Give me an example of an historical figure in purple?

>max on authoritarianism
>for hippies
Are you retarded?

Oh shit I meant green square. Right.

This. You're a leftist in denial, user.

Ron Paul

...

By fucking off and minding your own damn business is what

>it's a "Congrats! You are Superior and Logical Libertarian, Please Donate to your Local Libertarians Party" Libertarian Square™ thread

Memes upon memes

Pretty shite test, but it's not too far off.

It's because you're a contrarian and only consider yourself those things to be a contrarian faggot, so when you take an actual test and put what you actually believe in it then you get an unexpected result.

kek you're a leftist pretending you're not.

Don't deny your leftism senpai

I am not an ancap i swear

...

Social Democracy is the best.

...

That's a horrible test. It's dreadfully shallow and some of the "questions" are literal proverbs. Someone post a better one.

It was literally made by a libertarian group with the expressed purpose of "recruiting" people by making the majority of them think they were "libertarians"

It is the most successful piece of online propaganda ever.

>It's called fiscal conservatism.
aka liberalism, my american friend

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

>By fucking off and minding your own damn business is what
you mean by being liberal

Maybe a while ago that's what being liberal was but not anymore. That title has been taken by a much more toxic ideology.

This is definitely a better test, even though I got the same place on the regular PC test. The questions are just more thorough.

the best way to act is x but the government shouldnt be the one to tell you that

Next time put a disclaimer that you are a New Worlder.

Not all of us use the babylon-tier American terminology.

Did I do good, Veeky Forums?

It's classical liberalism now. I have to use American terms.

Red is for people who hate the gays and love welfare.

Green is for people that love gays and welfare.

Purple is for people that are indifferent towards gays and hate welfare.

Blue is for people that hate the gays and welfare.

>Purple is for people that are indifferent towards gays and hate welfare.
That's me.

>the "questions" are literal proverbs
That's the point you dip. The question is "how much do you agree with this proverb?"

>you have to have bathrooms for a group of people who represent less than 3% of the population
>they were literally already using these bathrooms forever without anyone caring
>we must force the issue with litigation now

Let's just pretend that liberals don't use the government to enforce their own agendas and ideologies the same way literally everyone else does. Let's just pretend we live in this world where this shit doesn't happen every single day, for the sake of being argumentative faggots on the internet.

>>you have to have bathrooms for a group of people who represent less than 3% of the population
If it's not too expensive, who cares

Bill Clinton

No, that's a terrible result.

hey girls

Plebs

>progressive
What a shitty name.for communism.

I'm not Communist though laddo

All authoritarian left is communism.

Right/Left is a spook

Wew dem quads. Doesn't matter because you obviously support economic restriction and oppose criticism of your own ideology. To me, that's communism.

I always think I'm a Strasserist and my principles always seem to fall in some clearly nationalist, but also clearly socialist bent, but whenever I take one of these quizzes I get some vaguely center-libertarian-left location. These tests need to be improved.

So did Mussolini and he wasn't a communist

Thomas Jefferson

He was a socialist which is pretty close.

That makes no sense, being more socially conservative would place you further right not further left

Eh i think it's wrong to brand such a wide scale of beliefs as communism

The founding fathers also supported economic restriction (as long as it was theirs) and opposed criticism

>I have an incredibly narrow minded view of a complex ideology but I'm gonna go ahead and pretend I know what I'm talking about

Which is why I thank God everyday I don't live in the USA, with its retarded conservationism and religious views.

It really doesn't matter, "progressive" is still a dumb name for it.

>It really doesn't matter, "progressive" is still a dumb name for it.
Communism is an even dumber name desu

We can agree on something. I call it "communism" because "socialism" sounds fucking stupid.

>all these retards on the green or red square
This confirms the fact that Veeky Forums is full of college freshmen who just read Marx for the first time in their lives.

>le epic enlightened redpilled commie-hater that sees the truth of human nature

It got old about 10 minutes after its inception laddie.

Well communism and socialism really is an easy target. Being irredeemably horrible and all. Being a commie-hater shouldn't be strange to anyone. It's natural.

Well gosh I'm boring

The test has a leftist bias, undoubtedly. You have to chose caricatures of conservative positions on economic and social issues if you want to rank anywhere else than in green.

>people are seriously in the quadrants i don't agree with

just kill yourselves famalams

Absolutely

Sadly, most of these sorts of tests tend to consider opposition to Capitalism as 'left wing'.
As such I often placed as a Communist, regardless of the fact that I'm a Technocrat.

>technocrat
Get out commie

lol

Holy shit check out Stalin over here.

