>Opposed to feminists, to SJW and PC shit but heartless capitalist union-crushing monster
>Champion of poor and struggling working class people but opposed to heterosexual men
>Get heartless capitalist monsters with feminism and PC culture as a surrogate
>He thinks capitalism is something you "choose"
Faggot, capitalism is the natural state of affairs. Natural Selection. The dividends of life being paid to the investor. People will always move toward efficiency and productivity. Like in the wild, the best animal succeeds and carries on its genes. The best humans will mate the most, accrue the most in terms of accolades,social status, and wealth. Genetically inferior people cast aside and manipulated by the Caste above them.
Strip away money, private property, and everything else. It won't make a fucking difference.
It matters what you make out of the "natural state of affairs".
Like, women are only attracted to the top 20% of males. So, monogamy was a good way to deal with that. Otherwise you get 20% men who have harems full of sluts while 80% of men turn into betas.
Same with capitalism: 20% of men will be well-off while 80% of men will fight for the scraps
i dont even know what point you're trying to make. but I think feminists are basically capitalists only fighting for women's rights specifically as a worker and consumer, so they are kind of allies in my opinion. both are opposing traditional values and family values and stability for narcissism and solipsism.
Capitalism is not a system, it only "works" within a historical framework of capitalism by justifying its existence through the essentialist concepts of traditional economics. In this way, it becomes impossible to argue with the claim that capatilism works because you will only understand theories (both capitalism and others) as bad or good capitalism, making a discussion of capitalism in a more dialectal dissoluble
>capitalism requires people to do unnecessary work for "muh jobs"
>tfw we could be working towards an economy where almost every job is performed by a machine so humans could have everything we want and do whatever we want
>tfw I've tried to explain this to people and they always replay "well how do people get money to pay for things?"
>tfw they don't understand that we don't need to earn currency, and resources would be readily available.
>He thinks I literally mean best humans
>He didn't understand the natural inequality of talent leading to the inequality of wealth, mates, and happiness
>country switches to communism
>goes from pre-industrial to first ever country in space in less than 50 years
>The best humans will mate the most, accrue the most in terms of accolades,social status, and wealth.
actually the stupid, poor people tend to be the ones that reproduce the most.
if people are naturally good, you have nothing to fear by granting them individual rights
if people are naturally bad then this will be reflected by the government and you should push for individual rights so you have a way of escaping it
That would be quite nice, but i think that jobs could still exist even if labor was fully automated.
Yes, people would be able to more freely choose their roles, but demands would still be placed on them because of the nature of society.
if people are naturally good, then the government will be good and take good care of people
if people are naturally bad then a government of the best people possible should be made to limit the effects of the worse people
>he makes arguments so shitty that they can be used by either side
It's unfortunate that a lot of earth metals needed for electronics originate in Africa where there tends to be less law enforcement to stop the abuse of humans but I'm not really how slavery is a result of capitalism? Slavery has been prevalent in Africa for thousands of years, it's not really a recent thing caused by 'capitalism'. By the time it does reach where it is processed into materials that can be used in manufacture it's difficult to distinguish it between earth metals obtained through mutual co-operation with the laborers and the mine operators.
As far as energy acquired through Imperialism... What? At most you could argue that the West has forced the Middle East to sell us oil through war, but that'd be really pushing it. The oil embargo of the 70's wasn't resolved with war.
As far as sweatshops go, they're terrible and no one would want to work there but for people in developing nations the pay is usually twice what they would normally get through 'traditional' employment (see, farming, forestry, ect.). Sweatshop work is entirely voluntary and allows people in developing countries to have a higher income, which allows them to increase their standard of living. Without sweatshop work you aren't doing them any favors, you're keeping them impoverished by standards of the west.
I just got baited damn.
I feel you man, i have this problem as well. At first i was a "male feminist" kind of leftist, but now i can't stand feminists, special snowflakes, etc. All of them are just capitalists looking for a cause to defend. People seem to have forgotten that being left-wing is not about wearing flip-flops, smoking pot or screaming at men. Those people have literally hijacked the ideology and made it a joke. I mean, you can always remain an orthodox commie, it is a great way to comprehend the world (despite what people who haven't dedicated time to Marx may say), but i don't see it being too pragmatic in today's world. Marx and Engels have great thesis (specially "young Marx"), so does Lenin, Lukacs (fuggen ASCII), Debord, Losurdo, etc. Stay away from the "new-left" and you may form interesting critiques to capitalism. The problem is that you will always be associated with them.
I have no fucking idea what you're saying, because it doesn't make sense. That whole last line.
