Politicalcompass.org

politicalcompass.org

my most recent

...

Ha! Retard.

anarchism is stupid and unsustainable.

can you explain why?

...

...

...

...

If you got anything else you need to get off Sup Forums

liberal fags don't belong on Sup Forums, you faggots have Sup Forums as a containment board

I'm sorry, but what is this a reference to?

Monopolies and Companies have nasty tendencies to take advantage of poor people. You need strict antitrust anti-monopoly laws, just look at the coal mines in Pennsylvanian, that's what happens when the goverment leaves companies alone, Also unregulated free trade laws are dangerous, And we need united foreign policy laws to protect the people from foreign powers .

Government is the biggest monopoly possible, having control over a variety of things and strict rules on no competition. The only reason why harmful monopolies exist is because of government regulation that prevents competition, otherwise if they were abusing customers enough, a competitor would emerge and take over the market, I don't know about the specific case of Pennsylvanian mines, but I can do some quick research in a minute. What would be the danger if we did not have a united foreign policy?

I'm responding fast and doing research now but sending this before the thread dies.

On the "History of anthracite coal mining in Pennsylvania" wikipedia page:

They received a charter from the Pennsylvania legislature giving them the right to improve navigation on the Lehigh River, which effectively granted them a monopoly over the Lehigh.

Emphasis on legislature giving the exclusive right to the river

...

...

what would you call yourself and what country are you from?

Government has it's power checked by the people and other branches of government. I live in a former coal mining community in PA. and it was a horrible horrible monopoly that eventually lead to a rebellion that was quelled with alot of bloodshed. They had their whole lives government by a company, the only way the miners could of gotten the government to notice was by unionizing and stopping production. It's sad but that's what happens when companies go unchecked by goverment

governed*

Just did it and got this.
>Inb4 progressive retard

Government could have its power checked by the people if they were given accurate information and were not educated by the government to support everything it currently does.

On the mining issue, if the workers of the company had better options besides working for this company, why didn't they take them? And if they didn't, all that the mining company is doing is keeping them off of the streets, also, this appears to be a case where you could say that the government did not do its job.

I am not against unionizing, as it is the voluntary association of people, working for a common cause, I see no problem with this and support people who do and don't want to be a part of a union.

why so far left, but not very far down? I rarely see people that far up who are for so much economic regulation, can you explain where these stances come from?

...

full retard anarchist mode? don't worry, you'll grow out of it once you get a job

I do have a job, so....

>If they weren't educated by the government
Then whose gonna educate them? Themselves? I don't think so.

classic libertarian and im from the UK

...

then please explain your views and why you hold them, I have rarely seen somebody explain their views when they are similar to yours besides "all power dichotomies are wrong"

I am legitimately curious

I am not sure how government could be checked by the people, mob rule has a nasty tendency to be unproductive and dangerous to itself and everything around it. The checks our government has currently are about the best connection we the common folk could safely get.

The mining company took advantage of unskilled Irish/dutch immigrants during a depression. They moved the workers to remote (for the time) Pennsylvanian and invented their own currency to keep the miners dependent under appalling working conditions. They paid the miners less than could live on forcing them to take on debt. It was disgusting. Today it has not changed much we have just made it harder for them to take advantage and keep us poor

what is "classic libertarian?" To my understanding libertarian was /originally/ used to denote what would now be called "libertarian socialists" what are some of your specific views on issues facing the UK today?

you act like prior to government education there was none

and I swear to god, if I have to tell google what is a store front one more time, I'm gonna make Columbine look like a fucking joke

and i basically dont care about what others do as long as it doesnt affect me. in terms of the goverment, i think that they should provide basic services such as free health care, transport etc but anything else can be up to corporations (although goverment should lightly regulate them just so they dont fuck over any people)

>UK fag here
heres your answer just to add. i dont think we should be buy nukes. im on the fence about brexit. i voted to stay but its hilarious how the government here literally has no plans and europe is trying to dump us asap

I don't know about politics

okay, thanks

is democracy not just one big mob rule? Also, I don't think we have "the best connection with the common folk." has there not been times where it has been much better?

And on the mining company, is it the one I mentioned or is it another, and what about my mentioning of the mining company only providing another option?

