Part 2A:
8. People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Strongly agree. Out of all the political compass questions, I feel that this one separates the left and right wing the most. National differences tend to stem from class, not vice versa. The quality of life and goals of poor people versus the rich differ more greatly than one's ethnic or racial background. With income and wealth inequality exacerbating and reaching record levels, this is especially true now. Though the level and standards of poverty may differ across nations, what constitutes as the proletariat is largely constant- they can only make money by selling their labor, are highly susceptible to exploitation, have a standard of life where basic necessities and financial stability are not guaranteed- and this is prioritized over other goals, and general lack of both positive and negative freedoms. This is still mostly true even in the West. The wealthy, however, are more concerned with amassing and keeping their wealth, have social connections often based foremost on wealth, are rarely laborers, and have a much greater influence on social and political life. Yet oftentimes, the ruling class will hone in on often superficial distinctions between different nationalities and races to blur the distinctions between classes- and this sometimes a deliberate attempt to inhibit class consciousness. The proles fighting against themselves is such less of a threat to the social order than all proles fighting against the ruling class.
9. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Strongly agree. The presence of inflation is far more damaging to an economy that the presence of unemployment. Especially considering inflation is essentially a regressive tax, it hurts all poor and middle class much more than the wealthy, thus the majority of people. Unemployment is also a horror, though the key difference is that it does not effect all people in a given class, and it is privy to happen in any class. Inflation will eventually cause unemployment to a certain degree, since one of the most effective solutions to inflation is reducing the money supply in the economy (though this isn't the full story, especially in instances of price inflation caused by profiteering in addition to just a demand surge). Unemployment is also more likely to be cyclical and self-correcting than the presence of inflation, which tends to be more long-term and harder to mitigate. Ultimately, as proven by the Phillips curve, actions taken to mitigate inflation will often cause unemployment and vice versa (though not always, as the Phillips curve is not absolute), thus the economy is often forced to answer which is the worser evil, and that is inflation.
10. Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Strongly agree. This is a more obvious one. Environmental issues are a textbook example of negative externality in the market. Neither individual corporations or markets are not self regulating. As aforementioned, the corporation's foremost duties are profits, growth, and influence. Doing business in a more environmentally sound way cuts into the maximum amount of profits they can make. The only force capable inhibiting corporations from damaging the environment to an extent that is socially regrettable is government. And this is a case where government absolutely should step in. There simply are no other avenues hold corporations liable and disincentive them from polluting without regulation. It would be a fool's errand to think that consumers are powerful enough to just start a rival corporation that is not only voluntarily less environmentally damaging, but also competitive with the ones that are. Profits are short term; the sustainability and health of this Earth is anything but.
11. “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea.
Agree. Everyone's basic needs- including healthcare and education, should be met, especially given that the wealth is available to do so. People are simply more productive and have a far greater potential to contribute when their basic needs are met, as opposed to leaving them indigent because it is less costly to do so and would require some degree of wealth redistribution. Of course, this principle isn't absolute- those who contribute more should earn more than those who contribute less, or can't contribute at all. But that does not justify the lesser groups not having their basic needs being met. This is an instance where cooperation and collaboration ought to supersede competition.
12. The freer the market, the freer the people.
Agree. Markets are a necessity for freedom, since not only do they create wealth, but allow for the free exchange amongst citizens. One cannot have personal freedom without economic freedom. However, it's still important to recognize that free markets inevitably create externalities- pollution, severe wealth inequality, monopolization/anti-competitive behavior, lack of labor rights and standardized education, and greater corporate control over government. since not all woes can be met by market forces alone. These issues would in turn make certain people less free, likely those of a lower class. In addition, private corporations can oppress the citizen to an extent comparable to the federal government in the absence of regulation- low wages, rigid hours, little protections, and no sick or vacation time is hardly "freedom". The purpose of government action is to rectify where the market cannot meaningfully address injustices. If it could, then everyone would have healthcare in the United States.
13. It’s a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Agree. Water is an inelastic good and a fundamental human need, therefore it ought to be a public good. Sure, I have no problem with the existence posh rich-person water alternatives like Evian, but basic clean, drinkable water itself should be universal, especially since the world is more than capable of providing it. But this question isn't meant to be taken literally- it's asserting that market logic principles and the need to profit applying to even the most basic human needs is a negative reflection of society. Which I believe it is, and where capitalism falls short. Sure, the act of governments nationalizing the drinking water supply or providing drinking water to all citizens, tax-payer funded, is anti-market logic, but will deliver better results from a utilitarian standpoint, since no one is excluded based on an inability to pay.
14. Land shouldn’t be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Disagree. This is a tough one to answer. De-commodification of land, in theory, would allow for the land to be utilized much more efficiently and equitably. Problems like land scarcity, land being used inefficiently (think suburban homes with massive lots whilst a total ban on mixed-use zoning, leading to higher aggregate prices), and food shortages could be solved much more readily than allowing citizens to do whatever they want with the land so long that they own it. But this also must be weighed with property rights, which are integral to freedom. All land being publicly owned leaves the potential for government to also grossly abuse and misuse the land without a reasonable amount of oversight, and distribute it unfairly. Alternatively, the right to land ownership should exist, though there should be a healthy amount of regulation to ensure that the land is being used in a way that is efficient to both society and environment, given how finite usable land can be. Otherwise, there would be almost zero incentive for the land not to be apportioned in a frivolous, short-term focused manner.
