when will this meme of socialism end?
moreover how can anyone actually believe in it
>I lack critical thinking skills and genuinely can't understand that people disagree with me
>>306312
Yeah right because capitalism works so well.
Also, what a poor excuse for a thread.
>>306318
>Says someone who probably bitches about /pol/
>>306320
>he hasn't taken a single economics course
>>306322
>attacks me on something I 'probably' do
wow boyo you really do lack critical thinking
>>306312
Here's how: Rich people make so much that they can pay for huge amounts of things for everyone else. But you have to make sure they can't hide their wealth overseas.
>>306322
>>306328
When will this meme die? Qualified economists have a range of different views. I'm not one myself but I've met a bunch and they're hardly the uber capitalists that 4chan seems to think they are.
Having watched a load of youtube lectures doesn't make you a trained economist, you know.
Lack of education is what makes people become socialists.
Socialism is dangerous for the western world, we need to get rid of it asap.
>>306312
Russia ruined socialism for the moment, but I am sure it will eventually come back.
I mean, we are implementing some of the communist manifesto values right now.
>no home schooling, or where it exists its not equivalent to formal education
>no free market, government interferes all the time saving key companies and dismantling monopolists
>the ruling class no longer allows its slave labor class to starve, we have minimum wage and health insurance
>women and minorities are given equal rights
Also, the whole 1% movement in USA is completely by the book communist manifesto material, only there it says one-tenth rather than 99%.
When you look at it, despite all the associations of communism with USSR and its purges and failures, we are slowly and steadily walking right into it.
>>306328
>theories about how to fight over scraps in inevitable crises
That's literally all there is to it.
>>306357
>Russia ruined socialism
Socialism ruined socialism, it's a flawed concept and that has been proven time and time again.
Socialism is trash.
>>306360
>when socialists without education post on the internet
jesus christ
>>306354
>Lack of education is what makes people become socialists.
Lack of education is what makes people post this shit.
Socialism always has, since its conception, been an ideology preferred by scientists and engineers.
In the 20th century many science magazines and journals talked about planned economy, about the state ruled by specialists, as something to be desired.
Did you even read Hayek's book that OP posted? In the introduction to it in most editions, there are quotes from such science papers from Britain.
>always the one guy who just drops "communism is poo" one liners in response to everything
Just fuck off already. If you have nothing to say, dont shitpost.
>>306372
Tell me then, is there any current theory that has a receipt to prevent boom/bust cyles? Didn't think so.
>>306376
mfw this is how socialists argue
you're making this too easy
>>306373
>Socialism always has, since its conception, been an ideology preferred by scientists and engineers.
>In the 20th century many science magazines and journals talked about planned economy, about the state ruled by specialists, as something to be desired.
Is this actually what socialists believe?
Just move to DPRK already.
>>306380
Boom/bust cycles happen all the time in nature, what makes you think human nature is any different?
Economics isn't some holy thing protected from everything else surrounding it, it is affected by literally everything.
>>306383
>Is this actually what socialists believe?
Do you see the image in the OP?
The full name of the book is The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2).
You should get it, pirate if you cant afford to own it, and read the introduction.
There are quotations and citations from such scientific journals and magazines, and there are mentions of the most prestigious universities in England being strictly socialist, and teaching socialism twice a week.
Hayek himself was very respected by students and peers, until he spoke against socialism, and at that point everyone turned against him. After one lecture when he said he dislikes it, all of the academia withdrew from him.
Just read the book you are trying to discuss before posting.
>>306390
>dat level of fetishism
Economics aren't a natural phenomenon, and boom/bustcycles happen largely independently of natural states.
So if you wonder why some people might consider socialism a good idea, maybe it's because they don't like seeing human productive activity becoming a force of nature unto itself, beyond human control, wreaking havoc.
>>306401
I never said economics is a natural phenomenon, but it definitely is bound to human nature as well as mother nature.
Boom/bust cycles can happen from anything like a big political event, natural catastrophe or humans, it is normal to have fluctuations in terms of how good/bad something is doing, nothing is perfect. The economy is directly dependent on mother nature, human nature and other things, this is undeniable.
To even consider socialism you need to have some serious cognitive dissonance going on, any normal human being takes that as a warning and takes wisdom from it.
When will this meme of meme end?
>>306312
Honestly, every shitter who thinks market economies are meritocratic and reward muh skills and muh hard work should read Hayek to understand why they don't and why they shouldn't.
>>306373
It's true. Scientists and engineers see themselves as the best class of people in the society and they want to rule upon it, similar to nobility in ancient times. That doesn't mean that you get a say in it.
I'm currently studying Economics and the people who actually shill for socialism are the dictatorial types who think they know everything when they've read a handful of books and compiled their own one.
Professors with greater knowledge and broader views believe in laissez-faire and leaving people alone and are generally very down-to-Earth and flexible.
>>306418
So basically they should reward lazy businessmen who sit at restaurants making "deals" and rake in all the cash eh?
>>306422
If someone can make money by sitting down in a restaurant and making deals, who are you to deny him that?
>>306422
No, Hayek's point is that market rewards value, and value is particular knowledge that fits the circumstances. And circumstances are the product of randomness.
And this is a good thing. Imagine a social order where everything you earn or don't earn is based on your merit only. For everyone at the bottom of the ladder, the message would be "not only you're poor, but also that can only mean one thing: you're crap"
The fact that market economies have that element of randomness in them is what makes them tolerable: you can blame your misfortune on bad luck.
>>306312
Hayek is great but this particular book is a glorified pamphlet for plebs.
>>306426
I am the magical Justice fairy who denies people who don't have to do anything difficult their money, i.e. The Government.
>>306444
>Imagine a social order where everything you earn or don't earn is based on your merit only. For everyone at the bottom of the ladder, the message would be "not only you're poor, but also that can only mean one thing: you're crap"
That's exactly what it means already.
>you can blame your misfortune on bad luck.
Wow what a great comfort, senpai.
>>306328
Get that baby salesman out of here
>>306320
>Stated on a labtop or PC or Phone, on the internet which was an advancement among phone companies sponsored and built by OH SHIT NO WAY Capitalism.
Your ignorance is palpable
>>306465
>That's exactly what it means already.
You're wrong m8. The whole strength of market economies is that they recognize all sorts of value, not just intellectual ones. It's free market that allows people like Paris Hilton to thrive.
>Wow what a great comfort, senpai.
It actually is. Talk to any "serial entrepreneur" and they will tell you you never know in advance how a company will turn out.
>>306474
>It's free market that allows people like Paris Hilton to thrive.
That's not a good thing.
>It actually is.
No it isn't.
>>306373
>Socialism always has, since its conception, been an ideology preferred by scientists and engineers.
Brilliant in one field, ignorant in another
>>306481
>That's not a good thing.
It is a good thing in that free market are not meritocracies, and you're wrong if you think someone's social position is entirely a judgement on their value. Free market economies have plenty of rags to riches story.
>No it isn't.
Of course it is, adding a condemnation on your person is much more a cause of resentment than just being poor.
Posting retarded shit is another matter however.
>>306469
Should change that to Anarcho-Capitalists. There is a division between AnCaps and Libertarians. This is why there is a Cato Institute and Mises Institute.
>Beating a dead horse
People that believe in free market magic are more dangerous for the world today than communism, which is dead. People with infallible belief in the market don't see that the market is something that if left on it's own will abolish itself and put every one under a new kind of serfdom. This free market ideology is a cold war religion that is severely outdated. That people from social democratic countries know more about finance than Americans should tell you something.
>>306492
>It is a good thing in that free market are not meritocracies
Meritocracies are desirable. Free markets not so much.
>you're wrong if you think someone's social position is entirely a judgement on their value. Free market economies have plenty of rags to riches story.
When you are in rags you have no value. When you gain riches then you do. Having riches determines one's value in a demonic free market system.
>Of course it is, adding a condemnation on your person is much more a cause of resentment than just being poor.
Except I don't care about condemnations of my person. I just want da monies. And I don't have da monies so I'm fucked. That is the reality of the situation, not mental gymnastics.
>>306502
Those said social democratic nations are dying at a rapid rate.
You socialists never learn.
>>306312
It was ended, OP. It's just capitalism with a human face now. Those college kids probably don't even mention the word property.
Come on!
>>306312
>>306328
>>306354
>>306367
I've noticed anti-Socialist arguements only ever consist of, ''Socialists are retards'', mention of Soviet famines, ''Socialists don't know economics'', straw mans or even just a quote from someone like Mises or Friedman. Above all, it seems only a minority of it's critics actually seem to know what Socialism is and how to criticize it.
>>306514
>When you are in rags you have no value. When you gain riches then you do.
Indeed, value. Value is not merit because, like I explained, they are the match between your knowledge and circumstances, and circumstances are the product of chances.
>Except I don't care about condemnations of my person.
This is a lie. Everybody cares about being judged worthless.
>>306514
You are so clueless it's painful to read your posts.
>>306502
>financial literacy
>knowledge of economics
Just because you can balance a checkbook doesn't mean shit. And the Swedish economy has generally less regulations than the US one, it just has a bigger welfare state.
>>306516
>dying
In what way?
Please do go on.
>>306527
THIS IS HOW SOCIALISTS ARGUE
GO BACK TO RUSSIA COMMIE FAG
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?
>>306527
Throughout all of the debates of 4chan I've seen on socialism, nobody has brought up the Socialist calculation problem even once.
>>306527
Anti socialist arguments consist of logic and fact, if you haven't realized that by now maybe it's time to rethink your life.
Socialism has never worked and socialism never will work.
>>306552
I did. Once. Didn't go very far.
>>306553
Donald Trump posts on /his/ confirmed.
>>306534
>Swedish economy is less regulated
Swedish economy has less loopholes and bureaucracy, but it has a lot of market regulation, as in competition law.
But loopholes and bureaucracy are not really socialist policy now is it, you just want it to be. Tell me where it says that it is.
The welfare state is socialist policy (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs).
>>306564
bernie sanders "muh 1%"
kek confirmed
>>306529
>Indeed, value. Value is not merit because
You said social position was not a judgment on their value. But it is. If you're poor you have little value. If you're rich you have a lot of value.
>This is a lie. Everybody cares about being judged worthless.
Argument from incredulity, anon-kun.
>>306536
Severe debt due to socialist practices
>>306536
In many ways, if you look at these social democratic nations you will see that their finances are in shambles as are their societies.
We all know welfare is a ponzi scheme, these nations does not have a high enough birthrate to sustain the ever expanding welfare.
Sweden for example has a huge problem with finances, the government is currently forced to take huge loans to pay for things such as immigration, immigration being another catastrophic socialist policy.
There's a huge housing problem in Sweden, some 500 000 homes are needed by the end of 2015 to get rid of it, not counting immigration which is now above 200 000 per year, so you can add that to the 2016 number.
Jobs are scarce, youth unemployment is high, PISA scores shows schools are doing horrible.
There's a huge nursing problem in state owned hospitals, no one wants to work there rather than in the private sector because of the low wages, long hours and overall terrible conditions.
Oh and Sweden is doing it's own QE, Denmark is currently on negative rates. Not to mention the absurd tax rates, more than half of your income goes to the state. Yay for socialism!
>>306576
this, state operated hospitals are a perfect example of why socialism doesn't work
>>306564
Please name on country that has had a successful socialistic policy, please.
Oh wait, there are none.
>>306572
>You said social position was not a judgment on their value.
Mistype, I meant worth as an individual. You'll probably agree with me that Paris Hilton market value doesn't denote an exceptionally worthy person, won't you?
>Argument from incredulity, anon-kun.
Maybe your argumentative panel would be more developed if you read anything more than blog posts about logical fallacies.
>>306585
Yugoslavia.
Its like you've never even opened a history book. Why are you here?
>>306553
>Socialism has never worked and socialism never will work.
Sure thing, if capitalism works so well why is that we're all suffering from the terrible conditions our world economy is right now? Did socialism cause Wall Street or the Lost Decade? I guess not.
>>306552
I've seen it plenty of times, and you're not helping your argument. Central planning is not exclusive to Socialism. Seriously, it's sad lolbertarians don't even know what they're hating so much.
>>306576
>immigration being another catastrophic socialist policy.
>immigration is a socialist policy
Its becoming increasingly clear you think socialism is anything that you don't believe in.
>>306599
>central planning is not exclusive so socialism
But it's a big part of socialism, especially when you're looking at socialism vs free market
>>306597
If by "terrible conditions" you mean the "highest standard of living in human history". your right
>>306610
Because thats really what it comes down to? Are you really dismissing anything that goes against your rigid, dogmatic free market idealism as socialism?
Don't you think thats a really bad way to argue?
>>306595
>Yugoslavia
Nice history books you're reading.
>>306597
Because of socialism. It really shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea why the world economy is in shambles right now which proves you're clueless on the matter. Socialism is the reason.
Who was the biggest purchaser of MBS? The US government. Who bailed out the financial institutions with tax payers money? The US government. Who actively seeks out conflicts and wars to destabilize the world? The US government.
