Because we always need a compass thread http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
>>69371544
Is that yours holy shit what a fucking faggot
>>69371544
wow why are you here
>>69373039
rareflagfirstposbestpostopsafaggot
>>69371544
Is that you, AIDSkrillex??
>>69371544
>>>/leftypol/
>mfw
>>69374978
>Central Left
Your life is a meme
>>69374328
This is basically where I am
So, what does that mean in meme terms?
>>69376548
You want the world to be a post apocalyptic Mad Max wasteland
>>69376664
Seems pretty accurate :^)
>tfw rarest position
Firm Trump supporter, would support Bernie or Gary Johnson if Trump isn't nominated. Cruz and Kasich are the last people I'd vote for. The issue with Bernie is that he's weak on immigration and social stuff like BLM, and his promises are too "free" without demanding people to work to earn those privileges.
Everything is based upon given circumstances.
Today I might be left, sipping at coffee, working from home on my seperate computer whilst shit posting online.
While later today I might have to be extreme right, beat the fuck out of some Gibsmedat Native Nigger for pestering me for the smokes I don't have and getting violent after I refuse him more than twice.
I might be Libertarian while I walk away from that scene and expect nothing of anyone, they can call the cops, or they can keep doing whatever they want, I won't tell them a damn thing.
I might have to become authoritarian of mind if a car collision is to happen in front of me, getting someone to call 9/11 while waving down someone who might need to run to the nearest store for 1st aid equipment while I help administer aid.
Everything is circumstancial.
Needs more blues in here
best ideology passing through
>>69377395
Is this good enough?
>>69371544
Patrician reporting in.
is this Harem?
>>69377707
good that you're far right
Libertarians are alright imo, but could use a bit of conservatism in your life
>>69377895
Sure, as long as your wifes agree you can have a harem.
>>69377967
I am a race realist and anti-feminist so its not like I'm completely lacking conservatism.
>>69377967
>could use a bit of conservatism
In what sense? Everyone can believe what they want to believe, that's not my problem. However, I'm not inclined or obligated to respect those beliefs, especially if the person expressing them is doing so in a way that compromises my liberty or that of others.
Basically, you can be a "progressive" feminist cuckold all you want, but if you start bothering me or other people with your shit, you can fuck right off
>>69378446
>>69378291
see the difference between the Frenchman and the the American.
I'm just saying it would be cool in my book if he were more conservative. No need to get your white flag and frogs' legs in a twist, quebro
NO STEP ON SNEK
TAXATION IS THEFT
>>69378644
I was just asking you why you thought that, especially since libertarianism rarely implies a lack of conservatism. I wasn't arguing
>>69378856
based
>>69378931
> libertarianism rarely implies a lack of conservatism
If you mean cuckservatism, sure.
>>69379043
My wife's son*
Loving it.
>>69378931
Well because it would be cool if someone shared my views?
If I were a Bernie Bot and said it would be cool if you were a socialist, it would make as much sense.
It's nothing to do with ideology or policy
>>69379128
What do you think of Putin?
We need more blues in this thread.
>>69379221
Neutral
>>69379116
>cuckservatism
What are you implying?
>>69379207
Oh, okay.
>>69379253
hear hear
Hur hur no roads
>>69379207
As a libertarian anarchist, I think the greatest world leader was Pinochet.
>>69371544
If you aren't in the upper right quadrant, you're either brain damaged, a degenerate, or a hippie faggot.
>>69373336
Hahaha epic meme lol XDDDDDDDD
>>69379492
Minneapolis here.
I voted for Trump.
>>69379485
Best Goy Award of 2016
>>69379569
LE LOOK AT ME MOM I'M LE TROLLING LE SHITLORD FAGGOT TUMBLR SJW KIKES ON LE INTERNET!!!!111!!! XXXXDDDDDD!!! I'M LE EBIN TROLLMASTER EDGY REACTIONARY ALPHA MALE WHITE MASTER RACE XXDDD I'M SAVING LE WHITE RACE FROM LE EURABIA AND LE FUCKING DUMBASS NIGGERS AND DEGENERATE FAGGOTS PUTTING AIDS IN LE FLUORIDE WATER FUNDED BY LE JEWS AND LE CULTURAL MARXIST KIKE BITCH FEMINAZI DYKES DESTROYING MUH PROUD NORDIC HERITAGE AND MUH FOUNDATIONS OF CIVILIZATION XXDDDD
>>69379485
Fuck that, im all for freedom, no matter what. I'm not going to let the government tell me what to do
>>69377395
I'd consider myself blue, but the questions and outcome on these things can only give you roughly what your positions are.
Because im against corporations cucking everybody and for socialized healthcare. I like how Putin will nationalize any big company that steps out of line.
>>69379128
Damn, missed some questinons
>>69379485
>sucks the government dick
I be you like state funded healthcare
Conservative "values" and "virtue" is entirely subjective and meaningless. You all cling on to arbitrary constructions.
I can't understand how so many of you suck the cock of authority. Freedom, growth, and learning is what existence is about.
>>69379967
Nice one. We are in the same place.
>>69379967
wew
>>69379892
So mixed socialism, or the choice of any sane man.
