Let's laugh at libertarians
>>72334779
Shut up britbong nobody likes you and your post is shit.
>>72334779
You realize we think this shit is funny too right?
>>72334779
Let's laugh at statists
>>72334779
> libertarians are so dumb, don't they know the constitution guarantees everyone free education and other free shit paid for by people who actually earn money?
>>72334959
>all government spending is communism
but that's wrong.
>>72334779
Here I got something better to laugh about, price control, minimum wage, inflation, keynesianism, economy of the Soviet Union
Free market>anything else really
>>72334779
Does anyone have the please don't tread on me or my wife's son ever again picture? The one with the smaller brown snake. I really need it, thanks.
>>72334867
>we
Are you sure you're libertarian?
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
>>72335152
>>72334864
>be American
>country is 60% white
>step outside and bullets fly past me
>get to work
>fired because I'm a FUCKING WHOTE MALE
>tyrone Jackson and Juan mcspic take my place because of affirmative action
>get home and take one of 2000 different pills given to me by Doctor Schlomo
>hold gun to my head as I hear Jamal thundercock plough my wife's ass
>god bless america
>>72335236
dankest
>muh roads
>implicating libertarianism is bad
>>72335210
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
>>72335236
Thanks Ameripal, you're the best.
>>72335135
kek
>>72335337
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.
>>72335105
> the state does an efficient and high quality job of... something, so we should give them more money!
>>72334779
>>72334818
>>72334843
>>72334864
>>72334866
>>72334867
>>72334872
>>72334914
>>72334938
>>72334959
>>72335026
>>72335105
>>72335127
>>72335135
>>72335152
>>72335181
>>72335210
>>72335215
>>72335236
>>72335246
>>72335305
>>72335321
>>72335337
>>72335338
>>72335345
>>72335364
>>72335369
>>72335416
not an argument
>>72335337
>this is what government zombies believe would happen in a free society
>>72334779
>>72335416
>Uzbekistan has the lowest rate of corporate tax on Earth
>It's a shithole
>this is what bootlickers actually believe
Are statists capable of forming any rational arguments? Or can they only post Gadsden rattlesnake flag memes to conceal the fact that they support me being shot?
>>72335626
>Governments started getting out of people's way in the 17 and 1800s
>Period of greatest technological and scientific advancement in history
Fuck off commie scum
>>72335618
>because there arent any banks
kek a libertarian society would be RULED by the banks if nothing else
>>72335135
Kek
"Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the free trade has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities and renders the contrast between proletariat and bourgeois more acute. In a word, the free trade system is participating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for free trade" Karl Marx
>>72335626
>ussr, PRC, venezuela, North Korea, cuba and many other failed nations are all commies.
>all of them, and every attempt at communisim fail
>they are all such great failures that commies routinely engage in a no true scotsman fallacy, claiming that "muh true communism has never been tried.“
>>72336115
>>72335583
kek'd hard
>>72335416
the state is supposed to provide public goods (roads, public infrastructure, utilities, defense) at a low cost so you don't live in a toll booth economy where monopolies (like Carlos Slim in Mexico) can charge monopoly rates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im1QmtfHPb4
This ideology predates Marx and has nothing to do with communism. It was also supported by the founding fathers.
>>72335973
>USSR
>Greatest period in Eastern European history.
>Victorian Britain
>Probably the worst time to ever be alive in a time of peace in this country
Are libertarians just anarchists or are you fucks strawmanning hard
>>72336186
lolbertarians and anarchists are as close as socialists and full out commies
>>72335135
Kek
Is Trump subtly trolling his Libertarian base when he mentions the snake poem?
>>72336186
No one knows
they say getting the government to provide things is "free shit" and "communism"
so were the founding fathers communists according to them? Even the founders of the US supported government spending for defense, public goods, etc.
That's not communism, communism means government ownership of the means of production.
>>72336127
>Science, art, education and healthcare all skyrocket under socialism
>Gorbachev gives it all up like a retard for Pizza Hut
>Prostitution skyrockets and people start living in the sewers, surviving off of selling salvage from communist monuments for scrap
>People will still say it was a failure
Also
>That pic
Class traitors are even stealing our memes now, is there nothing they won't plunder from the proletariat?
>>72336158
>that quote
What a harrowing realization
>>72334779
>>72334818
>>72334843
>>72334864
>>72334866
>>72334867
>>72334872
>>72334914
>>72334938
>>72334959
>>72335026
>>72335105
>>72335127
>>72335135
>>72335152
>>72335181
>>72335210
>>72335215
>>72335236
>>72335246
>>72335305
>>72335321
>>72335337
>>72335338
>>72335345
>>72335364
>>72335369
>>72335416
>>72335453
>>72335475
>>72335488
>>72335527
>>72335583
>>72335618
>>72335626
>>72335671
>>72335865
>>72335904
>>72335943
>>72335973
>>72335989
>>72336037
>>72336044
>>72336115
>>72336127
>>72336158
>>72336161
>>72336170
>>72336181
>>72336186
>>72336234
>>72336304
>>72336316
>>72336427
>>72336448
>>72336468
>>72336495
not an argument
>>72336495
>>72336158
except it's bullshit
The modern right loves outsourcing every job possible to China.
