The green square, despite being most popular on normiebook, is the only one impossible to achieve. why?

the green square, despite being most popular on normiebook, is the only one impossible to achieve. why?

The fuck is a socialist libertarian? The two are direct opposites

>gulag deficiency

why is it so popular?

It is not impossible. It merely takes rigid ideals and a homogenous society. Which are very hard to acheive because progressive retards make it an uphill struggle.

explain

neoconservatism isn't blue you fucking retard

>rigid ideals
authoritarian
>and a homogenous society
literally the antithesis of human society

Why is everyone here so retarded about this? One google search and you can find different anarco/libertarian socialist models.

the green is so popular because it sounds nice to people who aren't well read and don't understand how the world works.

also the upper right quadrant of the green is certainly achievable.

???

Its not, people who claim socialist libertarian are fucking retarded

its not

they aren't

>models
>possible to achieve
>same thing
kys

Rigig commitment to ideals =/= authoritarian. It means sticking strongly to the concept that you want. Homogenous societies used to be common. They are no longer because progressives have made it such.

>they aren't
>where the means of production are controlled by the "people" thats socialism
>where the means of production are privately owned and competition determines the prices of goods and services via free market

they're directly opposite, you're fucking retarded

arguments or examples or axioms plz

He won't find any

He'll say something retarded like "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative" or some dumb fuck like that

>Homogenous societies used to be common
sure racially but im referring to idealistically and socially homogeneous

what you're doing is the same thing as saying that you can't be economically right-wing and socially liberal.

>It doesn't work in practice, but does it work in theory?

>why is it so popular?
Berniefags are just trying to be edgy because they want to be different from their conservative parents.

>Homogenous societies used to be common
>homogeneity of ideals is possible
ight familius

no hes not

>Most popular on "normiebook"
>Trump is probably going to win

being economically right-wing and socially liberal is entirely possible maybe not best system but perfectly doable

Libertarianism advocates for the private ownership of goods and services

Socialism advocates for the means of production to be owned by the "people" which often just leads to the state owning it. They're literally polar opposites in terms of how each economy is managed.

so is the alternative

money is a function of time x opinion x work (subjective) (defined by society) if you mandate monetary dealings you are the antithesis of socially liberal. where as libertarianism (not perfect) is completely philosophically consistent in that economy and society are regulated to the same minimal extent

again refer to
libertarian socialism is a contradiction on the most basic level

its not because there's nothing in socialism that demands a "state"

>there's nothing in socialism that demands a "state"
actually commit seppuku

not an argument

in that case, socialism is nothing but a philosophy that suggests sharing, in which case, marx was really fucking late on that one. the entirety of human civilization is built on cooperation and sharing on a societal level.

Just took the test. I wasn't expecting this.

an argument would be wasted on you
refer to:

based

marx didn't create socialism

replace "marx" with literally any other planned economy philosopher