All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
24:18
My Political Compass 2019
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So it's 2019.
I figure it's probably time for me to do another political compass test, see how I've changed on this particular scale.
So I guess we'll go through it.
So if economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations.
Oh, I agree with that.
I probably strongly agree with that, but I try not to have any particularly strong points on these sort of things, because I might, for some reason, feel the needs change my mind.
Although I can't see that I would on that particular one.
I'd always support my country whether it was right or wrong.
Well, I'm sorry, I disagree.
If my country decides to implement a program of genocide for some reason, then I'm going to disagree with it.
I'm not going to support my country in that, even though it is my country.
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it would be foolish to be proud of it.
This is an interesting question.
I think there's more to it than what appears to be on the surface.
For example, your country produced you.
You're a product of your country.
And if you're a good person and the people around you are good people, your friends and family, your communities, if they're all good, moral, upstanding people, or at least by and large, then there's no reason you can't be proud of that because it is a collective effort.
And that is essentially what makes up our countries and our laws and our customs and our manners, mannerisms, and things like this.
And some are better than others.
And it's wrong to denigrate that, in my opinion.
And I think it's also wrong to suggest that you weren't a product of that and you don't have any legacy there.
There's nothing you owe to that.
So again, I disagree, but not because I'm some chest-thumping nationalist.
But I do think my country is a good thing.
I'd like to see it exist.
Our race has many superior qualities compared to the other races.
Nice try.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Well, it depends on the situation you're in, really, but technically no.
They may be a convenient ally, but they're not your friend.
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
I probably imagine there are cases where it is, but I think international law is there for a reason.
So I'm going to say yes, because sometimes, but it would have to be...
I mean, I don't have an example of why or when that would be the case, but I mean, sometimes I can imagine it would be.
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
I'm sure I've agreed to this one in the past, but yes, and I'm part of the problem.
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
I disagree.
I think that people in general disagree, which is why communism didn't take hold in many countries where Marx thought it would.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling employment.
Yeah, I think that's probably true.
I think it'd be better that goods are relatively cheaply priced, not increased artificially due to inflation, than the government worrying about who has a job, because ultimately it's your job to worry about whether you have a job or not.
And it's your job to get a job, if you need a job.
It's not up to the government to control that.
That's my opinion.
Should be the market.
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment.
They require regulation.
That's obviously true.
Look at the Flint water crisis.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need is a fundamentally communist idea.
And the thing is, right?
ironically that's what the market does like it's well no that's it's according to his deed isn't it That's the socialist credo.
This is the communist one.
But again, no, you know, like, who gets to decide?
That's the big question.
Who makes that decision?
And I think that the person making that decision has far too much control and will inevitably do damage with it where they aren't being openly malicious in some ways.
And again, people think, well, I mean, it sounds nice on paper.
Yeah, but then you realize that the activists going into it have like a pathological and very intense hatred of certain kinds of people, like landlords and things like this.
And it's like, I can't abide by it.
It's terrible.
It's a sad reflection of our society that something as basic as drinking water is now bottled branded consumer product.
No, I disagree.
I think there's good reason to have bottled water, which is why people buy bottled water.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Why?
Why should people not be able to own land?
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
I actually do agree with this.
I don't like financial speculation.
I'd rather if people actually produced things rather than essentially gambled on stock markets.
And there have been studies done that have just had randomization where random stocks have been bought and sold and things like that.
And it's roughly the same level of success as professional traders.
And this is all being done digitally now anyway.
So at the end of the day, you may as well just remove the human element.
And if that's going to happen, why even have it at all?
So, but I mean, there's probably something about the stock market I don't understand.
I'm sure it's got its uses, but I just don't like the way it operates.
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Well, I imagine that sometimes it is, yeah, but I think that generally it's probably not the way to go.
But I can imagine that there are going to be instances that it are.
I mean, like, for example, Trump's tariffs on China.
I think you could argue that they're a necessary thing in trade, but it's not optimal.
But it depends what you're trying to preserve, really, doesn't it?
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver profit to its shareholders.
Well, I mean, basically, like it depends what you consider a social responsibility.
I mean, if keeping the environment free of burning tap water is a social responsibility, then no, that's not the only thing that they have.
But if you consider that to be like an environmental responsibility or something, something different, then you could say yes.
But I don't think that they should be trying to morally craft the international landscape.
