Poltical Compass

[Anonymous No.9280654]

ITT

Post your political compass result and others recommend a book suited to your standing

[Anonymous No.9280676]

[Anonymous No.9280679]

>>9280676
Bump I did it a while ago and I got the exact same result

[Anonymous No.9280699]

There are so many terrible questions on politicalcompass.org

[Anonymous No.9280701]

>>9280654
No.
You didnt even drop a link.
Bye.

[Anonymous No.9280702]

>>9280654
Life in Montréal

>>9280676
Life in Dallas

[Anonymous No.9280704]

>>9280654
mein kampf

[Anonymous No.9280705]

huh

[Anonymous No.9280711]

>>9280699
Like?

[Anonymous No.9280716]

>>9280711
Dislike.

[Anonymous No.9280773]

[Anonymous No.9280782]

[Anonymous No.9280872]

>>9280654
>>9280773
>>9280782
Libertarian Left unite!

[Anonymous No.9280873]

[Anonymous No.9280878]

>>9280872

Hello friend

[Anonymous No.9280880]

>>9280872
I'd say im more dirtbag or unaligned left but yeah whatever. What books are good comrade?

[Anonymous No.9280882]

I'm a king George

[Anonymous No.9280891]

>>9280880
Daniel Quinn - Ishmael
Kurt Vonnegut - Cat's Cradle
1984

[Anonymous No.9280897]

There's too many leftists on this site.

[Anonymous No.9280903]

>>9280882
The Republic

[Anonymous No.9280904]

>>9280897
Kys cryboy

[Anonymous No.9280911]

Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

>>9280904
no u commie faggot

[Anonymous No.9280916]

>>9280654
Keep this spooky garbage on /pol/ thanks

[Anonymous No.9280921]

>>9280916
>le memes are bad man
>is a meme himself
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.9280923]

>>9280921
>>le memes are bad man
whom's't quotethe doth

[Anonymous No.9280926]

>>9280921
>100 IQ posters only thanks

[Anonymous No.9280927]

>>9280923
>spooks of the mind
>not referring to memes
?

[Anonymous No.9280930]

>>9280927
a meme is only becomes a spook if you let yourself be memed

[Anonymous No.9280931]

>>9280927
The point is believing in any such thing as political identity is naive babby shit.
I know you want to feel like you belong to something and your opinion matters but /pol/ will serve you better for that

[Anonymous No.9280939]

>>9280931
A person automatically thinks their opinion matters if they think they belong to something?
How?
>>9280930
I see, so memes exist but only become a spook if the meme is memed into your being through a memer?

[Anonymous No.9280944]

>>9280882
Why is right-libertarian just George smoking, should be this

[Anonymous No.9280947]

>>9280944
>libertarians
>successful businessmen
pick one

[Anonymous No.9280951]

>>9280947
What is America?

[Anonymous No.9280952]

>>9280939
I didn't state the two as a following proposition.
Regardless yes it reduces the intellectual project as some silly factionalized game in which the people here are merely orientating themselves around the ideology of our given epoch rather than any sort of attempt towards self and ideological understanding.

[Anonymous No.9280957]

>>9280952
Wait, people don't self reflect to understand why they think x is the correct opinion to have on a subject?
Because I call bullshit, no one can be that ideologically blind.

[Anonymous No.9280961]

>>9280957
Post studies that show that political reflection brings you closer to truth.

[Anonymous No.9280969]

>>9280872
Am I Left enough to join the cool kids?

[Anonymous No.9280972]

>>9280957
When the project becomes transformed into a game of oppositions yes it radically reduces the tendency in order to reflect and instead just operate on the basis of pure spite and denial. As becomes of defensiveness in any situation.
People prioritize their "team" over the truth and falsely believe they hold some loyalty towards their position rather than the position itself merely being a contingent and temporally dependent framing of your desired expression within an arbitrary set of ill-defined binaries.

[Anonymous No.9280973]

>>9280951
A rigged game
Real libertarians are shady people who make shady deals with governments in order to exploit and avoid taxes as much as possible, while establishing monopolies.

Shady George smoking cigarettes while grinjing like a madman is a good representation of it.

[Anonymous No.9280976]

Nazi punks fuck off

[Anonymous No.9280984]

>>9280969
Yeah. All left of liberals welcome at the cool kid table

[Anonymous No.9280990]

>>9280973
Real libertarians support government intervention and economic policies?

[Anonymous No.9280997]

>>9280990
Depends on who's being intervened :^)))))))))

[Anonymous No.9280998]

>>9280973

The only monopolies that exist today are government enforced, like education, airline transportation, telecommunications, or the utilities industry. These monopolies are enforced with competition killing government regulation which is why big government a billionaires wet dream.

[Anonymous No.9281002]

>>9280998
>this is what the classcucked actually believe

[Anonymous No.9281003]

>>9280990
>I don't care about all the libertarian businessman and politicians in the US, I only care about dictionary definitions!
Stop being so divorced from the real world.

>>9280998
lol

[Anonymous No.9281010]

>>9280961
>he thinks the """Truth""" can be known
cute :3

>>9280972
Mate just say "people stick to their own over the truth". There's no reason to elongate your shitposts, you're not in high school/college anymore.
Anyway, I still call bullshit, when faced with overwhelming evidence that is not fabricated or manipulated, or even a compelling argument as to why x opinion on y subject is wrong, people will change their stance on a subject.
Unless I've misinterpreted the word salad that you threw up over your keyboard.

[Anonymous No.9281011]

>>9281002

Go try and start a telephone company and see what happens. Tell me how fair it is.

[Anonymous No.9281014]

>>9281010
>he makes incorrect inferences

[Anonymous No.9281015]

>>9281003
But government intervention and economic policy are directly opposed to libertarianism. They both contradict free market principles.

[Anonymous No.9281017]

>>9281010
>people will change their stance on a subject.

