Let's have a political compass thread. https://www.pol

File: stirner.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340
Did it awhile ago.

File: badtouch.png (17KB, 262x246px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 262x246px

>>1951340

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340
>question on astrology
man this test is shitty.

Is /pol/ down or something?

File: minarchy and shit.png (142KB, 1042x554px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1042x554px

>>1951340
This test is superior
http://www.filteries.com/

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340
Feel free to rate

File: Political_Compass.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340

File: 1472068144767.jpg (48KB, 588x640px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 588x640px

Why don't you post the real one?

File: its shit.png (198KB, 1320x746px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1320x746px

>>1951829
It's shit

>>1951895
Post the other Trotsky one.

>>1951377
/pol/ is now Racewar and reddit screencaps.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340

>>1951928
>tfw /pol/ is actually just reddit and they only come to 4chan to post things they'd get banned on reddit for saying

>>1951928
And why does OP intend to make this like /pol/?

>>1951949
kek this one is funny tho kinda inaccurate

trigglypuff for example has nothing to do with actual leftist economics

File: 1478967030078.jpg (86KB, 506x506px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 506x506px

>>1951955
This better?

File: 1478236450198.jpg (122KB, 791x901px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 791x901px

>>1951340

I like this one the best.

File: 1472040704207.png (294KB, 737x450px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 737x450px

>>1951967
Yes post more

Who /finchtheoryofpolitics/ here?

File: 1478973813778.gif (1MB, 446x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 446x270px

>>1951980

File: my political compass.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

So am I like Gandhi or some shit?

File: 1478205745122.jpg (572KB, 2048x1916px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 2048x1916px

>>1952016
you're a degenerate

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1952034
What does that make me?

File: mfw everyday.jpg (31KB, 378x394px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 378x394px

>>1952034
A Degenerate?
Tell me something I don't know faggot.

>>1952034
A European welfare state without muslims, thank you :3
Seems like the only sane option on the chart.

>>1952056
I came to this thread to reply to this post in agreement.

>>1952046
That makes you very similar to me. Not sure exactly what it would fall under. I just call myself libertarian.

>>1952132
How the heck do you call yourself libertarian when you're economically in the left?
Or did you fall for the libertarian socialism meme?

>>1952161
Individual freedom and small government. What would you call where my dot lies?

>>1952161
There is something called left libertarianism.

Remember, property is founded on authority.

>>1952034
>A european state without Muslims

Finally a test that is able to properly classify me.

>>1952164
>Individual freedom
You don't have individual freedom when the government owns you. Also you say you want small government yet you're in the green square meaning social programs

Keep in mind the test has leftist bias so you might actually be further right.

>>1952179
True. And I do see value in limited social programs. I also answered by teetering on ideal government size while also answering liberally. I wasn't consistent I don't think.

>>1952166
>property is founded on authority.
Yeah so? You don't need the government to "protect" you.

>>1952197
And by ideal government size I mean as small as possible while retaining some market regulation and social programs, but by completely removing them from personal choices etc.

File: Political Compass v2.png (6KB, 680x400px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 680x400px

This has been a few years in the making

>>1952224
Glad you got off the weed

>>1952226
I unironically started dabbling in the green after my commie phase

>>1952267
This is excellent.

File: trash.jpg (3KB, 76x86px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 76x86px

if you are outside of this shape (roughly), your political leanings are wrong

>>1952355
>If you're outside of this shape your views are autistic
Ftfy

File: ishygddt.jpg (46KB, 394x370px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 394x370px

>>1952355
>centrists
>any year

>>1951976
>libertarian under anarchist
W E W
E
W

>>1952355
>I cant respect differences
/pol/fag plz go

>>1952355

looks like a Piet Mondrian painting

>>1952179
We need a government to keep businesses in check. They should stay out of the lives of individuals for the most part, although there's value in having police around to handle cases of theft and violence. Traffic cops and other revenue generating bullshit need to go, though.

As far as social programs go, a minimum income is necessary in order to put workers on even footing with employers. If employees can't quit voluntarily because they'll lose their houses and their families will starve but can be fired at any time for just about any reason, all of the power is with the employers and they can continue to price fix the job market as they've been doing for the past 200 or so years.

>>1952355
Anything outside this is temporary and never lasts before it collapses in one way or another.