So I'm going to have to go agree on that because I really wish companies would just worry about making money, frankly.
The rich are too highly taxed.
Depends.
Depends on where you are, frankly, and it depends on what you think it should be done.
I mean, at the moment, it's 45% tax rate, I think, which is pretty bloody high.
But I don't think I'd cut it all that much.
I'd cut it a bit.
So, I mean, I guess I'm going to have to click agree, but a soft agree, soft agree.
I think everyone's too highly taxed.
So it's not just the rich.
But again, this is a question specifically designed to weed out the socialists among us, which is why I'm kind of reluctant to click agree, and I should probably click disagree because it's not just the rich too highly taxed.
I think everyone's too highly taxed.
And I really get sick of the progressives going, oh, I think we should raise taxes.
I'd be fine with raising taxes.
Why don't you just voluntarily donate then?
I don't want my taxes raised.
Like, do you mind?
Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.
Well, I think, sure, but I mean, like, only if the market supports that.
I don't think that this should be imposed from top down.
I would say could have access to higher standards of medical care.
So I'm going to disagree with that.
But not because I think that we should be restraining the amount of medical care they can get.
Yeah, I know I should click agree on that one.
Because then I'm supporting what they intended as a free market question.
And now I'm meta-gaming it, you know.
But I do think that private healthcare companies should be able to exist, obviously.
But I also think that the nationalized option is more reliable.
And frankly, it's cheaper overall.
I think there's a strong liberal argument from just practical measures on that one.
And I actually had to use the NHS recently, and it was actually a really excellent service.
Like, I had no problem with it at all.
So, governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public.
Yeah.
Yeah, they should.
And we already have laws that allow them to do that.
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Oh, how that's true.
In fact, I should probably strongly agree on that one.
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Generally, in principle, I agree.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Disagree, but I don't like abortion.
I really don't like abortion.
Like, there was an article going around the other day that said something like the leading cause of death in 2018 was abortion at 41 million.
And I don't know how they came to the statistics, but I mean, there probably have been a lot of abortions done.
And I don't think it's something that's going to age well.
I think that in the future, when people's fertility is lower and things like this, people are going to look at abortion and go, why on earth were you doing this?
This is horrible.
Because their values will change, because the pressures on their lives will change.
And I don't like the idea of ending human life, even if it's not what we would consider to legally be a person.
I just don't like.
I don't like it.
All authority should be questioned.
Well, obviously.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
No.
That's the problem with Islam's moral code.
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
Well, I mean, I disagree.
I like the fact that the British Museum is taxpayer-funded, because A, it means that it's free for everyone who's go in there.
I think it's free.
I mean, plenty of our museums are free.
But theatres are a different thing.
So a museum is a collection of actual items, things from history, presumably the history of your country and from around the world, that literally it's the patrimony of humanity.
But a theatre production is different.
So I would definitely distinguish between museums and theatres on the basis of what they do.
A theatre production is art and art should be able to survive on its own or through its own rich patrons, but I don't see why that has to be the government.
And I really don't think it should be the government.
Like Arch pointed out, some Norwegian feminists get an unbelievable amount of money from the Norwegian government to do their feminist performance pieces.
And it is just, A, embarrassing to watch.
But B, why the hell do I have to, you know, if I were a Norwegian taxpayer, I'd be like, why the hell do I have to pay for that?
You know, this is not something that my tax money should be going towards paying, but that's because it's not something universal like a museum.
But I'm going to have to disagree, but that's only because I don't want museums to have to become purely capitalist institutions.
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
What?
No.
All people have their rights, but it is best for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
I don't agree.
I think people should be able to freely associate as and when they choose.
And the thing is, right, for some people it will be that they want to keep to their own kind, and sure.
But then we have the problem, well, what do you do about integration?
Integration of immigrants.
So, yeah, I know.
I know.
It's one of those conundrums that there is no easy answer to.
But in principle, I think that people should be able to freely associate and do as they please.
And I don't even agree that people should keep their own kind.
I mean, other cultures are fascinating.
I love visiting them.
I just like coming back to my own.
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
I mean, I agree, but it's obviously not an optimal thing to do.
And it does kind of indicate that you've lost control.
And I've actually softened my position on this over the years.
And since I've become a parent, in fact, like, I've never had to spang my child, you know.
But that's only because I knew what I was doing going into it, you know.
