What happens here?

What happens here?

old hippies live in trailers and die of lung cancer from pot smoke

it doesn't exist. left means to use authority to distribute wealth.

Somalia.

Oxymoron

It's "real" communism that allegedly most of the red tile communist countries strive for.

Weed, Africa song, Peak Retard

DUDE WEEED LMAO

Developed welfare state and heavy regulation of business but respect of civil liberties at the individual level.

can't exist on a large scale

Israeli kibbutz are the closest thing to the bottom left that can exist

Liberals in the middle, Antifa at the end.

self delusion

>heavy regulation of business
>libertarian

What exactly are "civil liberties" when you don't have property?
I assume it's not actual individualism, that the people in the green square don't support self defense but want you to depend on the state for it. I doubt they are big on freedom of association (muh discrimination) and probably mere speech.
What are these "civil liberties" then? Weed and abortion?

hippies in the far corner, hippies in denial towards the right and top, and conservatives posing as moderate hippies (aka social democrats) towards the middle

Weed,in quantities you can't possibly imagine

The original meaning of "Libertarian" as a term is broader than the ideology of the capitalist fundamentalists who co-opted it. It's not about the rights of businesses.

You're setting up an extremist strawman of a group of people who by your own admission you don't know much about. Who said anything about not having property? Is this like the thing where all right-leaning libertarians are ancaps who hate roads?

What do you do in a Green society when somebody tells you to fuck off, they are keeping their means of production?

welfare state = high tax
so you're forcefully taking large amounts of your people's income

left wing libertarianism on a large scale is impossible

communes can work like that (voluntary redistribution) but states can't

You're being very dense. The fact is that the people scoring left on these meme graphs want to constrain your property and often take from it, to various degrees. If you score on the left hand side of the graph, that's already a lot. You don't need it to go full commie to be there.
So weed confirmed or can you actually say what are the "civil liberties"?

Nothing, that's the whole point of that sector.

If it's voluntary, as in no one can mount a case against you if you don't do it, it's not really leftist.

Americans think Democrats reside there.

>Taxation is theft! XDDDDD

No, we know that they exists only in the Red square. Green is a meme.

I prefer thinking about who lives in AR.
Just kings and Pinochet?

there's left and right (equality vs hierarchy)
there's libertarian and authoritarian (up and down)

I'm saying you can't have libertarian leftism on a large scale

you can have it on a small scale like in an Israeli kibbutz

So how come they are advocates for crony capitalism then? That does not sound very Red to me.

intersection of I took a shop class, I'm 12 and what is politics, and econ 101 master race

>mixing government and corporations

That sounds very Red to me.

I'm being dense because your reasoning isn't coherent and is difficult to follow. The people on the center to mid left want you to pay higher taxes for a better social safety net and public services. This is completely orthogonal to the issue of civil liberties and personal rights. You can have high taxation and still have your guns, free speech, free assembly and yes, dude weed.

...

I got plenty of these.

That is a massive restriction of economic freedom and with it a loss of personal freedom. You can't decide what to do with your own money or how to raise your family. Actually you don't really get any decisions at all. Everything comes from a central authority.

something along the lines that companies aren't persons, therefore they enjoy no such freedoms as an individual

I'd love the black market tho, tax-free lolis bundled with heroin and belt-fed machineguns

that's the left.

people's liberty is respected
corporation's liberty is not
it's not hard to get. if you increase your power level too much through association, then your liberty in doing that is restricted by the society

you stay uneducated

So if my company comes up with an innovative way to complete a process, but the tribe rules it out for arbitrary reasons this is completely valid?

The left isn't known for their entrancement of competition.

>person 1: i want to sell you x at y price
>person 2: yes, i agree
>"libertarian": i will shoot you both in the name of individual liberty. you only have the liberty to do what i like

they don't view the reasons as arbitrary. I'm sure every regulation they think of has a rational behind it.
>The left isn't known for their entrancement of competition.
I think other values have priority

that sounds simplistic. I think reality is different, it's more about accepting society have rules, like you can't buy a human heart just because you have enough money to convince the other person.

idk but it appears i am one of them.

