What are Sup Forumstards like according to 8values ?

What are Sup Forumstards like according to 8values ?
8values.github.io/

(CONT) Also, communism is cancer as well as its vehicle, progressivism.

Other urls found in this thread:

8values.github.io/
8values.github.io/results.html?e=34.6&d=51.9&g=66.7&s=58.6
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Kek has legitimized this position with the granting of dubs.

...

From prev. thread
>(autism/10) guy

Alright, I personally disagree with your economic and societal axis. I would honestly emphasize a great degree of liberty on your civil axis but you're kinda on the right path.

Here was mine Again, personally, I find centrists to often be fence sitters.

The problem with "equality" is that it can only exist through the application of coercion as all humans are distinct individuals. When given an equal footing under the law and allowed to live life the way they see fit, the highest capacity individuals often rise within the social hierarchy.

Hierarchies has been a fact of society since its inception. However, systems that do not allow for individual responsibility or promote a meritocracy produce illegitimate hierarchies, these rigid familial and often politically tied monoliths. The capitalist system, by holding everyone accountable for their mistakes, routinely makes and breaks great fortunes. People have this misconception that the wealthy have always been wealthy, but this notion is primarily true within non-capitalist systems where wealth is accrued often by the coercive mechanisms of the state. The fortunes of capitalist entrepreneurs can ONLY be made via mutually consenting parties in their transactions. Trade only occurs when BOTH parties believe that what they are trading FOR is MORE valuable than what they are offering. This produces what is called a Pareto Efficient allocation.

I imagine that a reason why you lean left with respect to economics is because a number of questions were proposed as if the government has a purpose in regulating the free market in the name of labor and the environment. There are a number of problems there. One, the government is ran by fallible individuals subject to personal corruption and often leads to the wealthy to gain access to the coercive mechanisms of the state, which leads society back to a more primitive state of being where these rigid hierarchies exist.

>ultra-militarist
>anarchist
wat

>having values any different than these

whats it like to have shit taste in politics

Libertarian/AnCap General Sup Forumsread!

>Communist
>Libertarian

Hello there college educated millennial. I'm sure you have a number of well-substantiated and not contradicting principles that have guided you to forming the political ideology that you maintain today at the age of 19.

...

communism isnt inherently authoritarian dude

...

>bait

nigga, its fact

Get raped by corporate militia with no government to save you.
(implying you don't have the resources to fight back)

You can only achieve it through coercion. Without coercion, you will not out-compete the entrepreneurial firm in terms of production. See the Kibbutz

Who would willingly choose to purchase the product of a firm within a competitive industry where that firm is engaging in atrocities and coercive measures? Public image is important within the market. Also, everyone else has a gun too.

Every Progressive wants
-authoritarianism
-forced, absolute economic egalitarianism

No progressivism is not a vehicle for communism.

>authoritarianism
>forced, absolute economic egalitarianism

Wouldn't those corporations just start authoritarian states or enslave people effectively removing the market.

correct me if needed

progressivism is inherently against those things.

Note: I'm not actually an Ancap. I just like arguing for it. Top tier political memes.

Anyways, those corporations would then also have to produce the services of the government and other utilities, violating the autonomy of other firms within other industries such as utilities.

Also, the cost of establishing a state and enslaving armed people would most likely outweighs the risk and benefits of autocracy. Firms outside the sovereign state would also be compelled to not trade with them since governments, as a rule of thumb, are generally inefficient with their product and the consumers of firms who chose to continue trading with the state would most likely be boycotted. Firms outside that state are still subject to the consumer's demand.

You're going to have to defend that case. Ever since the conception of the progressives in the late 19th century, they have been pushing for greater state control over the lives of the individual and the firm. Your claim, from what I know, contradicts the history of the ideologies application.

Not sure how I am a social libertarian while also being economically centrist, personally i would just call myself a libertarian. I probably scored social just because I'm scientifically literate.

>I probably scored social just because I'm scientifically literate.

You mean with respect to the 4th field, societal? How does being scientifically literate justify progressivism?

This is the argument from fedora fallacy 101.

...

>disdains authority
>wants to forcibly manipulate nature and society so that everyone achieves equality of outcome despite needing to discriminate against the above average.

No irony here. Move along.

Would people really boycott anarchic corporations if these corporations were meeting their customer needs?


Also what stops a corporate militia from obtaining a monopoly by physically eradicating their competition and then becoming the sole providers of a service or a product?

What if this snowballs and this mega corp vertically integrates?

Wow you're so smart and you changed my mind thanks.

I've stopped caring about these things. But here's what this thing says is my "ideal world".

