Tweaking and Removing Various Questions

[McMing333]

So I have many reservations about multiple questions, I did not know whether or not to to make them individually, so I just did it together for now. In order:

1) Oppression by corporations is more of a concern than oppression by governments: "econ": 10, "govt": 0, The current form of this question should see a "govt: -10", because it's MORE of a concern. However this is a bad solution, as it would make an anarcho or libertarian leftist less on the economic scale, which if anything they should be more as many "strongly agree" here would be supporters of a planned economy. So instead it should be this: Oppression by corporations is as much a concern as oppression by governments, as the current "default" in our society would be "disagree"

2) It is better to maintain a balanced budget than to ensure welfare for all citizens This is a badly worded question as it implies that ensuring welfare would not be a "balanced budget". Which wouldn't make any sense for someone disagreeing with this.

3) Publicly-funded research is more beneficial to the people than leaving it to the market.: "econ: -10", "scty": 10 The reason why "scty":10 is bc of ppl who would disagree with the notion of supporting research. However those people, an anarcho primitivist or perhaps a feudalist would disagree with the notion of a market itself. Theoretically I suppose you could, but it would be illogical to require them to be so. The only solution to this question would honestly be to remove the society aspect of it, as that would also imply that a market would be bad for progress, which is not objective.

4) Taxes should be increased on the rich to provide for the poor The idea of taxes conflicts with a revolutionary belief for the end of capitalism, so someone who would probably be even more for economic equality should say no, which would be wrong. There is no good solution, it's a problem with just a yes no statement, but you could invert the question, or maybe add a clause.

5) Government intervention is a threat to the economy.: "econ":-10, "govt": 0, Many libertarian socialists would say that the government is a threat to the economy, and that only workers control it. So it should be just "intervention".

6) The means of production should belong to the workers who use them: "econ":-10, "govt": 0, This implies that the government should not control them, so it should be -5, though this is a very small gripe as it is not wrong

7) My nation is great: "dipl": -10, "govt": 0, This is just a bad question overall, let alone what it does. Who's nation? Is this the government's actions? What type of government? The place that is literally is? All of which yield different results, it's just bad.

8) My religious values should be spread as much as possible. What if you're an atheist? Or a believe in a new age religion like of spirituality or something? Those are both religious values, so it should be "traditional religious values".

9) Our nation's values should be spread as much as possible. "dipl": -10, "govt": -5, This is a bad question because "values" is unclear. Someone may believe say equality is an "American value" but doesn't believe that America should spread it, or that it does or embodies those values. It's a bit confusing. And what if your "nation's values" is of international cooperation or of democracy and freedom and an unpowerful state.

10) It is very important to maintain law and order This is terrible, because no political ideology believes in the opposite. Anarchism is not chaos, it's just democracy. Anarchists are more likely to believe their ideology is more orderly, for example in it's opposition to war or the abolishment of the material forces that makes people commit crimes (poverty). So it actively hinders an accurate result.

11) Physician-assisted suicide should be legal "govt": 10,"scty": 0 This should have an increase for "society".

12) Regardless of political opinions, it is important to side with your country. This is a very narrow question which really doesn't cover even the most authoritarian or nationalist people. Because it's not a question of ideology or even nationalism.

13) A hierarchical state is best The definition of a state is a hierarchy. With this implication of a non hierarchal state, this pulls into question things like "the very existence of a state is a threat to our liberty", because if a state is just a system of governance, no ideology believes in the alternative to one, as stated before.

14) Democracy is more than a decision-making process. This means nothing. And even if it did, which I wouldn't even see how, nobody apparently does know what it means, and things shouldn't be so difficult that you can't even look it up, because it isn't a quote or anything like "each according to ability" which is just a bit confusing.

15) If we accept migrants at all, it is important that they assimilate into our culture."dipl": 0, "govt": -5,"scty": -10 There should be an increase for dip, this is actually a much more dip question then govt and maybe even scty. It's all about national identity of a nation state, what an agreer would use as justification.

16) It is important that we further my group's goals above all others "econ": -10, "dipl": -10, "govt": -10, "scty": -10 This should specify your identity group like race and/or nationality, and perhaps also remove "further and goals", as I have seen many people interpret this as your political group, which is a no brainer for anyone and they see it as just how radical you are in general, which is not baked into the code.

[John-Ingram]

I don't quite understand your opposition to 2. The question is just asking if it's worth a nation going into debt to ensure the welfare of its citizens.

[ve6rah]

@John-Ingram The issue is that there are 2 completely unrelated topics addressed in one question. For example, I believe that we should provide for our people, but I also believe that we should cover the cost through appropriate taxation rather than through the issuance of debt (as I don't believe there is any benefit to society from governments paying our tax dollars as interest payments on loans) How should I answer that question? In its current form I have to either agree that taking on debt is good, or agree that we shouldn't help those who need it. I don't believe either.

[John-Ingram]

How should I answer that question? In its current form I have to either agree that taking on debt is good, or agree that we shouldn't help those who need it. I don't believe either.

@ve6rah It seems to me like a question of priority. Maybe changing the wording to reflect that more obviously would make sense. something like "if you could only have one" might make it clearer.

[ve6rah]

If the question is really asking about whether you think it's worth spending money to help people. Ask that question instead of talking about debt, for example: It is better to save the government money than to ensure welfare for all citizens.

I'm still not sure that's quite right, but I feel it's a better question than the current false dichotomy. The current question talks about 2 completely unrelated topics. Each question needs to limit itself to a single topic to work in this form of questionnaire. Questions about taxation vs taking on debt vs other funding models may be valid, but they are unrelated to the question of whether money should be spent on welfare. (I'm making the assumption here that the core question is the one about spending rather than the one about the source of the money, though it's not at all clear from the existing question which one is being asked)

[Genora51]

How about this:

It is more important to place limits on government spending than to ensure welfare for all citizens

I think with maybe a tweak or two to the wording something like this might be better.

[ve6rah]

I'm wondering if that might still bias the question a little bit? How about: it is more important to place limits on government spending than to spend on social welfare programs.

Keep in mind that even those opposed to government spending usually believe that that opposition will lead to greater welfare for the population. This wording would make it clear that the trade-off is in regards to the government spending rather than simply in regards to an overall greater outcome.