Yes, because unions have never forced a factory to keep a job in existence even when it can be replaced by a robot.

Leftists are essentially Luddites who hate progress and suck at competition.

>Yes, because unions have never forced a factory to keep a job in existence even when it can be replaced by a robot.
who said they haven't? are you dreaming or what?
>Leftists are essentially Luddites who hate progress and suck at competition.
that sounds a simplistic way of looking at it, it looks to me you're angry. have you been ass-fucked by a leftist recently?

this is extremely precise in my case, i am scared, although it didnt asked about guns, the would have pushed me to the right a bit.

Checked.

What part of what you just said sounds like a reasonable way to run an economy and progress?

>You can't decide what to do with your own money or how to raise your family. Actually you don't really get any decisions at all. Everything comes from a central authority.

What I wrote doesn't imply that you aren't free to spend your income how you like, just that it'll be taxed more. It has zero bearing on how you raise a family.

companies aren't real, it's a human being making decisions about whom to serve products/services to

actually democrats land usually in the authoritarian right square

But accusation wealth means using force to protect private property "rights"

to me it sounds reasonable association of people just be kept in check, to prevent abuses. the example of the heart above is a good one. see

>t. radical leftist
good for you mr mental illness

>What I wrote doesn't imply that you aren't free to spend your income how you like, just that it'll be taxed more. It has zero bearing on how you raise a family.


Reread what you just wrote and keep doing it until you understand how retarded you are.

>Ron Paul is about as far in economic right as Romney
>comparable to Obongo

*accumulating

Wtf phone

Actually this. "Corporations" are a government enforced entity.

The most original autistic screeching.

ask someone that lands in the bottom left corner anything. come on, don't be scared, we're only changing ideas in a chinese paper folding board.

The nearer the center the more rational and based you get, the further the bottom left corner the more retarded antifa you become

>innovation and improved quality of life is now an abuse.

funny, isn't it?

Antifa dude

Taxation IS theft.

I'm no longer an ancap so I think it's a form of necessary theft, but it is still mass extortion for resources that will be placed in areas with no market signals, and must be done as judiciously as possible.

who said that? your problem is that you can't reason properly, everything must be either black or white.
that's not the case with reality

Retardation/lack of understanding of a topic one speaks about is not funny. It is rather pitiful, and I pity you for that reason.

antifa is top left corner pretending to be bottom left laddio

there's nothing to ask, it's contradictory and only lives in flawed theory

Well according to you replacing a person with a robot is a problem.

care to expand your thoughts? try to be rational instead of sentimental.
I'm not interested in your feelings.

I didn't say that.

It's not working, sorry.

Being taxed heavily doesn't imply the government making decisions about how your personal life is lived or how you raise your kids.

>stealing stuff is ok if you don't hurt anyone and really need the things you steal

KUMBAYA MY LORD

Antfia, like all communist ideologies is Red. The can't achieve Green without Red. Red has never shifted to Green after a communist revolution for a whole variety of reasons, power being one, but the fact that reasonable people don't just hand over their property and means to live freely.

Pretty much extreme entitlement and faggotry, often literally.

Usually it's 15 to 30 year olds who are half educated and have a poor grasp of economics or accounting.

The only adults that are liberals are usually people that either a. Don't work. Or b. Work for the government at some overpaid job they can never be fired from so are completely skewed on their perspective of what the market place or labor is like for most people.

I get it, you don't want to talk

is that boxxy? jesus christ

Yeah but not necessarily force of the state. People can agree to protect their shit. They will never agree to spread out all their shit communally and not have private property. Unless you get a bunch of ancom autists in a commune, then it will work for them.

>libertarian statist
Top kek. This chart is as retarded as the majority of the posters on this board.

I always hit enlightened monarchy and I'am quite proud of my views

Whoever made that political compass has either no idea about realistic economical views and actions of Romney and Obama, or purposefully makes them look otherwise than they are. The economics doesn't stop at "lower the taxes". "Should we allow for tax exceptions?", "Should we fund interventions abroad?", "Should we subsidize any welfare programs whatsoever?"; these are all questions still within this topic which vastly distance the likes of modern republicans and democrats from the economic right, placing them in the middle of the right quadrant for the outliers, and usually closer to the centre. These very same questions would prove Ron Paul's place in the far economic right.