We don't live in an idea world, so whatever. Meritocracies sound nice.

>8values.github.io/
boom

I forgot to post it again. Here.

are you me? haha

...

because I assumed that I was placed as so highly "progressive" because of how I answered questions like "Climate change is either not real or not man-made" or "Irrational traditions should be abolished", and any rationally minded, scientifically literate individual would answer those questions in a "progressive" way.

>Would people really boycott anarchic corporations if these corporations were meeting their customer needs?

I think you meant autocratic corporations that made a claim to sovereignty. If a people see that corporation to be a threat to their autonomy and liberties, then that will most likely be a grounds for legitimate boycott. This still exists in a competitive market where there are quality alternatives that are willing to produce another product, liberty.

>what stops a corporate militia from obtaining a monopoly by physically eradicating their competition

Do you think the competition isn't going to defend itself?

>physically eradicating their competition and then becoming the sole providers of a service or a product?

Oddly enough, you seem to be entirely opposed of government monopolies as thats exactly what they are.

Monopolies, in a vacuum, are relatively rare within the free market and when they do exist, they often dissolve once other firms become able to produce a product and access the profit market. Monopolies that we see today are often defended, to some degree, by government such as bail-outs and regulations that harm small businesses to a greater degree than that of the monopolists.

>see regulatory capture

>What if this snowballs and this mega corp vertically integrates?

>see the problems of monopolies
Furthermore, diseconomies of scale often discourage over-growth of firms. Also, eventually, there will occur a succession crisis in leadership and often the reigns are left to relatively incompetent progeny and the strength of the firm will decline over generations, opening the market once more in the case of monopolization years ago.

Do you have an argument?

honestly thought I was more authoritarian than this, but myeh

...

>communism & progressivism
>liberty

pick one

Guess we think similarly.

A revolution would happen with a majority of the population on board. Once a government is in place I'm against it having too much power against the civil liberties of its populace.

Not even trolling.

canadafag reporting in

All these tests are 100% bullshit, all of this is very subjective and has to do more with your point of view than your ideals.

>posting thumbnails

communism?
Where?

> very subjective
> point of view
> ideals

You have correctly identified the point.

except as you may know from thinking about your own ideals... we're not robots. we are full of contradictions. and I'm not sure why you decided to lump communism and progressivism into the same criterion. or included progressivism at all.

>Irrational traditions should be abolished

Yet you claim to be against authority. This is one of the inherent problems with progressivism. I believes it should force people to adopt its model of believe or "reason", as you put it, for they exists as the absolute arbiters of knowledge. Furthermore, abolishing "irrational traditions" is an attack on the society's culture where their culture is often the bedrock of their society that prevents it from being co-opted and conquered by less liberally minded autocratic societies.

Basically, in the "rational" progressive world, people cannot be allowed to live their lives the way they want to because some fedora-tippers inside the government know exactly how society, culture and religion should be ran.

This is why I dislike these tests. Because I think irrational traditions are dumb and hold us back. I'd like to abolish them.

BUT I recognize that these are people's individual choices and I shouldn't keep people from choosing to do these things. And the government definitely shouldn't be barring people from it either.

Damn, you got me. I'll fix it, soz.

Okay 8values.github.io/results.html?e=34.6&d=51.9&g=66.7&s=58.6 here it is.

So your idea of achieving the "tru communist" society is by granting total authority to the state to abolish all private property... then somehow abolish the state that has absolute power? How are you going to abolish the state when there exists little to no autonomy? What is stopping the state from pursuing the exact paths of the Soviets, Chinese, Cambodians, etc.?

Not as extreme as I'd thought

Both advocate for an expanding state. Expanding states must encroach upon the individual liberties of the people. Ergo, both ideologies are antithetical to liberty.

this is basically stalinism, which is only one flavor of communism

...

Happy, you little niggers?

Think I downloaded it from some other pleb who did the same thing.

thoughts on titoism? besides the crippling debt seemed to work well but I'm new to this

>canada
>53% capitalist

Aren't you what they call "far-right extremist" in your country?

Possible to get over 86.5%??

>Because I think irrational traditions are dumb and hold us back. I'd like to abolish them

>BUT I recognize that these are people's individual choices and I shouldn't keep people from choosing to do these things.

You have a dilemma here, sir.

Do you or do you not want to abolish them?

i thought the same thing. The two couldn't even be compatible, how would you pay for giant military without a state?

