What are /r9k/'s thoughts on libertarianism? Is this the objectively best ideology that exists?
>>26635350
Yeah pretty much, unless you're an economically illiterate socialist statist shill.
>>26635350
Explain the difference between libertarianism and anarchy.
>>26635350
Pretty much. I find myelf identifying more and more with libertarianism the older I get.
It seems pretty gud desu.
>>26635369
the existence of a state.
>Everybody agrees that a person has a right to own the thing that he himself has made.
>But no one person has made or can make anything all by himself. It takes many men, of different trades and professions, to create something. The carpenter, for instance, cannot make a simple chair or bench all by himself; not even if he should cut down a tree and prepare the lumber himself. He needs a saw and a hammer, nails and tools, which he cannot make himself. And even if he should make these himself, he would first have to have the raw materials - steel and iron - which other men would have to supply.
>Or take another example - let us say a civil engineer. He could do nothing without paper and pencil and measuring tools, and these things other people have to make for him. Not to mention that first he has to learn his profession and spend many years in study, while others enable him to live in the meantime. This applies to every human being in the world to- day.
>You can see then that no person can by his own efforts alone make the things he needs to exist. In early times the primitive man who lived in a cave could hammer a hatchet out of stone or make himself a bow and arrow, and live by that. But those days are gone. To-day no man can live by his own work: he must be helped by the labor of others. Therefore all that we have, all wealth, is the product of the labor of many people, even of many generations. That is to say: all labor and the products of labor are social, made by society as a whole.
>But if all the wealth we have is social, then it stands to reason that it should belong to society, to the people as a whole. How does it happen, then, that the wealth of the world is owned by some individuals and not by the people? Why does it not belong to those who have toiled to create it - the masses who work with hand or brain, the working class as a whole?
It would be the best if Democratic Socialism weren't a much better alternative
>>26635418
>They did not lose it, for they never owned it. Then it must be that it was taken away from them.
>This is beginning to look serious. Because if you say that the wealth they created has been taken away from the people who created it, then it means that it has been stolen from them, that they have been robbed, for surely no one has ever willingly consented to have his wealth taken away from him.
>It is a terrible charge, but it is true. The wealth the workers have created, as a class, has indeed been stolen from them. And they are being robbed in the same way every day of their lives, even at this very moment. That is why one of the greatest thinkers, the French philosopher Proudhon, said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property.
>>26635369
Libertarianism is about private property, anarchy is the state of being without archons. It'd be more accurate to call libertarians proprietarians because anarchists are against all bosses.
>>26635385
the more you learn about government and history the more libertarian you become. potentially to the point of anarchism
>>26635459
not all forms of anarchism are against bosses, however it is traditionally anticapitalist
>>26635530
not all forms of water are wet, however it traditionally rains water
"anarcho capitatalism" is not anarchist and nobody except idiots claim that it is. If you believe that, call it voluntaryism because not even Murray Rothbard called it anarchism.
>>26635363
>fitting that many buzzwords into one post
honestly I'm impressed
>literally the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
one of the worst ideologies
>lolbertarian_uptoia.jpg
>not marxism
>not communism
>not socialism
It's not.
>>26635564
well technically anarchism is purely the absence of the state, so yes anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. and your rain example is kinda shitty because when the particle's motion as well as structures change, so does the name.
>>26635350
It only works with a frontier. That's why so many Internet entrepreneurs are/were libertarians. The digital frontier is a frontier.
With a frontier, you can say "fuck you, I'm going to roam the wilds and homestead!" Without it, libertarianism is just tyranny and implodes.
>>26635664
to be honest I think true anarchism is anarcho-capitalism
I mean, how can you force communism without a state? i mean, anarcho-communism is a moneyless society, but what if I create money, and then everyone in my anarcho-communist society uses it? if someone tries to stop me, then it isn't anarchy, since it's a society that uses coercion to keep its system
if it's anarchy, who is going to impose the rules?
>>26635664
>well technically anarchism is purely the absence of the state
What makes a state morally distinct from a boss? Did Murray Rothbard not say that he wasn't an anarchist? When does water become not wet?
>>26635622
Way too many safety regulations going on in that pic.
>>26635713
how can you force capitalism without a boss? what makes a state morally distinct from a boss? If I try to rape you and you try to stop me, how is that anarchy? because rapists and bosses certainly don't assert themselves as rulers over other people or anything
>>26635713
pretty much same reasoning for me, it is a truly voluntary society. collectivizing requires force
>>26635786
then call it voluntaryism you fucking retard
if somebody hlds me up and I agree to give them my money then that's voluntary
Invented by a jew, for pussies and freaks to fit in.
>>26635721
You voluntarily sell your labor to a boss for agreed on conditions and wages. You can leave a job if you so choose to, you cannot leave a state. Don't know what Rothbard said in all honesty. Water is no longer wet when it turns to ice, it gets the wet sensation when you body heat melts the ice.
>>26635350
Yes it is man
>>26635823
>>26635823
>>26635823
>>26635823
it is the dictatorship of the jew's/bourgeoisie
>>26635832
Yeah, but if your choices are to either work or to starve, then is it really voluntary?
