Political Compass Test

And the incoherent questions we use to determine alignment

This is the beginning of an exploration of the questions that make up the political compass test, one question at a time. I don’t know who the people are who came up with the test, and so I don’t know what their biases are, so that’s beyond the scope of at least this part of this ongoing series. For now, this is just for the purposes of digging into the questions a bit, including clarifying definitions, exposing hidden assumptions, and making some guesses as to what the categories are the individual questions are meant to place people in. The style of question is such that each one is presented as a statement, and the respondent is asked to rate their level of agreement.

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

From wikipedia: globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide.

Is this a purposefully opaque definition? One way globalism is viewed is through the lens of economic exploitation of distant peoples by a transnational intermediary benefitting by a perceived non-equilibrium in the value of currency, labor, and capital.
When globalist traders set up sweatshops that produce goods for pennies on the dollar, this is part of gloabalism. The goods produced by this labor (sometimes slave labor or prison labor) are so cheap in the retail market, that locally made goods cannot compete. The local industry fails as a result. The type of economic isolationism or protectionism that does not allow for this type of international market-making is sometimes defined as fascism, or an aspect thereof.

I’m not sure of any situation economic globalisation would be inevitable other than a subversion of democracy resulting in the end of self-determinism. So “if democracy were subverted, *should* it be done so primarily to serve humanity, rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.” To paraphrase Camus, service to humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants. The world is always on the brink of death and collapse in innumerable ways. Using this as an excuse to exercise power is what defines a tyrannical regime.

Ok so we made a massive misstep as a civilization by buying into the ruse of corporate responsibility. Simply put, we thought that meant that corporations would be accountable for what they do wrong, but in actuality, it meant that corporations would assume the mantle of responsibility for social engineering, and shaping the future by bending society to its will… It turns out that in order to be as responsible for as much as possible, and just as under tyrannical regimes, they will enjoy as much power as they can convince the populace to demand they take- a process still being cheered on by the masses marching under Lockheed Martin’s rainbow pride flag. Big oops.

Trans-national corporations aligned with governments, given the power to “serve humanity” in whatever ways they can convince humanity that it must be served just sounds exactly like putting them in control of everything. Who here believes that would result in those entities working on behalf of anything other than self-interest? Who here believes this results in a system in which these trans-national unelected corporate/government entities are accountable to the people?

This leaves us with one word in the question doing pretty much all of the heavy lifting; it’s a word I find to signal a deeply imbedded blue-pilled mindset, and the word is “should.” “Should” is a word people use in place of an actual argument, and often when they disagree with reality. “People should be nicer.” “People should not litter.” “People should all be given electric cars by the government.” “Soft drinks should taste better, and have less sugar, but also not artificial flavors or sweeteners.”

So, with all that in mind, is there even the possibility of a coherent answer to the question: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Consider how much more coherent of a statement we would have to agree or disagree with if they replaced the word “should,” with the word “would.”