Why are socialists objectively the dumbest people on earth?

I'm not a socialist but your image is pretty retarded. I know for a fact that socialists dont believe any of those strawman points.

File: 1481725935369.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

Even if you don't think I am entitled to your money, I thank you for them.

>>34758468
i know right just get out of america already

>>34758468
They devoutly believe in an ideology that directly contradicts the self-serving, egotistical nature of man.

>>34758468
Socialism is a political and economic ideology, we have two boards for that:
>>>/pol/ and for political """theory""" >>>/his/

>free doesn't mean free
Reeaally enthuses the thought process

>>34758468
All of those points are complete strawmen, go away and try again

>>34758520
All nations that have "free" health care are also nations that pay nothing for military because they rely on the USA

File: tumblr_ol2akvN51k1r868elo1_540.jpg (44KB, 540x430px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x430px

>>34758468
All four of those points can be deconstructed and refuted in less than 500 words.

But, this is the internet and lets be honest if you posted that you're too fucking stupid to argue with.

>>34758468

Because they're lazy people who are looking for a socially acceptable way get free shit out of other people. Literal parasites.

>>34758490

They do, they just don't realize that's exactly what they're arguing in favor of.

>>34758550

And another flaw of the socialist is automatically assuming they're smarter than everyone else on a subject they often display a complete and utter ignorance of -- economics.

And how they completely ignore the failures of socialism in every corner of the fucking planet for the past hundred years.

>socialists just want free shit maymay
you're thinking of demsoc fags who aren't socialists at all. they just want to tax rich people more (oh my god how terrible) while keeping the capitalist system. even then not all of them believe in free college and such.

>>34758468
>5 things
>4 items in the list

Capitalists confirmed retarded, free market education at work

>>34758468
Nice bait. I will come later to collect the tears from the leftards after people BTFO them.

Your shitty picture is based on premises and assumptions that """"socialists"""" (read: social democrats) do not agree with. You're arguing on fundamentally different terms without seeking a middle ground or at least an understanding of the basic values of your political opponent, leading to yet another shitfest of a thread in which no progress is made and it's just another shouting contest. Kill yourself OP.

>>34758683
most socialists on this board are literally what you just described

idiots asking for handmedats

>>34758722
>progress
HAHAHAH.

What is progress for you? Everyone agreeing with stupid leftist points?

>>34758692

>free market education at work

Which is something literally no country on earth has. Socialist education at work right there.

>>34758746
No, understanding between two groups of people, without necessarily a change of mind. But that's not going to happen if you just go "HUHUH LIBTARD SOCIALIST KEKS HUHUHUHUH"

>>34758722
>>34758683

>ITS NOT RRRRREEEEEAAAALLLLLLLL SOCIALISM?

Okay what's "real" socialism?

>_______________?????????

That's what I thought.

>rich people all earned their money
Thanks anon, needed a laugh today

>>34758794
If they didn't, they were handled their money by a corrupt leftist state.

>>34758787
nice satirical post, you're really making fun of your typical inane /pol/babby right now

File: wasnt real communism.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>34758722
>>34758683
>>34758787
pic very related.

orinigalerinonerino commenterinoiernoierno

>>34758730

Everyone would agree that free education is in the best interests of the nation, yet it is definitely an entitlement and a handout paid for someone else's hard earned money


Hmmmmmmmm really makes you think

>>34758787
I never said anything remotely in that direction. I said that the OP image has statements that presume values that leftists fundamentally disagree with, thus making them useless assertions. There is no justification of the values from which these statements are derived, leading to a pointless discussion.

>>34758834
Is this all you leftists can come up with when people ask you for arguments?

>>34758816
No, most of them inherited it. Also capitalism is the system which allows people to use their money for lobbying and other corruption which leads to crony capitalism (the system we are in now), not socialism

Because if they had even half a brain they wouldn't be socialists in the first place.

>>34758834

No I'm being fucking serious. You can't seem to come up with a definition of socialism that doesn't involve the government taking money/resources away from some people and giving it to others.

>>34758851

Exactly. It's the same dumb meme every time. What's real socialism? Turns out people don't like being taxed into poverty. People don't like working for free. People aren't each other's slaves.

Socialists don't get that.

>>34758853
While I'm for capitalism, something's, like education and healthcare shouldn't be modeled after capitalism where it's only those who can afford it who can get it. A mixture of socialism and capitalism works best vs pure catialism or pure socialism

>>34758490
seriously, this is beyond stupid to read. I'm so tired of pol talking up how they know economics but in reality have what amounts to a "taxation is theft" stick up their ass

>>34758550
>be socialist
>have no argument
>"Y-You're just too stupid to argue with!"

File: 1485991803965.jpg (152KB, 959x539px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 959x539px

>>34758906
>gib shit for free

>>34758543

EVERYONE who lives in a country with universal health care knows EXACTLY how it is paid for and we're not relying on you at all, you don't give anyone an option when it comes to where you place your military.

Revisionist, lying cunt.

>>34758865
>most of them inherited it.
Nothing wrong with it. You are entitled to giving your money to whoever you want, for products and services of your choosing or even for nothing at all.
>Also capitalism is the system which allows people to use their money for lobbying and other corruption which leads to crony capitalism (the system we are in now), not socialism
Nope. This would never happen in a free market. This only happens because of state's regulamentations and corruption.

File: 1482407089069.png (78KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 420x420px

>>34758905
but you are my slave no matter how much you complain about it.

the only purpose of your life is to pay taxes so I can get my NEETbux.

>>34758905
Anarchist socialism is one such thing. The reason why I don't call social democracy socialism, is because 1. it pollutes the name of social democracy by associatong it witharxist memelords and 2. it is a case of using an umbrella term on a specific ideology

File: 1251847288313.jpg (15KB, 241x239px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 241x239px

>>34758865

> other corruption which leads to crony capitalism (the system we are in now), not socialism

I don't like calling our system crony capitalism because it implies the capitalist part of the system is to blame here. A laissez-faire capitalist system mean's there is a wall between the economy and the state. That wall goes too ways, so there is no need for companies to lobby to the government when the government doesn't have any power to change their circumstances beyond punishing them for crimes and protecting them and their assets with the military.

So it's not capitalism that causes lobbying, it's socialism. It's interference with the economy that attracts economic manipulators in the first place.

>>34758905
>You can't seem to come up with a definition of socialism that doesn't involve the government taking money/resources away from some people and giving it to others.

You don't understand it in the first place if that's your interpretation.

It's taking money from EVERYONE and distributing it amongst certain services that can be accessed by EVERYONE

>>34758906
In a free market education and healthcare would be affordable by the majority. No need for shitty state services that play against none or a rigged competition and have no incentive to become better and cheaper.
>taxation is theft
But it obviously is. No one's entitled to anyone's hard earned money.

>>34758999
>No one's entitled to anyone's hard earned money.

Stop driving on roads. In fact stop using any infrastructure whatsoever. I assume you grow your own food, generate your own power, have a well or a river on your property, maintain your own sewerage and are completely off grid in every single way.

File: 1483878724908.png (12KB, 243x243px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 243x243px

>>34759046

Is this supposed to be an argument? oregano

>>34758468
>"free" does not actually mean free
what retard believes this. Everyone knows socialist countries have long waits and lines and high as fuck taxes. You are paying for everything you get for "free" in a socialist country through taxes
>you are not entitled to someone else's hard earned money ever
Who said it was theirs? Money is by definition government property. That's why you're not allowed to destroy money in the first place.
>you cannot tax a nation into prosperity
It depends on what you mean by wealth. Wealth as in gdp or manufactured good or exports or military prowess can't be fixed by taxes. Wealth as in quality of life in your country is largely dependent on the gdp/goods/exports wealth, but it is also dependent on who has the money. If most of it is ruled by a small elite group, you're doing something wrong. They don't work harder than, say a factory worker or a soldier, but they make millions of times more a second, than the factory worker or soldier will in their lifetimes. Wealth needs to be redistributed somehow, and taxes seem to be the easiest way.
>the rich are not responsible for your financial situation, you are.
Its not that they're responsible for anything, its that they make so much money doing about as much work as anyone else does. You can go to college, and spend years getting a phd, but nobody's going to hire you, because everyone else is going to college and getting a phd, too. If you don't go to college, then you're stuck doing physical labor, instead of mental, which never pays at all. And even if you get a steady job, save for years in order to buy one or two assets, and do everything in your power to make more money, you still will never be rich.
Explain

>>34758997
>It's taking money from EVERYONE and distributing it amongst certain services that can be accessed by EVERYONE
Shit services that have no incentive to become better and cheaper. The only logical driving force for services and products to become better is the market's competition. The stolen tax money could be used by people to pay for the services of their choosing and needing.
>Stop driving on roads. In fact stop using any infrastructure whatsoever. I assume you grow your own food, generate your own power, have a well or a river on your property, maintain your own sewerage and are completely off grid in every single way.
Why would I? My money is being stolen to pay for these things that would be better if they were managed by private initiative. I would gladly stop using those if the government stopped stealing me so the people could pay for the services of their own interest.