>>26635803
>implying anarcho-capitalism isn't voluntarism
Truly free people aren't forced into anything, including collectivizing or being ruled over by a state. They are bound by the laws of physics and nature.
>>26635832
You voluntarily give your boypussy to a rapist for agreed on not being killed. How can you not migrate between countries? Also, if it's socially accepted by most people to take a certain level of oppression in the workplace, this is a universal standard and I don't agree with it, how am I not being coerced? You don't know what Rothbard said because you haven't read a book and believe a meme ideology. Water is no longer wet, a concept defined by touch, when you don't touch it.
>>26635883
if you're forced to work 8 hours a day when you only need work 4, how is that not being forced? Also nice appeal to nature lol
>>26635865
In a collectivist society your options are literally the same, if you don't work, you perish. Existence is work, you must get food, water, shelter, ect.
>>26635921
but the difference is that the point of communism is to eliminate all unnecessary work so that there really is no coercion beyond necessity
>>26635369
Everything. Libertarians, in the US sense of the word, are pro-free market, with minimal government interference. However, anarchists are NOT capitalists, no matter what "anarcho"-capitalists tell you otherwise. Anarchists are against hierarchy in society, something present in capitalism.
Interesting enough, the original usage of the word libertarian occurred in France, and WAS synonymous with anarchist.
>>26635890
You could fight the rapist, just saying. Regardless of where you are migrating to you are still under state control at least to some extent; they may have different laws but you are still bound by them if you are living within their borders. You could migrate to a different area, negotiate with your employer, unionize, or form your own business. Just because I didn't read a specific book doesn't mean that I am uneducated in the area being discussed. With the water thing you are correct, however my answer was more regarding when it is no longer a liquid.
>>26635920
I did unintentionally use the appeal to nature fallacy, sorry about that. How are you forced to work 8? Why would you accept the job if the conditions aren't up to your standards?
>>26636062
If I have to become a guerilla to assert my freedom I'm not living in a free society anon
capitalism is against unions though look at all the times in American and Spanish history and all around the world when capitalists have hired people to kill unionised workers. There was a movement in anarchism about revolutionary unionism, you should look up the CNT-FAI and the IWW. If I don't have any bargaining power how do I negotiate with my employer?
>>26635944
What makes work necessary? Survival? If so you are in the same situation as a capitalist society.
>>26636129
because if you don't accept the job you can't eat anon
you know for a long long time people have been serfs and slaves right?
People doing necessary work have to work hours and hours more than they really need to, and people are forced to do unnecessary work for hours or die. You have to manufacture party hats or you can't eat, free enterprise.
>>26635955
Merriam Webster dictionary definition: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
>>26636151
if somebody else is making you do more work than you actually need to do to produce enough food, housing etc then that's a crime against liberty and a completely different affair from doing only the work that's needed.
>>26636129
you are correct about the word's origin though.
>>26636200
a boss holds governmental authority over his employees and business
>>26636182
Slavery is involuntary. Find another job, negotiate, unionize, or relocate if necessary. And again existence is work.
i had a busy day, but i am never too busy to remind them that a libertarian is just a conservative who didn't get along with his father
>>26636256
unions are inherently anticapitalist and you can always resist your slaveowner
existence is work, but that's not actually a good or libertarian thing and we should look for ways to lesson the work we need to do so we can be freer
>yfw /r9k/ manages to have more meaningful discussion than /pol/
>>26636214
You could live off of your own land and this wouldn't be a problem. You could find another job, as you consented to work for a specific employer (given it isn't forced labor)
Nope thats called minarchism its nothing but a short lived solution
Hiearchy is not a condition for capitalism there is not such thing in a fully economic society as more important people than others and why is that important in the first place?
>>26636317
What makes the land mine? Also, like I said before if everybody is accepting terrible working conditions and I as an individual don't then I have no options. In my mind making somebody do unnecessary work to survive with property laws and the related violent institutions is forced labour.
>>26635350
Only when combined with nationalism.
Libertarians believe in open borders which is retarded. Heavily philosophical ideologies like socialism and libertarianism always fail to take into account that other countries with different systems will still exist and how those countries might react to take advantage of your attempted ideological utopia.
>>26635418
Who wrote all of that? I'm new into this sort of thing.
>>26636406
Alexander Berkman
Absolutely OP
I like a limited government, my town has gone to shit since a bunch scumbags moved into section 8 housing. They abuse the welfare system and take complete advantage of everything they can. I agree with libertarianism but people will abuse the shit out it.
>not being a National Anarchist
I shiggy daddy
>>26636299
/pol/ has turned into neo nazi trash. It's nearly all Trump/Bernie/Hillary shitposts. Can be funny as fuck though.
>>26636452
no such thing anon
>>26636461
>/pol/ has turned into neo Nazi trash
Newfag detected.
>>26636256
>Find another job
>implying there is another job
>negotiate
>implying saying please will affect exploiters judgement to use me as slave
>unionize
>implying exploiters can't be stronger than unions
>relocate
>implying I have money for that when I barely have anything to eat.
What you are trying to do is basically say to a 3rd world sweatshop worker "take risks and move to america lol".
