Pol am I a centrist?

Pol am I a centrist?

apparently

So are so far to the right you are literally a fashist.

how do i cure this

lurk more

Muh roads

I have been here for basically a year

...

Roads are overrated, that's what helicopters are for.

...

Should I be worried?

hello, Sup Forums

What am I Sup Forums?

...

...

>Dot is near the center
>"Am I a centrist?"

Yeah, and you're also apparently retarded.

...

oh god soooo new its starting to stink here

lurk for a few years

This test is shit anyways

This.
For every single question I'm like "I mostly (dis)agree with this BUT..." and it doesn't give you an option for BUT... and it assumes your position.

>thinks roads are unnecessary
>wants to remove the functions of the state
>in fact wants to remove the state altogether and allow completely free, unrestricted economic enterprise

When will you be moving to Liberia then? They have everything that you are after - lack of an effective government building roads or anything like that, and also an effective lack of laws, meaning you can participate in whatever economic activity you want.

COS

...

That's not an argument. Please, do tell me, will you be moving to Liberia? And if not, why not? Since it has everything that you're after?

For example this one:
>Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care.
I believe that public healthcare should provide same service to a person regardless of wealth and that private doctors should have the right to exist as well and wealthier can go to them.
What the fuck do I answer on here?
There's no middle ground.

Then you agree with that statement. You do believe those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of healthcare.

>>wants to remove the functions of the state


“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”


― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

To be honest mate I just love ancap memes but I am not a real ancap, sorry If i sounded like one

ive been living in a village where they dont asphalt roads like many other people where i live and guess what
we all live perfectly fine
i wouldnt recommend driving a low car tho

The only part of the state that we need is the part we use to nuke other countries.

But that would, in their eyes, probably mean "I don't want public healthcare, it's muh socialism".
Also this one:
>Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism
I agree with that, but it's not a bad thing. In their eyes I'm a #NotAll cuck

>thinks a society without government will be a perfect utopia where every need is catered for by the free market

Mate this is precisely why I used Liberia as an example you fucking idiot CUNT

BECAUSE WHEN YOU REMOVE THE GOVERNMENT, CHAOS ENSUES

In an Ancap society, what do you do with violent criminals? Oh, the NAP right? But who gets to determine when an invocation of the NAP is justified or not? Without a state you don't have courts. So presumably anyone can just shoot anyone any time they feel aggrieved?

And that's why Ancap (which is of course an *anarchist* philosophy - completely removing the government) is a FUCKING STUPID PHILOSOPHY

YOU FUCKING IDIOT

Have a picture of Hobbes. Hobbes thinks you're a fucking moron.

...

Yes. Go more up and you're Hitler. We are waiting for you there.

>>thinks a society without government will be a perfect utopia where every need is catered for by the free market

I don't.

>BECAUSE WHEN YOU REMOVE THE GOVERNMENT, CHAOS ENSUES

Move to Venezuela or Brazil ^^.

>Mate this is precisely why I used Liberia as an example you fucking idiot CUNT

Cherry picking is dishonest, nothing works in Africa, the majority of countries there have big government, where is your Hobbes now?

>In an Ancap society, what do you do with violent criminals? Oh, the NAP right? But who gets to determine when an invocation of the NAP is justified or not? Without a state you don't have courts. So presumably anyone can just shoot anyone any time they feel aggrieved?

Go study ancap, i'm not here to teach you about it.

>Have a picture of Hobbes. Hobbes thinks you're a fucking moron.

The natural state of man by Hobbes has no Anthropological confirmation, Anthropology wasn't even as advanced when he wrote Leviathan.

This
I know this is bait but it's fucking true.

Unfortunately pure Ancap doesn't work any better than pure socialism.

True it wasn't you saying "muh roads". And you have posted good memes.

But would you want your entire country to get rid of the government so that no roads are built at all? (And of course not just roads, but no functions of the state are carried out at all, unless a private company steps in to offer those same services?)