Except when they don't as they often don't. The fact we have a man elected President who unironically claimed global warming was invented by the Chinese shows just what little regard truth has in the face of pure strategic allignment.
I suggest you need to start reading more if you think commitment capturing nuance in expressions constitutes a word salad. If I was to reduce my sentence to your particular choice of reduction much of the entire point would be lost, especially in rgeards to how people constitute who "their own" are and the mechanism through which truth becomes contrary to that priority.

[Anonymous No.9281020]

>>9281011
I love that this is your go-to example to show how unjust the world is

[Anonymous No.9281024]

>>9281015
>still believes in the market

[Anonymous No.9281027]

>>9281020

I gave you multiple examples. You can't start a gas, light, or electric company on top of the phone or cable/internet.

[Anonymous No.9281028]

[Anonymous No.9281031]

>>9281027
It's fucked up that I can't put bleach in the food I sell to poor people either. Man, fuck regulations!

[Anonymous No.9281036]

>>9281031

In 100% completely free and unregulated market you couldn't put bleach in food either because liability exists. A legitimate role of government is to stop people from harming each other.

[Anonymous No.9281041]

>>9281028
You are fifteen times more likely to live in poverty in a socialist country than you are in a capitalist one.

[Anonymous No.9281043]

>>9281031
Do you even read bro?

[Anonymous No.9281044]

>>9281036
>because liability exists

I can sell bleach, I can sell food, I'm not liable for gullible idiots eating bleach that happened to look like food

[Anonymous No.9281047]

>>9281036
Inequality is harmful

>>9281041
>socialist country
such as where?

[Anonymous No.9281048]

>>9281044

Okay and?

[Anonymous No.9281051]

>>9281043
do you?
>anyotherbookever.jpg

[Anonymous No.9281052]

>>9281048
So liability never exists unless there's an authority defining what you can be liable for. Defining liability in turn is a mechanism for controlling a market

[Anonymous No.9281053]

>>9281047
>Inequality is harmful

Inequality of opportunity, yes. Inequality of outcome, no. Some people are better than others.

[Anonymous No.9281056]

>>9281031
>having 2 cable companies across the US and having companies putting bleach into food is the same thing

You deserve these monopolies.

[Anonymous No.9281058]

>>9281052

Yeah, an authority like the judicial system. Kind of like how the system works now. Liability doesn't go away with deregulation.

[Anonymous No.9281060]

>>9281058
Liability is by definition regulation retard

[Anonymous No.9281061]

>>9281053
Certain outcomes should be guaranteed by the government.
No one is useless enough to deserve starvation, lack of medical care, lack of education and homelessnes.

Past that inequality is fair game.

[Anonymous No.9281063]

[Anonymous No.9281065]

>>9281053
>Some people are better than others.

Yeah especially when you retroactively define those who benefit from a system better and those who don't as worse

[Anonymous No.9281066]

>>9281053
but the better people will care about the outcome of (some) of the worse people

[Anonymous No.9281068]

>>9281053
Economic inequality necessitates inequality of opportunity

[Anonymous No.9281071]

>>9281017
I believe he was shitposting when he claimed that, though if you have any convincing arguments as to whether he believes that truly, I'm all ears, regardless of that however, is that the only issue to be considered when contemplating who should receive the Whitehouse between an Orange and a Banshee?
And I believe that going on for more than two sentences that can be summed up as "read more retard, ur wrong" as a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.9281073]

>>9281053
How do you justify private schools, universities and clinics then?

[Anonymous No.9281074]

>>9281047
Based on 42 data points gathered from official raw data in five broad categories (size of government, security of property rights, access to sound money, freedom to trade internationally and regulation) the most economically unfree (socialist/communist/command economy) nations are, as of 2016, Venezuela, Libya and the Dem. Republic of Congo. Data for Cuba, North Korea and the (now defunct) USSR is not available due to the highly secretive and authoritarian natures of these regimes but it is reasonably safe to say that these three would be the lowest during the years that they functioned as states.

[Anonymous No.9281076]

>>9281061
No one is useless enough to deserve starvation, lack of medical care, lack of education and homelessnes.

[Anonymous No.9281077]

>>9281061

I agree that nobody should be denied access to food or medical care and things like that but you can't say people have a right to those things unless you can force others to provide those for you. Nobody should have a right to my labor, or in other words, nobody should be able to force me to work for them. If I was a farmer you should have no right to walk on my farm and demand that I give my food to you just because you're hungry. But when you make these things a right that's essentially what you're doing. You have no right to walk up to a doctor and demand that he treat your corned feet.

[Anonymous No.9281079]

>>9281077
>my farm
what makes it yours

[Anonymous No.9281080]

>>9281076
>No one is useless enough to deserve starvation, lack of medical care, lack of education and homelessnes.

>I've got no sense of ethics
>also I trust the free market to dictates who deserves to starve and who doesn't

eheh

[Anonymous No.9281081]

>>9281071
You can sum up all of Shakespeare as people saying words. If you can't registed the surplus propositional content that requires such words and length then yeah you are a brainlet.
Regardless you're missing the point, its not a matter of whom anyone should have voted for its a matter of how attachment to political identification is antithetical to any serious intellectual commitment.

[Anonymous No.9281083]

>>9281077
>Nobody should have a right to my labor
So you must hate capitalism then since it relies on wage slavery, exploiting people of their labour.

[Anonymous No.9281085]

>>9281068

How is that? As a 5'6" manlet I have just as much of an opportunity to compete in the NBA as the 6"7' Tyrone but just because I'm not good enough to compete at that level doesn't mean the government should step in and force the NBA to let me play.

[Anonymous No.9281086]

>>9280897

crymore

[Anonymous No.9281087]

>>9281085
It's customary to put unrelated sentences in different paragraphs.

[Anonymous No.9281088]

>>9281085
>this is your brain on /pol/

[Anonymous No.9281089]

>>9281083

I don't see people freely choosing to work as slavery.