You pretend like wagecuckery isn't real and that wagecuck have plenty of options but in reality they really have none.
>>26636136
You are correct about union organizers being killed. I am not denying that. However, businesses need employees and there is a market for labor. You can take your labor elsewhere and at some point they will have to conform to certain policies that benefit their employees or fail as a company. This is observable while looking at what Henry Ford did. He realized that there was a market for labor, and to gain employees he essentially started the 5 day work week and decent wages for his employees. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I didn't notice this comment.
>>26636200
Mariam-webster on socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.
They are shit at political definitions.
Additionally, even assuming you are technically correct, historically they have been socialists. Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman. All socialists. Revolutionary Catalonia. Socialist.
Also,
>>26636239
Is correct.
I"m not sure about best, really it's subjective. Libertarian is best. It's the most fair. If you think nigger should be a banned word you are free to not say it. If you want a million dollars just get it, if you don't want any money that's fine too, and noone has to subsidize the lazy's lifestyle either. Welfare is the duty of the church. Government is for maintaining order and justice.
>>26636239
Without government or with very little market regulation there would be less/no governmental authority, theoretically resulting in more authority from employees as he needs them to stay in business
>>26636256
Slavery is voluntary, or else slaves would just escape.
>>26636568
When employers do that, it's a concession they make to the left wing. Those ideas are also diametrically opposed to capitalism. For a free market to be possible, the left would have to not have that much influence.
National Anarchism is the only way guys.
>supports a minimum wage to prevent slave labor
>also keeps out non-Americans who would work for pennies, keeping wages low
>>26636620
If the employees have the power over the bosses then how is it any different from "collectivism"? How is that free enterprise? Of course this is all in theory, the reality probably involves Pinkertons and pistoleros.
>>26636568
Get fucked. Yeah Henry Ford paid as high wages as he could, but the power balance is still firmly in the hands of the bosses. Men out there with nothing but the sweat on their back to sell are living pay cheque to pay cheque and can't just take their services elsewhere.
>>26636290
Unions are anti capitalist, but that isn't to say that they cannot or would not exist under capitalism. You can resist your slave owner, however the concept of slavery was in no way what so ever voluntary, so that is pretty much a shit argument against capitalism.
>>26636678
if you're forcibly removing people's freedom to roam that's not anarchism anon
>>26636350
If you are talking to me, I am unclear on what you're saying, can you please rephrase this.
>>26636414
Thank you, Senpai, for the lesson.
>>26636686
But you would be against the unions, right? Because you would be against the anarchist revolution in Spain where unions took over the economy
>>26636707
It's anarchism within our boundaries. You want to come here, you need to adapt to our cultures, our customs, and our economy.
>>26636741
if there's boundaries it's not anarchism anon, you can't combine anarchism and socialism in one country
>>26636620
In fact, the opposite happens. There are two things that can give labor power: either some sort of structural support (unions and/or labor laws), and very low unemployment. If a company can fire employees at will because there's a hundred applicants ready to fill their shoes, then they don't give one single fuck about what their employees want. Now maybe you're making the assumption that low regulation would create low unemployment, at which point I'd have to call you an economically illiterate faggot.
>>26636731
you're welcome kouhai
>>26636373
Ownership of the land obtained through voluntary exchange. As previously stated there is a market for labor, some are bound to have better conditions than others. There are also different types of labor (food industry, factory worker, ect) You ultimately consented to the labor by taking the specific job.
>>26635350
I don't know if it's the "objectively best" (whatever that means) ideology, but I think it's the most moral one. Though, chances are we'll never see anything like it in our life times.
>>26636772
>You can't have National Socialism
>>26636798
you consent to giving a mugger your wallet though
where do ownership rights come from?
>>26636404
Borders are pretty much all I disagree with the party. I would like to see a much easier path to citizenship and deportation of serious criminals.
>>26636808
I was talking about socialism in one country which was a part of the USSR's policy under Stalin and caused famines lol
>>26636428
same thing pretty much happened to my home town(s). Importing ghetto ass people killed my home town(s). </3
>>26636835
You mean like... Oh I dunno... National Anarchism?
>>26636489
It wasn't always like that. A large portion of the people on /pol/ identify as national socialist.
>>26636877
yes that thing that doesn't actually exist
>>26636858
>comparing national anarchy to Fascist communism
Oh, friend...
>>26636910
calling Stalinism fascism is a huge oversimplification and doesn't help anybody
isn't that fundamentally what you want, though? socialism in one country? juche?
>Leaving people alone.
Sorry but I prefer fantazing about being a fascist paramilitary and stomping normies into the pavement with absolutely no regard for individual freedom.
>>26636501
>implying that there is no competition in capitalism
>implying I stated the negotiation will always work
>implying that shortage of money isn't one of the main reasons people relocate
>implying sweatshops don't benefit those in 3rd world countries
>implying I deny wagecuckery
There are ways to get out of wagecuckery. Get a roommate, save money, make smart investment
>>26636573
That would be why I said it is traditionally anticapitalist
>>26636940
It's not exactly socialism, but more or less, yeah.
