Political Compass

Post your political compass.

Other urls found in this thread:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/newseum-only-19-know-1st-amendment-guarantees-freedom-religion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

boring.png

>pol

>2017
>Still Lolbertarian
must be hard, knowing that the National Socialists came along and ate your lunch

The very concept of a political compass is retarded. A compass measures a fixed thing: a magnetic pole which doesn't move. People's political opinions are often very flexible and subject to sweeping, gradual changes over the course of time.

My question is how do you think this has moved for the general public in the last 50 years and what will it look like in the next 50?

That is true, but it gives a quick snapshot which can be somewhat valuable. I just want to get a sense of the mindset here at Veeky Forums, /pol/ is a mass collection of fascists. If you have one, please show it.

...

Interesting.

Guess i'm literally Gandhi according to the site
Doesn't make much sense to me

voluntarist centrist

May I see yours then?

what did I mean by this?

That's for you to interpret.

...

It's not on my phone at the moment
I'm like down one square, two and a half squares right from this dude

8values fucked up and made me too statist

...

BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

>My question is how do you think this has moved for the general public in the last 50 years and what will it look like in the next 50?

I think people seriously overestimate the general public. They probably don't have an opinion for half these issues and can't properly be lumped into any political category. 75% of Americans can't point to Israel on a map. 30% of Americans think the USA is the most populous country on Earth and has 1-2 billion people. Less than 20% of Americans know what the First Amendment is. For all intents and purposes the average person does not have the knowledge to form a coherent ideology and overall such matters have little impact on their regular lives.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/newseum-only-19-know-1st-amendment-guarantees-freedom-religion

Left-libertarian here.

No memes, why aren't you one? Anyone can answer.

Classical liberal here... it's cause I doubt that it's possible to guarantee equality without using authoritarian means to do so.

I'm actually not a Marxist or anarchist, but I am very left-wing. If I ran for office my platform would basically be the 1945 Labour manifesto + the Humphrey-Hawkins Act with some updated planks like a public ISP.

I actually agree. I have always believed in right wing social and economic ideals, but my struggle with authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. I feel kids are given too much freedom, and with this they become lazy and uninspired.

...

Generally speaking, Saddam Hussein did nothing wrong & his economic, domestic, political & foreign policy proposals are the ideal.

Left-libs don't think like this though. We see inequality as the thing that needs to be enforced. We think there are barriers that, if taken down, would allow equality to emerge on it's own. It's similar to what free-market supporters believe in many regards.

Which is why a one-party stratocratic meritocracy is the greatest system of government ever conceived of.

I think it is just human nature to consider some inferior, not really a political thing.

How about militarism?

Huh. I disagree. But whatever.

Soldiers are in no way guaranteed to be more educated, in fact more likely the opposite is true.

...

See, here we get into a philosophical topic. What do you honor? Power through war, intelligence, religion? I think this really determines what form of regime you want.

...

Is that some happening I see? Right on man.

You're confused, friend. A stratocracy is a government headed by military chiefs. A military junta is a system in which the military assumes control of the government. Under a stratocracy, officers & other military leaders are constitutionally inclined to lead the government - not soldiers.

...

Very important for a healthy & prosperous society to be well-armed & capable of defending itself.

Agreed. To me, soldier-like civilians are needed as well to have a people ready to serve.

>doesn't understand people
>doesn't understand economics
literally the worst one.

Most recent one

You can understand politics and economics without wanting to be an edgy selfish asshole.

And if you can't, then you don't really understand it.

Just a year of compulsory military service wouldn't be the worst thing for a society.

You're wrong, but alright.

Or more propaganda to indoctrinate the people so they have something compulsory attendance cannot create: willpower. If they are willing, they will become a proud nationalist. Not WW1 era nationalism though.

that doesn't make sense.

...

I do want to sincerely thank you all for keeping this thread alive with open thoughts and opinions, this is what keeps Veeky Forums alive.