[Anonymous No.9281092]

>>9281085
You have the opportunity to try out for a team and then qualify, just like anyone else.

That was a terrible argument m8

[Anonymous No.9281094]

>>9281089
>freely

[Anonymous No.9281095]

>>9281089
Of course they would, it just has to be better than their other options

[Anonymous No.9281096]

>>9281092

>You have the opportunity to try out for a team and then qualify, just like anyone else.

Yes that's the point.

[Anonymous No.9281097]

>>9281089
Slave who "freely chose" to become one is still a slave. Many of them throughout history chose it because the only alternative was certain death.

Call that "freedom" is you like.

[Anonymous No.9281098]

>>9281077
>Nobody should have a right to my labor
Even if your minor contribution is what make society work? Even though that minor contribution is what enabled you to be a literate guy living in a technological society?

It's a minor compromise (you won't ever be forced to starve through taxation) that is inherently propedeutic to a healthy society.

>If I was a farmer you should have no right to walk on my farm
What makes you think that you have a right on that land? A piece of paper signed by a government that you don't want to fund? The fact that you may be able to defend it?

>I give my food to you just because you're hungry.
This could make sense in the 17th century. Nowadays we know for a fact that we have enough food to feed everyone. Taking some food from you doesn't mean that you will go hungry, it will just mean that every year you will have 5$ less.

>But when you make these things a right that's essentially what you're doing.
We're already feeding some of the poors, yet you don't see policemen raiding your houre at 3am to steal from you some soup.
Stop championing the absolutist, nonsensical rethoric of Rand Paul.

>You have no right to walk up to a doctor and demand that he treat your corned feet.
Do you think that this is what happens in Europe, for example?
If you think so you're completely divorced from reality, since you're so blinded by political propaganda.

[Anonymous No.9281101]

>>9281098

Just an FYI, I don't read posts that do this autistic greentext shit so don't expect a proper reply.

[Anonymous No.9281103]

>>9281098
>>9281077
>tfw you can't go walking through this beautiful landscape because it's privately owned by money men

Hail corporate

[Anonymous No.9281106]

>>9281096
Even if that argument did hold up, comparing people's livelihoods to competitive sports just shows how classcucked you really are

[Anonymous No.9281107]

>>9281101
Good man

[Anonymous No.9281109]

>>9281101
Greentexting would be something like
>hurr durr libertarianism

Those greentexts are just quotations of yours. My answer to those quotations are serious, sincere and respectful. I don't see why you shoud dismiss them.

[Anonymous No.9281112]

>>9281097

You can call anyone who works a slave if you want but it's not meaningful and it doesn't change anything. If you lived out in the woods by yourself you can choose to not be a "slave" under your definition and not hunt for your dinner and die of starvation or you can choose to become a slave and survive. Choosing to work for a wage doesn't make you a slave, it just makes you somebody who chose a different means of survival.

[Anonymous No.9281113]

>>9281109
Its still autistic, express your points in an encompassing paragraph like a serious person

[Anonymous No.9281114]

>>9281081
Mate, I'm saying that you're giving simple arguments expounded to 2 sentences and that it's a waste of time for both you and I. In turn, thinking that you need to expound your statements on a mongolian horsefucking forum is retarded, or at best misguided.
Now, why choose an incredibly poor example to illustrate your point in this regard? I believe that the largest issue on the voters minds was that of the shrinking job opportunities, and not that of climate change, in which case, why bring it up if it was not a so called "critical issue"?

[Anonymous No.9281116]

>>9281113
>people must write the way I want them to
you're the autistic one

[Anonymous No.9281117]

>>9281113
you're a retard

[Anonymous No.9281118]

>>9281114
They're as simple as you can register them to be, if two sentences are too difficult for your reading comprehension ability then you're the only one wasting anyones time here.

[Anonymous No.9281119]

>>9281116

You can write any way you want. I just won't read it.

[Anonymous No.9281120]

>>9281103
>tfw you can't feed your family because nature reserves are more important than agriculture

[Anonymous No.9281121]

>>9281112
It actually has a very specific meaning: not having ownership over yourself and your own labour. As an employer, BY DEFINITION, you get paid less that how much value you produce for your employer. Otherwise he has no need for you. If he pays you exactly the amount you're worth (the amount you deserve) then there's nothing in it for him.

[Anonymous No.9281123]

>>9281117
Nice argument

[Anonymous No.9281124]

>>9281119
>I'll use pedantry to show that I'm not autistic

[Anonymous No.9281125]

>>9281120
>tfw in order to feed your family you have to steal land from humanity at large, even if we already live in a post-scarcity society

Poor land-owners :(

[Anonymous No.9281126]

>>9281120
Fuck your family

[Anonymous No.9281127]

>>9281121

Can you prove the labor theory of value without fabricating a non-empirical definition of value?

[Anonymous No.9281129]

>>9281121
*employee

[Anonymous No.9281133]

>>9281124
>I should be able to do whatever I want and people should work around me or else THEY'RE autistic

[Anonymous No.9281134]

what did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.9281135]

>>9281133
dishonest

[Anonymous No.9281136]

>>9281125
>farming is theft
>scarcity doesn't exist
You're going to have to elaborate on these

[Anonymous No.9281137]

>>9281133
this would make sense if what that anon wrote was unreasonable or unreadable

But reading your first post, chances are that you're just baiting (which is an autistic action in itself)

[Anonymous No.9281141]

>>9281137
>unreasonable or unreadable

It is by my standards

[Anonymous No.9281143]

>>9281121

How is it slavery if you can choose not to work for somebody? Can you give me your definition of slavery because I'm under the impression that it means forced servitude.

[Anonymous No.9281145]

>>9281136
>>farming is theft
propriety of land is theft

>>scarcity doesn't exist
No, in the West it doesn't, even if there are still people starving.

