Political Compass - Images
Noam Chomsky | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Least favorite number | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Political Compass In A Nutshell
Political Compass
Every quadrant’s favorite (✅) and least favorite (❌) Jew | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
r/OldPeopleFacebook Political Compass | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
r/blursedimages Political Compass | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
For your consideration, compass by shitpost: | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
![A funny thing just happened today 110 Anonymous (ID: NstBoogp) 09/28/19(Sat)14:22:16 No.228108412 1568416060959 png (306 KB, 480x624) [At bar talking politics] >22810967 submitted 9 days ago by 10 comments share save hide report crosspost My family and I were on a road trip, and I was in the back seat reading. My father asked me if I was sleeping (I have a tendency to fall asleep in cars). I responded somewhat defensively no, and he said "it's not like I called you a communist or something", right as I read The State and Revolution in the back... Her: So what are your political views? Me:I hate big banks, most corporations, and want to end animal testing. I'm a naturalist, I despise asphalt culture and conspicuous consumerism. Her: Oh Cool! I'm really Liberal too! |Мe: I've seen people say that conmmunism killed a lot of people. Here's what I say as a reply... self.communism) 387 submitted 3 days ago by https://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/global_hunger_statistics/how_many_people_die_from_hunger_each_year Each year around 35 million people die from starvation because of the capitalist regime. Which means: 3 years of deaths due to 666 capitalism equals lives lost because of communism in a century. I'm not justifying the killings just something people should know. తీఠీతీతీత అఠీఠలీఠలీఠఠఠత ( 48 comments share save hide report crosspost aed3days ao by comments unave hde report dddd Economic- I actually think voluntary duels to the death are a good idea. (self.GoldandBlack) 63 comments share unsave hide give award report crosspost If two people both agree to engage in combat to the death to settle a dispute, I think that should be allowed. Provided, both persons MUST accept, and neither party can he coerced into dueling. Thiss is voluntarism. кКЕВИЙ Let's say, your neighbor Dinkleburg sexually assaulted your dog. You're pretty p-----, justifiably. But killing him outright would violate the NAP, and would be morally incorrect. But, he hates you just as much as you hate him. That's why he r---- your dog. So, you challenge him to a legal duel to the death. He accepts, because he also wants to kill you, and knows he would lose the legal dispute in libertarian court anyway. You would rather trust yourself to end him in the duel than trust the court system to punish him. 5 witnesses must be present to confirm you have both accepted, and then the 5 witnesses vote on what tools will be used in the duel, and where the duel takes place. The tools could be anything from firearms, to swords, to bare fists. The duelists should not be able to determine what tools will be used because they would never agree, and if of them gets to choose, they would choose the tool they are most skilled with. This is why we allow third party witnesses to vote on the weapons used. Now, when it comes time to duel, if one party no longer wishes to duel, they may always not show up. The challenge and/or acceptance of a duel is only a legal indication that you are voluntarily willing to duel another party to the death, it DOES NOT mean that once you have accepted/challenged, you are bound by law to participate when the time comes ONLY ONCE THE DUEL BEGINS, THEN YOU MAY NOT BACK OUT. Before the duel is initiated by a third party, you are asked one final time if you are certain you wish to engage in this duel to the death. Whoever wins, wins. The other dies. The dispute is settled, and does not violate the NAP because both parties voluntarily agreed to aggression in a controlled setting. I think something like this should be allowed. If it isn't allowed, and two parties hate each other enough, they will end up killing eachother in more treacherous ways. So this should be an option in my opinion Reminder, this is not trial by combat that I'm advocating for. Trial by combat is something completely different. I'm only speaking of a duel that two parties consent to. What do you think?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/592/094/fdc.png)
![A funny thing just happened today 110 Anonymous (ID: NstBoogp) 09/28/19(Sat)14:22:16 No.228108412 1568416060959 png (306 KB, 480x624) [At bar talking politics] >22810967 submitted 9 days ago by 10 comments share save hide report crosspost My family and I were on a road trip, and I was in the back seat reading. My father asked me if I was sleeping (I have a tendency to fall asleep in cars). I responded somewhat defensively no, and he said "it's not like I called you a communist or something", right as I read The State and Revolution in the back... Her: So what are your political views? Me:I hate big banks, most corporations, and want to end animal testing. I'm a naturalist, I despise asphalt culture and conspicuous consumerism. Her: Oh Cool! I'm really Liberal too! |Мe: I've seen people say that conmmunism killed a lot of people. Here's what I say as a reply... self.communism) 387 submitted 3 days ago by https://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/global_hunger_statistics/how_many_people_die_from_hunger_each_year Each year around 35 million people die from starvation because of the capitalist regime. Which means: 3 years of deaths due to 666 capitalism equals lives lost because of communism in a century. I'm not justifying the killings just something people should know. తీఠీతీతీత అఠీఠలీఠలీఠఠఠత ( 48 comments share save hide report crosspost aed3days ao by comments unave hde report dddd Economic- I actually think voluntary duels to the death are a good idea. (self.GoldandBlack) 63 comments share unsave hide give award report crosspost If two people both agree to engage in combat to the death to settle a dispute, I think that should be allowed. Provided, both persons MUST accept, and neither party can he coerced into dueling. Thiss is voluntarism. кКЕВИЙ Let's say, your neighbor Dinkleburg sexually assaulted your dog. You're pretty p-----, justifiably. But killing him outright would violate the NAP, and would be morally incorrect. But, he hates you just as much as you hate him. That's why he r---- your dog. So, you challenge him to a legal duel to the death. He accepts, because he also wants to kill you, and knows he would lose the legal dispute in libertarian court anyway. You would rather trust yourself to end him in the duel than trust the court system to punish him. 5 witnesses must be present to confirm you have both accepted, and then the 5 witnesses vote on what tools will be used in the duel, and where the duel takes place. The tools could be anything from firearms, to swords, to bare fists. The duelists should not be able to determine what tools will be used because they would never agree, and if of them gets to choose, they would choose the tool they are most skilled with. This is why we allow third party witnesses to vote on the weapons used. Now, when it comes time to duel, if one party no longer wishes to duel, they may always not show up. The challenge and/or acceptance of a duel is only a legal indication that you are voluntarily willing to duel another party to the death, it DOES NOT mean that once you have accepted/challenged, you are bound by law to participate when the time comes ONLY ONCE THE DUEL BEGINS, THEN YOU MAY NOT BACK OUT. Before the duel is initiated by a third party, you are asked one final time if you are certain you wish to engage in this duel to the death. Whoever wins, wins. The other dies. The dispute is settled, and does not violate the NAP because both parties voluntarily agreed to aggression in a controlled setting. I think something like this should be allowed. If it isn't allowed, and two parties hate each other enough, they will end up killing eachother in more treacherous ways. So this should be an option in my opinion Reminder, this is not trial by combat that I'm advocating for. Trial by combat is something completely different. I'm only speaking of a duel that two parties consent to. What do you think?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/592/094/fdc.png)
Political Compass
Hogwarts meets the political compass | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Everyone hates morrissey | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Statements that would anger the quadrant they're in if they could read them | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
My friends an islamist and he made the test and he is somehow a comrade | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Halloween costume of choice | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Vegetarian vs Vegan | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
STALIN IS AN ANCAP | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Andrew Yang's $1000 a month freedom dividend | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Andrew Yang (help me with the last quadrant) | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
This actually makes a lot of sense. | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
When you talk to a quadrant about the other quadrants, this is what they will say. | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
ah yes | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
Weezer Albums | r/PoliticalCompassMemes
Political Compass