>>69379412
rare flag
>>69379967
faggit
>>69379970
Existence is about survival and for the past few million years, conservative values have helped humans move to the top of the food chain.
>>69380083
>Just let people suffer
>sane
>>69379293
Well, which is it?
>>69380183
Kike
>>69380183
>no gods or kings only my boss huurr "anarcho-capitalism"
>>69380573
>not being your own boss
>>69380201
What the fuck are you "surviving" against now? You have it millions of times easier than any of your ancestors did (except maybe the last two generations).
You go to a store to buy food. You drive a vehicle. You work (probably not, i expect your a NEET). You are using a computer with wifi.
Fucking hilarious you quote survival and animal instinct. Yes we are guided by instinct but the fact we are sentient allows and has allowed us to rebel against our base instincts for thousands of years to create civilization. Everyone here likes to talk about irrationality of altruism (which may not exist ofc) but our ability to rebel against the base instincts of death and life has allowed us to come together to form complex societies to enrich the lives of billions. Yeah it's not perfect, but it's hundreds of times easier than killing animals with stone tools and dying at the age of 30 from dysentery.
>>69380573
>no gods and kings, only the government controlling the economy
>>69380647
>not selling your children
B-bbbut muh social pressures
>>69380044
yeah freedom
>>69380762
>le anarcho capitalist selling heroin to kindergartner prostitutes am i right xDDDdd?
don't do that
>>69380735
>anarchy
>government
learn2politics
>>69379970
There's like two people sucking the cock of authority in this thread. Most of us are under the x-axis, which is more important and says more than how far left or right you are.
>>69380934
>don't attack the core basics of my ideology
fucking retard.
>>69380647
good luck with that, when you cant even move and drink and eat because diffrent people own everything
so much for freedom
>>69381095
You're not attacking the core basics of any ideology, you're using a strawman as an attempt to trivialize said ideology. Fuck off.
>>69375186
Nice bantz Malta
>>69381210
How would ancap lead to such a situation?
Monopolies are created through protectionism. And, for a company to thrive and generate profit, it needs customers.
>>69380999
Totally agree! I wasn't directing that at libertarians. Only the people above the X axis. Authoritarian cucks prepping the bull of government in their moms ass.
>>69380675
Mostly surviving against other people at this point. Just because humans made life easier doesn't mean that we completely turn against nature. How did we get to where we are in the first place? It was by abiding by the natural hierarchies and allowing great people to come up with great shit.
>>69381389
monopoly isnt even the argument
its the ownership of land, water and food in general
it will always limit the freedom of people
so if you own a bunch of land, you are limiting my freedom to walk on it, if you own a river, you limit my freedom to drink from it, if you own trees and animals, you limit my food supply
basically slavery
>>69379972
True American here
>>69380201
In that case you're defining conservatism pretty loosely.
>>69381283
Poor baby. Did daddy hurt you? were you trouble for your teachers? You're projecting your own insecurities onto a ideology that isn't worth any thought outside of theory.
>>69381685
>its the ownership of land, water and food in general
So private property is wrong? How?
If I have acquired something, it is my right to decide how that thing will be used. If you want to use it, you have to ask for the owner's permission. Pretty basic shit here
>basically slavery
No, it's meritocracy. The deserving are rewarded, the non-deserving aren't. Everyone is free, though.
>>69381855
>ad hominem without attempting to actually refute the principles of the ideology he's attacking
And I'm insecure? pls
![38x40[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/iN0lGZa.gif "38x40[1].gif")
>>69371544
>>69371544
Don't have mine to post from mobile, but I'm three steps left and two towards Libertarian.
Kinda liberal, but still pretty close to center.
>>69382000
Personal property can still be a thing without private property.
>>69382000
>still using fallacies incorrectly
now thats embarrassing.
>>69371544
>college in one picture
>>69379485
I bet that circumcised dick must taste really good.
>>69382208
What fallacies?
>>69382171
Personal property is more or less the same as private property in an ancap society.
>>69381798
Strong family unit with a man as the breadwinner, the wife (or wives in some cases) below him, and the children below her. Thats what I'm defining as conservative.
>>69382000
no its not meritocracy
you owning something does not mean its based on your "merit" , its because you use force to protect it, if thats "merit" for you then fine, you simply dislike freedom, maybe you should try government?
Private property?
You seem to dislike freedom, i really suggest you try government
You either want freedom, or you want some system, capitalism (that needs to be upheld by the people) or ownerhsip, that needs to be held by force or by agreement of the people (government)
what are you going to do if someone does not agree with your claim?
>>69382368
That's stupid as fuck and arbitrary.
>>69382681
retard alert.
fml
>>69382442
>its because you use force to protect it
And force =/= merit? I guess it depends on how you define merit, but in nature, might makes right
>you simply dislike freedom
Why are you repeating that?
>or you want some system
>that needs to be upheld by the people
Classical anarchism relies on the NAP, which is upheld by the people yet guarantees freedom, I don't know what you're getting at.
>ownerhsip, that needs to be held by force
How is this wrong? Do I not have the right to defend myself and what I claimed as being mine?