Literally Trotsky.
It exists but it's really stupid and extremely unrealistic.

How many decisions could people make about their personal lives in the USSR? Or any other socialist paradise?

Or for one close to home, the current welfare state. A generation ago, young people could graduate (or not) from high school and get a regular job, a house, and start a family. That is currently not possible because of the tax burden.

There is a difference between a given social arrangement and the law. Obviously libertarianism is about the law. You can set up your would-be commie shop provided people do it voluntarily. Most families aside from extreme familial strife have a semi-egalitarian veneer and nobody argues that the family is a leftist thing.
Also kibbutzim were awful. They used to be collectivist, but what we call kibbutzim today are just 'capitalist' independent farms. The whole collectivism thing was a disaster. You can have collectivism largely in a monastery where people vow to live in poverty anyway.

The single issue of taxation is already important, but in fact it comes with 6 gorillonz "regulations" 99% of which are breach of "civil liberties". Even in your example (that is never represented by the way) people would be extremely constrained, especially when they are involved in productive activities.
And even in the bizarro example where you are free except that the state takes part of your property, you get a massive distortion of all the structure of production against people's wishes.
On all these meme tests, if you really want people to be free except you take some heavy taxation, you would end up on the right hand side of the graph anyway.

>we need to redistribute our wealth
>but everyone has to do it voluntarily

Literally the most naive shit you could possibly think of.

I think he is more to the right than the rest. the problem with these graphs is that they're two dimensional and that doesn't address most of the issues.
What I mean is that most of the points you raise are probably not considered to be economic ones, but social ones (vertical axes)

It's Stefan Molymeme's ideal world that will never exist.

>Trotsky

He was extremely violent and forced communism. Not Libertarian.

This political compass shit is fucking cancer

It's a shit test and a shit way of dividing political directions and ideologies.

Well "the left" belives that you can teach humans to get along with eachother, and once you did that you can have a completely liberal society.
"The right" belives that humans are stupid & you cant teach them to get along with eachother, so you have to say fuck it, survival of the fittest.

Those are the basic principles. Ofc people pervert the fuck out of that.

That is true. Let me break it down:

Level 0 Authority: Anarchy
Level 1 Authority: Police, Law, State, State Monopoly of Force (not sure if this works without property rights, this would actually be real communism)
Level 2 Authority: Property Rights, Capitalism
Level 3 Authority: Redistribution, Communism

There's also the issue of literally any other ideology coming and wrecking your shit because you have no semblance of organization. At least bottom right would have the McDonald's "I'm loving it™" spec ops squad.

Both economic and social ideals are presented in the graph. Obviously not in huge depth, but right and left are econ, authoritarian and libertarian are social.

That's the part of the political spectrum where you want to do nothing but smoke weed and have other people pay for it.

It's the people are inherently good vs inherently evil outlook. As a Christian, I believe in the latter as society in general proves me right.

Buying a human hearth is perfectly legit.
I could see myself make such an agreement, selling or buying a hearth if I need to give or receive a hearth transplant. The ban of organ selling is actually the number one reason for the lack of available organs for transplants. This ban is so ludicrous people go the the worst South East Asian mafias to get their organs.

This is a perfect example of a deep seated hatred of the left for indirect transactions (money). Apparently if when you die you accept being an organ donor for nothing, that's fine, but if you ask for a price (for your children or heir) that becomes impure.

Protecting private property isn't the use of force. It's a counter to force enacted on you.

And my point is that it is idiotic to categorize them as social, since their impact, source and problems are all economic in nature. Ergo, whomsoever categorizes them so must be ignorant of the topics within which he works.

yes, but the specific axis where each idea influences can depend on the perspective of who's interpreting the graph. for instance, polishbro seems to think some points he raises are to be considered economic ones, while the person that did the graph views them as social ones.