>>306605
One of the main arguments used for immigration is because we need more workers in the future (to keep the welfare ponzi scheme going). Very socialist I'd say.
>>306610
Socialism can also have markets or decentralized planning. Plenty of Socialists were arguing about what system to use before Mises stepped in and supposedly destroyed Socialism.
>>306618
Dogmatic central planned socialism is what you believe in, thank god that it doesn't work and never will work.
>>306574
>>306576
USA and Japan is in much more severe debt than any of the social-democratic nations.
Norway treated it's oil reserves as national wealth (socialist policy) and is one of the world's greatest creditors.
Free immigration is not a socialist or capitalist policy. It is something unrelated to which is better. If anything, free immigration is a free market policy. Sweden's fate is it's own doing, not something to do with social-democratic practices.
You look only at Sweden, but Denmark and Norway are doing great.
Norway is in it's biggest "recession" ever, which means the unemployment have gone from 3% to 4.7%. What terrible conditions.
>>306618
I'm not saying that's all it is, what I'm saying is that when there is a debate between the ideas of socialism and a free market (which are not the only options, but the conversation is focusing on those two) that one of the important distinctions is central planning.
So yeah I think it's a bad way to argue, which is why I wasn't doing that. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.
>>306616
Its all relative though isn't it? Poverty is defined by the ability to participate in regular society and by that measure, more people are suffering than for a long time. Wages are falling, job security is falling.
Just because we have better technology it really means we're living better lives? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?
>>306627
Honestly, I was baiting, I find Norway's system to be top tier. I just doubt you could implement it on a higher scale (couple hundred million people) without it breaking down and going to shit.
>>306616
>25% of young people out of a job
>people over 50 literally unemployable
It's ok guys, we're doing good on average!
>>306623
How so? I'm genuinely curious.
>>306587
>Mistype, I meant worth as an individual.
The free market system denotes that humans have no worth as an individual beyond their bank account.
>Maybe your argumentative panel would be more developed if you read anything more than blog posts about logical fallacies.
Maybe you should stop using fallacies and then I wouldn't need to bring them up.
>>306621
>One of the main arguments used for immigration is because we need more workers in the future (to keep the welfare ponzi scheme going). Very socialist I'd say.
Are you a baby boomer? One of the reasons we need immigration is for the huge pension bill, the one bit of social welfare the baby boomers aren't dead set on destroying.
Either way I don't see anything vaguely socialist about it, unless you're one of those ancaps who believes that any form of state at all is socialism.
By the way we need to make one thing clear here because the boomers ITT don't seem to understand: socialism is NOT welfare capitalism.
>>306627
And that very debt is because of socialism, your government spends money it doesn't have, it's called socialism.
The Norwegian state has a large fund with oil money, true. Because they know that once the oil is gone they will have nothing else and will slump into a recession unless they start investing heavily in other areas and industries.
Denmark and Norway are not doing great, what planet are you living on?
Denmark is on N E G A T I V E R A T E S, do you understand? Negative fucking rates, it's absolutely horrible.
You also fail to see that unemployment numbers are heavily skewed, just like in the US.
You need to look at the new jobs and what kind of jobs they are.
Having new jobs being half time, dead end jobs, minimum wage jobs and not in industry is bad, yet unemployment numbers goes down. You like many others stare yourselves blind on the numbers without looking behind the curtain.
>>306656
this
>>306653
>The free market system denotes that humans have no worth as an individual beyond their bank account.
So just so we know where we stand, you think Paris Hilton is a really worthy individual?
Don't escape with "the free market", tell me what your position is here.
>>306656
>Having new jobs being half time, dead end jobs, minimum wage jobs and not in industry is bad, yet unemployment numbers goes down. You like many others stare yourselves blind on the numbers without looking behind the curtain.
This is a by product of neo liberal capitalism though. I suppose thats a form of socialism too?
>>306616
So you deliberately ignore the terrible economical recession that we're in since almost two decades, the awful distribution of wealth and the incredible concentration of power in the hands of a few people who literally legalized lobbies at the expenses of smaller companies?
Not to mention creating a society model based on the chronic waste of resources and creation of fake demands of goods for the sole purpose of making capital at the expenses of everything else. Not to mention the complete destruction of employement and pension systems, but yeah, highest standards ever guize.
>>306621
>Socialism is the reason.
But socialim never worked, so it can't be the reason, you said it yourself.
You're telling me that socialism was the cause of the state of our economy now even though it's absolutely evident that it's the usual problem of capitalistic market shitting itself as usual?
Even fucking Marx predicted this centuries ago, come on.
>>306655
How is it not socialist to have the government take peoples money to pay for other peoples shit? That's as socialist as it gets.
It's all a big fat ponzi scheme.
Sweden are having huge problems because of this, as will all other nations in due time.
>>306680
You have to remember that what Uncle Frank here thinks socialism is, is 'anything I dislike'. It has absolutely no connection to any practical socioeconomic theory.
>>306675
That's a product of the horrible economic situation the world is in, largely due to socialism.
>>306680
Socialism never worked which is exactly why shit has hit the fan and been stuck there for the past soon nine years, thanks to socialism being implemented and failing, now we have to pay the price for that.
>its absolutely evident its capitalistic market shifting
Now you're lying as well, ridiculous.
>>306639
True, also you need a lot of time to build the right institutions, human capital and community feeling for it.
USA have a very strong patriotism, institutions, tradition of democracy and legal system, and they were actually one of the most "socialist" countries in the world post-WWII in the 50s and 60s.
It had all the possibility to become a world power Norway.
Why didn't it? I have no idea.
>>306691
>it wasn't true capitalism!
Fucking hell.
>>306682
Do you really think thats what socialism means?
>>306710
t. bottle pissing NEET living on autismbux who hates everyone else on autismbux
>>306673
>So just so we know where we stand, you think Paris Hilton is a really worthy individual?
>Don't escape with "the free market", tell me what your position is here.
My opinion of her is that she doesn't deserve all the money she makes and is an idiot. But the market has determined otherwise, thus I hate the market.
>>306656
>You can't trust numbers
>You can only trust what is real in my mind
Sound familiar. Is that praxeology?
>>306712
Socialism means all the rich people get their property and businesses stolen and the democratically elected group of specialists decides what to do with them, hopefully resulting in the government making a large amount of money, which hopefully it will use to make the lives of citizens better in various ways.
In practice, the government elected group of specialists are worse businessmen than the previous rich merchant owners, and the business goes to shit.
>>306726
>My opinion of her is that she doesn't deserve all the money she makes and is an idiot.