And I think that I think that it's easy to look back on people from like 50 years ago who did do this as just a matter of course.
Because I think they just didn't have the kind of social understanding that we have now.
And it's not their fault.
And I don't think we should judge them for things that they couldn't have really known properly, especially given that it was just societal norm.
But I mean, again, I think sometimes it probably does have to be done.
I just haven't encountered it yet.
It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Of course it is.
Everyone should have their own private lives, even as children.
Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offense, obviously.
The prime function of schooling should be to equip future generations to find jobs.
Now, I don't agree.
I think it should be making critical thinkers and good citizens.
But what do I know?
People with serious inheritable diseases should not be allowed to reproduce.
I don't think the government should tell people, in fact, strongly disagree.
I don't think the government should tell people who is allowed to reproduce as soon as you give them that fucking power.
I mean, when do we get to compulsory reproduction?
As the fertility rate continues to decline, you know what I mean?
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
I don't think that's the most important thing.
I think that is important.
Children should learn to accept discipline, but I don't think that's the most important.
There are no savage and civilized peoples.
There are only different cultures.
Those who are able to work and refuse the opportunity should not expect society's support.
Well, yes.
Yeah, I think I probably agree with that.
Why shouldn't you work?
i mean they do that now don't they they even they even do like if you're only on benefits for like six months or something but um i'd have to look it up But yeah, I mean, generally as a principle, but I don't think we need to be particularly aggressive on that.
I think it's just been ethos, really, that we have rather than something we necessarily take action over.
When you're troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
No, you should really think through your problems.
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within the new country.
I disagree.
I think the problem is actually the opposite way around.
A lot of first-generation immigrants who came here, at least in the 60s and 70s, and 80s, came here with the intention of integrating.
And it was the same with the United States, where a lot of immigrants, for example, Donald Trump, his grandfather has changed his name from Drumf to Trump to integrate, to specifically do those things to become an American.
And you hear stories of families forbidding the parent language, the home country language being spoken in the home and they must speak English and things like this because they're trying to integrate.
And I think that, and if we say that they can't integrate, then that's kind of a way of effectively kind of ostracizing them.
And the problem, at least in Britain that we're having with like second and third generation Islamic people who have been raised here, they're not themselves immigrants.
They've always been here.
But they want ties to their home communities.
They want to reach back into that.
And it's, I think, because we're not properly integrating these people at all.
What's good for the most successful corporations is always ultimately good for all of us.
Oh, dear.
Good grief.
You know, never stop being woke on the danger of corporate power.
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Hmm.
I mean, I kind of like that.
I'm kind of sick of the BBC.
You notice on YouTube, if you go to a Russia Today video, they'll say, you know, this is funded by the Russian government.
And then if you go to a BBC video, they'll say, this is a public broadcaster.
It's like, well, what's the difference?
What's the difference at all?
Yeah, I think it's probably broadcasters should have to stand on their own two feet.
Because the BBC is effectively the mouthpiece of the British establishment, which is why it's corporatist, neoliberal, and very progressive.
Why the Tories are so progressive is beyond me.
Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Well, that's true.
And the general fear of radicalization now is probably going to be used to justify shutting a lot of people down in 2019.
And I'm genuinely worried about that.
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay the progress in a democratic political system.
Well, I mean, technically, that's true.
As Justin Trudeau said, as he admired Canada's ability to turn on a dime and say, yeah, but they're an autocracy.
You know, practically.
Why?
I mean, I have to agree that's a true statement, but, like, there are significant disadvantages to a one-party state that massively outweigh it?
Just so everyone knows.
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Well, who's the wrongdoer?
Yes, the social media panopticon is going to come for all of us.
I mean, there's a reason that thousands of people are being arrested for just saying things online.
It needs to stop.
It needs to stop.
The death penalty should be an option for those serious crimes.
I actually disagree.
I actually still don't like the death penalty.
And again, it's because I'm a liberal.
I think that each human life has value, and there should be a redemptive potential there.
But even then, like, new evidence might come to light that might exonerate the person.
And if we kill them, it doesn't do them much good, does it?
You know, it'd be better after 20 years of being in jail that new evidence comes to light and you're released, and these things do happen, than for us to kill you because it's just more convenient for us.
I don't think that crime and punishment should be, like, the law and order, should be about convenience.
I think it should be about what's right and wrong.
