Your country

>your country
>where are you on the political compass
politicalcompass.org

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2015/10/11/upshot/faith-in-an-unregulated-free-market-dont-fall-for-it.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Was on the autistic (purple) quadrant two years ago.

>No one can feel naturally homosexual.
Yes. They can. It's a hormone thing but also an option.

>These days openness about sex has gone too far.
Who the fuck cares. The more you talk the more you know, that's a good thing.

>What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Sure. Why would it be?

>Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
Kinkiness generates GDP.

> A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
There's no negative outcome in this.

>Some people are naturally unlucky.
That's the speech of losers.

>Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
It is. The government is too bureaucratic and stale at managing retirement. Private managed retirement accounts and charity are better.

>Astrology accurately explains many things.
It explains things in a broad sense, so in some cases it'll seem accurate from your pov.

>You cannot be moral without being religious.
Bullshit.

>Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
They are, look at Mariana's Samarco spill or the Amazon.

>Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
True, when they don't have the money to pay for babysitters. But in all cases is better to have someone to educate the child. That way less criminals are brought to society.

>Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
It's an important aspect of being a cuck.

> Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
I would say that's true in most cases. However look at recent arrests of alleged "terrorists" in Brazil: a bunch of chan-browsing neets that posted the wrong keywords.

at least i'm not a communist i guess

...

>In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
What a cuck.

>In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
Only if you are a Muslim. Even a technocrat would say that turning a criminal to a cheap asset is better than eliminating it.

>It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
But some times it is overkill.

> The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Without them the writer and the artist would never be able to make their works known.

>Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Rothko a shit you pleb.

>The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Sure, but only trough lethal injections.

>A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
There is still arguments inside the party's rulings, only that they are one-sided. Without the conflict of different points of view you are susceptible to imperfect decisions.

>Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Yes, Hilary Clinton.

>First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
Just look at any immigrant group in Brazil, they could easily pass as natives. (Except fucking Ch*nks)

>When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
The mindset of a favela nigger.

>What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
If you are a fucking bootlicker. Altria, H&K is good for all of us?

Purple square represent

I've gotten every quadrant on this test depending on when in my life I took it. Was green then went purple then blue then purple then red then green now for the past few years I've tested right in between green and purple and close to the bottom.

Think that means I've found enlightenment, or that I really like drugs and beat literature.

...

Oh god, I didn't think I was -that- Leftist

I swear I'm not a SJW

only right one itt

...

Correct

...

>No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
It's always good to stimulate artistic creation. Here public can be from the gov or from the people. It's perfectly fine to be funded from the public. It's however preferable to have tax exemptions instead of funding from the government. Brazil has something like that, it worked greatly to give birth to hundreds of amazing content until the coup government cut it.

>Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Yes, but we also have to look at their reasons. Some times they may be into deep shit with their family or something.

>There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
When one kills another of their own species for no reason or for religious reasons they are the proof of the existence of savage people.

>The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
The most important thing for children to learn is to work their ass out for what they want.

>People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
It's not an issue so I don't care.

>The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
This should be the second function.
The first should be to prepare people to be active members of society and self-learners.

>Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence.
It shouldn't, a lot of money is wasted because it is.

>It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Yes.

>Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
If you vote Trump.

>All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
Disagree, if it that was true America would never be great.

>Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
They should. A nigga outta school is a nigga that will shoot you.

Obligatory

A leaf

...

Are you the gay Brazilian or the one who loves linguistics?

No one will read this, Josias

Was george effay?

fuck yes

...

I love this image

>The freer the market, the freer the people.
nytimes.com/2015/10/11/upshot/faith-in-an-unregulated-free-market-dont-fall-for-it.html

>Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .
Of course, but a universal and of human standards alternative should exist.

>It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
I agree but what can I do? I think there should exist a higher inheritance tax.

>It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
You pay for the service not for the product. Water won't come to you magically.

>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Of course, as long as the "each according to his need" is respectably sufficient for their real needs.

>Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Too much attention to inflation and labour markets will exert a higher force on it, upwards or downwards.

>Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Yes.
ExxonMobil for the matter. As well as Monsanto, all China's industries, BHP, BP and others.

>Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Free trade comes after you develop your industry via protectionism, otherwise you are just being a pseudo-colony.

>The rich are too highly taxed.
It's actually the opposite. If you disagree you're a cuck.

>If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Yes. I'm a human after all. Why would I want companies to earn more from technological advances than me self? I'm not a cuck.

No, I have a gf and only know English and German.

