Let's have a political compass thread

...

Why don't you post the real one?

...

It's shit

Post the other Trotsky one.

/pol/ is now Racewar and reddit screencaps.

...

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

...

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

kek this one is funny tho kinda inaccurate

trigglypuff for example has nothing to do with actual leftist economics

This better?

I like this one the best.

Yes post more

Who /finchtheoryofpolitics/ here?

...

So am I like Gandhi or some shit?

you're a degenerate

What does that make me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is something called left libertarianism.

Remember, property is founded on authority.

>A european state without Muslims

Finally a test that is able to properly classify me.

>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.

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.

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

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.

...

This has been a few years in the making

Glad you got off the weed

I unironically started dabbling in the green after my commie phase

...

This is excellent.

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

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

>centrists
>any year

>libertarian under anarchist
W E W
E
W

>I cant respect differences
/pol/fag plz go

looks like a Piet Mondrian painting

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.

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

That question is derived from the F-scale test tho

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

Forgot chart.

Well now I feel like a fucking fedora tipper

Ehat the fuck is this

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.

>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.

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

>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.

>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.

>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.

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

>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.

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

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.

Yes. This literally goes on every fucking day

>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.

>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.

And yet I always vote for right wing parties.

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

...

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

...

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

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.

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.

user isn't asking that. user's asking how that question would be projected onto the compass in terms of the left-right dichotomy.
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).

Pretty accurate fampai

Test needs to be much more comprehensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

Why the fuck do they still have this question?

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

Are there any other poltical survey sites?

:^)

>Nobody is going to do social ownership without being forced to
well, that's like, your opinion?
As the other user 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.

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

dammit I wanted to be on the right, not left

wew lad, be carefull with that sharp edge

>i want to be rightwing because thats cool on Veeky Forums right now

idiot