[Anonymous No.9281148]

>>9280654
ITT: marxists still peddling their retarded economic theories.
Can you keep your 19th century pseudoscience to yourself?
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.9281149]

>>9281120
>tfw you can't feed your family because you're too occupied making up scenarios

[Anonymous No.9281150]

>>9281143
What happens if you decide not to work for someone else while having no money?

I guess slaves had food and water too. I wouldn't call them free only because they had the chance of escaping while risking starvation and murder.

[Anonymous No.9281153]

>>9281118
I think I can somewhat emphasize with the working class with regards to anti-intelligentsia sentiments at this junction.
I'd suggest that you try to simplify your writings in the future if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.9281154]

>>9281148
How about no

[Anonymous No.9281156]

>>9281150

You either starve, beg, or find a new means of survival. There is no force involved. This is nature, if an animal doesn't hunt he doesn't get to eat.

[Anonymous No.9281158]

>>9281153
I'd suggest you invest in a dictionary faggot

[Anonymous No.9281159]

>>9281154
You can surely avoid doing that, since we don't live in commiedom where differing opinions are punished by death.
It just makes you look like a moron, on par with people who believe in omeopathy.

[Anonymous No.9281161]

>>9281145
Can you please elaborate on those points. If I'm not mistaken, it is completely fair for me to use land to feed myself. And resources are not infinite. There is a limited amount of resources in the world.

[Anonymous No.9281163]

>>9281156
>This is nature

[Anonymous No.9281165]

>>9281143
If the only other option is poverty and/or death, that's not a real choice. That's a choice between getting punched in your left eye or your right. The result is the same: the loss of autonomy.

[Anonymous No.9281168]

>>9281158
See? That was a nice and simple sentence, with absolutely no redundant, tacked on, superfluous words or idioms!
I'm so proud of you anon <3

[Anonymous No.9281169]

>>9281159
Ah yes, the rigorous, proven and respected science of Neo-Classical Economics accusing others of being akin to homeopathy

[Anonymous No.9281170]

>>9281156
>There is no force involved
lol
>This is nature
doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.9281171]

>>9281168
>I'm a dumb faggot

Try keep your sentences short like that next time buddy

[Anonymous No.9281174]

>>9281165

Those aren't the only options. You can find a new job or create one. Can you give me your definition of autonomy because I don't understand how being poor means a loss of autonomy.

[Anonymous No.9281175]

>>9281169
>people at my local commune understand economics much better than people who actually research it and publish their findings in peer reviewed journals
Sure, anon.
I guess it's just a conspiracy by BIG PHARMA oh wait no BIG CAPITAL.

[Anonymous No.9281177]

>>9280911
Do it or ill commie over your nazi face

[Anonymous No.9281179]

>>9281165
>it's not freedom if there are bad consequences for stupid choices!
Why do commies sounds like petulant manchildren?

[Anonymous No.9281181]

>>9281175
>Its in a book so it must be science

[Anonymous No.9281183]

>>9281175
what local commune

[Anonymous No.9281185]

Neolibs get triggered by this

[Anonymous No.9281186]

>>9280873
up is active pedophile
down is non-active pedophile.

up left, pure pedo
living the life spontaneously.
up right is the typical old American pedophile, ignorant and trashy.
on the bottom right you have the smart non-active pedophile, he doesn't care about having sex with kids that much to go to jail but he likes them and the controversy of it, bottom left you have the non-active pedophile that doesn't want to hurt anyone in society or among children so he is kind and do nothing to upset anyone, he never thought about sexuality and he just help children with anonymous charity.

[Anonymous No.9281188]

>>9281171
>being this triggered by someone not enabling your literary boner

[Anonymous No.9281192]

>>9281156
>This is nature
So there is no such thing as a society?

>if an animal doesn't hunt he doesn't get to eat.
>people are still social darwinist in the 21st century

[Anonymous No.9281193]

I wish people would read this.

[Anonymous No.9281194]

>>9281165
But there is no punching in the equation. You're blaming a lack of autonomy on people who are just working, exchanging and hiring. You're blaming the violent conditions of our world on the fact that people manage to get resources. Aren't they also subject to the exact same scarcity? They want things that aren't available to them.

[Anonymous No.9281195]

>>9281181
No, anon, that would be marxist/omeopathy reasoning.
In the real world, people make models and theories, publish them, people evaluate them based on how good they are at predicting and describing events. And guess what?Nobody prefers marxist models! Isn't that peculiar?
>>9281185
>neolibs are triggered by an author who amongst other things, shows how the rate of profit doesn't tend to fall
commie brains, everyone

[Anonymous No.9281197]

>>9281194
For fuck's sake, we're not talking about sport cars and luxurious houses: we're talking about basic food, shelter, education and medical aid.

[Anonymous No.9281199]

>>9281195
>evaluate them based on how good they are at predicting and describing events.

And I have, in the case of Neo-Classical models the answer is "not very"

[Anonymous No.9281200]

>>9281192
Why should anyone be forced to giive resources to someone who doesn't want to work and can't feed himself?

[Anonymous No.9281207]

Its basically impossible to get anything that isn't left-Libertarian on Political compass.

[Anonymous No.9281209]

>>9281195
>Nobody prefers marxist models! Isn't that peculiar?
>"nobody" here being defined as everyone who fits this description

Yes, very peculiar indeed

[Anonymous No.9281211]

>>9281179
what's the stupid choice if it's a choice between getting punched in your left eye or your right

[Anonymous No.9281212]

>>9281199
>And I have
Your opinion doesn't seem to reflect the actual consensus in the field.
>in the case of Neo-Classical models the answer is "not very"
Even if we give that for granted, if we compare it with other models, that's a fine good job.

[Anonymous No.9281215]

>>9281209
Nobody as in "an extremely small percentage of people who actually publish their work in economic journals".

[Anonymous No.9281218]

>>9281195
>In the real world, people make models and theories, publish them, people evaluate them based on how good they are at predicting and describing events. And guess what?Nobody prefers marxist models! Isn't that peculiar?

