Where do you fall /b/? politicalcompass org/test
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Where do you fall /b/?
politicalcompass org/test
>>711601229
people are gunna call us libtards now kek
>>711601326
I voted for trump tho
every time i take it i get center
i'll take it again
>>711601326
>>711601229
libtards
>>711601326
Libtard is a great use of propaganda. The uninformed will always associate liberal ideas with mental illness. Conservatives are great at fascism.
>>711601444
Pick a side you dirty Centrist! How dare you have your own ideas and don't fall into a party line!
I've gotten the same area for 4 years
>>711601444
a year later and i'm still relatively the same
>>711602601
Dirty fascist
>>711602561
Hey buddy
>>711601444
Nice trips
dude weed lmao
Anarchism FTW
>>711602751
>>711602561
something like this
>>711601229
Top right hand corner.
Get on the conveyor belt to the industrial shredders, already. That biogas isn't going to generate itself via that enzyme, human!
>>711603080
Anarchy doesn't work faggot, read a book
>>711603545
actually it does
>>711603545
Anarchy has never been given the chance to work. It was successful enough in the anarchist communes dueing the spanish civil war. Also technological advances have made it very easy to automate the workforce, getting rid of the need for a "working class".
How can any of you be above the middle line, authoritarian, and not think of yourself as a giant piece of shit?
>>711603740
Yo yo yo Anarchism is the bees fucking knees
>>711603644
Anarchism can't work due to the uncooperative nature of humans.
>anarchy means no money
Humans like money
>anarchy means no structure
Humans need structure and will take control if need be to secure it. We are pack animals and a pack needs a leader.
>"anarchy is equality tho!!!"
Wrong anarchy leaves people to fend for themselves, creating classes/tribes and in turn structure.
Stop being an edgy teen, grow up a little and read a got damn book son
>>711603545
Also fuck you
>>711601326
hey, I found myself
If you are in green or red, kill yourself.
>>711604061
Human nature changes when the environment changes :D you read a fucking book
>>711604061
it's you who should read a book or two
>>711604240
>political opinions different from mine are worthless
what a mature opinion
>>711601229
I always knew /b/ was full of degenerate liberals
reminder
>>711604256
Human nature right now has divided the world into extreme lefts and rights. Fascism and socialism. Anarchy hasn't been given a chance to work because it's honestly fucking retarded and doesn't deserve a chance
>>711604423
Same could be said for you fascist
Green social-libertarian and haven't changed for about a decade.
>>711604483
You don't deserve a chance
>>711604483
when we tell you to read a book, we mean actual book, not a /pol/ thread
>>711604344
what is exaggeration
>>711604592
keep up the good fight
>>711604472
retarded post
>>711604686
>what is exaggeration
you earlier:
>If you are in green or red, kill yourself.
how the flying fuck was I exaggerating
>protip: don't even try
>>711604795
truth hurts
>>711604789
oh, fun
whaddaya gonna do, regulate libertarians out of existence?
>>711601229
/b/ has always been more liberal than conservative, key word, "more." I've seen these political compass threads for a decade, it's always the same. More liberal.
>>711604574
Implying fascism is necessarily bad
>>711604802
i was exaggerating, autist. i dont actually think people should kill themselves
>>711605078
>kill yourself
SUCH SUBTLETY WOW
>>711604483
There are no countries in the developed world that are extreme left. Try again.
>>711601229
Up there with Trump and Hitler.
Shifted significantly more Authoritarian lately.
>>711603916
Who else is gonna get things DONE?
Some pussy asking people nicely?
>>711605164
from what, goddamn tumblr?
anarcho-liberalism is the future, we're not ready for yet. maybe one day, anons, one day
If you aren't on the right you've never taken an economics class, and if you aren't on the bottom you've never taken a philosophy class or done any self-reflection.
I tend to be a little more right-leaning, and in over-all philosophy I believe I'm more Libertarian but this is pretty close I guess.
>>711605137
good argument
>>711604990
No. I'm gonna use a forbidden ritual to call upon the elder pussy of an alternate existence and use trump to grab it and bring it into our universe in order to cleanse the world of sjw and feminsits
>>711605261
The government doesn't build or do anything, moron. It pays private contractors with extorted money.
It looks like I drifted more to the left and a little bit more down after 4 years, but to be honest, I'm not a self-spoken "liberal". I'm not a left-libertarian, I'm not a centrist, I'm probably not even a moderate.
I probably feel ways and think about things that would trigger the fuck out of some people in the green.
I just have opinions. I don't see why I can't have a constructive conversation, or compromise, with someone who happens to be, say, just about anywhere else on the graph without their faith-like vices getting in the way of it.
>>711604240
see
>>711604344
>>711604660
I kind of feel that, realistically, we couldn't have true, unfiltered Anarchy. At some point after everyone enjoys the sense of non-hierarchical free association, the desire to form some sort of horizontal hierarchy will prop itself up over
>something
in virtue of trying to make the abstractions of political ideologies absolute truths in spite of the nature that all human beings, currently, possess.
