Politics

nice

what's it like not subscribing to the only rational political philosophy?

That's one of the most beautiful memes I've ever seen.

OP here, I just watched this vid, what I gained from it:

Conservative/right
Small government, less taxes, more national defence, freedom, more privately run industries.

Liberal/left
Big government, more taxes, less national defence, equality, more government run industries.

Well, I won't know what 'ancap' is unless you explain it.

ancap is short for anarcho-capitalist. it's a very simple and logical ideology: all voluntary transactions between people are acceptable, and no use of force is allowed except in defense of self or others.

of course, this means that governments are not acceptable, since governments are entirely dependent on using force to steal from people and to control them

Conservatism is to want to conserve things. So social conservatism is to want to conserve old social habits, and fiscal conservatism is to want to conserve money.

Liberalism is the opposite. Social liberalism embraces change, being fiscally liberal is embracing spending.

Left and right go back to the French revolution, referring to which group sat on which side of the the room. The revolutionaries were on the left and the more conservative people were on the right. Left and right only work if you see there being only two sides of an issue, or you are talking about two predominant groups. Though when talking about general social trends, it can be useful in broad terms.

In modern times these terms have gained historical connotations, and are frequently used incorrectly. SJWs are an example of people who are on the left politically despite holding many conservative values (such as emphasizing race, gender, etc). Neoliberalism is an economic policy that is now considered conservative in the west. Left does not necessarily equal liberal and right does not necessarily equal conservative, because they are groups that evolve over time and their core ideals may change. Likewise, what is considered liberal at one time may become conservative in the future if it becomes mainstream for a very long time. The opposite can also happen. And of course these things work on a spectrum. Some things may be more conservative or liberal than others, even if the things being compared are both rather conservative or rather liberal. Some people might want to keep something the way it is, others might want to make something the way it used to be. Both could be considered conservative, but one moreso. And if "the way it used to be" is distant or foreign enough, it may be considered liberal, if it's that big a change.

Holla Forums is a poor place to ask this, as people here have very obvious bias, but then again, there aren't many good places to discuss this anymore.

Pic related. A guy who embraces liberal values of gender equality, and in the '60s and '70s was considered far-left, but in modern western contexts, he has ended up being called right wing.

tl;dr: These things are complicated only due to history and Orwellian people fucking with language (largely SJWs these days). Conservative means to conserve things. Liberal means to be more free with those things (be it spending or change).

is there a working example of this system?

hahahaha peopel will fall for this

not yet

*not ever

...

just you wait

Nothing in life matters, there's no such thing as religion, borders, or anything else. Girls can be boys and boys can be girls.
Conserving the present culture.
A government by the people for the people; a government working in the interest of the people. The "people" are normally one's ethnicity, i.e., Germans, Italians, British, American heh, etc etc.
Collectivism. A group of people working together and seizing the means of production, making sure that everyone gets the same amount of things no matter what. Everyone is equally oppressed.

...

Government has absolutely no say in the economy. It is effectively just anarchism.

Centrist is the way to go. Our first concerns aren't what's right or wrong, but what actually works. We don't go left or right, we go forward.

...

conservatism isnt based on intellect. Its based on preserving tradition - conservatism.
example 1:
conservatism - up until now there was no gays and it needs to stay that way

how is wanting personal freedom interfering with society?

The problem with ancap is that it only works with small groups. In larger groups, it tends to fall apart because there's nobody to enforce the no violence rule if one group of people starts strongarming smaller groups and individuals. In order to prevent one powerful group from ruling through violence, you have to give a majority of power to a trusted neutral entity, aka Government.

Unfortunately, once the government is given power, the individuals who run it will use that power to acquire more power unless there's a system in place to stop that from happening. To do that, you need a second group whose sole purpose is to regulate the main government.

Once you have your main body and its regulator, you need a smaller third group who is in charge of impartially making sure the rules are followed.

This is how the United States wound up with three branches of government.

Since you don't seem like a complete cuck like the rest of the Holla Forums community, I'll give you a real, unbiased answer.

Liberalism: This is the left. Liberals tend to fight for rights for everybody. There are some bad apples, which I'll talk about later. But for the most part, non-radical leftists push for women's rights where they need them, gay rights, rights for minorities, etc. Howevever, the left's strong point is science. All of today's greatest minds are liberal. Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, yadda yadda.

Conservatism: This is the right. Conservatives tend to fight for individual rights. Again, many bad apples, but that's for later. Conservatives attempt to preserve old laws and beliefs, not wanting change, good or bad. They usually see things how they're taught to be seen, blindly following laws and stereotypes simply because they're laws and stereotypes. Not the brightest of the bunch, but they do have their strong points. For example, conservatives know how to make money. LOTS of money. They're also very religious, for the most part. However, though conservatives are generally not accepting of science, some of the most important scientists are conservative, and even religious.

The bad apples:

Liberalism: While the average conservative is less intelligent than the average liberal, FAR left liberals take the cake when it comes to stupidity. These scum of the Earth are anti-science, anti-free speech, pretty much anti-everything you can think of. The only thing they support is lack of intelligence.

Conservatism: Conservative bad apples may not be as bad as liberal bad apples, they are pretty bad in their own way. Conservative bad apples are the hillbillies, racists, cousinfuckers, misogynists, etc. For example, the KKK, Trump, etc. The average conservative is not affiliated with these people/organizations, and should not be treated as such.

Note that this is simply a reflection of the average political party member. Not all liberals are friendly, and not all conservatives are racist. The most intelligent of people would realize the strengths and flaws of both parties.

>>>Holla Forums

...

Also thats one hell of a strawman

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

Skin colors aren't races. There is only one human race. Thanks for proving my point though.

...

Thank you for proving my point that Holla Forums completely disregards facts in favor of delusions.

Look at this cuck lmfao

...

except those small groups and individuals

Dogs are their own species and they can all interbreed, but if you think a golden retriever is exactly the same as a rottweiler in either build or attitude, you're fucking retarded.

...

Here, let me ask you something.

Person 1 is born in the hood.
Person 2 is born on a farm.

Person 1 gets low grades in school, gets a job at McDonald's and dies in a drive by shooting by their rival gang at 19.
Person 2 works on their farm as a kid, decides to go to school, goes to college and becomes a doctor.

Person 1 is white.
Person 2 is black.

Do you realize you're autistic yet, or do you need me to tell you that growing up in one place would make you a different person than you would be if you grew up somewhere else, no matter what skin color you have?

Look at the info graphs again, it shows that blacks in good rich backgrounds still commit more crimes than poor whites. Your argument is rendered invalid.

Except humans don't have different species you fucking retard. A different SPECIES of dog is entirely different from a different RACE of humans.

Side note I was wrong about there not being more than one human race, apparently the term of "race" is incredibly ambiguous.

...

>>>Holla Forums

Again, if you're this adverse to facts you need to go back to Holla Forums

That's pretty true. Conservatism values personal freedom, while liberalism throws away personal freedom in the name of safety, economic security, and collectivism. Their socialistic policies don't work economically, and their social theories of 'we are all the same' in incorrect. Basically, liberalism is based entirely on feels, while conservatism is based more on rationality.

There are plenty of factor that contribute to crime. However, i highly doubt biology plays a significant role.

So you're saying that a few blacks that get 0 on their scores should bring down the mean, even if most blacks are on par with, or potentially git better scores than whites. What are you, a communist?

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Explain to me why Africans are still in the stone age.

Second pic related.

fug

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_time

I don't go to leftypol because it's full of complete faggots like you, except on the other end of the spectrum.

If whites had no rights for the majority of American history, they would do shitty in life too. Typical conservative only looking at the few facts that suit their beliefs, ignoring the rest of the 99%. Have fun fucking your cousin faggot.

It's called looking for trends. Your brown pets are fucking stupid, moshi.

Trends like conservatives lacking intelligence when compared to liberals? So tell me again, why should I trust the word of a literal retard?

oh…

It values the status quo, not extending freedoms. Libertarians value personal freedom.

There's nothing in this suggesting that's biological.
Don't you think a society that's not even fully industrialized wouldn't have as strict time schedules and commitments?