I honestly don't even know how you managed to pull this off, I almost respect you for it, god bless your normie soul

these store fronts on CAPTCHA will be the end of me

I see capitalist ownership as using the workers as disposeable resources.
Use them until they are injured, and then toss them to the side.
Also the fact that profits are put first ahead of human well being (Like the Dakota Access Pipeline)


And then with the actual Statelessness.
That mostly stems from what I have seen with the use of force on peaceful groups. Like the the Water Protectors with the NoDAPL Protests over the past few days or the Normalistas in Mexico this past year or so

It was called the anthracite coal strike of 1902
Well we have representatives in congress or "mob". And they are supposed to fight with logic and voting rather then pitchforks

I'm not a political expert so excuse me if I'm wrong or I contradict myself but I'll try to explain. I hate the right wing capitalism retardation that slowly wrecks the poorer people in society. We need a controlled, socialist market but what we definitely do not need is a retarded anarchy that has people smoking weed and having child sex like this retard The more detailed graph says the position I'm in is Social Democracy and I'd say that sounds about right. Democracy needs a left wing economy to work properly. That's my opinion sorry if I'm completely wrong I really don't know what I'm talking about.

If you want workers, it is generally best to keep them healthy, as then you don't have to find new workers, and if you are just destroying workers, new workers will eventually find out if you do it enough and will likely not work there, leading to even more costs to hire new workers, etc. so I don't know how that happened.

Isn't the US/Canadian government involved in the construction of the DAP, and they are the ones granting them the land?

And it is the police raiding the Water Protectors, and I don't know the specifics of this case, but there are 3 possibilities:
1. This is privately owned land and they are the owners, protecting it from the government using eminent domain
2. This is privately owned by people other than the protesters, in which case they are trespassing and should be removed
3. This is government land, in which case they shouldn't own it and are likely breaking their promises to the people as, likely, when they first took the land they claimed they were doing it to protect it from damage.

STORE FRONTS

No ser, conservatives don't hate poor people, they're just smarter/pragmatic then most and can see the logic behind the actions.

Liberals are the worst kind. They're just so... neutral. In the case of Mr Cregg (pic related) he's so on the fence that he just sides with whoever's winning.

the reason we're all here is because we admit that we may be wrong.

What is a "controlled, socialist market" would be my first question to you.

I don't really know tbh. I just want left wing economy but not anarchy.

Is this sarcasm?

Check 'em.

is a "left wing economy" one where some services are socialized, (eg. police, courts, military, schooling, healthcare, welfare) and the rest is left to the market that is regulated? Am I close or way off?

...

From what I recall, the Federal Gov't instructed the DAP builders to build around the lake in a 20mi radius. (But it appears that is being ignored by the workers)

From what I see of the current raids against the Water Protectors, it seems that 1 is the case.

They occupied a piece of land that they claim was never seceded to the Feds.


And about the workers .

We do have some protections in place now, but management can find workarounds. If the means of production where in the workers hands, they would naturally take care of their co-workers, as it would be in their best interest to make sure they have a healthy workforce to keep production rolling.

Also, if a product is no longer needed, the working body of the plant should be able to choose to cease production of that product, and regear for a actual practical product.

(Obviously heavily simplified, but you have an idea.)

Left wing economy could be where everything is Socialized aswell.

With communal ownership of the means of production.

Seems pretty spot-on to me. I probably drift in and out of acceptable zone depending on the topic

On the first half:
The government has failed to enforce its rules, while attacking people who rightfully own land, I don't know how anybody could support any part of this, and I do not defend the government and their lack of regards for property rights.

Now, the second half:
Does the company not want to take care of its workers so that they don't have to have people leave for being sick/have to hire new workers?
And if the product became worthless, wouldn't the company cease the production of it anyway and make a product that is useful, as this would be in their own self interest?
I'm sorry if I'm too retarded to see that that was part of what was simplified and that I couldn't understand.

Hey there - we appear to have pretty similar views xD Can't say I ever considered myself being that far 'left' but I do feel pretty borderline liberal/authoritarian so that's pretty accurate.

Libtards college-un-education blinds them from the fact that they are only "liberal" towards matters that agree with their out-of-touch fantasist ideals.

Finally someone gets it.

How is that any different from simple socialism, I don't know how that is a market.

This isn't meant as an insult, but how do you defend such an obvious disregard for non aggression and people's right to self ownership?