>Get heartless capitalist monsters with feminism and PC culture as a surrogate
You should go find your mother, you shouldn't be on this website.
The left used to fight for higher wages, for labor rights, social security and things like that.
All of these things have been destroyed, now more and more people are working minimum wage jobs, the middle class is disappearing.
As a surrogate, the left has been given a scapegoat to fight.
They don't talk about the "petite bourgeoise" anymore or things like that, they don't even use that vocabulary anymore, and instead they fight "cis*privileged men" and shit like that.
Capitalism is not the "natural state of affairs". Humanity has produced the most diverse kinds of systems during the progression of human history. You just lack the capacity of thinking outside of the logic you were born into. Probably somene during feudalism would try to justify it saying it was God's will. Different ideologies for different times, both with the same purpose.
i would say anarchist capitalism is the most natural state of affairs you could possibly get. if i had to describe the economic system that animals used, that would probably be it.
Controlling the population via genocide isnt a commie thing. Its a russian thing. Russians did it before, during, and after communism.
Same with China, they did it before communism, and not because of communism.
le bombastic while saying nothing more than "you can't prove it works because it works for the people at the top, but not the bottom"
Way to be a faggot.
wow, such superfluous diction
suspended in incredulity am I
so intelligent, wow
If you're a true "working class hero", you'd support free market capitalism. Why?
Under free market capitalism, the individual has the most control over money (which is a measurement of power) he earns.
Under free market capitalism, I can sell my labour for what I think it's worth, or I can start my own business.
Under any form of leftism, the working class inherently has less freedom as they are subordinate to a collective ideal generated by a elite. More money is taken from people who earned it and spent by the government " for the better of all".
Recently there was a massive man hunt in South China near where I live to look for a lost girl named Mei, lol. Probably upwards of a million dollars in lost revenue of people who stopped working to search for her.
>Under any form of leftism, the working class inherently has less freedom
>under free market capitalism, you have to work or you die from starvation or exposure
>under a social democracy, you can choose not to work and still have housing and food
>the one with more freedom demands that you work or die
>the one with less freedom allows you to choose to work
you may want to reconsider your definition of freedom.
When my arguments are used by the other side you end up saying naive things like this.
>the government will be good and take good care of people
>a government of the best people possible should be made
Government is necessary evil not an ideal.
I'm naive? Your the one that posted a horrible false dichotomy that falls even if you apply its own shitty standards to it
>people have to be good or bad, it's impossible for people to be neutral or for some to be good and some bad
>if people are bad you can escape it by not having government but completely ignore the fact that you are naturally bad and you will do bad things if no one regulates your behavior
Yep. It has taken over every leftist movement. Look at leddit/r/anarchism, it has a set of anti-oppression rules to protect the feelings of the queer/transkin/anarcho-fem faggots. An anarchist subreddit.
>Be white American master race
>Still a virgin
>None of my fellow wageslaves at Subway respect me
>Tyrone just started working there last week and he's already dating that blond Stacy who I've been crushing on all year
>Feel insecure due to this
>Develop a negative attitude and rationalize a sense superiority over other people to protect my ego
>Post about it on /r9k/ every day
Capitalism and conservatism(social) are at direct odds with each other, it's odd how they became part of the same platform. Same with social welfare and immigration\globalism.
Probably the kikes desu.
>Money is the only thing there is
>GDP is somehow related to people being good or bad
East Germany: 57 percent defended the former GDR
>doing something that benefits other people at your expense because you believe it is ideologically right is being a cuckold
by that logic, any capitalist who ever works for anyone else is a cuckold
>Capitalism and conservatism(social) are at direct odds with each other, it's odd how they became part of the same platform. Same with social welfare and immigration\globalism.
The capital either goes to misery (and outsources jobs to China, Mexico) or it imports misery (low-wage immigration).
Capitalism is part of the problem when it comes to open borders.
Capitalism and conservatism walk hand and hand, at least in North American politics. Why? Conservatives understand the beauty of personal accountability and the value of economic liberty. Economic liberty is the freedom to do what you want with the money you earn. Leftists wish to take more of your money to fund one of their genius plans.
However, some modern Conservatives have lost sight of the meaning of being conservative and only ride the wave of the leftist policies that have dug into the West.
2. How does that affect the argument one way or another? You can't argue the philosophy or economics of it so you say "I bet I can bench more than you?" Really?
3. Yes, Virginia, I can bench more than 95 lbs.
Choose to work for yourself. When I was 12 I played with some old computers. I taught myself how to refurbish old IDE machines. I'd find them for dirt cheap or for free then I'd sell them for around 50$ once completed. I did this for years building alright (for the times) Windows XP machines.