>if someone does not agree
Depends on the form his disagreement takes
Rate me
>>69382442
If you cannot agree on the principle of private property in an ancap society, you don't deserve true freedom. We have every right to remove you from the society.
>>69371544
Surprised. Thought I was more right than that.
I think the problem with these is that if you have a range of quite hard left and hard right stances (like me) you just middle out and look like a centrist, when really I wouldn't say any of my opinions are particularly centrist.
I checked my results for my demographics and it was almost bang on, which I know is bullshit.
>>69382681
Thats classic social conservatism
>>69371544
I don't even know what beliefs you have to be on that part of the compass
>>69375059
What site is this from?
>>69371544
Wow I didn't expect to see one today!!! Well here's mine.
>>69382857
10/10, you deserve a country girl.
>>69382353
CHILD SLAVERY
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
MONOPOLIES
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
NO SAFETY NET
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
NO MILITARY
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
COMPLETE RELATIVE MORALITY, "buttttttt im freee"
>NOT AN ARGUMENT
wew lad. just kek yourself.
muh freedom
>>69380980
I'm sure you will manage that in your perfect little dystopia you degenerate queer
Rate me
>>69382813
the whole point of anarchy libertarianism is that supposedly government creates the "force" which isnt right
why do you not conclude that force is the problem?
Or are you simply going to skip the few steps that i explained
1. you cant have freedom and some form of limitation on it
2. capitalism and ownership is a limitation to the freedom of others
3. the NAP is something only libertarians care for, not ture anarchists, its the same as morals, not natural law, but a norm
freedom means the ability to do what you want, when you want it, even if it means killing someone
Freedom = without boundries
the only laws that are existing are the natural ones
these are the basics. If you accept them , we can continue onto phase 2, if not, im happy to hear your objections
>>69383396
Your children won't be enslaved just because your society's ancap
>MONOPOLIES
They don't exist in a free market.
>NO SAFETY NET
>muh handouts
>NO MILITARY
Private militaries, yes.
>RELATIVE MORALITY
Are you implying morality is objective?
You're pretty stupid
>>69371544
Liberal left scumbag I hope a nigger breaks into your house and guns your fa!mily for debate leftof your Easter candy
>>69382897
i dont care for ancap , i care for freedom, and society is limiting itself, the structure needs an owerhaul
>>69371544
Wow, you're fucking gay
>>69383380
Hnnnnnnng
>>69383466
hah, i guess you love the cock of your king
why not create a society with people based on mutual agreement?
>>69383481
you've made America proud, son
>>69383515
>which isnt right
Why, though?
>why do you not conclude that force is the problem
Because force is not a problem. There is no limitation on freedom per se; just individuals stronger than others. The weak get dominated by the strong, that's the only legitimate "law" (natural law). Trying to change this means creating arbitrary systems that prevent the strong from thriving.
>capitalism and ownership is a limitation to the freedom of others
I don't see how. How is capitalism oppressive?
Ownership is freedom. If you say my things aren't my things because "there is no property, everything belongs to everyone", you're the one denying my freedom.
>the NAP is something only libertarians care for, not ture anarchists
I don't know where you get that idea from, anarchism is based on the NAP. What do you call true anarchists?
>freedom means the ability to do what you want, when you want it, even if it means killing someone
>the only laws that are existing are the natural ones
Then we agree. What are you getting at?
>>69383924
I'm totally okay with you posting more country QTs
>>69371544
>>69377395
The best kind of blue right here
>>69383827
every time.
Guys, listen up.
Every fucking time you come across a leftist shill, he will attempt to bully you with the "you suck your boss'/king's/president's cock"
Why do they have a fetish for cocks?
Do not let them intimidate you.
I'm generally a libertarian, but I don't think that we should have open borders, and I don't have a problem with central banking. I just wish that it was more transparent.
>>69383924
God bless you sir.
Communist reporting in
>>69383614
>They don't exist in a free market.
good one. Russia in the 90s was a free market heaven. Those brave oligarchs controlling the countries entire economy, hiring hitmen to kill rival competition, proliferation of weapons. Don King had a monopoly on boxing for almost 20 years, if he can its pretty much anyone thats ruthless enough can and will.
>muh handouts
Yay let them suffer and starve!
>Private militaries, yes.
Mercs with nukes, Great!
>Are you implying morality is objective?
Are you implying suffering is not bad?
nigger you are so dumb, realy, really dumb.
>>69384099
let freedom ring, muthafucka
>>69384508
I don't know shit about 90s era Russia so you might be right, but in general, monopolies come from protectionism, which doesn't exist when there's no state.
>let them suffer and starve
Charity is a better social security than gov handouts
>Mercs with nukes
>what is dissuasion
>Are you implying suffering is not bad
Read up on individualism (inb4 >meme ideology)
If you seriously think morals and ethics are objective, I don't know what I can do for you
I'm pretty cool, huh
>>69374328
>>69374978
Hello Kasich
>>69377967
>>69378291
at some point "conservatism" means bible thumping. Trump is trying to break the paradigm.
I AM THE PURPLE KING
REEEEEEEEE
>>69384068
gee, this is getting really messy
i dont even know where to start.