>he thinks that actual economists believe in academical economy
I guess you simply have no experience in the field, my friend.

t. Ms in macroeconomics who has talked with virtually every professor in his university about these matters: it's not a scam per se (in the sense that most theoretical economists are really struggling to build a working model), but everyone who pushes the discipline as some sort of completed science (virtually everyone who talks about economy in public forums such as TV and radio) is either a shill, a charalatan or a scam artist

[Anonymous No.9281220]

>>9281212
>economics having a consensus

Uh huh, sure thing

[Anonymous No.9281222]

>>9281211
Your analogy doesn't reflect the reality of anything aside from third world shitholes.

[Anonymous No.9281226]

>>9281222
i didn't make any analogy and your greentext didn't represent what anon said

[Anonymous No.9281227]

>>9281200
a) because you've used this exact system (the societal one) to get where you currently are
b) because the ''theft'' that is imposed on you is usually calculated progressively, meaning that the taxes you're paying won't really hinder your well-being

tl;dr: stop being so fucking selfish and give 3$ every year to the government to have old people not starving

[Anonymous No.9281229]

>>9281215
So among people who publish their works in journals oriented towards pariticular schools of thought you find few people who are outside that field of thought

Hmm, you're really winning me over here

[Anonymous No.9281231]

>>9281207
That's because everyone believes in the same ideals of freedom and fairness, but many fool themselves into believing capitalism still has a chance to deliver on that.

[Anonymous No.9281233]

>>9281218
You're not making your case stronger. Saying "they aren't good enough at their job" doesn't mean they aren't better than communist theory.
>>9281220
>I unironically believe it's the 1950s and there are different serious schools of economic thought
Dude, stop.

[Anonymous No.9281234]

>>9281212
this anon knows literally nothing about economics

[Anonymous No.9281235]

>>9281200
Should the death penalty be a punishment for "laziness"?

[Anonymous No.9281236]

>>9281197
That still doesn't prove that a free market society is violently imposing a poverty-or-death choice. The fact that we can't get what we need doesn't prove that those who do get what they need are acting immorally.

[Anonymous No.9281237]

>>9281226
>i didn't make any analogy
>if it's a choice between getting punched in your left eye or your right
>>9281227
>stop being so fucking selfish and give 3$ every year to the government to have old people not starving
Old people either can't work or they are forced by society to stop working, they do not fall under the "I dont' want to work and I can't feed myself" category. Please do explain why I should give resources to the latter.

[Anonymous No.9281238]

>>9281233
>there aren't different schools of economc thought today

Dude how could we even be having this conversation if that were the case?
I'm finished wasting my time with you

[Anonymous No.9281240]

>>9281233
Why is it that many of the most renowned economists today say we need to tax rich people more?

[Anonymous No.9281243]

>>9281231
Actually its because political compass doesn't test the actual differences between the left and right; authority/respect and sanctity/purity.

[Anonymous No.9281244]

>>9281229
You're literally making the same non-arguments people who support omeopathy make.
>so people who publish their works in journals oriented towards allopathic medicina blah blah blah
No, that's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.9281245]

>>9280998
Monopolies are simply the result of technological innovation, as long as intellectual property exists there will be essential monopolies deriving humongous rentier incomes until a round of creative destruction destroys them. Monopolies are essential to capitalism and innovation.

>big government a billionaires wet dream
Billionaires can afford to buy whatever they want because they have accumulated the funds to do so, everything has a price

>>9281015
>government intervention and economic policy are directly opposed to libertarianism. They both contradict free market principles.
A libertarian is an ideology who has no sense of historicity and doesn't understand the history of any actual real world business, they stick to a platonic notion of a Galtian entrepreneur but in reality what we have are globalist cucks like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.
Even talking about "profit before taxation" today doesn't make sense since most realized corporate profit is just the result of cost shifting by the government, do you really think Wal-Mart could exist without welfare payments or Lockheed Martin without government contracts?

The contemporary "left" and "right" fails to understand the symbiosis between "government" and "business", as if one can exist without the other. Business is a predatory activity, a real blood sport, sabotage is a common activity and you can't have profit without being dirty. It's called corporate liberalism look into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liberalism

All government activity begins to make perfect sense when you realize its just different means attempting to trigger the countervailing tendencies to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and postpone the breakdown of capitalism as a viable system. Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz have different plans but neither want waged labour as a system to disappear anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.9281247]

>>9281243
>the actual differences between the left and right; authority/respect and sanctity/purity.

[Anonymous No.9281249]

>>9281237
>>i didn't make any analogy
>>if it's a choice between getting punched in your left eye or your right
>talk about "what anon said" literally in the same sentence
what's it like being retarded?

[Anonymous No.9281250]

>>9281233
>Saying "they aren't good enough at their job" doesn't mean they aren't better than communist theory.

What I'm saying is that there is currently NO working economic model, not even marxist ones, which arguments are usually grounded on either systemic or metaphysical (such as ethics and morals) foundations.

You're basically parroting what businessmen on the internet and TV taught you to parrot, while being completely oblivious to the actual academical debate.

[Anonymous No.9281252]

>>9281235
>Not giving you resources because you don't want to work = I'm actually killing you
How?

[Anonymous No.9281257]

>>9281236
What's the immoral is the system that's biased towards people that already have way more than anyone could possibly need at the expense of people who can barely survive and tells them it's their own fault.

[Anonymous No.9281258]

>>9281237
>Old people either can't work or they are forced by society to stop working, they do not fall under the "I dont' want to work and I can't feed myself" category. Please do explain why I should give resources to the latter.

Because lazy people still do not deserve to starve or freeze to death.
Of course they do not deserve any sort of luxury, which would be a real cost to the taxpayer.

