>>674894228
http://www.politicalcompass.org

File: Screenshot_2016-03-06-21-56-00-1.png (64 KB, 720x690) Image search: [Google]

64 KB, 720x690

Can someone explain authoritarian and libertarian to me? I'm not quite sure I understand it

>>674894590
Authoritarian - big government
Libertarian - smallest government possible

For instance, fascists and communists are probaby the most authoritarian ideologists there is. Just that communists are far left, while fascists lean right

>>674894590
You value a free market, individual freedom, and a somewhat small government with little interference

>>674894847
Are there some well known/good examples of libertarian ideologists?

>>674894590
dont listen to these other goons.
its about personal freedom, not free markets. wanting free markets pushes you to the right

>>674895165
I'm not a fan of libertarianism, I'd just google it. America is probably the country with most libertarianism in its history. I'd say USA is one of the most (or is the most..?) libertarian societies in the west.

>>674895442
bullcrap. cant even do drugs or hookers or steroids. its authoritarian as fuck. the only one even close to libertarian is bernie sanders. you dont know shit

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Well that took for ever

>>674895329
I was referring to his stance in that post. Yeah he's libertarian and value personal freedom AND a free market as you can see as he lean right.

File: 3743634634.png (17 KB, 537x497) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 537x497

r8 me

>>674895509
I just said I didn't know shit about libertarianism cause I'm not a fan of it. The only thing I know about bernie is that he's accused for being a socialist, or he's a self-claimed one idk.
What western countries would be most libertarian?

>>674895661
brainwashed american / 10
enjoy voting for someone whos gonna make your life worse

>>674895555
What on earth is appealling with this stance?

>>674895748
the netherlands doesnt seem that bad. red light district, weed coffee shops etc

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

id never considered myself left leaning but apparently i am
huh

>>674895911

this but a little bit of authoritarian (2 points up)

>>674895840
I feel like ghandi

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674894590
Dang your chart is pretty close to my chart

>>674895855
You're right that some of their laws are quite libertarian, but I'm under the impression that their government isn't a small one.

I'm Norwegian and people say we must really value freedom, which is ironic considering how authoritarian we are. You don't get "free" education and health care, without tons of taxation.

File: image.jpg (40 KB, 624x448) Image search: [Google]

40 KB, 624x448

>>674896188
tfw OP

>>674896188
I'm not too surprised tbh. A lot of my core beliefs are pretty central in fascism

>>674896100
So you're just a pretentious hippy that mumble a lot about fug wars gobernment and shiet?

>>674896764
What are you even saying

>>674896992
I'm saying gandhi is overrated. Validate me, daddy

File: political.png (9 KB, 396x363) Image search: [Google]

9 KB, 396x363

Why am I so lukewarm?

File: image.jpg (37 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

37 KB, 480x400

>>674898055
Because you have no distinct opinions.

Authoritarian +3 Left +1.

File: pcgraphpng.php.png (3 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

3 KB, 480x400

I have no particularly strong opinions.

>>674895165
murica

>>674895165
True libertarian ideologies are intrinsically anarchistic. Look up Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War.

The US is no example of liberty. It's a slave state like many others.

>>674898441
Mine was similar but down 1. Kek

>>674899297
OP here. Do you axtually believe citizens under an authoritarian state are slaves? People aren't brainwashed by a big bad government, we want to be led. We want someone to organize shit and rule.
A nation without a government that represent national/cultural interests, is hardly a nation at all.

That's just my opinion though, if you want anarcy for instance then knock yourself out buddy

File: polcompass.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

I thought I was going to end up on the far right..

File: anarchist slave.jpg (30 KB, 736x461) Image search: [Google]

30 KB, 736x461

>>674900912
The people can represent their own cultural interests without the example, guidance or control of a government.

Ask yourself the question put forth in the picture. Maybe you do need a ruler to tell you what to do, but allow me to not be led by the same fool.

>>674901371
your ideal society sounds like an un-community to me, where everyone follow their own private interests without any other purpose than helping themselves. No unity, no nation thriving forward, just individuals living their lives.