>>26637023
that's really really stupid
>>26636983
That's the thing though. Saying "make a smart investment" is about as stupid as advice gets. You may as well just say "don't be poor".
Being able to invest to such a level that you can make a living off it requires a combination of great luck and specialized wisdom - it's not as simple as just saving up and spending money to make money.
>>26637048
Promoting a way for businesses to flourish without taking advantage of the lower class is stupid? Yeahok.
>>26636573
>MFW uses simple definition.
There is one far more accurate right below that definition.
>>26636628
>Being literally bought and sold against your will with the threat of death is voluntary
>>26637160
You're right, it's more like wage serfdom.
>>26636631
Well that isn't necessarily a concession made to the left wing. I mean I definitely see where you're coming from but I disagree with you there.
>>26637160
B-but they chose to be slaves, anon! They shouldn't have been niggers. XD
So basically ITT:
>anarcho-communism is not true anarchism, communism and anarchism are incompatible
>anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism, capitalism and anarchism are incompatible
>national anarchism is not true anarchism, nationalism and anarchism are incompatible
Is this about right?
>>26637205
Yeah pretty much, it's better to just remove the "anarcho-" prefix altogether. Anarchists are just edgy teenagers anyway.
>>26636683
It isn't power over their bosses as they are not forced to comply with the workers' demands.
>>26637228
>not wanting the state to dictate every detail of our lives is edgy
Nigga fack you.
>>26637194
it's a concession to left wing ideas
>>26637205
they're all true except the first anon read the conquest of bread right now it's on wikisource
>>26636772
I am too fucked up on dxm and dph to explainthis in words.
Country can be defined from within, so says the state. "Country" can also be defined by other countries not being it, like a negative but focused on the region. In picture is US, CA, and MX. One says US says US is US. Other says CA and MX say they are CA and MD, and by virtue of not being CA, MX, or any other country this region is it's own thing. The region doesn't set the boundraies, the other countries do,
>>26636685
Yes it is absolutely in the hands of the bosses, but he wanted their labor so he competed for it, much like how companies products compete. Other car making companies existed, other types of industry existed.
>>26637230
so then they can just do whatever they like and give the workers shit conditions?
>>26637249
Still waiting on that revolution anon.
>>26637259
country is an abstract way to define a place, how does that translate into a nation?
>>26637277
The internet needs to overpower mainstream politics first. It'll be a while.
>>26637277
revolution doesn't happen over night anon, we need to look for freedom where we can in the meantime
>>26636737
>Implying once in anarchism that anyone will stop me from forming a business
And not necessarily, unions can be beneficial, I would argue that usually they're aren't, but they can be. Personally for me getting rid of the state would be the main priority, and I believe that capitalism would be the prominent economic system used. Realistically, if anarchism were achieved, you would likely see several different economic systems varying by region.
>>26637300
An area led by an independent government.
>>26637348
But if people can get better wages and better conditions by controlling the means of production how could a business possibly outcompete that for labour without making massive losses?
>>26636788
Obviously low regulation doesn't lead to lower employment. You are however failing to recognize that retraining employees is a time and money consuming process. Markets empower the workers.
>>26637348
people will stop you from forming a business because they choose not to work for you
>>26637350
so it's not anarchism
>>26637396
Government =/= state
>>26637402
>Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective force of the community to this end.
>In this case the word "State" means "government," or, if you like, it is the abstract expression of which government is the personification. Then such expressions as "Abolition of the State," or "Society without the State," agree perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.
>>26636834
Well you did make a very good point. Assuming that "rights" exist, I and other Libertarians/AnCaps, would argue that legitimate ownership rights come from voluntary exchange without the use of force. However, I acknowledge that rights do not exist. They are purely an idea that is backed by nothing.
>>26637430
>However, the word "State" has many other meanings, and among these some that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the subtle distinction of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to comprehend it. Thus the word "State" is often used to indicate any given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given territory and constituting what is called a "social unit," independently of the way in which the members of the said body are grouped, or of the relations existing between them. "State" is used also simply as a synonym for "society." Owning to these meanings of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than savagery.
>By "State" again is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the central power, as distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for a territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonical or communal government.
>>26637300
That's kind of the point. An anarchist society woudln't really be a country, but a geographic region with a certain culture. Country implies state. Other countries have borders, or a place where they end. What isn't mexico doesn't really matter, it isn't mexico. Same with canada. What's all that stuf betwwen the two? It's neither canada nor mexico and has a lot of anarchists residing there.
>>26635350
>ideology
>objective
keksimus maximus
>>26637455
>Finally, "State" signifies "condition, mode of living, the order of social life," etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical State is the only State founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we may at once appear absurd or contradictory.
>For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression "abolition of the State" as little as possible, and to substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete --"abolition of government."
>>26635350
>>26635363
>>26635385
>>26635407
>>26636256
>>26636404
>>26636428
>>26636603
>>26637332
Babbitt first ideology?
Libertarianism is a dead end, teenagers tend to like it because on face value it sounds good. Never worked in reality of course.
Funny thing is, none of you morons would even be strong enough to defend yourselves in such a state. You need papa guv'mint, but too stupid to know it.