>>34759064

>gets absolutely blown the fuck out
>le is this a le argument maymay

I'm waiting for you to tell me all about how you're completely self sufficient, anon.

File: 1400084005467.jpg (8KB, 395x396px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 395x396px

>>34759113
>le stop using the roads is now a BTFO argument

>>34759084
>They don't work harder than, say a factory worker or a soldier, but they make millions of times more a second, than the factory worker or soldier will in their lifetimes.
That's because their ideas and services are much more valuable than the work of a single person. While the single person sells its services only for his employer, the rich people are selling what they created worldwide. No one is forcing you to buy a macbook, faggot.
>its that they make so much money doing about as much work as anyone else does
No one would demand you to buy their products and services in a free market. If for whatever reason they are monopolizing the state's market its only because of state's regulation. They wouldn't survive if the market was free and their money would be hard earned and legitimaly theirs because people are handing those companies their money by free will.

>>34759094
>Shit services that have no incentive to become better and cheaper.

Except they're not shit and they constantly look for ways to get the best value for money.

>The stolen tax money

>autism.tiff

>My money is being stolen to pay for these things that would be better if they were managed by private initiative.

Those of us who have lived in countries where infrastructure has been privatised know full well that it always gets managed poorly, costs more, and gets run into the ground until the corporations demand to be bailed out by the taxpayers after sending all their profits offshore.

Get fucked.

> letting a political idealogy decide your economic decisions rather than being pragmatic

Paying for services like healthcare and education out of a public fund increases general prosperity. Having a free market and only nationalizing utilities leads to prosperity. Marry the two, and you have an economic miracle.

>>34759131

>still refuses to admit he relies heavily on services and infrastructure that habe been paid for and maintained through taxation

>>34759210

I still don't see how this is an argument?

>>34758769
The US is going to have free market education soon

>>34759188
>Except they're not shit and they constantly look for ways to get the best value for money.
They don't. Stop with your lies. ALL STATE'S SERVICES ARE SHIT and it's been proven time and again in many countries that private initiative can do ANYTHING better. The only driving force for the evolution of services is the competition of the free market and the state sets it back.
>Those of us who have lived in countries where infrastructure has been privatised know full well that it always gets managed poorly, costs more, and gets run into the ground until the corporations demand to be bailed out by the taxpayers after sending all their profits offshore.
Like where? What services are you talking about? Was there any competition for those privatisations that were not controlled by the state in any way? I doubt it.

>>34758993

laissez-faire capitalism simply does not deliver the optimal allocation of scarce resources, it fails in a number of very specific areas. This is economics 101.

Natural monopolies like roads, power grids, airports, public transport ALL require state intervention. Nobody wants to live in a world with 5 competing power grids, it's an abhorrent allocation of resources.

The free rider problem would result in environmental destruction as the negative externality of pollution is not factored in to the price of energy. It also creates problems with services like fire protection, police and sidewalks. You don't want a fire on your neighbor's property to spread to your property because he didn't pay his monthly private fire brigade subscription.

Also asymmetrical markets like healthcare where consumers have no market power or information do not deliver the optimal allocation of resources.

To argue for laissez-faire capitalism when the state is perfectly capable of recitfying these problems and delivering objectively superior outcomes for all is simply fanatacism

File: 1270365 - Mikan_Tsumiki Super_dangan_ronpa_2.jpg (189KB, 450x540px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 450x540px

>>34759266
see: devry vs. harvard

because socialists and communists don't realize that you can't have a large government where everyone's equal
some people have to be above other people in order to govern a large area
this creates conditions that have led to an abuse of power almost 100% of the time

no system's perfect but capitalism has been working pretty well so far

>>34758468
Let me guess, the military doesn't count as socialism, corporate handouts don't count as socialism, but paying taxes for something that directly helps the people is automatically socialism.

>>34758468
>the people who have jewed everyone else out of all the capital are not responsible for the lack of capital

>>34759284
>Also asymmetrical markets like healthcare where consumers have no market power or information do not deliver the optimal allocation of resources.
>consumers have no market power or information

Typical leftist authoritarianism. hur only muh government knows how I am supposed to spend my money because I'm stupid and only muh government has the knowledge to do so. LOL

>
To argue for laissez-faire capitalism when the state is perfectly capable of recitfying these problems and delivering objectively superior outcomes for all is simply fanatacism
It isn't.

>>34759284
First guy here with an actual clear understabding of economics and a much better way of explaining it than I ever could. Thank you for that clear summary of my econ 101 class.

>>34759183
>ideas and services are much more valuable
>implying jewphone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 aren't pretty much the same exact thing
they usually only have one or two good ideas, then they just watch their bank accounts multiply in value
>rich people are selling what they created worldwide
they can afford it. you think anyone would turn down an offer to sell something worldwide?
>No one would demand you to buy their products and services in a free market
Advertising exists, anon. also monopolies
>they are monopolizing the state's market its only because of state's regulation. They wouldn't survive if the market was free and their money would be hard earned and legitimaly theirs because people are handing those companies their money by free will.
Then they would use their hard earned money to buy up or scare off competition, becoming a monopoly, because they want even more money.

File: gulag xd.jpg (51KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x720px

>>34759284
>the gubmint knows best how you should live your life

>>34759364

I meant that doctors have the information

If a doctor tells you to take a pill that costs $5000 a month or you're going to die you'll probably take the pill

Markets require symmetrical access to information to function. Healthcare is simply not a conventional market and it's asininely idealistic to continue to argue that it is when every civilised country in the world (and many uncivilised ones) have placed state controls on the market.

Be more pragmatic.

>>34758621
No it isn't. From all the debates i've seen, no socialist so far has argued any of these points. Once again, it's just a strawman image.

File: so.jpg (43KB, 547x299px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 547x299px

>>34759413

Government monopoly on healthcare is terrible.

>>34759466
>Government monopoly on healthcare
Excuse me?

File: Anti-Communism.png (151KB, 2400x2400px)

151KB, 2400x2400px

>>34759404
>posting on lolcow

>>34759397
>they usually only have one or two good ideas, then they just watch their bank accounts multiply in value
Consumers are handing their money by free will. No one is being forced to buy the new jewphone. If these companies and their heads are rich it's because people wanted that to be so and there's nothing wrong about it.
>they can afford it. you think anyone would turn down an offer to sell something worldwide?
Why would they be that stupid? There's nothing wrong about selling a product you invented.
>Advertising exists, anon. also monopolies
How is advertisement the same as DEMANDING? Are the jews using mind tricks to make you buy their products? Is that what you're trying to imply? Monopolies nowadays only exist because of state regulation and they are not a bad thing in free markets. Quite the opposite.
>Then they would use their hard earned money to buy up or scare off competition, becoming a monopoly, because they want even more money.
Nothing wrong about buying competition because unless there's a big state rigging the market new competitors are always free to join and bring the prices down and quality up. How would someone scare off competition and how is that a bad thing in a free market?

>>34759364
>>34759404
both of you are retards. You're arguing with every economist and economics professor in America. And keep in mind that these people aren't even socialists and yet you disagree with them. Sad!

>>34759518
universities are full of professors and grad students with too much time on their hands and more hopeful dreams than brains
especially in the humanities

File: 13099007_697217303750409_1608965018_n.jpg (23KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x320px

>>34758468
>free doesn't mean free.

NOBODY FUCKING THINKS THAT YOU FILTHY COCK WHORE.

We redirect money from other areas, like the 600 trillion dollars per year military budget.

>not entitled to other peoples money, ever.

FUCK, I wish the tax man knew this.

If you're making TRILLIONS off the backs of slave labour, Chinese sweatshops, then yes, you deserve to pay more tax.

Instead of paying workers a fair rate, you outsource our jobs to China????