I can see why some would like that, but I value nationalism and cultural unity. I don't believe it has to be implented by force (if it wasn't for immigration) but the nation obviously need some kind of governmental organ organizing everything and funding national interests.

ignore my somewhat broken English, I'm not even fully awake yet

>>674901371
Oh and yeah, I need a "king" or however you want to put it. My country is actually a constitutional monarchy ay lmao

>>674894228
What kind of cuck what's to live in an autocratic, authoritarian society? It's not like you're the leader of the country making the rules. I can understand wanting to have an authoritarian government ONLY if you're the autocrat, so basically one person. I can see why Hitler wanted an authoritarian government because he literally controlled every aspect of society, but the citizens and Hitler's inner circle were all just bootlickers. In that kind of society everyone is just sucking the leader's dick, and that's a cuck thing to do.

File: marina-ginesta1.jpg (2 MB, 2000x1332) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2000x1332

>>674902293
>your ideal society sounds like an un-community to me, where everyone follow their own private interests without any other purpose than helping themselves.
Quite the contrary, if you look at modern examples of anarchistic societies. Take for instance Catalonia: after the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy, production surged and there were areas where goods were at no risk of running out, and hence money was no longer used in everyday interactions. Food was free and you had only to walk into a 'store' (or a warehouse, rather) and pick up what you wanted.

An economy of surplus, where nobody needs to be helped, as everyone (even those of inferior ability) can attain a high quality of living. Clearly, there can be no poverty in a society where there is no money.

Even so, a culture will always remain, as it is upheld by the people itself and not by the sovereign (although it is not unheard that a ruler would impose their own culture upon those beneath their command). Therefore, even an anarchistic society can have a sense of cultural pride and unity. What makes them different from a nationalist is that they don't praise the nation, they praise the people in it.

The people can also govern themselves and protect their mutual interests. An armed people is often enough to repel most invasions, as the guerrilla warfare and partisan fighters would do serious harm to an occupying force. Strong militias can be as well-equipped and trained as the most powerful army. They're simply born of different ideologies; the militia protects itself and those who would let them be protected, the army exists for the defense of the rulers. Likewise, their funding flows from different sources; a militia is fed, equipped and trained by the people, because they want and need military protection for predatory neighbours. An army is funded by tax collection, and the process of taxation is overseen by the army, so as to make certain everybody pays, whether they like it or not.

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>the left-wing posts outnumber the right
there was a thread the other night about how most of /b/ is probably left-leaning, but they are either right-wing by reaction to groups and sites like tumblr, or because they want to fit in

File: Screenshot from 2016-03-20 08:01:57.png (223 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

223 KB, 1920x1080

On the right is from six months ago, left is today. It seems to be pretty consistent.

>>674905078
It seems that the left is also more extreme than the right, although there seem to be some authoritarians that'd be ready to die to have their rulers.

>>674904210
>An economy of surplus, where nobody needs to be helped, as everyone (even those of inferior ability) can attain a high quality of living.
What about when there's no surplus? It creates competition werein certain people or groups will have an advantage over others

>Clearly, there can be no poverty in a society where there is no money.
Except for poverty of intellect, poverty of property, poverty of skill, poverty of bitches... there will always be the "haves" and the "have nots" in ANY society. it is not our nature to share everything equally. It's in our DNA to compete and defeat and dominate. the IDEA of government seeks to enact standards (laws) that try to promote a level playing field. Unfortunately, too often the people in power (see: dominance) only attempt to create further division between the haves and have nots. Some laws don't, but some do.

>The people can also govern themselves and protect their mutual interests
>implying that mutual interests are that easy to determine

>>674894590
Authoritarian- government rule, no respect for personal liberty
Libertarian- personal liberty above all

>>674904210

>>674906757
cont.


>the militia protects itself and those who would let them be protected
If I have a gun and I'm trying to protect my property from an invader, and you don't have a gun and you ask me to protect your property too, do you think I'm going to do it for free? Hell no. why? because I have no duty to. To say that I would do it just because I'm a "nationalist" so that means I like you, would be to deny the human race's base selfishness. Few people are willing to risk their lives for others just out of kindness. An army, on the other hand, is paid--in money, food, shelter, benefits, whatever-- by the government, and thus has a duty to follow orders. It's much harder to set that up in a society without government.
>a militia is fed, equipped and trained by the people
If we live in anarchy and you can give me ten loaves of bread to protect you, but someone else can give me a hundred, do you think I'm going to offer you the same protection? It has nothing to do with "who would let themselves be protected" and everything to do with "who can guarantee their own protection."