>>72336552
>He's this triggered by banter
>>72336468
enjoy your breadlines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJBjjP8WSbc
>>72336585
they don't love "outsourcing" they love business opportunity and low cost
minimum wage and regulation made american workers too expensive
>>72336468
>commies will excuse the most opressive, most violent, most inhummane and evil regimes in history because of notions of "culture" and "advances in science"
Top fucking kek.
Go tell anyone who lived under the USSR that wasn't a part of the goverment that the USSR was so great. I'm sure they'd agree, and definitely wouldn't beat you up for excusing all the suffering they went through
>>72336468
>Stravinsky leaves the Soviet Union
>excels and becomes the greatest composer of the 20th century
>Shostakovich stays
>The Soviet Union won't let him compose things as he likes and is mediocre
>>72336181
>Victorian Britain
>Literally followed over a 1000 years of snail pace progress
>The most inventive and productive and monumental time in British history that gave us the good quality of life today which allows people to sit around complaining about capitalism
>USSR
>Millions working under slave labour, getting purged, copying western technology and still producing a fraction of American and European output and eventually collapsing
>Could afford a large military and a space program yet only 1 in 10 ordinary citizens had a shitty car which took 2 years waiting in a list to obtain
>>72336864
*not living in cages made American workers too expensive*
fixed
>>72336713
Enjoy your homelessness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9pk8FG8LPA
>>72336713
It really is unbelievable how retarded he is. I honestly don't know how he's functioning.
>>72336999
relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-PlqqK9B9Y
based Mosley
>>72336468
>Being this brainwashed by SJW marxist propaganda
>b..b..but guys the soviet union wasnt that bad u know!
>>72336468
>>72337055
enjoy your government made shoes and deodorant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8hAJ2IdNDE
>>72336889
Actually, they wouldn't.
https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/
>>72336999
>uses images from a corpratist/communist country to attack capitalism.
You can litteraly not make this up.
Look. Look at this. Commies would excuse putting the poorest of poor in cages like these because "muh USSR was great"
>>72336186
libertarians want to keep some government, namely its policing and military functions. thus if they're being exemplary greedy jews and the public gets fed up, they can still call daddy government to have their property protected. with zero government (anarchy), dirty business people are kept in check by the permanent possibility of violent take over
>>72336933
>Kids working for pennies in sweatshops
>Massive amounts of imperialist war
>Generally lots of death and suffering for everyone involved for the benefit of very few.
Victorian Britain is absolutely indefensible, man. But of course nationalists love it because
>muh empire
>>72337292
>defending outsourcing jobs to communist China with shit standards of living and health regulations by attacking communism
wat
>>72337290
>trying to use rt as an unbiased source
Also, of course russian would want that. They were the ones who got the good end of the deal. The countries that got the short end of the stick, like the poles, wouldn't agree.
They didn't get to live in luxury because they were part of the ruling class, they lived like pic related.
>>72337192
SJW Marxist isn't an insult, it's a compliment.
>>72337458
>Kids working for pennies in sweatshops
the UK had literally the highest wages on earth at the time
>>72337458
also
>British Empire
>lots of death and suffering
kek
>>72337542
Hmm, people not living in luxury because they're not part of the ruling class?
It's not like that's literally built into the capitalist system?
But you do raise a good point, perhaps socialism would be better if all states involved weren't under foreign hegemony. As a matter of fact I'm quite positive that kind of anti-imperialism is a very communist idea.
>>72334779
t. Miniluv
>I don't know the difference between libertarianism and anarchy
Every...damn...time...
>>72334779
>>72334818
>>72334843
>>72334864
>>72334866
>>72334867
>>72334872
>>72334914
>>72334938
>>72334959
>>72335026
>>72335105
>>72335127
>>72335135
>>72335152
>>72335181
>>72335210
>>72335215
>>72335236
>>72335246
>>72335305
>>72335321
>>72335337
>>72335338
>>72335345
>>72335364
>>72335369
>>72335416
>>72335453
>>72335475
>>72335488
>>72335527
>>72335583
>>72335618
>>72335626
>>72335671
>>72335865
>>72335904
>>72335943
>>72335973
>>72335989
>>72336037
>>72336044
>>72336115
>>72336127
>>72336158
>>72336161
>>72336170
>>72336181
>>72336186
>>72336234
>>72336304
>>72336316
>>72336427
>>72336448
>>72336468
>>72336495
>>72336585
>>72336713
>>72336864
>>72336889
>>72337201
>>72337212
>>72337292
>>72337290
>>72337711
>>72337688
not an argument
>>72337458
>19th century Britain
>People living in poverty like they had for the past 100 thousand years since poverty is the natural human state
>Marxists say that capitalism created the poverty, implying people were rich when they were peasant farmers
Why do marxists think we need too look at what causes poverty and pin the blame on capitalism? Poverty is the natural human state, therefore logically we should be looking at what creates WEALTH and the answer is capitalism
>USSR
>Killing millions of its own citizens
>Defensible
Holy shit you're retarded.
>>72337711
Imperialism is over
The Africans just oppress each other for fun now.