Nah, fuck you, you're paying more, especially if you're a practically tax exempt Super conglomerate

If everyone pays their fair share of their earnings, so the 1% at the top don't horde all wealth, then prosperity will be.

Yes they are, We bailed THEM out during the crash, to the tune of like TRILLIONS in Gov bailouts.

>>34759413
>If a doctor tells you to take a pill that costs $5000 a month or you're going to die you'll probably take the pill
Yet no one is forcing you to take the pill. In a free market crooked doctors would lose popularity and their share in favor of reliable doctors. This doesn't happen in a socialist state. Are you that much shortsighted?

>Markets require symmetrical access to information to function.
It doesnt. Again you're coming up with the same authoritarian arguments. People should be free to navigate the market by their own will and knowledge.
>Healthcare is simply not a conventional market
Same natural principles apply to any market, my man.
>every civilised country in the world (and many uncivilised ones) have placed state controls on the market.
Obamacare is gone and public healthcare in the thirdworld is widely known for being utter shit with infinite waiting lists of dead people that were waiting for basic treatment that they can't afford because they pay too much in taxes for a failed system. Even your leftist leaders of the third world always resort to private healthcare when they are on the brink of death because the system that they created is unable to save their own lives. Stop with the jokes.

>>34759466

It's not terrible, you are just fanatical

It's objectively the most pragmatic and humane solution

>>34759476
Yes. Using stolen tax money to manage a failed system while applying all sorts of bureaucracy on private initiavive hindring its potential back in favor of the government's shit alternative.

>>34758997

>It's taking money from EVERYONE and distributing it amongst certain services that can be accessed by EVERYONE

That's still literally exactly what I said. Some people are everyone and other people are everyone. You're still using the government to rob and loot your fellow man.

>>34759518
Fallacy of authority? Not an argument.

>>34759603
>Same natural principles apply to any market, my man

Obviously not, take energy as another example

The free market does not price in the effect of pollution, the market is broken

Nobody with an education in economics advocates laissez-faire

>>34759613

It is absolutely terrible.

>forced to pay for a service that doesn't work

In my country, there's a massive shortage of basic nurses at government owned hospitals because the pay is literally McDonalds tier and they have to work crazy shifts, everyone goes to private healthcare. The E.R. have such wait times that they are sent out of country to get healthcare.

>>34759666

when i say the market is broken i mean the price of energy is artificially lower than its true cost resulting in abhorrent allocation of resources towards more energy consumption

>>34759702

long waits for quality care are preferable to crippling debt or no access to care

>>34759666
>effect of pollution
That's also for the free market to decide. Again, another authoritarian argument saying that people are unable to prevent ecological disasters and boycott the companies that do harm that they disagree with.
>the market is broken
only when the state rigs it with regulamentations favoring social justice ideologies.

Are all your arguments about people being too stupid to decide how they spend their money?

>>34759653
Neither of the people he linked to made anything close to an argument, you can't bring up logical fallacies outside a proper debate.

bet you feel really smart though.

>>34759721
>quality care

That's the thing, the care is not even of quality. It's sub par at best which is why, if you need anything that isn't a very standard procedure you're either forced to wait for many months or get sent abroad. Even the food is fucking dog food tier.

>>34759721
long waits imply terrible care. crippling debt? the prices are always going down in a free market. businesses want PROFIT and if lowering their prices in favor of a larger audience of consumers means more profit in the long-run that's obviously what they are going to do.

File: 1473400016130.png (665KB, 652x488px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 652x488px

>>34758999

Also a free market would come up with different options. So maybe people can't afford to take their kid to a fancy school? Well what if homeschooling was a cheaper available option?

Like Skype Schools? Classrooms over the Internet? I'm sure charities will pop up that will provide stuff like that too.

But ultimately a free market puts responsibility for children education back on their parents. Our current system operates like a free daycare, so normies can fuck all they want and let the government take care of the byproduct of the fucking.

A free market would force people to think more about the consequences of having kids they can't afford, because all the responsibility for providing for the children is solely on them.

>>34759784
>A free market would force people to think more about the consequences of having kids they can't afford, because all the responsibility for providing for the children is solely on them.
This. But leftist base all their arguments on people being stupid to make good decisions for themselves while they are some sort of intelectual elite that has all the game of life figured out. LOL

>>34759046

No that's called the division of labor. We PAY for those services. We give our hard earned money in exchange for someone's hard work. It's different from getting the good or service and providing nothing in return at all, which is the basis of socialism and social programs.

File: 1475608733254-r9k.jpg (105KB, 640x707px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x707px

That's only four things, guy.

>>34759736

it's not about stupidity it's about selfishness

are you honestly going to sit there and tell me anyone is voluntarily going to pay more for their energy?

File: 20130908111129!U.S._Healthcare_Costs_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP.png (5KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 960x720px

>>34759782
>the prices are always going down in a free market

the problem with "free market education" is that teachers are laborers, not merchants

>>34759822
>it's about selfishness

Why would someone pay more for their energy than they have to? Why would someone pay for more anything than they have to? Are you retarded?

>>34759822
They are going to pay less because competition will always force the price down unless it's rigged by the state.

>>34759846
>>34759846
>They are going to pay less because competition will always force the price down unless it's rigged by the state.
And they say Marxism is dogmatic.

File: 0x6001.jpg (36KB, 640x433px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x433px

>>34759840
>U.S. healthcare
>free market

???

File: Reddit.png (154KB, 1024x466px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1024x466px

>ITT: leftypol and butthurt gommies
End yourselves.

>>34759855
>somehow prices will go up when there's a competitive market

really made me think

>>34759858
>U.S. Healthcare
>Not a free market

>>34759855
Simply because if they aren't affordable they will go bankrupt and new initiatives for affordable health care will occupy it's share of the market. If this happens for whatever mysterious reason the cicle will sort itself over and over again.

>>34759881
Well if it's not just dogmatic, you can prove it I assume?

File: 1407345300618.jpg (47KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x376px

Not a socialist, but here's one position of social welfare i've never seen argued against.

Not even on troll 4chan threads.

1. I didn't ask to be born.

2. We have the knowledge and technology to implement a soft form of eugenics.

3. I was born.

4. Why am i responsible for my situation, given that those who had the knowledge and ability to prevent my birth, did not do so, ensuring i would not be given the capacity to correct my disadvantages?

>>34759887

You clearly have no idea what a free market is. Not that I expected you to know.

>>34759907

Competitiveness in an open and free market leads to efficiency, as companies compete to produce the best product for the cheapest price.

You're arguing that somehow, without a government monopoly prices will go up, which simply is not true if you take a look at history.

>>34759907
You're the one who said it's dogmatic. The burden is on you.
>I didn't ask to be born.
A lot of people are collecting welfare because they have children. In a free market you wouldn't even be born because your parents wouldn't have money handed to them to raise you.

>>34759912
>those who had the knowledge and ability to prevent my birth, did not do so, ensuring i would not be given the capacity to correct my disadvantages?
It's your parents fault then, they are the ones who should be taxed for it, not other people. Blame them for being stupid

>>34759844

the price they are paying is not the true cost, they should have to pay the true cost

>>34759938
ehh he probably would be born and his parents would probably try robbing a grocery store or something and be sent to jail and he would just starve to death
i guess thats effectively the same thing

File: 1466617054853.jpg (34KB, 660x495px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 660x495px

can someone explain how capitalism "works" when the rich keep getting richer, keeps buying up everything, have greater and greater influence on politics... won't this lead to a society where you're forced to rent literally everything or even a monarchy of some kind?

>>34759984

Please tell me what the "true cost" is.

>>34759989
This would be the sad wrorst case scenario.

File: 1396833397813.jpg (15KB, 407x364px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 407x364px

>>34759284

>laissez-faire capitalism simply does not deliver the optimal allocation of scarce resources,

Yes it does and does so better than any other centralized over-managed bureaucratic system socialists have dreamed of.

>This is economics 101.

No it's not. Marx and Engels used some classical economics to make their points but were utterly BTFO by Austrian school, but most people ignored Ludwig von Mises' criticisms of socialism because they were balls deep in forcing it on people at that point in history.

>Natural monopolies like roads, power grids, airports, public transport ALL require state intervention. Nobody wants to live in a world with 5 competing power grids, it's an abhorrent allocation of resources.

