political test

[phuckphace]

didn't see one of these threads so I made one. go to www.politicaltest.net, take the quiz and post a screenshot of your results in this thread. you can skip the part where it asks for your name, email and gender.

You are a patriotic and authoritarian Socialist. 5 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 13 percent are more extremist than you.

http://i.imgur.com/RuR8WQy.png

[Philleeep]

You are a social democratic Cosmopolitan. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 34 percent are more extremist than you.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468596_eng.jpg

[Miserabilia]

You are a cosmopolitan Social Democrat. 13 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 8 percent are more extremist than you.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468601_eng.jpg

[abc983055235235231a]

I don't really pay much attention to things that want to tell me what my own opinion is....

[phuckphace]

I don't really pay much attention to things that want to tell me what my own opinion is....

that's not what it does. you give it your opinions and it categorizes them.

[Vlerchan]

I got lazy with the weighting because it's simply difficult to work on a phone. It's all rather unsurprising regardless:

You are a Social Democrat. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 2 percent are more extremist than you.http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468656_eng.jpg

[Yonkers]

abcd

[Vlerchan]

I definitely do not agree with 'anarcho-collectivist' :P

Heh. 9/10 times I'm apparently an anarcho-communist or -syndicalist on these tests - usually declare as left-libertarian. I think my general aversion to animal-rights saved me this time, however.

[Yonkers]

abcd

[backjruton]

I... would definitely be lying if I said I understood this
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/850/dcnf.png (https://imageshack.com/i/nmdcnfp)

You are a bourgeois patriot. 6 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 51 percent are more extremist than you.

[Capto]

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468703_eng.jpg

You are a Social Democrat. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 11 percent are more extremist than you.

Interesting.

[conniption]

I am, apparently, a neoliberal democrat

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468707_eng.jpg

[phuckphace]

why am I always the only authoritarian/reactionary ;_;

[Gamma Male]

Huh. Apparently I'm a neo-liberal democrat. I'd always just called myself a Libertarian.
I can't stand communism, authoritarianism, government spying, animal abuse, social conservatism, or unnesecery violent force. I've especially never understood why anyone would possibly support authoritarianism.

[Stronk Serb]

You are a patriotic and authoritarian Socialist. 3 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 13 percent are more extremist then you.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468757_eng.jpg

Looks like we are on the same boat here.

[phuckphace]

I've especially never understood why anyone would possibly support authoritarianism.

because social liberalism erodes the foundations necessary for a strong and cohesive society, while an authoritarian system of values keeps it healthy. if you want to see an example of why social liberalism doesn't work, take a look around you at the society you're living in. we tried giving everyone freedom and they fucked it up.

[Gamma Male]

because social liberalism erodes the foundations necessary for a strong and cohesive society, while an authoritarian system of values keeps it healthy. if you want to see an example of why social liberalism doesn't work, take a look around you at the society you're living in. we tried giving everyone freedom and they fucked it up.

How does allowing gay marraige, abortions, soft drug use, free exchange of ideas, religious freedom, and privacy "erode the foundations nessecery for a strong and cohesive society"? Be more specific.

And neo-liberal societys may not be perfect, but I'd sure as hell rather live in one and be able to marry the person I love, read the whatever media publication I please, smoke weed, have consenual sex with whoever I want, and have the right to disagree with claims made by the goverment, than live in some facist, authoritarian, totaltarian shithole where I'm constantly being watched by Big Brother and am told what to wear, what I do in my free time, what dieties to worship or not worship, who to agree with, and what to read.

[phuckphace]

How does allowing gay marraige, abortions, soft drug use, free exchange of ideas, religious freedom, and privacy "erode the foundations nessecery for a strong and cohesive society"? Be more specific.

you're confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism. they aren't the same.

widespread abortions are a symptom of a broken society whose morals have decayed significantly. in a healthy society, people have a strong sense of personal responsibility and maturity, and have monogamous relationships only. thus abortions are incredibly rare.

And neo-liberal societys may not be perfect, but I'd sure as hell rather live in one and be able to marry the person I love, read the whatever media publication I please, smoke weed, have consenual sex with whoever I want, and have the right to disagree with claims made by the goverment, than live in some facist, authoritarian, totaltarian shithole where I'm constantly being watched by Big Brother and am told what to wear, what I do in my free time, what dieties to worship or not worship, who to agree with, and what to read.

again authoritarianism is not synonymous with police state or fascism. and I have to say picking the type of governance you want based on whether or not they'll let you http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gifBLAZE DAT KRONIK KUSH ERRYDAY #420http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gif is infantile. governments exist to promote and maintain social order and stability, their number one priority is not catering to the hedonistic entitlements of 14-year-olds.

[Gamma Male]

you're confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism. they aren't the same.

widespread abortions are a symptom of a broken society whose morals have decayed significantly. in a healthy society, people have a strong sense of personal responsibility and maturity, and have monogamous relationships only. thus abortions are incredibly rare.
Who says you have to be in a monogamous relationship to have a strong sense of personal responsibility and maturity? If you think that's that's true, fine. That's your opinion. But the government has no right to regulate personal relationships. What 2 or more consenting adults do behind closed dorrs is their business, and their's alone. And it certainly has nothing to do with their sense of character. And I agree it's unforntunate so many people are having unsafe sex and accidentally getting pregant, but don't see what that has to do with the legality of abortions.

again authoritarianism is not synonymous with police state or fascism. and I have to say picking the type of governance you want based on whether or not they'll let you image (http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gif)BLAZE DAT KRONIK KUSH ERRYDAY #420image (http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gif) is infantile. governments exist to promote and maintain social order and stability, their number one priority is not catering to the hedonistic entitlements of 14-year-olds.
I 100% agree. The marijuana smoking habits of random people should not be a concern of the governments. I just don't think it's fair that innocent people are being fired, thrown in prison, branded "felons", and essentially having their lives ruined because they smoke marijuana.
And there is a LOT of middle ground between imprisoning sombody because they smoked marijuana and "catering to the hedonistic entitlements of 14-year-olds".