See this is the thing isn't it. Ancap is a big meme.

I enjoy the meme. But then you have some people who seriously want to defend it. And you can't, obviously. It's just a meme.

No not necessarily. You are not saying you don't want public healthcare. You are just saying that the rich should have access to better healthcare.

I'm pretty sure almost every single country that has public healthcare also has private healthcare - we do in this country. So everyone is entitled to the same standard of state healthcare, but also you can pay to have better healthcare at a private hospital, if you can afford it. So it's not a rare scenario - it's the most common scenario, I think.

>Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism
>I agree with that, but it's not a bad thing. In their eyes I'm a #NotAll cuck
Well if you think it's not a bad thing then surely you wouldn't agree with this statement, on the basis that you wouldn't think such curbing is "excessive" (which of course means unwarranted, unjustified, in this context).

Personally I would disagree with the statement. E.g. I know that my right to privacy is slightly curbed, by the fact that GCHQ (one of Britain's spy agencies) can read my emails and stuff if they want. But I am okay with that. Because I want them to catch terrorists. And also I know that I am not doing anything that would cause GCHQ to look at my communications.

For me, it's not excessive, so I'd disagree with the statement.

>Unfortunately pure Ancap doesn't work any better than pure socialism.

We have a prophet here

I guess it is a stretch to ask a Brit to think outside of any system that doesn't involve oppressive colonialism.

>We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.
In essence you are though. Because if the state doesn't provide 'free'(And I use quotations because someone will go 'But muh taxes'), then a bulk of the population does not get educated. Which is a death sentence for a society in this day and age. You're essentially telling someone who can't afford or can't obtain education without the state's aid that they shouldn't be educated.

>We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality
But it would be. If you want to own up to it, fine. But this argument is bullshit.

>how do i cure this
Answer the poll again, spending alot of time thinking about the answers. This many times happen because of the strange questions this site have

I am center is left/right (score less than 2.5 or more than -.2.5), and center libertarian on the libertarian/authoriation (more than 2.5 libertarian but less than 5) and I only got this score after really thinking about the answers I would give (before that the site would say I was left and center on the authoritarian libertarian axie)

Lurk for about a decade.

Then realize most of Sup Forums is either LARPing or retarded.

Then realize Sup Forums is always right, but for the wrong reasons.

Then realize being centrist isn't actually a bad thing.

>Oh, the NAP right? But who gets to determine when an invocation of the NAP is justified or not?
Despise what the ancap ball meme says, NAP is a contract, its not automatically enfored like some law, this would be against the ancap idea if you had some sort of ancap law.

>In essence you are though. Because if the state doesn't provide 'free'(And I use quotations because someone will go 'But muh taxes'), then a bulk of the population does not get educated. Which is a death sentence for a society in this day and age. You're essentially telling someone who can't afford or can't obtain education without the state's aid that they shouldn't be educated.

Internet bitch, you can literally learn everything on internet, you have everything in youtube now, homeschooling is 10x better than public shit and your childrens doesn't get indoctrinated.

>Go study ancap, i'm not here to teach you about it.
>cannot even defend his position with arguments
Hahaha for fuck's sake.

You are saying "I believe X, but no I don't have any arguments for X - go and find them yourself!"

So you are intellectually lazy, OR just really fucking stupid, and unable to explain why your position is the best one.

Ancap, in my mind, is fucking stupid. And I've got good reasons to believe this. If you were willing to defend Ancap with arguments then I would engage in discussion with you, and we could solve these problems. Maybe you do have some good arguments to raise - but you haven't given any of them to me.

>Cherry picking is dishonest, nothing works in Africa
Actually it's a *counter-example*; an example that proves a thesis wrong.

If you think there is something that disqualifies it from being a genuine counter-example then please say what that thing is.

>The natural state of man by Hobbes has no Anthropological confirmation
Well I would completely disagree since we have seen that any society that lacks strong government devolves into chaos.