>>26636877
Being able to deport people implies having a state. Without a state who would have the authority to, or even go through with, the process of deportation?
>>26637430
>>26637455
>>26637476
What is this pasta and why does it misdefine conceptions?
>>26637460
that's my point anon national anarchism doesn't exist
>>26635622
reminder China is the worst polluter in the world and is one of the most statist countries
>>26637491
Anarchy by Errico Malatesta, it's making those conceptions because it came first
>>26635350
ur a cuck faggot and u should remove urself from the matrix
>>26637085
Do not invest in failing industry. Pay attention to stock trends, pay attention to what has been historically valuable, buy property, start a business. Is that a little bit better?
>>26637539
Have you tested your advice and freed yourself from wage slavery yet?
>>26637481
Libertarianism isn't anarchism, it's minarchism, eg there is still a government but it is very small and only handles the most important things for a society like internal and external security.
Not that you couldn't just own a gun and/or pay for a private security force in a completely anarchist world.
>>26637184
Except you don't get a wage, you only get kept alive, have no say in shit, and can't take your labor elsewhere.
>>26637506
it also has notably poor environmental regulations
>>26637487
I get what you're saying, but it's like how the government is still involved in capitalism and the free market is still involved in socialism. Most facets of the state would be abolished while keeping the concepts of strong borders and deportation.
>>26637388
First, in general, the threat of firing is much scarier to an employee than the threat of having a vacancy is to an employer. That alone gives employers an incredible amount of power. In practice it ends up more like nuclear weapons, where the possibility is enough. Also, "competition" (i.e., race to the bottom) allows employers to quite successfully argue that paying workers more would make them "less competitive" and then they'd have layoffs instead of stagnating wages, though the labor discussion almost never gets this far.
Second, at least in low-skill professions, it's cheaper to train new workers than it is to empower existing ones. Though "low-skill" is a moving target, since everyone goes to university nowadays for exactly this fucking reason.
>>26637201
>implying slavery is based upon skin color.
do i get free shit? It's a terrible idea if I don't get free shit
>>26637481
Your deadlift isn't what determines your ability to defend yourself. Also without the welfare state the nigs would all die. Crime can't exist in an anarchist place because it would be all white.
Government has never done anything good for, it certinly never protected me from any harm. Neither did my gun, but I know which I'd rather rely on when things go south.
Noone needs government but the weak and stupid. Most people who avocate anarchism, libetrtarianism, and other right ideologies are stronger. It's the limpydick lefties who are against it.
You are projecting. You are too weak, and too stupid to get by in your life.There is no other plausible reason for you to make such a statement as you did. You feel threatened by words on an anonymous shitposting website so you go to name calling.
>>26637252
It is competing in a labor market
>>26637564
Like people don't sleep. Also who gonna build the roads for you to get your kid O the hospital that no one built because no collective action towards welfare.
It's a dead end. Doesn't work. You want minimum government interference and low taxes, go to Russia.
You want a good quality of life, go to Finland.
Of course the libertarians are right about drug policy, but little else.
>>26637569
>have no say in shit
Last I checked democratic workplaces were a decidedly un-capitalist thing.
>can't take your labor elsewhere.
That's what makes it different to regular serfdom, you can pick your own overlord from the great range of lords that are willing to hire you at the moment. What a time to be alive.
>>26637588
>implying anyone here cares/cared about black slaves either way
>>26637603
the competition is only necessitated by the outside influence of left-wing and anti-capitalist ideology though
>>26637599
Fucking idiot..... like crime won't exist. Ficking delusional idiot.
Democratic Socialism or GTFO. Always remember that Orwell supported it.
>>26637259
>contrie lol
>>26637599
>white people cant commit crimes
>>26637621
What is crime? Something unethical or just when the statists get their feewings hurt?
>>26637270
Labor markets would drastically decrease the likelihood of that
>>26637640
Also remember that democratic socialism to Orwell was more like Marx's vision than Bernie Sanders' vision.
>>26637663
now you're just going around in circles
>the employers have the power free enterprise individualism
>the employees have the power and won't get bad treatment
>>26635350
If you're still in high school, sure.
>>26637663
Not without nationalism.
>>26637380
That very well may happen. I don't give a shit who owns the means of production so long as they can compete in a free market. Market socialism is fine by me.
>>26637608
Are you confusing the words democratic and Democrat again?
Democratic workplaces are the most capitalist thing there is. If that's what the owner wan'ts to do then that's what the owner does. Most companies have multiple owners, even small mom and pop shops still have decisions made my mom and pop, not just one of them. If you own position in the company then you have a say in how it's run. That's the point of capitlaism, you can run your businesses for a profit. Most would rather not be involved in decision making. I buy lots of stocks but I don't vote or even keep up with press releases and shit. I use a buy and hold strategy. I"m lazy, I'll let the other owners who want to run things do all the running. I just want ownership so I can one day live off the profits.
LOL at retarded collectivists thinking that you can be anarchist and communist. You are literally using force to infringe on individual liberties.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchism.
>>26637396
If you give them enough reason to (nonshit tier conditions) they will likely work for you with little to no complaints.