IDC

Literally Trotsky

desu this quiz has a tendency to mark people as more authoritarian than they really are, especially as you go further right

>he hasn't realised capitalism is inherently flawed yet

Hey I didn't say shit

me btw

so are you an ancap or what?

I think "classical liberal" fits the best for your tagging needs.

I think you are a repressed anarchist.

Pretty close to I thought I would end up slightly purple but ended up green because I don't trust corporations to not fuck up the environment

>political compass
>most of the questions are apolitical in nature

Which monastery to pillage next isn't politics

t. fellow centrist

This. The test it shit. isidewith is much better.

...

rate me

...

dude who needs freedom lmao

Does Labor actually get colored as blue there?

i don't care much about politics, tho

>ALP
>Australian Labour Party
Red

>LPA
>Liberal Party of Australia
Not indicated

>L/NP
>Liberal/National Party (Coalition)
Blue

Do you like the idea of sucking black dick?

Bottom left is the closest thing to true equality. Prove I'm wrong.

You're right, but equality is both false and undesirable.

lul

Wait so why is equality undesirable? If it was possible, why wouldn't we want everyone to be equal?

Equality is false because people are naturally unequal.

It's undesirable because, if people are naturally unequal, then by trying to make them equal, you're penalising the better and rewarding the worse. This is plain injustice.

The further problem is that there is no way to make people equal, so any attempt is futile and wasteful..

Why are people naturally unequal? If there was a way to change that, why wouldn't you want to?

...

...

>Why are people naturally unequal?
All people are different to each other. Equality is the absence of difference (that is discrepancy, distinction, discrimination).

>If there was a way to change that,
That is not even remotely plausible.

>why wouldn't you want to?
Given that, if it were somehow possible, it would be an enormously difficult task, I think the more important question must be, why would you want to make people equal? Such an endeavour needs some justification.

>Equality is false because people are naturally unequal.
So we should just give up on them?

>It's undesirable because, if people are naturally unequal, then by trying to make them equal, you're penalising the better and rewarding the worse. This is plain injustice.
You're contradicting yourself. If people are unequal the better are capable of self-sustaining while the worse are having small steps towards equality.

>The further problem is that there is no way to make people equal, so any attempt is futile and wasteful..
The goal is not to make people equal but to give equality of opportunity for each level of necessity. Some need nothing, some need a lot. By putting everyone on the same line you create prosperity for them and for the others, because they are interacting with each other in the economy or in social life.
That doesn't have to be their eternal solution for their problems but the stepping stone. Free education is a great example of this. It takes people that were out of the economy into the economy and then on they can sustain themselves by their own merits, which without the gratuity would not be possible.

Centrist master race

Equality iisn't about absence of difference, it's about absence of preference. No one wants to make everyone the same skin color, but it would be preferable for everyone to be treated no matter their color.

Obviously there are superficial differences between people, but equality is about differences not mattering. Why would you want one person to have a harder time in life than another?

Imagine we had a button that, once pressed, would make everyone equal with 0 effort. Why would you not want to press it?

COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP MASTER RACE

>So we should just give up on them?
What do you mean by "give up"?
I didn't say anything like that. People should fill the role appropriate to their qualities and abilities. But this isn't equality at all.

>You're contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. Treating people out of proportion to what is warranted is the definition of injustice. Since people are unequal, they have different virtues, and thus different treatment is warranted; thus treating people equally, rather than differently, is unjust.

>If people are unequal the better are capable of self-sustaining while the worse are having small steps towards equality.
Treating people equally does not make them equal. Nor does treating people in any other unjust manner make them equal. The initial differences remain - different skills, different breeding, different physical size and fitness, different intelligence, different education, different wealth, different morality, different experiences, different family, different location, etc.. You cannot eliminate these differences with some sort of anti-discriminatory welfare programme.

I don't see where the notion of self-sufficiency comes in to it. What has this got to do with whether or not people are or can be equal? And how does sustaining those who cannot sustain themselves make them "equal"?

>The goal is not to make people equal
Then we are not even having the same conversation to begin with.

>but to give equality of opportunity for each level of necessity
Why would you want to try to create equality in some circumstance unless your goal was to make people equal?

>Some need nothing, some need a lot.
It doesn't matter what people think they need (and good luck defining "need" in any sort of general, objective, uncontroversial way). What I am discussing is what is warranted - policies of quality are unjust because they give people more or less than what they deserve.

(cont.)

(cont.)

>By putting everyone on the same line
You cannot do this. It is impossible so long as people are different in any respect, which will always be true.

