>Libertarian Left
In my own circle, I am definitely regarded as a libertarian. However, as per the leftist side, I am not so sure. Reason is:
>I believe most human behaviour is governed by both genetics and environmental stimuli, so that free will is smaller than we delusionally think
>Women are mostly breeders, and I have little respect for them because of how I was treated in the past (full Beta, I presume)
>Although I think 1st-generation migrants can integrate well, I think it shouldn't be taboo the idea that fluxes need to be strongly (even more strongly) regulated in Europe. Moreover, I do not trust 2nd and 3rd generation migrants
>I have a biased view of Religion. As a libertarian, I do not uphold traditional religions, which I see as maxi scams... however, I believe that everything that is somewhat virtuous or ethical MUST have some religious seeds in it, if not ritual. It is by repeating deeds that one develops his virtues
>I share some concerns about abortion rights
>I think charities are crap, except for those that focus deeply on the same territory as donors. E.g. I fund the Red Cross in my country, but not that in Africa. I believe the best way to develop 3rd World countries is by allowing them to trade freely and by improving security, thus reducing the costs of enterprises
>I am considered by my friends to be a gun-nuts, even though I approached the entire thing only recently
>I am not very friendly with people with dreadlocks and delusional girls who are vegans and spend most of the time pretending to be spiritual
>I don't like fatties and think people should always try to be fit and instil their offspring with some basic discipline (especially self-discipline)
>I am seriously concerned with the effectiveness (if any at all) of welfare systems
Political Compass: what's your label, Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
politicalcompass.org
fr.sputniknews.com
twitter.com
So why the fuck do I come out as a Left-Libertarian?
Of course I think MSMs, big corporations, etc. are there to fuck us... of course I'm libertarian.
But what about the left side? Is it so just because I'm okay with gay people breathing and having lives of their own?
Am I fucking Bernie right now? How comes? Just because I tolerate gay people? Is it sufficient to make a leftist out of me? I even answered by saying that sexual freedom has gone a bit too far in recent times and we need to be more modest.
HERE FOR THE COMPASS TEST:
politicalcompass.org
Nobody takes the test?
Haha fuck me. Sometimes we get 300 answers
Pasta al pesto
Jamón Serrano
Actually, I prefer Jamón de Cebo
>hillary clinton more economically libertarian than: gary johnson, milton friedman, friedrich hayek
>jill stein more right-leaning than bernie sanders
>mao zedong being less authoritarian than joseph stalin
what the fuck is this garbage?
Have you read the fucking FAQ?
Haha...
Left is due to the anti-bigcorp stuff, not sure how you answered on taxes and social issues regarding class, but they have a left-right pull too. Maybe being anticorp is a big liberal pull, because you sound rather authoritarian.
Pic is mine btw, I'm anti corp like you but pretty much the opposite on everything else
>Hobbes not authoritarian on social scale
they never get everything right in these things
Basically, there are objections to the Political Compass that are raised only by American users.
Reason is, most Americans have a distorted view of politics because they have the tendency to think that what happens in the USA (and the terms used therein) are used in the same way abroad.
Most of the US political jargon, as it has been pushed by political speeches and the MSM, is completely different from the actual technical terms and labels developed by political science (that is, the most accepted ones in Western countries other than the US).
>Left is due to the anti-bigcorp stuff, not sure how you answered on taxes and social issues regarding class, but they have a left-right pull too. Maybe being anticorp is a big liberal pull, because you sound rather authoritarian.
Do I sound authoritarian? Maybe as far as family issues are concerned. But I believe people should be left free to act.
Maybe I sounded libertarian when I said: "Migration should be regulated". Okay. But that's because of recent mis-managements I have witnessed myself.
I might sound authoritarian, but that's how I chose to live my private life. As far as public life is concerned, I am ready to tolerate a lot just for the sake of freedom (in my case: freedom to be strict within my own walls... but as far as others are concerned, I don't care).
I am also highly suspicious whenever State Govs bring about policies just to pander to certain social groups and/or voters.