[phuckphace]

But the government has no right to regulate personal relationships.

what are you basing this on? last time I checked there are laws on the books that do exactly that. and why are they there? because the general public wanted them. therefore the government does in fact have that right.

What 2 or more consenting adults do behind closed dorrs is their business, and their's alone. And it certainly has nothing to do with their sense of character.

sexual behavior is never fully private or victimless. we hear the "closed doors" line all the time, but then we witness gay pride parades where demonstrators are waving their penises around in broad daylight and even masturbating in the street. this aspect of the gay "community" is always downplayed by liberals because it would only confirm the stereotype that the general public holds toward gays - perverts, sexual deviants, promiscuous, etc. for the same reason, you are probably unaware that during the 1970s and early 80s, NAMBLA (the pedophile rights group) used to march alongside the gay rights people as a legitimate movement. after the onset of the AIDS epidemic when it was revealed that many gay men had had an average of 11 unprotected sexual partners per year, the gay rights movement suffered a significant setback that they still haven't fully recovered from.

just keep that in mind next time you're wondering why some people hold "bigoted" views and a distrust of gays. sometimes "bigotry" exists for a reason.

And I agree it's unforntunate so many people are having unsafe sex and accidentally getting pregant, but don't see what that has to do with the legality of abortions.

it has more to do with the need to restore a moral foundation so that unwanted pregnancies rarely occur to begin with.

I 100% agree. The marijuana smoking habits of random people should not be a concern of the governments. I just don't think it's fair that innocent people are being fired, thrown in prison, branded "felons", and essentially having their lives ruined because they smoke marijuana.

that's not what I was saying. it is very much a concern of the government what the public does and what effects their actions have on both themselves and everyone else. contrary to popular belief, cannabis is not 100% harmless and has been shown to cause or worsen mental problems in younger people. although I personally support its legalization on pragmatic grounds, I also don't believe it should be a high priority and you certainly shouldn't embrace some goofy RAWN PAWL minarchism just because you want to get high.

And there is a LOT of middle ground between imprisoning sombody because they smoked marijuana and "catering to the hedonistic entitlements of 14-year-olds".

again I don't think cannabis use should be a crime punishable by imprisonment, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people develop a childish obsession with it. there are more important things to worry about.

[Lovecraft]

"You are an anarcho-capitalist. 0 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 7 percent are more extremist than you."

7% are more extremist than me? God damnit.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468786_eng.jpg

Edit: there was weighting? Ohh. That'd explain why I'm not 100% an anarchist. I'm drunk and lazy sorry friends

[Gamma Male]

what are you basing this on? last time I checked there are laws on the books that do exactly that. and why are they there? because the general public wanted them. therefore the government does in fact have that right.
Well, they shouldn't be able to.



sexual behavior is never fully private or victimless. we hear the "closed doors" line all the time, but then we witness gay pride parades where demonstrators are waving their penises around in broad daylight and even masturbating in the street. this aspect of the gay "community" is always downplayed by liberals because it would only confirm the stereotype that the general public holds toward gays - perverts, sexual deviants, promiscuous, etc. for the same reason, you are probably unaware that during the 1970s and early 80s, NAMBLA (the pedophile rights group) used to march alongside the gay rights people as a legitimate movement. after the onset of the AIDS epidemic when it was revealed that many gay men had had an average of 11 unprotected sexual partners per year, the gay rights movement suffered a significant setback that they still haven't fully recovered from.
I don't see what any of this has to do with gay marriage or the governments involement in relationships.

just keep that in mind next time you're wondering why some people hold "bigoted" views and a distrust of gays. sometimes "bigotry" exists for a reason.
So basically, you're accusing all gays of being wild sexually deviant pedophiles who show their junk in public?

it has more to do with the need to restore a moral foundation so that unwanted pregnancies rarely occur to begin with. Your opinion of what constitutes a good moral foundations is just that. Your opinion. I don't think you have to be in a steady monogamous relationship to a be good person. As long as everyone involved is happy and above the age of consent, I don't see the problem with any type of relation.(fwb's, gays, lesbians, one night stands, polygamy, orgys...etc)



that's not what I was saying. it is very much a concern of the government what the public does and what effects their actions have on both themselves and everyone else. contrary to popular belief, cannabis is not 100% harmless and has been shown to cause or worsen mental problems in younger people. although I personally support its legalization on pragmatic grounds, I also don't believe it should be a high priority and you certainly shouldn't embrace some goofy RAWN PAWL minarchism just because you want to get high.



again I don't think cannabis use should be a crime punishable by imprisonment, but it just rubs me the wrong way when people develop a childish obsession with it. there are more important things to worry about.
Just because there are more important issues, it doesn't mean we should just completly ignore the smaller ones. And I don't see how fighting for civil rights is a "childish obsession".

[Lovecraft]

just keep that in mind next time you're wondering why some people hold "bigoted" views and a distrust of gays. sometimes "bigotry" exists for a reason.


Oh boy. I'll blame your ignorance on your upbringing and not on you to stop myself from harbouring anger towards you.

I fuck girls sometimes, how does that make me inherently bad? You can cherry-pick people from a group and use them as evidence all you want, it won't make it any less a fallacy. Gay people are exactly the same as straight people, they just happen to fuck people of the same gender.

You remarked on how things in the bedroom are public issues. Do you hold the same feelings towards members of the BDSM community? If I like to get beat up consensually, is that detrimental to society?

[phuckphace]

Oh boy. I'll blame your ignorance on your upbringing and not on you to stop myself from harbouring anger towards you.

good, because getting upset when someone else's opinion differs from your own is silly.

for what it's worth, I'm gay myself. this doesn't mean I'm going to try and downplay or ignore the dysfunction and sexual deviance that is, unfortunately, very pervasive in the gay "community." it's an uncomfortable truth, but truth nonetheless.

I fuck girls sometimes, how does that make me inherently bad?

I never claimed that

You can cherry-pick people from a group and use them as evidence all you want, it won't make it any less a fallacy.

the problem is, it's not cherry picking when the examples I gave are actually very commonplace. are you denying that a lot of lewd and perverted behavior goes on in gay pride parades? because it does, and refusing to acknowledge this, or trying to make it less of an issue than it is, is dishonest to say the least. what I'm saying here is, gay people are going to have a very difficult time selling the public on their message of "we're just like you" when they are simultaneously shoving pink dildos in their asses in full view of children.

Gay people are exactly the same as straight people, they just happen to fuck people of the same gender.

this is not quite true, although I wish it were. it has been documented for example that homosexual males are far more likely to be suicidal and suffer from other chronic mental problems, as well as being several times more likely than heterosexuals to use hard drugs. a study even found that a majority of gays who are HIV-positive are unaware that they have the virus, and that only about 6% of gay males were aware that Kaposi's sarcoma (one of the so-called "AIDS-defining illnesses") is caused by a different virus unrelated to HIV. my experience with the gay "community" certainly correlates with these findings. part of the reason I avoid associating myself with the gay "community" is because so many of them seem to be broken individuals with pervasive character flaws (like extreme narcissism, for one) with a habit of blaming all their problems on oppression and evil bigots. I'm well aware that there are mentally healthy and high-functioning gay people (I consider myself one of them, after all) but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't the exception rather than the rule. I have yet to meet a gay guy IRL who isn't an angsty basket case with a chip on his shoulder and some creepy paraphilia like furry fandom or tentacle shotacon.

You remarked on how things in the bedroom are public issues.
Do you hold the same feelings towards members of the BDSM community? If I like to get beat up consensually, is that detrimental to society?

what I actually said was, sexual behavior is never fully private. the bit about BDSM is just begging the question.

----

"You are an anarcho-capitalist. 0 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 7 percent are more extremist than you."

7% are more extremist than me? God damnit.

image (http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468786_eng.jpg)

Jesus Christ, how horrifying

[Gamma Male]

good, because getting upset when someone else's opinion differs from your own is silly.

for what it's worth, I'm gay myself. this doesn't mean I'm going to try and downplay or ignore the dysfunction and sexual deviance that is, unfortunately, very pervasive in the gay "community." it's an uncomfortable truth, but truth nonetheless.



I never claimed that



the problem is, it's not cherry picking when the examples I gave are actually very commonplace. are you denying that a lot of lewd and perverted behavior goes on in gay pride parades? because it does, and refusing to acknowledge this, or trying to make it less of an issue than it is, is dishonest to say the least. what I'm saying here is, gay people are going to have a very difficult time selling the public on their message of "we're just like you" when they are simultaneously shoving pink dildos in their asses in full view of children.



this is not quite true, although I wish it were. it has been documented for example that homosexual males are far more likely to be suicidal and suffer from other chronic mental problems, as well as being several times more likely than heterosexuals to use hard drugs. a study even found that a majority of gays who are HIV-positive are unaware that they have the virus, and that only about 6% of gay males were aware that Kaposi's sarcoma (one of the so-called "AIDS-defining illnesses") is caused by a different virus unrelated to HIV. my experience with the gay "community" certainly correlates with these findings. part of the reason I avoid associating myself with the gay "community" is because so many of them seem to be broken individuals with pervasive character flaws (like extreme narcissism, for one) with a habit of blaming all their problems on oppression and evil bigots. I'm well aware that there are mentally healthy and high-functioning gay people (I consider myself one of them, after all) but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't the exception rather than the rule. I have yet to meet a gay guy IRL who isn't an angsty basket case with a chip on his shoulder and some creepy paraphilia like furry fandom or tentacle shotacon.



what I actually said was, sexual behavior is never fully private. the bit about BDSM is just begging the question.

Most of what you've said about the gay community is untrue. I've yet to hear about a single gay pride parade in which the participents were all nude and having a giant orgy in the street. Pretty sure if something like that were to happen it would be all over fox news. And as for the suicide thing? There's a reason for that. It's because of people like you, who're constantly going on and on about how perverted gays are.
And even if I AM into, as you put it "some creepy paraphilia like furry fandom or tentecle shotacon, so fucking what? There's nothing wrong with either of those things. And it certainly isn't any of your business.
So, aside from flashing in public at gay pride parades(which simply doesn't happen), what other reasons do you have to suspects most gays are sexually deviant perverts? Because I just can't think of any.

[TheBigUnit]

Guess I'm alright haha 94% off people are more extremist haha

[Typhlosion]

You are a Neo-Conservative. 3 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 28 percent are more extremist than you.

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/468835_eng.jpg

[Vlerchan]

lolbertarianism is the go-to ideology for edgy teenagers who have problems with authority ...

... and people who don't like the idea of using force against another individual on the sole basis of disagreeing with the lifestyle choices that they have made of which don't actually affect you in any way, shape or form - note: I'm not counting your offence to perceived lewdness; I find it to be rather meaningless. I also presume you also have some manner of verifiable evidence supporting your latest claim - I'll get to countering it once I've read-over it a bit.

EDIT: I don't actually think your wholly wrong here. I just have a problem with broad, unbacked statements such as the one you just made.

t has more to do with the need to restore a moral foundation so that unwanted pregnancies rarely occur to begin with.
You'll find that the moral foundations tend to be established prior to the laws 'protecting' or 'ensuring' moral foundations are established - and vice-versa. The establishment of anti-racism laws didn't come about as a great way as to lessen racism but rather a less-racist population established anti-racism laws as a result of becoming less-racist, etc., etc.. Essentially, laws attempting to impose morality are pointless because such laws can only be imposed, in a democracy, after the population has already decided to adopt such a line of morality, and are such largely redundant.