>you create prosperity for them and for the others, because they are interacting with each other in the economy or in social life.
Isn't this better served by each man filling his appropriate role? As each man is different, his role must be different. The way to create a prosperous economy and a pleasant society may be summarised as follows: a place for every man, and every man in his place. (I Googled that phrase, and it turns out I'm accidentally plagiarising some science fiction books I've never read.)

>That doesn't have to be their eternal solution for their problems but the stepping stone.
But what does it even have to do with equality now? If you're justifying it on the basis that it helps get people in to the right position to be productive and harmonious, then it doesn't matter whether they're equal or not - it's not even a question of equality.

>Free education is a great example of this. It takes people that were out of the economy into the economy and then on they can sustain themselves by their own merits, which without the gratuity would not be possible.
Not everyone needs to, wants to, or can be educated to the same extent or in the same way. There are many people who are utterly unsuited for university or anything that it can lead to, for instance. Even among those who are a good fit for education, there is great variation, so we cannot expect or desire equality. But also, why should it be free? If we eliminate these sorting mechanisms and barriers, don't we undo the progress that society has made in assigning people to their proper places?

I honestly feel that whoever puts "Strongly Disagree" in the "we need to put restrictions on predatory multinationals that want to install monopolies" question is either being edgy or is part of a predatory multinational.

Nothing against companies, but we have the laws necessary to keep them from going full late 1800's on us, and we should use them.

get on my level

>People should fill the role appropriate to their qualities and abilities.
This sounds a lot like something Karl Marx would say desu

I think you're misunderstanding what equality means. What do you think it means?

Does this meme president has any chance

It's not like my opinion matters 2bh

...

>Equality iisn't about absence of difference, it's about absence of preference.
Equality is defined by the absence of difference. a - b = a iff b = 0.
When you talk about preference, you're talking about difference in treatment. Different things must be treated differently. Thus difference necessitates preference, so even if by equality you mean no preferential treatment, equality is absurd so long as difference exists.

>No one wants to make everyone the same skin color, but it would be preferable for everyone to be treated no matter their color.
Then people will always be different. Treating people the same despite their differences is unjust. Skin colour is an emotive example for a lot of people, but the principle applies very clearly here: Do you think that a swarthy-skinned lady should wear the same make-up as a fair-skinned lady? At least one of them is going to look ridiculous.

>Obviously there are superficial differences between people,
You need to clearly define what you mean by "superficial". Perhaps you could give an example of a personal difference that would in no circumstances warrant different treatment.

>but equality is about differences not mattering.
No, it isn't. As I explained, it's about lack of difference. But the notion that difference doesn't matter is anyway wrong.

>Imagine we had a button that, once pressed, would make everyone equal with 0 effort. Why would you not want to press it?
What would be the benefit to pressing it?
Also, diversity really is strength. An entire society of people who are good at thinking, but too weak to perform any sort of physical labour, will fail.

Equality is the absence of difference.

>very similar graphs
>test calls me a (((neocon)))
>you get a good label

>I didn't say anything like that. People should fill the role appropriate to their qualities and abilities. But this isn't equality at all.
You won't have this scenario in Australia. There are single mothers without formal education with five kids that live from small freelance jobs by cleaning houses.
With your ideology in mind, how do you suggest that person overcomes that situation? I'm talking in that case only, not in a general sense.

>thus treating people equally, rather than differently, is unjust.
You're mistaking the meaning of equality again. It's equality of opportunity according to each one's need. Not equality of treatment.

>Treating people equally does not make them equal.
Now I think we are talking about different kinds of equality. I mean economic equality, not social (gender, race, appearance) equality.

>tfw conservatives are popping up again

also

You're misunderstanding. Equality doesn't mean everyone is a doctor, it means everyone COULD become a doctor. It's not saying to make everyone literally the same person, it's to make it so everyone has the same capabilities.

If, for example, a smart black woman wants to become a doctor, there is no reason that she shouldn't be able to become a doctor if she's capable of it. I think we've got big differences in what we think of as equality.

>Perhaps you could give an example of a personal difference that would in no circumstances warrant different treatment.
Anything physical. Treating someone differently because of mental differences is only logical, but to treat someone differently just because they look a certain way is immoral.

>There are many people who are utterly unsuited for university or anything that it can lead to, for instance.
Ok, but anyway they need some training or some practical skill to get into the labour market. Provide it to them and that cost will come back with interest because now you have a productive member of society and not a menial worker.