But yeah, I don't fucking smoke weed. I think who smokes weed is degenerate, yet I don't think it should be banned! So I'm not an authoritarian.
>Pic is mine btw, I'm anti corp like you but pretty much the opposite on everything else
So you're even more libertarian than me.
But the anti-corp thing, man... who can actually support the idea that corporations will do the good for humanity no matter what? I have even read surveys and studies on that.
Kill yourself pasta cunt
>Benito Mussolini
>not left wing/centrist
U wot?
Hobbes is authoritarian-right in my OP's pic.
Many have read only the Leviathan, but he actually wrote other books with slightly different flavours.
Lol. When I was travelling the world I got most praises from Americunts when I was pretending to be Australian.
You were all competing to praise me and kept saying I was an amazingly good troll and bantsmaster.
Now, with the Italian flag, I'm only a pastanigger.
Still 7", so I don't mind my genetics.
Again, somebody who hasn't read the FAQ.
I'm Italian and can tell you Mussolini was Authoritarian-Left when he was a young Socialist. Then moved to the right.
If you browsed FAQ No. 19, you will read:
>Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Whatever they told you on Sup Forums is bullshit.
Mussolini has always been Authoritarian Right. Friend of the King and of the many Corporations who thrived in Italy. To the contrary, Stalin had completely destroyed the private sector in Russia.
For fuck's sake do you even know history?
>But I believe people should be left free to act
>I don't think it should be banned!
This explains the libertarian pull, private opinions are one thing, but attitudes to what one can do socially and legally (engage in homosexuality/have an abortion/be a mother with a career/smoke weed), even if you despise it or disagree with it yourself are what determine the libertarian angle.
I think it's not uncommon for otherwise libertarian people to have private authoritarian views, despite my compass, I believe religion is a cancer on humanity (mainly Christianity and Islam) and the world would be better without them, and I hate fat people, but if people wanna be harmlessly religious or fat then I won't say a word - so long as it is just that - harmless.
With regards to the corp thing, it's usually intertwined with the view that corporations hold too much wealth, and the wealth should be put to better use (state healthcare, welfare) in supporting the less fortunate domestically and internationally. Do you share that view? If you do, it may explain the left/lib swing on your compass i.e. how you answered the tax related questions.
Either a troll or the evidence the Swedish schooling System does not produce bright People.
But Corporatism is left wing per definition, if you rank Augusto fucking Pinochet as more economic left than Mussolini you should sort yourself out.
>This explains the libertarian pull, private opinions are one thing, but attitudes to what one can do socially and legally (engage in homosexuality/have an abortion/be a mother with a career/smoke weed), even if you despise it or disagree with it yourself are what determine the libertarian angle.
I think this analysis of yours fully fits my case.
>I think it's not uncommon for otherwise libertarian people to have private authoritarian views, despite my compass, I believe religion is a cancer on humanity (mainly Christianity and Islam) and the world would be better without them, and I hate fat people, but if people wanna be harmlessly religious or fat then I won't say a word - so long as it is just that - harmless.
I'm almost on your same page. My stance is a bit more cognitive. During my studies on human mind (PhD, etc.) I have come to realise that in order to achieve some goals we have to trick our brain by following pathways that are not rational at all, yet they still hold full motivational power due to the evolutionary pathways that created them.
One of such things is "religiousness", which I link mostly with ritual thinking and the repetition of certain meaningless actions, which nonetheless bring peace to the person. So I'm not talking fully developed doctrines... in my (personal) view, going to Church every Sunday has a better regulatory effect rather than asserting the existence of transubstantiation or whatever dogma you like. Why? Because the latter is strongly intertwined with channelling action (going to the gym is similar, in this sense).
So yeah, I am very tolerant of religion because it is one of the chief examples that our minds work in biased ways... so that we ought to accept a certain degree of delusion whenever we try to bring ourselves to act in a certain way -- otherwise we might come to believe true statements, but be unable to act upon them just because we miss the great narrative that usually prompts us to act.
[cont.]
