Children who played Bioshock and think the world is like Disneyland and everyone gets along.
Once you graduate high school and get a real job (not fast food or retail) then you'll understand.
I already knew i was an conservative libertarian. Pretty cool, considering i used to be a communist when i was younger
Americans think the political spectrum is binary: Right (JesusFreedomAmerica) and Left (CommieLiberalSocialist)
Most will happily vote for an authoritarian dictator like Trump just to distance themselves from gays
Genius solution: everyone should own a business!
Second genius solution: If you own a business, you're clearly better than everyone. You should have more rights! Afterall, business owners work the hardest, they're employees are lazy, amirite? If you don't have a business, you've got to be lazy!
This compass is far to small to be accurate, the closest ideology you could put me to would be social liberalism, but according to this compass im a "Taxation is theft" autistic screeching faggot.
Fairly accurate, though I would guess that I am in reality very slightly further to the "right" and slightly more "libertarian." Probably would consider myself a Syndicalist or Mutualist.
i initially worked a full time job for over a year to support the business.
my point is, you're wrong. purple benefits everyone. upper class, middle class, lower class, unskilled workers, skilled workers, small business owners, large business owners. everyone. you'll be on my side when you grow up. :)
half of those questions are reading like "are you stupid?"
idk what this means but im close to Stalin so thats cool in my book
At the cost of what again? The environment, healthcare, people's rights get stomped on because they have no voice, religious extremism unchecked, the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider, corporations take advantage and do sketchy things, should I go on? Short term gain shouldn't be instantly recognized as sustainable.
Feel like Americans don't realize that they're country is great. When I say great I mean that it's not simply just numbers/money. There's more to a country such as the environment, healthcare, transportation, safety, education, etc. If you limit your definition of a successful country to just balancing the budget, it'll never end. A politician will always be able to scare you into voting for them by scaring you about the economy and using smear campaigns about the other candidates.
Purple is the result of economic literacy and consistent application of valid philosophical principles. Anything else is either contradictory or stupidity.
are you even trying to be a worthy member of society
No libertarian forbids unions, which is the voluntary association between workers. What's forbidden is unions using the violence and coercion of the state in order to use force against businesses to bend to special interest groups.
I work in healthcare, I want to do humanitarian work. I guess I made bad choices because I realized there's something more to life than accumulating and worshipping money, right? Sorry, you'd never know that happiness. I make a pretty decent living being a healthcare professional anyways.
bullshit. you can form unions on your own dime.
corporations would have no power in a free market with a limited government. there would be no room for corruption, and they would be forced to compete just like everyone else. that's the beauty of it.
I already have a career and "grown up". But I guess you can't really say much other than, "anyone who disagrees to my basic understanding of people's socioeconomic status and what impacts it must be children".
Kinda sad actually.
because they couldn't throw money at politicians, or work the system. all they could do is offer the best products at the lowest prices. that's the beauty of a free market. limited government is necessary, though. its not a matter of one or the other, we need both.
>all they could do is offer the best products at the lowest prices.
You mean an unhealty as fuck sugar water that is gobbled up by the dumb masses, while destroying the rain forest for those nice cheap prices? Jesus... please look further than the 5 meters on front of you.
I don't know how I feel about being on the save x,y axis as Stalin.
I tought it would have been higher in the authoritarian part but still, pretty accurate
I have no idea where you get the idea from that Coca Cola and other shit companies like them would be inexistant in a completely unregulated market.
Look: I absolutely know that some aspects of free markets are great, and some sectors flourish under it. But there are many kinds of companies that would absolutely destroy earth if we'd leave them unregulated. That's why we need government regulations - good ones, that is, not neoliberal nonsense.
People can make informed decisions on what they buy, if the drink is too sugary people won't buy it, you don't like them destroying rainforests? People won't buy there shit if they want to save the rainforest and the company loses money then stop. If you're going to argue people are to stupid or uncaring to make these simple decisions on what they buy this whole civilisation thing was a sinking ship to begin with
>muh Austrian "Economics"
>muh Right-wing """Libertarism"""
>muh taxation is theft
>muh surplus value doesn't exissssstttttttt
Kek, kys fags-
this test is bullshit, im a stalinist and my score says im a faggot? fuck
>if the drink is too sugary people won't buy it, you don't like them destroying rainforests? People won't buy there shit if they want to save the rainforest
1) The drink is too sugary, yet people still buy metric shittons of it. Look at how fat Americans and Mexicans are. It's absolutely ridiculous.
2) It's really shouldn't be up to everybody personally whether or not they feel the rain forest should be saved. I cincerely hope you understand that this is something bad and must be stopped.
I've browsed this forum for many years and there's only a small handful of people as butt hurt as you. Go listen to pic related and chill out.
Are you retarded, buddy? I've named one very prominent example: Coca Cola (et al) are destroying the rain forest to make room for growing sugar canes (or palm trees, or life stock, ...). This isn't fear mongering, it's facts.
you first faggot
>1) The drink is too sugary, yet people still buy metric shittons of it. Look at how fat Americans and Mexicans are. It's absolutely ridiculous.
let people eat and drink what they fucking want to, asshole. stop trying to get the government even more involved in everyones lives. i need muh government to make decisions for me.