>But also, why should it be free? If we eliminate these sorting mechanisms and barriers, don't we undo the progress that society has made in assigning people to their proper places?
So now you're telling me that there are people deserving of a higher education and some that are not?
Education shouldn't be a barrier, it should be open and free. Hard work and motivation should be the only differentiating factor. Those that have studied hard and have the money to do so can still study in private universities or very selective ones. Defining a floor and giving a guarantee that if you want to do so you have the opportunity is a key factor in developing your country for ages to come.

...

It changes every fucking time.

>single mother
>no education
>five children
She's clearly made a lot of stupid decisions. Without knowing the details it's hard to make a clear judgement, but on what you've provided, it seems like she's exactly the sort of person who should be struggling and performing menial tasks.

>You're mistaking the meaning of equality again.
No I'm not.

>equality of opportunity
>not equality of treatment
Isn't providing or curtailing an opportunity a way of treating people?

>I mean economic equality, not social equality.
Position in society and economic standing are related because the economy is part of society. What do you think are the determinants of economic success and failure?

>itt : people who honestly believe the "ebil corporations wil magically create monupories waaahhhhhh"
Large corporations could absolutely not exist without state protection. Who do you think came up with the idea of spending tax money to build massive international freeways?

>Equality doesn't mean everyone is a doctor, it means everyone COULD become a doctor.
Not everyone can become a doctor because not everyone has the mind, temperament, interests, stomach, etc., for it. Many people could never make good doctors, no matter how much help they were given. Removing restrictions on selection for education or employment isn't going to remove those differences. While your magic button might make everyone suited for medicine, it also makes them unsuited for other useful things.

>It's not saying to make everyone literally the same person, it's to make it so everyone has the same capabilities.
How could two people have the same capabilities if they aren't the same person? Can I be the father of another man's children? Am I capable of that? Am I capable of being a woman or a Negro American? These things are impossible for me; I am not capable of them.

>If, for example, a smart black woman wants to become a doctor, there is no reason that she shouldn't be able to become a doctor if she's capable of it.
Isn't being able to become a doctor exactly the same thing as being capable of becoming a doctor? You're talking in circles.
I suppose you mean that we should erect any barriers to an activity except for capability. Why not? Are people who are incapable somehow unequal to people who are capable? What if (as an admittedly unrealistic example) we simply have too many doctors already?

(cont.)

(cont.)

>I think we've got big differences in what we think of as equality.
I don't even know what you mean by "equality" because you haven't provided an explanation or definition. The way I am using the term matches the way it is generally used in all manner of contexts, so I'm not sure how your understanding could reasonably differ.

>Anything physical. Treating someone differently because of mental differences is only logical, but to treat someone differently just because they look a certain way is immoral.
Do you want hideously deformed people to be hired as models? You won't sell products that way.
Would you discriminate on the basis of appearance in selecting a wife?
And what about the example I gave of make-up? Should the make-up crew for film and television give everyone the same make-up regardless of their skin colour?

>Not everyone can become a doctor because not everyone has the mind, temperament, interests, stomach, etc., for it.
Exactly. People who DO have all of those things should be able to become a doctor despite their superficial characteristics though.

>Ok, but anyway they need some training or some practical skill to get into the labour market. Provide it to them and that cost will come back with interest because now you have a productive member of society and not a menial worker.
This is really an argument about making investments, and not an argument about equality. I don't necessarily disagree - it sounds plausible, but I imagine the cost and benefit will vary by realisation, so it's not always going to be a good investment.

It's not clear to me, however, that menial work is unnecessary. Some people are suited for that, and it's surely nicer to have clean streets and tidy gardens than dirty and messy ones.

>So now you're telling me that there are people deserving of a higher education and some that are not?
Yes.

>Education shouldn't be a barrier, it should be open and free.
Why? Some people don't fit in, can't benefit from it, or won't put it to good use. These people don't need to go to university and if we set up a circumstance where there's an expectation that they will go, we will cause problems.

>Hard work and motivation should be the only differentiating factor.
You're erecting barriers.

>Those that have studied hard and have the money to do so can still study in private universities or very selective ones.
This isn't equality at all, then, is it? Are you unfamiliar with complaints from the poorer or stupider people about how the education available to them is inferior to expensive or selective services?

>Defining a floor and giving a guarantee that if you want to do so you have the opportunity is a key factor in developing your country for ages to come.
Meeting demand and making long-term plans for economic dynamism is surely important. Giving everyone the potential to go to medical school or law school doesn't achieve this. It's mismanagement of resources (both with respect to the material costs of running the service, and with respect to misallocating future labour).