I haven't seen you claim otherwise but I feel it's (always) an important point to make when discussing the perceived moral-degradation of society and attempting to 'fix' it.

Edit: there was weighting? Ohh. That'd explain why I'm not 100% an anarchist.
I'd say it's more to do with capitalism and anarchism being entirely opposed, as opposed to any other reasoning that you might care to offer, personally.

EDIT:
As long as everyone involved is happy and above the age of consent, I don't see the problem with any type of relation.
The bolded portion of this extract is a blatant contradiction to your entire position: you can't claim to be against government intervention in the bedroom and in releationships when your entirely happy to see them use force against an individual who you just arbitrarily defined as not being ready for sex. Being part of the mainstream doesn't make one less an authoritarian - if we want to proceed in labelling all slights against freedom as authoritarianism here.

Note: I'm for an age of consent. I just can't help myself here.

[Sir Suomi]

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic6/469008_eng.jpg

I'm apparently a Leftist-Fascist. Surprising, since I see myself as a Libertarian with Liberal leanings :rolleyes:

[phuckphace]

@Vlerchan

I find the argument of "it's private so it doesn't affect you" to be as faulty as it is overused. so-called "lifestyle choices" are never fully contained in the private sphere as much as many people like to insist otherwise, nor are two spheres of public and private activity as isolated from one another as the aforementioned people also insist. because all individuals occupy both spheres, there is necessarily a certain degree of overlap between the two. the way someone behaves in private does in fact correlate with how they behave in public.

but in any case, the question of to what degree X or Y is truly private or not is moot in the context of the hyper-individualized social arrangement promoted by Lovecraft et al. in that sort of society, each specific individual is considered a "society" in and of themselves, and the concept of public and private as we understand it would not exist. the major issue I have with anarcho-capitalism and similar ideologies is that their notions of human needs and interactions are severely flawed. they seem to be under the impression that everyone has (or would be comfortable adopting) the stunted social habits of aspies. an-caps erroneously believe that most people willingly live under government "coercion" simply because they don't know any better, and that if more people read Atlas Shrugged they'd realize the error of their ways, reject government and build Rapture 2.0. this handily reveals their inherent ignorance of how human societies are formed and maintained, why societies gravitate toward collectivism in varying degrees, and the true reasons why most people instinctively understand the need for authority and obedience. the answer is stupefyingly obvious to everyone except an-caps themselves - anarchy and hyper-individualism are incompatible with human nature. we're social primates who have needs and desires that go beyond "creating wealth" and other economic pursuits. if all people had Asperger's and an average IQ of 190, it would probably be feasible. but that simply isn't the case.

speaking even as atheist and gay, if I were given the choice of living either in anarcho-capitalist Society A where I was free to snort coke off my 10-year-old boyfriend's ass in broad daylight in the middle of the street, or Society B, a Christian theocracy where homosexual sex or sex outside of marriage was punishable by imprisonment, I would pick Society B in a heartbeat. why? because like most people, I value order and security over "freedom." freedom is a sham, despite the best efforts of certain people to paint those who desire security as weak and feeble-minded.

advocates of democracy always base their arguments on a premise - that democracy is inherently good or desirable. contrary to popular belief, democracy is highly flawed in many areas, not the least of which its assumption that the demos knows what is best for it. in reality, the demos is gullible and easily distracted, and won't hesitate to vote for its own suicide. that is the precise reason that until recently, it was understood that giving the demos direct political power was the quickest way to sink your nation like the Titanic. historically, societies were governed by kings and dictators ("tyrants" if you will) because people understood that order and security must be preserved over freedom. sadly that is incomprehensible to people today who were taught from birth that freedom and democracy are sacrosanct. "'Order' and 'stability'?! pfffttt! what about my GANJA dudebro?!"

[jayce_xt]

Before I begin wading waist-deep into this shit storm, I'll go ahead and post my results:

"You are a Social Democrat. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 11 percent are more extremist than you."

http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/469541_eng.jpg

Personally, I have no idea how my Anarchy score is so low. Perhaps the quiz-designers mistakenly equated "everyone should be watched at all times in public" with "constant government surveillance" (they sound the same, but there is a significant difference, considering the first of the two statements doesn't specify by whom everyone is watched)?

Anyway, onward to logical corrections!

@Vlerchan

I find the argument of "it's private so it doesn't affect you" to be as faulty as it is overused. so-called "lifestyle choices" are never fully contained in the private sphere as much as many people like to insist otherwise, nor are two spheres of public and private activity as isolated from one another as the aforementioned people also insist. because all individuals occupy both spheres, there is necessarily a certain degree of overlap between the two. the way someone behaves in private does in fact correlate with how they behave in public.

This is true. The way people act in private does affect the way they act in public. You're good so far...

but in any case, the question of to what degree X or Y is truly private or not is moot in the context of the hyper-individualized social arrangement promoted by Lovecraft et al. in that sort of society, each specific individual is considered a "society" in and of themselves, and the concept of public and private as we understand it would not exist.

... still good, though pointless. Public and private are purely social constructs with no inherently observable benefit/harm relationship. Thus, their existence (or lack thereof) is arbitrary, and is of no particular importance...

the major issue I have with anarcho-capitalism and similar ideologies is that their notions of human needs and interactions are severely flawed. they seem to be under the impression that everyone has (or would be comfortable adopting) the stunted social habits of aspies. an-caps erroneously believe that most people willingly live under government "coercion" simply because they don't know any better, and that if more people read Atlas Shrugged they'd realize the error of their ways, reject government and build Rapture 2.0.

... no idea what you're trying to say with the Aspbergers comment...

this handily reveals their inherent ignorance of how human societies are formed and maintained, why societies gravitate toward collectivism in varying degrees, and the true reasons why most people instinctively understand the need for authority and obedience. the answer is stupefyingly obvious to everyone except an-caps themselves - anarchy and hyper-individualism are incompatible with human nature.