Under leftism that sort of behaviour is considered greedy.
>describes you perfectly
Pro tip, fulfilled well adjusted people don't need to put others down to convince themselves that they have any worth.
The fact that you thought others would view it as worth was you projecting your own twisted perception on others.
That was the dead give away.
There is a massive excess of labor which has driven down its worth, at the same time property prices continue to rise and those who have accumulated enough wealth are strengthening their monopoly.
the study found that people with higher upper body strength have economic views that favor their station. so
have higher strength and
have lower strength.
What, family values is inconsistent with capitalism, cultural preservation, restriction of immigration is inconsistent with capitalism. Like I wrote above, socisl conservatism is inconsistent with capitalism.
You're delusional if you think the GOP is supported because of its economic platform, donald trump is sufficient evidence of that.
>I'm a dumb cunt who dropped her phone in the parking lot while cradling it with her head and neck while wearing a purse, carrying shopping bags, and sucking on a Starbucks
>it's designed to break!
You paint a "fixed pie" fallacy. While there is an excess of labour, and property values may be high in one region, the markets always abide to the rules of supply and demand.
Protectionist policies as well as maintaining traditional family values and a sane immigration policy would make labour more valuable.
There is no "us and them". There is no one behemoth monopoly corporate ruling us all. The only way that could ever happen is through the government intertwining itself in a economy. See the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China for examples.
The free market is inherently anti-monopoly as competition always arises. Anyone can start a business, and as businesses grow, innovation stagnates as bureaucracy rises. An example is Space X.
Space X is a company pioneering privatized space travel. Already they've sucessfully designed and tested a reusable rocket that will heavily reduce the cost to go to space. They came out of nowhere and have already outdone any government project.
Google is another new company. In 1995 Google didn't exist. In 2015 Google is one of the biggest corporations in the world. Google will rise, and inevitably fall to new competition.
Polaroid is a old company. Their company could not adapt to new changes in photographic equipment and thus they are no more. They could not keep up.
>tl;Dr there is no fixed pie corporations rise and fall all the time the rich man today may be poor tomorrow
I've been saying this for years - pure free market politics is diametrically opposed to Christian morality. US Republican party walks a razor's edge trying to balance the two, but it leads to some cognitive dissonance and some contradictory positions (for example, strongly anti-abortion but opposed to welfare benefits for the unwanted children that would have been aborted)
1. Economists don't argue against minimum wage - it's a 50/50 split at worst. Economists do have some issues with application, for example all of New York state has the same minimum wage when it should be higher in NYC and lower upstate.
2. A basic income is very different than a minimum wage - in fact it completely eliminates the need for a minimum wage.
All the surplus of a feudal society went to hiring more enforcers or creating family heirlooms. Not very efficient using most of societies resources to keep the peasants subdued and paying their rent.
>some contradictory positions (for example, strongly anti-abortion but opposed to welfare benefits for the unwanted children that would have been aborted)
How are those contradictory if my morals suggest that the protection of human life extends to the truly helpless and not the lazy?
The pie is fixed as there is an upper limit on capabilities of people and the excess in labor is showing it.
Property values are universally high because of investors and a continued decrease in available space. Again the pie is fixed.
Why do capitalists insist on living in their autistic fantasyland?
Family values, cultural preservation, and the restriction of immigration is entirely consistent with democratic free market capitalism. Economic liberty is what's important here. True conservatives believe the common person should do what they want with they earn.
Of course, globalism is a different story. Globalism is a top down idea funded by governments and corporations with government ties. Globalism benefits elitist government bureaucrats and their hired corporate cronies. Globalism arose out of prostitution politics.
When "ask what your country can do for you" took precedence over "ask what you can do for your country" in Western nations, prostitution politics became popular. Instead of actual platforms, political parties simply promise the world to voters if you choose them. "Don't worry, government will take care of it" is more valuable then "I'll do it myself" in today's mad world.
as soon as they are born they stop being truly helpless? babies are lazy? what exactly are you arguing here?
>upper limit on capabilities of people and the excess of labour is showing it
What limit are you talking about? How does that relate to anything I said?
If the demand for property is high, and the supply is low, you have high property values. If the demand for property is high, and the supply high, this is a bubble. As soon as the demand drops, so will property values. Property values are not universally high anywhere. I can buy a house in Detroit for a couple grand because there is no demand and plenty of supply.
>Family values, cultural preservation, and the restriction of immigration is entirely consistent with democratic free market capitalism
In true free market capitalism (i.e. not a mixed socialist economy), the only thing that matters is $$$. Family values, cultural preservation, immigration, it can all be monetized and if the juice is worth the squeeze it gets sold off to the highest bidder. There is no inherent morality in capitalism - any morality that arises from it is accidental.