Who knows, maybe when our brains have been wired to play chess as much as they are wired to recognize facial attributes in the environment, it'll come naturally to us. Unit then, you'll most likely just end up with super soft, somewhat forced Minarchism.
>>711605369
I've taken economic classes before.
>>711605430
tumblrtards I agree with
what social issues are you liberal on, though, if any?
>>711605369
you do realize that capitalism and communism are two sides of the same coin, right?
>>711605447
>what are roads, schools and hospitals
>>711605607
>two sides of the same coin
Libertarian lefts are autists
>>711605607
How so? Communism negates all individual rights including private property and self preservation for the benefit of a collective. It's founded on the contradictory notion that it's immoral to care for yourself, but at the same time you can only survive on the labor of others. Anyone with a logical mind can see through the inherent contradiction. That's why communism is laughable.
Capitalism is the private ownership of goods and services. They're literally opposites.
>>711605627
>The government invented roads
>the government invented schools
>the government invented hospitals
O am I laffin
>>711604472
"correct"
>>711605804
no, seriously. they are pretty much the same thing
>>711605570
>forgetting to post results
>>711605863
what a tolerant opinion
I bet your pointless tribalism gives you a lot of satisfaction in life
>>711606022
I mean, it probably does it for most people, don't get me wrong.
>>711605959
can you post some evidence to back that point up?
>>711603545
Anarchy is the future... stop dwelling on the past.
Humans just want to be humans
Capitalism ruins quality.
Politicians ruin everything.
>>711606078
ok, granted
anyway, what's your reasoning behind saying people in the green region are autists?
recent one
libertarian communalism f.t.w. basically a mix of sweden & switzerland with much better/stricter immigration policies and enforcement.
>>711606216
I'm not the same anon, sorry. I'm actually
>>711605970
>>711601229
Fucking commie
To the morons in the green, explain your doublethink. How do you believe that people somehow have ownership over their bodies and that the government can't interfere with that form of property (social liberalism) but somehow when it comes to money and property, the government can impose any restrictions it wants?
>>711606216
I'm the op to the autist Statement btw
>>711601229
I'm in the straight corner.
>>711606264
my bad, sorry
>>711605942
in both communism and capitalism you have to work to survive
in both communism and capitalism you have someone above you
in both communism and capitalism you work for someone
in both communism and capitalism you're not worth much, don't have too much rights and are pretty much defenseless
>>711605942
Nobody is claiming the government invented those things you retard.
Your claim was that the government contracts these things out, i.e. that they are private. There are plenty of countries with national health and transportation services, and the majority of the developed world has some state funded education. Yes you can go private but in general these are state owned services.
>>711603080
That's anarcho-communist AKA >Marxist
>>711606308
sorry
anyway, I'm still hoping for some reasoning behind the autist statement
>>711606188
>Capitalism ruins quality
You fucking what? Capitalism is the only economic system that incentivizes innovation and low prices to gain the favor of consumers in the pursuit of prodit
>>711606188
humans are naturally evil in the vast majority, countless murders, rapes, etc, would happen.
>>711606296
ur right sir, social freedom cant coexist with business restrictions and regulations, its just not true libertarianism
>>711606405
it looks to me like you're getting communism a bit wrong, but maybe it's just me :>
>>711606188
Anarchy is only temporary, it can never last. People need a ruler, it's been proven
>>711605602
this is what the test says. I have no clue about political shit.
All I want is for us to stop being hypocritical loudmouths.
>>711606483
no, no. it's correct. just the words describing both are different
>>711606405
>Dogs and cats both have hair
>Dogs and cats walk on 4 legs
>Dogs and cats have noses
>Dogs and cats have been domesticated
>Therefore, dogs and cats are identical.
You're describing qualities that are inherent to all economic systems while ignoring the philosophical principles that they're founded on.
>>711606296
So, what you're saying some people think, is that our bodies are a kind of property independent of the property you mentioned alongside money? I just want to make sure I understand that correctly.
>>711606405
The difference is where the money goes my friend.
> Capitalism
Your boss fucks you in the ass and creams off the profits of your labour to stash in an offshore bank account.
>Communism
The government fucks you in the ass but at least it goes towards public services.
Time to seize the means of production comrade.
>>711606716
Yes, people in the green are making the fallacious claim that the body and mind, which are property, are somehow protected by different rights than those that protect external property like houses, goods, money, etc.
The issue is that these forms of property are fundamentally the same, and affording one category special or preferential treatment is a contradiction
>>711606640
>pic related
seriously though, I agree with you entirely
we need to make social progress, but (and speaking as someone on a college campus) we can't be retarded about people's rights.
>>711606915
Grautists
>>711606712
you might think so but if you look close enough, you'll see that both lead to the same thing
>>711606773
not really. capitalism would also lead to public service sooner or later
I would love communism to work but there is no way I think it could. The closest thing that works is socialism. I like to explain socialism as when a whole country becomes a business. There would be a small government acting as some kind of management and everyone else is just a worker receiving what they need to live rather than money.
Don't listen to liberal fucktards when they try to claim they want socialism because they simply mean reformed capitalism which is just as broken as communism.