>>72337864
The thing is the USSR didn't kill millions of their own citizens. There was a famine. And guess where else there was a famine? I think it might just have been Victorian Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
>>72335236
the best one
Really, what is wrong with being a libertarian? Not that I idenify with any sort of political belief because I'm not a pretentious LARPer, but what is wrong with it? Don't you want as little government interfererence as doable? Do the enlightened minds here wanna """"redpill""" me on libertarianism. Not mad, either, these are funny.
>>72337906
>Imperialism is over
>The overwhelming majority of the wealth is owned by foreigners
>First world countries are constantly using it as a staging ground for proxy wars, and to assert influence.
The French being the worst offenders by far for that last one.
>>72338018
>There was a famine
Yeah when you steal all the food from your political enemies (that you enslaved) they tend to die
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
>>72338018
>The thing is the USSR didn't kill millions of their own citizens
Now I know you're a troll.
>>72337711
>It's not like that's literally built into the capitalist system?
it's not. Capitalisim is just the right to property and freedom of association and trade.
There isn't a built in set working class, despite what commies may think and claim. Anyone and everyone can become rich under capitalism. Which is what has occured, as shown by the increase in the middle and upper class, higher average wealth, better quality of life, etc. under capitalist countires.
>>72338056
No, unless are extremely rich in which case yes the government is infringing on your profits.
Otherwise no, the government is more or less the only thing seperating you from serfdom via employment contracts.
>>72335246
inshallah brother, we shall build the grandest kebosque (kebab mosque) in all of londonistan. the caliphate will be plentiful with kebab goodness *sucks grease off fingers*
>>72338056
There is nothing wrong with right wing libertarianism. It is the best idealogy known to man.
>>72338018
That famine was exacerbated by Malthusians who thought the poor were going to die anyways so it would be pointless to help them. The same mentality Lenin, Stalin, and Mao had when they intentionally let millions starve because of their apathy for the individual.
>>72337711
>people not living in luxury because they're not part of the ruling class?
It's not like that's literally built into the capitalist system?
Yeah, you're totally right. In a capitalist system if you're not living in luxury then you are most certainly living in squalor. There is no middle ground here, nope. There's absolutely no upward mobility in a capitalist system either. All of those McMansions you see in every single suburb of every US city don't really exist. They are a mirage. Only the elites can own nice homes and the scraps are left for the peasants. Now socialism! THAT'S a system where EVERYONE lives like a king!
>>72337055
or ill just be successful and let some other weak subhuman go homeless, why do you want to steal from me to pay for someone who cannot look after themselves?
>>72338103
>The overwhelming majority of the wealth is owned by foreigners
Except it isn't African owned by African businessmen and rulers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuaruxin/2011/06/09/african-multinational-corporations-are-catching-up/#3d4b7d72cba3
>>72338265
Libertarianism isn't on the left/right spectrum.
"Left libertarians" are just morons who want all the free stuff of big government but want to pretend it doesn't exist
>>72338172
The thing about property is where that comes, so does inequality.
You simply cannot have a capitalist society where everyone is well-off. You always need plebs to till the fields, work in the mines and clean the place up. But it's not just the first world, capitalism also depends on imperialism in the third world to keep the prices of goods and labour as low as possible to keep those profit margins high. If you're a child labourer in Africa who can't read because you've been spending your entire life harvesting cocoa beans you're never really going to get rich in capitalism.
>>72338056
Because it's an ideology for faggots who think success makes the only right. If you can do business well, you can fuck everyone over and it's okay because reasons.
Also free trade is cancer.
>>72338530
You know absolutely nothing about economics or how capitalism acctually works, do you?
>>72338383
>Steal from me
Contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe it's not you that's getting done away with in communism. It's the bourgeois via seizing the means of production.
Why? Because when the system has failed someone this hard clearly there is something wrong with it. And since I don't have autism this kind of injustice bothers me.
>>72338530
Inequality is an inherent part of the natural order. It's been proven time and time again that attempts to make everyone "equal" end up with mass murderering dictatorial regimes that are actually less equal than capitalist countries
>You simply cannot have a capitalist society where everyone is well-off.
You can't have a communist society where ANYONE is well off. Go and speak to someone who lived in the soviet union to tell you more.
Which do you choose?
>>72338682
Libertarians always say this but I have to wonder how many people ITT actually have any formal education in economics?
>>72338530
Also how did capitalism cause that African child to be poor? Were African children rich 400 years ago before capitalism?
What's hilarious is that somalia's current tribal anarchy has delivered a much better quality of life for its people than their commie-propped up socialist state provided before 91
>>72338054
>Africa is now a better place now those evil Europeans have gone.
>>72338772
>less equal
This is Castro's house.
Now compare your house with Buckingham palace and decide which of these two countries is less equal.
But to an extent I do agree, people naturally do have different abilities and trying to enforce an equality of outcome isn't the best idea. But communism is the ultimate equality of opportunity, and equality of opportunity is one thing that history decidedly endorses.
>>72338789
3rd year Politics and Economics undergrad. Also I'm fed the neo-keynsian meme by professors whom I debate with equipped with my self-taught knowledge in classical and austrian school
>>72338652
If you don't like the actions a company is taking then organize a boycott. One of the beliefs of libertarians is that people aren't helpless little babies that need to cry to their big brother every time something goes wrong.
