Political discussion for the sake of perfection

You can start by convincing us you're not a faggot. Have fun with that.

>>132215441
I can not do so without lying

>>132215349
Nice flag
/Thread Closed

NatSoc can't be perverted or twisted. Start there.

>>132215349
You start a topic, and I'll reply with my thoughts.

>>132216268
As much as I wish I could agree I sadly think that ideologies such as and similar to feminism are more than capable of completely twisting it.

>>132216369
How about the way in which people are payed for doing work and payed for owning corporations that pay people for doing work

>>132216668
It's "paid," not "payed." Not trying to come off like a dick... Just putting that out there.

Yes, people are paid to do work, and people who own businesses are get paid for selling their product. This is how most businesses work... What's your point? Is it the amount of money the workers get? I can't help but feel you're a shit-posting faggot.

>>132217034
gee, his post didn't give that away? "I don't know many people I can't manipulate the thoughts of"

Unnecessary words, pretentiousness, inflated opinion of self - I wager 17 years old, nihilistic, and probably fat.

>>132217034
Both words are correct because english is far from perfect and I prefer payed because it is more simple and easy to understand for people who speak english as a second language, you don't come off like a dick, just as someone who prefers that language is used correctly. That aside, my point was just to bring up a topic but to clarify, if someone did not invent a product and does not actively participate in producing a product but instead makes sure that people who do participate in producing a product are payed for doing so, should that person be payed? and if so, how much should that person be payed in relation to the workers? I am a shitposting faggot but I am trying to put down my shitposting gloves and have a proper discussion.

>>132216573
give an example of natsoc being twisted?

>>132217310
Those words are used to highlight my intelligence and to give reason for being here, I like to think that I am more egotistical than pretentious, I am 36, of constantly changing mind and of a muscular build.

>>132218346
I can not think of an example and I am happy to assume that none exist in history or current time but hypothetically speaking an example would be replacing "the nation" with "women" and "those against the nation" with "men" and then we have something that is quite possible given current political climate in the west and could easily be considered a twisted version of natsoc. As much as I like natsoc it has the potential to be a horrible thing when governed by anyone with bias and or prejudice.

>>132218138
>if someone did not invent a product and does not actively participate in producing a product but instead makes sure that people who do participate in producing a product are payed for doing so, should that person be payed? and if so, how much should that person be payed in relation to the workers?
What you described is an accountant or just someone who does payroll. I'm going to assume you mean the owner of the company for arguments sake.

The benefit of a free market economy is that it makes use of resources more efficiently. A wealthy person will invest in companies (allocate more resources to them) that operate more efficiently. How much the wealthy business owner earns from the company is relative to how efficient it is

>>132219239
Yes, I do mean the owner of the company, my apologies for poor wording. Thank you for you thought, I have now smelted it into my own and am in the process of using it to reforge my thought.