Perhaps, but I'm still not sure what you mean by "superficial". Your example wasn't particularly enlightening.

In any event, not all doctors are equal, are they?

Superficial: existing or occurring at or on the surface.

i.e something physical. Physical differences should not change how someone is treated. Mental differences should.

I guess I'm not extremely passionate one way or the other

>Do you want hideously deformed people to be hired as models? You won't sell products that way.
>Would you discriminate on the basis of appearance in selecting a wife?
>And what about the example I gave of make-up? Should the make-up crew for film and television give everyone the same make-up regardless of their skin colour?

Not him, but are you the kind of person who thinks a private buisness shouldn't be allowed to discriminate racially when hiring?

I believe the world should be split into micro states so small any one person within could easily have an effect on traditions/ rules. Not quite anarchy.

...

Lol did you just ask me if I'm the kind of person who isn't racist?

I like your idea. My microstate will unify with my friend's microstate to take over your microstate. Then our triple-microstate can start gobbling up surrounding territories and eventually form a globe-spanning empire.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That is my response to all of those questions.

Let me ask you something, are you a communist? I'm not saying that's a bad thing because personally I'm a socialist, but do you describe yourself as a communist? I only ask because from this debate you sound like someone who would really like the idea of communism if he read about it more.

Link pls

>Why? Some people don't fit in, can't benefit from it, or won't put it to good use.
Because when it is, deserving people that really want to make it don't have the opportunity.

>Some people don't fit in, can't benefit from it, or won't put it to good use.
I get you, that's revolting sometimes. But it takes failure for some people to find out what they really want.
This should be worrying factor if that was a source of sunk costs, but it isn't. Sure, there's a small crowd of SJW tumblr poster who can't find a job, but that's not the rule. You would argue that Women Studies or Philosophy are shit degrees that won't give you a job. However those two degrees are really sought after by Banks, Human Resources and Hiring agencies, Marketing shops and etc. They are "still" not a problem so I would use it as an argument.

>You're erecting barriers.
I'm not. I'm just shifting them from being futile and dull for being just and fair.

>This isn't equality at all, then, is it? Are you unfamiliar with complaints from the poorer or stupider people about how the education available to them is inferior to expensive or selective services?
That's another subject. I'm always talking about equality of opportunity. Both will have the same opportunity. It's fair that people that study hard have an option to make their sacrifice worth.

>Giving everyone the potential to go to medical school or law school doesn't achieve this.
The free-market of labour will determine wages and wages will determine what degrees people get. At first everyone will jump into law for sure but that's temporary.
When demand asks (wages for some area) get higher, new students will choose that area and that demand will be fulfilled. That's a lot more flexible than it would otherwise be and it's also preferable than having to scale that demand trough outsourcing.

politicaltest.net, it's in all the filenames kek

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
So if the modelling agency needs pretty girls to help their clients sell products, then pretty girls should get those jobs, and ugly girls should be deliberately discriminated against because they don't have the requisite ability to meet the needs of clients.
So you don't believe in equality after all.

>Let me ask you something, are you a communist? I'm not saying that's a bad thing because personally I'm a socialist, but do you describe yourself as a communist? I only ask because from this debate you sound like someone who would really like the idea of communism
We need to permanently physically exclude communists, socialists, etc., from our societies, with lethal force if necessary.

>if he read about it more.
>implying

kek

I have my microstate and it spans the area of my house. One of the traditions I'm coming up with is shitting with the door open. I'm having diplomatic conflicts at the moment and hope that it doesn't roll into a civil war.

...

>So if the modelling agency needs pretty girls to help their clients sell products, then pretty girls should get those jobs, and ugly girls should be deliberately discriminated against because they don't have the requisite ability to meet the needs of clients.
They do not have the requirements for those jobs. I'm saying that if the job has nothing to do with their physical appearance, they should not be deliberately excluded. People are the same on the inside no matter what they look like on the outside.

>We need to permanently physically exclude communists, socialists, etc., from our societies, with lethal force if necessary.
Well then you should probably go ahead and kill yourself because this whole time you've been arguing a very common communist point.

>this whole time you've been arguing a very common communist point.
No he isn't you fucking retard.

In Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, he describes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the literal core of a late-stage communist society, i.e the final phase of societal development.

That test is made with American politics in mind. It doesn't show a proper result for anyone else, as it doesn't take into account refional differences.

If you think I'm wrong, think about it one more time before replying. Really think.