True anarchists are the ones that support real freedom
1. Freedom is only limited by the laws of nature
2. No social conventions like economics and social concepts like ownership should limit your individual freedom
3. The individual should be able to move, drink and eat, and do everything it can (freedom)
4. The only way individuals should be limited is by themselves, so if they agree to not rape, kill or eat eachother, thats their choice
5. coming together should be a step that free individuals choose to do, and they should be able to create governments ect. and have property and all that stuff you love , capitalism, ownership , non-agression principle
BUT, you cant call that freedom.
Thats my whole point, its just collectivism and it has its own benifits, BUT for the price of true freedom.
And by doing so, you also limit the freedom of the individuals who come after , and they wont be able to move, eat, kill, rape and do what they want.
those are the basics. So the next part should be "i dont want true freedom, i want collectivism" and then you get the diffrent forms.
Like libertarians, anarcho capitalists and those who want some for of system.
Then you can start the discussion which way is the best to ensure some forms of freedom, but you should always remember society can never be truely free. This is why Anarchocapitalists cant be true anarchists.
God Tier
>Bottom right
Decent tier
>Top right
>Center
Faggot tier
>Bottom left
Huge fucking faggot tier
>Top left
Not surprising
>>69384784
cooler than the other side of the pillow
>>69385301
Kill yourself fucking faggot.
>>69385065
I'm an atheist, but Christianity is an important part of our culture. I respect Trump's stance on it, though, in the sense that he's not willing to suck up to evangelicals just to get votes, unlike some people, squeak squeak, hint hint.
>>69385301
pic related
>>69384321
i dunno, why do rightwingers have a cuck fetish?
>>69384566
I might be a britbong but there aint no food like murica does it (pic is fries, slaw, pulled pork, smoked brisket and smoked brisket ends marinated and smoked again)
>>69383151
Seriously, someone answer me. What the fuck to someone like this even believe?
>>69384193
wew
>>69385661
Nice,>>69384193
Nice.
>>69385256
I see what you mean. True freedom leads to the formation of militia, which itself leads to micro states and governments
However, a form of micro government akin to tribalism is not wrong in itself as long as the individuals that comprise it are willing to be a part of it. If they aren't, then the NAP is the most effective method as a way to counteract an oppressive authority. The NAP doesn't have to infringe on freedom either: if someone attacks you, are you limiting their freedom by defending yourself? No, you're basically putting natural law into application
You're right in saying that true freedom can't really exist on a large scale, but something as simplistic as the NAP if applied in a broad enough way can be a sufficient protection as long as the individuals truly want to be free.
Generally speaking, what quadrant is /pol/?
>>69385825
NatSoc is somewhere between the top right/top middle, so I'd say that
>>69385825
Top left.
>>69385825
top right, not as right but higher than Cruz
>>69371544
shoo shoo commie
>>69385812
well it is limiting, because the creation of any government or society by any scale limits the movment of free individuals
without ownership, i can drink from the lake and so can you
with ownership you supposedly have the rights granted by some social authority to limit my ability to drink
anarcho capitalisms only argument is that of "you are free within the limits of ouer rules, money, ownership and potential enforcement"
the bigger the society, the bigger the limitations for everyone, and then we have countries, which overstep their authority to areas where people dont even live. All in a big economic system, and ownership of areas where people dont even live their day-to-day lifes
>>69377967
I agree (i am >>69386255) on the authoritarianism, but I want social pressures to change people, not government.
>people tend to be fucking stupid and should be kept in line
>but governments gets corrupted no matter if left or right
Maybe semianarchistic government which cares just to keep country safe from outside forces could work pretty well, because people would be left to learn on themselves why being stupid is a bad idea.
At least this is how I feel now.
>>69384748
top fucking kek m8. Monopolies come from a completely powerless system. Where i use to live a man owned a dozen mills during the industrial revolution. He owned all the towns, roads, and made his own currency, he was a de facto king. Once you have complete control over economic resources you have complete control to whatever you like.
>Charity is a better social security than gov handouts
no it isn't. Voluntarism is garbage it never worked. read a dickens novel you moron
>what is dissuasion
What is nuclear proliferation?
>Read up on individualism (inb4 >meme ideology)
Im not going to put myself through that. Is a glass of piss equal to child suffering the most horrific prolonged torture imaginable? Is that relative, so what right? Pain is real, idiot. Nothing could ever be further from "relative".
Also your by being relative you're going against your own "muh private property" meme, after all Jamel just shoots you and takes your land because theres no law and everythings relative, and it isnt anyone else's problem.
>>69384508
>Russian free market
They had a central bank.
>>69385825
right authoritarian, by a bit
>>69371544
>>69374978
>>69379892
>>69379967
>>69379970
>>69382725
>>
>>69382793
>>69383003
>>69384454
>>69384497
Get the fuck out of here reddit commies
>>69386577
>In the "Hard working Aryans"
feels good man
>>69386391
I agree, but I was taking the example of tribalism because a small scale government isn't wrong as long as the individuals that comprise it make the DECISION to subject themselves to that small authority. It's their freedom. However if that government steps out and aggressively tries to assimilate individuals into it (like modern governments do), then it's oppressive. Am I being understandable?