>>72338789
probably not many
thing is, when a libertarian leaning economist explains economic theory, its concise and eloquent and easy to understand
when a leftist economist explains theory, its convoluted and 'too complex' for the layman to understand
this shows that the libertarian economist has a greater understanding of the theory as he can parse it down
kind of like how mathematical equations become smaller and smaller and more eloquent as they progress
leftists obfuscate economics to hide the fact they don't know what the fuck they are talking about
>>72338900
Because as a worker he doesn't have a democratic say in his own labour, nor does he have access to education.
>Were African children rich 400 years ago before capitalism?
Class traitors have this mad idea that communists think capitalism simply should have never existed and caused all the world's problems. This isn't true. Capitalism is seen to simply be another progression of history with the previous one being feudalism. Is capitalism causing the overwhelming majority of the world's problems? Absolutely, but it's a massive improvement from feudalism.
>>72338984
>communism is the ultimate equality of opportunity
No. Capitalism is about maximizing equality of opportunity through individual liberty.
Communism is about trying to get equality of outcome by taking from the efficient workers (bourgeosie) and giving to the peasant underclass to make everyone into an obedient peasant underclass.
You should read up on how Stalin effectively genocided the Kulaks (successful capitalist farmers) in Russia leading to a massive decline in industrial output as only the submissive and inefficient peasants remained
>>72339045
That's fucking retarded
>something going wrong in your own shitty country?
>go to war! In your own god damn "country"!
Lelbertarians are stupid.
>>72339232
You're not even being coherent.
>>72339062
I don't think that's a good way of thinking about it, sometimes with inherently complicated ideas and fields you simply can't put it into laymans terms with any ease.
Like I've never heard of a physicist that can explain quantum physics in a way that makes perfect sense to a layman, but it doesn't mean they don't know what they're on about.
Most of you guys are laughing at anarcho-capitalism, not at libertarianism.
>>72339361
Have you tried reading comprehension?
>>72339182
Capitaism is the opposite of feudalism.
It's communism that is essentially a regression back to feudalism and big governments controlling the lives of workers.
Capitalism has allowed successful lower-classes to get rich through entrepreneurship whilst communism stifles this creative spirit and keeps everyone down
>>72335181
I'm mostly libertarian and I find these memes pretty funny.
>>72339463
I have tried it, but it looks like your post is simply too complex for my puny brain.
>>72339222
>maximizing equality of opportunity
>capitalism
You cannot have equality of opportunity and private property, the two concepts are inherently at odds.
>
Communism is about trying to get equality of outcome by taking from the efficient workers (bourgeosie) and giving to the peasant underclass to make everyone into an obedient peasant underclass.
1. The bourgeoisie aren't efficient workers, they're the owning-class who make money simply by virtue of owning productive property. You can be the laziest bastard on the planet and still be bourgeosie.
2. Communism is about democratic control of the means of production, you don't have your labour taken from you by anything bourgeoisie or state. You and the rest of the workforce vote on matters like compensation and workload.
>>72339482
>communism is statist
I strongly advise you to read some communist literature, it helps in conversations to know what you're on about.
>>72335246
>OK Ahmed
>not being a libertarian
what are you, a fag?
>>72339482
only during the dictatorship of the proletariat stage. The final stage is stateless
>>72339949
the problem is that it's impractical to get to the final stage. you're forever stuck in the dictatorship of the proletariat stage (which Marx considers "Socialism"). To transcend socialism means that you must become no longer human and destroy the very human concept of self-importance
>Statists want to deport this
>>72337596
If it was so good why did the workers revolt leading to the post war economic boom policies with high taxation but also great wage growth than before and also huge economic growth?
>>72339019
What did the first year of your economics course consist of? I've enjoyed studying economics for the past ~6 months; I've read various textbooks such as Macroeconomics (Greg Mankiw), other popular works such as The General Theory and others by Friedman, Sowell, Mises, Rothbard, et al, and other miscellaneous essays. I also intend to read 'Maths for Economists' by Geoff Renshaw once it arrives at my door. Would this be adequate preparation if I wished to study at a university? My issue is that I meandered through an aircraft —maintenance— engineering BTEC for several years, so I'm not at all sure what I should expect from an economics university course —if I could even be accepted into a program.
>>72339666
>The bourgeoisie aren't efficient workers, they're the owning-class who make money simply by virtue of owning productive property.
That's taking the whole idea of firms for granted. People who start companies take HUGE risks and a massive outlay, usually making a loss for years before they start making a profit. Risk = Reward. Under communism there is no reward for starting a business since you know your profit will be seized and given to people who've taken no risks.
>You can be the laziest bastard on the planet and still be bourgeoisie.
Perhaps, if you inherited lots of wealth. Meanwhile under communism you can contribute virtually nothing and have your basic needs provided for anyway. Exactly what happened in the soviet union where "workers essentially pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them for it" making everyone worse off.
There is no incentive to take risks and be efficient under communism.
>Communism is about democratic control of the means of production
That's syndicalism.
>the workforce vote on matters like compensation and workload
Hmm, I wonder what that leads to. Being paid to do nothing, money becomes worthless. Humans are motivated by incentives, a fact of life.
