I just want the government and leftists to fuck off and leave me alone...
Purple : I want to study something useful and work, have civil liberties and no one should interfere.
Green : I don't want to work, have civil liberties unless they hurt my feelings. pretty much counter intuitive toward having liberties. Since shit you do will eventually be banned by govt for hurting others feelings.
Blue : I want to work but gov't plz protect me im scared because even though I believe in a heaven, im still scared of death.
Red : Just fuck my shit up fam.
You amerifucks amuse me, with your "hurr durr liberitarian master race hurr durr" ideas.
Whilst i enjoy my govenrment NOT sidefucking me and being greedy fucks, you go ahead and enjoy paying 1000's of $$$ for shit i dont have to.
libertarian literally means more civil liberties not less government on this compass, so the new liberal movement of don't hurt my feelings wouldn't be in the green you dumbshit
Holy fuck. When did /b/ become a bunch of fucking faggot ass liberals? Do us all a favor and kill yourselves you fucking cucks.
It's not that, dummy. I don't care about theists, fags, or other "degenerates" running their lives as they see fit because we'll live in a free (read libertarian society) country.
Communists and socialists go directly against freedom, and freedom must be preserved. I'm not saying we should ban socialists or commies from speaking (because that would create underground networks and possible coup attempts), but there would have to be many debates and "shaming" of leftists by the people & the government
In my opinion, ii see it as the following:
Purple: Every man is his own fortunes smith, i do not need the help of others, i can handle myself.
Blue: I prefer to pay low taxes, and enjoy the freedom of having more money, so the government doesnt have to focus on other expenses. This i prefer, in expense of sacrificing other benefits, running a risk.
Green: I value each individual equally, and want to help each individual as much as possible. Therefore i would not mind to pay higher taxes, if that meant it helps others, and also me in the long run.
Red: I dont mind paying high taxes, if the government helps me with other worries i might have, including job, health, welfare and so on. I want to help my government as much, so it can help me in return as well.
hello fellow comrades
you will not into gulag today!
Pretty damn nice, i get free hospital, a private consultant doctor, help if i lose my jobs, unions, students are given money to aid their finances, people with no work are given money to help with their expenses.
How high was your last medical bill if i may ask?
Link to the test at the bottom please?
Also here's mine
No, no, I agree with you that authority must be very carefully placed. But tbh fam I like more of a Pinochet-style government with no government subsidies and a pure free market
>1% of the population pays more half of all income tax in the nation, meaning social programs, health, medical, education
>you pay so little it can barely be captured by the concept of numbers
>I'm doing my fair share by reaping the rewards of other people's work and property, simply by existing!
Leeches are leeches.
>implying i go to the hospital every day
>implying i take all the welfare money i can
I dont, i dont need any of it, but i know it is there, if i so depserately need it to get by.
But why are you people so hostile towards socialism, or even liberal socialism?
It is like you get personally offended like some other tumblrina when someone doesnt have the same mindset as you...
yeah when a person gives half of their wealth to do what they can to help other people they are leeches cause it isn't enough, when corporations don't pay taxes, get subsidized more than actual people, and invest in slave labor across the world they are the providers
Because socialism is one of the most evil ideas ever conceived. Need is not a mortgage on other people's property, and no one's property or livelihood should be forcefully sacrificed for the gain of others. Socialism is a use of force against few for the benefit of many, and as such, is immoral.
Corporate bailouts are indefensible because they're cut from the same cloth as any for of forced redistribution of property. Tax evasion is also immoral because these corporations reap the benefits of government while not paying for it.
>paying for it
Yes, supporting the livelihood of thousands of people is something a provider does. And if you want to bitch about paying foreigners low wages, this is only because they're capable of out-competing domestic workers for price. With free trade, global wages approach equilibrium (for the same position). The same government regulation you bastards endorse on producers is the same force that makes them act this way.
Youre mistaking socialism for hardcore communism.
Communism is horrible yes, just look at Russia today. THeir middle class cannot even compare to our lowest poverty class.
Socialism has its downsides, but the carrot here is that we benefit from a lot of social security. We dont need to worry if we get sick, if we lose our jobs, we have unions that protect us from a LONG list of things.