File: Screenshot_2016-03-20-13-17-35.jpg (340 KB, 720x1280) Image search: [Google]

340 KB, 720x1280

>in 4 moralfags r us

>>674895509
Actually, lord Gary Johnson is the most libertarian. Bernie is a close second

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Make assumptions about me.

File: crowdgraphpng.png (7 KB, 640x658) Image search: [Google]

7 KB, 640x658

>>674894228

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

here we go, not trolling

anyone who is on the left side of the chart should kill themselves 2bh

you are a waste on society and welfare should be disbanded, and your body fed to wild animals

File: Screenshot_2016-03-20-09-28-43.png (104 KB, 540x960) Image search: [Google]

104 KB, 540x960

Mine

File: political compass.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674894590
>>674896245
>>674904749
ayyy

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

I have no social opinion?

>>674906757
>What about when there's no surplus? It creates competition werein certain people or groups will have an advantage over others
Then the resources will have to be rationed, and production efficiency increased across the board by adopting more advanced techniques and tools.

>poverty of intellect
Can you steal or trade intellect? You can not.

>poverty of property
What property? Things someone picked up for free? Why would anyone 'have not' access to this same property, if it is free? In Catalonia, everyone was given the option to work at the collectives or to own a plot of land they could work (and not more than that). Why would you want more land than you can usefully employ?

>poverty of skill
Education is free and available to anyone, as long as there is someone willing to educate. And since you have no reason to hold on to a specific job (as all of them receive equal pay for equal work), you need not hold on to your skills, either. If someone learns how to operate a piece of machinery only you were proficient at, what of it? If they are better than you, they will be given your job, but you'll not be cast into debt, homelessness and poverty, either.

>poverty of bitches
This is actually a valid argument, but an anarchistic society isn't the only type that has to deal with this. Monogamy was invented and enforced to stabilise societies. This has backfired somewhat, since now everyone seems to believe they deserve a life companion, and that the state should make sure they get one.

>implying that mutual interests are that easy to determine
They certainly are not. One can, however, determine their personal interests more easily, and as they pursue those, may discover that their interests overlap with those of other people.

File: my political compass, bitch!.png (21 KB, 479x503) Image search: [Google]

21 KB, 479x503

So what the fuck is the meaning of being on the green square? Im assuming im a unmoralfag that a lot of you SJW's and white knights would hate, you fucking faggots.

File: youreafuckingwhitemalebern.jpg (57 KB, 640x360) Image search: [Google]

57 KB, 640x360

>>674907854

>>674904210
This is refreshing to find here.

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674908713
Yes

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Ok then

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

i'm a nihilist anyway so morals are false

>>674907000
>If I have a gun and I'm trying to protect my property from an invader, and you don't have a gun and you ask me to protect your property too, do you think I'm going to do it for free?
No. That's why I would have my own gun, to protect myself.

Now, if you were to spend all of your waking time committed to the protection of the society, the society effectively pays you back by granting you all of its fruits. All those 'stores' with their shelves full of goods and produce, they exist because people like you would fight to make sure they exist in the future as well. While others toil in factories and at farms, you take on the task of defense. Not very different from how a military works, is it? As I stated earlier, a militia receives its payment (or 'funding') directly from the people, an army from the government. As an act of gratitude, you defend those that provide for you, whether it's your king sharing his treasure hoard or the people giving what they have.

>If we live in anarchy and you can give me ten loaves of bread to protect you, but someone else can give me a hundred, do you think I'm going to offer you the same protection?
In an anarchistic society, production levels would not differ greatly between producers, as both the techniques of production and the equipment are shared among the producers. If someone were to discover the secret of producing ten times more bread, would they not tell everyone else how to attain the same? Would the knowledge not be extracted from them, should they try to use it as leverage for their own gains?

So, let us assume a collective of ten people gives you 100 loaves of bread and a single person gives you 10. Each singular person has given you equally much, so why would you not protect them equally? Certainly, you're under no obligation to do so, apart from your moral code, and could just abandon them once strife hits you. Of course, someone may find this act to be morally wrong and bring you to the people's justice

>>674909193
I'm glad you think that way.

File: political compass.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Last time I did this I was further to the left and more authoritarian.

>>674908002
Welcome to the only sane quadrant. Leonardo.cheers.jpg

>>674908479
>Then the resources will have to be rationed
And who would enforce the rationing?