>with ownership you supposedly have the rights granted to you
There's a cake I baked. I want to have it all for myself. Since there's no ownership, should I share it with you? Why?
Now there's a lake, or pond, or parcel of land or whatever which I didn't make myself but found out and decided to use for my own gain. If you suddenly come in and say you want a part of it because there's no property, how should I react?
>you are free within the limits of ouer rules,
What rules?
>money
It's a medium, but money comes from work.
>ownership
See above
>potential enforcement
On your side as well. Private militaries ensure peace.
>>69386535
this is why I am get along with the non-elitist libertarians, we have all a lot in common.
>>69386736
>>69386826
get a fucking safezone you echochamber loving faggot
>>69386577
crank and loon which I am both
Rate
>>69386557
In a free market, competition ensures a status quo, I don't understand how your scenario would work unless there was no competition in the first place, in which case the monopoly was legitimate.
>no it isn't
Not my problem anyway, why should I give away money to people against my will?
>What is nuclear proliferation
Dissuasive?
>Pain is real
That's not the point. Another person's pain is not as important as my own pain.
>Jamel just shoots you and takes your land
If he can. If I can't defend myself, then other people take my stuff. It's basic shit.
>it isnt anyone else's problem
No, it's not, why do you want it to be other people's problem? My life is my life and others' lives are their own.
How do I do?
>>69387403
>In a free market, competition ensures a status quo
Good one.
Once one company somehow gets more power than other, it won't have much problem taking majority of market in less honest methods.
god tier
>>69387058
i agree on the first part, we seem to be getting somewhere here
there is a simple rule to this, and its also enforced by natural law
as people cant occupy the same space as another person(physically) this too should be the rule when creating societies, they should not owerstep their boundries as created by their physical space.
As for the ownership debate, we just have to agree on the first part before i can go on.
Do you agree that ownership is a social construct and not one made by natural law?
If you disagree, how does the natural law account for ownership
ownership should only come as a consiquence of collectivism, as individuals without soceity should be able to act in a way that lets them do freely what they want. this means stealing is a part of natural law.
So ownership should only be a (positive) consiquence of collectivism, and as i explained above, it should also be limited to living space,
this means you cant own a fucking river just because you build a house next to it.
I went neutral on a couple of things because I felt they should elaborate. But voila
>>69388084
i think you spelled cucked wrong
how'd I do?
>>69388097
>Do you agree that ownership is a social construct and not one made by natural law?
The only natural law is that might makes right. Ownership is a natural consequence of that law, so I don't know what to tell you. If I decide that I want to cake for myself, I agree that you CAN try to take it from me and have a bite, but if I can stop you, then it's mine.
>ownership should only come as a consiquence of collectivism
Collectivism is dangerous because it leads to egalitarianism and that means the end of freedom. I hate the claim that we're all equal so I don't agree on that point.
>individuals without soceity should be able to act in a way that lets them do freely what they want.
Yes, that's right. But although you're free to try and take the cake from me, who baked it, I'm also free to stop you. It comes down to who's the strongest here, unless we find a common ground and agreement (but that's not always the case and shouldn't always be for obvious reasons)
>you cant own a fucking river just because you build a house next to it.
I see, so you're telling me that small scale ownership (owning that cake, owning weapons, owning a house...) are acceptable, but the ownership of something like a river or parcel of land is unacceptable? Why? Where do you draw the line?
If I can defend it, why couldn't I own it?
If you tell me I can't own it, aren't you limiting my freedom?
>>69379967
>>69379970
>>69382725
>>69388084
mah based greenbros
it's pretty funny browsing these threads and seeing how many people bought into the /pol/ joke and have genuinely been suckered into believing stupid shit (i'm looking at you, bluefags)
>>69388097
If you do not agree with the central concept of private property we cannot live in the same society. Even if there are one or two points of agreement.
Get off my damn property
>>69388701
im here for good laughs
gotta love angry young men
>>69388921
what the fuck
Took it a while back, still have the shot.
Probably am a little more authoritarian, little more conservative now
>>69387403
>In a free market, competition ensures a status quo, I don't understand how your scenario would work unless there was no competition in the first place, in which case the monopoly was legitimate.
Ever heard of the Mafia?
worst case scenario: all competition Ive already bought it out, or i hire my goons to "pay you a visit". Im the king, you're the peasant. This is easily possible, could be done in a few generations since theres no death tax, the wealth will keep stacking. Theres no level playing field when my son inherits a city, and you inherit shit all.
likey scenario
everyone has to pay protection fees to countless warlords,mafias, gangs while they battle for clay.
>That's not the point. Another person's pain is not as important as my own pain.
Is the other person pain import at all then? So i just shoot you anyway because das not my pain ryte.
>if he can. If I can't defend myself, then other people take my stuff. It's basic shit
So no consequences for violence. Nice principle.
Every single one of you disgusts me immensely.
Would have thought I was a bit further right than that...
>>69388921
Canada, the least hated nation.
authoritarians are cucks
>>69389099
I understand your point
But a mafia has competitors too. In the end, do you mean to tell me that a state is the only way to ensure monopolies are prevented?