How are those two contradictory? Unwanted children go to orphanages run by private charities. The government doesn't need to coercively force everyone to pay for orphanages. Private charities do this. You should have a choice of which private charity you want to donate to, instead of having the government force you to donate to the bureaucrats Swiss bank account.
But its not, capitalism necessitates both parents working, it necessitates longer hours and less family time, it necessitates importation of labor, it necessitates free flow of goods.
Not to mention as pointed out above, it is entirely inconsistent with Christian morality.
Capitalism is a rot which turns your country against itself and that is exactly what we are seeing. To be a capitalist is to have no ties to anything, anything less is socialism.
>country stays capitalist
>does all that shit anyway and is not a shithole
I don't believe people who don't work are worthless, but people who don't work and complain about "muh unfair system" while eating cheetos and drinking mountain dew should indeed be exterminated for the good of mankind.
>It's a voluntary arrangement
it's still rulership and governance and therefore not anarchistic
also if you don't have any options other than to subjugate yourself to a boss or starve then it's not voluntary in a meaningful way
Capitalism is the only moral system. If I work hard and get paid for it, I should keep the money I earn. Simple as that. Democratic capitalism in Western nations is moral because it is outlined in the doctrines of Western nations.
Freedom is democratic capitalism. In socialism, the only thing that matters is government power. The government takes more from those who work in order to fund their crazy plans.
With immigration restricted, no state sponsored culture is required as individuals will keep their customs naturally. In Canada, minus the multiculturalist infected hellholes, we've maintained our culture for 500 years, even when the government is actively trying to surpress it in order to install multiculturalism.
charities are woefully inadequate means of providing care for people. If charities were sufficient, the labor movement would never have been successful. Additionally, I was only making an example. Free market capitalism says "two partys can do anything they want as long as they agree on terms of exchange." Christian morality is literally a list of shit you can't do.
>charities are woefully inadequate means of providing care for people.
Not at all true.
They would be inadequate today, I agree, because charities are a lot smaller than what they used to be.
socialist countries aren't anarchist though, most of them aren't even really socialist, when you define socialism as common ownership of the means of production and not state ownership
being able to choose to work or die is not freedom at all
if i captured you and tied you up and said "You can eat my shit or drink my piss" does that mean you have freedom? I'm giving you a choice.
Sometimes you libertarians have the weirdest definition of freedom, it's like you think the government is the only thing that can possibly oppress someone.
>socialist countries aren't anarchist though
I never claimed they were. In anarchist countries you'd be left alone.
In socialist countries, you aren't, because you are the property of the state.
>most of them aren't even really socialist
>le no true socialist scotsman meemee
> when you define socialism as common ownership of the means of production and not state ownership
The phrase "common ownership of the means of production" is nonsensical you fucking moron. Why the fuck should an oil rig worker in Alaska commonly own a farm in Kentucky?
In socialism, everyone is equally poor and equally forced to conform to the government's all perfect plan.
Capitalism invented childhood and allowed women to stay home to be homemakers instead of factory workers. The concept of the modern nuclear family was invented in post-industrial revolution Britain. Companies make money when their products are purchased. So the logical thing to do is to give your workers decent wages so they can buy things. Childhood was invented to create a whole new economic sector of childrens goods.
With the rise of machines and factories, men were only really needed to work. Women had all sorts of products marketed to them for their every need.
>and by the way, Thou Shalt Not Steal.
Socialism is spending other peoples money on what you think is right.
>being able to choose to work or die is not freedom at all
Yes it is.
>if i captured you and tied you up and said "You can eat my shit or drink my piss" does that mean you have freedom? I'm giving you a choice.
No you're not, because you're tying me up and forcing me to choose between two alternatives
Are you also scandalized that if you stop breathing you die? End the oxygenarchy today!
if the only moral value you have is "I shouldn't have to pay taxes" then I guess capitalism is the most moral system. But what happens if your boss decides not to pay you? Don't you need a government, supported by your tax dollars, to get guarantee contracts? But if you support the government with your tax dollars but you don't need to sue your boss, then you didn't get to keep the money you earned. You have to have a government to enforce your morality, and it this point you're just haggling over how much government.
So if in an anarchist country you'd have an equal or better choice than in a capitalist country, why argue for capitalism on the grounds that it gives you more choice? It's not fallacious to claim that something's not really that thing when it doesn't fit with the definition for it. Historically socialists have defined socialism as common and not state ownership.
>Why the fuck should an oil rig worker in Alaska commonly own a farm in Kentucky?