>>711606915
now, I'm probably just not understanding your points, but I'll give it a try anyway
now tell me how
>these forms of property are fundamentally the same
since when do people exchange "the body and mind", vs. money, houses, goods, etc?
I feel like people bitch about big business too much, someone started it somehow someway just like all business
>>711601229
Same as always it seems.
>>711606773
>Your boss fucks you in the ass and creams off the profits of your labor to stash in an offshore bank account.
You mean the boss that opened his business non-violently, offered a position for you to join voluntarily, on terms you voluntarily agreed to, and worked under the conditions of the workplace detailed in the contract you signed for the wage you consented to, and you can quit and work for someone else at literally any moment
While under communism, you are working at the point of a gun with no consent and no personal choice
>>711601229
Socialism works
>>711607032
>not really. capitalism would also lead to public service sooner or later
Why?
Only if it is in the interests of the corporations. So they can cream off more profits.
>>711606508
Have pretty much the same. Not too far awy from Hitler though.
>>711607032
>not really. capitalism would also lead to public service sooner or later
How?
>>711606975
This is the right pic.
I was posting in a nostalgia thread and got mixed up
>>711604472
kek
>>711607154
You own your body and mind. That's how you're able to read, understand, consider, and reply to the posts I'm making. They're yours.
You exchange your body and mind through physical and/or intellectual labor (which is every job ever created) in exchange for money or property. The property you've gained by exchanging your property, in this case labor, is fundamentally protected the the same rights as all other forms of property.
>>711603740
Anarchism has never lasted long before some form of justice system (government) arises. Even something as basic as mob justice is inevitable
>>711607210
Alternatively, you work a 10 hour day in a job you hate and had to beg for because you have to eat.
Meanwhile, public services are as underfunded as the government can get away with because the corporations will take the jobs they offer the population elsewhere if the tax rate is increased.
Communism is an extreme example and should be compared to fascism if you want to draw an accurate parallel.
>>711607238
>>711607359
because pure capitalism, if given enough time and freedom, lead to one thing: domination. and that means it will stagnate and collapse
>>711607601
kek, so your argument for capitalism is to wait until (((someone))) controls everything and it falls apart?
ITT: faux conservatives take this test and try desperately to not appear liberal, proving that they are indeed the true cucks who try desperately to prove how much of a cuck they are to authority figures
>>711601229
Lately I've considered myself more or less a centrist.
Despite what my political compass says, I don't think I could fit in with the Democrats of the USA.
They're just too authoritarian.
>>711607800
Shit, forgot image.
This is mine. Is alright and true
>>711607238
And why is gaining profit through non-violent means a bad thing?
>>711607601
>freedom leads to domination
>freedom is slavery
Megalel. Please explain your logical leap from people voluntarily trading to the slave labor camps that you're imagining. A corporation without the aid of government has no means of using force against you. How has Walmart dominated you lately?
I'm just too neutral
>>711601229
>used to be where OP is but /pol/ changed me a bit
:^)
>>711607921
>0.46 authoritarian
Complete mad man!
>>711607848
do you really not understand how capitalism works?
do you actually believe that capitalism gives you any freedom?
I'm okay with this
>>711607172
>>711606933
>>711604592
>>711601326
>>711601229
>>711607417
>>711607845
Seems these are the only correct people here
>>711608006
I wore one sock to bed the other night
>>711608032
Not an argument.
But yes, I have a masters in economics so I think I understand how capitalism works.
It's the private ownership and voluntarily exchange of all goods and services without the restriction or aid of a governmental body.
If you're implying that the use of force is involved in capitalism, you need to check your premises.
I am superior.
>>711608269
You sick fuck!
>>711607848
Profit is not intrinsically bad at all and to say it is would be ridiculous. However, profit cannot continue forever, and where we differ in opinion is where the profit should go.
The capitalist model rewards the bosses and idea makers, essentially affording them a capable workforce for the sake of generating them a profit.
They then have no obligations at all with what to do with the profit. Offshore bank account? Savings? There is a case to be made saying they have deserved it.
Socialist policy is grounded in the fact that the workers of the corporation are just as entitled to an even share of the profits. This money is then more likely to be spent in the respective country (working class people dont use tax havens), giving money to local businesses, in turn distributing it around the country, and not being collected by the CEO in his yacht in Monte Carlo.
>>711606915
I suppose then, primarily, that those who do probably take the aspect of the mind in a less functionalist or physical-monist sense. You know, souls and junk- at least, that's the most likely, reasonable assumption I can come up with, seeing as how people who genuinely live with this worldview are required to treat anything that results in agency, a quality of self, "something that is alive", to have special properties that are inalienable and cannot be subject to the same conditions that, say, a piece of their flesh or a rock would be subject to.
Another alternative explanation I can assume, is that some people must consider that the mind is not something that is, literally, traded as a commodity in the same way that a toothbrush is sold in a supermarket. The body is property, sure. But, it's a common and almost folk conception that your body is, you know, yours. In a sort of inalienable sense. You are, literally, your body (or what makes up your body), especially from a functionalist perspective. In a sense, nothing about (You) seems external- the internal component of experience is inseparable from the external peripherals such as your fingers or your eyes, and so people must probably draw the line where the lines look like they blur.