>Is the other person pain import at all
Depends on your personal beliefs. I don't believe that a state should substitute itself to a person's beliefs
>i just shoot you anyway because das not my pain
Yeah
>no consequences for violence
Wrong. Consequences are enforced by whomever is getting his liberty and well-being compromised, not by a state, that's all
>>69388990
>>69388921
Did you answer "Neutral" to every single question?
>>69389451
>state is the only way to ensure monopolies are prevented?
State would have the monopoly.
Probably the only difference between state and mafia is that the state is kind of nicer.
>>69389617
>the only difference between state and mafia is that the state is kind of nicer.
So, you're making a compromise and picking the lesser evil?
Don't you think limiting monopolies would be easier without a state, if all entities were made private? It would be easier to reach a state of equilibrium if there were no regulations at all. Regulatory laws make it easier to weigh the balance favorably.
>>69377261
I got that exact result
Does this mean I'm a Bernie Cuck
>>69389870
>So, you're making a compromise and picking the lesser evil?
No, just saying.
>Don't you think limiting monopolies would be easier without a state
Then mafias come into place. Not all people are honest, hard-working aryans. You will always find a baddie with a gun, they will be called gangs, mafias or governments.
It's the same shit, really.
>>69388673
>The only natural law is that might makes right. Ownership is a natural consequence of that law, so I don't know what to tell you. If I decide that I want to cake for myself, I agree that you CAN try to take it from me and have a bite, but if I can stop you, then it's mine.
well it seems that we can agree here, basically i take the same stance, just that i dont call it "ownership rights" because there are no rights, its just force
the second point is kinda silly as egaliterianism can mean more then one thing, and im not up to defining that term aswell, looking at how hard it is for us to agree on the basic idea of freedom
but i suggest looking up equality of outcome and equality of oppertunity
As for the third point, yes i agree there too, but it all comes down to the acceptence of these terms and the acknowlagements that you arent living in freedom when you apply them to other people
So no matter how much capitalists claim freedom ,its nothing more then the shell of a concept compared to what it actually means (the ability to do what you want)
The last point should bring this expample to light
If i tell you that you cant own stuff you actually dont occupy (by the rules of nature we do occupy space by necessaty of being human, that is on a smal scale) I dont have any "rights" on my side, and unlike anarcho capitalists i dont claim that those rights are there when they clearly arent
BUT, what your doing should ilustrate to you that your infact creating a government, by owning property on large scales, you probably have to own armies protecting your property that you dont occupy, to hinder invaders from taking over. ect.
Thar river and your house, and the space around it, as infact become a government. And then all i can say is "congrats, you won" but dont come here and claim anarchism, or freedom
see the point?
when you talk about large scales, you are of course able, but you have to have the people, and by that point, its no diffrent.
>>69390233
>Then mafias come into place.
On both sides, though. Which means constant war, probably, but no winner.
>>69373039
>being from malta
>>69389451
>But a mafia has competitors too. In the end, do you mean to tell me that a state is the only way to ensure monopolies are prevented?
Yes, it must have a just, lawful monopoly on force. It has it flaws and its not ever going to be perfect, but its better than nothing.
>Depends on your personal beliefs. I don't believe that a state should substitute itself to a person's beliefs
Pain is not relative, its bad. You can choose to be a misguided cold hearted sob.
>>69390338
And normal people suffering, naturally.
World is brutal, the fact that here was no major war since WWII is quite a miracle.
Best corner reporting in
>>69379485
>http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Lmao you're a faggot.
>>69371544
>>69390756
No, this is best corner
>>69391041
>social leftist
Get a load of this cuck
I bet you prep the bull every night
I want Donald Trump to win as I suspect it'll pad the way to fascism.
If not Trump, Cruz is ok.
>>69390310
>there are no rights, its just force
Oh, yeah, I get it. But yeah it's the same shit.
Well, I disagree with the simple claim that equality exists at all. Since you believe in freedom and the law of nature, you should agree with me. The strong win, the weak lose, that's far from an egalitarian claim.
Equality of opportunity is tricky, I wouldn't say that everyone has to be treated the same way until an objective reason to treat them differently is found. You should always expect people to be biased. Furthermore, you can already decide how to treat a person loosely based on appearance and demeanor.
>by owning property on large scales, you probably have to own armies protecting your property that you dont occupy
That's complicated, isn't it. I said earlier that I viewed minarchic "tribes" as an acceptable form of government, so I'll have to say that owning a small army isn't against freedom. If my army is fucking over other people, then those people, as they want to protect their freedom, would defend themselves by forming a temporary alliance (or something else, whatever) based on the NAP, right?
That's an ideal situation. But yeah you've forced me into a corner here, I don't know if there's an answer to this
One one hand, complete freedom (thus the freedom of claiming anything as my own as long as I, and a group of followers, can defend it) would eventually lead to the formation of states UNLESS an opposing group of NAP-driven individuals stopped me.
On the other hand, a way to stop the formation of states would be to abolish property, but that's already a limitation of freedom because it creates an artificial law.
>>69391422
Are you an actual robot?
A fucking leaf
>>69391619
I am just not a very emotional person, I only care about effiency and historically speaking the core aspects of fascism are simply most efficient.