>>26637464
true shit lol
>>26635350
Pretty cool, I just want classical liberalism like the founding fathers.
>>26637744
who defines what the nonshit tier conditions are but the workers?
>>26637742
True anarchy is a system of classes manipulating the others. National Anarchism is beneficial for all classes.
>>26637711
This is the thing, that's not democratic at all. As a matter of fact it's just as democratic as serfdom on the basis that "If the lord wants to do it then so be it, it's his property".
Actual democracy isn't contingent on having a stake in something through property, it's contingent on it being relevant to you. This is why universal suffrage is generally seen as better than voting rights only for land owning males.
But you illustrate my point well, that capitalism is serfdom evolved.
>>26637742
you're a collectivist unless you live naked in the woods
>>26637742
This. Anarcho-capitalism is voluntary, anarcho-communism is not. Fucking leftists are brain dead.
>>26637680
Yeah, that too. Bernie's vision is a step forward from the establishment.
>>26637812
Which is an imprisonable offense. Thank you, statism.
>>26637608
You can get another job, I at no point referenced workplace democracy. Different companies treat employees differently. You can start a business.
>>26637885
Think of it like a mechanic shop. You can choose who screws you over, but they know everyone needs their car to work, just like everyone needs a job.
>>26637611
You got a point. Only blacks and affirmative action supporters care, and they only care to exploit the fact that black people were slaves well over 100 years ago in order to get free shit.
>>26637945
Slavery is still legal, anon. A lot of them are black, but there are plenty of white slaves too.
>>26637885
This is something I mentioned earlier. When you said capitalism is different because serfs had no say in anything.
I pointed out that neither do employees, the sole advantage they have is they get to pick their lord which means exactly fuck all in the grand scheme of things.
The workplace democracy point was to show what actually having a say in your labour means.
>Start a business.
1. That's a feasible and sustainable solution for a glaring minority of labourers.
2. You haven't solved anything anyway because you still need to get people to wage slave for you. The cycle goes on.
>>26637689
Almost anyone can start a business. There is no way to guarantee anything 100% (like employee treatment) but there are ways to combat it that were stated previously.
>>26637606
>Like people don't sleep.
People are going to sleep under any form of state (other than maybe anarcho-transhumanism lmao) and will still use security measures for their house, however I'd be able to own a firearm without government """keeping me safe""".
Normies presume anarchy would be Purge Night every night, if anything it would be harder to commit crimes because there would be more efficient private security forces actually responding to customer desires.
>Also who gonna build the roads for you to get your kid O the hospital that no one built because no collective action towards welfare.
Considering the road outside my house is riddled with potholes I'd prefer a private company build the roads and considering my dad had to wait 2 weeks to change the pills that were making him pass out I'd rather not have to use public health care (not that there wouldn't be charities for people who can't afford private).
>It's a dead end. Doesn't work.
Huh I guess that's why the most economically free countries are the best countries and all the most statist countries are the worst countries, weird coincidence.
>You want minimum government interference and low taxes, go to Russia.
Can I come to the alternate dimension you live in?
>You want a good quality of life, go to Finland.
People point to scandinavian countries as examples of good socialist countries but what they don't know is those countries do so well because they have quite a free market with low regulations so it's easy to start a business and create jobs there.
>Of course the libertarians are right about drug policy, but little else.
Blaze it 420 senpai.
>>26636896
You know that Neo-Nazi skinheads =/= National Socialists.
>>26637680
That's because Bernie isn't a socialist, he's a progressive.
>>26638008
have you started a business?
>>26637781
The workers do, but shit conditions is subjective at least to some extent. "Shit" varies from person to person, some will likely be willing to work under a businesses conditions.
>>26638035
I know, I just wanted to be clear that Bernie's cuddly liberal "democratic socialism" is nothing like what actual democratic socialists of the 20th century believed.
>people in this thread actually think capitalism is "the default, unenforced state of man"
>they think capitalism would even be feasible without state intervention
>>26638077
Willing to work doesn't mean the conditions aren't shit.
I'm sure it's unanimous among sweat shop workers that their job sucks, but the reason they do it is purely for the money.
>>26637925
They have competitive pricing or they would be out of business, and you can always learn to fix your own car instead of having to rely on a mechanic whom you feel is ripping you off.
>>26638087
>without the government taking companies' money and putting restrictions on them, an economy wouldn't be able to survive
I mean, it's be an extreme classist society, but it'd survive.
>>26638077
People don't exist in a vacuum, working conditions aren't really "subjective", but what people are willing to take is. Most people voluntarily agree to having the state, do you think people would actually realise they were being fucked and not try to change society?
>>26638087
It definitely isn't communism, egalitarianism is not human nature.
>>26638145
A society wouldn't be able to support multiple skills. That's what Marx envisioned and Adam Smith mocked.
>all these statist normie cucks ITT
get the fuck out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>26637617
or by individuals and business owners with enough sense to realize that there is work elsewhere and that they need workers.
>>26638187
read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin
>>26637925
The shops would have competitive pricing or they would be out of business, and you can always learn to fix your own car instead of having to rely on a mechanic whom you feel is ripping you off.
