What's your political orientation /r9k/?
Ancap master race here. But maybe an ultra limited government only dealing with defense would be OK too.
Anyone left should kill themselves desu
right libertarianism still promotes taxation, just a limited form that only goes to pay for what it thinks is absolutely necessary for the government to do, usually ensuring strong military security from outside threats
Strange. I thought I was more a right libertarian.
It's not a uniform set of beliefs, there can be variance among left libertarians on this issue, just like in any of the other three quadrants.
this chart serves more as a general set of ideological beliefs, not as a well defined party platform
you feel like linking that bud?
Left-libertarianism is the belief that the government should intervene to prevent inequality (passing laws protecting gays in the workplace), buy should not intervene to impose inequality (by not passing regressive tax plans)
Right-libertarian is the belief that the government should not intervene to prevent or impose any inequality
what political belief does a belief in astrology correlate with rofl
also I'm pretty far right, and answered in favor of capitalism on most questions, I still got left libertarian
what in the world
I call myself a commie to trigger /pol/, buy I'm really just a liberal who is more concerned with invoke inequality and corporate greed than legalizing weed or ending every instance of police brutality
Most liberals are essentially distracted by these softball issues
I would be fine with the death penalty if it meant we knew 100% that the person had committed the crime but cases keep coming up of people who have been put to death and then acquitted. Can't support something which could mean innocent people get killed
Pic related is my results using the test from "thepoliticalcompass".
Anyone got the link to the test OP used ?
Found it anyways, so i'm posting the (original) result.
Fuck you and your shitty governments. Governments exist only to serve the weak, or grow into autonomous entities that serve themselves. As for so-called civilization, this is nothing more than a means by which to force people into conforming into a uniform set of ideals - often some dogmatic or sectarian bullshit that drives ideologically different nations into senseless conflicts.
Unless you can remove humans from the equation, governments and human societies will always be fallible and destined to failure, because human nature itself is fallible. How can anyone honestly believe that we can depend on laws to protect us from our own horrible nature when we're the ones writing them?
the questions are pretty shit
this is retarded
I think a strong military is important cause I ain't bout being invaded by Russia and shit, and I am slightly patriotic because I think my country has pretty good values and shit. LITERALLY because of these two it put me close to national socialism, when I am closer to a democratic socialist. This shit is retarded.
Limited regulation, the taxation that does exist is still directed towards fixing inequalities in society.
Not really. You can spend your money on whatever you want, so long as you give a small percentage of it to the government so they can spend it on hospitals. That would approximate one of the left-libertarian positions.
There's also arguably a case to be made for liberty for the greatest number - i.e. a mid-size government regulating large-scale enterprise to a degree approximately similar to what we see today, but with far less regulation in people's personal lives and in the running of small scale businesses. This wouldn't be 'true' libertarianism, but relative to present society it would still be pretty libertarian.
>I do not understand progressive taxation
>take the test
>they call me ANCOM
FUCKING NIGGERS, BURN THIS SITE
Edgy commies or natsocs with no understanding of the political process. Usually harmless in the modern world because their ideology is discredited. [Unelectable]
Establishment shills, people who don't desire significant changes. Most mainstream parties find themselves somewhere in this area. [Electable]
Business shills, people who don't understand the behaviour of crabs in a bucket, people who overestimate their own competence. Occasional good policies from reversing authoritarian policies imposed by the above. [Unelectable, may join authoritarian right party and sacrifice social-libertarianism for fiscal-aid to the rich.]
Idealists against madmen and shills, occasional naive pot smoker, ultimately forced to vote for a slightly less shitty authoritarian right candidate anyway. [Unelectable, may join authoritarian centre-right party and try to compromise their way towards some desirable policies.]
>not being on the extremes of the scale
I have no respect for centrist pussies. They don't know what they want, so they fuck around in the middle, standing for nothing and yet calling the people that do "too extreme." I'm far-right but I respect extreme leftists to a degree, because at least they're committed to something.
This is shit.
>you firmly believe in a non-hierarchical society
>you favour collectively owned property
>you hate big government
>not being a ruthless centrist, implementing what works instead of what your ideological leanings suggest
realpolitik > strictly coherent ideology. things like lenin's 'new economic policy' (reintroducing small scale capitalism) may not be ideologically sound, but they worked, which is much more important.
name one instance where this form of politics was successful.
Wow, honestly thought I was gonna be placed around center left. I'm not complaining though, this is pretty accurate actually
>it necessitates a massive and authoritarian state
Except that it doesn't.
The size of the state is largely irrelevant, but one can have a small state that still provides social welfare programs. It won't be as small as physically possible, but it will certainly be small.
Left-libertarianism could also forego the state and encourage co-operatives run by workers with the traditional right-libertarian night-watchman state. The co-operative element would be left-wing, while leaving most social services to private businesses run under such models would be right-leaning. This is arguably more centrist, but could conceivably be the ideal of a left-libertarian. (indeed, it's the closest to functional communism I can imagine.)
>believe in free markets regarding regulation, but am pro-taxation (not as in higher taxes, just as in supporting their existence and use for social benefit like education as ultimately it helps the economy as well as improving human happiness.). could see a case for allowing one to opt out of taxation if they also opted out of society (i.e. business opting out of tax can't higher public-ally educated workers) to offer as many options as possible.
>can neither be friends with left-libertarians (usually anti-market) nor right libertarians (usually anti-taxation)
I wish I understood enough about the economy and politics in general to be able to justify my views. How do I become politically-honed, lads? Hard mode: no /pol/, Reddit, Tumblr, Stormfront, or any other extreme/far-leaning place.
Lasted less than 3 months.
It it theorically moslty libertarian municipalism, not anarchism. Also, this region is perpetually at war and currently pretty much ruled by the militias.
It's not really agreed upon what left and right even mean in the context of politics. The graph shown uses left and right as purely economic markers, so a left libertarian would be someone who believes in a controlled economy but free society. A right libertarian is a 'true' libertarian as they believe in both a free economy and a free society, which is why many right libertarians would argue you can't really be a left libertarian as people aren't free if the market isn't.