Political compass thread

Political compass thread

Other urls found in this thread:

politicalcompass.org
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Website

Politicalcompass.org/

* politicalcompass.org

give me counterarguments against being a libertarian, my goal is to be dead center

The government knows wat's best for you, user. Your opinion doesn't matter.

deb8 me

...

No, because there's a 100% chance of you being insufferable

...

Only because you know im right.

Reluctantly checked

That's it

Then why don't you run for president?

h8 me fagets

>inb4 berniefag
Fuck American politics it's all rigged anyway

Adam Kokesh is running in 2020, so theres no point when I can support him.

TRIPS! Tell us your policies and platforms user

literally who the candidate

Okay buddy

No government
Legalize it

...

The government may know what's best for me, but they will only ever do what's good for most people, I prefer for them to leave me be and let me do things myself, for better or worse

Bring the hate

Obligatory

Reasonable

...

Pretty based. I'm a little more left and a little closer to the authoritarian line. On my phone at work, don't have my actual pic.

>American politics

Sad that this is not too far from the truth in how many americans think

Check em

>counterarguments against being a libertarian,
that would an argument "for" being a libertarian

I think you just proved why we shouldn't be. Lack of uniform education standards.

I feel I am a lot more authoritarian than the graph shows

Boom

When I converted an Anarcho-Communist into Capatalist.

Nice

Honestly, I think that AnCom was just a bit of an idiot, who did it to be edgy

...

...

>in socialism you get punished for not helping

lol

any of that "anarco" stuff is

you can't put that in practice for millions or billions of people

user needs to start a colony on Mars

>Politicalcompass.org/

libertarians don't believe in any government intervention, corporations would run amok even more than they already are, they could pollute upstream and poison your drinking water and you couldn't do shit about it. Smaller government means less infrastructure, roads would fall apart, schools would get even shittier, hospitals would only serve the rich.

It would be corporate monarchy, or at best a corporate republic. Basically being a libertarian is saying "lets not give godzilla anypower" then not knowing what to do when mothra takes over.

Libertarians generally don't understand world finance, international trade, and have a very shallow superficial understanding of social sciences, world/political history, and human nature.

trips don't lie.

I'll give you that, it will probably not work in a society with the population of most modern countries.

If it is more so on a communal level, then it could. Say a commune of maybe 1k-2k people. (Could be federated into larger entities with mutual cooperation between communes)

I think the term you are looking for is oligarchy, which is what we currently have.

Lol fair enough, but you get my point, nit picky faggot

You have made me realize, though, that a more authoritarian system could protect against a society in which the blind lead the blind, so thank you

not against the idea in principle, but it would take a highly educated populace

not retards driving around in Dodge Rams voting Trump

Libertarians are usually just high school kids that want to smoke weed legally, or old gun nuts that want to take over congress with ar-15's because a free health care bill is obviously the start of fascism.

no we currently have a democratic republic where we could change things through voting and legislation

libertarianism believes voting and legislation hampers business interests

...

...

It could not be a sudden transition.

It must be gradual, with education of the masses being a primary concern

>oligarchy

I think that term is not specific enough. Many forms of government are oligarchy. In a corporate monarchy it wouldn't even be people in charge, it would be the corporate personhood. The bottom line, making profits for the stockholders would be in charge. A CEO's duty is to serve the stockholders. They can't make any decision that would hurt the stock prices, even if it is ethically the right decision.

Essentially no one would be in charge, but a big greed monster of conglomerated faceless shareholders. It's far more dangerous than an old monarchy because the human element is removed completely and replaced by numbers.

...

LOL

I got the same exact result as you did if I picked "strongly disagree" for every question :^)

even then it wouldn't work. The human condition is flawed. Not to mention that 1 out of 20 people is a sociopath. Someone would fuck it up and take advantage.

...

well it's not going to happen at all if we don't address our unsustainable environmentally toxic social habits
20 years tops if we keep fucking shit up like we're doing

even education doesn't override corruption. For it to work there would need to be complete honest and zero corruption. It's just not possible with human beings. Robots maybe.

>wouldn't even be people in charge
This is exactly what we have right now.
Corporations can donate unlimited money via a superpac to any canidate they want. In return for being in their pocket when big bills come up.
Look at big tobacco, they are still a billion dollar industry.Its legal cancer, yet good ol bible belt congressmen keep it going

I'm oddly close to the centre. Is this good or bad, in your opinions?

the odds would be better with an educated populace and universal health care

right now we do need to reduce our footprint as a society and give more green space back to the earth for habitat. That means federated villages like user is talking about.

Let me guess, an individualistic anarchist?

Obviously. Unlike most Anarchists, I see that there are more pressing concerns (like the environment), but the end goal is a classless, Stateless society.

citizen action checks corruption, so no

we are at the point in our evolution where switching over to collectivism is possible, and with issues like climate change, necessary.

depends on your answers

what questions were you really not sure about?

Unsure. I believe I potentially got further left than I expected as, like, 6 questions revolved around homosexuality. I know a dozen LGBT people, so of course my views are more accepting. I think this leaned me more in the bottom left axis.

Democratic Republic in name only. In Practice it is closer to a Single Party Oligarchical State.

...

...

I thought I'd turn out to be more right-wing and authoritarian than that.
heh.

No in practice it's still a representative democracy.

Just because you're a cynical teabagger does not mean you get to redefine what this government is.

you probably said "strongly disagree" to "would you really really REALLY kill the puppy?"

...

1) Do you have a valid reason to believe such a thing would/could work?
2) What about those, who don't want to live in an anarchistic society?
3) Why do think there haven't been any successful anarchistic communities? (And no, Catalan wasn't a successful community. It ceased to exist quite fast.)

...

Funny. I'm am not a tea bagger at all.

>What about those, who don't want to live in an anarchistic society?

given our growing environmental problems and other unsustainability issues

they really wouldn't have a choice
and they'd live decent lives to pursue their own interests like all of us

Whar are those two balls outside the chart?

then why do you use the same retarded argument?

This is a democracy. We have the power to change things. We can't change things if there are people like you out there insisting our vote doesn't count.

Is this ok

How's the 7th grade going?

what up

Hello my fellow on-the-line libertarian!

how can you "strongly disagree" with everything?

you were probably an asshole with one or two of your questions

which ones?

So much spooks ...

Now tell me, how exactly are organized societies and sustainability mutually exclusive?
Also, as anarchy is anti-authoritarian, why would you force your world view on others? Can't people decide for themselves, how they want to live?

I don't know. Probably the one about art.
I also struggled with the people needing to be obeyed and people needing to be commanded.

There are the only ones who get it : egoists.

What makes you infer that I did? I really did answer honestly

...

Clintrump

...

Pretty much me

They are deciding for themselves. Just as we do. The benefit of education and logic would dictate collectivism as the best choice. There wouldn't be paranoid survivalist types like what you're talking about.

What does this mean

Because as a joke I responded to each question with "Strongly Disagree" and I got your exact result.

It means you are one toke over the Nazi line.

Best.

>citizen action checks corruption

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

OMg that is some fucking funny shit.

...