Western democratic capitalism conforms to laws created through democracy. Charities are incredibly useful and continue to do amazing things. Statistically, private charities have done more for the poor than governments ever have. Go check out your local food bank or Red Cross. Ever hear of the Salvation Army?
>Lol, god you're delusional
If by "delusional" you mean "historically literate".
How many people died of mass starvation during the great depression? 0!
I love how you fucking morons yabber on and on about "muh starving working class" when the only fucking countries where people starved in the last century were :
ALL communist countries. Nobody fucking starves in capitalist countries. So stop with this meme.
>capitalism invented childhood
no, organized labor opposing capitalism invented childhood. Kids worked long hours in unsafe conditions prior to labor unions.
>nuclear families didn't exist before capitalism
>Capitalism invented childhood.
You mean child labor? Because thats what capitalism consisted of until laws were past mandating education and preventing kids from being used to make money.
It feels like I am talking to someone who doesn't know basic US history beyond the talking points made by republican pundits
>So if in an anarchist country you'd have an equal or better choice than in a capitalist country, why argue for capitalism on the grounds that it gives you more choice?
In an anarchist country, capitalism would be the natural economic system. I'm sorry, but it won't be a hippy commune where people smoke weed and listen to John Lennon's "Imagine" over and over again, I'm afraid. Those people would have a life expectancy of a few weeks, tops.
I like a minimum degree of stability, which is why I'm a minarchist.
>Historically socialists have defined socialism as common and not state ownership.
Historically, socialism has had a billion different meanings because lots of leftist pseudo intellectuals love to masturbate about pointless subjects.
I'm talking about this "common ownership" meme. It's nonsensical. Use your brain.
Even Lenin understood that.
Are you suggesting someone would be stupid enough to work for a unreliable boss who doesn't pay his workers? I praise human reason. People wouldn't work for him and he'd have no workers.
If a boss is shitty he will have no workers. People are being trained to have a victim complex here. The government doesn't and will never "save" people from "evul capitalist oppressors"
>How is work or die not forcing me between two alternatives?
Because you're not tied up.
> I can't live without oxygen, I sure as hell can live without work.
You literally can't. Even assuming you live as a hermit on a desert island, you'll have to work to scavenge for food.
I'm sorry we don't live in a post-scarcity society anon. That's the way things are.
I work for a single government agency that redistributes almost half a trillion dollars per year directly to low income families. That single government agency does more than all charities in the US combined.
The concept of the 1950s picturesque nuclear family did arise from post industrial revolution Britain. Traditionally, everyone was always working. Mothers and children never caught a break.
Labour unions didn't help break child labour. What did help is the free market. The power of the consumer. People thought it was sick that children worked long hours and stopped buying products manufactured by children. This, in combination with the opportunity of a new economic sector is what crafted childhood.
historically literate? I'm not even the person you are arguing with but
1. Many people died of starvation during the great depression even in the US
2. People still die of starvation in the US
>In an anarchist country, capitalism would be the natural economic system.
like I always have to tell people who don't have any common sense, a boss rules over and governs an employee and that makes capitalism not anarchistic.
>Historically, socialism has had a billion different meanings because lots of leftist pseudo intellectuals love to masturbate about pointless subjects.
no, generally it's had the one meaning that I explained
>Even Lenin understood that.
Lenin was an opportunist, but fundamentally the goal of what he was doing was common and not state ownership in the long term.
You steal peoples hard earned wealth and reallocate their earned money to who you feel like should have it for fun. This is subsidizing the "poor life" by making "being poor" profitable. Why work when you can sit at home with NEETBUX?
Private charities actually are on the ground and allocate wealth (which was given voluntarily) to those who actually need it rather than handing it out to whoever claims to be poor.
I guess that's where we disagree. Global GDP is over $10,000 per capita. We are post scarcity. There is enough wealth and food to feed every man woman and child on the planet and have some left over. The remaining scarcity is artificial.
>1. Many people died of starvation during the great depression even in the US
>2. People still die of starvation in the US
[CITATION DESPERATELY NEEDED]
I'd wager that more people die of obesity-related problems every day than people who died of starvation during the past 50 years.
>like I always have to tell people who don't have any common sense, a boss rules over and governs an employee and that makes capitalism not anarchistic.
All right, from this sentence alone you've established yourself to be a complete moron unworthy of my time.
No, nationl law is what put a stop to child labor, literally the only reason it ended.
Yes, that's right. The power of government put an end to capitalist exploitation. The horror.
Oh yes, I'm sure there's enough to feed every man on the planet with a mushy bowl of rice a day. But electricity would be strictly rationed. Running water wouldn't exist, because the infrastructure isn't there. Forget about ever owning a car.
And then, the niggers of the world will have 8 kids each and after a generation the Global GDP per capita will be 5000$. Rinse and repeat until the whole system collapses.
You're a special kind of retard if you choose to work for a boss who won't pay you. If you pay people nothing there is no incentive to work at all. Nobody would show up.
Unless you forced them, like what happens under socialism. People work for "free" and are taught they are working for "the greater good".
why waste your time with definitions of words like "socialism" and "anarchism" when you can just make them mean whatever you want to push your agenda?
that's not authoritarian in the least
Significantly less than would be eaten up by CEO bonuses (usually somewhere between 2 and 10% of total overhead)
Doesn't allocate any cash benefits at all. No one is on this program "for fun." And it's means tested so it's not exactly "handed out" either. Nice assumptions though.
Just curious, does it embarrass you at all when you make a bunch of inaccurate assumptions or do you just brush it off like "whatever."
What irked me was this sentence
> a boss rules over and governs an employee and that makes capitalism not anarchistic.
Do you really think, you fucking idiot, that a natural hierarchy will not establish itself in an anarchistic society?
National law, but by whom? This is where the democratic in democratic capitalism comes in. Democracy allows the people to uphold a nation, like the body of a car. Capitalism is the engine of freedom and economic growth.
>I'm not going to google any of this stuff that is really easy to google, you have to do it for me otherwise it proves i am right
$10,000 a year. Do you know how much that buys in most of the world?
>niggers will have 8 kids each
they already do. look up birth rates in Africa.
Tell me more about your program. What does it allocate if not cash? Why can't private charities do it? No inaccurate assumptions were made. Your job is run on other people's hard earned cash and you use it to buy things for people who didn't work for it.
>You can stop my rotten nigger cunt from getting filled with niglet maggots.
>I want to kill the niglet maggot but its illegal to kill
>Shit out baby niglet and they don't even give me money
How are people so fucking stupid? Don't have a baby you rotten whores, we live in a time of readily accessible contraceptives. Fucking stupid niggers and cuck liberal faggots.
This is just funny. You posted some nonsense about capitalism ending child laborwhen the opposite was true, now you're dealing with the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile your autistic hate of government with the knowledge that without it 10 year olds would still be in factories..
It allocates medical care.
Private charities can't afford to do it at this large of a scope, mostly because free market economics ruined our health care sector through allocating by ability to pay instead of need.
Define "hard earned cash". If I own a factory and a worker produces a product and then another worker sells it, is my cut "hard earned?". If I put $100,000,000 in the bank and I make $1,000,000 in interest, is that $1,000,000 "hard earned". I think you have some type of error in your thinking in that everyone who has money earned it through hard work.
I never said let's remove the government, nor did I ever say the government ended child labour. The consumed ended child labour. Enough people didn't buy products made by children. It's the same story with arsenic wallpaper.
The wallpaper was known to kill, yet the British government did nothing. Eventually, consumers began buying wallpaper labelled "arsenic free" over arsenic wallpaper. This is how arsenic wallpaper became extinct in the United Kingdom. By the consumer, not government. You underestimate the power of people .
So then you admit that an anarchistic society is impossible? I'm not following your line of thought.
If a natural hierarchy always establishes itself, why are you against it?
>I'm not going to google any of this stuff that is really easy to google, you have to do it for me otherwise it proves i am right
Nice cop out faggot. The truth is, I know way more than you about the subject (probably because I don't get all my information from reddit). Life expentancy actually ROSE during the Great Depression because people indulged less in unhealthy habits. Likewise, there are exactly 0 people who starve in America today. Just google it bruh
>$10,000 a year. Do you know how much that buys in most of the world?
You stupid nigger, if everyone in the world has the same income then everything in the world will cost the same. The reason why 10 000$ a year buys you a lot in some parts of the world is because things don't cost a lot over there. But that will all be over when your socialist fantasy comes to fruition, and we all become poor and miserable, but equal!
>they already do. look up birth rates in Africa.
That's not a reason to encourage it.
Yeah, call me when that happens. Lmfao.
first google result. Indicates at least 2,000-3,000 people a year
>this poor of an understanding of how inflation works
If costs go up in the third world, they also go down in the first world genius. Knife cuts both ways. Net result - same amount of money as before, which is to say enough to feed everybody.