Because of this you'll sometimes see those who advocate for transhumanism and fascism in the same circles.
>>69377770
I'm leaning a bit more right
>>69391963
That's interesting. Not being very emotional leads to either extreme I suppose.
Still I'm impressed that you managed to land in the absolute top right corner of the chart, and get a clean 100% on every MBTI category
R8 me guys
>>69392909
8/10 just need more authoritarian.
>>69392270
Just a question, do you not see the inherent efficiency in authoritarianism? The only positives of communist regimes were pretty much just authoritarianism.
It is so efficient that many of the things created by the nazis are still used today. This is due to the inherent effiency of authoritarianism mixing with science.
I've read plenty enough of anarchist literature to see the viewpoint but I can honestly not see how freedom really benefits the society or people in any real tangible way.
The more I contemplate it simply seems freedom, democracy and the like are all ultimately just opiates for the people.
>>69382538
God damn commie
>>69371544
feels good man
>>69377261
>>69389915
similarbros
so we are just what, /pol/-leaning, pragmatic centrists?
>>69379914
you too
>>69386577
>tfw a freedom lover
>>69391507
the reason i disagree with the egalitarian claim is due to my view being that every person has a certain potential, and we are all equal in the sense that we have potential, This does not mean the same abilities, but it does mean that its hard to judge which abilities are better then others.
In my view its rather simplistic to say some are weaker and some are stronger, as this isnt even part of nature, because nature deals in adaptability, not force
as for the second part, there is an anwser, you accept true freedom (without ownership and government) and you accept that only smale scale ownership is actually secured by the laws of nature, as in "its not permanent and its based on your position in the world"
because as i said, we are bound to ouer physical forms, which is the only limitations we set on ouerselves and others when it comes to "ownership" , current ownership
As for the other point.
Let me suggest a diffrent way there too
As we now seem to agree on the definition of freedom, we also must not be scared of people coming together, because that is their right as free individuals.
And i dont hate the anarchocapitalist, i just dont like the misuse of terms just because they sound nice. Freedom is only reserved for the few individuals who truely want it.
So the people coming together are able to create any artificial law they want (which is the current state of the world) There are better ways to rule in terms of individual rights (republic, democracy, meritocracy with the rightly defined merits (common agreement) ect.)
and worse ways (monarchy, capital hirachy, which sadly capitalism has a way of creating ect.)
The main lesson to learn is that people should be given the oppertunity to go their own way, and of course you shouldnt limit the whole world based on nations and terretories that wont allow for individual freedom.
What you should do is be aware of the smal scale ownerhsip (a consiquence of real laws of nature rather then social rules)
RATE
>>69393168
There's no doubt that authoritarianism is efficient on a large scale, and arguably also on an individual scale, depending on the circumstances.
I agree with most of your statements, but to me, the individual is the most important. By that I mean that the individual is the most valuable thing, in the stirnerian "egotistical" sense (I am the sovereign of my own consciousness, etc).
Because I am an egotist in the ideological sense, I tend to put my own will above that of others and above what I consider to be unimportant or peripheral systems (the state, ethics, morals...)
Therefore, although I admit that authoritarianism is a very efficient way to run a complex society (I said complex, because small tribalist micro-states don't need it to be efficient), I place myself on the opposite side of the spectrum and subscribe to a libertarian/anarchist ideology.
I don't know if that was clear at all
>>69394006
Literally hitler
>>69393821
what i meant with the last part is that we currently have a state of the world which describes your first point
But your still an anarchist/libertarian because you think governments arent good, which by the sounds of it is because of their size and nature, so by that logic, you should continue forth and agree with my stance on the matter.
i wouldnt start this discussion with an authoritarian or collectivist, because they do not care for freedom, i only dicuss with people who care for it. And my intentions arent bad, i just disagree with the concept of capitalistc anarchism which seems ot be the ture oxymoron, despite simplistic people on /pol/ believing its the left libertarians who dont exist.
aim for the center and you can't go wrong.
>>69394011
>There's no doubt that authoritarianism is efficient on a large scale, and arguably also on an individual scale, depending on the circumstances.
Personally I believe in what I like to call totalitarian small government/petite totalitarianism
Basically make the hierarchy truly work and be efficient. The smaller government is in scale the better but it should have totalitarian capability at all times and all smaller aspects should be servant to the larger aspects.
To me this is the most efficient in both large scale and small scale, as small government is simply more efficient.
Akin to how a commander commands his soldiers, but the soldiers act in the way most efficient for their duty.
>agree with most of your statements, but to me, the individual is the most important. By that I mean that the individual is the most valuable thing, in the stirnerian "egotistical" sense (I am the sovereign of my own consciousness, etc).
This is a completely understandable opinion, however I subscribe to a view drawn more from Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. effectively the ego of a person isn't dissolved or removed by the collective but rather it is multiplied by them and its worth and power multiplied by that much.
effectively the state is the sum of all people, the state exists in the self/ego of all and vice versa. This spiritual view of the state is key to me personally.
But in any case I respect your position.
>>69393821
>every person has a certain potential
No, some people are clearly inferior and stay inferior. /pol/ is mostly memes, but they're right about that: some people are clearly vermin, others are clearly superior.