>Hillary Clinton is further to the right than Donald Trump, and more authoritarian than Thomas Hobbes
>Trump is where "literally hitler" would be
I mean, where else would he go?
The problem with this thing is the authoritan/libertarian thing. It would be much better with conservative/progressive instead.
Trump is a protectionist so that shouldn't surprise you. I do think he is much too far on to the authoritan side.
[cont. from ]
In response to:>With regards to the corp thing, it's usually intertwined with the view that corporations hold too much wealth, and the wealth should be put to better use (state healthcare, welfare) in supporting the less fortunate domestically and internationally. Do you share that view? If you do, it may explain the left/lib swing on your compass i.e. how you answered the tax related questions.
I share the view corporations hold too much wealth... but I disagree with you such health should be automatically given to state programs, etc.
Rather, I believe they should keep their own wealth, but regulations should drive them into spending it mostly in order to offset their emissions or ethical damages. Thus, I believe that even if they are entitled to be extremely rich, we should not allow them to act as they please when it comes to the environment just because they can lobby the politicians more than my 80-year old neighbour can.
>But Corporatism is left wing per definition, if you rank Augusto fucking Pinochet as more economic left than Mussolini you should sort yourself out.
1. Don't confuse Autarchy with rejection of a free market. When Mussolini proposed his autarchic (i.e. self-sustaining state) views, which were highly protectionist... he was in fact reacting to all the embargoes that had isolated the country. Hadn't there been embargoes, he would have campaigned for free market, but since he was cut off, he pretended that it was his own personal choice -- just for PR reasons.
2. Pinochet's junta regulated the Chilean economy way more than Mussolini's government did. Mussolini limited himself to making State deals with this or that entrepreneur -- thus being authoritarian (the hand of the State), but utterly right wing (i.e. "economic liberism", free market).
Btw I believe that faces are not located in their exact position. Rather they are meant to represent the quadrant in general -- not their specific coord.
Many of the people you show in the green sqare atually belong in the red square, so I distrust it.
Mussolini recognized the legitimate griviances of socialism and along with all other corporatists tried to create harmony between the social classes, Pinochet on the other hand invited the Chicago boys to run the chilean economy.
>griviances
>The problem with this thing is the authoritan/libertarian thing. It would be much better with conservative/progressive instead.
Please allow me to disagree with you.
If they used conservative/progressive as labels, it would be misleading.
E.g. in a traditionally free-market society, it is "progressive" (i.e. pro-change) to support "protectionism". To the contrary, in a traditionally tolerant society, most right-wingers will see ethical enforcement as a form of "progress".
Progress/Conservation are too vague, whereas:
>Authoritarian = the State shall intervene strongly in many aspects of life
>Libertarian = people should be allowed to be as free as possible
...is a pretty straightforward axis to understand.
>Many of the people you show in the green sqare atually belong in the red square, so I distrust it.
Man, I am sorry to acknowledge you have been brainwashed by Republican media. Although I can be supportive of the ideas behind the Trump Campaign, I can assure you that individuals such as Bernie Sanders are way too different form people such as Castro. Just because he advocated some more welfare, it doesn't mean he wanted the State to be fully Authoritarian. I mean, he wasn't even advocating full-fledged gun control -- just the umpteenth version of it.
Of course you are distrusting this because of your stereotypes. But have you read their (the American leftists') actual political plans? They are "mild" when compared to those of actual tyrants.
I'll defer to your judgement given your studies, I'm only a Masters graduate in Chemistry - not relevant to the field!
I appreciate that religion is of significant importance in billions of lives, but I cannot ignore the fact that organised religion (i.e. religion and mankind) is historically responsible for the oppression of so many groups of people (women, other religious peoples, LGBT+ peoples etc.) and that evil will continue until people slowly through the generations become less religious. It happens with time more than activism.
We are in agreement that corporation wealth should be used to better emissions and ethical damages. Climate change is the second biggest threat today (after wealth inequality) and it can be pushed back with the wealth that is currently in private hands. May I ask why you disagree that the money would be better in the hands of a responsible welfare state?