The downside is of course that we have to pay high taxes, but here noone is excepted. We ALL pay high taxes,
Noone is leeching, Noone is forcefully sacrificing anything, They are not taking anything. We are willingly giving it to them for the common good.
But i understand your disagreance. It is reasonable.
This test is shit. It confuses authoritarianism for collectivism, it assumes humans have inherent rights, and other basic bullshit assumptions. Sorry to tell you, but you don't have any rights unless some one gives them to you. They also confuse glorifying of your leaders and just plain following them. In summary this test is short sited and bullshit.
Proud to be where I am on the grid!
Mainly because it's objectively, the only right place to be.
>Noone is leeching, Noone is forcefully sacrificing anything, They are not taking anything. We are willingly giving it to them for the common good.
And what happens if you don't pay your taxes, exactly?
This is debatable. Even if you don't endorse these programs, you HAVE to pay for them, or you will be thrown in jail. That isn't freedom, and that isn't a voluntary exchange of good. It's extortion in its most literal sense.
>We all pay high taxes
Completely untrue. The progressive income tax is a concrete refutation of that.
>mistaking socialism for hardcore communism
They both rely of the initiation of unjust force. That is immoral.
>we benefit a lot from social security
At the expense of who?
>We have unions that protect us from a long list of things
Through the means of lobbying to have a ruling body, again, exact force on people who wouldn't comply otherwise
Collectivism is an evil. If a policy can't be enacted through voluntary means, then it shouldn't be treated as legitimate.
Apparently you're a socialist if you think that businesses should follow laws and have responsibilities other than making themselves money.
more like? What?
its called freedom, and yes, its anti money and anti civilization
your an idiot for not understanding freedom, even cavepeople understood that they have to live in the mountains for them to have freedom from society who forces their rules and behaviors on them
You are though, blue/purple recognizes that money made by a company is directly proportional to the amount of jobs opened up by that company so they may as well just focus primarily on money.
Are you saying having the market in the hands of the government is the best? Despite this leading to crony capitalism? I understand that some regulation is good when it comes to monopolies and workers rights, but the worker and the consumer hold a lot of power that we dont get to use, because the government rigs the game against us.
which blue? Also I don't buy into the communist - capitalist spectrum. Businesses can do what they want as long as it doesn't go against the state and it's goals. I also think a state should control its resources. It is up to the state to decide how it's used. If the state wants to give it to capitalists that's fine, but the state should decide.
Explain myself? Ok. The government has sedated the worker. We are much more powerful than we think, but we have been taught to go to big daddy government whenever we need help. What happened to collective bargaining? Oh thats right, we demand the government do that for us. The consume, especially in todays day and age, holds an immense amount of power, but we are all lazy and dont use our purchawing power for the greater good. We buy without thinking because we know the government "has our backs". Its ridiculous.
I could perceivable say the same with your infatuation with a free market. I want to give the state power to push its agenda economically as well as any other way it can. I also think democracy is the greatest fuck up of human history. Also this is not me
This was my first post
No I understand that - I don't agree with it, but at least it is well thought out. I'm talking about how this
>Are you saying having the market in the hands of the government is the best? Despite this leading to crony capitalism?
All I want is the state to control its resources. How it uses those resources I don't care about.
Than that its being an authoritarian socialist. Also the only respurces the state should control is some farm land, that way in dire situations we have land to grow crops, other than that it should be fair game. Because what stops magistrate brown from giving excess resources to his brother businessman brown. It leads to crony capitalism, where it is less about the product and service you provide, and more about who you know. Kinda like today, except even today the average entrepreneur still has a chance. In your world, good luck
I'm left?! Only because I would rather chose an indipendant world than being controlled buy some fucking jews.
That makes sense, but if the state has strong leadership the magistrate get executed for treason. Stealing from the state and getting caught is not ok. I'm just pissed that because of democracy charismatic idiots can control the state. Your solution, I think, is the best option in a democracy, but I think it is like using a band-aid to fix a laceration. A government controlled by corporations is better than a democracy.
>implying rooting out government corruption will be top priority
How naive are you? The more power someone has, the more likely it will be abused. And who is going to call someone out, when the whole cabinet benefits from it.