That's because you lack the imagination to dream of world where the government doesn't do these things for you. That's the point of freedom, it's up to people to figure out how to make these things work in a way that's sufficient for the most people, the producers and the consumers. And no one likes dealing with municipal monopolies. Everyone complains about the city's services.

>The free rider problem would result in environmental destruction as the negative externality of pollution is not factored in to the price of energy.

Air pollution is a different subject. Does it hurt humans and violate their rights? Then it's illegal in a capitalist system.

> It also creates problems with services like fire protection, police and sidewalks.

No. A laissez faire state can produce private sidewalks (created by people who create the buildings next to them, it's simple) and police and fire services are still managed by the government in capitalist system. That's all the government does -- protect the individual's rights, from other individuals and natural disasters. Some capitalists argue for private firefighters but I think it's not something that works as a private business and it still falls into the category of protecting people's rights.

File: 1399771391913.gif (1MB, 300x223px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x223px

>>34759980
>Parents were also born into a generation where the government has access to the technology and philosophy and genetic knowledge necessary to ensure that they didn't breed.
>Didn't do so.

So, how is that my problem?

>>34759995
people believe that corporations influence in the government allows them to monopolize their relative industries and that the market is not truly free but rigged by the corporate elite through government intervention
i dont really see how removing the goverment wouldnt just allow the corporations to exert their influence directly but im not economist

>>34759995

Capitalism relies on freedom, the freedom of exchange without any authority to interfere.

People being able to lobby to influence politics is due to the government having so much power, not due to capitalism.

>>34759995
>be me
>middle class
>have access to incredible technology like the Internet, modern health care, and food always on my table
>I didn't do shit to make this technology, the rich and smart people had to work their asses off to get it working, but me and other middle class reap most of the benefits
You see? The middle class makes up the majority, but every year they get better and better technology while the rich are the ones who have to make it. I just get to sit back, do the same thing every day, and my life improves by default due to better tech

>>34760035
Yes, but how is this MY problem? Why do I need to be taxed because your genealogy is filled with morons. How is that my fault?

the libertarian bullshit sounds great in a 4chan post, sure, but in reality right-wingers have historically always flipped sides as soon as they see their own ideologies in practice. They'll call on politicians to destroy unions and break up strikes, to change immigration policies in their favor. As MLK said, we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.
In a truly democratic society, even the dregs would have a say in politics and the way policy works to benefit them, but that isn't reality.

The radical conservative spiel is just a blanket shrouding the true ideology of "let me hold onto my excessive lifestyle by any means".

>>34760026

the true cost includes the damage to the environment from rising sea levels. millions of people will lose their land and homes to flooding in the future, that needs to be included in the cost of energy use

>>34760104
Libertarianism is not the same thing as conservatism. Why are you confusing both?

File: soc.jpg (119KB, 640x820px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x820px

>>34760104

Oh look it's another non argument post.

>>34759643

No, stop lying. Your post implies one set of people pay entirely for the other. Welfare aside, everyone is paying collectively for each other.

Nobody is getting robbed because the access to services is the same.

>>34760111

What the fuck are you even talking about lmfao

Take your global warming myth somewhere else.

File: _1477344458347.jpg (37KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 540x720px

>>34760101
You, and all those above me, including government, are stupid enough to oppose eugenics.

Making my birth more your responsibility than my parents.

A poor, stupid family doesn't have the same resources or access to food, information or political influence that a middle class family does. Nor a middle class to an upper class, nor upper to ruling, nor ruling to governmental class.

The higher up the privilege ladder you go, the more responsible you are for the births and savagely unpleasant lives of those whom are born out of your inability to employ eugenic practices.

whatever nerds just give me the fucking neet bux

>>34760144
>Nobody is getting robbed because the access to services is the same.
>Everyone but the state elite getting robbed = nobody getting robbed
We are getting robbed when we are forced to pay for services that are not our choosing.

>>34759808
>It's different from getting the good or service and providing nothing in return at all

You provide for it through the taxes you have paid and continue to pay. You're objectively fucking retarded if you think everyone apart from those on welfare are simply taking services for nothing.

>>34760144

>Your post implies one set of people pay entirely for the other.

Yes that happens no matter what arrangement of recipients is. It also creates incentives for abuse that will turn into one party entirely paying for the other. Look at the NEETs in this thread literally bragging about doing that.

>>34760126
Maybe I'm referencing libertarianism because it's the antithesis to OP's strawman.

>>34760134
Why is it sufficient evidence of the failure of a social and political ideology to reference an empire that terrified the entirety of the western world with the prospect of world domination for nearly a century and was under attack by the USA and its vassal states for the entire time up to its dissolution?

>live in sweden
>good healthcare
>high standard of living
>have to live with mudslimes but crime is still not anywhere close to places like California, New York, Texas, UK, or Japan
I do enjoy when people actively work against a better life

>>34760072
But as people gain more wealth(power) they'll be able to influence any institution through corruption. How does one stop the ultra-wealthy from buying out the entire government, like the (today)government only acts to keep workers from getting their fair share.

>>34760079
Sure you'll get better and smarter toys - my personal opinion is that the best and brightest aren't working on "real" problems due our capitalist system.

>>34760052
Well I didn't say we should remove the government, rather I was asking how one could possibly guard against corrupting elements when a handful of people amass insane amounts of wealth and influence.
Aren't we just heading towards a "Rent Society" or Neo-Feudalism? At a certain point why would Capitalism need Democracy?

>>34760194

>You're objectively fucking retarded if you think everyone apart from those on welfare are simply taking services for nothing.

What about the people who pay into social security and never use it? What about the people who pay into WIC. WOMEN INFANTS AND CHILDRENS who have penises and aren't single mothers? Those are two examples of being forced to pay for something you may have "access" too but can't or don't use.

My tax dollars pay for WIC but I can't use that because I'm not a woman with an infant.

>>34760217
America also has a higher standard if healthcare
Why else would it be so expensive?
Having someone else pay the bill doesn't change how much it costs

>>34760180

Which services do you feel you shouldn't have to pay for? Which ones are you happy to pay for?

I don't particularly care to pay for excessive military spending or for bail outs for corporations that still manage to post hefty profits for their shareholders. I don't believe in subsidising private enterprise, especially things like private schools that seek government funding.

>>34760163
>The higher up the privilege ladder you go, the more responsible you are for the births...
No point in arguing with you. Just by the way you are arbitrarily assigning responsibility tells me that you are convinced in your ways regardless of what I say, so I'm done here

>>34760213

Is that supposed to be an argument against the fact that socialism doesn't work?

>>34760230

In a capitalist system the power is in the hands of the people. No one is forced to pay for anything, everyone spends their money however they want.

Why would someone wealthy try to buy a government that holds no power?

>>34760217
Until the housing bubble bursts, Sweden is just riding the debt wave like the rest of the world - only difference being its the citizenry that owns most of the debt.

>>34760202

The tiny cost of giving NEETs a pittance isn't really an issue that upsets me when multinationals are dodging literally billions in tax payments all over the world.

File: Arthur.png (1005KB, 640x1307px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 640x1307px

>>34760217
Sweden is a social democratic country running under the nordic model it still has private ownership over production. It ain't socialist senpai

>>34760268
>until the housing bubble burst
you mean just like America?

File: 1486613051033.jpg (91KB, 200x350px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 200x350px

>>34760261
>Get's blown the fuck out.
>ur just stupid, i'm not talkin 2 u anymore.

Responsibility comes only with authority. I have none. The government has all of it.

>>34760238

You sound poor. Only a poor person would be this bitter about the few dollars a year this costs and resent the people who can access these particular things this much.

File: screen shot 2015-06-15 at 11.28.56 am.png (330KB, 849x466px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 849x466px

MAYBE IF I CLOSE MY EYES REALLY TIGHT THERE WON'T BE A PROBLEM

File: inequality1108a_1.png (63KB, 1190x824px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1190x824px

>>34760312
H-HARDER

>>34758468
>hard-"""""earned"""""
o i am laffin

>>34760288
The US housing market isn't exactly healthy.

>>34760246

Allowing private enterprise the right to set the prices certainly does change how much something should cost. But do go on choking on Jewish shit as you beg for the right to be ripped off. Hilariously, all they need to do is tell you how good you have it.