[Anonymous No.9281262]

>tfw threads like this remind you most of /lit/ are still college kids

[Anonymous No.9281263]

>>9281244
Yes but unlike Medicine which is based on a clear and rigorous epistemological foundation and method Economics has no such claim to be a science. Its inherently inductive and has no claim towards experimental repeatability outside its most foundational propositions.

[Anonymous No.9281264]

>>9281238
>Dude how could we even be having this conversation if that were the case?
The same way I can have a conversation with people who believe in omeopathy despite there having not been schools of thought in medicine for centuries.
>>9281240
taxing the rich more doesn't mean socialism for fuck's sake
>>9281250
>What I'm saying is that there is currently NO working economic model
K

[Anonymous No.9281268]

>>9281264
>taxing the rich more doesn't mean socialism for fuck's sake
Of course not, but it's what the Left have been saying all along

[Anonymous No.9281271]

>>9281264
>K
>this guy will, at some point, leave this thread and go on with his life, still believing all the shit people told him about the free market
>he is still eligible to vote

Don't know how to feel about this.

[Anonymous No.9281277]

>>9281263
>Because lazy people still do not deserve to starve or freeze to death.
You're not making an argument, you're just stating your opinion.
Why is it, precisely, that I have to give my resources to someone who both lacks them and doesn't want to produce them (want, not can't)
>>9281263
showing that X isn't that good doesn't make Y look any better. Marxism is still shit.
>>9281271
>smug face
k

[Anonymous No.9281278]

>>9281264
>Economics is like totally a science
>Just ask economists, they'll totally tell you
>It even says so in economics textbooks
>How could economics not be a science if economists agree it is
>DO you believe in homeopathy, because economics is a science like medicine
>Just ask economists
>which economist? Any of them, they all think the exact same because its as unified as physics

[Anonymous No.9281284]

>>9281277
>>smug face

[Anonymous No.9281286]

>>9281268
Wat? Do you think the left and socialism are synonyms?

[Anonymous No.9281289]

>>9281277
that's not a smug face

[Anonymous No.9281292]

>>9281277
>showing that X isn't that good doesn't make Y look any better.
>he says after trying to make absurd hyperbolic comparisons for pure rhetorical value

[Anonymous No.9281294]

>>9281268
You're moving the goalpost.
>>9281278
>medicine is totally a science
>just ask doctors, they'll totally tell you
>it even says so in medical textbooks
Dunno, anon, you've convinced me, I'll go see a shamn next time I have a cold.

Anyway, it's so funny to see how both marxists and austrian lunatics all go
>B-BUT ECONOMICS ISN'T LIKE PHYSICS
the moment you suggest that their ideas are far shittier than neo-classical theories. It's almost as if they're both buffoons who believe in pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9281301]

>let's pretend that if something bad happens to someone based on their own actions the only one affected is themselves
>this abstraction totally isn't misleading

[Anonymous No.9281302]

>>9281292
Saying "neoclassical economics isn't that good" doesn't make marxism preferable to it.

[Anonymous No.9281303]

>>9281294
>the moment you suggest that their ideas are far shittier than neo-classical theories.

The difference is you never made any arguments towards why that is the case, you have just been making appeals to authority to which I pointed out no such legitimate authority even exists as is the case in Medicine

[Anonymous No.9281308]

I think its pretty hilarious how this thread basically replicates every attempt at Communism.

>"We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are!"
>How about we put people who actually know how to do economics in charge?
>Fuck no, lets put this random retard in charge instead.

[Anonymous No.9281310]

>>9281302
No but its a start

[Anonymous No.9281312]

>>9281286
I never said anything about socialism...

[Anonymous No.9281316]

>>9281303
>just been making appeals to authority
>stating the opinion of those publishing in peer reviewed journals means = appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.9281317]

>>9281308
post history book

[Anonymous No.9281318]

>>9281308
>>"We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are!"

I have no idea what this sentence was trying to express

[Anonymous No.9281325]

>>9281316
>>stating the opinion of those publishing in peer reviewed journals means = appeal to authority

This nigga is going over the edge

[Anonymous No.9281327]

>>9281310
It's a non-start because marxism is shit, both in terms of economics and everything else it touches, like the retarded ideas it holds about human psychology.
>>9281325
>An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert

[Anonymous No.9281329]

>>9281318
Off to the gulag with you.

[Anonymous No.9281331]

>>9281257
There isn't a system. People who don't take each other's property is not a system, and these people aren't acting to the detriment of people who have less than others.
If people are able to get resources without taking them from other people, nothing immoral has occurred. If people are unable to get resources, that does not justify taking resources from people who have them - that's a greater evil than simply having resources.

[Anonymous No.9281335]

>>9281327
>the retarded ideas it holds about human psychology

[Anonymous No.9281338]

>>9281327
>when the authority cited is not a true expert

Not seeing any problem here

[Anonymous No.9281339]

>>9281331
make the resources theirs

[Anonymous No.9281342]

>>9280654
Did not expect this.

[Anonymous No.9281344]

>>9281335
>marxists don't hold tabula rasa views about human psychology
>>9281338
>they disagree with my 19th century pseudoscience therefore they're not real scientists!
you're basically /pol/

[Anonymous No.9281346]

>>9281331
>There isn't a system
>don't take each other's property
>these people aren't acting to the detriment of people who have less than others
>get resources without taking them from other people

[Anonymous No.9281347]

>>9281344
>liberals don't hold tabula rasa views about human psychology

[Anonymous No.9281349]

>>9281344
They're not real scientists because they don't practice real science. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with Marxism, its about the vast epistemological limitations inherent in an almost exclusively inductive field

[Anonymous No.9281350]

>>9280705
that's the truly patrician one

[Anonymous No.9281352]

>>9281316
>he thinks that he's stating the opinions of actual economics academics

Nope, you clearly have no clue about the current academic discourse (nor about the past ones, if that matters).

[Anonymous No.9281359]

>>9281098
>what does scarcity even mean bruh

[Anonymous No.9281362]

>>9281125
hahahahahahah
wtf

[Anonymous No.9281368]

>>9281359
>implying that there is a food shortage in the US
>implying that there is a housing shortage in the US

We're objectively in a post-scarcity society.