Less capitalism but stay near the middle. Perfection.

I'm in college and in a centrist, right leaning after this election cycle started.

>I don't know how that is a market.

It could be that the means of production are owned by the workers, but the product is sold on the open market

Why can't people have social freedoms? Is it because of your religious beliefs or something else?

That makes sense, I may be partially retarded. Is the selling of products on the open market the means by which market signals can be sent so that the economic calculation problem can be solved in a way?

FUCKING STORE FRONTS

Well, I actually don't oppose self ownership. A little background:

I live in the UK and have a Geography BA (Hons) degree focused on human geography, including economics, globalisation, geopolitics and such.

I'm actually very pro government, pro corporations/TNCs and pro capitalism/globalisation. At the same time, I believe all three need to be regulated and monitored for both social and environmental reasons.

I actually supported the UKs role in Iraq and Libya, while believing we should have engaged in the Syrian conflict a lot sooner.

I think I was put in this political 'region' for some fairly social views such as not caring about abortion or homosexuality?

Sorry, i've actually never done that test before.

I'm also very pro social services such as the NHS, disability benefits ec, but velieve they're managed very badly/inefficiently.

wat dis

I'm not bashing all students, I went to college too, but when you think of dumb liberals, they usually went to college and got seduced by these illogical fantasies. I'mm over-generalizing, sure. but this is Sup Forums

>I'm sorry if I'm too retarded to see that that was part of what was simplified and that I couldn't understand.
Im kinda tired as well, so I may be explaining it in an absolutely retarded way. Kinda typical when I am half asleep


On the first bit.

Basically, the local Police has even been caught lying on what level of force they used. (Claimed no Tazers were used, but footage clearly shows its use.) Reports have surfaced of possible live ammo use against horses and their riders.

Also, It seems as if the Feds basically claim that the land is private now and owned by the builders or Feds. While the Natives claim that they never seceded the land to begin with.

And in this case, Direct Action must be used. Its the only way shit will get done. Actually disrupt construction of the pipeline.


Second bit.

Most of that bit with not taking care of workers I would say stems for managements belief that they can simply hire new workers if the old are used up.

And the product worthlessness bit is mostly just an example of workers jointly making a decision that benefits them aswell as their factory

Self ownership just leads to more class difference and poverty. It has nothing to do with aggression. Everyone needs equality but also order. But not too much order.

ok

Anyone scoring significantly in the upper two quadrants is a cuck.

Classical Marxist

usually get dead center or slightly left center, meh

>Social freedoms
Not all social freedoms are good so they must be stopped. Besides, just because the government bans weed or Anal or whatever it's not going to ruin you. I do so have religious biases but even if I wasn't religious my views would still be very similar.

I'm talking about self ownership in regards to the right to the fruits of your labor, the test isn't perfect, but it would indicate that you believe in a strong welfare state with sections of the economy socialized, is that wrong? Why do you support the recent interventions in the middle east? And yes, this test isn't perfect for odd combinations of views, it works better when people have a more common set of beliefs, once I saw a "ethno-anarchist," whatever that is, that was near the center, so the test isn't perfect.

How would you prevent the inefficiency when it simply being a part of the government almost encourages it?

see
to get an idea

Part 1: I completely support these people's right to defend their land with force, as I believe most people would, the issue appears when the government claims to have a right to all land when they deem it appropriate, which is what is causing this issue, I think that we agree that the private owners should have complete control.

Part 2: I work in a town that has a large manufacturing block that is essentially keeping it alive, I have never seen this company destroy workers just to hire new ones, and it is easy to see why, it would be incredibly inefficient.

>>I am the moral arbiter of this world and decide how much order and equality there needs to be in the world
Fuck you a thousand times you fucking jew.

True Dat. UK social services are pathetic. Speaking from personal experience and second hand experience of mental and physical care sector. Stuff is a nightmare to work in.

Guess I should read up on Marxism then

>Part 1: I completely support these people's right to defend their land with force, as I believe most people would, the issue appears when the government claims to have a right to all land when they deem it appropriate, which is what is causing this issue, I think that we agree that the private owners should have complete control.

I would say the land is only Private in the way that the natives control that land. But probably, like most native tribes, would be communally used.