You're basically saying he should stop mansplaining things to you, but in terms of being scientifically and mathematically literate vs not, instead of being scientifically and mathematically literate vs being a female.

you can only be such a faggot

Your right, i shouldn't have been in favor of abolishing irrational traditions. Upon further consideration the word "abolish" carries very authoritarian connotations. For the record I don't think the government should outlaw anybodies tradition that does not harm anyone else. No matter how stupid, as long as the activity does not directly harm or needlessly put others in harm's way, that activity should not be illegal; there are enough things that are already needlessly illegal. I just answered that question in the way i did because i think it would be the best for society if we all stopped with our dark age fucking traditions, but I would never have a government take away people's liberties in order to get to that goal.

This is what I generally hate about these kinds of tests and think they are not always a valid indicator of someones political ideology. So much of it is dependent on nuance that a simple misinterpretation of a single word can completely change the meaning of a question. In order to create an actually good test like this you would need super-lawyer levels of tight wording and even then it would never be perfect.

>not allowed to own property or businesses
>i'm going to own my own business anyway, try to stop me
>oops I can't, communism isn't authoritarian
>communism becomes capitalism
>profit

Oh we understand that whole "not tru communism" shtick.

We just believe that its the pragmatic conclusion to these sorts of revolutions. We know that you have the anarchic-communist society in mind, but it just does not come to fruition as a consequence to the short-sighted nature of a violent revolution.

Once you remove the autocratic state, competition will once again rear itself and begin to produce better products at a great scale more efficiently and improve society. You NEED the state and coercion to prevent a regression to capitalism.

i can relate

Looks like you're a dumbass.

>besides the crippling debt

Yeah, that's an issue. So where is all that Yugoslavian prosperity I've been hearing about? Those American slaves with their 2-3 car households, fat full capitalist bellies and numerous children don't understand that Communism is clearly the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources which have alternative uses.

mfw capitalist smart phone

i know. how can you enforce civil equality on people when you don't believe in the power of law?

There is no dilemma, he is saying that he wants them gone but they should only die because people wise up and choose to abandon them, not because an authoritative regime takes peoples liberties away. This isn't an argument about if irrational traditions are good or bad (they are bad), it is an argument about if a government should force people to abandon them (they should not).

National security is the classical collective goods problem and is a large reason why I don't consider myself, OP, to be an ancap. Basically, the collective goods problem is occurs when the benefits of a product can only be achieved through cooperation with other consumers (the taxpayer in the state). Some consumers knowing that other consumers will consent to supporting the product will forgo contributing because they believe that they don't have to. In this case, I support a little coercion.

well excuuuuse me
enjoy your poverty

Honest question from me being an idiot: since the USA has a buttload of resources, if the populace were on board would communism work better than before? assuming trade was kept up and all that. I feel like a big reason communism fails is because of the USA and NATO not giving it anything. Yugoslavia was the closest to success; Tito got both Russian and American help

>Social Liberalism

I'd call myself central-right lean libertarian but I guess I've secretly been an SJW this whole time and didn't know it. Time to kms

it's way more likely your way for you to be in poverty. not saying communism is the best etc but there's a lot that's better than your shitty beliefs benefitting about three people

That's a misrepresentation of my position. I'm coming from the side where I don't believe that the elites of a society should forcibly dictate how others act out their lives. While I will most likely largely agree with user on issues of science, I don't believe that my beliefs/disbeliefs should factor in to how the state runs the lives of others.

Wtf are you even saying?

Yeah communism would work if there were enough resources. People always talk about how everyone starves under communism, but what if there was more than enough food for everyone?

You know what, I think we actually just agree here.

*brace for insults

excellent results

>Donald Trump detected.

>three people

I agree that these tests are often overly simplistic and don't accurately represent any individuals actual beliefs to a T, but I do find them fun and conversation starters.

Anyways, I think I would largely agree with your positions on the legitimacy of "dark age fucking traditions" being an atheist myself, but if we're going to continue in making value judgments with regards to the utility of traditions or activities, then we will surely find ourselves on a slippery slope hinging on the current mood of the autocrats.

I, personally, find the "tradition" of mindlessly watching television, playing video games, partying, drinking, sports, etc. to be outrageously inefficient uses of scarce resources, particularly time. These activities often matter little if at all and only promote a society will negative returns to scale as generations come and go.

But should I be in position to abolish these practices? Who am I to judge?

>68.2% liberal
>tramp
kk

eternally btfo

...

Do you have an argument?

...

>Civil axis

>less than $1.25/day
>what is currency change over time
being this dense

meh

...

exactly, I completely agree.
Just to be clear one final time: I do not support the government banning of any activities unless they violate the NAP.

...

...

I disagree with everything you have but you still win the thread