>mfw I'm literally on the dot with Angela Merkel
What a shit image
>Hillary Clinton more authoritarian than Hobbes
>Mussolini recognized the legitimate griviances of socialism and along with all other corporatists tried to create harmony between the social classes, Pinochet on the other hand invited the Chicago boys to run the chilean economy.
You seem to be redpilled about Pinochet.
Instead, as far as Mussolini is concenred, you seem to have swallowed a lot of blue pills. You're confusing his propaganda with his actual actions.
Mussolini should be at the top centre. Full stop.
He advocated the role of State, but never went to the point of fully nationalising everything!
Now, assuming you are authoritarian:
>if you nationalise, you end up in the red square.
>As soon as you accept a little private property, you end up in the blue square.
Again:
>if you prefer to wipe out people rather than have them relate to you, you end up in the red square. Otherwise you belong to the blue square.
Mussolini was supporting class cooperation, not class struggle. He had no interest to wipe out entire social classes.
He should be at the top centre.
But your suggestion he should be in the red one is just wrong.
So on this scale, where would the most important issues of this time be, such as immigration and EU? I really wouldn't know.
I don't think the creator of this compass took into account the degree to which certain individuals leaned left or right
OK.
LET'S STOP THE QUARREL.
I WASN'T TROLLING YOU.
I JUST HAVE PROOF MY OP'S PIC IS BOGUS IN THE FOLLOWING SENSE:
>FACES IN THE PIC _ARE NOT MEANT TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL POSITION OF THE INDIVIDUALS_ RATHER, THEY ARE JUST MEANT TO SHOW IN WHICH SQUARES THEY SHOULD BE PLACED.
See pic related for actual marking points.
You will see Hitler (hence, Mussolini) is rightfully placed at the top centre. Not top right.
See
My result. Not very surprising.
>So on this scale, where would the most important issues of this time be, such as immigration and EU? I really wouldn't know.
It depends.
Do you believe the States should also pursue ethical goals or just manage things in an orderly fashion?
Looking at this: you seem to think the State should not just govern and manage things, but also push a certain world-view.
In this case, we should ask ourselves:
>what should the role of the State be?
E.g. some will say: preservation of the status quo for the offspring of the actual citizens of that state. It has no duties towards other people in other countries.
>how does EU relate with the actual sovereignty?
In other words: do we want the US of E. once for all, with a brand new constitution and Federal power or do we want to keep it as some kind of agreement to act as a proxy?
Finally, you can ask:
>given EU is such and such, and the role of the State is such and such, how should we relate to whoever wants to get in? And what about those who want to get out?
In other words:
>how inclusive do we want to be? Are there inherent benefits for inclusion? Are there things we are overlooking (i.e. cultural-induced beliefs might slow down integration, rather than create a multi-faceted tolerant society)?
On top of that, we should wonder:
>how hegemonic do we want to act? Live and let live, or do we want to keep sucking resources out of other countries? Will we be ready to pass the ball to some younger states (e.g. BRICS)?
I don't think the rights of women or homosexuals are a priority in this sense. Except that an inclusive society will have to deal with those issues at some stage.
>Bernie
>Libertarian
All he ever talks about is expanding government, what a stupid chart
This scale is bogus. Somehow Trump is just or almost as authoritan as Mao Hitler and Stalin. Very strange considering he's pro gun, doesn't arrest people for no reason and hasn't committed any kinds of crimes against humanity.
See OP's chart was just random artwork.
Each image is located in the correct quadrant, yet it does not have the right coordinates *within* each quadrant.
In fact, it's a new thing they developed. If you look at the old charts, all names are put where they belong.
Don't confuse the artwork for an accurate analysis.
>Leftism
>anti-corporation
Leftists promote globalism and nearly all multinational megacorps share their views.
What are you talking about? Look at the site yourself.
>Leftists promote globalism
I was born in the 80s and one of the biggest Left-wing campaigns was the "no-global" one.
Do you remember 2001? Genoa? Black Blocs?
Plus do you realise most leftists are new age weed-smoking fags who wish they could be left alone... anti-vaxxers as they are, and eating their own placenta in some kind of hippie-like village? That's not very globalist of them.
