Political Compass anyone?

I'm sure this has been done before, but oh well. I hadn't taken this in a while:

http://politicalcompass.org./


I scored a -7, -7. I am ghandi and the Dalai Lama, bitch. GO LEFT-LIBERTARIANS! Where do you stand?

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
(My score)

Libertarian.

I am a conservative libertarian liberal autocrat.

i am nationalist4life

I like how so many people score in the bottom right quadrant, and hardly any of the world leaders have scored in that quadrant.

>>5 That's because we love freedom, we aren't looking to police others, generally speaking.  World leaders are rulers - they want to CONTROL things.  They want to run the show.  Thus, they tend to be some variety of statist... either fascist, socialist, or some disgusting mix of the two.

>>5
Power corrupts.  Some political leaders might have started there, but eventually everyone ends up in the top left or right.

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.69

Left: -10
Libertarian: -9,54

Those who aren't in the green corner, you don't deserve life.

>>10
So what you're saying is, everyone should be an entitled, self-important little teenage cunt who doesn't know anything about economics or even how the world works, whatsoever?

Economic Left/Right: 5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

Those who aren't in the purple are perfectly entitled to have their own opinions and refine them into something more reasonable over time as they grow older. All life has value and everyone deserves to live and not be shackled by "duty" and perverted ideas of social "justice", as long as they don't harm or strip the liberty from another person.

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95

I've seen way too much irresponsibility from multinationals and multi-gadzillionaires to trust them to be all that responsible. Especially since I only ever see them get more profits-over-people the more freedom and tax cuts they get.

There is another word for this reagonomic freemarketism we see today: Anarchism.

And let's face it, Anarchism will only work long enough for a better-armed warlord to move in. And where their freedom begins, mine ends. Does this remind any anarchists out there of anything?

Not to mention what happens when a corporation establishes a monopoly: The monopolist's freedom begins, that of all others ends.

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.05

Ghandi is too conservative fundamentalist for me.

>>13
>I've seen way too much irresponsibility from multinationals and multi-gadzillionaires to trust them to be all that responsible.
No, dude. You've seen a couple of very public fiascos/case studies involving large companies doing bad things and concluded that they're all like that or at least the ones who aren't have some kind of simmering malevolence just waiting to boil over. It's really no different from all the other kinds of prejudice out there and it really annoys the shit out of me to listen to 99%-ers go on about it because they're just looking for someone to hate and blame.

>Not to mention what happens when a corporation establishes a monopoly
There have been anti-monopoly laws around, at least in America, for ages. This is why you're given a choice of internet browser if you use a Windows OS.

>>15
So you're saying the US government came down real hard on every single bad apple in Enron? Or that it at least could if it wanted to?

Oh, and what about the whole subprime loans thingy? Was it really just one or two individuals doing that? Single-handedly sending the whole goddamned _world_ into a recession by pushing for that one bonus too far? As in, you don't really need the whole banking sector being in on it to do that?
Wow, better not tell Al-Qaeda about that! Imagine what they could do, going for it on purpose and all.

anti-monopoly laws
Last I heard, there isn't much of one when it comes to mass media. But hey, who needs (small) independent news sources anyway?
Also, http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Btw, there is a really dangerous superstition going around: When it's a non-governmental body doing the monopolization/scam/robbery/black-ops/censorship/oppression/etc, then it's somehow not much of a crime or something. Some people seem to think gummints have some kind of monopoly on being evil, and shy away from any evidence to the contrary.
Like when a corporation gets a monopoly on news coverage in an area, and then "choose not to run" a specific news item that they don't like. With the monopoly in place, nobody can get to that news. But hey, that's not the gummint, so then it's not censorship, right?


What I'm saying, is that blaming the inevitable missteps on «just a few bad apples» when it's clear the whole system needs rework, is at best wishful thinking.


given a choice of browser

Yes; 1) use the one that comes tagging along anyway, or 2) already know about one of the alternatives that don't suck donkey balls. _And_ already know where to find it.

If you're referring to that browser trial, then there was another, _way_ more important issue being missed so blatantly it's hard to believe it wasn't done on purpose: The boot loader.
tl;dr: Windows tramples any non-windows bootloader on the harddisk when you install it there, sub-absolute-zero questions (much less permission) ever asked. This is the reason why, on a multi-boot system, you should install linux _last_.

And that's when you don't elect (not to mention, know) to use a Free Open-Source alternative OS.

One example off the top of my head: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_Boot
Note the part where ARM devices (boards&stuff) are to be specifically forbidden any free choices if the manufacturer wants that MS certificate thingy. Granted, they can still legally make boards&stuff without the label, but they'll be committing the next best thing to marketing suicide. The technical term here is «de facto monopoly».

Where are your anti-monopoly laws now?

>>13
Not to mention what happens when a corporation establishes a monopoly: The monopolist's freedom begins, that of all others ends.
Communism happens. You should know already, that all these Freemasons (a union of monopolists) are in fact commies. You can see that already from a wiki page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
Freemasons, as speculative masons (meaning philosophical building rather than actual building), use this symbolism to teach moral and ethical lessons of the principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth;" or as related in France, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."

That is a commie slogan, if you've seen USSR propaganda, you would know it. You should also know, that under such slogan a concentration camps were built.

Liberty - to die for the Jews
Equality - you're not allowed to have hierarchical organizations of  your own.
Fraternity(brotherhood) -  you'll work in a concentration camp, where everyone spies on everyone (typical for freemasons)

>>16
Obviously monopolization is the manifest destiny of the free (unrestricted) market and is perfectly justified by survival of the fittest grounds.