Most people think like you, and yet we live in a free market economy, what does that tell you?
>the market has determined otherwise
The market has determined her antics have more commercial value, not that she's a meritorious person. The fact that you can hate the system for putting her there, is precisely what I'm talking about. In a perfectly meritorious society you would have no choice but to accept everyone at the top is a better person than you are.
Also you were indeed lying about not caring about merit judgement, otherwise you wouldn't care that she's more wealthy than you are.
This thread is a shithole. Abandon ship.
>>306696
I'm certain in one thing: you need to have a strong spatial and temporal connection with the people for it to work. You need your ancestors to build it so you appreciate it, you need to keep it well oiled so it supports your kinsmen and you need to want to leave a a great legacy to your children and their's children's children. You need a strong nationalism or patriotism for that. For those reasons I'm antiimmigrant, you can't let xx% of the population be people who never achieved such progress and have no appreciation for the generational labour required. They have no strong personal connection to the system and thus they don't care if they are ruining it.
It's just my theory about this, I'm not strictly a racist as it's not a racial but a cultural issue. A cultural elitist I suppose.
ITT:commies who can't understand despite repeating examples of failures of communism that communism just doesn't work
While Capitalism,
It just works
>>306656
>And that very debt is because of socialism, your government spends money it doesn't have, it's called socialism.
You don't understand socialism, or what money is, for that matter.
>2015
>not being a social democrat
>Still beliving in capitalism's utopian bullshit
>Still identifying any form of welfare as HURRR SOCIALISM TAKING MONEY FROM THE WORKING MAN
And the best part is these types of people will claim some sort of "Lel you never took an economics course xD" as if that makes any fucking sense.
You guys seem lost, here let me help you
>>/pol/
>>306760
>except when it fails, then it's not real capitalism
ITT: Peace and love are nice ideas, but are they profitable enterprises?
>>306469
>Mistaken Rothbard for Friedman
This is your brain on socialism.
>>306765
It fails less than gommunism
>>306768
>peace
The switch from capitalism to socialism will be done through revolution, and will be violent. So much for peace.
>and love
Socialist values dictate that parents wont be in charge of their children, rather the government will take care of raising them.
So your children are taken away, to be raised by professional child raisers. You can send them a love letter once a year.
>>306776
It has failed a few times within my lifetime.
>>306502
Oh man, look at all those free economies at the top.
>>306763
>Muh /pol/
Do you people not get tired of using the same meme over and over again?
>>306781
Communism was done and dusted it failed before you were even born.
>>306751
>Most people think like you, and yet we live in a free market economy, what does that tell you?
Where's your statistical proof?
>The market has determined her antics have more commercial value, not that she's a meritorious person.
And I condemn the market for placing commercial value on such a thing rather than on merit.
>In a perfectly meritorious society you would have no choice but to accept everyone at the top is a better person than you are.
But the difference is they WOULD be a better person, and I'm fine with people with more merit being paid more than me.
>Also you were indeed lying about not caring about merit judgement, otherwise you wouldn't care that she's more wealthy than you are.
Or maybe you're not thinking of all the possible reasons I would care about that. Can you think of another reason I'd care she is more wealthy than me? Think about econ 101. Because MONEY LETS YOU BUY GOODS AND SERVICES. Hurr. Thus she can buy more goods and services than me even though she does fuck all to deserve it.
>>306699
It never was capitalism, how lost are you?
It's the very same reason there's a student loan bubble in the US right now, it's not because of capitalism but because of socialistic policies (government having everyone and everything get a loan guaranteed)
The same reason the financial crisis happened, first of all you had the government guaranteeing the financial institutions money should anything happen, then they also turn out to be the single biggest purchasor of MBS.
Read a book jesus christ.
>>306779
Who the fuck is arguing for that? Are you insane?
I'm not claiming that capitalists want their children to work for their keep and repay the debts of their early years, or that you think unemployed people should be left to foraging for berries, so don't insult yourself by pretending to believe thats what anyone actually believes.
Isn't the whole word welfare-state a little odd?
I mean, wasn't every state or government at some point in history created for the welfare of the people living in it? Even Thomas Hobbes goes to great lengths to claim an absolute monarch is the thing we need for a welfare-state.
Does anyone besides anarchists believe states aren't meant for the welfare of it's people?
>>306795
Stop with the 'state= socialism' meme, you're more intelligent than that.
>>306794
>Where's your statistical proof?
Oh so you can claim the opposite without proof but I have to give you opinion polls to prove that Paris Hilton is not considered a very brilliant person? Fuck right off.
>Can you think of another reason I'd care she is more wealthy than me? Think about econ 101. Because MONEY LETS YOU BUY GOODS AND SERVICES.
And you said you would be fine if she was worthy, so you do care about value judgements.
>>306804
Libertarian capitalists don't believe that at all, they couldn't care less about the welfare of the people, only that the economy is being productive.
>>306793
I was born in the USSR.
>>306819
Then you are a living breathing example of communisms failure
>>306814
Doesn't that mean they're just a step higher in the ladder? As in they want a good economy because that is what's going to improve everyone's lives?
Or do they worship the 'economy' at their home altars with blood sacrifices?
>>306813
>Oh so you can claim the opposite without proof but I have to give you opinion polls to prove that Paris Hilton is not considered a very brilliant person?
One is an opinion, solely my own opinion. Your claim is that a majority agree with my opinion. I want proof of that, because it is not at all clear. And the issue is not that she is not considered a brilliant person or rather is an idiot, but the other part of the opinion, namely that she "doesn't deserve all the money she makes."
>And you said you would be fine if she was worthy, so you do care about value judgements.
I never said I don't care about value judgments. I said I don't care if people view me as worthless. That's a specific value judgment of me, not of all of them.
>>306832
I have started and sold two software businesses and I am happy to call myself rich.
I also have university education from two of the top universities in my country.
>>306845
It's not about people's view of you. If the system was really meritocratic, being at the bottom means you're shit, not just that people see you as shit.
>One is an opinion, solely my own opinion.
No, you claimed that market economy declared her a great individual.
>>306839
You have to respect the fact that a better economy does not assure a better life for the people. Plenty of well functioning economies have had to crush their people to get there.
>>306860
It for sure creates incentives and helps peoples life though, if you can't succeed it's not up to everyone else to pay for your life.
>>306865
So the fact that wages are dropping in real terms in a supposedly successful economy is the fault of the workers? Just making sure.
>>306879
Who ever said the current economy is successful?
>>306856
>It's not about people's view of you. If the system was really meritocratic, being at the bottom means you're shit, not just that people see you as shit.
I don't care about a meritocratic system's determination of me or if I am shit.
>No, you claimed that market economy declared her a great individual.
The market economy has determined her as a valuable individual, because she has money. If it didn't, she wouldn't have that money or as much of it. And stop changing your terms all the time as well ("great"), it makes it impossible to get what you mean.
>>306888
>I don't care about a meritocratic system's determination of me or if I am shit.
What does that even mean? You care about everyone else determination and not yours? Seriously, this is meaningless, worth is relative.
Of course you imagine that in a more meritocratic society you would be higher in the ladder, but that's the thing, you wouldn't have that freedom of imagination in an already meritocratic society.
Also you're deluded if you think in such a situation higher-up people would be universally accepted because of their merits. People who come out of meritocratic institutions have their detractors just as much as everyone else.
>And stop changing your terms all the time as well ("great"), it makes it impossible to get what you mean.
There is nothing mysterious about what I say, there is a clear distinction between market value and merit (greatness, intelligence, whatever). You can play the dumb game of "maybe everyone else but us two think Paris Hilton is a meritorious person", but it's a waste of time.
>>306919
>What does that even mean? You care about everyone else determination and not yours?
I care about the determinations in this society because it is "off" from what seems far more just. In a meritocratic society it would be less so.
>Of course you imagine that in a more meritocratic society you would be higher in the ladder
Well that really depends on the exact nitty gritty of the system and what is used to determine merit in such a society. I am only going off the obvious stuff in my opinion like "Paris Hilton does not deserve most of her money."
>Also you're deluded if you think in such a situation higher-up people would be universally accepted because of their merits.
If the system is perfectly meritocratic then those people would be factually wrong. Any difference of opinion would have to do with the implementation of the system and disagreements those people have with what constitutes merit which they have with the system, which is fine.
>There is nothing mysterious about what I say
When you are talking about meritorious and then switch to great for no reason it isn't conducive to a coherent discussion.
> there is a clear distinction between market value and merit (greatness, intelligence, whatever).
"And this is a problem in the free market" is my contention.
>You can play the dumb game of "maybe everyone else but us two think Paris Hilton is a meritorious person", but it's a waste of time.
Hyperbole is not going to help you get what I actually mean. Do 30% of people think Paris Hilton deserves her money? 35? 40? 60? What? I can't tell and neither can you without a statistical survey.
>>306595
>Yugoslavia
>successful
>>306955
>If the system is perfectly meritocratic then those people would be factually wrong.
And so what? It would still feed resentment. Everyone in the public eye has a lot of both detractors and supporters, so a lot of people would end up being wrong anyway.
It seems like you refuse to make the effort to imagine what it would be like being at the bottom in such a system. Imagine if tomorrow a meritocratic system was implemented and you happened to be at the bottom of it. You're telling me you would be perfectly fine with saying "well, guess I'm a piece of shit, I will never hold an opinion on anything ever anymore because my opinions really are that worthless".
>Do 30% of people think Paris Hilton deserves her money? 35? 40? 60?
This is a completely irrelevant question. As long as it's enough people to not be anecdotal, it shows that it is not true that our free market society doesn't allow for judgement values other than money. It is, as you said, obvious.
>>306569
>lots of market regulation, as in competition law
Not more than the rest of the EU (though of course the state has an alcohol monopoly).
>>306967
Was way better than USSR with quality of life. It was a dictatorship, sure, but much more capable and more benevolent than, say Pol Pot or Stalin or other famous commie dictators.
>>306574
The Swedish state doesn't have a severe debt. We have issues with private debt though, mostly because of housing.
As for immigration, borders getting closed now, hopefully they stay more or less that way.
>>307003
What does a swede outside of /pol/ think of cultural enrichment you are going through?
>>306320
>implying capitalism isn't the pinnacle of civilisation
the only people capitalism fails is those who are too useless to make their own living. Income inequality doesn't mean that the poor in society are really suffering or that they would be better off under any other economic system.
>>307014
Do you mean me or the average swede?
>>307030
Both I suppose. I assume average swede is just like in the news, ultraliberal and Muslim loving.
The particulars of some collectivist ideologies may vanish, but I don't see envy going anywhere anytime soon.
Economic calculation is impossible in socialism. Of course this state of affairs is more or less accepted in its most drastic form (actual planning of production by the bureaucracy) but many cling to the belief of things being better with remnant market with government acting as some kind of benefic perturbation.
As long as envy remains, so will collectivism. It is its root, and is here to stay.
>>306832
Proves my point
You couldn't have done that in a communist system
Goes to show it's failure
>>307014
/pol/ swede here
Sweden is pretty good with integrating other cultures, but I generally think that this cultural enrichment is harmful, and will leave a permanent dent (Positive or not) in Swedens big city culture and perhaps even long term ethnic makeup.
>CAPITALISM IS TERRIBLE 20% OF PEOPLE ARE UNEMPLOYED
Just because somebody has a job it doesn't mean that he has a good life.
See the soviet union.
>>307048
Most Swedes were probably fairly pro immigration before this fall, media has always been very pro immigration, including our public service channel which basically everyone watches. The anti immigration party consists of idiots and has a past that drags them down a bit, which makes most people who vote for them pinch their noses while doing so.
The situation this fall is somewhat different though, as the volumes increased by a fuckton and we almost couldnt even give them shelter. After our government (which consists of lolnoborders greens + social democrats) basically closed the gates temporarily for three years this week, seven out of then swedes were in favor of it.
As for me, I've always been for a more restrictive immigration policy, especially since we absolutely fail at integration.
>>306981
>And so what? It would still feed resentment.
And that would be worse than the current system? Or just the same? Seems just the same. But resentment isn't what I'd want to get rid of but rather deserved resentment.
>It seems like you refuse to make the effort to imagine what it would be like being at the bottom in such a system. Imagine if tomorrow a meritocratic system was implemented and you happened to be at the bottom of it. You're telling me you would be perfectly fine with saying "well, guess I'm a piece of shit, I will never hold an opinion on anything ever anymore because my opinions really are that worthless".
No, I'd definitely still hold opinions and lord them over other people even if I'm a piece of shit. That does not follow. A system's evaluation of you does not require you to hold no opinions.
But being at the bottom of that system would be factually no different than being at the bottom of this one: little to no money. That is what matters, not some perceived slight the system has put upon you as having no merit.
>This is a completely irrelevant question.
I'm not sure the majority would agree with me or not, so I find it relevant.
>As long as it's enough people to not be anecdotal, it shows that it is not true that our free market society doesn't allow for judgement values other than money.
But those are the judgments of individuals, not the judgments of the system. The free market system judges solely on money and that is all it can judge on.
>>307078
*seven out of ten
A free market capitalism combined with a basic welfare state seems a lot better than pure socialism or a lolbertarian paradise.
I guess I'm boring.
>>307083
>And that would be worse than the current system?
Worse. The idea that your value can change based on circumstances is much preferable to the one that it's in your nature to not be worth anything.
>No, I'd definitely still hold opinions and lord them over other people even if I'm a piece of shit. That does not follow. A system's evaluation of you does not require you to hold no opinions.
So you're saying you wouldn't accept it? Because if you're worthless then it follow that your ideas are too.
>But those are the judgments of individuals
Individuals who live in such a system, so it's not true that it denies the existence of merit since we're very much able to talk about it.
>The free market system judges solely on money and that is all it can judge on.
Which is why it keeps merit and wealth separate, yes.
>>307104
The question becomes how much of a welfare state you want. Do you want hardly anything like the US or full fledged support like the Nordic countries?
>>307104
>free market
>basic welfare
B-but any kind of welfare infringes on muh freedoms!
>>306320
>Yeah right because capitalism works so well.
Well....yeah!
>>307104
>with a basic welfare state
But why? Why subsidize the useless, who will only breed more useless? Unless you suggest something like mandatory sterilization for anyone going on welfare, which I would support.
>>307104
Libertarians do not necessarily reject welfare systems. Some do.
Unless what you mean by welfare state is a state that is allowed to take any action it thinks will "increase welfare".
>mfw when everyone ignores Anarchism or, as it was referred to in polite conversation LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM.
>>307122
Noone should starve or be homeless. I also think that education should be funded through taxation since it's incredibly important for everyone to be able to access it.
>>307125
The market is still free even if there is some taxation.
>>307135
Even if people are "useless", they don't deserve to die. Having people starving on the streets is beneath a modern state with any amount of wealth. Also, do you want to tank birthrates even further?
>>307136
Well, of course. I'm just talking about the "let them starve" style that seems to exist here.
>>307170
>Even if people are "useless", they don't deserve to die.
They don't "deserve" anything. They don't deserve to be artificially kept alive.
>Having people starving on the streets is beneath a modern state with any amount of wealth.
Oh please, enough with the false morality.
>Also, do you want to tank birthrates even further?
I would very much like for the birth rates of useless welfare leeches to tank, yes. And the removal of this huge tax burden on the middle class will cause them to be able to afford more children.
>>307180
>Surviving is a privilege, not a right
lolbertarians pls go
>>307180
>preventing your citizens from dying
>false morality
Jesus, where did you get all that edge from?
>>307120
>Worse. The idea that your value can change based on circumstances is much preferable to the one that it's in your nature to not be worth anything.
Meritocracy isn't about assigning you a number at birth and you're forever worth that. It's based on your output, which can still change.
>So you're saying you wouldn't accept it?
Depends on if I agreed with the assessment and what criteria the meritocratic system was using. But no one is going to accept no money. That is the defining point, they will always fight for more money. The system could berate me all day and call me a worthless piece of shit but if it hands me a check for 100k a year I don't really care what it says. The money is what matters.
>Because if you're worthless then it follow that your ideas are too.
Not really, because a meritocracy does not have the information to say everything that comes out of your head is worthless, it can only judge based on your work output or whatever other criteria are in place.
>Individuals who live in such a system, so it's not true that it denies the existence of merit since we're very much able to talk about it.
Individuals living within the system, you understand, are not the system itself. Their opinions on merit cannot change the fact of whether someone is rich or not. For example, I can't opinion-hate Paris Hilton's money away. The best I can do is not buy her junk and others will refrain from doing so as well. But enough people will to keep her bank accounts high.
>>307184
Oh, you're free to survive. But modern welfare leeches don't survive. They leech.
>>307187
>Jesus, where did you get all that edge from?
It's false morality because you're purposefully causing a decline in society in the name of "muh poor people". You're not very different from the komissars rounding up and executing suspected "kulaks" in the name of fairness. Your way is simply insidious.
>>307199
The leeches will just rob you if you don't give them shit through the gubment, so just accept it.
>>307208
>The leeches will just rob you
Send in the national guard and mow em down.
The "we must keep them on welfare otherwise they'll kill us!" is the most retarded pro-welfare argument I've ever heard.
>>307214
>Send in the national guard and mow em down.
Then people with actual compassion will be against you.
>>307214
>Send in the national guard and mow em down.
That isn't feasible. They don't form an organized brigade; they simply do it in secret, at random and with stealth.
>>307199
>Oh, you're free to survive. But modern welfare leeches don't survive. They leech.
You just said that "they don't deserve to be artifically kept alive."
>>307180
>They don't deserve to be artificially kept alive.
A lot of them will find a way to survive though, under crowded and unhealthy conditions that breed crime and disease. Deny them health care and you have even more potential for disease to spread, and the more people have a disease the more chances it has to mutate. You think keeping the poor peopleout of your neighbourhood will keep it contained? Enjoy your vaccine-resistant polio.
>>307220
They'll be too busy tweeting on their iPhones while sipping on their starbucks latte to be much of an inconvenience.
>>307222
>That isn't feasible. They don't form an organized brigade; they simply do it in secret, at random and with stealth.
Oh yes, the famous secret society of welfare leeches.
>>307226
That's correct. They are free to survive by their own means, however, for instance they could find a fucking job.
>>307214
>Send in the national guard and mow em down.
Seems like you want to:
A: act like a third world country
B: get riots
>>307139
But the earliest movements in anarchism were individualist anarchism, especially Boston anarchism, which was radically laissez-faire economically.
>>307240
>Oh yes, the famous secret society of welfare leeches.
They're called street gangs, and that is what the "welfare leeches" will join if you don't keep them fed.
>>307234
>A lot of them will find a way to survive though, under crowded and unhealthy conditions that breed crime and disease
Section 8 housing is already very unsanitary. As for crime, that argument is not grounded in reality as crime rates in the early 20th century when living conditions were MUCH harsher than today were still far lower than today.
>Deny them health care and you have even more potential for disease to spread, and the more people have a disease the more chances it has to mutate.
Oh yeah, I'm sure removing welfare will create a pandemic. Top kek, you're really grasping for straws.
>You think keeping the poor peopleout of your neighbourhood will keep it contained? Enjoy your vaccine-resistant polio.
I'll take my chances. Considering that vaccine-resistant polio has never appeared in the hellish slums of the third world, I think my odds are pretty good.
>>307240
>Expecting 100% of the population to find jobs when that many jobs don't even exist
>>307254
More likely you'll have to deal with ebola or something in the first world. You don't want that shit out of Africa in places where you can catch it.
>>307258
Most of them would be able to find jobs if labor laws were loosened.
>>307260
They have the numbers, Richie Rich
>>307262
>More likely you'll have to deal with ebola or something in the first world.
Holy shit are you clinically retarded? How the fuck would removing welfare "cause ebola". Jesus fucking Christ, this takes the cake as the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
>>307263
So you want people to get maimed and poisoned up to full employeement eh?
>>307265
>They have the numbers
Believe it or not, the US army would probably win against a bunch of hood rats.
>>307276
You don't control the US army
>>307273
If by "maimed and poisoned" you mean work an honest job. Because honestly who gets maimed and poisoned today?
>>307275
>Shit won't stabilize unless you give the people what it wants.
This is really stupid. It'll stabilize as soon as people realize they need to find work asap or they'll starve.
>It's impossible for 100% of the population to ever be employed all at once.
That's correct. However the pool of unemployed people always changes. The "chronically unemployed" person is a consequence of the welfare state.
>>307282
I don't think hood rats with "REAL NIGGA" tattooed on their foreheads control the US army either.
The idea that the army would rally with a bunch of crips and bloods is laughable. You must literally be 12 years old.
>>307269
>crowded and unhealthy conditions that breed crime and disease
How do you think Africa has become a haven for ebola in the first place? Because there are tons of people living in unhealthy, disgusting conditions that gives ebola a large host population. All it takes is one guy to bring it over and it'll spread to the slums and will become endemic.
>>307293
The idea is that the army would do nothing to stop crips and bloods from robbing you
>>307289
>Because honestly who gets maimed and poisoned today?
Yeah like you know it's (CURRENT YEAR) how could you possibly get maimed or poisoned in (CURRENT YEAR)?!
>>307297
>How do you think Africa has become a haven for ebola in the first place?
Didn't they eat contaminated monkeys or something? Also the fact that barely a few thousand people died in fucking Africa shows that Ebola is not much of a threat in Western countries.
But just so that you are pacified, I suggest we stop all immigration from Africa, happy?
>>307299
And why wouldn't they, exactly?
>>307303
Nice meme, but answer the question. Does working at McDonald's get you "maimed and poisoned" ?
>>307310
>And why wouldn't they, exactly?
Because the army doesn't fight US civilians you dumb shit
>>307311
No but working in chemical plants without regulations does.
>>307312
>Because the army doesn't fight US civilians you dumb shit
You mean that there hasn't been a single historical instance where the army was brought in for crowd control?
Are you fucking stupid?
>>307314
I'm not suggesting loosening regulations on toxic chemicals you dumb fuck, I'm suggesting things such as removing minimum wage.
>>307310
>Also the fact that barely a few thousand people died in fucking Africa shows that Ebola is not much of a threat in Western countries.
Western countries would become just like Africa if you lolbertarians have your way. A ruling class of corporate conflict diamond CEOs with a cohort of well to do servants and everyone else starving and dying in the streets.
>>307319
>You mean that there hasn't been a single historical instance where the army was brought in for crowd control?
>Are you fucking stupid?
They're not going to do it for your ass, I can guarantee that.
>>307321
>Western countries would become just like Africa if you lolbertarians have your way
Of course not. Western countries weren't Africa tier before bleeding hearts enacted welfare states during the 1960s. In fact, it's NOW that western countries are more and more looking like Africa.
>A ruling class of corporate conflict diamond CEOs with a cohort of well to do servants and everyone else starving and dying in the streets.
The only countries where people have starved significantly during the 20th century were marxist countries you stupid fucking moron. Forcing welfare leeches to get a job =/= everyone starves in the street.
>>307324
>They're not going to do it for your ass, I can guarantee that.
I don't really care about your guarantees, because it's painfully obvious that you're an underage teenager and hence your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
>>306349
Tell that to Paul Krugman. This clown won a Nobel prize in economics yet every debate he's ever been in has devolved into shameless ad hom attacks and ideological bickering
>>307329
>Of course not. Western countries weren't Africa tier before bleeding hearts enacted welfare states during the 1960s.
The survival skills of people have been worn down through years of coddling. It will collapse without it.
>The only countries where people have starved significantly during the 20th century were marxist countries you stupid fucking moron.
And African ones :)
>>307078
What if you made a party that has moderate views but strictly anti immigration and possibly for deportation of current "refugees".
>>306502
>the criterion of financial literacy is how much you agree with socialist principles
Top laff
>>307329
>I don't really care about your guarantees, because it's painfully obvious that you're an underage teenager and hence your opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Some to you, anon. I hope you enjoy your imaginary libertarian paradise.
>>307337
>The survival skills of people have been worn down through years of coddling. It will collapse without it.
Kek what? Middle class people "will collapse" because their income tax halves? Are you even aware of what you're saying?
You seem to be implying that the majority of people in America depend on welfare, which isn't really the case. Only the troublesome bottom 15% are useless welfare leeches.
>And African ones :)
If you had actually read a book once in your life (it's above your intellectual capabilities, I know) you'd know that the famines which hit Africa during the 20th century were the result of recently decolonized African countries adopting a marxist-leninist economy.
>>307343
>Some to you, anon. I hope you enjoy your imaginary libertarian paradise.
I hope you enjoy your welfare checks while they last.
>>307331
This. He did New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography to get a Nobel. Otherwise he's an American liberal ideologue.
>>307352
>You seem to be implying that the majority of people in America depend on welfare, which isn't really the case.
Almost a majority are on food stamps :)
And they are dependent on regulations to keep the little bargaining power with their employers they have.
>If you had actually read a book once in your life (it's above your intellectual capabilities, I know) you'd know that the famines which hit Africa during the 20th century were the result of recently decolonized African countries adopting a marxist-leninist economy.
What about the potbellied goiterous children starving right now though? Will you donate money to feed them O rich and lovely lolbert?
>>307366
>Almost a majority are on food stamps :)
Most of them don't DEPEND on food stamps.
>And they are dependent on regulations to keep the little bargaining power with their employers they have.
>implying they have jobs
>What about the potbellied goiterous children starving right now though?
Literally no one starves in America. Or do you mean Africa?
>Will you donate money to feed them O rich and lovely lolbert?
Obviously not. Why should I? I already give enough tax money to subsidize worthless leeches.
>>307377
>>implying they have jobs
So first murika doesn't need welfare or regulations because they're pretty well off and now >implying they have jerbs
>Literally no one starves in America. Or do you mean Africa?