>>1951369
That question is derived from the F-scale test tho

>>1951976
According to this I'm an anarchist, even though I'm a pretty hardcore statist. I don't get how you can be free from coercion without a state or security. I also believe that some forms of property are inherently coercive and economic security is required for economic liberty. I see liberty as the goal but security as necessary for it. Without security there is no liberty.

>Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.

Why does this test have loaded questions

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1952400
Forgot chart.

File: TIPS.png (18KB, 489x501px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 489x501px

Well now I feel like a fucking fedora tipper

>>1951980
Ehat the fuck is this

>>1952377
The thing is though that governments are prone to corruption and the more social programs, the bigger the government and then the more corruption. And corruption is one of the reasons of poverty. Another reason is welfare programs.

By eliminating taxes and regulations the middle class will thrive and the rich companies will stay since there aren't that many taxes and regulations. Remember rich companies now may be corrupt but they also provide people with jobs. With smaller governments, the less corruption there is and the competition increases forcing rich companies to offer affordable prices for their products and better salaries for their employees.

In the end everybody becomes more wealthy and for those that still are in poverty charities can help them.

Minimum wage may seem advantageous for the poor but it really isn't. When you enforce a minimum wage then a company that had say 10 low wage employees will now have to sack some of them since it can't afford or it's not profitable anymore to pay them. Also if you raise the minimum wage to say 15 dollars per hour then it means that the inexperienced guys without any previous jobs that normally would have worked for 6 dollars per hour will not be able to find a job. If you're a company why would you hire an inexperienced guy for 15 when you can hire an experienced one for the same wage.

So with minimum wage all you manage to do is create more unemployment.

If employees are going to lose their house if they quit then it's their fault for getting into debt. Why did they buy the house in the first place if they could't realistically afford. By not protecting them you make them more responsible where they don't have to rely on the government to take care of them.

And even so with the free market there's competition so there will be lots of companies around to find new jobs. And if they're really going to starve then that's what charities are for.

>>1952380
>Libertarian governments lasting for any period of time before collapsing or being coopted by authoritarians
I can't think of a single time this has ever happened in all of history.

>>1952434
>Thinking business aren't equally prone to corruption
>relying on charity, which is even more susceptible to corruption

>>1952434
>The thing is though that governments are prone to corruption and the more social programs, the bigger the government and then the more corruption. And corruption is one of the reasons of poverty. Another reason is welfare programs.
There's an incredibly low level of bureaucracy and low chance of corruption for likes like universal income.

>By eliminating taxes and regulations the middle class will thrive and the rich companies will stay since there aren't that many taxes and regulations. Remember rich companies now may be corrupt but they also provide people with jobs. With smaller governments, the less corruption there is and the competition increases forcing rich companies to offer affordable prices for their products and better salaries for their employees.
Everything works out because reasons.

>Minimum wage may seem advantageous for the poor but it really isn't. When you enforce a minimum wage then a company that had say 10 low wage employees will now have to sack some of them since it can't afford or it's not profitable anymore to pay them. Also if you raise the minimum wage to say 15 dollars per hour then it means that the inexperienced guys without any previous jobs that normally would have worked for 6 dollars per hour will not be able to find a job. If you're a company why would you hire an inexperienced guy for 15 when you can hire an experienced one for the same wage.
Creative destruction, zombie firms, etc.

>If employees are going to lose their house if they quit then it's their fault for getting into debt. Why did they buy the house in the first place if they could't realistically afford. By not protecting them you make them more responsible where they don't have to rely on the government to take care of them.
Everyone having to self-insure, and operate without insurance is bad for the economy. This is why our banks our insured, there is options trading, investment markets, futures trading, etc.

>>1952434
>And even so with the free market there's competition so there will be lots of companies around to find new jobs. And if they're really going to starve then that's what charities are for.
Charities do a shit job getting people back in the work force, and once you are homeless it is extremely difficult to get a job and get your life started again. Libtard free market is stupid, because the original definition of free market is a market free from economic privileged, not a market free from the government. Government regulation, like anti-trust preventing mergers and breaking up monopolies can promote competition. But the libtard will always claim they're impossible without the state. The reason why monopolies that exist are state approved is because they must be state approved to exist. If they aren't then they're not allowed to exist. That's different from states causing monopolies.