File: Graph03.jpg (68KB, 863x558px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 863x558px

>>34760321
A-AS T-T-T-TIGHT AS P-P-P-P-P-POSSSIBLE

>>34760230
>Sure you'll get better and smarter toys - my personal opinion is that the best and brightest aren't working on "real" problems due our capitalist system.
You definitely are cucked, that's for sure:
>be me
>be capitalist farmer
>want to make more profit to buy more things
>only way to do that is to produce more or better food
>do R&D
>funded via the financial markets
>R&D succeeds, able to make more and better plants, more money both from quantity and quality, and more people get fed
>higher supply in market for crops reduces prices
Can you not follow even this basic example?

>>34760230
>they'll be able to influence any institution through corruption
Thats's why socialism sucks and the state shouldn't influence the market.

File: 1459809012001.jpg (28KB, 300x321px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x321px

>>34760262
I'm talking about our society right now, I know its not really capitalism, but isn't it just the end result of capitalism? Wasn't the corporate tax like 60% 60 years ago in the US? Now its like 2% - that's really only because corporations got so much wealth and influence(through lobbies and corrupted unions) they were able to lower it by a lot.

>>34760333
>no source for the chart
>expects me to believe it

File: Don'tBeSeriousPepe.jpg (26KB, 390x377px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 390x377px

>>34760368
The source is literally in the pic you moron.

in the long run, all societies trend toward socialism because of industrialization and robotics

File: 296963dc0da9de20294c132eabd7e2ddec2795b8afeac3aacde170583ef5969c.png (611KB, 1031x947px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1031x947px

>>34760343
>Yo senpai just like pull up those bootstraps my man

>>34760250
>Which services do you feel you shouldn't have to pay for?
All services that I don't use. For example, healthcare, in the last 5 years I only went to the doctor once or twice and didn't had any major health complications. I would like the tax money that went on it back because I could invest it better and save for cheaper private treatments that could be needed in the future and that the government system won't be able to provide for me when needed.
>Which ones are you happy to pay for?
The ones the competed freely to provide the best cost benefit because of competition.

File: 1486463735100.jpg (11KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x250px

>>34760368
>i don't know how to google 3 letters
https://www.bls.gov/

>>34760356
>Wasn't the corporate tax like 60% 60 years ago in the US? Now its like 2%
>60 years ago, stat rate was high, but deductions resulted in a rate close to the current rate
>top income tax rate is 39%
You have been fed smear statistics. There is a difference between the stat rate and effective rate

>>34759912
preventing someone from being born can only be done without their consent (inb4 sjw buzzword) because you can't ask a fertilized egg anything, plus there's obviously a chance somebody's life will be fine rather than shitty but no foolproof way of predicting it.
your argument does make a pretty good case for a right to suicide though.

>>34758468
i agree
add a natural selection act to the constitution
legalize drugs, prostitution
tax sugar
tax tv
invest all the money in space research
fuck your self.

>>34760343
I had luxuries in mind which would have no market outside capitalism, I wish I could formulate my question better, sorry.

>>34760405
>deductions
what deductions

File: 5things.jpg (66KB, 750x570px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 750x570px

So the fifth thing was cropped out of the original image for some reason.

>>34760262
>Is that supposed to be an argument against the fact that socialism doesn't work?
No, I was pointing out that you don't have a rational argument against socialism. You can only cite examples, and far fewer than the historical failures of capitalism. And that's your best anti-socialist argument, and pardon the fact that great minds like Einstein even spoke against the capitalist system in its current form. We can ignore those and look to people who made a living shocking and puzzling the world with radical ideals because that's more sensible. Well, top kek.

>>34760389
>be me
>be not retarded
>pick service career that can't be outsourced
>not forced to get married anymore (more money for me)
>never pay interest on my credit card because I pay off the debt way before then because I have money from my lack of marriage
How am I not winning from this?

File: kirby.jpg (39KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x362px

what happens when all resources are exhausted anyway?

>>34760448
Didn't Eisenhower have a tax rate of 94 percent?

>>34760396
>I would like the tax money that went on it back because I could invest it better and save for cheaper private treatments that could be needed in the future

This is possibly the most laughable and naive thing I've read in years. You are not going to invest the pittance you pay in tax towards health care and be able to afford private treatments.

>>34760396
>The ones the competed freely to provide the best cost benefit because of competition.

So, none then. Why didn't you just say that instead of trying to back pedal? L

>>34760476
>How am I not winning from this?
You're still paying taxes.

>>34760439
>invest all the money in space research
space research doesn't help anybody though

So in the minds of the public you're basically taking tax income to pay lots and lots of money for no fucking reason. Like they might as well be fisting each other because the end result would mean as much to the public as space exploration does.

>>34760477
>Earth is closed system
>what go goes in can't go out
>resources literally unlimited, just requires time to get resources
>only real resource is time

Is Capitalism efficient in a resource kinda of way? Infinite growth in a finite world kinda deal.

>>34760476
What about all the other workers around you?
You cannot sustain an economy on service worker jobs alone
Also
>be me

>>34760343
>be capitalist farmer
>want to sell more
>can't because farming co-ops demand that I pool my resources with a bunch of other farmers
>have to do this because it's far more expensive to find markets near me willing to accept my products because those unions can sell cheaper and larger amounts of produce anywhere I might be able to sell
>producing more food doesn't mean I will necessarily sell more
>producing food more efficiently doesn't mean I will necessarily sell more
>Somebody tells me to my face that I just have to farm better and I can succeed
kek

>>34758604
I don't think they realize they're causing harm. It's just that they are so, so shit on economics it's not even funny.

And whenever you try to have a serious economic argument with them, with actual numbers about how their plan is impossible, the answer is "not everything is numbers" or "you can't solve human problems with maths" or shit like that that makes me want to eat my eyes. As if people managed to support a billion idiots on a planet that initially could barely support like a few millions by the good of their hearts and not by properly-ish economizing the scarce resources they had.

>>34758769
Probably homeschooled

>>34760444
Nice trips. I am not too familiar with 1950s statutes, but there were many more deductions when the Stat rate was higher. The deductions were mostly deducting expenses, and basically only playing net income, as opposed to gross

>>34760512
Capitalism has nothing to do with resource allocation
You can have capitalist societies with high levels of employment and capitalist societies with low levels of employment

>>34758468
>five things
>only lists four
Lmao capitalist fags can't even count right

>>34758905
Workers own the means of production
If they don't, it's not socialism. Use google/wiki for 5 seconds

File: 1469543477261.jpg (36KB, 221x246px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 221x246px

>>34760504
If it was that easy wouldn't tons of companies work towards mining asteroids etc?

>>34760481
>This is possibly the most laughable and naive thing I've read in years. You are not going to invest the pittance you pay in tax towards health care and be able to afford private treatments.
Laughable? Here in shit leftist country we pay more than half of our early earnings in taxes. ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES ARE CONSIDERED TERRIBLE HERE.
I don't know how much of that around 60% of my earnings corresponds to health care taxes but at the frequency that I go for healthcare (always private), it's clear that it would matter.

>So, none then. Why didn't you just say that instead of trying to back pedal?
I'm not back pedalling. I'm since the beginning of the thread saying that I'm for the free market.

gee, if those are the main arguments against socialism, then count me in.

OPs picture just made me a little bit more of a believer in socialism.

>>34760525
>capitalism
>but has unions and co-ops
You must be retarded m8

File: dragonballgirl-portraits.png (23KB, 528x692px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 528x692px

>>34758494
This desu bring in that Fully Automated Luxury Communism now my man

"The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them."

File: libertarians.png (201KB, 720x471px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 720x471px

>>34758468
Okay, m8. Okay.

>>34760520
>What about all the other workers around you?
Not my fault they weren't born smart enough to get a service job like me. Blame your god for that one

>five reasons
>only lists four
>you are not entitled to someone else's hard-earned money ever
>America has taxes
wut

>>34760599
>resorts to meme pics instead of arguing against points.

>>34760628
>unable to dissect the argument represented in the picture

>>34760628
Isn't that exactly what OP's image is?

>>34760651
>unable to argue against points so resorts to satire.

>>34758507
It's in the proletarian's self-serving, egoistical interest to eat the rich.

>>34760564
>tfw anon sees one meme pic and thinks it represents the entire universe of arguments against socialism
>tfw realize anon is retarded

>>34760575
Co-ops are an example of capitalism
Look up a list of American farming co-ops

>>34760686
satire or not, there's a point made in the picture. the fact that youre arguing about this shows your incompetence on the thread's subject.

t. anon who didnt post that picture

>>34758507

That 'self serving, egotistical nature of man' crap is also called psychological egoism, and is one of the most easily debunked 'philosophical' (it's actually just a really dumb empirical claim) arguments that libertards make.