Who cares if other better people that can, are, and will make better products have market terrorism performed against them by monopolizers, or that the lack of competition pool is the antecedent of the touted values of liberty and equality that "free" market drones claim to believe? It's survival! If they aren't strong enough to take it then they never would've survived in the market anyways. That's the freemarket way.

Plus hey, who says that these corporations don't in the end and under the table serve the executive means of the government as a paid service? That would mean they're just an extension of the government so that's exactly what you want and nothing can go wrong because: you can trust everyone in the government, and the people in it are there honestly and genuinely and NOT shoehorned in by the spamming of the corporate monopolized media distracting people from real issues and real people and filling in talking head shills in their place right? RIGHT?

>>16
Yeah, let's not pretend the subprime loans "thingy" was caused solely by terrible banks doing stupid shit. There were people taking out those loans they KNEW they couldn't possibly afford and voters who just twiddled their thumbs as most governments spent like there was no tomorrow while they seriously claimed that "boom and bust" wasn't possible any longer.

The market doesn't need regulation, consumers and voters just need to fucking educate themselves and take responsibility when they themselves make really bad decisions.

>>19
Ahem, a significant portion of those loans were pushed on people with too little education to have any idea what they were actually getting themselves into.
The people pushing those loans knew perfectly well that these people were often eligible for better loan conditions, but there bonuses on subprime loans, that they would then just pass on to others, were just obscenely fat.

Just collect the bonus and pass on the buck of actually getting the lent money back, aka take the money and run. That's somehow magically _not_ an incentive _for_ irresponsibility?

>>19
A system that is not fundamentally rotten, is harder to take down than one that is.
Just saying.

>>20
I stand by what I said, the people who took these loans, the people who signed the contract of their own freewill and volition are just as much to blame as the irresponsible lenders. It's a two way thing and completely retarded to blame only banks for the collapse and then extrapolate that to the conclusion that all big business is evil, including people who have lots of money, regardless of whether or not you have any idea how they made their money.

>>22
If you fuck up someone's education, it's easier to get them to sign shit that no _educated_ man would.

"Informed consent" is supposed to be just precisely that: Informed. Keep someone in perpetual poverty, and chances are they'll be nothing of the sort. Education's expensive, especially for those folks.


Tl;dr: A man can be as intelligent as he wants, but with insufficient info, he'll make just as bad calls as any idiot. Which is why ignorance is such a piss-poor defence against swindlers.

>>23
All they needed to do was read the god damn legally binding contract they were promising to honour. A financial contract is a big fucking thing and if you just sign them without understanding the content you must take responsibility for your actions. You have a duty to yourself to ask as many questions as possible of the person trying to give you a loan and if something seems wrong then you walk the fuck away. The people who didn't do this are not innocent little lambs who couldn't have done anything else, they are not free from obligation just because they're poor.

>>24
They are free from obligation because they were roped, led, swindled, and ransacked by people who know every in and out of how they could take advantage of them, their lack of comprehension, and the lack of consumer protection laws that are present on every type of institutionalized loan EXCEPT STUDENT LOANS.

Go be a shill for organized con artists on reddit or stormfuck or something.

>>25
Okay, if this is what we're doing; go back to your unemployed "occupy" buddies and take your sense of self-entitlement with you, maybe give your mother a call and have her tell you how you never need to be responsible for your action because you're special.

>>26
But none of the people tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt are the ones shaking responsibility, the government and the crook industry are the ones doing that, which is why this problem even exists. Why don't you go back to answering calls and get out of the online shill department.

>>27
Actually, I think I'll go back to my well paid private sector non-office job that I earned based on my hard work and intellect, the one I got while every slacker around me complained that there no jobs anywhere. And I'll take home my entire pay check each month without any of it going to pay debt since I never took out a student loan because I recognized the fallacy of blindly following the university path and then demanding a well paid job afterwards. The whole thing was a scam, it was blindly obvious to anyone thought about what we best for them for a moment.

>>28
You realize your description of your job in no way excludes shilling for right wing crook interests. But you're right that telling every kid to go to college on the premise that they would be guaranteed a better life by going through it IS an enormous scam. But it's these same people involved with making sure that rap is drilled into kids heads constantly and from the beginning that have gone on to reap billions from them with them still owing billions more and paying 20x what they borrowed while their lives get ruined.

And with all of that happening the whole society gets dragged down with it no matter what, so at what point do you step back and fucking realize that you have to make sure this kind of shit doesn't happen in the first place?

I can't remember the exact numbers, but I was in the lower right quadrant. Almost exactly where Milton Friedman is.

>>24
All they needed was a foolproof swindle-detector, since they were basically being told that "this is the best anyone will ever do for the likes of you".

The system was set up so as to give the bankers a fuckton of incentive to push detrimental loans on their (let's face it) victims.
- Thousands of dollars in bonus per bad loan pushed, much less so on good ones
- Loans subsequently sold to third-party dealers, en masse!
- Hence, the ones pushing the loans were not the ones that would have to retrieve the money, making it someone else's problem
- Not to mention, the loan-pushers could then keep the bonus money whatever then happened to the loan.

Contrast this with a sane system, where the bankers would be, say, held responsible for the money they lend out.
It may also put some restrictions on re-re-re-re-re-resale of loans packages with a gadzillion loans in each; say, a mandatory default insurance built into every third-plus resale of every loan, or something.
I mean, since those people (presumably) have a non-phuxx0rd education, howsabout giving them some responsibility to take a look at what they're getting themselves into?


But no, let's just kneejerk aquit the whole goddamned system of every thinkable form of evil, cos anything else wold force us to start changing things to something that fails to line the pockets of swindlers and frauds. And that would be communism, now wouldn't it?

Here's a political compass for the 2012 US presidential election

http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz