A fellow I know from another board created this:
Let me guess. He is not a Republican.
Yeah, his Republican/Democrat question is poorly chosen. A better question would be something like, “what do you like to spend money on? Military or Social Services”. Otherwise, it seems pretty good.
Do anarcho-socialists really just believe in violence only in cases of self-defense? How would the chart creator classify the bomb throwing, priest killing, nun raping, and WTO rioting types?
I never saw the utility of such charts, and surveys. Like it or not, political beliefs cannot be classified via dichotomized choices.
I think it’s great, and very funny.
Well done.
I don’t think I like it.
Isn’t there a contradiction here for “Occupational / Job” activists, and maybe even everyone that answers “No” to the ‘Same moral category’ question? Seems to me that in order to enforce some people being treated differently (because they “should” be), it requires the use of aggression (invalidating the “self defense” answer they gave before) and a state to play favorites in any consistent manner.
And I agree that the R vs. D question is stupid. I’d rather see “Which is a higher state priority, social spending and economic ‘protection’ or military spending and physical ‘protection’?” (And and the end of each it should say “IT’S A TRAP!” [:P])
Also I can see many “statists” answering self defense (which is spelled wrong above..) and “yes” to private property, who are clearly not ancap.
It’s a nice try though, these are always fun to play with.
Democrat policies hurt rich and poor. For example, the Great Society brought a halt to the eradication of poverty.
And households headed by a single mother have increased dramatically because government has incentivized that arrangement.
Just b/c you believe that violence is justified in other cases than self defense doesn’t make you a statist… 
We need to hold everyone in the same moral category, even murderers and rapists?
Lighten up guys, it’s a joke.
Yes, the same rules apply to murderers as to everybody else.
You are correct, anarcho-communists also believe that aggression is justified if someone tries to hold property privately.
I thought that they, the “anarcho-communists”, think that to establish private property is to aggress against others, to establish some sort of illegitimate power, control, over others.
Why? They don’t deserve any.
Or maybe like, if child molestation ever occurred, I would use violence on those people in spite of whatever the philosophers concluded about the NAP.
- If you murder some person, you go to jail.
That rule seems universally applicable. Where is the difference of “moral category”?
That wouldn’t be aggressive violence. It would be an application of self-defense.
They don’t deserve to be treated with the same rules??