Not really. You still want to nose in others business
masterrace and fuck goverment reporting in
I don't care about routing out corruption, but the magistrate doesn't and shouldn't control state resources. Abuses happen. That's like the fags that say don't use tasers because some people can die. Instilling loyalty should be top priority if you don't prioritize that you're a shitty leader.
Someone has to handout respurces if the state controls them, sure a vote could happen but what stops the vote from being swayed? Your type of socialism will isolate and harm many people.
My type of socialism was around before socialism even existed. It's not even socialism. It's how states were run in early colonial Britain. It worked well up until democracy and freedom fucked up the grandest empire in human history.
And you can let retard politician shillary fuck you up.
What you propose would launch the world into a dystopia if we were to go along with it, far-left far-libertarians are more retarded than vegetables with deformed faces that do nothing but moan and yell. Absolute freedom destroys the foundation of civilization and turns societies into a free-for-all. If communism doesn't work because of human nature, what makes you think anarcho-communism will?
>is slightly more authoritarian than libertarian
>"hurr durr you must hate democracy"
What's your logic? Just because I'm against the abhorrent idea of complete freedom, doesn't mean I'm a fascist.
I thought the quiz was kinda dumb and leading tbh tho
That definitely worked well in history... Lets just look at medieval Italy.
I asked because you seemed like you would although There was no indicator you would. I asked because I didn't want to assume.
Hell no but the empire was something to be praised.
Who said communism doesn't work? A few states have tried it but wtf do you expect eastern Europeans to do? They can't do shit. It requires intelligence. It doesn't have to be world wife either. In my perfect world Id have my own island with a few hundred people and we'd never need to deal with dumbasses to retarded to live on their own without someone telling them what to do
Without Britain the USA wouldn't exist, so that's one reason someone with your opinions should praise it. Their bureaucratic efficiency is something to be praised too, but I doubt someone that hates and distrusts bureaucrats would find it difficult to find that as a positive. Lets not forget that the British Empire was one of the strongest empires in human history. That alone deserves praise.
No on here comes close to my level of i don't give a shit
A collective of individuals makes the state. One single individual doesn't matter. If you were kicked you out of whatever country you're from the state wouldn't notice or care. Yes there are big names that matter. They are the exception. The individual only matters if they have the power or a large enough of a collective to do anything.
Then why didn't Martin Luther become dictator of the US. His march on Washington was the equivalent of Mussolini’s except the intent was different and there wasn't a threat of force. Italy's Parliament was weak that's why Mussolini won.
So what of the majority of individuals decide to not work for the collective because the state treats them like shit, what do? Executions? Yeah such a great system of governance
I used to be a little less authoritarian
Why the fuck is democracy still a thing? You only have to take one look at the general population of the planet to realise they are completely unqualified to have even the slightest say in how a country is run
Not really. When a country goes into recession, investors pull out. The farther you drop, the more investors you lose. China is standing on the edge of a cliff with its housing bubble and artificially deflated currency.
I can easily refute your argument for dictatorships by saying "Look at North Korea". And using one of the biggest economies in the world that is also a world super power making advancement int tech across the board as a bad example is not a good idea.
What are you even on about? You're hopping all over the place trying to validate your view in regards to mine. Why don't you just accept that our opinions differ and we just don't agree on a foundational level.
Conjecture, and even if it does collapse the Chinese State can run its country with a recession because they have the power to tell their citizens to do what the state wants.
Then Why is Italy of all countries leading in medical research and Japan leading in robotics? I'm also not arguing for a dictatorship. I just said republics are shit forms of government.
>you're hopping all over the place
I've been making the same argument the entire time, China's population is too big for it's infrastructure and it's aging population is going to fuck them over.
Japan and Italy are basically parliamentary republics
Wasn't me that spoke about US. In general a dictatorship is far more efficient.
PS Black or white fallacy was in regard to him saying "North Korea is bad, so all dictatorships are bad"
When did I say that? When the old people die you will have a significantly younger pop and less people along with it. It's really not that hard. When two people can only make one kid you effectively halve your future population.
Yes. You don't need to hide from the state if you have nothing to hide. If you are worried about privacy, don't be so conceited. Nobody cares about you. Fail to see how this would compromise safety.