Given the part of the post I quoted there was about Africa I think your sharp, highly intellectual and independent lolbertarian mind can grasp I'm talking Africa.
>>307389
>So first murika doesn't need welfare or regulations because they're pretty well off
No, they don't need welfare and regulations because it subsidizes a class of worthless leeches. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
>and now >implying they have jerbs
Yes, welfare leeches don't have jobs. Reducing labor regulations will help them gain jobs. I thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I overestimated your intelligence.
>Given the part of the post I quoted there was about Africa I think your sharp, highly intellectual and independent lolbertarian mind can grasp I'm talking Africa.
They aren't particularly starving right now.
I'm always surprised to see how important welfare measures are to some people.
Few people mentioned monetary policy, contract enforcement, responsibility of public figures or bureaucratic "regulations".
The welfare state is only one thing is the grand picture. I'd get hard money and free enterprise without gorillonz of licenses and working requirements, the ability to hire and fire people without five trials and ten strikes and the ability to prosecute officials for mismanagement of budget.
Some welfare is a small price to pay for all this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPJWwiKnYGs
>collectivism
>2015
>>307193
>Meritocracy isn't about assigning you a number at birth and you're forever worth that. It's based on your output, which can still change.
Eh? Your output is based on your position in society in the first place, unless you mean something completely different than what I understand by "output". If you're put in a tire factory line, your output will be tires regardless of your merit.
>they will always fight for more money
The point is in a free market society you can "fight" for it by trying new opportunities. If a society already assessed merit independently, then opportunities are irrelevant, because we already know if you're worthless or not.
>The system could berate me all day and call me a worthless piece of shit but if it hands me a check for 100k a year I don't really care what it says.
And yet so many rich men strive to either improve their image in the public eyes, or surround yourself with people who like them, or find some way to show their merit, etc. Everybody likes to be the meritorious guy, your idea doesn't hold up to what we see.
>Not really, because a meritocracy does not have the information to say everything that comes out of your head is worthless
I'm pretty sure the pertinence of your ideas is a criterium of merit, or you have a really strange idea of what merit is.
>Individuals living within the system, you understand, are not the system itself.
If the system erased any possibility of judging people other than wealth, then we wouldn't be judging people by other means than wealth. I don't see why you're arguing this since you very much agree that free market wealth and human merit are two different things and that it's obvious.
Also there's been plenty of marketing polls showing that people watch trash TV while being aware it's trash.
>>307457
>Your output is based on your position in society in the first place, unless you mean something completely different than what I understand by "output". If you're put in a tire factory line, your output will be tires regardless of your merit.
I'm talking output as in how good a job you do. I'd say as long as you're able to go to college in a decent field, your position in society will be determined by your output rather than the other way around.
>The point is in a free market society you can "fight" for it by trying new opportunities. If a society already assessed merit independently, then opportunities are irrelevant, because we already know if you're worthless or not.
You're thinking of something awfully different as a meritocracy than I am. There's no way to determine someone's merit without examining some kind of output or work on their part.
>And yet so many rich men strive to either improve their image in the public eyes, or surround yourself with people who like them, or find some way to show their merit, etc. Everybody likes to be the meritorious guy, your idea doesn't hold up to what we see.
Some do, some don't. You don't see Paris Hilton reading physics research papers to try to get people to believe she's smarter, do you?
>I'm pretty sure the pertinence of your ideas is a criterium of merit, or you have a really strange idea of what merit is.
That's not what would be assessed by a meritocratic economic system unless your job involves coming up with ideas.
>>307457
>If the system erased any possibility of judging people other than wealth, then we wouldn't be judging people by other means than wealth.
The system doesn't erase any possibility of individuals judging but it does not allow for negative assessments having an effect on the system's assessment. In other words, the system results in Paris Hilton getting say 50 million a year for putting her name and whatever else on a bunch of garbage and doing whatever publicity she needs to just because some people will buy it. But that is unaffected by individuals' independent judgments of whether she deserves that money. The input they have is just not to buy it. Other than that, their opinion is outside the system.
>>307400
>No, they don't need welfare and regulations because it subsidizes a class of worthless leeches.
But those leeches are part of Murika. Thus Murika needs welfare and regulations :)
>Yes, welfare leeches don't have jobs. Reducing labor regulations will help them gain jobs.
What makes you think someone leeching would suddenly apply for a job because s/he can get paid total shit wages now rather than generally shit wages?
>They aren't particularly starving right now.
Libertarians: Reality inconvenient? Just deny it!
>>307546
>But those leeches are part of Murika
So what? Pedophiles and murderers are part of America too, do you want to coddle them?
>Thus Murika needs welfare and regulations :)
No, YOU need welfare and regulations because I'm guessing you're some worthless NEET.
>What makes you think someone leeching would suddenly apply for a job because s/he can get paid total shit wages now rather than generally shit wages?
Because hunger is a good motivator.
>Libertarians: Reality inconvenient? Just deny it!
I'm sure you'll have no problem showing me famines in Africa due to "capitalism".
>>307420
>>307563
Welfare recipients aren't doing anything wrong by just existing though, anon. Rather we need to keep them from doing things that are undesirable by keeping them at least somewhat coddled, or else they will take their hunger and attack rich individuals like yourself rather than just working for shit wages. The type of person on welfare only thinks in the now and will not make the connection of working for years to work their way up the ladder. They will instead see easy money in the form of a rich man walking down the street as a ticket to their next bottle of whiskey. And you don't want to be that rich man. So you better give them their welfare.
>>307577
>>307594
Look Mises, he is confused!
>>307607
But Mises and Hayek are enemies. They should not be jocularly discussing matters. They should be sword fighting.
>>307614
The are adversaries having serious discussions and bant. The collectivists are the enemy.
>>307583
>Welfare recipients aren't doing anything wrong by just existing though, anon.
They're stealing money from hard working americans.
>Rather we need to keep them from doing things that are undesirable by keeping them at least somewhat coddled, or else they will take their hunger and attack rich individuals like yourself rather than just working for shit wages
Well if efficiency is what you're after it would be even easier to kill them all.
>The type of person on welfare only thinks in the now and will not make the connection of working for years to work their way up the ladder. They will instead see easy money in the form of a rich man walking down the street as a ticket to their next bottle of whiskey. And you don't want to be that rich man. So you better give them their welfare.
How about I give them a bullet in the head?
Oh right, that's amoral. But it's perfectly moral for them to steal my money and kill me if I refuse to let it continue.
>leftist morality
>>307953
>They're stealing money from hard working americans.
No they're not. The gooberment is giving them that money.
>>306328
what's sad is friedman wasn't alive to see his own theory get BTFO in his face