>>1952442
>Thinking business aren't equally prone to corruption
I never said that they aren't, but since there's competition people are more willing to work, trade and cooperate with companies that aren't corrupt. It's easier to combat corruption in businesses than in governments.

>relying on charity, which is even more susceptible to corruption
If there are no welfare programs then the demand for charities will increase and there will be competition between charities. The ones that are corrupt will get bankrupt.

>>1952456
The ones that have bad PR and bad advertisements/fundraising will go bankrupt.

>>1952456
>If there are no welfare programs then the demand for charities will increase and there will be competition between charities. The ones that are corrupt will get bankrupt.
>demand for charities
What what exactly does that have to do with supply when that demand is not economic demand and not backed by money? All you are saying is there will be more people trying to compete for whatever charity exists. You haven't provided and mechanism to increase supply. There's no economic mechanism to increase supply, because there's no profit in it. Charities aren't meant to be run for profit. Bankruptcy argument is stupid. The only thing that would drive supply up is people willing to give more. That's anti market principle. What the fuck are charities competing for? Donations? That doesn't increase the total amount of donations.

>>1952456
What this nigga said>>1952461 As if companies trying to be corrupt will show it off to the consumers

>>1952461
So if they have good PR and appear pretty clean but at some point there's a scandal about corruption you think people are still going to give them money?

In this day and age information can spread pretty quickly.

>>1952473
Yes. This literally goes on every fucking day

>>1952434
>If you raise the minimum wage to say 15 dollars per hour then it means that the inexperienced guys without any previous jobs that normally would have worked for 6 dollars per hour will not be able to find a job. If you're a company why would you hire an inexperienced guy for 15 when you can hire an experienced one for the same wage.

Wat. Companies would still have those employee preferences without a minimum wage anyways. All you end up arguing is that manpower is trivial and is a commodity that companies can do without even with the aim of expansion in mind.

>>1952434
>Minimum wage
I never said anything about a minimum wage. I said minimum income. I'm talking about $800 a month going into your bank account just for being a citizen. Once everyone has their basic needs accounted for, they can deal with employers on an equal basis, and there's no need for a minimum wage to exist.

The reason we tell employers that they can't offer $2.50 an hour as their standard payrate is because left to their own devices, they would do exactly that. And then you would be forced to work 60 hours a week just to eat, and you wouldn't be able to quit unless you were okay with not eating. And even if you did quit, there would be nowhere to go, because everywhere else would be offering $2.50 an hour as well.

But if no one was worried about their immediate survival and work was something people did to fund their hobbies, then they could afford not to take that $2.50 and wait for a job that isn't bullshit.

And I know you're going to freak out about freeloaders, but consider this: very few people are going to opt out of work because even basement dwellers like computers/cars/guns/sports/whatever and will want an income to fund that. Plus, work is enjoyable when you're not stressing over money and working three jobs so you never get to see your family.

And as for where the money comes from, simple. We go back to a profit tax on businesses and eliminate all other taxes. So instead of taxing the same money multiple times when it comes in as revenue, when it goes out as payroll, and as it's used for purchases, everything gets taxed a single time with a single flat rate, and surplus taxes are returned at the end of the year. Easy peasy. No loopholes and rushing to file and people not able to pay.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x400px

And yet I always vote for right wing parties.

File: chart[1].png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340
This test has a lot of really stupid questions. You should go look for better ones.

File: Capture.png (6KB, 720x110px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 720x110px

Is disagreeing with pic related considered right wing? Because marxists would strongly disagree.

>>1952896
What? Don't try to force yourself to become Right wing or a Marxist. Just answer the question however you believe it is.

>>1952896
Disagreeing with pic related is considered "correct".
That's not even a fucking opinion, there are literally standards by which "civilization" is defined, and there's no getting around it.

>>1952908
I answered what i think, i'm not forcing anything, i'm just curious since i don't think the answer relates to a specific ideology. And the question depends on your interpretation of "civilized" anyway.

>>1952908
Anon isn't asking that. Anon's asking how that question would be projected onto the compass in terms of the left-right dichotomy.
>>1952896
And yes, agreeing with that places you 'left', regardless of Marx's writings on non-industrial states, because it's a fucking vapid internet quiz which attempts to project politics onto a 2d paradigm (which is hard enough to do in tediously long essays).

File: politics.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

Pretty accurate fampai

File: my political compass.png (14KB, 480x539px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x539px

Test needs to be much more comprehensive.

File: 15ea977182184a14a36ec6218b5a6a9a.png (20KB, 478x520px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 478x520px

>mfw I'm "far-right"
>mfw I have no face
one of the world's 17 Strasserists reporting in

>>1951346
Stirner would be bottom right. Libertarian left is literally run by pure spooks, and would make humans his property.

>>1952973
This is especially true, because the test places most people in the libertarian left when that doesn't actually exist.

>>1952973
>>1952977
Hello yes I believe in naíve utopianism and here's why the communitarian variant of my naíve utopianism is naíve and incorrect

>>1952977
Wut
Being for state regulations on private capital and heavy taxation while supporting social liberties and safety nets isn't a thing?

>>1952983
No i'm serious, the entire libertarian left is a meme. Nobody is going to do social ownership without being forced too. The test is bias by some turbo hippie that places gay rights in the same test as realpolitik questions.

>>1952998
>heavy taxation
>state mandated regulations and safety nets
>libertarian
hurr

>>1953009
More like the right libertarian side is a meme, you're just privatizing the state and enforcing the hierarchical structures. There's nothing libertarian about it.

>Nobody is going to do social ownership without being forced too.
Catalonia.
>b-b-but what if i don't want to participate?
You'd be given enough land to survive.

>>1953017
>catalonia
>where peasants lived the same nomatter who's elite

>you'd be given enough land to survive
I don't think you understand how this works. If they don't want to give you their money, they won't.

File: IMG_20161113_212103.jpg (91KB, 958x192px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 958x192px

Why the fuck do they still have this question?

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

I always end up here. It's a bit too basic.

Are there any other poltical survey sites?

File: ptests.png (340KB, 2172x1482px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 2172x1482px

:^)

>>1953009
>Nobody is going to do social ownership without being forced to
well, that's like, your opinion?
As the other anon said, the autonomous communes in Catalonia are a good example of such, as well as the autonomous communes in the Ukraine during the civil war, or even smaller examples of various syndicates in France/Italy, or co-operatives in Britain, Germany, and Scandinavia - which still survive to this day.

>>1952973
>Stirner would be bottom right
except the libertarian right is filled with spooks too, such as private property

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

dammit I wanted to be on the right, not left

>>1953043
wew lad, be carefull with that sharp edge

>>1953058
>i want to be rightwing because thats cool on 4chan right now

idiot

>>1953069
>nationalism is now edgy

>>1953076
Ultrareactionaries are just as edgy as their ulraprogressive counterparts.

This is not necessarily a bad thing on either count, but edgy nonetheless

>>1953043
>abortion
>only when life danger or rape
I never understood this position. Either the fetus is considered a human baby and abortion should always be forbidden (you wouldn't kill a baby because he is the result of rape), or it isn't and abortion should always be allowed (why not abort even if it wasn't the result of rape? it's not a human baby). Any intermediate position makes no logical sense to me.

File: the best.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>in /his/
>not being fascist
get out degenerates

>>1953076
>nationalism is now edgy
Yeah...?

File: Political Compass 13_11_16.jpg (213KB, 939x942px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 939x942px

I used to be more libertarian last time I took this.

File: 1393216825409.png (728KB, 798x1000px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 798x1000px

>caring this much about herd politics
I'm disappointed in you, /his/.

>>1953101
You need more authoritarianism m8

All these two-axes political charts are 100% bullshit

there should be a third axis, with materialist on one side and transcendalist on the other

perhaps a forth with primitivist and technologist too

File: Political_Map[1].jpg (112KB, 742x586px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 742x586px

>>1953133

>All these two-axes political charts are 100% bullshit

How about this?

>>1953142
>>1953150
Differences between political ideologies are qualitative, not quantitative

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

Every time I take this test I'm in the goddamn center does this mean I'm a mature person with an open mind or a child without any real political stances

File: tmp_32467-7vddc1ii0-443435305.png (96KB, 1375x729px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1375x729px

>>1951340
Is this accurate?

>>1953098
you're far from fascist

File: test 14.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

who else /filthy pinko/ here?

>>1953222
Yes.

>>1951340
WELL DONALD TRUMP WON THE ELECTION ON THE USA, WE IS GONA GET RID OF MEXICANS, BLACK PPL AND GET PPL, AND AFTER THAT MAYBE HIS LIL BRAIN WILL TELL HIM TO GET RIDE OF THE INTERNET AND ANON COMUNITY AS WELL AS THEY ALMOST MADE WITH WIKILEAKS AND TBP, SO THERE IS NO BALANCE IS ONLY ONE POWER TO THE RIGHT AND TO THE BLUE

lets not. gb2/pol/.

>>1952369
>respects different opinions
>asks those with different opinion to leave
pick one turdlette

>>1953302

Tolerance is implicitly two-way. Someone who can't tolerate differences cannot himself be tolerated.

File: centralist.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340

>>1953304
This is untrue. Tolerance can easily be taken as a personal virtue such that I can tolerate my neighbors even as they act on their own intolerance.

>>1953314

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. The point being it's not at all hypocritical to be "intolerant of intolerance."

>>1953306
good man

authoritarian centrist here

Get ready, nazis. Day of the rope includes you.

File: 1460104658631.gif (891KB, 325x252px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 325x252px

>>1953337
>authoritarian centrist

>>1953344
you'll be first, rebel

File: crowdchart.png (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

This chart is way too biased.
I should be in coordinate B, but I'm put on in coordinate A according to political compass.

>>1953361
What was originally in the libertarian left square?

File: political compass.png (21KB, 415x406px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 415x406px

Opinions on this?

>>1951980
Who /finchbutt/ here?

>>1953365
>I should be in coordinate B, but I'm put on in coordinate A

Why "should" you be?

>>1953327
If your argument relies on tolerance being "implicitly" two way then it matters - because tolerance is not implicitly two way. I also honestly don't believe that "two way" is even what you mean to say. Two way tolerance would mean that those who I tolerate must tolerate me and vice versa whereas what you are saying is that we must tolerate all and only those who tolerate others - except if we did this we wouldn't have to tolerate you, and if we did that we wouldn't have to tolerate ourselves and so on endlessly because (as I think you'll see now) to put such a self referential caveat on tolerance is to make it fall into self contradiction.

File: uk2015.png (59KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x400px

>>1953375
Because it puts me on the center of the economic left-right axis while I would consider myself to be on the right.
Also, because the political compass uses stupid as fuck questions, if you couldn't already tell.
The test is designed to put almost everybody on the green square, and then they post this kind of images on their site.
They are basically telling everyone to vote green and see everybody else as fascists or something.
From all the alternatives on this chart, I would be somewhere between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and that's nonsense according to the compass. First, they put me closer to the green square, then they put all the alternatives closer the the blue square. It's excessively biased.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>1951340
>https://www.politicalcompass.org/

>>1953370
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1172117-political-compass

File: polcharacter.png (72KB, 1400x645px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1400x645px

>>1951340

>>1953393
>Because it puts me on the center of the economic left-right axis while I would consider myself to be on the right.

Has it occurred to you that maybe your cultural identity as "right wing" doesn't match your actual beliefs about policy?

>>1953471
Except it does. The question themselves are incredibly biased even.
I mean, you don't have to be a genius to realize that, the test places political parties further to the right than you think they are, and puts you further to the left than you think you are. They are obviously pulling you towards the left square.

>>1953482
>Except it does.

How so? I assure you it's possible to end up all the way on the right side, so clearly you greatly disagree with those who do.

>>1953512
It definitely is possible, but very, very unlikely.
Look at this chart >>1953393 and ask the Conservative supporters to answer the chart. I guarantee you that the average won't be above (+5,+5).
The political compass is immensely retarded.

>>1953526
or maybe you are retarded

>>1953534
Yeah, because trusting the political compass to determine your political beliefs is way more reliable than your own research. You are the retarded one.

>>1953482
>I mean, you don't have to be a genius to realize that, the test places political parties further to the right than you think they are, and puts you further to the left than you think you are. They are obviously pulling you towards the left square.

Nope, I thought I would be in the center of the green square, but it put me on the bottom at the green/purple line.

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-11-13 19:33:45 Post No.1953708
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2016-11-13 19:33:45 Post No.1953708 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/98328930