>>711607154
It does make sense, I have to admit. Figuratively, sure, we do sell minds all the time- that's how marketing works. We sell opinions. We sell products alongside persuasion and torrents of information and subtle cues. That's how you make money. Some people sell organs- but that's usually a black-market deal. I suppose the point is that, ultimately, the government or whatever institution that serves alongside the government, isn't exactly buying and selling kidneys, arms, or spines like toothbrushes. It hasn't happened yet, at least. The autonomy and the agency...
Maybe when we all become Adam Jensens, or J.C. Dentons, that'll be the case, and our bodies won't exactly be protected by this sort of reasoning.
![Screenshot_2016-11-12-23-33-25-1[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/S0rCcHv.png "Screenshot_2016-11-12-23-33-25-1[1].png")
>>711607493
I don't suppose you become a hivemind with the agent who is supplying the labor, though. Would you not still retain ownership of your body/mind through/during/after physical/intellectual labor? Is it not more of a leasing kind of deal, than an exchange? When I ask these questions, do I obtain direct ownership of your mind, or shared ownership of the effort that you expend (work) to answer the questions (labor) that is produced from your mind?
>>711608355
Also last year in high school i handed out wrist bands that said kill yourself with swastikas to all the suicidal kids
>>711601526
a lot of liberals are fucking retarded tho and use their heart to think instead of their brain.
>>711608626
You must be fun at parties.
right where all sensible people should be.
>>711608310
lol'd
>>711608300
>I have a masters in economics
well, that explains your lack of knowledge
>If you're implying that the use of force is involved in capitalism
you made this 'force" your main line of defense even tho i never used that word
anyway without any force, things will still reach the obvious end. accelerated or not, it still goes to one obvious end
>>711608137
I think you're being myopic.
>>711605970
>>711603214
>Theres no need for roads where we are going.
>>711608700
I would be if i was ever invited to one
>>711608323
I used to definitely be in the Green much like many of the faggots in this thread.
Then I realized the free market is far more efficient for most things that aren't military, emergency services and maybe healthcare.
>>711608615
You don't sell your mind, you sell the services of your mind or the products of your mind.
That does bring up another question that I've struggled with answering, which is: If you are prohibited from selling something- do you truly own it?
>>711608770
>well, that explains your lack of knowledge
>you made this 'force" your main line of defense even tho i never used that word
You didn't use the word, you used the concept. Domination requires the use of force. Domination is the act of dominating. One entity has to dominate, and another entity has to be dominated. This necessitates force. Without force, one cannot be dominated. 0 doesn't become 1 without external factors.
>>711601229
thought it would be further up cause I'm a tankie
>>711609099
>>711608323
>>711607935
Sensible people.
Economically reasonable.
Socially free.
>>711609190
are tankies like bronies, except for Thomas the Tank Engine?
Pretty much in the middle
>>711609057
no anon, you still don't get it. i don't need to terrorize you to dominate you. all i have to do is to suck out all your goods from you and make you completely dependant on me. sure, i can force you into it which will make it a lot faster but i can just wait patiently till you submit to me on your own
Way too many disgusting libtards
>>711609057
>Domination requires the use of force
All aboard the motherfucking semantics train
Brace yourself /b/ros
>What is force in this context?
Are you forced to get a job to eat, for example?
>>711609436
>I need to suck out all your goods from you
You mean through the consensual voluntary exchange of value for value?
>Make you completely dependent on me
Through what means?
What's stopping you from shopping elsewhere? I don't have a gun to your head.
>>711601229
>>711602561
>>711602751
>>711603080
>>711603101
>>711604163
>>711604214
>>711604592
>>711604852
>>711605164
>>711605970
>>711605947
>>711606248
>>711606933
>>711607172
>>711607417
>>711607843
>>711607844
>>711607845
>>711608010
>>711608085
>>711608137
>>711609190
No wonder /b/ is the biggest laughing stock on this site. It also explains the source of degeneracy on here.
>>711604472
>tumblr
>Left-Libertarian
>>711609698
If you scroll your cursor around the links, it looks like a ball is bouncing around the libertarian left sector.
>>711609698
Please explain your disdain for left wing and/or liberal politics anon. There are a few discussions you can join in with here.
Here I am.
>>711609646
>You mean through the consensual voluntary exchange of value for value?
i mean that i will give you an offer that might be fair to you but will always give me some profit. bit by bit...
>What's stopping you from shopping elsewhere? I don't have a gun to your head.
and you still don't get it...i would make no "elsewhere" for you. it would be me everywhere around
>>711609875
>>711601444
You're just like me except a bit more authoritarian. How's life /b/ro?
How is this?
>>711610043
>>711607935
>>711608323
>>711609099
Liberal Centrists.
Hope I'm not too late to the party. Every time I take this test I'm more left but more or less the same amount of libertarianism.
>>711609562
>muh semantics
The definitions of words are crucial in a discussion of meanings. If you argument is that words shouldn't have meaning, then I don't know how to respond to that, because I would have to respond with words which have meaning.
