What's the point of this quadrant...

What's the point of this quadrant? How can you have a collectivist economy with a state present to enforce said collectivism?

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.com/books?id=NAZm2EdxKqkC&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false
i.imgur.com/xhq0btA.png
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The green square is pretty much a placeholder square for when you're still trying to figure out your political identity.

WITHOUT a state present*

bamp, i've wondered this too. what would the casual name for the general principles of this square be?

Bitch please, I was far right when I was like fucking 8 years old. You must have had shit tier parents.

It's the ideology of communes, not nations.
Entirely voluntarily.
Anyone outside presumes some degree of authority over others, and shouldn't be acknowledged as a legitimate stance.

So it's a meme that is impossible in practice.

A lot of people are in this quadrant when they're young. I know I was.

Not entirely, it just can't be applied on a mass scale.

It's basically for dirty hippies in communes. That kind of shit only works for poor peasant villages and not a modern, advanced economy.

voluntary mutual aid. if people don't want to be part of the collectivist society they don't have to, but they will receive no aid from the community.

It's also worth noting that people in bottom left aren't all full anarchists or commies, just like lib right aren't all ancaps. some of them think the state should remain but be as small government as possible.

It's also worth noting that ancoms and authcoms generally have the same goal of a classless, stateless communist society, it's more a disagreement on how to get there

Opportunity. Lower left are commies that aren't in power (antifa), or have had all their ambition sapped by weed. They're much like "moderate Muslims" - they'll activate and become "radical" the second they gain enough power.

Likewise, ancoms are liars that are more than ready to kill (see antifa).

Authoritarian right and left are distinct, but they're both socialist.

Just to add, another way you know the lower left quadrant are full of shit - there's literally nothing stopping them from forming collectives right now.

Those that actually do so are not hypocrites, but they are so few in number that they cannot typify the lower left quadrant.

Because you don't understand it. The point of the green position is that people should organise society and the economy collectively through cooperation, without the potentially oppressive force of a state. It differs from the purple in that it emphasises the value that we should self organise as a collective rather than as units of individual groups vying for themselves. More emphasis is given toward fairness than freedom, not that we should enforce this fairness, as that would contradict the nature of the libertarian axis, but that, ideally, members of society would voluntarily act in the interest of collective fairness. While unrealistic, it's to me a hell of a lot more noble than any other belief

it's basically "dude what if we were all just nice to each other lmao".

It's supposed to be like the roving tribes of the native americans or like Trotskyist gangs.

No one acts on those "beliefs." Its placeholder bullshit. If they were legit, they'd be in collectives today. They're not - they're agitating within the current system to drag the rest of us down into their shithole (see antifa who are supposedly ancom)

Democratic confederalism gets into that square, Kurdistan pretty much
Its the endgoal for sjws in a way

wording this. nothing pisses me off more than we people assume every child was raised a degenerate

Because "libertarian" doesn't mean that there's no state.

Noble (sounding), but not necessarily realistic

Those that do claim to be 'anarchists' but do that are hypocrites who I don't take seriously

Human cattle that need to be and willing to be farmed.

Do you think the state should exist for the benefit of the common man?

Congrats you are in the green square.

To be fair, there are no parties or political groups that are not pants on head retarded in this square

Georgism and the land value tax is the biggest ideology here

>Trotsky libertarian

>Trotsky bears a great deal of responsibility both for the victory of the Red Army in the civil war, and for the establishment of a one-party authoritarian state with its apparatus for ruthlessly suppressing dissent.... He was an ideologist and practitioner of the Red Terror. He despised 'bourgeois democracy'; he believed that spinelessness and soft-heartedness would destroy the revolution, and that the suppression of the propertied classes and political opponents would clear the historical arena for socialism. He was the initiator of concentration camps, compulsory 'labour camps,' and the militarization of labour, and the state takeover of trade unions. Trotsky was implicated in many practices which would become standard in the Stalin era, including summary executions.

books.google.com/books?id=NAZm2EdxKqkC&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you and a few of your friends got together and decided to live together and share everything it would work.
But when applied to a society it doesn't work.

>Implying Libertarians are Anarchists
>Implying Left-wing entails a collectivist economy

>Implying

OP, stop

As someone in the square I'm pretty much pro social market with an emphasis on the state protecting my civil rights. But that would be a pretty moderate view on things.

Agreed, but the number of non-hypocrites in the lower left is a small fraction. Most stay within our society and try to force the rest of us to pay for their insane ideas. The number of non-hypocrites is so small, that I don't think we should take their theory as anything other than insincere, opportune bullshit (much like "moderate Muslims")

using weed to explain:

>red square: 1g of weed per person, no exceptions, you're punished if you disobey
>blue square: 0g of weed per person, no exceptions, you're punished if you disobey
>green square: however much weed for whoever can get some, trade/share with others because it feels good, no punishment for anybody regardless
>purple square: as much weed as as you can get for yourself, trade/share if they have something worth bartering for, punish anyone who tries anything funny as they've violated the NAP

Yes, but he wanted a world wide revolution and classless societies. Trotskyism is considered a left libertarian view compared to Leninism and Stalinism.

This is dumb. And inaccurate. Here's a (you)

>Murders millions
>Libertarian
That's non a tenable position, user. You're saying a 500 lb land whale is not as fat as a 550lber.

Murdering people doesn't prevent you from being a libertarian.

>refute can't refute anything
>ad hom

not an argument, you uneducated, green square loving, underage and uneducated retard.

I am in favour of an INCREDIBLY powerful and wide spread state; I want most things to be nationalised and heavy regulation and my results are pic related.

All it means is that I am economically left wing and think people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Basically the same ideology as any moral person.

>He doesn't actually refute the claim
>He only says its wrong, slaps the OP and then prances away like a faggot before he can get hit back

Its basically the extended family unit.
You just share shit and do things for free in you family because theyre family.

>What is the non-aggression principle
>What is the definition of murder

>you dont own that

It's the quadrent of thinking you know what you want, but having absolutely no fucking clue how to get it. It's the personification of intellectual and philosophical masturbation.

In favor of people doing whatever they want except keep their own money
i.imgur.com/xhq0btA.png

I've seen a video of this girl fishing. Boy would I like to put a hijab on that!

Sharing is caring, idiots

Individual libertarianism (sexual liberation, gay marriage, dog fucking) combined with a welfare state. Green square is default in the west

>accuses of ad hom, then ad homs.

Load up another bowl of blue dream and forget your sad life for another few hours.

>implying every response to every idiot's troll post has to be a thesis

Ok, I'll bite. I'll even use "OPs" dumbass weed example.

Red Square> Weed is given out by the state based on political principles and perceived need based on these principles. State controls the production and price. People are forced to smoke weed regardless of desire or are punished.

Blue Square> Weed may or may not be available for sale depending on cultural impressions of weed, depending on how deep we go into the blue square. If for sale, heavily regulated and taxed by the state. People can choose whether or not to smoke, but are subject to propaganda encouraging use. Actions outside of these regulations is punished.

Purple Square> Weed is available, price and availability determined by supply and demand. Little to no regulation on the sale or production. No one is forced to smoke weed if they don't want to. It's hard to actually get weed since there are no roads.

Green Square> Weed is given out by the state to the people based on political principles and perceived need based on these principles. State does not control the production or price, preferring to let the market and private actors settle these issues. State may or may not actually be involved in production of weed. No one is forced to smoke weed. The state does not punish use or non use.

>dog fucking
You're aware that a dog's only method of providing consent is begging for scraps at the table, right?

You're literally confirming a shitty stereotype of gay liberation politics.

Try blue square near the center