>Can you steal or trade intellect? You can not.
>trade intellect
Exactly. If you have no intellect, i.e., are a retard, then there is no way to gain it though trade. Therefore you will be chronically deficient in it.

>Why would anyone 'have not' access to this same property
Because of the rationing you mentioned earlier. "property" is not limited to land, it's what someone can hold possession of and do with what they please. If we're rationing food, then there will be an amount of it that I can claim as my own. If some tries to take my ration, and can do so because they are bigger/ stronger/ more skilled, then I will "have not", and probably without recourse.

>you need not hold on to your skills
are you literally in ninth grade? Do I want some doctor operating on me who doesn't give a shit about his skills? And why would I go out and be a construction worker if I can sit in an office all day? oh yeah, skill. Maybe I don't have the intellect, and thus the skill required to do the office job, but this is anarchism so fuck it, I can have whatever job I want! But we need desperately need more houses you say? Too bad...You have to incentivize people to do more. Tell them if they invest more (time, effort, intellect) they get more (money, property, etc). Only then can we develop the "advanced technologies and tools" you were taking about.

>they will be given your job
By who? This is anarchy, so who has authority over me?

>may discover that their interests overlap with those of other people.
And what if they don't? I'm not going to forsake my interests just so we can protect yours.

File: ptp.png (726 KB, 1920x1442) Image search: [Google]

726 KB, 1920x1442

posting all my good stuff

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674894228

File: lenin.jpg (53 KB, 649x854) Image search: [Google]

53 KB, 649x854

>>674910941
Ready for revolution, comrade?

This website is a left propaganda site lmao

>>674909785
>While others toil in factories and at farms, you take on the task of defense
>the society effectively pays you back by granting you all of its fruits
Sounds like you're saying that the "protectors" are the most respected members of the society. Then why would anyone do anything else? And I thought everyone had access to all of societies fruits anyway. What if there is a scarcity of goods? are the protectors granted a greater share than everyone else to ensure continued protection? If they aren't, then why would they continue to protect? As you said in your previous post
>you have no reason to hold on to a specific job (as all of them receive equal pay for equal work)
So where's the incentive to "spend all your waking time committed to protection"?

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Ick

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Bitches.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-20-15-17-18.png (571 KB, 720x1280) Image search: [Google]

571 KB, 720x1280

Where all the red at?

>>674910801
>And who would enforce the rationing?
The people, i.e. those who need the rationing is done or they will be left without important resources.

If someone were to hoard more food than they can eat, leaving others in hunger, or if someone were to disregard rationing, the people would gather up in numbers and go get the excess back for those in need, and if the offender repeats their affront, they will be brought to the people's justice.

>If you have no intellect, i.e., are a retard, then there is no way to gain it though trade. Therefore you will be chronically deficient in it.
The unfairness of genetics is one thing we can not yet tackle. If you're born less intelligent, there isn't a lot that can be done about it, and you will probably never serve your society in functions that require high intelligence, such as the sciences. You can, however, be a functioning part of society unless you're debilitated by a very low intelligence, in which case a benevolent society will allow you to enjoy your life and grant you the necessities. A less benevolent society may leave you without food during times of starvation, effectively killing you off as you're not fit to survive of your own accord.

Advances in genetics may help alleviate this inequality in the future.

>If some tries to take my ration, and can do so because they are bigger/ stronger/ more skilled, then I will "have not", and probably without recourse.
A society prefers an absence of conflict. If there are conflict instigators (such as those who would steal the rations of others), the society as a whole will react. The justice system is not unique to governed societies.

>Do I want some doctor operating on me who doesn't give a shit about his skills?
By 'holding on to' I do not mean that the professionals don't value their skills. I mean that they don't keep the knowledge of their skills to themselves in an effort to remain important in comparison to those who lack the same skills.

>>674909785
>production levels would not differ greatly between producers
Are you referencing the companies int his example? Because I was talking about the individuals. interesting...

So if we're rationing canned food, and everyone gets five cans a week, and I have a slow metabolism and can only really eat three a week, then it's natural that I would want to ensure my personal food security by holding on to the extra cans in case the ration ever--heaven forbid-- drops below three a week. It's only natural. I, like most people, am selfish and want to look out for myself and my interests above all else.

