Prove this pic wrong.
Protip: You can't.
>>68572676
whats wrong with that?
If anarchists are so smart then how come they don't have laws? checkmate
I don't want a lot of money. I just don't want people stealing the money i earned.
Arnarchists rely on capitalism to afford the products they need to have brightly colored/spiky hair
What's with faggots and assuming everyone votes for their immediate self interest? I'm dirt poor, indeed born that way, but a great society has a minimal government, not an insurmountable nanny state.
No, it's for everyone.
The one on the left wants smaller government for everyone while the one on the right wants to oppress rich people and live without government while he's leeching off of it
>>68572676
No, you fucking retard
>Libertarianism
The government should be small and only serve to maintain citizens personal liberty. Laws exist but only to stop groups or individuals impeding on the freedom of others. Law enforcement and armed forces are run by the state.
>Anarchism
There's no government
>>68572957
this 2bh
anarchists want no government
libertarians want some government
>>68572844
If there's no law, I'll murder anyone I don't like, and no, I don't give a fuck about how YOU think, the only thing stopping me from firebombing junkie's homes, skinning child molester's skin off, and shooting every cunt that drives 70mph down residential streets is the law.
>inb4 muh private police
>>68572957
>>68573101
Neither do anarchists or market socialists.
>>68573048
You should be voting in your self interest.
>>68573165
libertarians are cucks who don't believe in borders
>>68572676
there are rich anarchists and poor libertarians
>>68573352
Untrue.
>>68573048
You're self interests are not your self interests then.
>>68573768
Could you try saying that again?
>rich people are evil and you should automatically disagree with them
tbqh, if you hate rich people so much you should be against government over-intervention in the market so that the rich can't use government to legislate themselves into monopolies.
>>68574223
Or we could just eliminate the capitalist class, how about that?
>>68574040
"i care about poor people"
"i care about other people"
then that is your self interest.
>>68574494
>everyone?
>>68574494
What the fuck is a capitalist class? To me that's like saying cull everyone with an iq over 80. The beauty of capitalism is being able to 'play the game'.
>>68572676
>Anarchysts are a bunch of edgy teens
I can't prove this wrong
>Nationalist Libertarian
Find a flaw
>>68574765
>>68574768
I don't mean kill them, you eliminate a class by eliminating the relation that creates that class. In this case, you could eliminate capitalists by allowing the workers to be the owners of the enterprise they work in.
>>68574494
>let's just get rid of anyone who uses voluntary trade to make mutual gains
To what end?
>>68575290
>elimination of private property = abolition of voluntary trade
>somehow
>>68572676
>Prove this pic wrong
This will be easy.
I am middle class. I support libertarianism.
Easy as pie.
Also whats wrong with anarchy?
>>68575240
>allowing the workers to be the owners of the enterprise they work in
They already can you silly bastard.
You know I'm not extremely familiar with Ron Paul's ideas but wasn't his schtick not eliminating government but reducing its role to give more power to states? So instead of a slow bureaucratic Postal Service or DMV controlled entirely from Washington, you get a Utah DMV serving only Utah. That way policy and decision making can be more specialized for the needs of the individual state etc and it would help create jobs.
>>68575586
No, if you become a worker in an enterprise, you are automatically an employee of the owner. Every worker must be the owner and everyone who is not a worker cannot be an owner. An owner does not create value, they only benefit from it like a parasite unless they are also a worker.
Establishing this relation through a redefinition of property is how you eliminate the capitalist class.
>>68573094
Thank you for saying this so I didn'the have to.
I'm a poor libertarian.
>>68573324
You should be voting for the interest of the nation. Voting for you own self interest devolves into mob-rule if given enough time.
>>68575240
What are you planning to redefine property as?
>>68576321
Don't we disprove this image purely by pointing out that Libertarians vote?
Anarchists doing so is a silly idea, no?
>big government limits individual freedoms and creates a monstrously inefficient system that creates huge amounts of debt
>this big government pays subsidized corporations to pay very little and use that debt to keep the poor people alive
>libertarians don't like this
Hurrdurr ur an anarchist
When did rich become a bad word? What is wrong with being successful and objectively better than some degenerate trailer trash that does nothing with their life?
>>68575895
>stocks aren't a thing because I said so
>owners don't create value because I said so
>"redefinition" of property
I'm not sure how to rebut nonsense tbqh
>Every worker must be the owner and everyone who is not a worker cannot be an owner
Joint ownership of private companies is already something that exists. It usually doesn't last too long because it doesn't scale well to larger companies and you risk devaluing ownership if you hire anyone new or spend capital to expand without a proportional increase in production increase. Which is something that usually doesn't happen as larger companies tend to get diminishing returns per worker basis.
feel free to take economics or business 101 whenever you feel like it lad
>>68576406
You own what you use and create
>>68576775
>stocks aren't a thing because I said so
Stocks are the most egregious application of private property. A person can simple buy stocks in a company and then be entitled to its value as well as its profits or decision making depending on the kind of stock. Workers can own stock, in order for them to truly be owners they must have democratic control over the workplace and be entitled to its profits.
>owners don't create value because I said so
owners can create value, but do not have to. For example, what value does the stockholder who has no other attachment to the company besides the dividend check they get in the mail?
>"redefinition" of property
much like political rights, private property is defined by the state which must enforce it.
>Joint ownership of private companies is already something that exists.
Co-ops exist, yes, and they can be quite effective enterprises.
>It usually doesn't last too long because it doesn't scale well to larger companies and you risk devaluing ownership if you hire anyone new or spend capital to expand without a proportional increase in production increase.
They can actually last longer than equivalent private companies. The devaluing of ownership problem can be fixed by using a system similair to that of stock creation, whereby when more stock is created, the current stock holders get the first chance to buy, or in this case, get more shares whenever someone else is hired.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1995-micro/1995_bpeamicro_craig.PDF
>feel free to take economics or business 101 whenever you feel like it lad
I have taken econ, bucko. Most of it is capitalist circlejerk. But here's something you might find interesting. How do you increase the velocity of money when the profits being created by corporations are all going to a handful of super rich shareholders who do not spend nearly as much of what they get as the workers?
>>68578415
The answer: have the workers own the enterprise. If every enterprise that's not self employment in the US became a co-op, we would have an amazing uptick in growth since all that money would go back into the economy either by worker's spending wages, or expanding the enterprise.