>I strongly advise you to read some communist literature, it helps in conversations to know what you're on about.
So because Marx thinks communism can eventually work without a state, communism is anarchist?
Perhaps you should read up on what has happened in communist countries time and time again. The ultimate realization of statism. Literally babby's first history.
>>72337864
>Why do marxists think we need too look at what causes poverty and pin the blame on capitalism? Poverty is the natural human state
Except he doesn't. He pins it more on a specific relationship that has existed in practically all economic systems. Master and Slave, Lord and Serf, Employer and Employee. He argued that Employees should be their own employers. Ironically if you ask any worker this they agree, you ask if they would like to be their own boss and they say yes.
The USSR also never ended this relationship.
>>72340465
First year econ is mainly introductions to micro and macro so it's all nailing down the more basic theory, plus mathematics modules that you will need for second year differentiation
>>72338054
>african culture
>>72340802
Your logic on that first point is retarded. Yes, of course there would be no incentive to go out and start a business. Just like today there's no incentive to buy an army of mercenaries and make yourself the feudal lord of some African territory through conquest. Entrepeneurs would simply be legends of yesteryear in communism.
>Meanwhile under communism you can contribute virtually nothing and have your basic needs provided for anyway. Exactly what happened in the soviet union where "workers essentially pretended to work and the government pretended to pay them for it" making everyone worse off.
You see you would absolutely have to work in communism in order to eat because you have to be producing some value for society to work. Unless you have some generous family and decide to NEET it up.
>That's syndicalism.
No, that is literal communism. I know syndicalism hasn't been bombed with propaganda for over 100 years now so it's hard to accept but communism isn't Stalin and gulags,.
>Hmm, I wonder what that leads to. Being paid to do nothing, money becomes worthless. Humans are motivated by incentives, a fact of life.
This is dumb, and I advise you to read some Marxist economics.
You cannot distribute the value you've created among yourselves if you've created nothing. You literally have to work to get paid, because your work is your pay. Not to mention communism ultimately wishes to see money wither away anyway.
>So because Marx thinks communism can eventually work without a state, communism is anarchist?
Yes, the ultimate result of communism is anarchism. However communists think society should be socialist first.
>>72340835
Being employed under laissez-faire capitalism is the opposite of a master/slave relationship. A master slave relationship is involuntary therefore immoral. Employees CHOOSE to work for a particular employer, they are not forced. They have freedom to work for someone else, leave or they can start their own business.
Meanwhile under communism your property is confiscated and redistributed INVOLUNTARILY by people who lack perfect knowledge leading to inevitable inefficiency.
In Cuba there is a massive black market of people who have their own business, essentially a second economy, because government even pays doctors poverty wages whereas a black market taxi driver can earn more in an hour than a doctor or nurse in a month.
>>72340802
>Humans are motivated by incentives, a fact of life.
Should we end political democracy because you cannot be trusted to make decisisons and you should be subservient to a king? What incentives do the people that do make the decisions have and how can other people not also have it?
>So because Marx thinks communism can eventually work without a state
It is by definition without state because common ownership of the means of production makes the state redundant, at least in economic aspects. Communist countries were not communist countries. The communists parties were the first to admit that. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics.
>>72341516
It is an improvement of master and slave but it doesn't completely remove the relationship. If what you say was the case then why have people always complained about their employment since they chose to do it?
What if a few people own all the land as their private property and also own all the means to produce. You have to work for one and what if all their terms are shit and you don't like it? What do you do, choose not to work and starve to death? This is a false notion of a voluntary relationship.
>>72341497
>You see you would absolutely have to work in communism in order to eat because you have to be producing some value for society to work
EXACTLY! Do humans consider the impact on society when they choose not to work? No. Under communism there is no reason to work because you can survive regardless. This means it collapses.
>but communism isn't Stalin and gulags,.
Perhaps it's Mau then? Pol Pot? Che? Kim Jong?
>This is dumb, and I advise you to read some Marxist economics.
Non argument. Notice how I'm not instructing you to read any school of economics because I can incorporate it into logical arguments.
>You cannot distribute the value you've created among yourselves if you've created nothing. You literally have to work to get paid, because your work is your pay.
Wait, so you're telling me humans aren't individuals with free will but a collective? It all makes sense now. Of course, if you view humans as a collective incapable of independent thought then communism is the answer. I'm starting to suspect you of sophistry right now, I don't think anyone capable of critical thought would believe that humans pursue exclusively societal rather than personal interest.
>Yes, the ultimate result of communism is anarchism
Burden of proof. Also then it becomes an argument of human nature because anarcho-capitalists believe that capitalism is the manifestation of anarchism.
It's essentially an argument over human nature with the Ancap believing individuals make voluntary decisions by judging value, and the Ancom believing that humans will organize themselves into one big collective where each human serves "society" rather than themselves
>>72337547
Why would MLP be in that image? Equestria is a monarchy. You'd think that Libertarians would hate that.
>>72342626
>
EXACTLY! Do humans consider the impact on society when they choose not to work? No. Under communism there is no reason to work because you can survive regardless. This means it collapse
But there is reason, as I said your pay literally is what you produce. You cannot get paid witht thin air so you have to produce something.