Well they're very different. Anarcho-communism would be a more fitting comparison. Since they're both anarchist philosophies.

But I suppose insofar as both are unrealistic ideals, yes, they have that in common.

...

What can I say? I love to oppress.

Why don't you explain why you think he's wrong if you think that he is? It's called making an argument. Arguments are how we defend the positions that we hold.

>Internet bitch,
>>internet
>>made by a state project
>>requires money to access

>homeschooling is 10x better than public shit and your childrens doesn't get indoctrinated.

What if you're homeless? Or as a parent you can't afford to take time off to homeschool your children. Or what if the parents are shitty?

As much as Sup Forums wants to whine that those parents shouldn't have had kids, that's still a thing that happens unless you stop people from fucking or neuter people. Which means there will be children that have lower access to education, which leads to more stupid people breeding, which again leads to people not learning.

State-enforced education might be shitty, but it at least sets standards.

Also home-schooling requires you to teach certain standards and subjects, which are state and federally decided.

>Well they're very different. Anarcho-communism would be a more fitting comparison.

Fair enough user.

>Well I would completely disagree since we have seen that any society that lacks strong government devolves into chaos.

To play devils advocate, any society that has -too- strong a government also devolves into chaos. Or rather, any government without heavy oversight and civil commitment.

You can go join Antifa.

Am I a good human being?

about the homeschooling thing, yes maybe they won't be easily indoctrinated but what about developing their social skills? I strongly believe homeschooling is harmful.

we are pretty close user

Muh roads indeed.

...

>You are saying "I believe X, but no I don't have any arguments for X - go and find them yourself!"
I do not reply people that didn't even read one line of ancap literature like Machinery of Freedom, you probably think an ancap society doesn't even have a court system, police or any type of law, but in theory it has, and if you actually read Machinery of Freedom you will understand that an ancap society would be an worthwhile experiment.
>Actually it's a *counter-example*; an example that proves a thesis wrong.
There is a state where i live and it is pure chaos, where is your Hobbes? Come to Brazil bruh. (or Venezuela ^^)
>Ancap, in my mind, is fucking stupid. And I've got good reasons to believe this. If you were willing to defend Ancap with arguments then I would engage in discussion with you, and we could solve these problems. Maybe you do have some good arguments to raise - but you haven't given any of them to me.
Polycentric law is an extent argument and there are limitations of how much i can write here.
>Well I would completely disagree since we have seen that any society that lacks strong government devolves into chaos.
What do you define as an government? There would be law, police and a court system in an ancap society.

>but what about developing their social skills? I strongly believe homeschooling is harmful.

I actually always believed homeschooling should be a thing done in conjunction with public education, but I don't favor the 'public schools teach social skills' argument because you can always find ways to get your child to socialize.

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but literally every person I've ever met who was homeschooled regretted they didn't have the friend network being forced to go somewhere for a few hours a day gives you and they're socially awkward besides.

Okay. So what do you do about thieves, rapists, murderers, assaulters, whatever?

Those people almost certainly wouldn't enter into such a contract as the NAP. They are people who would say "no, I'm going to use violence to take whatever I want. Go fuck yourself."

How do you deal with those people? Since you have not signed the NAP with them, what can you do about them? Would you be justified in using force against them? When and how?

>Despise what the ancap ball meme says, NAP is a contract
This doesn't answer the question I posed though. I asked who gets to determine whether an invocation of the NAP contract is justified or not. In real life, we have courts - they act as arbitrators, third parties, who can resolve disputes between two parties, who both believe they are upholding their contractual terms. Who does this in an Ancap society, or are they both free to interpret the contract however they like?

I'm okay with this.

Fottuti democristiani

>To play devils advocate, any society that has -too- strong a government also devolves into chaos. Or rather, any government without heavy oversight and civil commitment.
I don't know about chaos - I would say repression. Which I would say are different things.