>>34760715
>gee, if those are the main arguments against socialism, then count me in..
>main arguments

>tfw anon sees one meme pic and thinks it represents the entire universe of arguments against socialism
>the entire universe of arguments

somebody is the retard here, and it aint me.

>>34760723
>thinks co-ops are capitalist
>expects me not to think he's retarded

>>34760479
MARGINAL. RATE.
Not for you, and not for anyone in actual practice.

>>34760748
>is one of the most easily debunked
debunk it for us then

>>34760765
Why do I get the sense you have been cucked before?

>>34760780
>t. someone who doesn't understand anything about finance

>>34758468
Those are all opinions slanted in a way as to make them sound like facts.

>>34760828

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#1

Knock yourself out.

>>34760835
>cucked

hm, so you dismissed the fact that i showed you made a mistake and then proceeded to insult me, instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

why do i get the sense im talking to a mentally challenged individual?

>>34760769
Just using the bare bones general definition of capitalism
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state
>economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners

So if there's a private industry that controls the trade and industry of a bunch of other farms, it's capitalist
-Sunkist
-Land O'Lakes
-Ocean Spray
All run by corporations, all of which dictate the means, the supply, and the contribution of however many farms that are under the co-op

>>34760899
because half of the people on this board are mentally challenged individuals who deserve our love and support

>>34760916
*All are corporations run by private owners

>>34760899
Whatever you say cucky. Just don't come crying to me when Chad is in your bed with your gf

>>34760946

Jokes on you faggot I don't have a gf.

>>34760769
>>34760575
How are Unions not capitalist?
It's just a specific resource (labor) being controlled by a specific person (union leader) interested in the best return/trade for that resource

>>34760723
Capitalism is free markets.

If the coop forces you with laws or by threats of violence to produce or sell in certain ways, then that's not capitalism.

If the coop is voluntary and you can't compete with them, then tough luck; there are obviously others that can produce the same value as you do by using up less resources. If you continue producing in an inefficient way then you should expect to work at a loss for that waste. Same way you would expect to work at a profit for using resources efficiently.

>>34761053
>If the coop forces you with laws or by threats of violence to produce or sell in certain ways, then that's not capitalism.
They aren't threatening farmers in any way.

>If the coop is voluntary and you can't compete with them, then tough luck
Which is how co-ops are capitalism

I haven't said anything contrary to the things you've just explained, I don't understand what your point is
You aren't proving co-ops aren't capitalist

This shit is dumb as fuck
>"Free" does not actually mean Free
Unless you're rich, then you have all the freedom you want.
>You're not entitled to some else's hard earned money ever
What are taxes? What are subsidies? Is the person who made this not aware that the only reason the food economy hasn't crashed is that the government pays farms to under-harvest so it doesn't crash the economy and put them out of jobs?
>You cannot tax a nation into prosperity
Muh roads, something businesses take for granted
Also, police and military.
>The rich are not responsible for your financial situation, you are
That's real fair, considering the average person is responsible for the rich's financial situation. See: wall street bail-outs. Paid for by taxpayers.

>>34760422
At the very least i think it does, thankyou.

>>34761040
>be union
>monopoly on labor
>price fixing
Oh, so when the company price fixes it's wrong, but when the union does it, it's fine? Any price fixing is literally the lack of capitalism

>>34758468
It's like that saying about the frog and scorpion or w/e. A scorpion stings, because it is a scorpion -> Socialists are stupid, because they are socialists.

>>34761233
>Oh, so when the company price fixes it's wrong, but when the union does it, it's fine?
I didn't say that nor did I imply that

>Any price fixing is literally the lack of capitalism
There are several different types of capitalism
Not all capitalism revolves around a free market
A free market doesn't necessarily involve capitalism

What do you think capitalism even is?

>>34761295
yep. its that simple. just like youre a nigger because youre a faggot.

>>34761310
>multiple types of capitalism
No offense, but this is the kind of thing retard commies try to say in order to make communism seem like capitalism ("but communism is just another firm of capitalism")

>capitalism guys
>capitalism is going to be the best forever
>labor will always trend toward automation
>skill floor for 'skilled labor' will continually rise

>>34761388
>but this is the kind of thing retard commies try to say
And you're using a logical fallacy to try and continue the argument

What do you think capitalism even is?

>>34761389
>be me
>didn't go into a cuckold field
>can't be automated out of a job

>>34761428
everything will ALWAYS trend toward automation, shit even prostitution will be replaced by robots one day

>>34761428
>as long as it works for me i dont give a fuck lol

>>34761428
>>be me
who else would you be? a rebbit?

>You are not entitled to someone else's hard-earned money...ever

Who is to say who owns what? "Natural rights"?

>>34761426
>be me
>want current US economic system but with less regulations, less taxes, and less government intervention
>this economic system is called X
>book definition of capitalism (resources controlled by the private sector) not the same as X, but close to it
>for simplicity of having conversations, refer to X as capitalism
Try not to be too much of a cuck

>>34761475
Pretty much. If I can work the system, anyone can. It's what separates me from the cucks

>>34761520
>>be me
newfag pls

anyway, you stated that what you've been calling capitalism isn't actually capitalism but you call it that because it's easier
You're not talking about capitalism

>>34761576
Fine, if you must insist on going total cuck mode:
>Economic spectrum runs from Capitalism (private sector owns 100% of the resources) to Communism (public sector owns 100% of the resources). If we draw a line between these two points, my system is 5% to the right of the Capitalism point (aka 95% capitalism)
So, how often does Chad cuck you?

>>34761685
So monarchies and dictatorships are capitalist? A king or dictator owns all of his nations resources, which is as private as it gets
The problem here is that you cannot separate the idea of capitalism being anti-communism, what fat crock taught you that?
The very fact that communism, which is a type of political socialism is a political ideology.
Socialism is the notion that everything should be regulated by the public, but that doesn't mean that private groups/individuals cannot own resources.
And using your own definition of Capitalism aka private sector owns 100% of the resources, that doesn't contradict socialism. Regulating things does not equate to owning things.
Meaning that socialist capitalism exists.

But hey, go ahead and project more stuff about cucking on to me

>>34761801
>So monarchies and dictatorships are capitalist? A king or dictator owns all of his nations resources, which is as private as it gets
Your literally retarded. In monarchies and dictatorships, a single person is the public sector, not the private sector. The public sector controls all of the laws, while the private sector doesn't directly control any of the laws. In the cases you cite (very cucked cases mind you), public institutions own all of the resources. You just either too cucked or too stupid (most likely both) to realize this.

Im guessing your the emotional boyfriend, while Chad is the sexual boyfriend?

>>34761924
>a single person is the public sector
It's like I don't have to argue anymore

>>34758468
Would take that handsome bearded chad and make his mouth mine/10 post

File: :pol: weeb.png (139KB, 1263x307px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1263x307px

WHEN WILL THIS FAGGOT-ASS /POL/ THREAD DIE

>>34758468
It's the socialism is "muh big gov't plus taxes" meme again.

>>34759452
>It's another IT'S NOT SOCIALISM! without ever giving a clear and consistent definition for Socialism episode.

A lot of the original socialist/communist theorists wanted the government to disappear. The more extreme forms of socialism to tend to become somewhat like the anarcho-capitalist's ideals. Not that most reasonable people think that getting rid of the government is really a good idea.

>>34761428
on a long enough timeline everyone will be automated out of their jobs

>The rich are not responsible for your financial situation.

When they are the one who decided how much to pay you for work and how much things cost they are.

>Free does not mean free

Your right I think it's dumb when people say free, but allocating taxes doesn't sound great either.

>Free does not actually mean free
We understand this

>You are not entitled to someone else's hard-eanred money
Someone please tell the rich business owners this, they need to hear it

>You cannot tax a nation into prosperity
This part is correct

>The rich are not responsible for your financial situation.

I don't kow, given that they are the ones who decide your hours, your paycheck, etc. They have a shit ton of control over the working class.

>You are not entitled to someone else's hard-earned money... ever
Then what about bosses?

>>34762035
>be me
>only work finite number of years
>so don't care

>>34761511
Seems like a much better option than socialism.