But if someone else has a fast metabolism and eats all five cans a week, they would be in deep shit if the ration had to drop. Now, say an enemy comes. Now I have all these extra cans of food to offer to a protector. I can exchange my food safety to ensure my physical safety. And the guy with no cans stored up? hopefully he has some other scarce item to offer the protector that will give the protector an incentive to defend that person's interests.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-20-10-23-47.png (334 KB, 1440x2560) Image search: [Google]

334 KB, 1440x2560

Eh, there was a few things I'm in the middle about or don't give a shit about

>>674894228

Voting for Trump, Bernie Or Cruz,

Im Center Left

>>674894228
>I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other
>I'm happy as long as someone tells me what to think and do

>>674895911

Same as me,

>>674910801
>And why would I go out and be a construction worker if I can sit in an office all day?
Because not everyone needs to be an office worker. If there is no work to be done in the offices, would you not seek other tasks to commit to? Truly, you can have whatever job you want, but if it's not beneficial that you do something (say, if you're lacking the skills), your peers may order you to do something more productive with your time.

>But we need desperately need more houses you say?
If there are people without housing, but many aren't willing to work construction, could the homeless not attend courses to learn the necessary skills and construct their own housing? (I'll return to incentives a bit later).

>This is anarchy, so who has authority over me?
You mistake anarchy and an anarchistic society to be one and the same. An anarchistic society is, like the name makes clear, a society, but it lacks central governance, hence 'anarchistic'. Likewise, anarchy lacks governance, but it's not necessarily a society.

If you are an hindrance to the functions of the society, anarchistic or otherwise, you're removed from the system for rehabilitation. In a traditional society, this is done by the police force. In an anarchistic society, this is done by your peers.

>I'm not going to forsake my interests just so we can protect yours.
Then don't. I'm already protecting my own interests. If my interests go against those of society, I will have to readjust them or face justice.

>>674911890
>Sounds like you're saying that the "protectors" are the most respected members of the society.
I'm not. They're simply performing a task, much like everyone else in a functioning society. Someone is producing food for the factory workers and the protectors, someone is producing goods in the factory for the others to use and someone is protecting the other two from both outside attacks and the acts of those who would try to rise to power from within.

>>674907091
Bernie is quoted in saying he sees nothing wrong with a 90 percent tax rate. Libertarian? No

>>674912232
You keep on referring to "the people" as some massive horde of citizens that meets up every night to discuss the goings-on.
>"Hey guys. Jeff keeps his house at 60 degrees F in the winter so he can conserve his fuel ration so it lasts longer."
>"Well at last year's meeting we decided that everyone needs to keep their house at 70 degrees F so that it's fair. Let's all go over to Jeff's and inflict the Justice Of The People (TM) and get back that extra fuel."

Meanwhile, at Jeff's house, he's given some of that extra fuel to his neighbor so his neighbor can crank his house up to 75. And in exchange the neighbor offered to defend Jeff if anyone came to take back the extra fuel.

>>674911890
>are the protectors granted a greater share than everyone else to ensure continued protection?
Perhaps this is necessary, as during times of scarcity, there may be civil unrest which will need to be controlled. In other words; they are asked to be more protective than normal, and therefore are given more resources in reward. This is in line with what I said; "equal pay for equal work". Note that when your workload increases, so, too, should your pay, whether it is in goods and protection or cash, like in modern societies.

>So where's the incentive to "spend all your waking time committed to protection"?
In addition to what I mentioned above: a willingness to see your people prosper. What incentive is there to work in the factory or at the farms? The same willingness, because the prosperity of your people is reflected also to you. To uphold order in a society means that you, too, will benefit from the order.

>>674913055
>Are you referencing the companies int his example?
I'm referring to collectives; groups of labourers working together, as nobody can run a factory by themselves.

>So if we're rationing canned food, and everyone gets five cans a week, and I have a slow metabolism and can only really eat three a week
Would you not just take three cans, so that the 'store' can keep a surplus in case the production of food drops even lower? You see, it is better to share than to hoard, as hoarders will become easy targets for when the rest of society runs out of their resources. It's of no use if you paid your neighbour to protect you if your whole neighbourhood turns against you. Two people can not defend against two hundred. And that is what I mean by 'the people', in reference to >>674914239.

Therefore, it may be your best interest to not take more than you consume. And if you do, at least make certain that nobody knows (including your neighbour, as their morals may be different from yours and they'd rather share your hoard with the rest of society).

>>674913641
>could the homeless not attend courses to learn the necessary skills and construct their own housing
That is literally a possibility now. There are countless programs for homeless people to better their situation, but many do not, either because of addiction or mental illness.