But yea, the laws only apply to the feds when they decide they do. It's just is what ever benifits the elite. Not the common folk


>Part 2: I work in a town that has a large manufacturing block that is essentially keeping it alive, I have never seen this company destroy workers just to hire new ones, and it is easy to see why, it would be incredibly inefficient.

I've seen it where I am. I know people who were tossed aside for those reasons

And the issue with class difference is? And do you not think that people would create their own order?

wow, I have never seen a thread like this with so many people in the red/high green, has something changed around here? I know I've been gone for a while, but this is weird.

how about instead of ad hominem, we try to debate them?

what has changed recently? has it been US elections?

Why should weed and anal be illegal, I don't see massive societal harm being done by them, and even here I am giving you the assumption that the government should have power in these areas.

Have you not already read up on a variety of philisophical/political ideologies?

May as well. With where you fall, you may end up shifting towards, Marxist-Leninst, Maoist, Trotskyist, Anarcho-Communism, or really any Far-Left position.

SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!

...

Well, it appears we've came to an agreement on the first issue, and on the second, we're essentially using anecdotes against each other and saying doing it one way is more efficient than the other, so if I can get a break I will try to find more info on that. Thank you for being so civil so far, this has been constructive I believe.

>Self ownership just leads to more class difference and poverty

Poverty is relative. America and other wealthy nations can provide fairly decent welfare to their poor because the rich pay more in taxes. Poor countries have a lower standard of living and less rich people paying taxes (or are still within an informal economy-where a significant percent of people don't pay taxes at all because they can't afford it) so they can't afford to provide to the poor the same level of care that first world countries provide.

Please explain how whatever revolution you want is justified

ayyyy, what would you call yourself?


protip: there is always 4 store fronts

I have, but mostly about nationalsosialism Maybe, time will tell

But if everyone just works together and is equal like things will be gud OK?

What does this mean

Yea, we did on the first.

And the second is really just such a narrow point, that one cant derive any real point from it.

If I was fully awake, then I could probably actually pull some stats and shit. But I dont got time for that

for a rule of thumb, see
or
and just as I say 4 store fronts, they change how the store fronts work

1983

Oh. Well, I don't support a super strong wellfare state. While I believe the unemployed need to be supported by a dole so they can eat and live, I find the system highly flawed when people are almost paid to breed as more children means higher payments.

I'm not in favour of a socialized economy either. I know that a combination of SME's (Small-Medium Enterprises) and TNC's are necessary to create a diverse, stable and more sustainable economy.

At the same time, i'm pro tax. By 'fruits of your labour' i'm not entirely sure what you mean though.

Also, there are several ways to prevent inefficiency. Particularly in the NHS these things include;

- Promotion of nursing/health care courses from a GCSE level and the expansion of apprentiship programs.

- Re-opening dozens/hundreds of smaller facilities across the country that were closed down to condense the health service - a program that failed due to poor management/staffing practices expecting thesame staff to commute impractical distances. this led to mass quitting and the need to import 'substitue' nurses like substitute teachers. This and consultancy is a gigantic money sink.

- Everything from hospital/facility furnishing to food ordering and waste is poorly managed to boot. Staff training needs to be better implimented so people understand how to use the technology and order 10 bags of potato's, not 100 (example).

>how about instead of ad hominem, we try to debate them?

How about instead of going all Socrates on 6 different posters, we try to post our own ideas without using questions as proxies?

what

i'm from brazil btw
people here would usually call me a nazi right winged fascist and other crap

fuck i spilled all of my spaghetii and forgot to attach the image

kek
double kek

Is it just the demographic of Sup Forums that leads to everyone trending towards Libertarian?

First time ever doing one of these

Jesus christ kill yourself

Ok weed and anal were just me being kind of sarcastic but I do genuinely think that certain "social freedoms" are morally wrong or personally detrimental in some ways. Many drugs for example ruin the lives of people. Now I'm not saying that this happens ALL the time but from my personal experience with the care sector I can say that drugs do completely destroy some people's lives so they should not be used. As for abortion and such that us a very complicated area. I do not believe that any woman should just be able to abort a baby just because "she didn't want it". This kind of behaviour encourages a lack of compassion, responsibility and basic moral values. If a mother can legally kill her unborn child then that's pretty awful. Social freedom is important but people should still be living a healthy existence. I say this not out of the desire to control social freedom but out of the desire to do what's best for others.