Someone post the poorly drawn yellow sneks with meme captions on them.
>>26637971
>wage slavery
lol there is an actual slave market as well
>>26638211
>Wanting to get cucked by CEO Chad.
>Not wanting to join the revolution and send any normies that look at you funny to the gulag.
Statism is the robot way.
>>26638219
but there isn't work elsewhere
>>26638276
>implying the state doesn't enforce normiedom by forcing robots at gun-point to prep the chad bull for stacy
>>26638264
Yes, it's called correction facilities.
>>26638002
Them having choices on who to work for gives them a say in things as they can go elsewhere and are under no obligation to work for anyone.
>implying that employment=wage slavery
Beware the "anarcho"-communist and his lies. They will peddle their collectivism as anarchism despite it having been debunked long ago.
>>26638242
>competitive pricing
If Mark's shop charges $1000 and Ruben's shop charges $1000, what's your incentive to charge less than $999?
>>26638146
Who would enforce property and contracts? Why are property and contracts the state of nature?
>>26638301
This guy runs North Korea.
That should tell you all you need to know about how un-Normie statism is.
>>26638087
Bartering is how society came about in the first place. Specialization in area and exchanges goods or services for things not specialized in.
Even children intuitively understand this. My snickers for your butterfingers. Money is just one step removed from goods and services to better facilitate these exchanges.
>>26638033
Yea I know. Many of them advocate neo-nazi/skinhead behavior though.
>>26638344
Noam Chomsky actually did a great presentation on this. There could still be contracts as decided on two or more parties, and if a person broke the contract, they could be faced with free market insurance providers (like courts, only more civil).
>>26638134
It can't suck that bad if it beats the alternatives.
>>26638321
That would only be the case is labour was in high-demand and thus employers were forced to make concessions in order to stay competitive. This is not that case in the western world where if anything the working class are forced to make concessions in order to have a job.
>No obligation to work for anyone.
That is NEETdom, which is the exact opposite of wage slavery and totally contrary to capitalist ideals.
>>26638039
Personally no, however I know plenty of people that have.
>>26638405
Yes, working in a sweat-shop is preferable to being homeless and starving to death.
Genius libertarian insight at work.
>>26638080
I figured you knew that, just throwing it out there for anyone who may have been uncertain about Bernie's actual political ideology.
>>26638134
Has enough benefits to not work for the democratically run company. The sweatshops are the best option that they have and are willing to take it over other jobs. It isn't ideal, but it is sure as hell benefiting them.
>>26638396
That halfway answers the easiest of the four questions I posed. There's still the issue of, whatever contract adjudicator we agree on has to also be able to force me to agree, so then you're just saying that a government is sweet as long as it has another name. But this is where libertarian thought goes to die: any management scheme you can think of is indistinguishable from government.
>>26638452
That's not specific to libertarians. I'm sure most anyone could recognize it as truth.
If they hated it enough they'd just start a business of their own. Why don't they run their own sweatshop?
>>26638163
>People don't exist in a vacuum, working conditions aren't really "subjective", but what people are willing to take is.
Fair enough
They could form a state but that is a pretty weak argument against anarchism.
>>26638306
I agree with you there. Black markets also exist, I was referring to human trafficking.
>>26638509
u wot?
Co-ops generally aren't starved for labour because they're being undermined by glorious third world sweat-shops.
> It isn't ideal, but it is sure as hell benefiting them.
When your legal choices are limited to wage-slavery, and total destitute poverty. "Not ideal" is an understatement.
>>26638340
To make the customer choose your shop as opposed to the other's, generating more revenue for your business.
>>26638553
>If they hated it enough they'd just start a business of their own. Why don't they run their own sweatshop?
You see know I know you're trolling but it's worth pointing out that this is something a libertarian would actually say.
Explain this ideology to someone who knows nothing about politics plz Thx senpai
Is RationalWiki libertarian approved?
>>26638422
Even if it isn't in high demand they will likely have SOME alternative, perhaps being in a different field of work. The employers still need people to work for their company as opposed to other people's.
>>26638706
lol no, that whole site is run by retarded leftists, they don't think that anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism
>>26638629
Sorry reddit, trolling does not mean 'saying stuff I disagree with'.
Life isn't fair. Capitalism is were fair than the alternatives though. If they can't for some ridiculous reason start a business they can an least leave money and education to their children to start one. Someone has to own sweatshops after all, they don't just grow on trees. It takes a lot of work and risk to start a business.
>>26638748
>they don't think that anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism
because it's not
>>26638693
There's this cool new website called Google where you can search a term and be given results related to that term. You should check it out.
>>26638736
When there's much unemployment with few jobs going trying to outcompete their rivals isn't really an issue. There's plenty to go around from their point of view and they're not particularly interested in investing to take advantage of the labourforce.
>>26638604
If they can't compete, fuck them. You're right about "'not ideal' being an understatement" however they still benefit at least enough to take the sweatshop job as opposed to another one.
>>26638777
communism will never be anarchism because communism requires force, go peddle your bullshit somewhere else
>>26638819
There are different types of industry, not all of them will have an abundance of potential employees.