[Anonymous No.9281374]

>>9281145
this person is either a plain retard to believe human needs are limited or is so privileged that he doesn't realise how much poor people there are in the world

come live in a third world country and see it for yourself, fuckass
you have no actual grasp of the real world

goddamn liberals

[Anonymous No.9281378]

>>9281374
>third world country
>in the West

[Anonymous No.9281380]

>>9281374
Shut up turd worlder

[Anonymous No.9281382]

>>9281374
>propriety of land is theft
>liberal

[Anonymous No.9281397]

>>9281382
liberal as in the american sense of the world, stupid. he's exactly that. refrain from posting about topics you do not understand.

[Anonymous No.9281400]

>>9281378
huehue

[Anonymous No.9281405]

>>9281397
>"propriety of land is theft" is a mainstream view among american liberals

[Anonymous No.9281407]

>>9281347
lots of liberals do, but I'm not one AND that doesn't mean marxists still believe in that shit.

[Anonymous No.9281408]

>>9281397
>he still thinks the American definition of Liberal is actually different

[Anonymous No.9281416]

>>9281368
yeah, you really dont know what scarcity means. unbelievable.

are resources infinite? is the accumulation of capital and production of wealth accelerating or deccelarating consumption?

[Anonymous No.9281418]

>>9281405
it is the general basis of any sort of leftist structural economic thought, yeah

[Anonymous No.9281420]

>>9281418
Then American liberals aren't Leftists
>big surprise

[Anonymous No.9281421]

>>9281418
>american liberalism
>economically leftist

[Anonymous No.9281423]

>>9281028
>libertarians care about freedom meme

[Anonymous No.9281429]

>>9281420
what? can you phrase that poorlier?

[Anonymous No.9281437]

>>9281408
>>9281421
maybe they are converging, i could agree with that. not yet tho. most liberals are still straight-on leftists.

[Anonymous No.9281448]

>It's another "having to work is literally slavery" episode

This is what's being taught in school these days.

[Anonymous No.9281466]

>>9281448
no it isnt.

[Anonymous No.9281469]

>>9281466
It should be though

[Anonymous No.9281480]

>>9281469
Agreed.

[Anonymous No.9281498]

Aristocles did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.9281527]

As if I needed any more reasons to hate myself, this shit labels me as a leftard now.

Help me
get me out of here

[Anonymous No.9281552]

>>9281527
Shhh don't fight it

[Anonymous No.9281556]

What do I win?

[Anonymous No.9281560]

[Anonymous No.9281590]

>>9281560
Yeeeah, the cool-zone is about 6 points up and one point right. I strongly recommend that you hit up Plato's Republic and perhaps Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

When you finish those, top yourself off with Mein Kampf

[Anonymous No.9281591]

>>9281527

You'll get better with age. Just be happy you're not upper left because there's no fixing them.

[Anonymous No.9281628]

>>9280990
NO TRUE LIBERTARIAN

[Anonymous No.9281642]

>>9281088
not an argument
>>9281087
not an argument
>>9281092
a poor argument


why is it that whenever lit is actually pushed to argue a point they never do it? and when they do it's half assed out of fear?

you guys are so insecure and it fucking shines through your posts.

[Anonymous No.9281645]

Red = Democrat
Blue, purple, and green = Republican

Green's like to describe themselves as "economically right but socially left." They're the ones I despise the most because they're a bunch of fag worshipers who have been indoctrinated from a young age into this cult of moral relativism. love to say things "what goes on in a person bedroom is none of my concern" as if humans live in a vacuum where our actions don't affect everyone around us.

[Anonymous No.9281654]

>>9281645
love hot takes

[Anonymous No.9281658]

>>9281642
Step'han what are you doing hearred

[Anonymous No.9281661]

>>9281642
yours wasn't an argument

[Anonymous No.9281675]

>>9281437
Neoliberals are as blue as they come

[Anonymous No.9281677]

>>9281645
>Red = Democrat
lol burgers are hilarious

[Anonymous No.9281692]

Please just suggest relevant reading, no name calling thank you :)

[Anonymous No.9281696]

>>9281590
Can I join the cool guys club?

[Anonymous No.9281698]

>>9281677

>More government regulation and socialist redistribution of wealth is not red.

Gee okay

[Anonymous No.9281701]

you niggas know that no one has ever been convinced to change their opinions on 4chan before right

[Anonymous No.9281703]

>>9281698
>I don't know what socialism is

[Anonymous No.9281707]

>>9281701
do you

[Anonymous No.9281710]

>>9281698
Please post more, I would really appreciate finding out just how brainwashed you are. Bonus point to staying oblivious to what I'm getting at.

[Anonymous No.9281711]

>>9281703

Of course I do. It's the government redistribution of wealth. Do you have a better definition?

[Anonymous No.9281715]

>>9281711
So republicans are socialists by redistributing the wealth to oil and tech companies?

[Anonymous No.9281717]

>>9281710

If you can't communicate your ideas clearly don't expect others to know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.9281718]

>>9281707
You remind me of the man

[Anonymous No.9281721]

>>9281711
the working class controlling the means of production yes i know you're baiting but this thread needs to bumplimit and die

[Anonymous No.9281722]

>>9281715

Yes. Crony capitalism is a form of socialism.

[Anonymous No.9281723]

>>9281717
Sorry but I would expect anyone with half a brain to get it, this isn't /b/ or /pol/.

[Anonymous No.9281728]

>>9281722
>>9281645
please correct yourself

[Anonymous No.9281733]

>>9281721

Is that it? If I own my own business that makes me a socialist?

[Anonymous No.9281737]

>>9281733
If you and only you are in it then I guess

[Anonymous No.9281743]

[Anonymous No.9281748]

>>9281028
Why is he Jewish?