Pic related is US elections 2016.
How could you argue against this?
Trump is definitely a neo-liberalist and not a socialist in this chart.
It all checks.
It is just fucking stupid, that's why.
It does not take into account historical factors and I think it is really retarded to call hillary more authoritarian than a man who supported absolute monarchy, even if for his time he was quite liberal in his thinking and didn't see monarchy as a legitimate but rather a necessary one.
Or calling a 18th century man more socially libertarian than a 21th century cuck lefty
He's American idiot. Let me translate: liberals promote globalisation.
...
The globalists have subverted old Leftism and now use modern leftists as pawns for their corporate schemes.
When your rhetoric is repeated and endorsed by Disney/Apple/Google/etc, you fucked up. "Progressive" values are corporate values.
Also, see pic related for another check.
You're confusing my OP's artwork with the actual positioning of world leaders and politicians.
So you think that America has no democracy, no human rights and no independent judges? Because if not then they should be way less authoritan.
And another one.
Leftists too. Communists have all joined in on the progressive fad as a means to grab more power in government.
Large corporations use lobbying to achieve governmental regulations that choke out and starve smaller rivals. It is all about consolidating power and wealth to the elites, whether they be the State or the corporate.
I'm pretty sure Macron isn't more free market than Fillon. And the French aren't as pro market as America, so that scale is wrong either way.
Yes communist regimes are well know for their free trade schemes....
This isn't right either, Hamon should be lower and Macron less economically liberal than Fillon
Overall except for hamon and melenchon it's really exagerated, Lepen is in no way close to be an absolute authoritarian and Fillon is more center right
Man, you're confusing the top-right corner with the actual extremism.
Yes, most American politics is viewed as strongly authoritarian, but in the free-market sense.
Read it as follows:
>Top left = all industries are nationalised
>Top centre = corporatism (i.e. balance of classes)
>Top right = not the State, but Multinational Corporations (e.g. Coca Cola, Clinton Foundation, whatever) should rule the world
As long as the US keep exporting "democracy" (i.e. waging war) to other countries and they keep cucking their own people by enforcing policies that favour big companies above everything else, they will never fall on the lilac corner: they belong to the top-right blue. Also, their stance on police enforcement makes it so that most US politicians are authoritarian in a libertarian's perspective.
>Top-right
Authority of the Multinational Companies
>Top-centre
Corporatism (Mussolini, Hitler)
>Top-left
Nationalisation
It all checks.
>I'm pretty sure Macron isn't more free market than Fillon. And the French aren't as pro market as America, so that scale is wrong either way.
See:
>Seul Emm1anuel Macron est clairement en faveur de ce traité de libre-échange,
>Only Emmanuel Macron is clearly in favour of this treaty of free-market
SAUCE: fr.sputniknews.com
Leftists are pro regulation, liberals and communists alike.
Regulations are tools used by lobbyists from large corporations to remove competition. It is exactly what they want.
whwere is hitler
I hope you are aware there are many more issues than this treaty, right?
Fillon is the one wanting to slash public services, healthcare and shit. Macron is playing the middle ground, like on any other issue
That Hillary Clinton
I believe what confuses most ppl is that most American Republicans pretend to shill for free market.
Consequently, everyone in His mind thinks they should stand between blue and purple.
Instead, most of them are servants of MSM, multinatipnal companies etc... So they are not as anti-trust as they pretend to be.
If you favour trusts and cartels you are aithoritarian, even if you fale Being in favor of free market.
Bush?
Clinton?
Even Obama in a sense...
To the top right they go.
No matter if they advertise being Like Nozik.
If you deal with the devil of nig pharma and other corps, you are favoiring authoritarian cartels
Top roght is not nat soc. It's cartels and trusts.
this compass is stupid half brained retards think because merkels party is called "right" in gemrany that is actually right wing when it isnt all its policies are left and anti nationalist which is completely left this doesnt stop the reddit shit from thinking its some clever individual and shouting merkel is RIGHTWING!!!!!