>2) It's really shouldn't be up to everybody personally whether or not they feel the rain forest should be saved. I cincerely hope you understand that this is something bad and must be stopped.
yes it is. if people don't like it, they can protest it, post about it on social media, and sue companies they believe are doing significant harm to the animals or people that live there. i'm against the government getting involved in terms of regulations. you should be too.
I dispute that the majority of people care enough to stay informed about their decisions for everyday matters.
In your argument you make the assertopm that free market capitalism is civilisation - I disagree with this. Yes people can exert influence with how they spend their money but that is only one of a number of influences on business and state practises.
ITT: People thinking that they know everything because they've read a few books or went to university. Now they repeat after said books or what they've been taught as if it's the truth. Make up your own mind, do your own research.
Good night, people.
> I dispute that the majority of people care enough to stay informed about their decisions for everyday matters.
that's on the people, not the government.
> In your argument you make the assertopm that free market capitalism is civilisation - I disagree with this. Yes people can exert influence with how they spend their money but that is only one of a number of influences on business and state practises.
in a free market, that is the only influence on business. how people spend their money. no crony capitalism or government intervenism. businesses sell, consumers buy. nothing but the free market in play. its a beautiful thing.
I really see where you're coming from but I still think it is much too dangerous to let the government choose and regulate what "must be stopped" because this is a very ambiguous term and can be taken advantage of. Look at the shitfest interfereing in most other countries gives us
Read solzjenitsyn then pic related.
this is the problem with people on the left. they have good intentions, but they are clueless on economics and government.
in the end, he's supporting what he thinks he's against. crony capitalism. damn shame.
guess my country
>I scored pic related on political compass
>yet my country is so leftist that most people I know actually think I'm right wing
>just today, I've been told I'm an extreme right... twice
>also I'm often seen as a libertarian b/c I claim there is too much regulations here
It would be interesting to have a dot cloud graph of all our results
Im always like this no matter how many times i take this test, going to try to take this test as retardedly as i can and ill post results
I always usually end up in the bottom-right quadrant whenever I take it. Answering each question from the view of "whether or not I actually agree, I'm not gonna make the government enforce it" puts you realllllllly far right and down
i think you meant me>>721141339 but i do understand shit and i have been a party member for 8 years. im sure there are some other tests that show more accurately where people stand but they dont have 4 fields in bright colors so that stupid people can understand them
But how people spend their money is more than just quality of products/service and value for money. As an example public representation is arguably more important than either of those things, just look at how many major web services are supported entirely by advertising.
Also there are significant issues with free markets including natural monopolies, price-fixing cartels and the misrepresentation of highly-technical goods to consumers that are not capable of understanding when they are being ripped off. Not that I think free markets are all bad, I just don't think that leaving everything to companies will result in a better system than the corrupt regulated markets present in the west now.
and yet 5 percent of the population are getting very wealthy and the rest are considered trash.
I reckon with today's standards that if it were still a colony, it'd be in a much better state.
despite being more libertarian I fucking hate liberals
leftists are on the left of the political spectrum, while liberals are just on the botton half of it.
you can be a social liberal (what you might call leftist), classic liberal (center) or neoliberal (right)
>Elected as a socialist
>Ran massive national infrastructure projects
>Funnelled funds to crony-companies (massive state intervention in markets)
>Bypassed international monetary system
It's not really the portrait of a diehard capitalist
Nobody wants "free" healthcare.
I want the tax dollars that get taken from me every year to get allocated to helping my community and my neighbors rather than to blowing kids up overseas for the purposes of creating extremists to sell weapons to.
>Elected as a socialist
>Ran massive national infrastructure projects
even capitalist countries have bridges
>Funnelled funds to crony-companies (massive state intervention in markets)
now youre just being a troll
>Bypassed international monetary system
as a measure to protect domestic industry
you forgot he had a moustache, that surely makes him a socialist
basically impossible. the only way this could happen is if the company was the absolute best at everything. best products, lowest prices, highest wages, buying out competition, etc. basically impossible, that's why its never been done in history. but even if it did happen, there would be nothing wrong with it. everyone would win.
monopolies are created by government.
wouldn't work in a free market.
>the misrepresentation of highly-technical goods to consumers that are not capable of understanding when they are being ripped off
this happens now, and is irrelevant. you are really grasping at straws now and its not working at all. you look silly.
o no, im a libtard
I'm in desperate need of a redpill.
not an actual capitalist like trump, i said capitalist hugger. german capitalists had nothing to fear from hitler unless they were jews, what hitler did was against some utopian rules of a global free market that only libertarians care about, not actual capitalists
from reading your post, i have concluded that you dont know the meaning of at least 3 of those words
A natural monopoly can easily form when a large enough company crowds out the market using anticompetitive tactics. Government intervention is not required for this to take place. There are some great examples of this in the USA in the early industrial period (more recent ones have more highly politicised accounts written about their practises that I would consider unreliable) such as the Standard Oil Company. Governments can act to improve or make the situation worse but the situation arises regardless.