[Anonymous No.9281749]

>>9281344
>Marx is literally considered one of the first thinkers to go fully against the notion of a tabula rasa, showing material conditions influence the outcome of a person
>But somehow, this autists knows better about Marx's work than Marx himself and everyone else

[Anonymous No.9281754]

>>9281733
>If I own my own business that makes me a socialist?
Owning private property is by definition not socialistic.

Read a book.

[Anonymous No.9281756]

>>9281677
>Be a eurofag
>Everyone right of are literally nazis

[Anonymous No.9281758]

Why are leftists so bad at arguing?

[Anonymous No.9281759]

>>9281756
>be a burger
>be brainwashed into literal retardation

[Anonymous No.9281762]

>>9281416
No one is talking about resources being infinite, and scarcity doesn't refer to basic human needs like housing and food, which we already have enough in the west for the whole starving / homeless population (and then some more, depending on the place).

[Anonymous No.9281773]

>>9280654
>>9280676
>>9280705
>>9280773
>>9280782
>>9280872
>>9280878
>>9280897
>>9280903
>>9280911
>>9280969
>>9280976
>>9281086
>>9281134
>>9281342
>>9281498
>>9281527
>>9281560
>>9281692
>>9281696
>>9281743

[Anonymous No.9281798]

>>9281556
I approve of this image

[Anonymous No.9281799]

>>9281675
READ THE FUCKING THREAD FOR GOD'S SAKE IT'S LIBERAL IN THE AMERICAN SENSE PLUS NEOLIBERALS ARE AS PURPLE AS IT GETS SO YOU'RE WRONG THERE TOO

[Anonymous No.9281805]

All alpha male authoritarian centrists check in here

[None !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.9281806]

posting in autistic thread

>>9280705
hello, me

i would definitely consider myself far more right- than left-wing, i just think the questions in this test to determine left from right are flawed

>>9280872
yeah, stand close together so the firing squad has an easier time

[Anonymous No.9281809]

>>9281806
Same

I'm basically a nazi but I'm in the red zone for some reason

[Anonymous No.9281812]

>>9281762
your two sentences are not consonant with each other. only one of those two can be right.

reread what you wrote. i'll give you sometime to decide which one's rightm think carefully.

[Anonymous No.9281819]

I tried to take the test, but the questions are completely retarded

[Anonymous No.9281825]

>>9281799
Nah Neoliberals only want to privatize everything not undermine government

[Anonymous No.9281827]

>>9281134

It means you're woke AF

Kys or change if yours doesn't look like mine 8)

[Anonymous No.9281831]

[Anonymous No.9281832]

Howdy, comrades.

[Anonymous No.9281834]

>>9281809

Because Nazi's are socialist.

[Anonymous No.9281840]

>>9281819
So apparently I am a /radical centrist/ despite the fact that I support monarchy and the oppression of the weak in favor of the strong.

[Anonymous No.9281851]

>>9280872
Literally same compass as me. I don't give that much of a shit about politics, but I care about the environment and unions.

[Anonymous No.9281865]

>>9281840
Its almost like such a stupid meme position has no reprocussions in the world

[Anonymous No.9281867]

>>9281834
Can you really be a socialist if you alienate all of the working class except blonde haired blue eyed Germans?

[Anonymous No.9281880]

>>9281867

That's not what happened but even if it did how would that contradict economic socialism? Half of Germany's economy was directly controlled by the government and other half highly regulated. Socialism is not synonymous with communism.

[Anonymous No.9281889]

>>9281865
>stupid meme position
>dominant political position for most of humanity

nice try, cuck

[Anonymous No.9281892]

>>9281851

Would you support unions if you found out they hurt the poorest people in the country?

[None !!ryE2gEjGbpu No.9281913]

>>9281809
the right/left spectrum of 2017 is different than it was during wwii. nazi economic ideology is pretty much mid-to-centre-left, so i think you tested just fine.

but i guess if you don't suck laissez faire's dick that means you're a lefty

[Anonymous No.9281942]

>>9281892
They might do some damage to them but overall they did in the labor movement of the 60s and 70s far more good. So much good for the working man.

And then it got BTFO (I don't know how though) and it's been garbage ever since?

>>9281913
Nobody but silly early economist writers support laissez faire.

[Anonymous No.9281958]

>>9281889
>nice try, cuck

[Anonymous No.9281977]

I was thinking, I've grown out of being a Natsoc now. I've been a Labour supporter, then I was a Nationalist, then a Libertarian, then an Anarcho-Capitalist, then a Natsoc, now I've made my peace with my virginity and the left and right and Muslims, I'm ready to become a good well-adjusted person. If you're a smart intellectual person, what position do you put yourself on the square or do you not place yourself at all?

[Anonymous No.9281978]

>>9281958
Heh, I dont even dress like that, nice try though.
I have a much more dignified style, and am actually a master of the blade.
>pic related

When will you cucks learn?

[Anonymous No.9281984]

>>9281977
You start using your brain instead of deciding your positions emotionally and become a Marxist

[Anonymous No.9281994]

>>9281984

But that's not using your brain, that's just believing what someone 150 years ago told you to believe. I don't really see any reason why Marx's ideas are more valid than Stirner's. In fact, if it came down to it, I'd say egoism makes more sense ethically and rationally than marxism.

[Anonymous No.9282003]

>>9281994
Egoism doesn't necessarily contradict Marxism

[Anonymous No.9282012]

>>9282003

It doesn't contridict it, but I think that marxism couldn't work with conscious egoism.

[Anonymous No.9282018]

>>9280654
How about I give you what I consider the realm of reason and you give me a book. Would your recommendation be different depending on which quadrant I was in or is this boundary sufficient. (Note: being further from the boundary doesn't necessarily make you better or worse - all that matters is what side you are on. Within the boundaries, I may have particular ideological preferences that reward less centrist positions.)

[Anonymous No.9282058]

>>9282018