LOL.
whites built this nation. your augment is flawed. your desperate attempt at "only if's" delusional pseudo history shows you have no counter arguments.
>le whites commit incest
>ignoring that right now in the nigger community moms are fucking their sons in unprecedented numbers
blacks also are more likely to be gay ;^)))
go look on jewtube. plenty of niggers are going forward to this plague on effecting the niggers.

I don't know. The Japanese during their first encounters with Imperialism adopted and adapted. Became the most powerful eastern country for a near century.
Of course this only applies to everyone but your dumb brown pets.

...

You are looking at the groundworks for the 13th largest economy in the world.
Nothing like your brown pets, huh?

Didn't they stagnate for like hundreds of years like other Asian countries?

I presented an argument for why homosexuals should not be given equal rights, such as to marry and adopt kids. Do you disagree with my argument? If so, why?

They quickly modernized once America forced them to stop their isolation.

Economy, Government, Geography, Society. Resources.
This could have happen to any country. Do you know what India is?

Do you lack research skills or somethings? Or do you only look confirmation biases

...

...

where does it say homos r pedos?

also u presented an argument conservatives dont use

oh look here is this crazy pattern. all of them are fucking shitskins!!
what a shocker!!!! xDDPPP

your brown pets dont look so smart now do they?

serfs r black?

Outcome of the work of a people.
Outcome of the work of a people.
Outcome of the work of a people.
The only places without a lush and fertile environment is the Saharan desert, but Egypt successfully thrived even there.
Extremely rich in resources.
Declined after the many hundreds of years of breeding with the natives, the Aryan blood dwindling leaving only the Northern Indians with even a semblance of their Aryan ancestors.

They were always smart, the difference is that they were nothing but the livestock of the elites. Clearly you do not understand the argument being had here. Blacks, even when educated, are still incredibly inferior to whites. The difference in IQ between American niggers and African niggers is that American niggers are mixed with white blood. In fact, you could see an increase IQ with the higher mixture of white blood in American niggers.

...

no. Usa niggers have aversion to school and dont pay attention, cuz they r busy planning their gangsta lives

everywhere

Holla Forums completely BTFO

That doesn't control for many factors, such as the time put into studying for the SAT as well as how good the schools they went to are.
Also, SAT isn't the best measurement for intelligence.

quora.com/Is-there-a-correlation-between-homosexuality-and-pedophilia

...

Dumpin' and bumpin'.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I think you're forgetting about Brazil.

1st pic has no sources. 2nd shows who identified as homo before being molested.

i can imagine why homos r pedos, but
and its not specified whats the variety is caused by, so its still more likely, that a homo u met isnt a pedophile

Hey, here's an article that you'll probably dismiss
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

whats the cause of those results, u think?

my claim is that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual/homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. therefore, homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children, because this puts children at a greater risk of being molested than if those same children were given to heterosexual couples. the source i provided backs-up this claim.

A golden retriever and a rottweiler are the same species, you mongoloid. They can breed together and produce viable offspring. The post you're replying to wasn't comparing dogs and coyotes (actual different species of canines) or some shit.

Nigger infested hell-hole. What of it?

no, its 9-40% more likely and we dont know what led who, how to any of those numbers. Although 9% is more than 5, which is often significant, its not THAT significant.

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually.

11:1

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

There are somewhat light skinned people there. Yet so poor

...

centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf
Look around page 9

seems legit

Right thinks the Left is wrong
Left thinks the Right is evil

did you fucking read the article?
The study shows that pedophiles are gayer, not that gay people are pedophiles
Kind of like how furries are gayer, but gay people aren't furries.

In modern day America liberal and conservative have become cinnamons for democrat and republican, respectively. The thing is, that, there used to be liberal and conservative democrats and republicans alike(think Abraham Lincoln and George Wallace). What the liberal ideology traditionally meant was standing up for a free economy and individual rights with a small government. What this has morphed into is this idea that giving blacks gibmedats is a fundamental right. This idea of equal opportunity has been construed to mean that the gubmints must throw money at the problem until it fixes itself. Conservatives are basically as the name sounds-they do not want to change things in government unless absolutely necessary.

Do anyone have the version were the scientist sees that and admits he was wrong after all?