Disgusting! I live in a country with universal healthcare and it kills more then it heals. I don't have a doctor right now and I can't hire one if I need one. It's illegal. According to StatsCan, I'm spending 4000$ a year on taxes which go straight to a healthcare system that fucks me over. If something goes wrong, I have to go to a walk in clinic and spend my whole day waiting in a Soviet style line for a 5 minute once over or go to the "Emergency Room" and wait for over 24 hours to be checked over and then I have to wait 6 months (this is the provincial average for British Columbia) for treatment. For 4000$ a year I damn well demand better treatment.
If you own a factory, and have a worker making the product and another worker selling the product, that cash is well earned. Why? It is your cash you are risking. You made that mass amount of cash somehow in order to build this factory and to give those people jobs. All those people have to do is show up and do a simple job, however you have to balance all the workers wages, ensure the equipment is running well, go through all the paperwork and management required for running a business.
Making a million in interest is risky. What if the person you loaned that money too can't pay it back? Considering you had that much to loan out on hand, youve earned it. You do what you want with your capital.
>So then you admit that an anarchistic society is impossible? I'm not following your line of thought.
It's not impossible, there have been anarchist revolutions before but they were defeated.
>If a natural hierarchy always establishes itself, why are you against it?
I said that it might, not that it will or is natural. Calling something natural doesn't make it desirable either. Even if new rulers and slavedrivers emerge, there'll always be people who will stand up to them.
The free market is the free market no matter where its utilized. The principle still applies. However, want a American example? I cite the Chevrolet Corvair.
The Corvair was a small car that was found out to be incredibly unsafe. It was so unsafe that nobody purchased it and it was discontinued.
Remider: effort is in not directly correlated with success. Poor people are not usually poor by choice but by circumstance and "working harder" is not the solution.
As noted above, labor is in general close to valueless, the need for people just isnt there and its going to continue to get worse.
Even professions associated with high skill are saturated.
Its not a question of if capitalism will implode but when. There is going to be sweeping social welfare programs implemented eventually.
>first google result. Indicates at least 2,000-3,000 people a year
Haha god you're even dumber than I thought.
The link you posted (which links to... a fucking blog post) talks about mortality about the elderly (70 years and older) which MIGHT be linked to malnutrition.
This is completely different from deaths from starvation. Here, look at pic related, taken from the Ukraine during the Holodomor. Find me similar pictures in America today, or in America during the Great Depression. You fucking nigger.
>which is to say enough to feed everybody.
Enough to feed everybody with a bowl of lukewarm rice a day. Thanks but no thanks. If you want to live like a nigger, go to florida, hop on a boat and go to cuba, you piece of shit. Don't drag me down to your level of mediocrity.
>It's not impossible
But you yourself said that hierarchies will form naturally and that society will thus cease being anarchistic. What is it?
>I said that it might, not that it will or is natural
Give a single example of a non hierarchical society.
>Calling something natural doesn't make it desirable either
I agree. I wish I could live forever, alas death is natural.
OP is the one making a massive false dichotomy
I'm just trying to illustrate why capitalism is not to blame for the havoc depicted in OP's pic
We have seen asian tigers and various "miracles" developing from an almost medieval level to modernity within 20 years, countries at the mercy of "imperialists" ended up as capitalist playgrounds. Yes, their motive was profit, but they were private citizens, a fat pasty American can't do anything against a gweilo hating 49er, chances are they are just a regular person and wouldn't want to, they can only negotiate and make deals through third parties or multiple small scale repeat trades. That's how it works. Capitalism isn't some great evil and the government really doesn't need to do anything beyond certain limits.
When you compare these countries to those that remain stagnant you see what is really holding them down, fascists, communists, islamists, all manner kooky screaming nuts who for whatever reason aren't interested in long term investments.
>But you yourself said that hierarchies will form naturally and that society will thus cease being anarchistic. What is it?
I said that it MAY happen
>Give a single example of a non hierarchical society.
>I agree. I wish I could live forever, alas death is natural.
You never know, one day we might have the technology to live for as long as we want.
Imagine paying more than double what you do for healthcare and still having 20% of the population uninsured - welcome to the USA.
Assume a factory owner spends $10,000 to purchase the factory and from then on, all labor is paid for directly by profits. Theoretically, the factory has infinite earning potential over time. Does this mean that the factory owner did an infinite amount of work to purchase the factory? Is it possible for the factory owner to earn more than the work he put in to the factory (which I'm clarifying was a simple initial investment?) If you don't believe it's possible for an unearned dollar to come to the factory owner, explain how a $10,000 investment can lead to a "hard earning" billions with no additional work put in? And interest is just one of many ways to get unearned money. What about inheritance? Gambling winnings? None of these are "hard earned" dollars yet you somehow claim that all of the Medicaid dollars are "hard earned." What about someone who slacks off all day, say at a low stress job like a night security guard or a tech support worker who has a lot of free time. Is it ok to tax them because they aren't working hard? Your assertion that all taxed dollars are "hard earned" is just plain naive.
