Canada General

File: Screenshot_20170428-112217.png (619KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1080x1920px

>>33790877

File: image.png (459KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 750x1334px

>>33790940
Wadda fuk man

File: image.jpg (151KB, 1024x824px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x824px

Top lel.

File: 20170427_141032.jpg (504KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2048x1152px

>>33790877
5th for API

File: 784787ff262c2e7f1aba2f42b27dc3a3.jpg (483KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1920x1280px

Another reminder that May 1 is International Workers' Day. There are planned communist marches in every major city. You're not allowed to shoot them on sight, but you can come out and show your dissent.

http://cpcml.ca/may-day-2017/

Range day today.
Rifle or handgun? You guys make my mind up for me.

>>33792263
Both? Are you gay?

>>33792263
Rifle. Wear tight pants, I want those groups no bigger than 1".

>>33792247
>people marching on international workers day
>they must be commies
The communist party gets less than 1% of the vote you dumbass. If you think they're the majority of the event, you need to get out more.

File: SAGHUCp.jpg (119KB, 500x588px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x588px

Body Armor Plates in Nova Scotia.
I hear there is a law made, but it's not yet in force?
Do I need to show my PAL to get them?

>>33792547
>Body Armor Plates in Nova Scotia.
Quick search says NS is one of the provinces that doesn't say PAL holders are OK for armor.

Oh hey, look what I just found.
http://store.prophetriver.com/howa-mini-action-7-62x39-blksyn-bl-lightweight-barrel-dbm-20/
http://store.prophetriver.com/howa-mini-action-7-62x39-blksyn-bl-standard-barrel-dbm-22/
Howa makes some pretty solid rifles.

>>33792502
If you think the "worker's movement" was/is not intimately invovled with far-left socialist and communist ideologies, you need to read more.

The entire reason May Day and Labour Day exist is because of leftism.

>>33792727
>>The entire reason May Day and Labour Day exist is because of leftism.
And the entire reason the communist movement gained ground in the 20's and 30's was because workers were treated like shit by their employers.

So unless your point is "fuck workers!" you've yet to explain why they don't deserve to celebrate their movement, and their fight for their rights, aside from a retardedly knee-jerk, "hurr commies!".

>>33792726
>http://store.prophetriver.com/howa-mini-action-7-62x39-blksyn-bl-standard-barrel-dbm-22/
Wish it had sights instead of relying purely on mounting a scope to it.

>>33792853
For 7.62x39, I'd go with a red dot, personally. MAYBE as much as 4x magnification, but certainly not more.

>>33792804
>treated like shit by their employers
There's a difference between the action of unions back then and what happens today. When unions stuck to strikes as their primary tool against perceived injustices, that was fine. When they switched to lobbying the government to legislate their desires, it was another thing entirely.

The latter approach is precisely what happens now. Their movement is nothing more than union and Party-organized lobbying for gibs. Don't think for a second that the "Workers' Movement" has anything to do with actual workers.

File: STAHP.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>33792909
>Be forced to pay dues to a union you never wanted to join who then spends that money to lobby the government to ban the guns you own

>>33792964
I certainly understand why unions are important, but at this point they have altogether too much power, and not enough legal restrictions. Also, being forced to join a union is absolute bullshit in any job.

Has anyone ever used one of those shipping/importing companies that allow you to import stuff from the US? I wonder if they would just flat out refuse to ship firearm accessories?
I'm asking because I want a TNW Aero Survival Rifle barrel shroud but no distributor that I know of ships to Canada.

In the last thread someone was asking about buying a Hi-Pint Pistol. I got kinda curious and now I want one too.
But I have looked around and have not been able to find any online vendors or local ones (I live out in the boonies).
Does anyone know where one can buy one online? Preferably new?

>>33793541
Only people I know that have them in stock.
https://ellwoodepps.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=hi+point&x=0&y=0&order=relevance&dir=desc

>>33793541
Gross, why? You can get a norinco sig or 1911 clone in the same price range.

File: Spurdo Hipoint.jpg (787KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 3264x1836px

>>33793541
>TFW you have a friend who has a one of a kind Spurdo Sparde edition hipoint

>>33793607
I haven't been able to find a Norinco government 1911 in .45 in a long time.

File: Defender.jpg (1MB, 2125x1195px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2125x1195px

Does anyone else have this beauty?

File: 15698180_1216329838435333_674140449789277337_n.jpg (43KB, 639x438px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 639x438px

>>33792804
Kill yourself red, if those workers wanted to help themselves they should've told the government to stop fucking over the free market. Instead they just screwed themselves.
>Inb4 muh human rights
>Inb4 seize muh means of production
>Inb4 wow you hate workers so dum
No, I love capitalism, the only system in human history that has been able to consistently generate wealth and distribute it fairly.

>>33794338
It looks nice, but how is it?

>>33794365
I've had it for 3 or 4 months now. I like it. The slide is a little far for me, but I'm a pretty small dude. I think it's the recoil pad.
Shoots nice. But of course there's not much you can do with a 14" shotgun but have fun.
I think I got it for like 200$ though.

>>33794269
Government is for fags, get a Commander master race. Also is one of the more concealable Restricteds floating around with gorillions of holster options, if one were inclined to be a criminal scum and exercise one's right to bear arms.

https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=75630

>>33792964
Truth. If anyone doesn't know what unions get up to these days, please consider what the auto fags were doing with regards to guns
http://www.caw.ca/en/8182.htm

I say this as a union welder, lest anyone claim I'm some greedy fatcat exploiting the working man. My union is a glorified job placement agency whose primary concern is maximizing its own revenue with little regard for its original purpose. This is the inevitable result of any organization becoming too large and powerful, absent market forces to keep it in check.

>>33793017
Unions are really only useful (and even then, in a limited scope) when the government interferes in the economy. In a free market, unions become an economic hindrance. As long as they don't exercise violence through direct or political power, they are tolerable.

>>33794565
Unions were always shit, and they've been totally irrelevant in the post ww2 period.

Nowadays they are a hive of communists/brainwashed fools.

File: 2tall2control.png (473KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 620x465px

what is an indoor range-acceptable 7.62x39 ammo, for places that don't allow steel core or steel jacketed ammo?
>if the magnet is stick, you of go eat a dick

I see videos of people blasting away with VZ and SKS at some of these places. are they just using expensive premium hunting ammo or are there cheaper alternatives that would meet the range rules?

When you all bought the membership for the CPC, did any of you get a card or something? Also I got my ballot today, who should I put as #2?

>>33794523
Commander is shit
Marstar is shit
1911 grip is too huge to CC

>>33794901
>1911 grip is too huge to CC
Nigga what, I've CCd a P228 before. 1911 is most definitely not too huge. It's not as ideal as a PPS or an LCP or something, but it's fucking Canada so beggars can't be choosers. Buy a makarov if you're concerned about grip size.

>>33794941
You say it's one of the more concealable but grip size is really what determines that. There are much better options.
Also Makarov isn't legal here unless you get those barrel extended ones (which are neat).

>>33794956
>much better options
Such as? Tokarev? Shitty gun for self defense. Glock 26 with Canada barrel? Ok I guess, but while the grip is shorter it's still pigfat.

>barrel extended ones
That's what I'm talking about. Though it'll have to be second hand, since new imports are still banned under Harper's sanctions.

File: 1492549312309m.jpg (132KB, 722x1024px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 722x1024px

>>33792247
>You're not allowed to shoot them on sight

Sickening. You should be rewarded for it.

>>33794979
Be creative. We have lots of options. I've handled several little guns that would be good for that purpose. Those little boeburgs, some little K frame revolvers, etc.
Though to be honest, if you're dumb enough to CCW in Canada you should probably just pick up something not matched to you/better for concealment from a native reserve or something.
I wouldn't risk it personally.

>>33795026
>boeburgs
Bobergs are like unicorns. Who even sells them? K frames are not particularly small, as compared to a Commander-length grip. Any more options?

The thing to remember is that most people are oblivious. You could conceal a fucking Beretta 92 under a polo shirt and walk around all day without anyone noticing. Obviously smaller is better, especially when it's illegal to do so, but dressing around your carry weapon gives you a lot of wiggle room when it comes to gun size.

>probably just pick up something not matched to you
Getting a proper carry gun from a private sale in the US and smuggling it back would be the best option. I doubt many decent people have (or want to have) native reserve gun connections, if that is even a thing.

>>33795083
> I doubt many decent people have (or want to have) native reserve gun connections, if that is even a thing.
oh man you are so oblivious.

But man those commander 1911s are one of the larger guns I've seen. Litterally half of the guns at my local gun store would be better. Those K frame revolvers are waaaaaaay smaller than a 1911 unless you have big dumb grips on them.

That's one of the things I carry when I'm living Stateside

>>33795083
Commander grips and Government grips are the same size.

>>33795135
I think hes thinking of Officer sized guns, which have a smaller frame. Good part is even with the smaller frame flush fit mags are only one round smaller for 45 guns.

File: auto_size_comparison.jpg (397KB, 1000x836px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1000x836px

>>33795120
>>33795135
>Litterally half of the guns at my local gun store would be better.
No they wouldn't. Most handguns in canada are full-size, double-stack. The 1911 has a relatively thin grip profile courtesy of being single stack, so while it isn't super short, at least it has an edge on concealability. A 1911 officer model would be better, but I don't know if they exist in Canada.

>>33795206
Officer models do exist SAM Titan in 45 with a 106mm barrel, Dlask makes batches of 80% frames, and there are alot of Dan Wesson models but they are around $2k.

>>33795206
off the top of my head there's the Kahr tp9...G43...ruger SR9

>>33795206
IMO 1911 grips aren't really all that thin. very comparable and sometimes slightly thicker than the more size efficient 9mm double stacks out there with standard grips.

File: DSCF1430_thumb7.jpg (33KB, 355x267px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 355x267px

>>33795257
>Dlask makes batches of 80% frames
I see only government frames right now, unless they change their offerings periodically.

>>33795258
>sr9
Eh, that's more or less in the G19/1911 ballpark. The G43 is definitely a good choice, if you can find one.

>>33795427
No sure if they get G43's in but you can order rebarreled G27's from Questar.

>>33795427
Dlask tends to make things in small batches and actually remove stuff from their site that they don't regularly stock after they sell out.

>>33795206
Depends on how you want to carry. A decent shoulder rig is comfy for long carry sessions, is best if you spend lots of time in and out of vehicles, and you could CC a fucking Desert Eagle with one.
>Not that anybody here would ever do so, it's all hypothetical brainstorming haha :^)

>>33796119
But then you're limited to a bulky jacket (or at best a blazer that is always done up). Gotta stay /fa/shionable while you carry.

File: 141.jpg (144KB, 660x960px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 660x960px

>>33796409
Alternatively, if you have balls and don't give a fuck, you could go full Miami Vice and rock the open sport jacket. It's highly unlikely that someone would call the police about a man with a gun when you look like a stereotypical undercover cop. Have to look the part, though.

>>33792804

Communism has killed 100m people in the 20th century and a bunch of faggy college edgelords are trying to bring it back. It's important to stand against it.

>>33793448

Look into IRunGuns, they specifically import gun parts from the US.

Do the RCMP ever come and check to make sure safe storage of firearms? Anyone have any tales?

Asking again >>33790619

File: 1979651_732404546790775_2010053141_n.jpg (32KB, 640x401px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x401px

>>33796640
Probably not. They'll check more populated places like CGN and Reddit.

>>33796640
Never heard of any instances when they checked up on regular people. I've heard them checking on "collectors" but it was like 10th-hand info so who knows if it's accurate.

Anyway, they have to give you written notice beforehand and arrange a mutually convenient time, and then only the designated inspector himself is required to perform the inspection so you can tell other officers to fuck off and wait outside. It's a pretty toothless violation of property rights, fortunately.

>>33796409
I get away with a nice light jacket every summer. Comfy and concealing. And since I prefer to ride my motorcycle anyway, it looks the part.

File: 14934351800091022423035.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Oh fuck what do I do what do I do

>>33796462
holy fuck we need to test this

like for real

>>33797036
Are you still carrying that ridiculous TT33 or have you switched to something more concealable?

>>33797044
Cum on it and circle kellie leitchs' name with a heart

>>33797044

>Bernier
>Scheer
>O'Tool
>Leitch

>>33797143
Less concealable (though more comfy) and even more ridiculous. I've gotten meself a Gen 3 G17 with an OD frame. Come payday I'm ordering an 80% select-fire backplate kit. If only I could find a weapon light that matched well and was flush with the front of the slide.

File: IMG_8324.jpg (184KB, 647x595px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 647x595px

>>33797318
>Goes from CCing a ratty old Tokarev to just straight up CCing a machine pistol
Holy kek, never ever change CTG

>>33797318
Lol, jesus christ. Why didn't you at least get a G19? Or are you a colossus who can conceal anything?

>>33797404
Those RCMP uniforms are pretty big m8. You can fit a lot of extra in there.

>>33797404
I'm 6 foot 4. I could CC a Mk.23 or Deagle if I tried. I have big hands, so I prefer the G17 over the 19. But I know lots of people like them.

File: IMG_8301.jpg (61KB, 385x354px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 385x354px

>>33797525
Whoops, forgot my trip. Gotta be a colossal faggot at all times, amirite?

File: IMG_1540.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>33797562
Shieeet

Alberta Tactical Rifle is considering doing a run of their Modern Varmint rifle with some off the shelf parts. They are saying the cost will close to or less than a Tavor OR XCR.

They are looking at Standard A2(or 6 pos) stock and buffer, Timney trigger, mil-spec A2 barrel, Free float tube handguard.

>>33797633
>close to or less than a Tavor OR XCR
So, still outrageously expensive for what you get.

>>33797690
Yup but still NR black rifle market can be pretty expensive.

>>33797690
Are Modern Hunter/Varminter even sold outside of Canada? I somehow doubt they get the economy of scale that IWI does.

File: merchant.jpg (11KB, 400x467px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x467px

>>33797707
>implying that IWI would lower their prices due to economies of scale

File: 1473798612792-v.png (251KB, 327x338px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 327x338px

>>33797318
Holy shit m8 you are an absolute madman I solute you

>>33797785
I got downvoted -30 or so for saying I wouldn't buy israeli guns on /r/canadaguns

File: eJwNzNENgyAQANBdGAAOBO7ObUAQTVQI4FfT3ds3wPuIt19iFcecbaxKpXNstSc5Zu2hZFlqLVcO7Rxyq7cKc4btuPMzh9JIBhwDEBn25MgrzbwwGe0YQfNigRWS353PCwbGGHfcs8WUso3JaU_g_kcA641sTxHfH-zIKr0.Cp_k2Fu4ZA8SzS5nJDq11.jpg (80KB, 782x1080px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 782x1080px

>>33798163
Why of course goy! How dare you not support our glorious nation of Israel??

>>33798163
Would you expect any less of reddit?

File: INFORCE-APL-on-G17.jpg (208KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1000x662px

>>33797318
>If only I could find a weapon light that matched well and was flush with the front of the slide.
Like pic related?

If Bernier won, how many years would it take to pass the legislation to uncuck gun laws?

>>33798296
I'm considering the APL.

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>33798340
The only other one I can think of is the Streamlight TLR3. I'm assuming you don't want something less than flush, otherwise the Surefire XC1 would work for a tiny low-pro light (but then you're paying Surefire prices).

>>33798307
depends on the importance he puts on it and whether or not he is serious or just pandering to votes

What's the best gun you can buy in Canada for illegal conceal carry?

>>33800755
Whichever you feel most comfortable with.

>>33794353
>>33796522
>anything worker related is commies!
Go on out on May 1st then, make complete asses of yourself by 'protesting' them.

>>33795001
>we should be able to shoot people we disagree with!
Yeah, you're definitely one of the good guys.

File: BJl689D.png (609KB, 650x1350px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 650x1350px

>>33800821
>workers literally whining to the government for more "protection"
>not indirectly supporting communism
Makes sense

>>33800916
>anything I don't like indirectly supports communism
>workers don't deserve to fight for their rights and should shut up and go away
You left out whining about how protests slow traffic.

File: 1fa2210990ceb2341b60866402c14d68c9e4be0f81a67c676e0d300410d3ac2a.png (218KB, 529x325px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 529x325px

>>33800916
snug snek approves of this post

>>33800959
You deserve rape.

File: 15110255_1175353475866303_5088550999609133314_o.png.jpg (84KB, 1092x528px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1092x528px

>>33800959
It's not "anything I don't like", retard. The first step to communism is big government, and if the working masses support it then they'll get it.
>Workers should shut up and go away
If they're disgusting commies that will end up starving on the streets in their dream socialist society, then yes. I support workers fighting for things that will actually help them, like a smaller government.

>>33800968
>you deserve rape
>because you're a commie!
>and you are one because I say you are!
Yeah, I'm totally the badguy here.

The people screaming that they wish we could kill, or otherwise 'shut up' people they don't like, totally aren't cancer.

>>33801027
>muh baby steps
>muh small government
Funny thing about small governments, they don't murder people for having the 'wrong' political beliefs, like you want to do.


Also can you be any more of a samefag? Complimenting your own posts is just sad.

>>33800821

The commies on my fagbook are jerking off over workers day protests. I'm a blue collar guy and my dad has been a union worker for 30 years, I have nothing against the working man. This particular holiday has been co-opted by neo-marxist fags without jobs though.

File: 1482018165184.jpg (29KB, 528x543px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 528x543px

>>33800968
Stay mad sweetie!

>>33801102
>some idiots on facebook are being idiots
>this means everyone associated with the holiday is a commie

>>33801103
>>33801062
Everyone can tell you're not an imageboard user because you didn't recognize that extremely prolific meme.

File: 15194409_1172815406120110_7491866488115063312_o.png.jpg (61KB, 1092x516px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1092x516px

>>33801084
>Two libertarians on overwhelmingly libertarian board
>Samefag
Hmmm
I don't support murdering people for disagreeing. I simply want to defend my right to property and freedom, and any commie that fucks with those two things deserves to be physically removed.

>>33801113

>Marxists don't always try to seize power under the guise of caring about the worker
>What is seize the means of production

get raped

File: 39ce7b647273558cfa8f53e1296387629f95a71a.png (161KB, 653x389px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 653x389px

>>33801135

>I can't read the water

Time to fash up or fuck down, senpai.

>>33801135
>Libertarians
kek

>I simply want to defend my right to property and freedom, and any commie that fucks with those two things deserves to be physically removed.
Noone wants to take your property or freedom, you fuckwit, and the fact that you think a worker's march is reason to fuck with people, and makes you want to kill them, proves your full of shit. You make wild claims about what they're doing, and then use those same wild claims (backed up by no evidence) as your justification for your lust for violence.

>>33801209
>Noone wants to take your property or freedom

There is a growing movement of Marxism in the west, and the fundamental tenets of marxism and communism involve taking your property and your freedom. He's not talking about someone skulking around his yard trying to steal his bicycle you fucking retard.

File: a05qlm5li6uy.jpg (265KB, 1200x1159px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1200x1159px

>>33801209
>kek
What did the red mean by this
>No one wants to take your property or freedom
Workers protesting generally support forcing higher wages, useless regulations, and higher taxes, all of which rob me of my property and freedom.
I never actually said anything supporting violence against protestors. I just disagree with what they're doing.

>>33801260
I know exactly what he means, which is why it's fucking retarded. There is no growing marxist movement, and therefore your suspicions about someone wanting to take your property and freedom are unfounded. A worker's march, in support of the rights that workers fought decades to get, and the continuing fight to keep those rights from being eroded, isn't automatically communist.

>>33801264
>What did the red mean by this
I meant it's a joke to hear you claim that, while you're ranting about killing people and posting these cute memes featuring the execution of strawman commies and anarchists.

>I just disagree with what they're doing
And you REALLY wish you could kill them over it. You're just a normal fucking guy who fantasizes about killing people for not thinking the same as you, that's totally a Libertarian way of thinking!

Funny thing about disagreements, most people see the person they're disagreeing with as a human being and don't wish violence on them based nothing more on a preconceived notion of their political identity based on nothing more than vague claims about "what they want" that are stated nowhere in their platform.

>Workers protesting generally support forcing higher wages, useless regulations, and higher taxes, all of which rob me of my property and freedom.
This isn't a protest for one thing, it's an annual march held in celebration of the decades of struggle that it took workers to get any rights to begin with. Meanwhile most regulations aren't useless, especially when it comes to worker safety, environmental impact, or product quality (which are the ones that people always want to seem to do away with first). "Higher Taxes" is a bullshit term that is so vague it doesn't deserve a response.. While higher wages can be deserved for a number of reasons (inb4 muh $15 minimum wage meme), like inflation and raise in the cost of living (like Alberta saw when it hit the oil lottery).

>>33800755
Some examples were already mentioned earlier, read the damn thread.

>>33801383

>Marxism isn't growing

There are mobs of Antifa (stated marxists.) rioting preventing people from speaking at Universities all over North America.

This is in addition to the feelings first social progressives who's ideology is rooted in marxism and postmodernism, and who's stated goal is to "Smash the Patriarchy," which is just another word for Western Civilisation. They're obsessed with destroying tradition because they feel it's oppressive, and we can thank them for the existence of 37 genders and laws telling us that we have to respect xirs pronouns.

You're oblivious to the culture war going on all around you m8

>>33800821
>we should be able to shoot people we disagree with!
Let's get one thing absolutely clear: communism explicitly calls for violent revolution. This is not some hidden scheme among particularly deranged and extremist communists. The ideology itself is built on the idea of revolution, and the violent expropriation of capital from its owners. If you have any doubts about this, please refer to the fucking Soviet and Chinese revolutions.

So when you have people marching to support an ideology that mandates they kill you and take your property when they get a chance, I think it's fair to say that they are making indirect, but very real, threats.

When someone makes threats against you, how long do you have to wait until you act? Do you let the madman waving a gun on your lawn, and screaming that he can't wait to put a bullet in your head, actually pull the trigger before you can take action? That's not how self-defense works.

>>33801383
>don't wish violence on them based nothing more on a preconceived notion of their political identity
You realize I intially posted about the communist rally? It's literally organized by the Communist Party. Anyone else who shows up to that march may have left-leaning inclinations, but the post was explicitly about communists. And yes, it's morally acceptable to kill communists, same as it is to kill any other lunatic who makes death threats against you and attempts to carry them out.

>took workers to get any rights to begin with
What "rights" are you talking about?

New rule: you're not allowed to march in workers' protests unless you have a full time job.

>>33801383
>worker safety
Doesn't need to be regulated. Unions fought for that back in the day, by negotiating with employers. At this point, safety culture and legislation has swung so far in the opposite direction that it's absurd. If you've ever worked in the trades, you'd know what I'm talking about.

>environmental impact
Doesn't need new legislation, it just needs the enforcement of property rights and prosecuting violations thereof. If a pipeline spills oil on my land, the company should clean it up and pay damages to ME, not the fucking government as they do now.

>or product quality
That is something the free market is most efficient at achieving. Private testing agencies like Underwriter Labs already certify almost everything, and consumers are able to select for different-quality products by buying superior examples and avoiding shoddy ones. There's a reason a Hyundai sells for less than a Lexus, you don't need the government to get involved.

> "Higher Taxes" is a bullshit term that is so vague
It's very clear. Unless you don't understand what "higher" and "lower" means.

>inflation
A direct result of the government expanding the money supply. Funny how the people who want govenrment to adjust wages don't seem to care that the government causes the problem in the first place.

>raise in the cost of living
So negotiate with your employer, or organize and collectively bargain. Don't use the state to force your employer to do your bidding at gunpoint.

>>33801552
Being an oppressed college art major is a full time job, m8. Doesn't get any more proletarian than that.

>>33801491
>What "rights" are you talking about?
The right to unionize, to strike, to have safe conditions, and be able to protest unsafe conditions or otherwise report them to an authority whose responsible for ensuring standards are upheld.

The 1920's and 30's were a long fucking time ago, but back then workers would get beaten by gangs of armed thugs if they dared to go on strike. And they called them commies too. It basically wasn't until the 50's that things got better, in large part because the complaints of the average working man were addressed and rectified, which did more to kill the communist movement in the Western world than any amount of right-wing radicalism.

>I intially posted about the communist rally
And you've used it as an excuse to shout, "go out and fuck with anyone who's marching on worker's day, because they're all commies!".

>And yes, it's morally acceptable to kill communists, same as it is to kill any other lunatic who makes death threats against you and attempts to carry them out.
Like people who don't know what a commie is, and in their ignorance have decided to just target leftists in general with their antisocial behavior?

>Let's get one thing absolutely clear: communism explicitly calls for violent revolution.
Let's get another thing clear, not everyone who professes to some sort of leftist or liberal ideology is a full-on communist. People aren't marching in support of communism on workers day, just because YOU say so.

And from where I'm standing, YOU are the madman standing on my lawn, waving a gun around, asking for me to shoot him... But I'm trying to be reasonable and not just scream "fascist!" before ventilating your skull, and instead explain that you're seeing communists where they don't exist.

File: 1492312382470.png (188KB, 502x444px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 502x444px

>watch Bernier interview
>he still supports barrel length restrictions

How can you call him /our guy/?

>>33801616
>right to unionize, to strike, to have safe conditions
None of these are rights. The problem with leftists is that you declare anything you want a "right". That's not how rights work.

and be able to protest unsafe conditions
They could do this the entire time. If it was a violation of their employment contract, they would be dismissed. Don't sign up for something if you disagree with it, pretty damn simple.

>workers would get beaten by gangs of armed thugs if they dared to go on strike
In some few cases, yes. That was unjustified, criminal behavior. But similarly, workers would become the armed thugs and beat scabs who needed a job and were ok with the existing wages, and tried to cross their picket line. Don't paint the union movement as some oppressed bunch of pacifists just because you watched Matewan once.

>because they're all commies
If they are marching at a rally organized by the communists, and pulicized nowhere but communist sites and facebook pages, I think it's safe to assume they are going to be communists. Don't think this march is some common thing; May Day really isn't popular in North America. Most people only know of Labour Day in September.

>target leftists in general
Leftism (to the degree that we are discussing) is simply soft communism. There is no such thing as a stable moderate leftist position. It always tends leftward, because that is the logically consistent result.

>not everyone who professes to some sort of leftist or liberal ideology is a full-on communist
No, but they do support using the power of the state to enforce their leftism on me. What difference does it make if the man pointing the gun at me and telling me "we socialism now" is a leftist, or just his hired agent?

File: based milton friedman.jpg (35KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 850x400px

>>33801616
You are clearly a retarded socialist who fails to understand the basic facts of working conditions in the industrial revolution and beyond. The government just loves to take advantage of people by claiming that without it we would all be slaving away in factories making pennies a day. In reality, the free market did what it's the best at, and gave workers better and better conditions as time went on. The thing that you people fail to recognize is that the wealth you seek to redistribute had to be created in the first place, and it was created in large part by businessmen looking to profit from their creations. This is seen by many as disgusting and unfair, but without these motivations, we would be slaving away at inefficient jobs to this day.

>>33801772
We need government to step in line for things like public infrastructure, minimum wage, and the environment. No one will pay for roads and chinks and poo in loos would drive the wage to $0.01/h if they could because they put less emphasis on employee welfare than you do.

>>33801772
Be fair now, you can't expect leftists in general, and "moderate" leftists in particular, to understand fundamental economic principles. Or to have read any historical accounts that aren't full of leftist propaganda, if they even bothered reading anything besides their textbooks in public school.

>>33801737
>None of these are rights
>that's not how rights work
Oh for fuck's sake we're not talking about the constitution. You asked what workers groups 'fought for' over the years and I answered you. Just because they're not 'real' rights doesn't mean they're not important things for workers to have.

>Don't sign up for something if you disagree with it, pretty damn simple.
It's not that simple at all. Since employment contracts back then could be exploitative in the extreme (don't even need to get into the subject of 'company towns' where you got paid in corporate scrip), and could be changed at will, with the alternative being no work at all. When the alternative is to go without work and starve, that's no alternative at all. Not so different than a communist system forcing you to work a job you do not like, or suffer imprisonment or execution for refusal, just a passive form of coercion, since as I mentioned people who tried to stand up and protest their shitty working conditions, were stomped upon by hired thugs, or occasionally government thugs.

Which brings us too...
>That was unjustified criminal behavior
>But workers did it too!
I'm not trying to paint them as a bunch of pacifists, just scrape off the shit you've been flinging, while trying to paint them as violent commies who want to destroy our freedom. When for most of the workers movement's history they've been fighting for their own freedom and rights. The right to be treated like fucking human beings in the workplace, and not just another tool to be used and abused until it breaks, and then is discarded. And the fact that it took legal action to get those problems taken care of seems to show that private interests can't be trusted to look out for their workers without some oversight.

And end of page 1...

File: mr88.jpg (34KB, 800x477px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x477px

Holy shit CSC got some Manurhin MR88 with special order 4.25" barrels and they are $370 less than the 6".

What do i sell to buy one, I'm thinking a kidney.

>>33801922
>public infrastructure
Doesn't need to be a thing. But if you must insist that in the absence of a government nobody will construct or pay for roads, then sure, let the government organize the construction of roads. I'll take a roads-courts-military government over the monstosity we have today.

>minimum wage
see pic related, why do you hate poor people?

>environment
Falls under the same purview as prosecuting thieves or vandals. "Environmental policy" does not need to be a thing.

File: minwage.gif (6KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 320x240px

>>33801990
>pic
fucking shit

>>33801934
>If they are marching at a rally organized by the communists
Except it's not organized by communists. The communist party doesn't have the membership to organize across the entire fucking country, and just because you can't be bothered to go looking for news outside of fucking facebook (which is just so telling) doesn't mean they don't exist. Most news articles about May 1st are written after the event, rather than before, as well. Because that's how little anyone really cares about it.

>Leftism (to the degree that we are discussing) is simply soft communism.
Oh you're just going to argue stawmen now.

>No, but they do support using the power of the state to enforce their leftism on me. What difference does it make if the man pointing the gun at me and telling me "we socialism now" is a leftist, or just his hired agent?
Tell me how they're oppressing you with the power of the state then, please explain what horrible things these leftists are doing when they march for the rights of workers. Because I'm betting it's nothing more than vague "taxes!" and "they want to take my stuff and freedom!" bullshit with no concrete facts to back it up.

>>33801772
>the free market gave people better lives as time went on!
Putting regulations on companies and their operating conditions, and mandating certain conditions for workers is not the oppression or redistribution of wealth that you and others make it out to be. And those better conditions you mention, by and far came about largely because of government intervention and urging. While the businessmen who profit from "their" creations have been taking larger and larger shares of the profit, while doing less and less of the work, in these last few decades, with the disparity between the average worker's wages, and the average executive's wages widenening considerably.

>>33801772
Also...
>muh equality is communism meme
Is just sick. And shows how warped you people are in the fucking head, that you've decided that "equality" means "taking my shit and giving it to someone else".

For fuck's sake you god damn mouth-breathers, when people say they support "equality", they mean everyone gets treated fairly. That noone's belief's or physical characteristics pay a part in what jobs they can get. That 'everyone' has the chance to get into the best schools, and so on.

You people say that leftists twist the meaning of words, but frankly the way the right-wing keeps writing the NewSpeak dictionary proves that they have nothing on conservatives.

File: rothbard.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>33801922
>We need government to step in line
Except, we don't. Of course it is in the interest of every government worker to say that they are necessary, but the reality is that if there is a demand for any service, including the building of infrastructure, and the protection of the environment, then the free market will handle it far more efficiently and effectively than the government ever could. Minimum wages directly hurt workers by reducing job availability for the poorest in our society, and increasing prices for the consumer. There is no better regulator of income than the free market.

>>33802055
>dat quote
>"minimum wage is bad because people who's work isn't worth that amount will never get jobs"
So much for the idea that jews are good at economics.

Also, I thought the right-wing liked social darwinism? Shouldn't they love the idea of people being too stupid to be employable.

>>33801934
>doesn't mean they're not important things for workers to have.
How did they fight for them? By negotiating peacefully with their employers, or by petitioning the govenrment to pass legislation forcing those employers to acquiesce?

>exploitative
Nice communist buzzword.

>alternative being no work at all
That is a valid alternative. The employer does not owe the worker a job, any more than the worker owes an employer his labor. Both engage in a voluntary agreement, and if either party is not satisfied with the terms, they are perfectly free to walk away and do their own thing. There is a world of a difference between someone forcing you to do something at gunpoint, and someone refusing to talk to you or engage in business with you. Please make an effort to understand that difference, it's important.

>not trying to paint them as a bunch of pacifists
You certainly are. You accuse the companies of engaging in violence against striking workers, yet you gloss over or completely ignore the fact that striking workers have historically engaged in violence against company property and anyone perceived to be a scab. You would not have even acknowledged it had I not brought it up. When you have someone crying out that they want to be treated like a human being, and at the same time engaging in aggressive violence against others out of some inflated sense of entitlement, forgive me if I don't take their complaints seriously.

Not to mention that you greatly overstate the role of the government in achieving safe working conditions. It was the union movement, pre-lobbying era, that did most of the heavy lifting. By the time they became large enough to lobby the government to start legislating everything, those safe conditions were already achieved.

Also, it certainly didn't help that the government had been increasing barriers to entry and decreasing competition. What do you expect to happen when you shield business from market forces?

>>33801990
>>33802055

According to your model, minimum wage only creates loss when it's above equilibrium. It's not harmful if it isn't too high. Even when I worked entry-level (restaurant, temp), I was paid above min. wage.

If you don't set it too high, it merely gives employees more negotiating power. Nobody, not even teenagers, should be allowed to work for slave wages in Canada. Without min. wage you will have chinks and poos outcompeting every white person because they don't value their time or welfare. The worker standards you have built will collapse. Consider how many unemployed college grads there are. If employers were allowed to pay them whatever they wanted, there would be students desperate enough to take it, and it would drive down wages across the board as these desperate people try to one-up each other by selling their labor for less. I know people who took unpaid internships "for the experience". I was lucky enough to get paid, but lots of people (especially new college grads) don't have enough negotiating power so the government needs to step in to balance the playing field. No min.wage whatsoever gives employers too much power.

And government needs to take care of the environment and infrastructure for the same reason public washrooms are always filthier than your house's washrooms. People are selfish, short-sighted, and will offload responsibility when it suits them.

>>33802016
>Except it's not organized by communists. The communist party doesn't have the membership to organize across the entire fucking country
For the love of god, pull your head out of your ass and actually look at the link I posted.
http://cpcml.ca/may-day-2017/

This is a national event ORGANIZED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY. If you have any information concerning other marches that may be happening at the same time, plase post them.

>strawmen
No, actual men. If you think NDP and their leftward compatriots will be satisfied to stop with "moderate regulation" over the economy, you are delusional, naive, or disingenuous.

>Tell me how they're oppressing you with the power of the state then
By expanding the scope and authority of the state, knowing full well that it is an accelerating process. By restricting competition in the market, thereby driving up prices I must pay for consumer goods. By limiting the availability of goods in the market. By increasing barriers to entry, so if I were to start a business I would have a harder time of it than without their interference.

Is that enough?

>is not the oppression or redistribution of wealth that you and others make it out to be
When you say "do these things in your business or I shoot you", I'd say that's falls under the category of oppression, wouldn't you?

>muh profit, muh wage gap
An actual argument, please. Being jealous of other people's wealth, and claiming that because you don't have it it must be illegitimate, is not an argument.

File: quote-under-a-socialist-mode-of-production-all-personal-incentives-which-selfishness-provides-ludwig-von-mises-140-56-61.jpg (49KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 850x400px

>>33802016
>>33802039
You've got to give me something a little more challenging than that. You just used the classic "look at modern society, capitalism is dumb confirmed!!!1" argument, one of the easiest to debunk. News flash, this isn't a free market world, it is a world regulated to shit by the government. Every single example you can come up with of an ebul CEO steawing fwom da wookas is an obvious example of government sanctioned monopoly.
>>33802039
It didn't take long for the socialist to call anyone who disagrees with their "perfect solution" to be a sick manipulative piece of shit. News flash #2: socialist and communist societies have less equality than free market ones. Why? Look at Venezuela, and the Soviet Union. Corrupt governments steal from society and leave people to starve. This is impossible in a free market, as the power of decision making is given to every individual on earth.

>>33802086
You quoted a fact, then said it wasn't true. Have any real arguments, or are we done here?

>>33802156
It's harmful no matter where it's set. Did you read the quote? The free market decides a fair wage better than any government.
>Muh immigrant invasion
You do realize that other employer practices have replaced low wage jobs right? Now, instead of starting with a low wage, they simply make extensive use of interns, and other excuses to make people work for free. You clearly fail to understand how the free market regulates wages. If immigrants invade Canada, the price of their work is driven down, leaving them with no reason to come here at all.
>People are selfish and shortsighted
The reason capitalism works is that it respects the natural selfishness of people.

>>33802039
>when people say they support "equality", they mean everyone gets treated fairly.
Ahahaha, no. When they say they want equality, they mean "I want you to be forced to provide me equality". People are not equal; the very fact that division of labor is a thing is evidence of this. Discrimination is the basis for civilization. Would you let just any random stranger into your house? No, you have some criteria for entry. Private business is no different. Just as your house is private property, so is a business private property.

Now, if you challenge this point and claim that capital is categorically different from personal property, you will finally expose yourself to be the communist everyone suspects you of being.

>>33802086
No, only the left likes that. The libertarian right is perfectly fine with stupid people being employed at prices that are agreeable to both the worker and the employee. The leftist is content with shutting out the lower-priced employee and instead putting him on the dole.

Do you have to wait until you have the actual registration paper for a restricted or can the notice of transfer do until it shows up?

>>33802360
Usually no more than a week after transfer is approved and no you can't use your transfer instead of your registration.

>>33802156
>when it's above equilibrium
All minimum wage is above equilibrium. Cut and dried. If it wasn't, there would be absolutely no point in setting it in the first place. Please think things through before you post them.

>lots of people don't have enough negotiating power so the government needs to step in to balance the playing field
A lack of negotiating power is a result of a lack of marketable skill. The entire reason an employer is not willing to pay a basketweaving major a high wage is because they can provide relatively little value. Forcing the employer to pay higher wages for the same amount of nothing does fuck all except distort the market. The price of goods climbs to make up for it, or positions are cut, or hours, or benefits, or training, or a combination of all those things. Secondly, it distorts the price signals in the labor market. Suddenly, burger-flipping seems as lucrative a more complex job that was paid at the rate of the new minimum. You see a shift in labor supply toward the easier job, all things held equal. You then get an oversupply of labor, also known as unemployment.

>for the same reason public washrooms are always filthier than your house's washrooms. People are selfish, short-sighted, and will offload responsibility when it suits them.
That was one of the most concise and poignant arguments for the privatization of public infrastructure I've seen in a while. When you make something public, you offload responsibility because you are no longer the sole owner. It is precisely the reason nobody gives a shit about a public bus window getting smashed, but cares quite a lot about their own car window suffering the same fate. People are far more responsible when it is in their direct self-interest to be so. Ownership of property has been a powerful motivator for this since the dawn of man.

>>33798307
Minority government could never pull it off. Majority government could do it within a couple months of throne speech if they really pushed.

File: File+May+31,+8+30+35+PM.jpg (224KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 500x667px

>>33802476
It's a good thing we have a 100% chance to get a glorious majority then.

>>33802447
Very spicy arguments, top of the line. Mad Max would be proud.

>>33801657
Sauce.

>>33802578
Depends on how the NDP do. How is their leadership campaign doing?

>>33802638
No, it really doesn't. We are currently in the biggest economic bubble ever known. Those retards don't stand a chance.

>>33802578
>Mad Max would be proud.
I hold a very dim view of the political process and democracy in general, but when I saw that a major candidate was posting Mises memes on his facebook, I figured the least I could do was send a few shekels and a vote his way. If only my goddamn ballot would show up, what the fuck. Everyone is mailing their shit off already, and mine isn't even here yet.

any place to get cheap AK bayonets and bayonet frogs that don't cost 30$ in shipping from the US?

>>33802302
Illegal Mexican immigrants still go to the US because even below min.wage they make more than they would in Mexico. Your argument only makes sense if there are open borders and no cost of relocation.

>>33802447
I would take the price distortion if it meant that employers cannot prey on desperate people. We should ensure that citizens hold themselves up to a standard of self-worth such that their labor is not devalued like a chink in a factory.
At jobs that pay min.wage, there is very little difference in skill anyways between say, burger flipping and cashier. The price distortion is minimal and a non-issue. Jobs for fresh college grads already pay 35-60k/y. It's not like our current min.wage is killing businesses, most businesses choose to pay more.

And you aren't going to pay for space exploration because none of its gains will be reaped in your lifetime. Private industry could not have put a man on the moon in 8 years like the Apollo program did. You're not going to pay for the road to middle-of-nowhere Nunavut because you don't drive on it, and the town of 2,500 people there can't afford it. You aren't going to pay for an expansion of the subway line to a place you don't commute to, or the preservation of some forest that is on the other side of the province.

>>33802693
Some people left when times are tough, some people move right. People whose first instincts are to go stand in a bread line will vote for the NDP. Depending how successful they are, they will either split the vote, become official opposition or, at the very limit, form a minority government (in which case we're not going anywhere).

>>33794901
>CC

This is canada

>>33797044
Bernier
Otoole
Leitch
Peterson

File: sadpepegun.jpg (12KB, 236x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x229px

REEEE

i want to shoot my AR but my registration still hasnt shown up

File: 1455139918644.jpg (86KB, 608x626px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 608x626px

>>33803288
Just go shoot it in the woods, what's stopping you fellow gun owner?

>>33794383
>of course there's not much you can do with a 14" shotgun but have fun
why do you say that?

>>33803288
>>33803332
Who's going to know, honestly? Don't be so servile.

>>33803338
What can you do with a 14" shotgun that isn't fun, "sir"?

>>33803371
>Who's going to know, honestly? Don't be so servile.
rcmp sometimes show up at ranges and check everyones paperwork

>What can you do with a 14" shotgun that isn't fun, "sir"?
a 14" shotgun works just as well as a 28" shotgun if it has choke tubes

>>33802863
Got mine yesterday, I have brothers who got their memberships after me and they haven't received theirs either. I imagine that the ballot will be on its way shortly.

>>33803389
>rcmp sometimes show up at ranges and check everyones paperwork
Innawoods is not the same a range. If you're deep in the bush where retard day hikers won't come wandering through your range, neither will RCMP. Nobody is going to hear you because nobody will be there.

>>33803610
*same as a range

>>33794338

I have one, i like it

>>33803371
>What can you do with a 14" shotgun that isn't fun, "sir"?

I've had some success shooting clay with mine and I plan to use it to hunt small game.

>>33802183
>They're organizing marches
They are not organizing all the marches, or the be-all end-all of the event. Jesus.

>No, actual men!
>proceeds to list more strawmen

>They're oppressing me!
>My business is mine!
But your employees aren't, they're people with rights under the constitution. And your private enterprise doesn't have the right to do anything that violates that, for one thing. While the other rules and benefits that workers have attained through legislation over the years are things that it's generally beneficial to all of society to see done.

The kind of anarcho-capitalist world you seem to want to see would be much, much worse than what we have now.

>>33802302
>It didn't take long for the socialist to call anyone who disagrees with their "perfect solution" to be a sick manipulative piece of shit.
And it didn't take long for the right-wing cuck to put words in my mouth. I said twisting the meaning of equality is sick when you decide it means "taking your stuff and giving it to someone else". I didn't say anything about communism.

>Are we done here?
We were done here a long time ago, since you're hardly arguing in good faith (in every second post you accuse me of being a communist, for fuck's sake). I'm just too stubborn to let the issue die, and walk away being called a liar by the people who are sitting on piles of bullshit.

>>33802341
>Ahahaha, no.
You're proving my point. Noone with a lick of common sense thinks "equality" means "redistribution of wealth", except idiots who've read the latest edition of the NewSpeak dictionary. Especially considering the concepts of equality and freedom are closely intertwined. For example, you can't have a free society where one group of people is literally lesser in the eyes of the law and government for arbitrary reasons. And I'm not making things up when I remind everyone here that Maxime Bernier has faced opposition just for being French!

>>33802863
My thoughts exactly.

>>33802931
This isn't the 1930s we're talking about. Should the government as we know it survive it will be unable to spend money as it did before. Society will be forced to spend the money it has, not money it made up.

>>33804064
Do you know what equality is? It mean that everybody has the same standard of living. This isn't possible, but socialism is the closest you can get to that distopia.

>>33804319
>Do you know what equality is? It mean that everybody has the same standard of living.
It has never meant that. This idea that you're repeating is literally something that was cooked up by assholes who know that the right-wing is easily duped into hating anything as long as you say it's communist.

File: 1478044463601.jpg (788KB, 986x1024px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 986x1024px

>>33803389
>rcmp sometimes show up at ranges and check everyones paperwork

good to see they've got time after catching all the actual criminal gun owners holy shit I hate those fucking faggots

pic related

>>33804353
Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Wow I'm such a brain washed ebul right winger. Tell me more about how big brother needs to steal your money and pocket it or else the bourgeoisie will take your money with consent and redistribute it.

>>33804796
>equal in status, rights, and opportunities means taking one person's money and giving it to another
Yes, yes you are a fucking brain washed idiot.

Status =/= wealth

>>33804579
>Multicam
what?

>>33803940
>>33803389
Canadian education.

>>33804824
>means taking one person's money and giving it to another
That is literally all a government does. Taxes directly pay the wages of government employees, and every other fee incurred in the process of "helping workers".

>>33804579
I still never understood why that one cop was wearing a pirate patch.

>I'm totally rogue and against "the Man", man
no dipshit, you are "the Man"

>>33805036
>Taxes are theft!
Sure, whatever. I don't feel like arguing with AnCaps while I digest my supper anyway, so you 'win'.

>>33805226
>I don't feel like arguing
You could just say you don't have an argument

>>33805387
>my argument is basically "everything I don't like is communist"
>accuse someone else of not having one
Pick one.

File: 14993450_1165869440148040_5908719503106623356_n.png.jpg (32KB, 884x768px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 884x768px

>>33805422
>Say nothing to that effect
>Am told I said it because you have no argument
Not an argument.

>>33805481
>I've run out of arguments
>better post a meme and claim I didn't say shit that has nothing to do with communism is totally communist
Sad.

File: 15800520_1218006481601002_2704021633482481901_o.png.jpg (59KB, 988x662px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 988x662px

>>33805544
>Still no proof shown of anything you're saying because there is none
Sad.

>>33805553
>there's no proof that I was calling things communism when they are plainly not
>this thread totally isn't full of it!
>nobody scroll up!
And you still keep posting memes about killing lefties, because apparently it's alright to oppress everyone as long as you like the window dressing it puts up.

File: 15085682_1168350513233266_4198032880596138710_n.png.jpg (62KB, 752x582px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 752x582px

>>33805579
I did say that workers protesting to the government are indirectly supporting communism. I never called anything what it wasn't, and I don't post memes about killing lefties, I post memes about defending yourself against robbers and murderers, the true oppressors of society.
>Nobody scroll up!
Yes, wouldn't want to see how much you've made up as you scramble for an argument to support an ideology based on fantasies and delusions.

>>33805579
You don't belong here, and you aren't from here. Fuck off. For real.

>>33805636
>keeps claiming I support communism when I've said nothing of the sort
>says I'm the one who's making shit up
You've also got a pretty loose definition of what communism is, so you're far from arguing self defense, and just demanding the right to attack anyone that says anything scurry and triggering.

>>33805656
>get out of my conservative safe space! reeeeee!
How newfag are you?

File: 88d0928656ded7a70eb1df684c8bff41f0f3a6a54b8d968bdba7e3b19bf2e4ad.png (140KB, 285x420px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 285x420px

>>33806178

File: miami connection.jpg (186KB, 674x1000px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 674x1000px

>>33794729
>>33794729
>>33794729
PUREES RESPONDU

File: 1457195318978.jpg (67KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 453x604px

>>33806178
if you're not a conservative we don't want you owning guns, faggot

>>33807192
>indoor acceptable
>rifle
Not sure what you're looking for man

File: shrug.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>33807219
a 7.62x39 that won't attract a magnet

there are plenty of ranges that allow rifles, just not steel core or steel jacketed ammo

>>33807215
>if you're not a conservative we don't want you owning guns
How freedom loving of you.

Also when /pol/fags decide that they were going to turn the "don't tread on me!" snek into a "let me tread on you!" snek?

>>33807591
/pol/'s been half libertarian, half natsoc, half shill and 3/4 brazillian for years

are you one of the 'kids' from california spreading your bullshit on 4chan for an essay or something? kek maybe a fat bitch rookie cop thinks she'll have 'fun' 'playing' with shitlords anonymously?

exactly which flavour of profligate are you? again, we can tell you're not an organic imageboard user

>>33807637
>reee! you're not from 4chan because you don't agree with me!
Mother fucker I'm Angry Halifax Guy, I've been here for years and you'd know that if you weren't fresh off the bus!

File: Bastiat.jpg (66KB, 736x408px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 736x408px

>>33802919
>employers cannot prey on desperate people
What does this even mean? Employers are running out into the streets with clubs and nets, capturing desperate people and forcing them to work in their businesses? You are starting from the premise that you already know what the "correct" wage is for a given job, and that any wage lower than this one is somehow "exploitation". That's not how economic value works. Neither you nor the government get to decide what the real price of goods or labor is. That price gets determined at the point of sale, between two mutually-consenting parties.

>price distortion is minimal and a non-issue
It is absolutely an issue. Those businesses that could hire cheaper labor would do so. Since they must pay higher rates for the same amount of production and labor, those costs will manifest themselves in the ways I mentioned.

>most businesses choose to pay more
Businesses don't just decide "I'm going to pay $2 more than minimum" for kicks, as if the minimum is some frame of reference. They price their wages according to their production costs and revenues. As I said, if few businesses are paying that minimum, then there is no need for the minimum in the first place. Evidently this is not the case, and that some ARE forced to pay minimum wage.

>muh space race
The telecom industry is the single largest consumer of space travel on the planet. Not government. Yes, I acknowledge that government can achieve things quickly through brute force. I can motivate factory workers to stellar production levels by shooting one in the head in front of the others. The problem is assuming the government's way is the most efficient, or worse, the only way something could have happened.

>>33804064
>They are not organizing all the marches, or the be-all end-all of the event.
I asked you to post links to other marches that are going to happen on May Day. You've failed to do so. Kindly fuck off.

>proceeds to list more strawmen
Addressing arguments is difficult for you, apparently.

> they're people with rights under the constitution
Care to name a constitutional right that would be violated by what I'm discussing? I must have missed the part about business licenses, work hours, minimum wages, and other government impositions.

>you can't have a free society where one group of people is literally lesser in the eyes of the law and government for arbitrary reasons
You can't have a free society with a government. Neither can you have a free society if members of that society cannot discriminate as to the people they interact with, or the goods they produce, buy, and sell, or the contracts they enter into. Private discrimination is essential if you desire freedom.

>>33806178
>How newfag are you?
He's not as new as you, it seems. /k/ has been a traditionally libertarian board, for as long as I remember (started in '06). Your leftist nonsense was always ridiculed here. Fuck off back to your leftypol or reddit echochamber, where you can circlejerk about how oppressed the proletariat are and how great the government is for allowing you to own some guns.

>>33807925
>He's not as new as you, it seems. /k/ has been a traditionally libertarian board, for as long as I remember (started in '06). Your leftist nonsense was always ridiculed here.
You're remembering things with some rose colored glasses on my friend.

You're right when you say this is a traditionally libertarian board, it's just too bad that you have no idea what libertarianism fucking means. Since as one of the assholes previously ranting about how killing 'commies' (ie: any leftist that triggers you) is self defence, and wanting other nonsense that's just a different form of authoritarianism, you're about as far from libertarian as Stalin.

As for my leftist nonsense and it being ridiculed, I used to be able to actually DEBATE people, civilly, and set aside our disagreements because we both recognized our mutual love and enjoyment of firearms and freedom. And then your kind swarmed in and decided it was their right to drive out anyone who disagreed with them with bullshit harassment, like you think that will work on 4channers.

>where you can circlejerk about how oppressed the proletariat are and how great the government is for allowing you to own some guns.
And again you accuse me of being a commie when I've given you no proof to make the claim. Blind to your own hypocrisy because you are too drunk on the belief that you are right about everything. How pathetic.

As for circlejerking about how oppressed I am, that's all you've been doing this thread. How oppressive workers are, and libruls, and taxes. Oooooooo!!!! How faggots like you can carry on like this, and accuse others with a straight face is beyond me.

>>33808008
>wanting other nonsense that's just a different form of authoritarianism
No. As I explained earlier, killing communists is consistent with libertarian ethics because it is a defensive action. Physically removing leftists and democrats is similarly a defensive action, because anyone who advocates and acts toward the maintenance or expansion of the state is in violation of libertarian ethics. Don't think that the hyperbolic Pinochet memes don't refer to a serious and significant issue in libertarianism; the issue of how to deal with non-libertarians.

Libertarianism is not just a fucking free-for-all, and if you think so then you have a hilariously ignorant understanding of it.

>>33808008
Also

>drunk on the belief that you are right about everything
Considering that you have failed to address any of the arguments presented before you, is it any surprise that people think your side is incorrect? On what planet would you expect us to take your socialist propositions at face value with no criticism or examination?

>>33808251
>As I explained earlier, killing communists is consistent with libertarian ethics because it is a defensive action. Physically removing leftists and democrats is similarly a defensive action
So basically everyone left of centre is going to be loaded up into a helicopter and dropped in the ocean? Yeah I can totally see that protecting freedom.

>how to deal with non-libertarians
What you've decided on seems to be just another kind of authoritarianism.

>you're ignorant about Libertarianism
Considering that libertarians traditionally care about leaving other people the fuck alone, unless they actively harm them first, the fact that you think you'd be justified in carrying out pre-emptive violence against anyone you arbitrarily deem to be a threat, and apparently cannot even tolerate dissenting viewpoints of a non-communist nature, I think you're the one who's very ignorant of what it means to be Libertarian.

But then again, everyone I've ever met who claims to be a Libertarian also believes in some horrible crap like this, or is just generally crazy. You made that clear from the start when you began ranting about how people are a bunch of commies that deserve to die (despite them not being commies by any sane man's definition).

>>33808008
Fuck off newfag, leftist crap was never accepted here, the closet /k/ ever came was being russophines over soviet guns and winter clothing+memorabilia.

Back then /k/ was mostly fuddish and apolitical since most of the time we just talked about guns, until 2009-10 where the tea part and ron paul got popular, and more people started becoming libertarian and /k/ had influx of libertarian minded people.

We even had a "sovereign citizen" phase that that didn't last outside of its own threads till those idiots left.

>>33808267
>you need to address my criticism of your socialist beliefs!
Yeah, that's hard to do when I'm not a socialist.

>>33808398
> /k/ was mostly fuddish and apolitical since most of the time we just talked about guns
>apolitical
You don't know what this means then, do you? It means people don't care about anyone's "leftist crap". I guess because mutual love of guns just came first... hey, like I said!

>>33807686
You know that we don't call you "angry Halifax guy" as an endearing term, right?

>>33808399
>Not a socialist
>Not a communist
What DO you identify as?

>>33808423
It was apolitical since when ever the subject wasn't about guns, even if we talked about anime, we'd always tell them to get off our board or show them a link to /b/ or something since /pol/ didn't quite exist quite yet. And this was done to everyone regardless of their political leanings back then.

But your not here to talk about guns, or weapons, or war stuff. You're here to spout your crap because you feel the need to validate your political views here heroically behind a computer screen.

Go make your own thread on pol or b faggot.

>>33808364
>basically everyone left of centre is going to be loaded up into a helicopter and dropped in the ocean?
In a society built around private property rights, perhaps not into the ocean, but certainly somewhere other than on private property. Odds are it would be a non-issue as the overwhelming majority would leave on their own accord, or better yet stop being leftists. But if you imagine a libertarian society would be any place for leftists, you need to think about it some more.

>actively harm them first
So if I aim my rifle at you and tell you that I'm going to blow your fucking head off, you think the libertarian thing to do would be to wait until the bullet enters your skull, thereby doing you active harm and allowing you to retaliate?

>dissenting viewpoints of a non-communist nature
Libertarianism isn't only concerned with communism, I hope you realize. Statism is the primary threat, communism is simply a subset of that larger ideology.

>despite them not being commies by any sane man's definition
For fucks sakes, we went over this at least 3 times already. They are actual, literal, self-identifying communists. They are members of the Communist Party of Canada. They wave black and red flags. How much clearer can I make this for you to get it through your head? Or are you just rusing me by pretending to be retarded?

>>33808399
>not a socialist
The views you've professed (exploitative employers, government regulation of the economy, etc.) clearly put you in the socialist camp. When it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

>>33808429
I know. But I take a perverse pride in becoming 'known' without ever having to trip or namefag.

Besides, half the time you don't even know I'm posting because I'm not getting angry about anything. Just like real life, it sticks out more when people are negative, meanwhile when taking part in the many fun conversations I've had in here and other threads, I'm just another faceless anon, so noone is going to remember. But this nonsense, about how it's totally a Libertarian thing to wish you could kill people en masse, claiming they believe in politics that the vast majority of them most definitely do not, is the kind of shit that brings the anger right to the fore. Since I actually have been here for years, and remember when /k/ would line up to spit on someone like this, who's proudly claiming that their brand of statism is only going to oppress commies.

>>33808518
Maybe we should just start calling you autistic Halifax guy, instead.

>>33808552
Maybe we should call you a Trudeau supporter

>>33808552
I agree

>>33808552
>>33808689
How about autistic halifax explosion?

Too much?

>>33808729
The halifaxians deserve a second nuclear bombing.

>>33808741
You deserve another four years of Trudeau you fucking sodomist!

>>33808752
>socialist
I'm a saskie. Get off my land and let me grow my wheat.

>>33808741
Jeez are halifax guys that bad, or is it just autistic halifag? Serious question, never been anywhere near the maritimes.

>>33808752
We know you'd vote for him regardless, buttlover.

>>33808777
Sorry.

>>33808790
N-no you're wrong. Halifax number one!

>>33790954
Finally, a Globe and Mail cartoon that isn't far off from the truth.

>>33790954
>>33808806
We actually managed to meme something..... from a Canada thread no less.

File: 1319461_1[1].jpg (47KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 630x630px

>>33808463
You were begging for pic related when you said that.

But in all honestly, I don't really know anymore. The NDP fell apart after Jack Layton died, and the liberal party is pants on head. Normally the Tories have one or more onerous platforms or other preferences that keep me from voting for them, but if Maxime Bernier becomes their leader then I can't see any other logical choice than to support the Conservative party, assuming the local MP isn't somehow detestable. It's almost like I don't mindlessly follow any one party, and look at their whole platform before deciding on which is 'best', rather than having some knee-jerk or mindless reaction to the party name.

>>33808502
>Odds are it would be a non-issue as the overwhelming majority would leave on their own accord, or better yet stop being leftists.
So you're saying after Libertarians took over (presumably by force), everyone who didn't agree with them would just have to get the fuck out? Despite these people owning their property lawfully, and having every right to stay where the fuck they were. Or if they don't want to leave, they have to convert to a set of political beliefs that are approved of by the state or face legal or social repercussions? That's the kind of "Libertarian" society you imagine?

>They're aiming a rifle at me.
No, most of the things you are claiming as an attack are nothing of the sort. Some of which are the same things you keep screaming are "socialist". Like regulations on business that prevent them from abusing their employees or wrecking the environment. Noone is attacking you with laws that require people to wear helmets on construction sites, or says companies can't just dump leftover chemicals down the drain.

>Some of them are actual commies!
>so we should just attack everyone to be sure!
That's what you've been screaming from the beginning, btw.

>>33808841
I didn't ask for you which party you associate with, I'm asking you what your personal ideology is.

>>33808863
My personal ideology is that you're a faggot, Anon.

>>33808883
After the last debate, Scheer was talking-shit about Bernier for having a political platform derived from his ideology rather than just whatever Canadians wanted. He went on to say that he didn't think they lost the last election because "they weren't libertarian enough".

The thing is, if you don't make decisions based on an actual philosophy, then you just turn into, AT BEST, a wishy-washy person. At worst, you become an opportunistic asshole. I, for one, want a PM who knows what I want because he follows the same ideology, not just following whatever will get him the fattest brown envelopes or have to rely on me calling/writing him or having a poll conducted.

Based on your comments, you seem to prefer the latter.

>>33808863
He likes the NDP and unions so that is indicative of a few things. He knows he can't answer honestly since hes not brave enough to defend them. That's why you get this kinda response >>33808883.

>>33809005
Even if he doesn't answer the questions for us, these are questions he should be answering for himself.
Something is going to give sooner or later and knowing where you stand is important. You can either be the boot, the tread upon or a snake.

>>33808841
>Despite these people owning their property lawfully, and having every right to stay where the fuck they were.
If they are the rightful owners of that property, they could stay there as long as they pleased. Whether they would rather remain in a society surrounded by libertarians, or sell their property and move to a region populated by their fellow socialists, is up to them. However, do recall that most people are not landowners. Those who own land would be able to dictate the terms of tenancy or other use of their property. After a time of buying and selling of property titles, you would see an increase in contiguous properties belonging to like-minded people in a given geographic area. These are what we call "societies". A libertarian society (that is, the collection of individual landowners who are libertarians) would be unlikely to tolerate anti-libertarian views and behaviors on their properties. Those who espouse those views, or engage in those behaviors, would be physically removed from the property.

Perhaps you're confused because you may be thinking of libertarian minarchism. I am, as I imagined it was plainly clear, talking about libertarian anarchism.

>regulations on business that prevent them from abusing their employees
Laws against battery and assault prohibit employers from abusing their employees, or engaging in any other violence toward them. Clarify the nature of this "abuse", and the method by which laws prohibiting it are enforced.

Similarly, environmental damage is already covered by existing property laws. Clarify the nature of these environmental laws, and the method by which they are enforced.

>so we should attack everyone to be sure
>That's what you've been screaming from the beginning, btw.
Care to provide a quote? Shouldn't be hard, everything is on record ITT.

>>33808863
Personal ideology is hard to dumb down into a single 4chan post. And I'm hardly going to go on at length just for someone to end up latching on to one aspect and declaring that it proves I'm a dirty commie!

But to summarize things I'm still very idealistic when it comes down to it, but I temper my idealism with pragmatism, where the people on the extremes of other side tend to be obsessed with one or the other. As far as everything goes though, I believe that personal liberty is just about the most important thing to be defended in our society. People have the right to believe what they want, as long as they don't go out and hurt people because of it. The government should not restrict the populace's access to firearms and other means of self defence. It doesn't have the right to spy on you, or decide that one group of people deserves less rights because they don't think the 'right things' or are different in some arbitrary way. And that generally government and the justice system exist to help navigate the grey areas that exist where the rights of two people collide (whose rights take precedence, is there a way to compromise so that both party's rights are respected, etc.?).

Where I'm going to disagree with some of you is that I think a person's right not to be treated like shit is more important than the right of someone else to discriminate against them, order them to work in unsafe conditions, or otherwise impact them in some negative way that doesn't actually constitute an attack on their person. The kind of passive-aggressive assholes who are fine with the kind of abuses that states throughout history have been reviled for when a private entity is the one behind them.

>>33809103
>I believe that personal liberty is just about the most important thing to be defended in our society
> I think a person's right not to be treated like shit is more important than the right of someone else to discriminate against them, order them to work in unsafe conditions, or otherwise impact them in some negative way that doesn't actually constitute an attack on their person
Pick one and only one. You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the definition of "personal liberty" and the necessary implications thereof. This might explain why your positions are so nonsensical.

>>33809103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrT0kBeld3Q

>>33809095
>the people who don't think like we do would leave because we'd go out of our way to make them want to, or just plain remove them by force for being "anti-libertarian"
Since your definition of anti-libertarian seems to be anything that isn't "libertarian anarchism", the society you're dreaming of doesn't sound like it will be free at all, and would just be another kind of statism.

>Clarify the nature of this abuse and provide references!
I've already explained that trying to force workers to work in unsafe conditions, and other shit that laws exist to prevent (the ones you refer to as "oppression") is an abuse of their rights and shouldn't be tolerated from a private enterprise any more than it would be tolerated from a state. And no amount of screaming that they signed up for the job obliviates that.

Meanwhile existing property laws don't cover the environmental impact of some industries sufficiently. Especially in cases where the damage is not immediately apparent, or where the property belongs to no single entity (like a river or other public waterway).

While the oft-suggested idea (not mentioned yet) that people could combat shit like that by 'voting with their dollar' and taking their business elsewhere is laughable considering the lengths that some companies go to to intimidate or bribe people into keeping silent about when they fuck up massively, and otherwise hiding the information that would drive away their customers.

>>33809122
>implying the right-wing definition of personal liberty is the only one
Sorry, but if you believe that the 'right' to ban niggers from your store for no reason is more important than the right not to be banned from someone's store for no reason, then you're the one who has a tenuous grasp of personal liberty.

>>33809189
>would just be another kind of statism.
Do you bother learning the definitions of words any more, or do you just prefer to make them up as you go along?

Let's spell it out for you. Libertarianism is an ideology that rejects states as illegitimate aggressors. Libertarians act toward removing the power of the state. Democrats and statists, on the other hand, embrace states as being just and proper. They act toward establishing and increasing the power of the state. If you wish to maintain a libertarian society, why would you harbor people on your property who, if given the chance, would organize against you and revert your society to that of statism? I realize you're not at all a libertarian, but at least try to understand the motivation of both sides here.

> trying to force workers to work in unsafe conditions
And I've already asked you to clarify what you mean by that. What happens to a worker who is "forced" to work in unsafe conditions, and refuses to do so? What rights are being abused?

>where the damage is not immediately apparent
If this is the case, no additional laws can serve to prevent this damage. Let's take, for instance, heavy metal toxicity. Suppose that an industrial firm is introducing mercury or lead onto your property. You will only see negative effects as a result of this after a long period of time. So, how would you know whether or not their actions constitute damage to self or property? By establishing a causal link between the action, and the resultant harm. Due to medical science, we now know that people can suffer harm from ingesting heavy metals. In a scenario where one party is putting heavy metals onto another party's property, it is most reasonable to expect that harm will be caused. We do not have to wait for that harm to actually become apparent in order to dispute the activity, any more than you would have to wait for a bullet to strike you when someone starts shooting at your feet in order to make you dance.
cont.

>>33809189
>where the property belongs to no single entity (like a river or other public waterway)
There is a very simple solution to this.

>and otherwise hiding the information that would drive away their customers
The most well-funded intelligence and sigint agencies on the planet cannot keep their information confidential. When it is found that a company has witheld information about relevant business practices resulting in damages, those responsible must be held for fraud to the shareholders, as well as obligated to pay damages to those harmed by their actions. Liability cannot be as limited as it is today, because it removes a significant disincentive to behave.

>more important than the right not to be banned from someone's store for no reason
There is no such right. On a related note, can I come stay at your house for a little while?

Hey Halifax guy, what guns do you own? A totally random anon, just genuinely curious.

>>33809407
>it's not statism when we do it because we're not a state! We're just a group of like-minded people who organize along political beliefs and wish to enact those beliefs as a whole across society! And anyone who disagrees with us will leave, by force if necessary.
Well I will say that your specific brand of autocracy hasn't been tried before. But that doesn't mean it's going to work.

>What happens to a worker who is "forced" to work in unsafe conditions, and refuses to do so?
There's laws protecting workers from being forced to engage in work that they feel is unsafe, whether by the nature of the work itself or the conditions of the workplace (ie: a water leak that makes the floor slippery needs to be fixed, or old tools replaced if their action has become faulty). As well there are investigatory boards ran both by private and public interests who's role is to monitor the general situation regarding safety in the workplace. In the case of private safety boards, usually they exist only on a per company basis.

Is the above also the kind of thing you'd see as oppression?

>Suppose that an industrial firm is introducing mercury or lead onto your property.
The problem with your argument that property laws are enough for this, is that it relies entirely on civil court proceedings to prove, with the burden of proof being on the plaintiff. A multi-million dollar company could drown an individual plaintiff in paperwork simply by calculating whether it would cost more to settle or fight. Having a clear and concise legal restriction makes the responsibility of the firm indisputable, and prevents them from punishing those who wish to bring complaints forward, by hitting them court costs or other punitive damages in retaliation.

Also you didn't cover the point about damage to property that isn't owned by a specific entity. Not to mention that water and especially air pollution affects everyone in a general area by nature of the medium itself.

>>33809509
>wish to enact those beliefs as a whole across society!
Across the private property that we own. Big difference between that and statism.

>Is the above also the kind of thing you'd see as oppression?
You didn't answer any of my questions. I never asked you about extant laws. I asked you what you meant by employers forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions, what happens when those workers refuse, and which rights are being abused in the process. Try again, please.

>drown an individual plaintiff in paperwork simply by calculating whether it would cost more to settle or fight
The entire reason this tactic exists is because of the bloated governmental legal system and sheer amount of legislation that it has to sift through for every case. In the example we are discussing, it takes little work to demonstrate to a given court that a high concentration of heavy metals on one's property is the result of neighboring industrial activity that produces those same heavy metals. There is nothing complicated about this, and nobody need drown in paperwork in order to resolve the dispute.

>damage to property that isn't owned by a specific entity...especially air pollution
Quite simple. Can you demonstrate to a court harm as a result of this pollution? If so, great. If not, too bad.

If a factory releases ammonia into the air by your acreage, it's quite easy to demonstrate harm. Conversely, if you are a raging hippie and claim that your neighbor's car is producing CO2 and destroying the planet and you along with it, it is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate.

>>33809438
>hurr, related note, can I stay at your house?
>hurr, if you say no that's totally the same as banning people from a store for no reason
The difference is my house is a private dwelling. I do not open the doors every day with a sign out front that says "come on in!" with the intention of selling people things. So when someone I don't like comes to my door, I'm not depriving them of any freedom that anyone else has when I close it in their face.

But when you own a store, and tell people to come on in and buy your stuff, but then start stopping some of them because they fit some arbitrary criteria that you don't like and they cannot change (historically this has been race, but it could be something else just as stupid), you're using personal liberty as an excuse to engage in the same behavior that many a state has done in the past and rightly been reviled for, wherein it places one or more race or other groups below the rest, and affords them a lesser degree of freedom than everyone else. For more of your brand of irony, the laws in the south that protected segregation were created at the urging of people who wanted their 'freedom' defended against crazy things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that 'forced' them to treat blacks like human beings.

>>33809677
So if I had a sign that said "no shirt, no shoes, no service", what would you say?

>>33809645
>you never answered my questions
First of all, most of your questions are thinly veiled accusations of me being a commie. Or are overly specific as to be irrelevant to the conversation. Kinda like your bullshit about asking to stay at my house.

Secondly you're the one making the rules of this crazy 'libertarian' society, why don't you tell me what would happen? Because here in reality, where we care about the lives of actual people, if someone refuses to work in unsafe conditions, then nothing happens to them in the ideal. Shit, some companies like that sort of thing, because they recognize that having conditions that are actually unsafe for people to work in, doesn't help them profit at all. But overall, your employer can't enact reprecussions on you for refusing to do something dangerous, outside of the job you signed up to do (ya know, like being a fireman and having to go into burning buildings). Because I feel like I just have to point out that there's a difference between being the danger of being a lumberjack, and trees falling over around you, and dying in an otherwise preventable accident that is caused by a failure to act on the part of the people at the company.


>the government are the ones to blame for vague bullshit that corporations use to escape legal reprecussions!
>it totally wouldn't happen if there was no government to get in the way!
Now you're just being retarded. For one thing, the average property owner isn't going to notice the contamination until it starts affecting them or their property in some visible way, or if they set up a lot of sophisticated testing equipment to look for it beforehand. Meanwhile the company that is defending itself gets to hire all the experts it can afford to claim that the toxins came from another company's plan, were already in the ground, are completely harmless, or any other of a number of excuses.


>Can you demonstrate to a court harm as a result of this pollution?
Can you be any less of a shill?

>>33809701
>implying this is the same as a "no blacks" policy
I'd say you're retarded for even making the comparison.

>>33809448
I own an SKS, like pretty much everyone seems to. And I own a 12 gauge remington and a .306 of some kind, both of which are at my cousins' up in Canso because I used to go hunting with him when I was younger and more of a fudd (I was very much one in my 20's, and often just borrowed from my cousins' vast collection of fudd guns, mostly shotguns with a few hunting rifles and .22's). He eventually switched to hunting with bows because he likes the challenge more, while I prefer firearms for the technical aspects of them.

Been thinking about getting my Restricted lately too.

>>33809856
>doesn't have restricted
Come on man.

>>33809879
>Come on man.
I was a total fudd for a long time, long before I started coming to 4chan, and as crazy as it sounds debating people here, yes debating (in the generally civil way we've been talking in the last few posts), is one of the things that finished bringing me around to the right way of thinking when it comes to firearms.

I'm honestly embarrassed to think back to some of the shit I'd argue about with people I'm still friends with now (a couple of whom are veterans, that I know from being a nerd and visiting gaming stores), and how against silencers and CCW I was. And just for the record, I'm not against those anymore. If nothing else good came from it, I think it gave me some perspective on people's opposition to those things and other stuff related to firearms, because in mine it was entirely ignorance, and can't help but think that is true of most people who are anti-guns in part or whole.

>>33809927
Wait, are you the lefty or the righty in this arguement?

File: 20170430_031058.jpg (1008KB, 1152x1906px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 1152x1906px

Truly a weapon to surpass metal gear

>>33810016
>g3 magazine
I'm calling the fucking cops. Enjoy prison. Keep that shit off our streets.

>>33809677
>you're using personal liberty as an excuse to engage in the same behavior that many a state has done in the past
No. The state uses coersion to compel positive action. When you deny access to your property, you are merely exercising your rights to that property. Anything less renders that right meaningless.

Remember when I asked whether you believed capital was categorically different from personal property? This is precisely the answer I was looking out for. Only socialists and communists maintain that capital is somehow special, and comes with special rules that don't apply to other forms of property. It is patent nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

If I was denied entry into a store because I have brown hair, I'd be annoyed, certainly. But I would not consider it a violation of my rights, because that presupposes that I have some right to be there, and my right supercedes the right of that proprietor to his property.

>most of your questions are thinly veiled accusations of me being a commie
Answer the fucking questions, it really isn't that difficult.

>average property owner isn't going to notice the contamination
If someone living next to, or downstream from, an industrial facility, it is in their interest to monitor the purity of their air and water if they are going to be consuming it. There would almost certainly be prohibitions on releasing toxic pollutants in a libertarian society (and a major disincentive in doing so through the mechanism of insurance, as well as the risk of litigation). The vast majority of courts would enforce this, since unspoiled property is a demand shared by the vast majority of people. Or were you under the impression that libertarians enjoy eating mercury and breathing phosgene?

>Can you be any less of a shill?
Stop it with the non-arguments already. It hasn't worked before, and it's not going to start working any time soon.

>>33809927
>because in mine it was entirely ignorance
Now ask yourself if that level of self-awareness stretches beyond the topic of firearms. Could it be that you hold other beliefs that might be based on ignorance or misinformation? Or was it just guns, and now the time for examining one's views is finished?

>>33810055
>because that presupposes that I have some right to be there
And you assume that that is the issue, and not the fact that people have a right not to be treated as a lesser form of citizen for arbitrary reasons like the ones you're defending. You're trying to use the case for individual freedom as justification for trying to infringe on the freedom of others, and crying oppression when anyone steps in to stop you. You're preaching hypocrisy.

>If someone living next to, or downstream from, an industrial facility, it is in their interest to monitor the purity of their air and water if they are going to be consuming it.
The equipment and expertise required to monitor those varied sorts of things in an effective and reliable manner are neither cheap nor easy to learn, which is why there's a specialized body who does the job, instead of everyone fending for themselves.

>Stop it with the non-arguments already!
You first. As for your fucking questions, you don't get to demand specifics about what constitutes unsafe working conditions, pollution, or worker abuse, you should use some fucking common sense instead of demanding a detailed explanation like a fucking retard who needs the entire concept explained to him.

>>33810071
>hurr hurr, have you ever considered you're ignorant about more than firearms.
Sure, I don't know what a shill who loves private industry more than individual freedom, for instance. But I don't consider ignorance of that to be a flaw, like you do.

Meanwhile my beliefs on personal liberty are influenced by my personal experiences, and my beliefs in what constitutes civic virtues, and christian values.

>>33808251
You are not a libertarian if you believe this. This is objectively 100% wrong. What is to stop your targets from deciding to carry out preemptive defensive violence against you? They would be justified since you by your own admission were planning violence against them.

To have a civil society, groups need to coexist even if they disagree. Pre-empty sky targeting groups because of their ideological unsuitability is well down the path to a totalitarian hellhole

>>33811059
*preemptively

>>33794338

>Turkish made Roachgun

Pass. Buy a Mossberg, at least they're made in the US.

>>33798163

Same. And any time a Jewgun is posted on /r/guns it gets an inexplicable thousands of upvotes. That while site is trash.

File: 4lDD3VTh.jpg (69KB, 618x545px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 618x545px

>>33811059
The NAP isn’t enough to stabilise or effectively reach an Ancap Society, as a degree of social trust is involved in doing so. That is, the economic reality has to be one in that production is incentivised and parasitism and free riding i.e. demand for the state is minimised or outright non-existent. Although such an issue is far more prominent under a liberal democracy, as the accumulated actions of private property owners can ethically exclude members from their communes and social orders. Under democracy, a system that perpetuates the demand for the state over time, a degree of force is necessary to obtain such a social order to begin with. That degree of force being the physical removal of those who free ride or vote to incentivise free riders through expanding the welfare state.

>>33794226
what the fuck

>>33811198
Canuck, not Canik. New-ish Canadian company. They make some pretty nice Hi Powers too from what I've heard. I'll never buy from the turkroaches, only used

>>33811666
Hint: if you believe the use of force is necessary to stabilize society, you aren't an anarchist.

You ideology will, without doubt, lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.

>>33810053
pretty sure that's a Valmet M78 in 308

>>33810140
>And you assume that that is the issue.
This is precisely the issue. It is a matter of property rights, the right to property being a fundamental right stemming from the right to life and self-ownership. If you have the right to your property, you must necessarily have the right to include or exclude people from that property. If you cannot, it cannot be said that you have the right to that property.

>and not the fact that people have a right not to be treated as a lesser form of citizen for arbitrary reasons
There is no such right. There is no right to "nice treatment", or to "not be offended", or any other claptrap you people parrot. These alleged rights cannot be rights because they must infrige on the right to property, and in order for a theory of rights to be coherent, rights cannot contradict other rights.

>why there's a specialized body who does the job
And like I said, it is almost certain that libertarian societies would prohibit the emission of toxic waste in a manner that would affect the life and property of neighbors. What are we arguing here?

>use some fucking common sense
Again, answer the questions. I want you to write it out so you (or at least, less retarded people who share your views but never really thought about them) can at least see where the glaring inconsistencies lie. How do employers force workers to work in unsafe conditions? What happens if the workers refuse? What rights are being abused when this happens?

This isn't for me, because I already have a good understanding of your position. This is for everyone else to see.

>loves private industry more than individual freedom
They are one and the same. Property is property. There is zero difference between capital and "personal" property you communist shill.

>>33811059
>You are not a libertarian if you believe this.
Maybe you should learn what libertarianism and how it works, before you tell others whether they are libertarians. Libertarian society is not a bunch of peaceniks dancing in a circle singing kumbaya.

>They would be justified since you by your own admission were planning violence against them.
They would not, because they were issuing threats in the first place. As I already explained earlier, communism is a revolutionary ideology. They explicitly call for the violent expropriation of capital from its owners, and the transfer of that capital into communist hands.

>to have a civil society, groups need to coexist even if they disagree
Can Canadian society coexist with the Islamic State? No, because IS by definition will take measures to increase its power and change that society according to its own views. You will find that the most stable civil societies are more homogenous in ideology, culture, race, religion, and a myriad of other factors, than others.

What you don't seem to grasp, and I really can't fathom why, is that communism (and more extreme forms of socialism) is not some edgy teenage meme ideology. Maybe you see college commies waving the black and red and you think "huh, noodle-armed hipsters in skinny jeans aren't a threat, what are these right-wing nutjobs complaining about"? I'd advise you to study the history of the Soviet Union, as well as China, and to a lesser extent Cambodia. You will see what communism does. And then maybe you will understand why it is a direct threat to liberty.

File: hgfjjytjtryjyjytrjtyjytjytjty.jpg (300KB, 800x579px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 800x579px

Why can't we just talk about guns in /CG/? Does it always have to devolve into a /pol/esque shitfest?

>>33809786
Those policies were made specifically to target hippies back in the day. I.E.: people with different beliefs. If I'm a retard for making the comparison, you're the biggest hypocrite to post on the internet.

>Captcha is a vw minibus

>>33812413
It's one commie invader talking to himself. The mods themselves don't care because they agree with him. Try 4+4chan if you want real content.

>>33812473
>Implying it gets any traffic

>>33811666
>a degree of force is necessary to obtain social order to begin with
And it's not statism when you do it, because?

>>33812271
>There is no right to "nice treatment", or to "not be offended"
This isn't about feelings, this is about turning people into 2nd class citizens with less freedom than everyone else because someone's feels tell them to. Or to put it in language you'd understand, there's no right to ignore the rights of fellow citizens when you find them inconvenient (though you're way too much of a goose-stepper for that last point to ever get across).

>it is almost certain that libertarian societies would prohibit the emission of toxic waste in a manner that would affect the life and property of neighbors
I've already mentioned that it is neither simple nor cheap to test for these sorts of things, so unless the Libertarian society would set up a regulatory body (which you've been saying is oppression) there would be vastly less oversight of this issue than there is now. Meanwhile the source of the contamination can be difficult to trace, and increasingly more difficult to prove, the farther you are away from it.

>>33812271
>Answer my questions in full and complete detail!
Yeah here's the thing, Everyone knows I'm not some legal expert. And you're asking me to write out an accurate explanation of the codes regarding protection of workers despite the fact that they are extensive and cover a variety of specifics, making it much too long to explain here even if I was capable of providing a 100% accurate recitation of the laws. I've argued with enough right-wingers to spot one of their stupid 'trap questions', where they just wait for the slightest flaw to pick apart, and declare victory like it negates the person's entire argument.

>I already have a good understanding
You call it oppression and say the people who support these laws and other regulations should be killed! You understanding is far from "good".

Anyone know the specifics of transporting non restricted firearms from my home to the gun range by bus? I live in BC, and a car is currently out of the question.

>>33812644
>a car is currently out of the question.
then my understanding is transporting is currently out of the question.

>>33812644
Where in BC? If it's in or near Vancouver then it's pretty much impossible unless you get a cab or something because they have rules to keep guns off most public transit.

>>33812271
>How do employers force workers to work in unsafe conditions? What happens if the workers refuse? What rights are being abused when this happens?
And they can't force workers to work in unsafe conditions BECAUSE OF LAWS PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO! Duh!

Not every business would do so, certainly. Because most businesses aren't ran by callous fucks. Only a small number of businesses would deliberately go out of their way to abuse workers or force them into unsafe conditions (like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire). But larger businesses can have plenty of room for isolated incidences of lower management going on a power trip, and just like most things, it's the minority of assholes who ruin things for everyone else and force us to live with these rules. Because their relatively rare actions cause enough damage to society as a whole, in various ways, that it's deemed unacceptable to allow them to continue.

As for what happens if a worker refuses to work in conditions that they feel are unsafe, they can report them to the relevant public, or in the case of some businesses private, office that is responsible for overseeing the issue of safety, or whatever the relevant complaint is about. They determine if the complaint is valid, and what measures are required to fix the issue if it is so.

And if someone was to fire you for making a complaint about unsafe working conditions, what right would be violated by that act? Oh.. this is the part you were waiting for... because there's no 'real' right to a safe work place, just more of that common sense and basic decency shit that you hate so much. Well anyway, being fired or suffering from some other form of retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions not only perpetuates the danger caused by the situation, but also makes it clear that those who question or otherwise complain will be punished.

>>33812605
Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs
It's not statism because there is no state controlling it. You should really learn what words mean before using them.

>>33812775
>It's not statism because there is no state controlling it.
You're right, you're planning a "society" not a state. A society that will use coercion, or force, against anyone who doesn't align to its decided political platform.

That's TOTALLY different.

File: 6zwtvrqi6noy.png (688KB, 799x943px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 799x943px

>>33812847
>Centralized control and decentralized control are the same thing
They are complete opposites, but okay.

>>33812458
And they weren't illegal because they don’t discriminate against any particular category of person. Clothes are something you can change, your skin colour is not.

>>33812458
Oh yeah, also there's a lot of sweat glands in the feet and armpits, making it a hygiene issue as well.

>>33812885
When the end result of both are oppression of those with dissenting opinions when they have done nothing else wrong. Yeah they're the same.

>>33812027
The "Canuck" brand isn't the name of the company. It's O'Dell Engineering. "Canuck" is just their house brand. Those particular firearms seem to all be Turkish made and rebranded for sale here.

File: 1492844878593.jpg (12KB, 261x221px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 261x221px

>>33812931
>Someone puts gun to your head
>Orders you to give them your money
>You shoot them
>WOW HE JUST HAD A DISSENTING OPINION, HOW COULD YOU, OPPRESSIVE FASCIST!
>HE DID NOTHING ELSE WRONG
Red logic really fires the neurons

>>33813022
>someone politely comes to your door and asks you to pay your taxes
>you shoot them
>HE WAS OPPRESSING ME! YOU ALL SAW IT!

>>33813036
>collectivist comes to redistribute your property
He dindu

File: addiopizzo.png (92KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 400x400px

>>33813036
Did you know that the French word for "mugging" is "taxage"?
Are you familiar with the "pizzo"? It's the payment that the Italian Mafia charges businesses on "their" territory for "protection".
I'm not even saying that the Mafia is all bad, either. During WWII, they were extremely helpful for the actual people of Italy and helped take down Mussolini. But it is what it is.

>>33813049
>all government is communism!
>anyone who doesn't want to live in our totally free society is a socialist!
Is it hard living in a civilized country where you can't just oppress or kill everyone who triggers your feels?

>>33812913
>>33812921
So if a hippy walked in wearing sandals and a vest instead of shoes and a shirt, turning them away is totally fine? Because that's how it was used.

A modern equivalent, although the sandal would be on the other foot, is if someone walked into your store with a MAGA hat. Would it be justifiable to turn them down?

What if they wore a hijab or a sikh turban? What then?

>>33813036
>You refuse to pay taxes
>Forced to choose between death and jail
Why are you being so fucking retarded? The tax man "politely comes to your door" and threatens you with very oppressive shit, giving you the right to physically remove him.

>>33800821
kys relativist

>>33813132
>So if a hippy walked in wearing sandals and a vest instead of shoes and a shirt
For one thing I'm not going to argue the legalities and moralities of the 60's or 70's, since not only was it a long time ago, but those particular decades were when these issues were being fought over the hardest. My only hard no would be if the place was serving or selling food, because sweaty feet and arm pits.

>MAGA hat
>hijab
>turban
Yes, no, and no. Civil rights laws currently in place don't consider politics to be grounds for discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Dress codes are another area where it is not considered discrimination as long as factors relating to those subjects that are grounds are respected as well (ie: sikh cops being allowed to wear their turbans, and stuff).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html
>the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

>>33813142
http://business.findlaw.ca/article/what-restrictions-can-a-business-impose-on-custome/
>However, discrimination isn’t always as simple as “I was denied service, so I was discriminated against.” There can be more nuance and mitigating factors in the law... A minor couldn’t claim age discrimination if a shop won’t sell them cigarettes or they’re turned away at a liquor store. Businesses serving alcohol are typically expected to deny service to someone who is clearly intoxicated.

>Even if you appear to have been discriminated against, you might have to prove that it actually impacted you in a negative way. In 2004, B.C. resident Ralph Stopps was denied membership at a women’s-only gym. It may sounds like discrimination, but the B.C. human hights tribunal rejected his claim. While it found he was clearly denied membership based on his gender, he failed to demonstrate two important things: that his human dignity was adversely affected by the rejection and that he somehow suffered as a result. The tribunal also concluded his case was basically a political stunt, he fully expected to be rejected, and did it only to make a human rights complaint.

>Competing rights can also complicate a discrimination claim. In the Stopps case, the tribunal also considered that some members went to that club specifically for a female-only space where they feel more comfortable and safe. Stopps had rights, but so did the female members.

>>33812605
>there's no right to ignore the rights of fellow citizens when you find them inconvenient
Nobody has a right to go onto someone else's property. They only have a right to their own property. If you can't grasp this very simple concept, I don't see why in hell you would feel qualified to comment on libertarian subjects.

>so unless Libertarian sociey would set up a regulatory body
Competing regulatory bodies would most certainly exist, though due to the nature of a market-facing arbitration system, they would tend toward a common set of regulations. If you own the land your factory is on, you can certainly produce toxic waste, knowing that if that toxic waste ever leaks out and affects someone else, you will be paying significant damages and facing retribution. Insurers will not do business with those who take no care to prevent this from happening. Security agencies will not protect those who release toxic pollutants on other people's property. And courts will not rule in favor of those who engage in that behavior.

Now, if that doesn't sound like it's enough to absolutely 100% prevent shit like this from happening, know that under a statist system the same thing happens already. Toxic waste gets leaked, despite regulation. Firms have shoddy safety and material handling practices, despite regulation. At worst, the libertarian society will be no worse off in this regard.

>>33812673
>>33812704
Ah, damn it. Cab it is, then.

>>33813344
So you're fine with religious freedoms but not freedom of speech despite bitching about that throughout this entire thread. Good job. How the cognitive dissonance doesn't destroy your mind is beyond me.

>>33813401
>Aha! Gotcha!
You asked if it would be legally justifiable, not what my opinion on it was.

The idealist in me says people shouldn't be able to persecute you for your political beliefs any more than your religious ones, but the pragmatist in me isn't at all surprised that politics aren't explicitly protected. And I can easily imagine a world where legitimate cases would be a minority as each side levied frivolous accusations against the other.

>>33812765
Finally you've decided to start addressing the questions. Unfortunately, you're answering them from the context of current law. We are talking about the philosophical principle of rights (and using examples from a hypothetical libertarian society), so I'm not sure why you think current laws are all that relevant to the question.

>they can't force workers to work in unsafe conditions BECAUSE OF LAWS
My question was HOW they would go about forcing those workers to do so? Would the foreman beat one of the workers until he climbed onto the roof without fall protection equipment? Would the CEO hold one of their children at gunpoint unless they went into a trench without wall reinforcement? You used the word "force" repeatedly, so I'm asking you to explain what you meant.

In the link you provided, the owners were indeed complicit in criminal action and the use of aggressive force by locking the doors and preventing the exit of those workers. You cannot invite someone onto your property, and then forcibly prevent their departure. In a libertarian society, they would be held liable just as they were in a statist one, perhaps moreso depending on the court adjudicating the case.

>as for what happens if a worker refuses to work
I'm not asking about their legal recourse. I'm asking what the company does if the worker refuses to work. You claimed that they could be forced to work in unsafe conditions, so what is the consequence of refusing this forced labor?

>because there's no 'real' right to a safe work place
Thank you. It's telling that it took so long for you to admit this.

>just more of that common sense and basic decency shit that you hate so much
I like it very much. I just don't think you, me, or anyone else has the right to hold someone at gunpoint and command them to be "decent".

>>33813470
Legislation does not dictate morality and my questioning your beliefs has nothing to do with current law and everything to do with your personal stance on the matter. You keep offloading morality to the government to avoid answering substantial questions for yourself.

Right now you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Either you grab hold of the ideals you say you hold inside of you and run with it or you capitulate and become the spineless person government wants you to be.

>>33813036
>politely comes to your door and asks you to pay your taxes
You politely inform him that you don't want his services. What happens next?

>>33813099
>all government is communism
All government is violent statist coersion. Communism is a subset of this. We already went over this, pay attention.

>>33813358
What are you trying to imply with your lazy copy paste? Credible threats from the government aren't discrimination, they're simple fucking oppression by the state. Clearly you're running out of made up arguments at this point, so I fully expect a classic "I'm tired of arguing with you dum dums, I'm too advanced to argue, bye"

>>33813365
>Nobody has a right to go onto someone else's property.
Nobody is saying they do. But by opening up your business to the general public, you're negating your claim that noone is allowed to come onto your property. Turning around and making a list of people that trigger you or otherwise upset your feels, has nothing to do with your property rights. And everything to do with trying to make a legal justification for being a fucking bigot (like I didn't see the whole "ethnically homogonous societies are the best!" line of crap up above). Which as I said was taken to such an extend in the American South, that it was at the urging of business owners that segregation laws, and other measures that violated people's rights, were put in place.

>>33813365
>talks the whole thread about a society that won't have regulations or oppressive government bodies to tell you what to do
>when forced to describe the actual mechanics of how it works, it's just the same shit we have now with a different coat of paint
>At worst, the libertarian society will be no worse off
Considering that your plans to create this wonderful AnCap Paradise it include strict control of politics, pre-emptive violent actions against anyone you deem to be "dangerous", and absolutely arbitrary enforcement of people's rights and freedoms, it certainly doesn't sound at all like a better world.

>>33813579
I'm expecting the "BUT YOU'RE GANGING UP ON ME!", personally.

>>33813530
>Unfortunately, you're answering them from the context of current law.
IE: My answer was too good.

>Would the foreman beat one of the workers until he climbed onto the roof without fall protection equipment?
>You keep using "Force"
>coercion totally isn't a kind of force guys, subtly threatening people is totally a legit way of interacting
Well in the past, beating people is the kind of shit that they used to do. Also I'd say locking people on the factory floor, where they subsequently burned to death because your shitty factory was a fire hazard, is another kind of coercive force that certainly isn't within an employer's right. Just how fucking blind to history are you? And have the gall to somehow pretend that the 'oppression' of the statist government wasn't was stopped this shit. Not to mention that being fired during the industrial revolution, and the other periods in history where abuses of workers were at their height, essentially meant you were condemned to poverty and a slow death on the street, because the supply of workers vastly outstripped the demand, and meant employers didn't have to care about little things like machinery that could easily chew off people's limbs, since they'd be able to find a replacement no problem. While other industries just blacklist people they didn't like.

>I just don't think you, me, or anyone else has the right to hold someone at gunpoint and command them to be "decent".
Considering you have trouble with the NAP part of the social contract, I'm not surprised you don't follow the part about "don't be a shit for no reason". I guess politeness isn't really one of those old fashioned values that folks like you want to go back to.

>you admit it's not a real right
No, I'm sarcastically saying that it's bullshit that you don't think it's a real right. That you think civil rights regarding fair treatment and freedom stop as soon as an individual decides they want to stomp on them, instead of a state.

>>33813565
>All government is violent statist coersion.
>We already went over this
Yes, we already established that you're fucking crazy

>>33813551
>you're letting the government decide morality for you!
No, I actually care about individual rights not to be treated as a lesser human being. I don't need the government to legislate that to know it's wrong to ban black people from your store, because "you want to".

We're about to hit bump limit. Requesting new thread to have shit up by autistic Halifax guy.

>>33813579
>posting factual information about laws is lazy copy pasting
And you claim I'm running out of arguments?

>>33813820
So the Hippies getting turned away for their attire didn't matter because that was decades ago and people being turned away for wearing a baseball hat with 4 letters on it is fine because the law as it currently stands, according to you, doesn't give protections to those people is fine.

>>33813823
It's just some kid doing it for a school project, or because he's being paid. We need a state to remove him.

>>33813823
>I'm autistic because I'm arguing with an insane anarchist who wants to kill everyone he disagrees with

>>33813852
>wearing a baseball hat with 4 letters on it is fine because the law as it currently stands
If you didn't fail at reading comprehension, you'd have seen where I said it shouldn't be fine right here >>33813470

>>33813863
>insane anarchist who wants to kill everyone he disagrees with
>be nice to everyone and do as I say or else my government will lock you up and kill you if you resist
I'm such a civilized and enlightened individual, you anarchists are just crazy murderers!

>>33813863
You're arguing with multiple people and I'm calling you autistic because you have a distinct lack of self awareness and think very highly of your own opinion despite clearly not having put much thought into your actual stance despite having admitted to having held very weak positions in the past based on ignorance. I have hope that you'll realize how silly you're being in the future, but you'll be dragged there kicking and screaming the whole way by reality.

>>33813849
I can post irrelevant legal shit all day, autist. Clearly you're just wasting my time with it because you have no argument.

>>33813931
>the laws about right of refusal are irrelevant
>to a conversation about right to refusal

New Thread

>>33814039

>>33814005
The laws about right of refusal are not the same as the morality surrounding right of refusal and equating them as such is an absurd position that only the most statist among us could even pretend to hold.

Real New Thread

>>33814069
>>33814069
>>33814069

>>33814071
Sure, why not.

>>33813921
>be nice to everyone and do as I say or else my government will lock you up and kill you if you resist
That is generally what happens to people who go out and commit violence against others for no reason.

>and do as I say
Yeah yeah, taxes, regulations, oppression hurr!

>You're arguing with multiple people
I'm aware, and you can call me whatever you want, but I'm neither lacking for self-awareness (as all I do is obsessively self-analyze) or the amount of thought I've put into my stance. Thinking suppressors actually made guns sound like mouse farts 10 years ago, is a far cry from holding the rights of actual people above the rights of someone owns a corner store and wants to be an asshole by banning people for no reason.

>What about the MAGA hat? Or the hippies with their sandals?
Way to chose basically the only two situations concerning clothes that are political, btw. Since noone in their right mind is going to argue against clothes that are otherwise inappropriate to the setting (like how you didn't use the example of a fancy restaurant kicking you out for wearing jeans, or just plain being nude).

>>33814058
>agreeing with the government makes you a statist!
Ahh, more of that "libertarian" wisdom.

>>33814120
> against others for no reason.
Great, so you should be fine with locking up communists.

>taxes, regulations, oppression hurr
What do you call it when someone makes you do something, and threatens to lock you in a cage or simply shoot you if you refuse?

>agreeing with the government makes you a statist!
Do you know the definition of statism? Look it up, and then proceed to hang yourself so that you can't procreate. Doesn't sound like it would happen anyway, but better safe than sorry.

>>33814134
You even said that you believe no one should be discriminated against for their beliefs, be they religious or political, but then agree with the government if they say that people who have specific political beliefs can be discriminated against while also bitching about potentially being discriminated against for holding political beliefs that conflict with the ethical stance you claim an idealistic part of you holds.

You're struggling with yourself and you can't even see it.

>>33805209
Because it's funny, duh. Like when those KSK guys in Afghanistan painted Afrika Korps insignia on their vehicles.

>>33814153
>you should be fine for locking up people who've done nothing wrong but belong to a political ideology that triggers me!
>and more likely don't actually belong to the ideology, but have just been labelled as a member because I'm too fucking ignorant to know better
No, I don't like statism, sorry.

>They're making me obey laws of civilized society, and pay my share of the public works that I use and benefit from every day! Waaaah!
Yeah, that's some horrible oppression right there. Also, if you refuse to pay taxes, they don't immediately lock you up or shoot you. They send people to try and reason with you, and often fine you first. Like a civilized society does.

>Do you know the definition of Statism?
>In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.
And despite all your claims to be an anarchist who loves freedom, all you've said about your desires for political and social policy paint you squarely as a statist, because the only way to enact the kind of society you're talking about is through control of social and political beliefs. Centralized or decentralized, whatever form the governing apparatus takes, the only way to achieve such a society you describe is by actively controlling what political and social beliefs are considered acceptable. Which doesn't need to exactly fit the definition for anyone on /k/ to be able to tell you that THAT is statism.

>>33814071
only if these faggots fuck off to reddit

>>33813764
>>33814120
>>33814153