In a civilized society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
Well, that's not true.
I mean, societies are inevitably going to be hierarchical, but I don't have anyone above me commanding me, and I don't have anyone below me to obey me.
So, yeah, I mean, it doesn't have to be that way.
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Well, if by definition it doesn't represent anything, how is it?
Art.
But I think that even in its abstract, it does represent something.
So I don't think the question is very well formed.
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
I actually disagree.
I think rehabilitation should be more of the aim.
But I don't think it should be made soft and comforting and comfortable to be in prison, Norway.
Although I'm sure the statistics bear out that it's actually much better in the long run.
It's a waste of time to try and rehabilitate some criminals.
I think it's a waste of time.
It might be impossible, but I don't think that means you're wasting your time.
The business person and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Well, I mean, it depends what situation you're in.
If you're in dire need of a certain product or food to get your entire economy running, or to prevent people from starving, then sure.
But if you have all of these things and suddenly you're hungry, then no.
So, I mean, I go disagree, soft disagree.
It's like, I don't, I think they do different jobs.
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Well, I don't get to decide what a woman's first duty is.
I think it probably is that for a lot of women, but that doesn't mean that it has to be.
I mean, it's not for me to decide.
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting plant genetic resources of developing countries.
I don't know.
I don't know.
And unfortunately, there isn't.
don't know I I don't the plant Genesco researchers and what They're taking the genes of plants from developing countries and making, like Monsanto style, making genetically engineered crops.
I mean, is that unethical?
I don't know if that's unethical.
I'm just going to go disagree, but I guess it would be a soft disagree.
I mean, it probably are, but I just don't have the information in front of me.
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
No, I don't think so.
I think just, I mean, being sensible about your position in the world is, I think, the important aspect of maturity.
You can still oppose the establishment, which is what we're all doing, isn't it?
Astrology accurately explains many things.
No.
You cannot be moral without being religious.
No.
Charity is better than Social Security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Well, it depends what you mean by better.
I know I have to do this a lot, but a lot of it does hinge on the specifics of what's being said.
I mean, charity, I think, is a better social good than Social Security because it encourages people to be concerned about their fellow man without, again, government intervention.
This is making society more aware of itself and more interested in actually solving its own problems rather than expecting someone else to do it, which is what you're doing when you expect the government to do these things.
So I'm going to go agree.
Some people are naturally unlucky.
I think that is true.
Like, there are some people who are just genuinely naturally unlucky.
If things happen to you that are unfortunate, what are you going to do?
You know?
It's important that my child's school instills religious values.
Disagree.
Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
Disagree.
A same-sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
I agree.
Pornography depicting consenting adults should be legal for the adult population.
I agree.
What goes on at the private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Completely agree.
No one can feel naturally homosexual.
I've known too many gays to know that's not true.
These days, the openness about sex has gone too far.
In some respects, but generally no.
Okay, how do I stand?
Oof, I've gone more towards the right, haven't I?
I used to be dead on the margin.
In fact, I used to be around here.
Then I hit dead on the margin, and now I've gone slightly center-right, so more libertarian at this point.
I'm actually, it's interesting how I'm kind of following Heinlein's trajectory, isn't it?
He started quite left-libertarian and then started going right-libertarian.
But I think what that is, is I'm starting to get to the point where I think that definitively, liberty is the absence of coercion.
I think that's like an academic agent recently did a video.
I'll link in the description.
It's really good.
Talking about the three forms of freedom.
And one of them is freedom to do anything you want, freedom from coercion, and freedom to become a self-actualized person.
I think the freedom to do what you want and the freedom to become a self-actualized person are good, obviously.
And they're positive things that you should be striving for.
But I think that they're a sort of expanded definition of the term freedom.
I think that freedom really is, at its bedrock, the absence of coercion.
And I guess that's why I'm going more to the right on this.
But honestly, it could just be that this is a reaction to the left going extremely far to the left, which they have indeed done recently.
Tim Paul did a video about this, about how the right has actually stayed relatively sane and centrist, and the left is just dragging further to the left, and they don't seem to want to stop.
So I guess I'm more libertarian right now.
But I wouldn't say that I'd stay there forever.
I imagine that'll change if things go towards a more right-leaning social order.
And it seems that there are ideas from the left that can fix this.
But at the moment, I think that the problems are being caused by an excessive focus on left-wing ideas.
▲
Export Selection