Hilarious.

The only historical system of governance that Technocracy shares any real likeness with would be the Chinese Legalism practiced by the Qin.

>The former government of the Soviet Union has been referred to as a technocracy.[19] Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background in education; in 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers.[20]
>Leaders of the Communist Party of China are mostly professional engineers. The Five-year plans of the People's Republic of China have enabled them to plan ahead in a technocratic fashion to build projects such as the National Trunk Highway System, the China high-speed rail system, and the Three Gorges Dam.[30]
I'm like, LMao.

Political leaders being scientists and engineers =/= Technocracy.
That much better describes the Veblenist idea of a 'Soviet of Engineers' then it does a Technocracy.

I also was classified as a centrist, but I was slighly lower, and I was to the left of the vertical axis, while still touching it.

Don't listen to the radicals and ideologues. You most likely have reasonable, practical views that would draw wide support.

We should meet up some time.

I'm guessing you didn't get -100 on culture because you weren't sure about abolishing the state?

even Stalin would get "i am not a pedophile i am a pederast"

I guess, but some of the questions don't have all realms of answer

>Let's just pretend that liberals don't use the government to enforce their own agendas and ideologies the same way literally everyone else does. Let's just pretend we live in this world where this shit doesn't happen every single day, for the sake of being argumentative faggots on the internet.
let's just pretend we're not on a humanities forum where accurate terminology matters, but rather on facebook where broad-stroke tribal identifiers that are unique to America are more apt.

There aren't many because Purple societies are way too susceptible to subversion. Most Libertarians eventually figure this out.

Its because right wingers actually believe you should be oppressing people and all the other odd non freedom things in the test.

Purple all day

Okay, someone explain this to me.

Spekr seems to think that answering "strongly disagree" to this question makes you more authoritarian.

LINK

It does because you don't think the law should be flexible and with the added implication that it should be very strictly enforced.

...

The observation of the laws passed never used to be a thing until cases like Roe v Wade or Brown started to essentially create legal rights and effectuate into law. Denying courts this special privilege certainly puts more power in the hands of the executive branch as regards law making

What if I just oppose the capricious nature of twelve individuals gathered together to make law in this country?

More like puts it back in the legislative branch, where it belongs.

Also, should mention, I don't think the law should be totally inflexible. There should be basic laws that have primacy over all other laws, and we should essentially build a hierarchy of laws. When a court finds that one law is in conflict with another, the one that has primacy should stay on the books, and the one that has conflicts should be resubmitted to congress for re-working.

So your issue is you don't believe the 12 individuals have the authority to be capricious but the duly appointed ones do?

Well I see what you mean user, that's clearly not authoritarian at all.

I sense sarcasm, but I don't see why. It has to fall one way or the other, and you fall on the side of 12 randomly selected people? As opposed to several hundred elected officials?

>but I don't see why
You are sitting there telling me the authority to bend the law should rest in the state and not your peers and are telling me that this stance isn't an authoritarian one.

Note I am not arguing in favor or against said stance merely commenting on your apparent inability to understand why it could be construed as authoritarian.

I.e. I find it funny.

The US Constitution was pretty Lib-Right. So I suppose the man who wrote it and the people who signed it could be considered in there as well.

No, I am arguing that no one should have the authority to bend the law. There should be no bending of the law. If a deficiency in the law is found, the law should be fixed.

>There should be no bending of the law
Yeah, that's authoritarian.

>you fall on the side of 12 randomly selected people? As opposed to several hundred elected officials?
>There should be no bending of the law

You are suggesting the elected officials should but regular folk shouldn't

complete sentences, please. Shouldn't *what*?

>there should be clear codified laws that are easy to understand, and the consequences of your actions should be clearly laid out
>No one should be able to skirt the law, not even politicians
>what an authoritarian mindset
?

>I am arguing that no one should have the authority to bend the law. There should be no bending of the law.
Exactly you are saying the law is the law is the law because the state says so, they have the authority. It should not be up to interpretation of peers and "regular folk" or even other lesser members of the state when or if the law should be applied in individual circumstances.

You are fundamentally saying authority, specifically of the state, is self evident and should be respected by everyone always. Do you see now how that can be taken as an authoritative stance?

It's only authoritarianism as opposed to an anarchic mindset. Without that there is no state. There is no law. It means nothing. You have anarchy if you just allow "regular folk" to interpret laws. Everyone becomes judge, jury, and executioner unto themselves. People with more power dominate people with less power, etc. It leads to anarchy, which in turn leads to a more authoritarian world.

You are literally the exact, polar opposite of correct.

...