>What is force?
The coercion of one party to act in a way that's against their will. You aren't forced to work; but your second question is actually interesting.
>Are you forced to eat?
If we deconstruct the premise, force requires an entity to force, and one to be forced. The entity that mandates that you eat to survive is nature. When nature, an entity that has no self, conscience, or will, requires you to eat, is it force?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. Nature is forcing you to eat on threat of death. Let's pretend I run a food stand. How is your need, a consequence of a force of nature, a mortgage on my property or my generosity? How is your need related to me? If your hunger is somehow my fault, then how about other forces of nature? Would an earthquake in Argentina my fault? How about gravity? People die from falling off roofs all the time.
Whether or not you're forced to eat is irrelevant to the question of who feeds you. I have no obligation to, because I don't force you to starve.
>>711610272
some socialism isnt bad tho
>>711610043
Pretty uncommon result there. Are you part of anonymous?
>>711606296
I'm left for social issues
>>711601229
Average liberal faggot detected.
>>711606296
because economic inequality sucks
>>711610541
I think you might be part of gayness.
>>711610145
No, you still don't get it, because you are operating under the assumption that nobody starts new businesses, and that the world is governed by one business. If you've educated yourself at all, you would know that the free market incentivizes competition and product diversity by lowering barriers to entry and removing restrictions that limit the type or quantity of goods that can be sold. Why would I buy a hamburger from an evil monopoly for 5 dollars when I can get it across the street from a local chef for 2 dollars?
Your narrative is like saying: "You're in a world without seeds or farmland. How do you make a salad?"
Find the Earth without seeds and farmland then we'll talk.
no surprise
>>711610342
>calling greens libertarians
die in a fire
>>711609698
My social views are different from my economic ones. I dislike social anarchy, but I also hate the obsession with money and vanity.
Also, I hate the press. Journalists are fucking scumbags of Scooby Doo 2 Monsters Unleashed-meme quality. Incentivizing the media for profit is a really really bad idea.
>>711610758
the free market is a theoretical construct and has never been fully implemented into any national society.
Take your Econ 101 and shove it.
>>711610970
so do you hate the 1st amendment or the whole constitution?
>>711604061
>humans needs money
Top fucking kek mate! No capitalism needs money, the curtain system tells you you need money, thats why people cant thing other wise in our society if they dont read a book or two. Same goes forr the unco-operative nature of human. Read some basic biology and anthropology mate
Seig heil
>>711611002
No one has said it has. The point is that free market principles are the keys to a healthy economy. Your response isn't even an argument against anything I said.
>>711610541
Nope, they've become a bit cancerous. They used to do cool things and take care of others. I do enjoy ITSec though and use it at work.
>>711610758
you're not even trying to see the outcome of things. it's only 'here and now" in your every argument
your "restictions" have absolutely nothing to do with pure capitalism where you're free to do whatever the fuck you want to and the only thing that protects you from corporations is your government, trying to make capitalism more socialistc
>Why would I buy a hamburger from an evil monopoly for 5 dollars when I can get it across the street from a local chef for 2 dollars?
because, dear idiot, i will buy every single burger restaurant and stand in your city. and i don't need to make it expensive, you will buy it anyway. just profit from it a bit is more than enough
I liked Johnson and Bernie almost equally.
>>711611148
>thinks capitalism = free market
the free market has fatal flaws, and that's why it exists only as a thought experiment for those who just started thinking about the subject
>>711606296
My result >>711610342
A bit of liberalism makes sense to allow some freedom but too much is just retarded. As for left wing economy I think companies are necessary but too manipulative and I think a capitalism economy causes too many social problems so the more left the better IMO. I'm no political genius though so don't judge me too harshly if I sound retarded.
>>711611060
None of it, I just don't like the state of things. I hate the press but I understand its necessity in keeping people informed. It needs to be true, but there is obvious bias and obvious pandering to bullshit impertinent news.
>>711610348
For clarification, I wasn't saying discussion of semantics was bad - I was genuinely interested in your definition - just that it can get tedious if relied on for the strength of an argument. "Define God" kind of rhetoric.
With regards to the hunger question, I did not mean to imply that the employer has forced a job on their workers, rather circumstances beyond their control have forced them to seek a job if they are to survive: it is at this moment they become dependent on their employer. Note that, this is not the employers "fault" either.
Should there be an excess of potential employees to every position, all the cards are now in the employers hands. This is what I believe the other poster was referring to: control of the jobs is essentially control of the people in the endgame.
>>711611511
There is no perfect system, some are just closer to it than others (aka Capitalism)
>>711606296
because it basically means:
>legal abortion
>legal marijuana
>legal LGTBBQ marriages
and
>welfare checkies
>govermental funded institutions
>govermental education
>govermental healthcare
>govermental retirement programs
>>711610919
But the Y axis is how authoritarian or libertarian you are so I was referring to how much of a libertarian I was via that scale. Retard.
>>711608478
Fucking commies everywhere
>>711610227
Pretty dandy. I'm a Christian and I'm thinking about going out to find the right church for me. How about you, do you think the same or attend church?