Since when does the average American spend 8000$ a year on health insurance?
Firstly, where did this base capital of 10,000$ come from? Labour is not paid for directly from profits. The cost of labour negates profit.
The factory does not and never will have infinite earning potential. What if the price of the product you make crashes? What if the cost of utilities skyrocket? What if the tax rate is raised and you can't afford it anymore? There will never be a magical factory that automatically produces profit no matter what the conditions are.
There will always be tons of complicated work for someone managing a factory as nothing ever automatically runs smoothly. There are thousands of factors affecting the profitability. A good factory owner adjusts to these the best he can, although sometimes the conditions become unbearable. If your factory makes VHS Tapes for the American market you're going to go bankrupt and lose everything because there is no demand.
Interest is earned money because the lender is doing what he wants with his capital, he is risking it all. The only reason to be against inheiratance is pure greed. If your grandpa leaves you a million dollars, its yours. How would you like it if I said "I'm entitled to half of that even though I'm not related to your Grandpa and he wanted that money to go to you?"
Gambling winnings again is doing what you want with your own capital. If someone has a job where they slack off all the time, they are still being paid. It is up to the employer to take disciplinary action or else continue subsidizing laziness and become unprofitable.
As seen in communist countries where there was no free market and only government standards, your post is entirely false. Government regulation alone without free market leads to the Trabant. The free market alone untouched by government leads to safer automobiles. As seen with any "lemon" of a vehicle in a Western democratic capitalist nation, nobody buys it, and it goes away as the company wants to make a profit.
Safety regulations are merely a result of the consumers at work. The government didn't put safety standards first, consumers did for themselves, the government merely reflected that overtime.
Wrong, the government implementation of safety standards is a result of the poplstion wanting them implemented, while its true people dying will reduce the number of cars bought, government regulation prevents the deaths from happening to begin with.
The failure of the communist country was thst its government failed to implement the peoples will.
Through empowering government we empower ourselves as government when implemented correctly is a manifestation of the peoples will.
Unsafe at Any Speed was a book by Ralph Nader which exposed the Corvair and recommended regulations. Consumers agreed, they began demanding this from automakers. Corvair sales dropped like a rock. Chevy made many improvements to the Corvair but the name was tainted. Then, the government enacted safety regulations. This is a example of freedom. This is democratic capitalism at work.
Empowering government is always empowering bureaucrats with access to other peoples money. Empowering government is supporting top down management, which is when the government says, everyone does, or else. The Trabant was the Peoples car. The car of the proletariat. People wanted a car so the government gave them one, with a dramatic waiting time for one. There is no incentive to improve it as people have no other choice but to take a government car.
get a job, NEETs, it is really not that bad, most of you have been living low budget and on ramen anyway, you might even save enough to bet against trump or invest in energy stocks that have hit rock bottom or something, obviously don't get involved with multi-marketing schemes or anything retarded
if anyone gives you trouble, talk back, then tell someone about it, another coworker if it is your boss, your boss if it is your coworker
Ok so we agree government regulation, not capitalism is keeping unsafe cars off the street.
Taxation and use of peoples money for societal good is consist with the function of.a country.you are not entitled to any particular paycheck.
We do not agree the government saved people from unsafe cars. What saved people from unsafe cars is the consumers themselves. The government's move was reactionary, the consumers had already won the battle by the time they were enacted.
Overt taxation for state planning is immoral and contrary to liberty. A bare minimum of taxation needed to keep land free and democratic is required.
Consumers don't know what is or isnt safe.
Taxation to implement programs for social good is both moral and necessary. Again its a manifestation of the peoples will.
Liberty while not irrelevant takes a back seat to standard of living and social equality and as we will see as time progress, most people will agree with me as more and more socisl welfare programs get implemented.
Countries that embrace capitalism and free market have less poor the countries that don't.
China and India in a move that made their markets more free moved more then 1 million people out of poverty. Per month.
This is of course of no interest to you because it doesn't prove your vision. You don't care about the poor you care about stroking your worldview.
The world is improving. Never were there less poor people, less disease. Capitalism works on a global and a local scale.
But you'd rather be a salty faggot sprouting off unbacked claims.
These are a good start for the layman:
Any economics book will do if you're interested.
Fucked up when pasting
In practice no market is. That's why there are economic freedom indexes (on which china is very low, but above Russia or Belarus for example)
The point is that record braking increases of prosperity came from making the market more free.