How does the free market magic wand prevent cartels? An individual cartel might not last that long but they can cause serious harm to consumers in the short-term.
For highly technical goods you can look at the pharmaceutical industry as an example. Companies routinely promote negligibly-more effective treatments as if they were a huge improvement on the previous-best. This is when they are already having to follow a shitload of regulations designed to stop this practise. Could you explain to me how deregulating this industry would curb this practise?
If all you can do is dismiss without explaning the benefits of your point of view then you're conceding that you don't really know anything about the position you're trying to defend.
matches pretty well with my faggot views on OP's site
I didn't know 4chan was so full of liberal cucks
really impressed that you read everything marx ever wrote an concluded he is wrong on everything.
I think there should be a legal limit on how much wealth an individual is allowed to hold. They wouldn't necessarily have to be taxed to all hell but they would be required by the end of the tax year to spend until their assets were below a state-set threshold.
Hate me if you like but I really don't understand why people get such a hard on for the chance of fabulous wealth over the overall good of the community and environment.
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
that would make rich people buy something they could easily sell the next year and say they consumed. why not regulate incomes instead of wealth? that would be a more effective method of redistribution
I'm 18 years old. So what?
I think that all authority should be questioned and that people are more divided by class than by race or nationality.
>was 4 units left before reading the Communist Manifesto
>A natural monopoly can easily form when a large enough company crowds out the market using anticompetitive tactics.
anticompetitive tactics are part of doing good business. undercutting competitors is a part of business. know who its good for? the consumers. they get good product with low prices.
>There are some great examples of this in the USA in the early industrial period (more recent ones have more highly politicised accounts written about their practises that I would consider unreliable) such as the Standard Oil Company.
standard oil wasn't a monopoly, and it the fact that they were broken up shows how corrupt the government can be.
>How does the free market magic wand prevent cartels?
its not a magic wand, its called economics. you can't start fucking with prices or wages because competition is always there and will take your business at the snap of a finger.
>For highly technical goods you can look at the pharmaceutical industry as an example.
bad example. the pharmaceutical industry is a government owned industry. in the free market, the best product at the lowest price would rise to the top. its that simple.
>If all you can do is dismiss without explaning the benefits of your point of view then you're conceding that you don't really know anything about the position you're trying to defend.
and if you have no basic understanding of definitions, economics, and government, maybe you shouldn't be debating with people online.
you have no idea what you're talking about. building houses and property is going into the economy. buying houses and property is going into the economy. using bank accounts goes into the economy. all of those things gives people jobs.
also, say bye to a big chunk of investments and charitable donations if you keep taxing the rich. moron.
>keeping money in the economy
i get that but if the money that circulates tends to stick to those that are already rich, it doesnt get you far. wealth is just masked as high income
>all of those things gives people jobs
demand of the entire market creates jobs, not buying and selling houses
>if you keep taxing the rich
doesnt that "go into the economy" and create jobs?
>demand of the entire market creates jobs, not buying and selling houses
and a alot of rich people buy, sell, and build houses. they are a significant percentage of the market. therefore you are harming the economy when you fuck with them.
>doesnt that "go into the economy" and create jobs?
no, it gets wasted by the government on shit like welfare, overseas spending, meaningless federal spending, etc. all of that should be done with.
>and build houses
pretty sure those that literally build houses arent that rich. everyone else, the poor and those in the middle are also a "significant percentage", im sure they play a part in the economy
>no, it gets wasted by the government
rich people hoarding money is good for the economy but government spending money does nothing? and you really couldnt think of any better example of spending?
whats up with this roads bullshit? can someone please explain this?
>pretty sure those that literally build houses arent that rich. everyone else, the poor and those in the middle are also a "significant percentage", im sure they play a part in the economy
the rich have houses built is what i clearly meant.
>rich people hoarding money is good for the economy but government spending money does nothing? and you really couldnt think of any better example of spending?
most rich people don't hoard money, or else they wouldn't be rich.
reinvesting in their own companies, investing in startups, small businesses, and the stock market tremendously helps the economy.
also, who the fuck are you to tell people how much money they should or shouldn't have? such a typical liberal mindset. makes you look like a child.
Libertarians believe that everything should be free market, even something like roads. The idea is that private companies will build and maintain the roads.
If you don't like the service or the price is too high for one set of roads you are free to use another.
ANOTHER SET OF ROADS.
libertarians honestly believe that dozens of side by side sets of roads is the best and perfect economic system
He says he "hates roads" because here on planet earth, one company would build a road first taking up the land and since no one else can build a road there they have a monopoly and will leave the roads in barely working condition (very poor roads) because "fuck you, pay me. What are you gonna do without this shitty road?"
>the rich have houses built is what i clearly meant
and again, they dont actually build them, you missed my point again faggot. they are not the entire economy
>most rich people don't hoard money, or else they wouldn't be rich
>reinvesting in their own companies, investing in startups, small businesses, and the stock market tremendously helps the economy
they are not giving the money away, investments are capital accumulation and stock market is just capital trade, that doesnt "help the economy"
>also, who the fuck are you to tell people how much money they should or shouldn't have
sounds like you are the one telling poor people how much they should or shouldnt have