>>711610436
Exactly. "Some" being the key word.
Hmm, thought i would be more to the right but whatever
>>711611479
>I will buy every single burger restaurant and stand in your city
Woah, that sounds amazing. Since these fresh burger joints can just start and sell their business to a corporation for huge profits. Then more and more people will produce burgers because, in your narrative, it has become an extremely lucrative market. The more lucrative the market is, the more investors and competitors can join. This leads, in the long run, to an equalization of prices to to a saturation of goods in the market where the supply meets the aggregate demand. So now we have low-priced burgers with tons of variety due to a large amount of burger producers who joined the market because of how lucrative it is, like you said.
Not what I expected. Thought I would be a bit more left and libertarian.
>>711611713
The only good things in that list are the government funding, education, health care and retirement. The other stuff is gay unnecessary SJW cancer that ruins a perfect society.
>>711601229
Right here
Threadly reminder that everything other than green is some form of slavery
>>711612222
QUADS OF TRUTH
SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
>>711612222
check'd
>>711612222
He's right you know
I have no clue what this puts me. I do not support the left and to support more libertarianism as well as the Constitution and our rights. I did support Johnson more than the rest.
>>711612222
SMONK WEED AND GET WELFARE CHECKS WOO!
why are there so many faggots in the green
>>711607234
When you can steal other countries gold it works pretty well.
Kill yourself.
>>711612020
jesus fuck, how dense are you?
when i buy everything around, you can't do shit without giving ME profit. what;s so fucking hard to understand?
you want to start a burger joint? sure: buy meat from ME, buy grill from ME, buy the stand from ME, sell it and get money that I gave someone and spend it on something that's MINE. but you know what? i balance prices here and there and suddenly your burger stand is non profitable at all. force? no, pure bussiness
>>711611663
>Should there be an excess of potential employees to every position, all the cards are now in the employers hands. This is what I believe the other poster was referring to: control of the jobs is essentially control of the people in the endgame.
This is a wonderful thing. If we have a lot of competition in the labor market to push down the cost of labor, then the demand for labor will rise once other firms see how cheaply they can hire laborers for. And the more the businesses expand, the more workers they need to fill positions. The larger the demand for labor is, the higher the wages go.
Look up the business cycle, if you haven't already. It's the oscillation back and forth around the potential GDP of a populace, and how wages rise then fall due to changes in production habits.
TLDR: The issue you're describing is both a product of the free market as well as one that is solved by the free market. The beauty of a market is it's capacity to correct naturally through the self interest of both producers and consumers.
>>711612545
>almost pure capitalism
Please reconsider your life choices.
>>711612545
because 90% of young people are idealistic libtards, and 90% of 4chan is young people.
>>711601229
>>711612718
Fuck off you commie scumbag.
>>711612590
I'll explain this to you again even though I already have. Your narrative is built on the fallacy that a monopoly is capable of meeting all of the needs of its consumers at a price they all agree on. There has never been a long term monopoly; they are all corrected by an increase in demand and competition.
But let's pretend that your fantasy narrative actually happened in reality. So, every need and desire of every consumer was being supplied by a magic firm for a price that everybody in the country agreed on. What problem do you see there?
>>711612465
You're a working class person that's tired of getting screwed over and yearns for a modicum of common sense and decency from the system.
>>711612174
So, you just admitted, that you belong to Blue Square Party.
I figured i'd be around here. in the middle of it
so why is left liberatarian so bad
Over past year or so I went from the center to left a little, but a lot of my choices were different.
>>711613291
>>711613017
>>711610043
>>711609099
>>711608323
>>711607921
>>711607935
>>711607264
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q
>>711612718
>i'll never be happy with my life and want to take everything away from the people who worked for their shit.
kys
>>711613000
i should know better when you claimed that you had a degree and leave you in your wonderland...
in pure monopoly that there's no other option for you. and i can make it so any attempt to make a competition will be completely unprofitable and will fail miserably. and even if you were a hipster who would keep supporting such people, you would soon realize that i didn;t gave you enough money for it
but please tell me more how you repair broken stuff and not just buy new because price of parts is almost as expensive as the entire thing
>>711612666
Nice trips
>And the more the businesses expand, the more workers they need to fill positions.
This is the part I have issues with. For businesses to expand people need to consume their products. For this to happen the population needs to have - for the most part - disposable income, or you will get stagnation.
If some control over corporations is not leveraged, what is to stop (in the extreme case) businesses simply relocating to other countries with cheaper labour? Or, perhaps more relevantly to my point, the bosses siphoning significant amounts of the profit such that it cant go back into the host country's economy?
I personally believe some control is necessary, and taxation is ultimately beneficial if it can provide a well educated, well functioning and healthy workforce that cannot be replaced simply my moving production elsewhere.
The benefits of socialist policy are not just for the people, but do require the corporations to take less of a profit than they are doing.
>>711613319
All the good memes are on the right.
>>711613319
because you're one of them tards
>>711613000
not the person you're arguing with here, but you say there has never been a long term monopoly because they're all corrected with demand and competition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Carnegie and Rockefeller oil and steel industries dismantled by government, not demand and competition?