>>34759504
>No one is being forced to buy the new jewphone
you're right. Nobody is being forced to buy the new jewphone, but the fact that jewpple has made so much money off of jewphones, it can psychologically skew people's thoughts into thinking jewphones are always innovative and that you should buy one each time they make one. How? The same way totalitarian leaders get people to think they're god. Propaganda. All over the place, jewpple shills their jewphones. They started out small, selling and shilling jewputers in commiefornia, and because their product was decent and their shilling was relentless enough, they became big enough to sell and shill worldwide. They now only have to update the specs on their products every once in a while, and they can make millions off their relentless shilling, making people think their product is something its not.
>Why would they be that stupid? There's nothing wrong about selling a product you invented.
of course not. But there is something wrong with making millions by just updating specs of an older product and reselling it. There's no ingenuity, imagination, or effort, yet they make millions anyway, by persuading people through the media and through advertising.
>How is advertisement the same as DEMANDING
its not, but if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of its bound to stick. Relentless advertising causes people to buy things they wouldn't have, if they were given an unbiased decision.
>Are the jews using mind tricks to make you buy their products
to be honest, yes.
>Monopolies nowadays only exist because of state regulation
state regulation created by large companies that want monopolies, regardless of whether the market is free or not.
>not a bad thing in free markets
How so? Being a monopoly means no competition and making sure there will never be competition. At that point you might as well have the state sell that product. At least they won't price gouge you.
cont in next post.

http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1486696714325.webm

>>34758468
http://8ch(com)net/leftypol/res/1351758.html#1355362

Raid

>>34762101
>When they are the one who decided how much to pay you for work and how much things cost they are.
Who decides that is the government with its regulations over the market not "the rich".
>Someone please tell the rich business owners this, they need to hear it
Tell them with your wallet by not buying their products. No alternatives? That's because of market regulations keeping competition at bay for the sake of ideology.
>I don't kow, given that they are the ones who decide your hours, your paycheck, etc. They have a shit ton of control over the working class.
You can flee to the jungle or diminish the state's intervention and join the competition in a free market. You're not entitled to anyone's money.
>Then what about bosses?
Is your boss stealing you?

>you are not entitled to someone else's """"hard-earned"""" money
I just stole money from a guy. As far as I'm concerned, I worked for it, I earned it, it's mine.

>>34762222
Your employer doesn't take your money, you fucking mongoloid. He takes the value of your labor, which you are too stupid and lazy to realize on your own. Your boss isn't forcing you to work at gunpoint. If you had marketable skills and the business knowledge to sell those skills, you could work for yourself, or at least an employer who had a reason to give a shit about you. But, you don't have either of those things, so if you did not work as a wagecuck you would run out of money and starve.

>>34761992
"muh stagnant collective farm on which nobody works and everyone starves"

>>34759504
>>34762318
>How would someone scare off competition
The big companies show em who's boss. If they ever become big enough to compete, the older company just buys them up, pays them to stay small or to stay away from selling certain products, files a lawsuit about practically anything to get them to close down, or bribes elected officials to make convoluted laws that prevent the competition from getting any bigger.
This get rid of competition, which the free market needs to stay free. Otherwise its the company's market, the company makes the rules, and were being gouged out our asses and treated like cattle that only sell instead of eat grass.

Free markets don't work on a large scale. Only in small communities, where companies can't get big enough to destroy their competition.

>>34762318
>it can psychologically skew people's thoughts into thinking jewphones are always innovative and that you should buy one each time they make one
Again. Another leftshit authoritarian argument. People are free to do whatever they want with their money and if a shit product is advertised as inovative people are still free to buy it and even go bankrupt buying a thousand jewphones to fill a pool with them.
>The same way totalitarian leaders get people to think they're god.
Definetly no. When the time comes your leftist leaders do that at gun point. No one is threatening your life so you buy a jewphone. You are free to influence people into liking the things you sell. Are you against free speech too?
>making people think their product is something its not
No one is keeping you from making a better product that stands for its capabilities and maybe speak out and outsell competitors.. OH WAIT! There is someone: government, with bureaucracy and taxes that will keep you out of the market for the sake of those big regulamented companies that take advantage of this exploit.
>But there is something wrong with making millions by just updating specs of an older product and reselling it.
There isn't, again, stop being totalitarian, no one is conving people to buy things they find desireable at gun point.
>its not, but if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of its bound to stick. Relentless advertising causes people to buy things they wouldn't have, if they were given an unbiased decision.
This drives inovation. We didn't need smartphones before steve jobs but now we have many companies producing them and if you want you one you have an enormous ammount of options to choose from and you would have much more in a free market.
>state regulation created by large companies that want monopolies, regardless of whether the market is free or not.
Are you stupid? If the market is free the state would not intervene and create said regulations to promote a number of companies.

>>34762461
No worker receives the total value they produce for the company. The rests goes to bosses or ceo's.

>He takes the value of your labor, which you are too stupid and lazy to realize on your own.

Dude, people are just lazy, now I have justification for exploitation! No sorry, it's not like that. You just admitted that there's exploitation though, word for word, so there's not much else to say here.

>>34759912
easy solution : kill yourself

>>34762318
>How so? Being a monopoly means no competition and making sure there will never be competition. At that point you might as well have the state sell that product. At least they won't price gouge you.
In a free market a monopoly only sustains itself IF and only if the business presents the best cost benefit for the consumers and there's nothing bad about having a product available for everyone at the lowest price possible.

>>34762565
>No worker receives the total value they produce for the company. The rests goes to bosses or ceo's.

And right they should, as they lack the skills, knowledge, and motivation necessary to extract the full value of their labor.

They aren't being "exploited" by the system if what they get for participating in it is better than what they get for not participating in it.

>2) You are not entited to some else's hard earned money

I agree, this is why we must other throw the bourgeoisie bastards exploiting the workers.

>>34762461
I do work for myself. I was just baiting your dumb ass into exposing how shit capitalism is.

Admittedly I wouldn't live such a luxurious lifestyle under communism as my job is utterly worthless outside of such a wasteful and inefficient system, so I suppose I thank you for shilling for me for free, but there is no need to get so upset. I'm sure many serfs supported feudalism at the time.

>>34762538
>the older company just buys them up, pays them to stay small or to stay away from selling certain products
This doesn't sustain itself in a free market because people are free to compete and the ones that don't sell themselves take their deserved share of the market.
>files a lawsuit about practically anything to get them to close down
This is not a free market, you just described state regulation.
>Otherwise its the company's market, the company makes the rules, and were being gouged out our asses and treated like cattle that only sell instead of eat grass.
Until someone that doesn't sell its business out comes into place and competes with a lower price.

>>34758507
Ego is a social institution with no physical reality. The ego is simply your symbol of yourself. Just as the word "water" is a noise that symbolizes a certain liquid without being it, so too the idea of ego symbolizes the role you play, who you are, but it is not the same as your living organism.

You're literally meme'd into believing "ego" exists.That you are somehow special and completely separate from everything else. Think about what you learned as a kid, not the math but the "life lessons". You're taught to "JUST B URSELF" while still conforming to what society deems normal.

>>34758468
some amount of market regulation is required to sustain a free market

File: wizardchan.gif (499KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 387x305px

>>34762676
okay.

t. medical student

>>34758468
It man I get it the picture but it says 5 but shows only 4 that's stuck in my head now

>>34762558
Well obviously, nobody is forcing you to buy a jewphone. But if the world is full of jew phone posters, jewphones on the tv, jewphones on the radio, celebrities telling the world that jewphones are the greatest in the world, don't you think a lot of people are going to think jewphones are the best? Its not life or death, but in a choice between a product that you get a constant stream of information about every day and a product you barely know about, I'm sure you'll buy the one that you know about more. People don't have time, or simply just don't care enough to research everything they buy to see if they are getting the best of the best. They buy what they know. And what they know is what big companies shill relentlessly.

I don't know a good solution to this, but this is a problem with the free market. So don't assume I'm advocating the government fucking taking possession over everything and dealing it out evenly among the masses.

Also, companies won't need the fucking state to intervene to give them a monopoly in a free market. They can just go and do it, which is worse.

>>34762365
Leftist retards will always get BTFO.

>>34762817
The free market is a meme. A completely free market would see everyone consolidate their monopolies.