Chaos is where there is no leadership, no authority, and it is every man for himself, taking whatever he can by force, with nobody around to stop him. Repression is where a very strong authority abuses the power of their authority and they do whatever they like, and take whatever they like, with nobody to stop them.

>Chaos is where there is no leadership, no authority, and it is every man for himself, taking whatever he can by force, with nobody around to stop him. Repression is where a very strong authority abuses the power of their authority and they do whatever they like, and take whatever they like, with nobody to stop them.

again fair point user.

Friend networks and just staying among other peers is too much important. Pretty objective thing desu

>I do not reply people that didn't even read one line of ancap literature like Machinery of Freedom, you probably think an ancap society doesn't even have a court system, police or any type of law, but in theory it has, and if you actually read Machinery of Freedom you will understand that an ancap society would be an worthwhile experiment.
You are just as bad as commies saying "you haven't read the Communist Manifesto so I'm not going to talk to you"

If you have read your book then you should be equipped with the arguments to defend your position, shouldn't you?

Okay so thank you for clearing it up that you would have courts and police in an ancap society. I assume these would be provided by companies? But do these companies all operate according to completely different laws that they've created? Or do they agree a common law under which they all operate?

If it's the former (which I am going to assume it would be, otherwise ancap would be no different from having a government) - then I'm guessing you will defend that by saying "look, the market can decide which sort of legal authority they want!"

But don't you realise that's what democracy is? Democracy is the market (the people) deciding what set of laws they want to be ruled by.

I think I see your point though because you have mentioned "polycentric law" in your post - so I guess you are saying "we'd have several companies, all offering different codes of law, existing side by side. Unlike a single government with no competition. People could choose which code of law - that is, whichever company offering courts/police - that they like."

Wasn't this effectively the case in Colombia? Where there was the right-wing government and paramilitary groups, and also the left-wing FARC. Or even Syria, with ISIS ruling some regions, rebels holding others, and Assad holding others (see pic).

Different factions offering different legal systems, co-existing in the same country. Is that what you envisage?

No, OP, you're a faggot

>Friend networks and just staying among other peers is too much important
You make friends by being in a similar space. One of the reasons people have more friends in college and public school is because you're forced to interact with people, which leads to a higher % of finding friends to hang out with.

Again that was my personal opinion, and anecdotal evidence. TBF, most homeschool types I've met were homeschooled by incredibly oppressive religious parents as well.

lurk more newfag.

You don't you fucking moron, if its what your beliefs and views come out to then thats what you fucking are, don't be a retard who changes his views just to fit in.

>1 post by this ID
hi Jamal

>lurk more newfag.
>>this new

oppressive religious parents are islam tier, hate them

I'm doing a research project.

Post your politicompass and your political ideology

...

>What do you define as an government? There would be law, police and a court system in an ancap society.
A central authority in a country which enforces the law and provides public services.

>There would be law, police and a court system in an ancap society.
But you are saying it would be polycentric, and I am saying that is the same as Colombia or Syria where different factions, offering different legal systems, compete for power.

Maybe you love those countries, but there is lots of conflict and violence in each of them, by the very nature of the fact that they are both trying to control the whole territory. The only way for a territory to be peaceful is if a single legal entity rules over it - not two, who are fighting for the same turf.

E.g. that's why you saw the break up of Yugoslavia. It was a violent place when they were all fighting for land - basically they had polycentric law; law offered by Serbs, law offered by Croats, etc. Then they all agreed to just rule over their territory. Hence, peace.

Same in Ireland. IRA and the British, fighting to enforce their law on the land.

I made far fewer friends when I went to university. I had more friends in school.

I blame my parents really. They pushed me to going to university when I already had a job. Just pushed me around forever.

Nazis aren't libertarian left for fuck's sake.

Kek.

>I made far fewer friends when I went to university. I had more friends in school.
That sucks friendo.

Did you go to university? I should have taken more advantage of the social opportunities when I was there to be honest. I did try for a bit and I did hang out with some people. I had two or three relatively good friends.