Come at me Trumpfags.
>>711612871
>>711612718
Your butt still hurts bcause that Trump won?
>>711612923
I'm a social democrat not a commie.
>>711613555
you're not wrong. same happened to Bill Gates and few other people
>>711613555
>>711612666
>>711613000
witnessed
>>711613545
>Implying there arent cancerous idiots on either side
If you think left wing politics is predominantly rabid feminists you are a special kind of retarded
>>711601229
You're all fucking communists
>>711613216
No I'm left middle.
Its rigged so everyone gets green you retards
>>711607234
Yep
>>711613681
Cause social democracy has worked so well...
>>711613838
RIGGED
>RIGGED
It's true though, there are some very loaded questions
>>711609057
>you don't sell your mind
>you sell the services of your mind
>the products of your mind
I guess I understand where you hold some people in the green/where the people in the green you mentioned stand on the issue of property. But, as a person who happens to be in the green, I agree with you.
I would reason, that if you cannot sell something, then you ultimately do not/cannot own it; if you owned it, you would possess the means of selling it- and its value would need to be recognized the moment you could consider making some sort of profit from it.
>>711613467
But if we just share everyone will have whatever they need and no one will be unhappy. What is the matter with this? Is it just because it stops you from being rich compared to everyone else?
>>711613545
nah dude i just wanna do my own thing i dont give a fuck if ur not considered normal to society
i definitely aint a sjw but i dont hate different races and sex
>>711613773
And you're a corporate slave.
>>711613578
This legend.
>>711613868
>Implying socialism has anything at all to do with liberal policy (protip: different axis)
>Implying any of those countries are socialist
Please learn to differentiate between liberalism and socialism
>>711602561
that's basically me. Got that score when i was 18, still the same now that i'm 24
>>711613653
I preferred Trump over Hillary. As for Bernie he was a too liberal for my liking.
>>711613868
This >>711614089
Excessive liberalism is retarded what I'm talking about is socialism.
>>711613965
Almost Hitler territory there.
>>711613000
>there has never been a long-term monopoly
ever heard of public utilities? roads? defense? police? firefighters? currency?
as for private/semi-private entities, ever heard of the British East India Company? The Dutch East India Company? Standard Oil? Ford? IBM? AT&T? Microsoft?
if by long-term you meant "permanent," well no shit. the market is always going to break up a monopoly because by their very nature the companies that own monopolies in markets end up not innovating in the same manner that they once did to acquire it. the government is the only entity that can sustain monopolies in the market because of its actual monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.
>>711614097
Its really strange that you got that same score over that age, I changed like hell every year between 18 and 22 yo, mostly becose I got interested in politics and studied philosophy and socialogy. You should read more.
I was at the center few months ago. Dont know what changed this time...
>>711601229
Bout half left and libertarian as you same as the Dalai Lama which makes sense cause Im Buddhist.
>>711613530
I've already corrected you more than twice and you're still following the same fallacy. Watch microeconomics lectures on youtube, then follow it with macro. They're better taught in that order.
>>711613532
I have no problem with people going overseas for cheaper labor, that's filling a market hole. The fallacy that not just you, but most people fall into is that there's a fixed amount of companies that can exist. If we're following the axiom that where there's a chance at profit, a business will manifest, there isn't a reason to be concerned. If people have wants, they have demands. Where there's demand, there's profit. Another error people make is that they assume labor only leaves the country. If a country is economically free (low minimum wage, low tariffs, low regulation) then businesses move there. They move there to generate more profit. Let's say the USA was an economically free nation. It would be a bastion of production and trade for the whole world. I won't bother with the morality of taxation, but it always leads to deadweight loss. There are some fields (see externalities) where taxation aims to correct market failure. If I haven't answered your question let me know and I'll try again.
>>711613555
I don't know enough about it, I won't lie.
>>711614478
I completely agree, that's the point I was trying to make. The market corrects monopoly. Government has no place in the market.
>>711614089
First off: The term 'Liberalism' has been fucked in the ass by the left, it originally meant what we now call Libertarianism. But the left fucked it over and now it is associated with the left.
And look at what state social democracies, or leftist countries in general are in. Specifically Sweden (a social democracy).
I need another referendum in my life.
>>711614478
shhh, anon, he has a degree!!! who cares about irrelevant thinga like Sherman Act
>>711613984
no, it's because it's mine and i earned it, and those other fucks have laid around and wasted their potential for their whole life.
if/when you actually start paying taxes you'll understand.
>>711614773
Nationalist*
There, now it's not cancerous.
>>711614727
>I've already corrected you more than twice and you're still following the same fallacy.
ansd then:
>I don't know enough about it, I won't lie.
you should start with this line on every post
>>711611861
I used to be religious and was raised in multiple churches. I'm atheist now and am pursuing other things, but I might be able to offer some suggestions. What are your main beliefs? What denomination do you currently attend?
>>711614742
Well Sweden embraced the Liberatarian idea of "moar immigrants" so that isn't a result if them being a social democracy since "moar immigrants" isn't anything to do with socialism.