>>26638826
This is the thing though. When that's capitalist life for much of the world, with cold indifference about your upward mobility why shouldn't they be communists?
>>26638854
That's true, but those are generally high-skill professions that are inaccessible to much of the working class.
>>26638808
I want you're unique and special spin on the tale though :^)
>>26638865
Because every single "socialist" government has been a complete failure. Capitalism has been the single best economic system for raising the standard of living and pulling people out of poverty in history. The problem in the 3rd world shitholes is a lack of capitalists, not capitalism. Many of the 3rd world countries have an abundance of resources that they don't utilize. Many of the regulations that 1st world countries implement kill developing countries.
>>26638865
Capitalists treasure upwards mobility more than any other group. Have you not heard the term bootstraps or rags to riches? It's basically capitalist literotica. Communism is the sharing of scarcity. It's stupid because wealth is not a zero sum game.
>>26638899
That is not to say that there are not different types of industry accessible to the average person of the working class.
>>26639111
you get it lol
>>26635350
It's ridiculous to the extent that it moralizes. It would be one thing to insist upon a weak state and carry that insistence by persuasion or violence, but it is quite another to whinge over the immorality of strong states that grow up despite every effort made against them. Any ideology is contemptible that retreats to moral platitudes in the weakness of its infancy or decrepitude. How could anything be called the best which cannot survive?
Putting the above to one side, it is not even clear that the success of libertarian society would even be desirable. They have in common with communists and other dream-merchants a penchant to build golden castles on a foundation of clouds and hold it forth as the best possible world. If fantasy is to be given credit, then any one of us might dream up our own ludicrous phantasmagoria of perfect bodies and perfect souls to fill our heaven. Unfortunately, I am cursed to live in a real world with bodies and souls quite other than those in the City of God. Instead of aphorisms, I require empirical models demonstrating the efficacy of this yet undeveloped plan. Some communists, at least, produced those...to that extent their dreams can be materialized and called 'works in progress', blunt face and hirsute though they may be.
If libertarians are to earn any respect as ideologists, they must first prove their willingness to come away from the wailing wall and roll up their sleeves. The Jews made a homeland, the communists keep the lights on in a few countries. It is time for libertarians to do something in addition to kvetching and read the inscription written over the archway to the world of work: Abandon cant all ye who enter here.
>>26639111
Believing in something isn't sufficient to make it happen, otherwise all Christians would be good people.
>>26639193
Believing in something is the first step in making it happen, otherwise there would be no good Christians.
>>26639254
Beliefs satisfy preexisting needs and do not themselves fall from the sky. Nothing in what they are indicates the possibility of their realization.
>>26639254
Perhaps, but it's not a very convincing first step. You actually have to have theories about how you might bring about the desired result, and that's usually where ideologies like this fall on their face. If you think you can, say, aim mathematical modeling at society and figure it out, you're wrong. If you think you can simplify society down to a few anthems, you're wrong. You need to do actual work, not masturbate over your own righteousness, and that's where libertarianism falls apart. Which is just as well, since it couldn't actually make it past the masturbation stage, due to its own facileness.
>>26638187
Actually early humans lived in small groups that were far closer to communism/egalitarianism than capitalism. Do you think cavemen who went hunting/berry picking came back and bartered their food with other members of the group? Everyone who helped out could and then the food was combined and shared out equally.
Actual capitalism is fairly new.
>>26637742
Anarcho-communism gives people much more liberties than our current police states do, they just abolish the concept of private property. There have been quite a few successful anarcho-communist societies in history, the same cannot be said for anarcho-capitalism. Unless you consider Somalia a utopia.
>>26639300
Neat idea, but totally irrelevant.
If they work in a sweatshop then sweatshops must exist. Pretty simple right?
>implying apathy hasn't drained me of the will to believe in anything
don't care, will die
>>26637818
Participation in a collectivist society is voluntary you mongoloid. If you want private property than go make a fort in the distant woods.
pwease
>>26638396
And what if they decide not to cooperate with these free market providers? Who would have any rite to force them too?
>>26635350
OI! NO STEP, MAT3
>>26639387
The comparison isn't really appropriate. Tribal society was (and is) hierarchical and not based on an equal distribution of goods. Of course cooperation takes place, but this is just as true in capitalist society with the mediation of money and markets. By your logic, early feudal society is not so far from the egalitarian ideal because the majority of people consumed relatively even shares of the product without the intervention of (much) barter.
>>26639111
No capitalists care about getting rich, staying rich and getting richer than any other group. Wealth IS a zero sum game. The nordic countries with their scary socialism have the greatest upward mobility in the world, because they actually have social safety nets to help people get up on their feet and apply themselves to a better career.
>>26635350
Libertarianism is literally the penultimate stage to communism. I think it's great!
The only issue with it is that people as a whole aren't ready for the responsibilities and duties that are required for society to operate without our current leviathan of government. Libertarianism must follow an economic boom, lessening the suffering from the transition. There should also be an educated and liberty minded vanguard to lead the way through the inevitably turbulent times.
It has never worked well before, but neither did constitutionalism/republicanism/democracy until relatively recently, so I'm optimistic.