... and this paragraph indicates exactly where you've dun goof'd and gone Full Retard. Sort of. You're correct: humans are social animals, and gravitate towards group organization. But then you make the most erroneous statement possible by saying that humans "instinctively understand the need for authority and obedience". Humans do not work this way. If you look at history, we are constantly presented with rebellion and struggle against all forms of dominance. Wherever we see inequality and corruption in human social structures, we also see resistance and backlash.

Historically, humans have been oppressed on massive scales by one another, yes. But that is not at all indicative of human nature. If human nature was one of subservience, then the logical following would be that insurrections would be few and rare. But they aren't. We instead see the exact opposite thing happening. In all but the most brutal dictatorships (where slavery is, in fact, preferable to the wholesale slaughter of entire villages), rebellion occurs with relative frequency until power is redistributed more evenly.

Your view presumes that Authoritarianism--the idea that power should be concentrated in the hands of a few ruling over the many--is endemic to humans. Yet one need only examine the histories of Africa, South America, and Europe to see that this is far from the case. Humans do not naturally want to be dominated in such a fashion. If they did, we would not see constant struggles against this oppression.

we're social primates who have needs and desires that go beyond "creating wealth" and other economic pursuits. if all people had Asperger's and an average IQ of 190, it would probably be feasible. but that simply isn't the case.

You're back on track now. Wealth is a construct that is really only advanced and championed by the few whom it benefits, in the first place. Your statement here is accurate.

speaking even as atheist and gay, if I were given the choice of living either in anarcho-capitalist Society A where I was free to snort coke off my 10-year-old boyfriend's ass in broad daylight in the middle of the street, or Society B, a Christian theocracy where homosexual sex or sex outside of marriage was punishable by imprisonment, I would pick Society B in a heartbeat. why? because like most people, I value order and security over "freedom." freedom is a sham, despite the best efforts of certain people to paint those who desire security as weak and feeble-minded.

How does "snorting coke off your 10-year-old boyfriend's ass in broad daylight in the middle of the street" in any way, shape, or form affect your security? Mardi Gras in the Netherlands is one of the most gratuitous orgies of sex and substance use in the world, seeing a week straight of nonstop celebration. Yet they are also one of the most secure and crime-free nations in the world. Something about your argument smells like ass. And it's not the underage jailbait I'm talking about, either.

advocates of democracy always base their arguments on a premise - that democracy is inherently good or desirable. contrary to popular belief, democracy is highly flawed in many areas, not the least of which its assumption that the demos knows what is best for it.

You are correct here. By itself, Direct Democracy is just random. You never know what you're gonna get if you just throw a random population into a set of voting booths and say, "majority decides the new laws!"

in reality, the demos is gullible and easily distracted, and won't hesitate to vote for its own suicide. that is the precise reason that until recently, it was understood that giving the demos direct political power was the quickest way to sink your nation like the Titanic.

That depends. If the population in the Direct Democracy is gullible and easily distracted, then yes, they probably won't hesitate to nuke themselves. But you're making an assumption there. You can just as easily make an assumption that the population of a Direct Democracy is well-educated, logical, and secular in its reasoning, and will consequently vote to make the most efficient and safe society possible while still allowing for mass bukkake pits at the post office.

Your assumption is that the choice is either freedom or safety. You completely ignore the possibility of frontier (the ability to maximize your return on all available options).

historically, societies were governed by kings and dictators ("tyrants" if you will) because people understood that order and security must be preserved over freedom. sadly that is incomprehensible to people today who were taught from birth that freedom and democracy are sacrosanct. "'Order' and 'stability'?! pfffttt! what about my GANJA dudebro?!"

Actually, societies were dominated by lords because of religion. See, there's a very, very close kinship between monarchy and religion. Initially, all rulers came to be lords of their own local mini-kingdoms through sheer force. The warriors would conquer other people, who then became slaves or servants to them. Some slaves and servants could be elevated to actual citizens, though this was rare. This went on for centuries in Europe and the Middle East. But constant conflict and warring are inefficient. There had to be a better way. And so one was invented, sort of. As part of some rulers' particularly successful military conflicts, rumors were spread about how "X had the favor of the gods, and was unbeatable," or how "Y had surely descended from some deity, as no blow ever directed at him ever managed to slay him." Local religious heresies soon were incorporated into large organized cult lore, and it was decided that royalty was a status given "by the gods".

Over time, entire lineages of these particularly successful warmongers were entitled the right to rule solely as a matter of perceived divine providence. Descendants were seen as "having godly privilege and responsibility" to rule thousands of people. This was reinforced heavily by religion, and as we've seen historically, members of the local religious cult frequently received wealth and/or status comparable to royalty. This system of mutual benefits lasted for over a thousand years, during which time any threats to the systems received merciless persecution.

So you see, it's not that people "understood" that Authoritarianism was better. We simply had generations upon generations of slaves who were propagandized to to think this way. Eventually, this system was counteracted by revolutions that were large and unified enough to overthrow them completely, but not before dozens of other, smaller, unsuccessful revolutions took place first.

---

Also, you made some incorrect statements in a previous post that bothered me to no end, and demand correction:

widespread abortions are a symptom of a broken society whose morals have decayed significantly. in a healthy society, people have a strong sense of personal responsibility and maturity, and have monogamous relationships only. thus abortions are incredibly rare.

First off, Japanese culture is one of the most solid and cohesive in existence, and their abortion rate is at least twice that of any other nation in the world. How do you reconcile that with your assertion? Secondly, how do you even go about proving that abortions are a sign of moral decay? Lastly, how are monogamous relationships a sign of healthy societies? It's all well and good to make arguments, but when you don't provide any reasons for them, you might as well be shouting, "You may think that clouds are white, but they're actually green."

again authoritarianism is not synonymous with police state or fascism. and I have to say picking the type of governance you want based on whether or not they'll let you image (http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gif)BLAZE DAT KRONIK KUSH ERRYDAY #420image (http://i.imgur.com/tDMZw2Q.gif) is infantile. governments exist to promote and maintain social order and stability, their number one priority is not catering to the hedonistic entitlements of 14-year-olds.

Correction: government exists to promote the needs of the people. It is to consist of the people themselves. It is not a group of "moral individuals" who "lead" the others into social stability. It is everyone putting their voices and thoughts together to accomplish what everyone needs. Its number one priority is not to control or restrict the people based on a pathologically misguided set of morals that fails to so much as justify itself through logic.

[phuckphace]

... no idea what you're trying to say with the Aspbergers comment...

the libertarian social arrangement is unappealing to people like myself who have a concern for the well-being of others and how their actions can affect everyone around them. in a libertarian society, if others are behaving in ways that are destructive, too bad, if you don't want to see it then just cloister yourself up in your basement. this arrangement may be well suited to aspies, but most of us aren't aspies.

... and this paragraph indicates exactly where you've dun goof'd and gone Full Retard.

according to you anyway

But then you make the most erroneous statement possible by saying that humans "instinctively understand the need for authority and obedience". Humans do not work this way.

as individuals, not always. but as groups, we do.

If you look at history, we are constantly presented with rebellion and struggle against all forms of dominance. Wherever we see inequality and corruption in human social structures, we also see resistance and backlash. Historically, humans have been oppressed on massive scales by one another, yes. But that is not at all indicative of human nature. If human nature was one of subservience, then the logical following would be that insurrections would be few and rare. But they aren't. We instead see the exact opposite thing happening. In all but the most brutal dictatorships (where slavery is, in fact, preferable to the wholesale slaughter of entire villages), rebellion occurs with relative frequency until power is redistributed more evenly. Your view presumes that Authoritarianism--the idea that power should be concentrated in the hands of a few ruling over the many--is endemic to humans. Yet one need only examine the histories of Africa, South America, and Europe to see that this is far from the case. Humans do not naturally want to be dominated in such a fashion. If they did, we would not see constant struggles against this oppression.

ah. so, given the frequency of these insurrections, and assuming that your assertions here are true, we would expect then that a decent number would have resulted in the formation of an anarchist society - after the oppressors in question were eliminated there was nothing preventing any attempt to build a real-life Rapture. Ayn Rand was hardly the first person who could have envisioned a "no gods or kings only man" society. instead history shows us repeated examples of people rising up not to shake off government and authority itself, but simply to eliminate individual regimes who had been deemed too oppressive. I'm well aware that people do not possess an innate desire to be worked to death in a gulag, but given the total absence of an anarchistic society of any significance from the history books, it follows that most people do in fact naturally desire some sort of centralized authority.

How does "snorting coke off your 10-year-old boyfriend's ass in broad daylight in the middle of the street" in any way, shape, or form affect your security?

the mere fact that you even have to ask this question with a straight face speaks volumes. dangerous addictive drugs that have a profound effect on the behavior of the user? sex with prepubescent children? come on now, I can tell you're a smart guy, it shouldn't be this difficult.

Mardi Gras in the Netherlands is one of the most gratuitous orgies of sex and substance use in the world, seeing a week straight of nonstop celebration. Yet they are also one of the most secure and crime-free nations in the world.

now imagine that this behavior was not limited to a small percentage of the population, and that this widespread "substance" use didn't just include marijuana but cocaine, heroin and PCP as well. would the underlined statement still hold true? absolutely not. the Netherlands enjoys low crime because this type of gratuitous behavior is the exception rather than the rule.

Something about your argument smells like ass. And it's not the underage jailbait I'm talking about, either.

is this supposed to be funny? yes, children having sex is so hilarious!

But you're making an assumption there. You can just as easily make an assumption that the population of a Direct Democracy is well-educated, logical, and secular in its reasoning

I believe the one making the assumption is you, and that assumption is that this sort of society exists or even can exist. as I stated previously, not everyone possesses an IQ of 190 or desire to devote all their energies to obtain phat stax of Benjamins. the anarchist's wet dream has always been a real life Galt's Gulch populated by polymaths and Objectivist philosophers, which ignores the very real downsides to having a high IQ. generally speaking, the higher one's IQ, the more cripplingly anti-social they tend to be, and a whole society consisting of this type would be ridiculously top-heavy and unwieldy.

and will consequently vote to make the most efficient and safe society possible while still allowing for mass bukkake pits at the post office.

the funny thing about statements like this is that it's often hard to tell if you're reading a parody of what libertarians believe, or an actual statement from them. and libertarians continue to remain perplexed as to why they never win elections.

Your assumption is that the choice is either freedom or safety. You completely ignore the possibility of frontier (the ability to maximize your return on all available options).

the more freedom there is, the less safety there is. mutual trust is the foundation of safety. in a society where you have no idea what someone else is up to (because it's none of your business) you don't really know if you can trust anyone. low-trust societies are inherently unstable because they lack internal cohesion brought about by high levels of trust, and the inferior stop-gap "solution" in those cases is to hire more cops and hope things work out. this mutual trust is yet another concept that is alien to the an-caps.

...So you see, it's not that people "understood" that Authoritarianism was better. We simply had generations upon generations of slaves who were propagandized to to think this way.

this is what libertarians actually believe

First off, Japanese culture is one of the most solid and cohesive in existence, and their abortion rate is at least twice that of any other nation in the world. How do you reconcile that with your assertion?

citation needed?

http://i.imgur.com/U3T0vj1.png

but I think you just answered your own question. even ignoring that Japan's abortion rate is actually lower, societies that have high levels of internal cohesion, like Japan, can withstand more moral decay than those that don't. Japanese culture is highly authoritarian with relatively little emphasis on individualism.

Secondly, how do you even go about proving that abortions are a sign of moral decay?

I recognize that abortion will always exist in any society regardless of its legal status or public perception of it. but when you've reached a point at which widespread abortion-as-birth control is a thing, especially among younger teens, it's a symptom of decay in other areas. hard drug use for one is well known to inhibit personal restraint and bestow on the user a sense of invincibility, which is a breeding ground (pun intended) for unwanted pregnancies. you don't have to be religious to possess a sense of responsibility and restraint, so please refrain from making the accusation that I'm arguing this from a Christian standpoint.

Lastly, how are monogamous relationships a sign of healthy societies?

they are what healthy and stable societies are based upon. or perhaps I'm wrong and all the great civilizations of the past were giant non-stop orgies until buzzkilling Christians came along and invented monogamy to spoil our fun :rolleyes:

It's all well and good to make arguments, but when you don't provide any reasons for them, you might as well be shouting, "You may think that clouds are white, but they're actually green."

that's all you've been doing in this thread bro

Its number one priority is not to control or restrict the people based on a pathologically misguided set of morals that fails to so much as justify itself through logic.

you devoted a good percentage of your post to defending virtually every form of pathological behavior that exists short of murder, and you say that the desire for a shared moral environment is "pathologically misguided"? Jesus man, I'm not even religious but it's shit like this that makes me appreciate my Christian friends that much more. I have suspected for a while that most libertarians suffer from latent sociopathy and you've certainly done your fair share to confirm that.

[HUSTLEMAN]

Before I get my piece in let me share this:
You are a social democratic Cosmopolitan. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 44 percent are more extremist than you.


http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic6/469611_eng.jpg
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/graphic2/469611_eng.jpg



if I were given the choice of living either in anarcho-capitalist Society A where I was free to snort coke off my 10-year-old boyfriend's ass in broad daylight in the middle of the street, or Society B, a Christian theocracy where homosexual sex or sex outside of marriage was punishable by imprisonment, I would pick Society B in a heartbeat. why? because like most people, I value order and security over "freedom." freedom is a sham, despite the best efforts of certain people to paint those who desire security as weak and feeble-minded.



Congratulations, you've chosen Society B: Nazi Germany circa 1936
Around this time Hitler was rounding up everyone who did not fit in to inane plan to create his "Master Race" that included Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Mentally/Physically Disabled citizens, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, Transvestites, pretty much anyone who wasn't Blond-Haired, White, and Blue-Eyed. The people that were not however, don't you think they wanted the security that was provided by the Nazi Regime as well. They did but they valued their freedom more. When they tried to blend into their way of life and thinking will like you mentioned in the statement above you would do they were caught and sold out by their own families all because of one mistake. One mistake was all it took. ONE SINGLE MISTAKE and they were done for. You may feel that freedom is a sham but with freedom you wouldn't have your pride stripped away from you day by day by living a life that you were not meant for. With freedom you can fight for the life you want, no matter what anyone says. Am I saying that seeking only security is weak, no, at least I hope I'm not, because giving the circumstances at that point in time I may have done the same but honestly, wouldn't you want to fight first for what you believe in.

[jayce_xt]

the libertarian social arrangement is unappealing to people like myself who have a concern for the well-being of others and how their actions can affect everyone around them. in a libertarian society, if others are behaving in ways that are destructive, too bad, if you don't want to see it then just cloister yourself up in your basement. this arrangement may be well suited to aspies, but most of us aren't aspies.

But this is important: how do you view open relationships, homosexuality, substance use (alcohol included), and the like as destructive? Who is being hurt? How? Please demonstrate that.

as individuals, not always. but as groups, we do.

Where is your proof?

ah. so, given the frequency of these insurrections, and assuming that your assertions here are true, we would expect then that a decent number would have resulted in the formation of an anarchist society - after the oppressors in question were eliminated there was nothing preventing any attempt to build a real-life Rapture.

Absolutely incorrect. Given the frequency, we would expect a movement toward Direct Democracy. So far, this trend has continued. Japan, Egypt, Germany, and Bolivia are just a few nations that have graduated from Authoritarian rule toward Democratic rule.

Ayn Rand was hardly the first person who could have envisioned a "no gods or kings only man" society. instead history shows us repeated examples of people rising up not to shake off government and authority itself, but simply to eliminate individual regimes who had been deemed too oppressive. I'm well aware that people do not possess an innate desire to be worked to death in a gulag, but given the total absence of an anarchistic society of any significance from the history books, it follows that most people do in fact naturally desire some sort of centralized authority.

Correction: people are conditioned to believe that centralized authority is the only available method of governance.

the mere fact that you even have to ask this question with a straight face speaks volumes. dangerous addictive drugs that have a profound effect on the behavior of the user? sex with prepubescent children? come on now, I can tell you're a smart guy, it shouldn't be this difficult.

Addiction is not within an object, but within a psyche. There are certain psychological profiles that predispose people toward addiction. People who aren't geared that way simply don't get addicted to things. Some people do have addictive personalities, though. And they will get addicted to anything that they find suitable. Shall we eliminate drugs, sex, the internet, and tasty foods? Or shall we instead work to help people with addictive personalities learn to cope better, and not persecute people who are capable of handling sex, drugs, and videogames just fine?

As for prepubescent children, are you aware of just how many of us on this site have had consensual prepubescent sexual encounters? How many of us have actually described it as a pleasant experience? Just look around for yourself. You just might be surprised at how often it happens. If the people involved in an act do not say or feel that they have been harmed, it cannot possibly be harmful.

now imagine that this behavior was not limited to a small percentage of the population, and that this widespread "substance" use didn't just include marijuana but cocaine, heroin and PCP as well. would the underlined statement still hold true?

Of course it would. That you would ask this question is outright baffling.

the Netherlands enjoys low crime because this type of gratuitous behavior is the exception rather than the rule.

The Netherlands enjoys low crime because they actually allocate their resources to preventing harm, rather than enforcing morality. Prostitution is legal there. Enforcement of drug laws is nonexistent for individuals who are only recreational users of marijuana and mushrooms (manufacturers and dealers are still prosecuted, though). In other words, they do not persecute as many victimless crimes as other countries do.

is this supposed to be funny? yes, children having sex is so hilarious!

So long as it's consensual, sure. It can be quite comical.

I believe the one making the assumption is you, and that assumption is that this sort of society exists or even can exist.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Merely highlighting yours with an example that is identical to yours.

as I stated previously, not everyone possesses an IQ of 190 or desire to devote all their energies to obtain phat stax of Benjamins.

You're correct. I also possess neither of these.

the anarchist's wet dream has always been a real life Galt's Gulch populated by polymaths and Objectivist philosophers, which ignores the very real downsides to having a high IQ.

Does it really? Because the rotund lass you're describing right now is completely unfamiliar to me or my wet dreams.

generally speaking, the higher one's IQ, the more cripplingly anti-social they tend to be, and a whole society consisting of this type would be ridiculously top-heavy and unwieldy.

This is the exact kind of logical fallacy I expected you to make. Rather than pointing it out, myself, I invite you to explore why smarter individuals don't get along well with others. I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with inherent talent (or lack thereof).

the funny thing about statements like this is that it's often hard to tell if you're reading a parody of what libertarians believe, or an actual statement from them. and libertarians continue to remain perplexed as to why they never win elections.

This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not actually a libertarian. Though, I find your disdain for them amusing.

the more freedom there is, the less safety there is.

Prove it. Show that it is impossible to have both maximum freedom and maximum safety.

mutual trust is the foundation of safety.

I agree.

in a society where you have no idea what someone else is up to (because it's none of your business) you don't really know if you can trust anyone. low-trust societies are inherently unstable because they lack internal cohesion brought about by high levels of trust, and the inferior stop-gap "solution" in those cases is to hire more cops and hope things work out. this mutual trust is yet another concept that is alien to the an-caps.

People trust each other all the time in other Western societies, and they are plenty safe. Much safer than America, at any rate. The conclusion cannot be, then, that knowing what everyone is up to is required for significant degrees of safety.

However, I will agree with you that I find the idea that "it's none of your business" to know what everyone else is up to is a bit foreign to me.

Also: I'm not an Anarchist-Capitalist, either.

this is what libertarians actually believe

Sociologically speaking, this is also the truth. It's normative social conditioning. Read up on the histories of monarchy and religion sometime. Or even just a basic intro book to anthropology. Assuming you pay attention to the text and don't immediately disregard what it says as "wrong" because "it feels wrong", it should clear things up for you.

citation needed?

image (http://i.imgur.com/U3T0vj1.png)

but I think you just answered your own question. even ignoring that Japan's abortion rate is actually lower, societies that have high levels of internal cohesion, like Japan, can withstand more moral decay than those that don't. Japanese culture is highly authoritarian with relatively little emphasis on individualism.

Japan has always been Authoritarian, yes. However, it has become less so than it used to be (unless you still believe the people would commit ritual suicide on command from their Emperor). Also, my apologies for the abortion error. Slight mix-up between Japan and China. Also, Authoritarian China's abortion stats are... well, they're right there, actually. Thanks!

I recognize that abortion will always exist in any society regardless of its legal status or public perception of it. but when you've reached a point at which widespread abortion-as-birth control is a thing, especially among younger teens, it's a symptom of decay in other areas. hard drug use for one is well known to inhibit personal restraint and bestow on the user a sense of invincibility, which is a breeding ground (pun intended) for unwanted pregnancies. you don't have to be religious to possess a sense of responsibility and restraint, so please refrain from making the accusation that I'm arguing this from a Christian standpoint.

Part of the reason that abortion is so common is the difficulty younger people have in getting birth control. Several states make it illegal to sell contraceptives to anyone under 18. The high abortion rates aren't a result of "moral decay" (unless, by this, you mean the decay of the morals of the selfish-minded legislators who enacted these policies), but Authoritarian control. Ironic, isn't it?

That being said, you still haven't explained how abortion equates to moral decay. How is abortion indicative of poor morals?

they are what healthy and stable societies are based upon. or perhaps I'm wrong and all the great civilizations of the past were giant non-stop orgies until buzzkilling Christians came along and invented monogamy to spoil our fun :rolleyes:

"Good societies happened to be monogamous. Thus, monogamy must be good, and its opposite must be evil." There is no logically-sound thought pattern that validates the correlation you're trying to make. Suppose all good societies happened to eat meat. Does that automatically make vegetarianism wrong and evil?

Please work on improving your logic.

that's all you've been doing in this thread bro

Point out where I've been doing so. Indulge me. Please.

you devoted a good percentage of your post to defending virtually every form of pathological behavior that exists short of murder, and you say that the desire for a shared moral environment is "pathologically misguided"? Jesus man, I'm not even religious but it's shit like this that makes me appreciate my Christian friends that much more. I have suspected for a while that most libertarians suffer from latent sociopathy and you've certainly done your fair share to confirm that.

Correction: I said that your desire for a forced, not shared, moral environment is pathologically misguided. And again, you've failed to prove that these behaviors are, indeed, pathological. I can explain to you why murder, assault, and rape are pathological right now: they inflict non-consenting physical harm. I can explain why theft, arson, and withholding paychecks are pathological acts: they inflict non-consenting material harm. Those are easy. But how are non-monogamous sex and drug use pathological? You have yet to demonstrate a logical link between the two.

I want people to be happy and safe. But I will not needlessly sacrifice the safety and happiness of others to do so. You want to prove your point? Provide empirical evidence that demonstrates the pathology of these acts. Until then, I see you as just needlessly and aimlessly whining about things that you don't like, using the guise of "societal betterment" to get your way. What's more, you wish to inflict harm upon people who have inflicted harm to no one. That makes you not just whiny, but immoral and dangerous.