>If you are an hindrance to the functions of the society, anarchistic or otherwise, you're removed from the system for rehabilitation
That sounds oddly fascist. Jews were a hindrance to the advancement of german society and were thus removed, although not rehabilitated. And don't confuse the method of nazi-ism with that of what you described. In both cases, something that was seen as a problem was removed. in germany it was directed by a man who was decided into power by the people, and in your example it would be done simply "by their peers." Either way, it appears to stifle freedom.

And what if an issue is split? if 55% of the society decides that abortions are bad, but 45% think they're OK does that mean 45% of the people need to be removed so they can be rehabilitated? What if only 50% of the society bothered to weigh an opinion on the matter?

>>674914239
>"Hey guys. Jeff keeps his house at 60 degrees F in the winter so he can conserve his fuel ration so it lasts longer."
>"Well at last year's meeting we decided that everyone needs to keep their house at 70 degrees F so that it's fair. Let's all go over to Jeff's and inflict the Justice Of The People (TM) and get back that extra fuel."
Assume for a moment the people are not straw men. The people have not, obviously, decided on a temperature that everyone should have their houses set to. Instead, the fuel consumption would be rationed [in times of no fuel surplus]. Anyone is free to store any extra fuel, but it may be very unwise during times of need, unless storage is done in secret, as I commented on in my previous post.

>in exchange the neighbor offered to defend Jeff if anyone came to take back the extra fuel.
Like I said above; if two people are defending a fuel hoard (or even a whole city!), could they not be defeated if a much larger population were to attack them in an effort to get their hands on the resource that ran out?

I always get so fucking far left and I don't understand how

>>674914915
>Would you not just take three cans, so that the 'store' can keep a surplus in case the production of food drops even lower

No, I'd take as many as I was allowed because I DO want to horde precisely because the production of food may drop lower. Also, if we're rationing then it implies that the "store" has no surplus.

Look at troops during WWII. They all got rationed meals that included extras like chocolate and cigarettes. But some people didn't smoke so they would trade their cigarettes for other things. They didn't return their cigarettes to the army to keep a surplus. They exchanged their personal excess for personal gain, as humans are wont to do.

File: chartOfMe.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674895555
>>674898292
>>674903976
>>674905078
>>674907052
>>674907717
>>674908508
>>674908713
>>674909290
>>674909481
>>674910142
>>674911262
>>674911938
>>674912002
>>674913415
sup

File: 1448393238986.png (73 KB, 878x878) Image search: [Google]

73 KB, 878x878

This should help those who have no idea what they are looking at

>>674915733
>but many do not, either because of addiction or mental illness.
The big question here is if we should feel contempt for the mentally ill and for the addicted. I think not, so why would we not help them? And indeed we do in many civilised countries. The US isn't among them, though.

>That sounds oddly fascist.
If you blow a tire, is changing it with a spare fascism? Is fixing the broken tire to once again fulfill its role fascist? I think 'oddly' is a key word here, because that does indeed sound like a very odd form of fascism, one that I've never heard of before.

Should the blown tire be permitted its freedom, to be allowed to be dysfunctional and possibly even harmful to the other parts of the car (what with the rims bending on impact as the tire isn't dampening them any longer), and to remain detrimental to the quality of the ride? If you ask the driver, or the other parts of the automobile, or the supply chain of which the car is a part of, definitely not. Let the tire be flat in its own time, when it doesn't harm or delay others, and if it refuses to be patched, it shall not be taken to fulfill its previous role, instead made to keep the garage door open or turned into playground equipment.

>And what if an issue is split?
Being harmful to the functions of society is something that can be measured quite objectively, and it's very difficult to disagree on issues like this. Abortion is a social issue and it can be decided on by those that it affects; the one whose child is being aborted, the doctor performing the abortion and so on. Should the society find abortion to be immoral, they can band together to bring those to justice that would abort fetuses. And if the other half of society doesn't find it to be immoral, they can band together to defend those. Issues like this can probably be handled quite well just by talking, but some other issues may even spark a civil war (not at all differently from how any society works!).

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>not even a slightest idea of what i'm doing

>>674910142
Then you're moving in the right direction

>>674899297
Mountains?

>>674916923
>I DO want to horde precisely because the production of food may drop lower
Then do so. Just be wary of those that know you've a storeroom full of rationed goods, for when the actual 'stores' run out, the hungry masses will come to you, and some may be willing to take what is yours by force.

>Also, if we're rationing then it implies that the "store" has no surplus.
No it doesn't. You see, if the store receives a weekly delivery of 550 cans of food from the producers and they serve a population of 100, how many cans of food would they give to a single person? You can't split cans, so you give 5 and keep the remaining 50 in storage. When the next delivery comes, you can, if you want, give 6 cans to everyone, or if 5 cans is sufficient, you can keep 100 cans in storage as a buffer should production drop.

>Look at troops during WWII
Using your own rations sparingly and trading any extras for something else that you end up using is not wrong, nor do you put yourself in danger for doing so. Say, if you were to trade your cigarettes for chocolate and then eat the chocolate, you'd have no such thing that anyone else would wish to steal from you, as you've consumed your rations.

If you were to trade your cigarettes for chocolate and then keeping your chocolate bars in your backpack (instead of eating it) you put yourself at risk. If the supply chain is disrupted or your unit is stuck behind enemy lines, your chocolates may become more valuable to the other soldiers than your life. Now, a single chocolate bar may not be worth killing over, but what about ten? One hundred? Of course, you can also share your rations with the rest, of which they will be grateful. In our example with the anarchistic society, this 'sharing' is the same as not taking more than you require.

>>674918570
I'm surprised it took you so long.

>>674918742
Just opened my computer. I see you're again spreading your gospel.

>>674917557
>If you blow a tire, is changing it with a spare fascism?
speaking of straw men...

>Issues like this can probably be handled quite well just by talking, but some other issues may even spark a civil war
current events have demonstrated that "talking it out" is rarely a be-all-end-all answer. Have they been able to talk it out in Gaza? Or Syria? Have the civil (and international) wars that have occurred there been effective at advancing those societies? What about in the US concerning abortion? What about in the EU concerning refugees?

>>674918690
how would the other soldiers know you're holding a hundred chocolate bars? A fool and his surplus are soon parted

>>674919114
You don't need to adopt my thoughts, but I would very much like it if you read them and reflected on them for a while.

>>674918690
and what happens when the people you're distributing to learn that you have extra cans in storage? Do they form a hungry mass to come take by force?

>Using your own rations sparingly and trading any extras for something else that you end up using is not wrong, nor do you put yourself in danger for doing so
That is literally the example I've been using this entire time. The only difference is the time scale. If I keep extra fuel so I can use it later, is that worse then keeping it and using it now? no. If I'm waiting to see if fuel supply drops, and it never does, then maybe I'd be inclined to return it, or maybe I'd need to take less next time.

>>674919766
I've done that. Let's put it the other way around. Tell me about the problems and disadvantages of anarchism.

>>674919233
The flat tire is an allegorical representation of a member of society that is not functioning in their role. A straw man is a fallacy where an argument is presented that does not argue the original point but a somewhat similar one, but one that is essentially very easy to refute. Say, something like basing an argument around the claim that 'the people' have made a ridiculous agreement on room temperatures, which can be then be refuted by simply stating that "they are being ridiculous".

>current events have demonstrated that "talking it out" is rarely a be-all-end-all answer.
This is a shame, really. I wish we could be more civil about things, but if war is what the people must have, then let them wage war.

>>674919239
>A fool and his surplus are soon parted
Truly. If you keep your chocolates a secret, you will not be hunted by your peers for them.

>>674920035
>If I keep extra fuel so I can use it later, is that worse then keeping it and using it now?
No. You're free to take your fair ration and do with it whatever you wish. If you're using it for something that the rest of the society deems wasteful or greedy, they may intervene. Therefore, it is best to keep it secret, should you choose to store the excess in a tank. Do note, however, that if the production drops steeply and all other houses are entirely covered in ice, but yours still remains warm, someone may suspect something.

I'm advocating a healthy distrust of those around you, that's all.

File: politicalcompass.png (17 KB, 588x486) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 588x486

there

File: political compass.png (18 KB, 467x497) Image search: [Google]

18 KB, 467x497

>>674905078
Ehhh. My opinion sways easily. 4chan is so right wing to tumblr because they would be 30 points off the chart for left wing.

File: politicalcompassprogress.png (18 KB, 855x371) Image search: [Google]

18 KB, 855x371

Left is now, right was 2/3 years ago
>dat SJW resistance

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

Ask me anything.

>>674922362
Are you female?

>>674922434
No.

>>674920761
In my opinion, there aren't many disadvantages that aren't shared by less anarchistic societies as well. The issue with hoarders, for example, exists in every society; if someone hoards resources, those that have no access to said resource may take it with force. Crime, in the form of robberies and burglaries, is one form of this; someone has money, someone else does not, and money is necessary for survival. Hence the one with no money steals, if all other means fail.

However, there is the fact that a very organised and loyal army is likely to overwhelm anarchistic militias, no matter the level of equipment and training. Propaganda is a very powerful tool, and lacking a very powerfully centralised and structural system of propaganda, anarchists may not see the enemy as 'lesser than animals', undeserving of life. They may be too merciful on their enemies, believing too greatly in the tenets of equality and humanity. At times of peace, these tenets are very valuable, but at times of war they are a hindrance.

Perhaps a 'warrior caste' can exist, one that has been trained to fight ruthlessly in the service of their people, to not flinch when slaying the enemy. But what function would such a caste fulfill during peace time? Could they not conquer the whole people? This brings to the second weakness; the whole nation needs to be trained and armed for combat, as having an army that is separate from the common folk may lead to a military uprising and a junta takeover. An anarchistic society needs to be like Sparta; so powerful that nobody dares to attack. This tends to be extremely costly.

>>674922362
Opinion on abortion?

If a father wants the mother to get an abortion, and she refuses, should he have to pay for child support?

Should a mother be able to get an abortion, even if the father doesn't want one?

>Red: God tier
'>Green: Pretty good tier
>Blue: Shit tier
>Purple: Literally kill yourself

>>674923030
Abortion is always a tough one. Biologically speaking, it's mainly a female issue. However, I feel that since a man is involved a lot as well, considering Child Support, it gets more complicated.

If they both want an abortion, no question, do it.
If they both dont want one its easy as well, dont do it.
If the father wants it but the mother does not, I feel it is her right. However, it should not be able to force someone in this situation, and then drain all his money with Child Support.

This is one of the few points where I think equality between man and woman does not completely hold up. If the mother wants an abortion she should always be able to get one. She is the one that has to do the work, and has to poop out a baby. You cant force someone into that, thats horrific.

File: Screen Shot 2016-03-20 at 16.06.34.png (32 KB, 463x486) Image search: [Google]

32 KB, 463x486

>>674894590
Got almost the exact same result as you

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

The fuck's wrong with /b/ and all the green stupid people.
I'm out >>>/pol/

File: Imnotinsaneafterall.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

republican who smokes weed here so. ya

File: chart(2).png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674923729
>The fuck's wrong with /b/ and all the green stupid people.
>I'm out >>>/pol/
My man

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

I guess i'm not special

File: us2016.png (29 KB, 400x400) Image search: [Google]

29 KB, 400x400

>>674924355
You are.

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674894228
hail stalin

File: chart.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

>>674894228

>>674920761
It seems the fools of guards are frying garlic in the canteen, and the stench is so unbearably all-permeating that my eyes are watering. I'll need to go out for a refreshing walk, so see you some other time.

>>674922706
It seems that there is some need for further pondering on your part.

Biggest problem with anarchims is simple: not everyone thinks like you. Because of this, people have formed alternate ways to form and run societies. From the dawn of mankind to present, anarchists simply became a minority due to stronger societies enforcing their rule. In the same way, if our government would be abolished over next night, a new government would be established by noon the next day simply because people disagree with anarchists.

This is also reflected in the "people's justice", as you call it. If I disagree with the society, a mob can easily lynch me (or try at least) or evict me, because any society works only if all of its members play by the same rules. I don't even have to do anything morally wrong per se, only disagree on the value of work for example.

>>674924975
See you around. Try to get your Steam working.

>>674925050
I'll keep the thread open and respond after my walk. Either in this thread or by email.

Unless you'd prefer to not stick to this subject.

>>674895555
>unchecked by 99.9999% of btarders

>>674925325
You can send or post a reply and I will read it but this is far from a pleasant subject.

File: Heil!.png (17 KB, 480x400) Image search: [Google]

17 KB, 480x400

YEAH! FUCKIN' MUSSOLINI UP IN HERE

Libertarian all the way

>>674926078
prove it and show us faggot