>Perhaps it's Mau then? Pol Pot? Che? Kim Jong?
Che and Mao are bone fide communists. But what I'm saying is communism isn't what you seem to imagine it is.
>so you're telling me humans aren't individuals with free will but a collective?
What? No, I'm explaining the concept of democratic control of the means of production to you.
>Burden of proof. Also then it becomes an argument of human nature because anarcho-capitalists believe that capitalism is the manifestation of anarchism.
1. Pic related.
2. Ancaps aren't communists. They're feudalists by another name.
Not to mention the point of transitory state of socialism is to make private property such a relic of the past that it seems just as absurd as slavery today. If ancaps exist at such a point in the future then clearly something has gone horribly wrong.
Scratch that, the fact that ancaps exist now means that something has gone horribly wrong.
>>72337861
kill yourself
>>72343256
>But there is reason, as I said your pay literally is what you produce.
That's capitalism you mong. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is socalisim.
>>72343590
It isn't, what you produce is the pay of the guy at the top. Your pay is abstract money to compensate you for that production.
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is socalisim.
That is far future communism, at a point when automatization has become so prevalent that more or less the main motivation to even go to work is to socialize and hang out with the lads.
>>72342626
>Burden of proof. Also then it becomes an argument of human nature because anarcho-capitalists believe that capitalism is the manifestation of anarchism.
That is because ancap is self contradictory. Anarchism is not simply no state, it is no rulers. Yet ancap argues private property and with such you naturally create rulers as you have those that own land and those that do not and those that do not have to accept the rules of the land owners else they will be violating the idea of non aggression against a person as initiating force on someones property is the equivalent as doing it against someones body.
Now you can argue you can leave but that is no different than someone saying you can leave a state if you don't like it. You will just end up in another state. Although what if the other land owners doesn't even want you entering his land? You effectively cannot leave without violating NAP in fact if the land owner for the land you were originally on wants you off his land you are also violating NAP. So stay you violate, leave you violate. You cannot not violate it.
>>72343256
What Lenin said is irrelevant compared to what he did. True capitalists are also anti-state. What Lenin DID was have a big government, therefore the argument must be against what this big, expanding government was.
Communism has proved itself unworkable time and time again. Your only argument is that eventually it would somehow work.
>No, I'm explaining the concept of democratic control of the means of production to you.
Whether or not you want a democratic means of production is irrelevant. Individuals will choose not to work or will work less if their earnings are not related to their output. Others will see them doing this and follow suit, leading to collapse, since we are all reliant on producing goods/services and using the fruits of our labour to get goods/services for ourselves. Communism attempts to remove this reliance by wedging something inbetween the input/output leading to a disconnect
>Ancaps aren't communists. They're feudalists by another name.
Irrational preconceptions aside, why? Anarcho capitalism is pure individualism and voluntarism. Feudalism is collectivism and determinism.
>the fact that ancaps exist now means that something has gone horribly wrong.
Not an argument. You can't argue in favour of socialism whilst taking socialism's validity for granted. That's like saying to an atheist "If god doesn't exist, how come god created the earth?"
>>72343166
That's because most bronies are either fedora-wearing nice guys or liberal SJWs, depending on how "normiefied" they are.
Funny how in Russia it's the whole different story alltogether. Our ponyfags tend to be either innocent overly-friendly kids or edgy even by /pol/ standarts teenagers.
>>72344412
>What Lenin said is irrelevant compared to what he did. True capitalists are also anti-state. What Lenin DID was have a big government, therefore the argument must be against what this big, expanding government was.
You really do not understand communism. Communists fully own up to the fact that statist socialism isn't total liberation for the proletariat. But anarchism isn't feasible at this time.
However capitalists aren't anti-state, private property full depends on the state to enforce the very abstract notion of it. Which is also why in ancapistan you would need extensive use of mercenaries to sustain your property. And in the end an ancap country would probably have a communist revolution with 20 years.
>Communism has proved itself unworkable time and time again. Your only argument is that eventually it would somehow work.
But the eastern bloc did work. The fact that now they have Pizza Hut and can be butthurt about Russians in peace doesn't change the fact that it's now a horrible place to be alive.
> Individuals will choose not to work or will work less if their earnings are not related to their output.
Again you don't understand. You cannot get paid if you produce nothing because the produce is the pay in a moneyless society. They aren't just sitting around getting money-coupons for free.
>why? Anarcho capitalism is pure individualism and voluntarism.
Because you are literally the total sovreign of your own property and have the right to treat your employees AKA serfs however you like. Anarcho-capitalism is freedom only for the landed gentry, unless you own some means of production you are absolutely fucked.
Does anyone have "it would be extremely painful"?
>>72344412
>What Lenin said is irrelevant compared to what he did.
Well he said after the revolution that they have established state capitalism and that is what they did.
>True capitalists are also anti-state.
Are true scotsman also anti-state?
>>72344246
>you naturally create rulers as you have those that own land and those that do not and those that do not have to accept the rules of the land owners
You have to respect the rules of landowners as it is. Under Anarcho communism do I not? What is stopping me from taking a shit on your doorstep?