>we have potential
I guarantee you that some people have zero potential, and that you can figure that out with a few minutes of conversation with them.
>its hard to judge which abilities are better
What do you mean? Might makes right, which means intelligence, resilience (both intellectual and physical) and the ability to adapt and assimilate knowledge are the most important.
>nature deals in adaptability, not force
Adaptability is a part of being strong.
>you accept true freedom (without ownership
>only smale scale ownership is actually secured by the laws of nature
Where do you draw the line? I'm beginning to see, and agree, with your stance but it's not very clear in my mind. Where do you draw the line between "owning" my gun, my clothes, my house, my property, my slaves, my river, my parcel of land, my country...? Where do you stop?
>we also must not be scared of people coming together, because that is their right as free individuals.
I agree. Which is why I'm completely favorable to the creation of a multitude of small tribes that function as micro-states on a small scale. This would let individuals who want to belong to a community do so, and individuals who want to stay alone just do their thing or seek temporary and periodic shelter in one of those communities.
>Freedom is only reserved for the few individuals who truely want it.
Well yeah, of course. Those who don't want it will find a way to be enslaved
>republic
What do you call a republic?
>democracy
The 51% oppressing the 49%? No, please.
>meritocracy
Meritocracy and technocracy are far better yeah.
>>69394748
>your still an anarchist/libertarian because you think governments arent good
I believe freedom is the only worthwhile pursuit. A man who isn't free isn't truly living (a man who chooses to subject himself to slavery is free in his own way, but he has to be given the choice).
But yeah I just want you to elaborate more on your stance when it comes to ownership. I know you wrote a lot about it already, but as I said, it's not clear enough to allow for a real definition of "perfect" freedom.
>i wouldnt start this discussion with an authoritarian or collectivist
It would be interesting, though.
>my intentions arent bad
Never said they were, you made me rethink my opinion and that's cool
>>69379967
Is that you Noam?
>>69394994
>Akin to how a commander commands his soldiers, but the soldiers act in the way most efficient for their duty.
Sounds nice, but you need people who actually want to do something for the cause.
It's kinda hard to get such people today.
>>69394349
Why?
Just gonna post this
funny, because im a firm trump republican right-winger
>>69395926
That's why such ideology in power will always require immense pressure to keep people in line.
>>69395024
lets just skip the egalitarian discussion, as it mostly depends on the outlook on the world it seems, but let me assure you strenght=/=adaptability
and a fishs potential isnt the same as an elephants, buts its hard to judge which is best. all we do when we judge is telling them to both climb a tree, swim, or other spesifics, which the outcome entirely depends on the measurment.
The line is rather simple, the things you own are the spaces you occupy, so if you occupy a coat, you own it for the time you wear it, if you occupy a house, you own it for the time you use it. ect.
The overflow of garbage in the capitalist system is due to not following this principle,
ownership should be just like money, limited to space and time, not immaterial. Just like the rest of the real concepts (scientific concepts)
Look up selvio gisell when it comes to money, It isnt perfect, but its interesting.
is the line clear enough? Every good ideology uses clear lines rather then obscure ones, and every good ideology bases its concepts on science/nature
i agree on the rest.
But in defence of democracy, it needs to be looked at in the same way you look at a republic (constitution based)
The weaknesses of the republic are its static nature, so the consitution needs to be rewritten in times to ensure the public agrees with its principles, as things do change over time.
Democracies are much more flexible when it comes to this. And while i do agree with the 51-49 problem (which most people do) Its still the only way to vote if you are a collection of people and want to make a government. Because free individuals should be able to vote themselves into tyrrany, and the 49 should be able to leave if they dislike it.
In the grand picture, a democracy in a world where governments are smal and limited in their power, is actually working pretty fine, because scenarios like 51-49 will only make half of them leave or find a diffrent solution, as free individuals
>>69394994
I would understand your stance if you told me that you were for a totalitarian large-scale government, but why would you want to apply fascism (or any other heavily authoritarian ideology) to a small state?
I completely agree with your claim that the smaller the government, the more efficient it is. But why would you subscribe to minarchism if you realize that? How does the limitation of freedom allow for more efficiency in a framework that is already made extremely efficient by its small size?
If people share a vision, you don't need to command them, they'll do it anyway. If they don't share your vision, you need to find other followers.
>the ego of a person isn't dissolved or removed by the collective but rather it is multiplied by them and its worth and power multiplied by that much.
Well, that's one of the "pillars" of fascism, isn't it? It does make sense in a society where people would be educated and therefore respectful (which is made easier in a small society, indeed). However, I completely disagree with that view, because I think that the substitution of any "higher meaning" to one's ego goes against natural law.
To me, by saying that "the state exists in the self and vice-versa", you're saying that there is a higher meaning than the individual's ego, and that the ego is not satisfactory in itself without the presence of the state as a necessary spiritual complement. I really can't agree with that.
I do understand where you're coming from, though.
>>69395926
>>69396511
This is why I don't believe in free speech and I am completely and utterly ok with indoctrinating youth on a mass scale.
We indoctrinate every child in so many things already, even just the act of teaching a child a language is indoctrination into specific forms of thought.