I'm not talking about corners, I'm talking about the extremes. This compass is rigged to the left seem moderate and the right seems extreme. As I said nobody in American politics is very authoritan. No attempts have been made to do what turkey does or similar things.
And your company thing is not top right, but bottom right, the libertarian paradise.
Top right would be some kind of dictatorship with slaves where companies have all freedom.
He should be top middle.
>liberals
>pro-regulation
>L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S = freedomers
Do you even have an encyclopaedia?
That's what the average American think.
She's a globalist banker-cuck
what do you think?
(((Capitalists))) deserve a gas chamber
Bottom right. Fuck statists.
Is the EU not leftist?
Hail Victory
top kek
>As I said nobody in American politics is very authoritan
See this guy here:
A banker-shill or a Wall Street puppet cannot be put on the line between lilac and blue *Even if* she pretends to be libertarian and in favour of free market, she would do anything in order to let bankers exploit the people a bit more.
That's authoritarian.
Not nationalism-tier authoritarianism, but Trust-tier authoritarianism.
Also the guy here is correct:
Not because he's pasta like me.
On this scale it's nothing in particular. One of the problems with this thing.
In reality it's not left or right, but mainly a progressive thing. Extreme left and right are against it tough.
The NaiSozi Fire Rises
>(((Capitalists))) deserve a gas chamber
Nice. This includes Pinochet and the unironic ancap fags.
DAILY ECONOMICS REMINDER
It's liberal, in the european meaning of the word
Laissez faire rather than planism, promotion of moral cuckholdery (social laissez faire unless you are a white man of course) rather than authoritarian values
The creators of the political compass aren't redpilled on Hitler. If Hitler took the test, he'd end up close to me.
Slightly so, yeah.
But wait. The issue I discussed with the bong at the top of the thread... we were just remarking that *some* leftists are against multinational corporations.
So if you score libertarian right on everything (bottom right) and then you react to the multinational questions by saying:
>aw yeah, multicorp. should be regulated
the system tilts you to the left... because there are a lot of branches of leftism (either red authoritarian or green libertarian) that are strongly against giving power to multinational corp.
It was just a minor remark about how I ended up on the bottom left rather than the bottom right.
Of course there are leftist things, such as the EU, who are not as green as they pretend to be.
...
That's nonsens, now you're confusing economic right with authoritan. If bankers or whoever have all the freedom to "exploit" people then that's far economic right, but not authoritan at all.
A society without rules, I.e. the bottom libertarian, would give all possible freedom to bankers and evil corporation and any person to exploit and do evil or good or whatever they want.
The whole test is bs anyhow
Please share better tests with us!
Yet it isn't completely , because the EU is also (in a minor way) protectionist.
So are the United States. What I mean is that they are doing all they can to undermine state intervention in the economy (like destroying public services by forcing onto the country some competition, fighting state subsidies, preventing them to devaluate their money) but they are also very much fond of the freedom for human beings to move into the european union wherever they please
For a good one three scales would be needed and an adjustment per country.
I tried to fake myself as Mussolini and answered the test.
Here's my Mussolinian result.
>drumpf
lolwat
italian faggot
Oh I agree, what you say is true for the internal market. That makes them indeed economical liberal, but unfortunately that's only a small part because the EU also creates a big government and a lot of rules which is not liberal at all
...
I can concur to that.
I went full on Theocracy.
Inti tali jerk.
I still like the show and the fandom, even more after April 1st.
kek
see
Holy shit.
That's almost a perfect match with the other user's test.
I'm quite dull and centre right.
My political idol is Richard Nixon. Law and order, silent majority, Reapolitik. Focus mostly on foreign affairs, don't care much about domestic stuff
I want to run two expiriments
1. anons of each ideology take the test and post their flag where their result is, so we have mapped out zones of natsoc, fash, etc
2. anons take test as each historical figure, and see where they land so we can map out where historical figures actually were
I know its a lot of work for a stupid and incorrect test, but it would be interesting
Rate me Sup Forums
why so mediocre