>>34762945
>I don't know a good solution to this, but this is a problem with the free market.
It's not a problem. You're again implying with a stupid strawman that people are too dumb to make their own choices. That's the arrogance of leftists. This way of thinking is digusting and it's nothing but totalitarian virtue-signalling. Apple started small and they employ marketeers and all sorts of people to advertise their products. People don't need to buy the best of the best, not doing so is still a counscious choice and they should be free to do that. They can have all sorts of motivations to buy a product and this is times better for humanity than a leftist state forcing people to buy theirs at gun point.
>They can just go and do it, which is worse.
I explained in my other posts that a monopoly in a free market is not a bad thing.

>>34762636
>In a free market a monopoly only sustains itself IF and only if the business presents the best cost benefit for the consumers

This is just simply not true. Companies can use money to demolish all competition using ways stated in >>34762538, making them a monopoly. The ultimate goal of every company is to become the monopoly, and they will do so, by first trying to out-compete, but as major competitors arise, they will turn to force to shut those competitors down.

>>34762637
>And right they should, as they lack the skills, knowledge, and motivation necessary to extract the full value of their labor.
But you full well know that this is a lie, because you've already let it slip that you know it's not true.
Sounds to me like you're an assmad kulak upset at the thought of commies stealing your toothbrush.

>>34763061

Here's a question for you. Are you a compatibilist, or do you believe in libertarian free will?

Another question--do you understand what those terms mean?

I am for an economic revolution, but not one based on century-old ideology based on flawed philosophy and debunked science. A pragmatic socialist revolution is possible, but Marxist revolution is historically proven to lead to poverty and famine.

>>34763063
>they will turn to force to shut those competitors down.
They can't turn to force because the only force that's able to regulate a market is the state. When the state is out of the market picture all that lasts is competition.

>>34758468
>You cannot tax a nation into prosperity

not true according to america's history

we have done really well in the past when we had very high tax rates. taxes can do a lot for society if they're invested in education, welfare, healthcare and other things to help people prosper and give the poor a fair shot, because you never know where your next genius is going to come from and people are generally more motivated when they feel safe and secure.

what you can't tax a nation into is having a class of entrenched oligarchs who keep socking more and more useless zeroes in offshore bank accounts at the cost of the health and wellbeing of millions. in order for those people to exist they need low taxes and weak social institutions, so they get to keep more of their money and other people have less of a chance to steal their revenue streams with better ideas/products.

>>34763094

And a major part of competition could be using shills, couldn't it?

So the ""best"" company, which becomes a monopoly, could have done so by hired liars to lie to unsuspecting consumers.

>>34763063
The reason that companies can "shut competition down" is because the decrepit, broken US legal system forces defendants in civil suits to pay extortionate amounts of money just to defend themselves.

The lawyers should be hanged en masse, not the bourgeoisie.

>>34763086
Libertarian free will. Why are you adding theological matters to the thread?

>>34763061
First of all, monopolies get rid of all fucking competition, which is a bad thing. How is that not a bad thing? All you did in previous posts was say that competitors will always rise up to challenge a monopoly, companies have several ways of preventing this from happening.

Now people make choices, but when all affordable choices are big business, that choice becomes an illusion.

>>34763140
Again, nothing wrong with it. Even if lies are found out people are still free to enter the market and shill for a honest version of their product and empirically prove that it is the best choice. Not all consumers are unsuspecting and you're probably again using the same totalitarian argument to maybe imply that a big number of them are. If that was so, we would be still using wired phones because the companies that made them would shill that they are the best we could ever get.

>>34763094
>If they ever become big enough to compete, the older company just buys them up, pays them to stay small or to stay away from selling certain products, files a lawsuit about practically anything to get them to close down

none of these involve the state regulating the market.

>>34758933
>be capitalist shill
>makes strawmans
>socialists don't take the bait
>"Haha look at the socialists throwing insults again."

>>34763212
>files a lawsuit about practically anything to get them to close down
>none of these involve the state regulating the market
The lawsuit one does.

File: sick bern.png (18KB, 587x212px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 587x212px

>>34758468
drumph btfo tbqh

>>34759094
>not realizing that the corporations don't care about the consumer

>the megacorps only care about bottom line

>>34763212
>>34763150

(not guy)

I agree with you that it isn't government regulation, it's byzantine policymaking and a corrupt justice system.

>>34763164
>How is that not a bad thing?
I already answered this a number of times.
>ompanies have several ways of preventing this from happening
state regulation, the ways to sustain a monopoly in the free market are fair game because they result in the cheapest product for as long as it can face competition

>>34758938
You know because of your semi-"free" market, I have to pay over $200 for glasses because the $8 ones the same monopoly makes are too small for my head? Thats bullshit and you know it. 200 fucking dollarsfor two bits of wire and some warped plastic.

(In reality we need a mix of both or a whole new thing)

Also why are you so nationalist? It's stupid and literal brainwashing and propaganda posed to you as a young child from the government.

>>34759887
The access is restricted across state lines, essentially creating a monopoly within each state.

>>34763254
>not realizing that the corporations don't care about the consumer
they only certain thing corporations care about is profit but they only get their deserved profit if they sell the products that the population is willing to pay for

>>34763209

>Again, nothing wrong with it.

You're telling me you see nothing wrong with committing literal fraud?

> Even if lies are found out people are still free to enter the market and shill for a honest version of their product and empirically prove that it is the best choice

"shill for an honest version"?

What the fuck are you even saying? That's not "shilling".

Jesus wept. Why am I even arguing with you? Fuck this.

>>34763223
It's almost like the people who want a completely free market, no regulation and to remove welfare have some sort of vested interest driving their politics rather than logic.

>>34763289
>You know because of your semi-"free" market, I have to pay over $200 for glasses because the $8 ones the same monopoly makes are too small for my head? Thats bullshit and you know it. 200 fucking dollarsfor two bits of wire and some warped plastic.
There's no cheaper ones because there are no competitors in a rigged market.

>>34763150
what does defending yourself in court have to do with the reason companies shut other companies down? Do companies feel threatened that competition will sue them? They are guaranteed a lawyer by law. Also, if they can afford to buy companies for millions of dollars, couldn't they also afford a fucking lawyer?

The reason why they want to shut down competition is so they can raise prices ridiculously high and still have people buy their products.

>>34763289

>I have to pay over $200 for glasses

www.39dollarglasses.com

You're welcome.

And yes, they do have some glasses suitable for the cranially endowed. Measure yourself carefully.

I have bought glasses from them myself and they were quite good.

>>34763340
>what does defending yourself in court have to do with the reason companies shut other companies down? Do companies feel threatened that competition will sue them? They are guaranteed a lawyer by law. Also, if they can afford to buy companies for millions of dollars, couldn't they also afford a fucking lawyer?
The state's dirty law system shouldn't be used to intervene in the market that way. Like that, with the help of the state any big business can shut down smaller ones.

>>34763240
>lawsuit about something unrelated
>hack ceo's pc and throw cp on it
>say the ceo's a pedo
>ceo v&
>company goes downhill because they can't find someone better

>>34763340
I'm saying that corporate monopolies USE the legal system TO shut competition down.

>>34758926
>I'm so tired of pol
Me too, man
If only we had some kind of containment board for it

>>34763402
They can still buy small companies and pay companies to stay small. They can also buy up all the resources needed to make a product. Like say you're selling oil. You buy all the known oil mines/revines/rigs/whatevers in the us with your fortune. Then, if people try to make a company that outsources oil in another country, you buy all that country's oil shit before the competition can grow. The competition goes bankrupt and you can price gouge all you want because people need oil.

>>34758468
I don't really wanna wage slave for the rest of my life tbqhwy. The thought of it just makes me more depressed.

>>34758926
>the /pol/ boogeyman

WOW a person likes freedom! so horrible!

>>34763507
aah...

well >>34763606
original

>>34763507
This is why the most cancerous alignment imo is Lawful.

>>34763606
Implying everyone in the world for some supernatural reason is going to sell their resources instead of profiting with them. The state is more likely to do that but fortunatelly whatever shadow of a free market we have has proved that this will never happen.

>>34758604
>saying this in a den consisting of NEETs
Either normalfag or some really odd selfloathing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4200272/92-Berlin-left-wing-activists-live-parents.html

>>34758507
>guise, let's all live in huts, eat raw meat and die from dysentery, it's human nature after all.

Yeah, the niggers in africa must be having a wonderful time, cuz they are living just like 1000000 ago.

Why do you niggers care about this political crap?
It all boils down to debating and trolling, not discussion to foster new ideas.
Also why the fuck are topics that have a dedicated board for, not being deleted (I am looking at you, polacks and lgbt)?