when the system serves humanity as a priority. The interests of trans-national corporations may conflict with the interests of the common people. A great example of this is the United States of America. If anything, corporations or any company or group should serve the people. Not the other way around. That is what democracy is all about.

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

Strongly Disagree.

If my country is in the wrong, I will not support said country. Like the protest of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, I would hold my country accountable for their actions by practicing my first amendment right. There is nothing patriotic about showing unconditional allegiance to a country in the wrong.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

Strongly Disagree.

Propositions like this approach political ideologies in relation to Nazi Germany and KKK white supremacy. Obviously, that is the most extreme reflection of this statement. I can understand that some racial groups can possess qualities that are common to their group compared with another group, but reality always has its complexities. This is not always the case for all. Over time, this proposition will be less legitimate as mixed races are on the rise.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Strongly Disagree.

Not always the case. Just because I am opposed to that person (my enemy), that does not make the other (the enemy of my enemy) my friend. People are not only more complicated than that, but I also treat all people with dignity and respect whether or not they are my friend or enemy.

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

Strongly Disagree.

It is never justified to take military action that defies international law. Take the United States military action of invading and occupying other countries like Iraq, a violation of international law. This action, like the war in Panama, led to the killing of innocent civilians.

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

Strongly Agree.

This is a huge problem in industries like Hollywood. Some of its manufacturing of information that indoctrinate the public that normalizes neoliberalism are sold under the protection of entertainment.

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.

Strongly Agree.

Even though there are cases where the latter is true, class division is more commonly relevant in our history and still unfortunately exists today. There are more cases where rich people will surround themselves with their own class than the poor.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Strongly Agree.

A controlled inflation rate is more important, because it would benefit the purchasing power of the people. Then, the economy will prosper. Unemployment will be taken care of without the need to control it. If unemployment becomes a problem, there are factors like inflation that will counteract it.

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

Strongly Agree.

This is a very good idea. Other countries outside of the United States actually require (by law) to have a philosophy advisor review the actions of a corporation of environmental concerns like oil companies. This helps regulate corporations from violating environmental concerns to the planet.

“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.

Strongly Agree.

This is a very good idea. Democratic socialism would greatly benefit the United States in comparison to Capitalism. The covering of all basic human needs for the people to live a happy life like the right to good and affordable healthcare, education, food and shelter are all covered by the contributions of all people through taxes and jobs that meet the sense of happiness in every human being.

It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

Strongly Agree.

Like healthcare, it is sad that water is being sold for profit. Not only that, bottled water is not guaranteed to be clean or healthy for the body. Human beings have a right to have clean, healthy water available to their homes. This was the case decades ago in the United States, then the government decided to not clean the water as much in order to save and make money. Then, they decided to bottle and sell it to make even more money. Imagine, we used to have clean water for free.

Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.

Disagree.

I am suspect on the origin of the idea that started land ownership. Homo sapiens originated in Africa as immigrants sharing land, relocating and exploring. This is how it should have been. Since there is almost little left to explore new land on Earth, over time, people proclaim they own land after colonization and war that led to too much genocide. No nation deserves land that originated from a history of violence. However, I am not extreme about this idea that would lead me to complete anarchy. If land is to be bought and sold, I am hoping it contributes to the good of humanity and to be used as a value to support families. If I own something, I do not mind sharing some of my goods like apples and oranges to others in need. If it is land I own with apples and oranges sold on a massive scale that may limit my ability to feed my own family, then I will sell fruits for money to those interested in buying in high quantities or share part of the land I own as long as it does not affect my ability to support myself and my family. I balance consistency and kindness to my neighbors. This is a complex issue that, I admit, requires me to reflect more on it.

See, I am in favor of land used as a natural resource to build a home and food to support others. Land can be divided and shared to groups of families. But to put a price on land? That, I must think over. See, if one wants to move, perhaps they can trade with another’s land. So, perhaps to put a price on land may be consistent. However, this is under the impression that we stick with this strategy of groups owning sections of land. Perhaps I would propose that things would be more effective if everything is collected socially to support all. The land is free from restrictions. One may argue that if land is free from restrictions, how will the land be self-regulated? Would it be best if land is split up? Well, collectively, people will take care of it.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

Strongly Agree.

This is commonly found from the elite in the United States and the manipulative activities of Wall Street.

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Strongly Disagree.

A company should focus on selling good products and serving the people first. This creates a self-generated prosperity that will help everyone. There are so many aspects of social responsibility that must be prioritized over profit for shareholders. American capitalism endorses this viewpoint, and it negatively affects people economically.

The rich are too highly taxed.

Strongly Disagree.

In the United States, the rich have been taxed a lot less for the past few decades. This is wrong. The rich must pay their fair share of taxes just like everyone else. Tax breaks for the rich is not going to help.

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.

Strongly Disagree.

Medical care is a right for all people regardless of whether you are rich or poor. Everyone should have the same high quality care.

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

Strongly Agree.

This is a step forward to regulating the system of Capitalism to be less corrupt.

Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal.

Strongly Disagree.

 

All authority should be questioned.

Strongly Agree.

 

 An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Strongly disagree.

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
Agree

 

 

 

More coming soon.