>>711614909
Watch out for this guy
>>711614478
not really. depends on the strategy used by the corporation. nobody said that it can't evolve, buy every innovation, invest in scientists etc. it doesn't need to be stagnant on this part
>>711614773
I was with you lot the first time but since it became a contrarian Brexit issue you can all get fucked tbh
>>711614943
You haven't made an argument I haven't corrected. I made the concession that I haven't studied the Carnegie/Rockefeller and the Sherman act because I don't try to leverage my ignorance over fact. You have that down to a T though, considering how clearly and effectively you've shown your economic illiteracy.
>>711614742
>The term 'Liberalism' has been fucked in the ass by the left
I hope you're joking.
>But the left fucked it over
No, what fucked it over was it somehow being synonymous with SJWs and Feminism and misconceptions about tax making the average employee worse off.
>Specifically Sweden (a social democracy).
Sweden is not socialist by any means. They have many liberal policies and a (comparitely) high rate of corporation tax. That does not make them socialist.
>>711607568
^this
>>711607221
Almost the same
>>711614935
>>711615010
That's where I don't know. I don't currently attend one and I'm looking for one to attend. I have absolutely no idea what denomination I would fall under as well, what with my opinions.
>>711615151
technically speaking you're correct in theory, but there's no proof in practice that a monopolistic entity could survive permanently without government help/sanctioning.
>>711614859
Everything you earn is temporary and meaningless.
>>711615068
Social Democracy isn't just about the economic Socialism it's also about social justice.
Guess I'm mostly neutral.
>>711615242
your delusional crap is worth the same pile of shit as your degree. you haven't corrected anything. all you did was to reject any new arguments, dumbed it down to your 2+2 and "proved" yourself right
go read a fucking book for once
>>711613459
Kek'd I love this song
>>711615697
Which book?
I voted for Trump by the way
>>711608668
libtard here, I think that the liberals that use their heart to think are deserving of that title. I like using logic, which is why I call myself a center-left.
>>711615608
Social justice has nothing to do with socialism. Sweden is not socialist.
>>711615579
there's no proof because no govermnent ever allowed capitalism to go wild. i can easily imagine a bunch of ultra rich people owning everything. will it collapse? yes, but not because of any competition. it will collapse because of stagnancy
>>711615315
No, I'm not joking. The original meaning of Liberalism is now what we call Libertarianism, or Classical Liberalism.
And are you fucking kidding me? Sweden is one of the most Socialist countries right now. Look up the fucking Nordic Model.
>>711615608
But to include social justice you'd really need to be talking about liberal socialism because the compass doesn't assume that just because you're left you belive in social justice. Like I can be socialist but also heavy authoritarian. Plus a social democracy is only slightly liberal.
>>711615806
you know what? forget about books. watch Star Trek. it'll be easier
>>711615591
life in general is temporary in meaningless. my work/money if you prefer is the only thing that can live on beyond my death. the same can be said for you and everyone else.
read some Sartre or Nietzsche. preferably Nietzsche, because Sartre never took the political implications of his work to its logical end.
>>711615411
What are your opinions regarding religion? Do you believe in church governing your lifestyle? Do you believe in the god-head being one entity or three separate entities? (God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost)
>>711615925
I didn't say social justice was related to Socialism. Can you fucking read? Social Democracy = Socialist economics, and social justice social policies.
>>711615869
Miss Bernie?
>>711616088
You can't name an economics book, can you?
>>711616108
>temporary in meaningless.
derp. and^.
>>711612071
Im with ya
>>711616003
One of the most social does not make a country socialist. I know what the Nordic Model is.
Look up the definition of socialism:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Sweden does not fit this category by any description. It is a (very) liberal centre-right economy.
ayy lmao
>>711603027
>>711604240
>>711605846
>>711608726
>>711609330
>>711609385
>>711609875
>>711610229
>>711611510
>>711612871
>>711613773
>>711616084
Social justice is already heavily authoritarian. Sjws think any opinion that isn't theirs should be silenced.
>>711604472
>politicalcompass org/test
Fuck with us
>>711616133
The Trinity is not three separate entities. It is simultaneously three beings and one being. I know that defies logic but God is God so it works. That's the Catholic way it works anyway.
>>711616209
i'm giving you something that explains nicely where capitalism ends, in an easily understandable language
>>711616133
I believe in a church governing lifestyle, and I also believe the holy spirit, Jesus, and god are three separate entities.
>>711616446
You're an idiot. SJWs are not politicians. They are the left wing equivalent of neo-nazis and not to be taken seriously.
I agree that they have a disproprotionate influence on policy in comparison to neo-nazis. I disagree that liberalism can be discredited because a few hundred stupid women said retarded things on tumblr.
>>711616446
Kek never thought about it that way. My point still stands though. Heavy socialism isn't always necessarily SJWism.
>>711616623
I see, I was raised under both schools of thought so I understand the logic behind it. Do you believe that people who aren't taught the scriptures go to hell or do they have a chance for redemption? Are there any churches around you that follow that and have a decent community?