>>72335626
That's cauz there is no one to sell anything to in this shithole
>>72345509
>land owners
>communism
What? Practically all anarchist reject private property, communists or not. Except ancaps. The old anarchist slogan is "property is theft"
>>72345898
To be fair you can own personal property in communism and anarchism. This includes your house like anon's example.
>>72345101
>But anarchism isn't feasible at this time.
The logical conclusion of this admittance that you cannot pull out the "but communism is anarchism anyway" assertion. So when I criticize socialism it's meaningless because communists really want anarchism, but equally you reserve the right to say that anarchism isn't feasable and you are actually advocating socialism anway.
Clear deflection and argument by your own terms.
>But the eastern bloc did work.
Aside from the fact that it collapsed, why do Russians unanimously scorn Europeans at their edging towards socialism and cultural marxism? They've been there, done that and they know it was a failure. No wonder people constantly tried to move from the east to the west, whilst there were only a handful of Europeans who chose to go and live in the soviet union. The differences in quality of life are incomparable
>>72345898
Fine, I'll argue on your terms. Since you don't own your body, what's the moral issue with me killing you? What's the issue with me shitting on the doorstep of the house you happen to reside in, which you must also let anyone who chooses, reside in since you have no property?
>>72335475
>>72336552
>>72337861
Not an argument
>>72341845
>Communist countries were not communist countries.
wew
>>72345898
>tfw you live in a "truly" communist society and you go back to the house you live in which you also built and find that all the things inside which you made/traded for with others have been taken and other people have moved in and are sleeping in the bed you built, but it's okay because property is theft.
>>72339751
History books will do the trick.
Theory is theory, practice is practice.
Learn the difference, it helps in conversations.
>>72346334
>Since you don't own your body
That has to be the most obvious strawman ever.
>What's the issue with me shitting on the doorstep of the house you happen to reside in, which you must also let anyone who chooses, reside in since you have no property?
Depends how we decide to and agree to use our housing. If you think people will think shitting on doorsteps is OK then I guess people will think that. I don't know why though.
>>72346025
Yes you can own personal property but that is movable property. That isn't a house.
>>72346892
Answer my question. Without property rights, does your body belong to you? If it does, then that means you do believe in private property. If it doesn't then there is a moral dilemma in that harming other humans becomes justified since they have no ownership of their bodies
>>72347119
>Yes you can own personal property
So you've moved the goalposts and contradicted yourself. Fair enough,
>That isn't a house.
So arbitrarily you have decided that I can own possessions but not a house. Why should I build a house if I have no right to it then? What if my house is movable?
>>72341845
And who enforces communism, fuccboi? What happens when I build a wall and tell you to keep off the land which I've claimed for myself?
>>72347358
They're being exposed for what they are, illogical children who have given no thought to their ideas other than starting with the concept that capitalism is inherently evil and that the opposite will somehow work itself out even if this contradicts history and rationale
>>72347171
False equivalence shit head. Is your body land? Private property does not encompass all property. If you say you cannot legitimately own land. That is very fucking different to any idea of owning your own body which is retarded. You are your body, you don't own it it is not your property, it is you.
>>72347595
Again, moving the goalposts. So it's only land which you disagree with the ownership of. In which case, what is stopping me from
1. claiming a plot for myself
and
2. Occupying the house you live in since you don't own it
>>72347357
Except I haven't please refer back to this post >>72344246 and it is completely consistent with everything I said. There is a difference between personal property and owning land.
>mfw libertarians think too much
>>72347358
>>72347821
Then you are arguing for a state as that is one of their main functions. They enforce and defend their borders or their property.
>>72348040
So you have no answer to my questions?
>>72346114
Anarchism isn't feasible right now, it will be in the future with a sufficient level of automatization and a shift in public consciousness. Socoailism simply would have to do for the time being.
>Aside from the fact that it collapsed
Yes because Gorbachev decided Pizza Hut is more important than being homeless and addicted to crack.
https://www.rt.com/politics/340158-most-russians-regret-ussr-has/
>>72347119
No it's whatever you personally use.
It's like squatters rights. Because your house is used by you, it's accepted as your personal property just like your toothbrush.
>>72348405
*than not being homeless and addicted to crack
>>72348186
To what? Your inconsistencies where you want to force your claims on other people when you said you don't like people being forced into things yet that is how land ownership works.
Capitalists that argue for small state they argue that state to function as a means of enforcing certain property rights. You simply can't have it without forcing other people to accept it. An caps essentially argue for a state or private security to enforce their claim yet the outcome is no real different.
An alternative is for people to accept an idea of shared ownership of the land or no one can legitimately claim to own it then come to an agreement as to how that land should be used.
>>72334779
>>72334818
>>72334843
>>72334864
>>72334864
>>72334866
>>72334867
>>72334872
>>72334914
>>72334938
>>72334959
>>72335026
>>72335105
>>72335127
>>72335135
>>72335152
>>72335181
>>72335210
>>72335215
>>72335236
>>72335246
>>72335305
>>72335321
>>72335337
>>72335338
>>72335345
>>72335364
>>72335369
>>72335416
>>72337201
>>72337212
>>72337218
>>72337290
>>72337292
>>72339760
>>72339825
>>72342626
>>72342237
>>72343166
>>72343256
>>72343590
>>72344656
>>72344731
>>72345898
>>72346025
>>72346334
>>72346444
>>72347874
>>72348025
>>72348040
Not an argument.
>>72348478
No. Even In law there is a basic distinction between personal property and real property/real estate.
>>72338103
>french
>offenders
kek
This thread started from making fun of libertarians, to "muh borgesi"
>>72349262
This is true, but communism still recognizes your right to a home. That doesn't change, you still for all intents and purposes own your house.
>>72334872
This one is a valid argument.
>>72349349
>Literally supported the Rwandan genocide
Frogs, not even once.
>>72349162
>Ctrl+A
Not an argument.
>>72349040
Still no response to my questions. You read these very simple questions >>72347821
and you couldn't answer them because I exposed your cavernous logical inconsistencies.
>Capitalists that argue for small state they argue that state to function as a means of enforcing certain property rights. You simply can't have it without forcing other people to accept it.
And with your system people don't have to be forced to accept anything?
>An alternative is for people to accept an idea of shared ownership of the land or no one can legitimately claim to own it then come to an agreement as to how that land should be used.
>people to accept
>people have to come to an agreement
Ah, so here's how this works. When it's ancapism, people have to be forced because you have a personal assumption they won't do it otherwise. But when it's communism, people will just come to accept it, right!? Because you have a personal assumption that they will come to accept it.
Now there's a double standard if I've ever seen one.
>>72335127
>Unity
>>72349609
I just did you dense fuck
>1. claiming a plot for myself
>2. Occupying the house you live in since you don't own it
You have to force the claim on that plot and "occupying" depends. If it is an open house then you cannot occupy it as it is open for everyone to use. If there is an agreement to how housing is shared and your "occupation" violates that then you are going against what everyone decided to do.
>When it's ancapism, people have to be forced because you have a personal assumption they won't do it otherwise. But when it's communism, people will just come to accept it, right!? Because you have a personal assumption that they will come to accept it.
No with ancap you can have an individual own the land and therefore make all the decisions, like a king. If you don't like it you can fuck off even if there is no other land for you to go to, so you can drown in the sea.
I am presenting an alternative where we democratically decide how we use the limited land that we have. Sure you can say this could just be a majority forcing on other people but I would say a majority forcing on other people, were you can still make your own voice heard, present your own arguments even if others don't agree is better than having a minority that dictate what you have to do and you have zero say at all.
>>72350882
>If it is an open house then you cannot occupy it as it is open for everyone to use
Yes you can occupy it. Houses have a finite amount of space. They do not have unlimited space. Therefore one person inside the house reduces the available space for someone else to be inside the space, therefore it is an occupation.
> If there is an agreement to how housing is shared
That's no different to ownership then. If a house was allocated to me, that means I own it. If I don't, then refer back to above.
>No with ancap you can have an individual own the land and therefore make all the decisions, like a king.
We have this already, because we have property rights my friend.
>>72351888
>Yes you can occupy it. Houses have a finite amount of space. They do not have unlimited space.
Then there is no problem. Like going to a public park and occupying it while you are there.
>That's no different to ownership then. If a house was allocated to me, that means I own it.
No it doesn't. You can be allocated a house and not own it as you can be renting or housed for free on behalf of someone else.
>We have this already, because we have property rights my friend.
Yes and it is not anarchy and it violates stuff like NAP.
>>72352622
Well, if you choose to live somewhere, I'm going to come in with my family and therefore occupy all the space, because we like the views, leaving no space left for you. What will you do then?
>>72338984
That's completely irrelevant, to not be a hypocrite he should be living in a hut with the rest of his people.
>>72338103
France dindu nuffin
I thought I saved it but I didn't and can't find it. Don't know if it was posted in here. But there was one with a road on it that said "Don't drive on me"
>>72353863
>Cubans live in huts
u wot?
>to not be a hypocrite
I don't understand where this mad idea comes from that communists think everyone should be living in the same grey flat. Yes, of course the head of state has a nice house, I don't get what the contradiction is here.
>>72353541
I already said. Do you have a response to it instead of just parroting the same shit and ignoring my response?
There is also a very simple rational argument against what you say. Why would everyone want to all pile into one house and leave other houses empty?
>>72354455
I like the house you happen to occupy better than my own. Better views, better location, so I've moved my family there.
>>72334779
libertarianism is a cult
there are two arguments for libertarianism, the philosophical one and the economic one. When you rekt them on the economic one, they retreat to the philosophical argument. Likewise, when you rekt their "philosophy," they switch back to the economic one. Nothing is more fedora-tier.
>>72356148
Your actions will violate the housing agreement so you will be stopped.
Libertarianism doesn't equal anarchism, you retards.
>>72357101
Congratulations, you've renamed government and laws
>>72334938
You are a statist you fucking libercuck
>>72335527
>having to inject anime into EVERYTHING
kys my man
>>72357540
With private courts, security and contracts?
How would you stop someone moving their family into your house?
>>72334779
lolbertarians
>>72335246
Muh sides
>constant complaining on this board about the migrant waves socialists create and grow with taxpayer money
>"Spend my own money you say? NO, MUH ROADS"
You made your choice.
