Poltical Compass

...

...

Libertarian Left unite!

...

Hello friend

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

I'm a king George

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

There's too many leftists on this site.

The Republic

Kys cryboy

Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

no u commie faggot

Keep this spooky garbage on /pol/ thanks

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

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

>100 IQ posters only thanks

>spooks of the mind
>not referring to memes
?

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

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

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

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

>libertarians
>successful businessmen
pick one

What is America?

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.

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.

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

Am I Left enough to join the cool kids?

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.

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.

Nazi punks fuck off

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

Real libertarians support government intervention and economic policies?

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

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.

>this is what the classcucked actually believe

>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.

lol

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

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.

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

>he makes incorrect inferences

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

>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.

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

>still believes in the market

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

...

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

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.

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

Do you even read bro?

>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

Inequality is harmful

>socialist country
such as where?

Okay and?

do you?
>anyotherbookever.jpg

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

>Inequality is harmful

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

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

You deserve these monopolies.

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

Liability is by definition regulation retard

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.

...

>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

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

Economic inequality necessitates inequality of opportunity

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.

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

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.

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

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.

>my farm
what makes it yours

>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

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.

>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.

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.

crymore

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

>this is your brain on /pol/

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

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

That was a terrible argument m8

>freely

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

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

Yes that's the point.

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.

>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.

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

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

Hail corporate

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

Good man

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.

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.

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