Alright lads and wenches, who wants to form a pirate community?

>>25651497
That's fucking gay my dude

>>25651539
No, 'fucking gay' as you put it, is lubing up, bending over and getting fucked by a system, then believing thats freedom.

Imagine what would happen if you chose to not work, and do whatever you wanted. If you wanted the benefits of your and your friend's work to go to you, not some rich company and CEO.

As living off the land is illegal, you'd starve. You wouldnt be able to pay rent, so a man or men with guns would eventually remove you, killing you if you resisted.

You're only option is a freedom to engage in abject wage slavery, or the freedom to starve. Democraric or dictatorial, all states will execute either directly or indirectly, those that refuss to conform to indentured servitude.

lol

pirates were literally state sponsored terrorists designed to pillage rival countries' ships.

there was nothing free about it.

also it's very interesting to see the western secular definition of freedom and free will being so distorted.

freedom does not mean you're free to do whatever you want, because then you're just a slave to your impulses and forgo your ability to rationally make decisions. there's nothing free about that.

freedom is understanding what you can and cannot do and operating within those restraints, because you are FREELY deciding and FREELY exercising your FREE WILL to do so.

i'm sorry that whatever edgelord meme/infographic convinced you otherwise has led you so far astray.

>>25651575
Your definition of Freedom is correct, but your stance is a red herring. Being presented with the option of work as a slave for a sociopathic by definution corporation or starve, provides such a narrow spectrum of possibilities that it is not actually freedom at all. <c>

>>25651834
Additionally your assumption that pure freedom is about slavery to impulses is both a non sequitor and a red herring.


In a truely free society, people collaborate on a mutually consentual basis, they work together voluntarily in projects and activities, for themselves and those they choose to work with. <c>

>>25651836
They do not slave under a purely arbitrary heirarchy under the very real threat of direct or indirect violence for non compliance based on being born or educated into debt which if not paid off results in either starvation or arrest.

Further, they do not voluntarily associate with people they dislike or don't want to associate with, in an office for 40 hours a week with some boss whose sole talent was kissing his bosses ass having the arbitrary authority to fire them, robbing them of both livlihood and healthcare when said boss has no right to lead. Just arbitrary authority. <c>

>>25651839
All Freedom requires people knowing what they can and cannot do, but you have been so mind cucked by the state that you fully believe that the 'western idea of freedom' (i.e. sell your labor to make ten loaves of bread so I can pay you a slice) is in anyway representative of freedom. You are also so indoctrinated that you believe the meta end state is just. We are not engaged in a humanity wide quest to ascend to the stars, or save the world. We are in a cyclic money generating cycle that is entirely insular and fictional at the expense of real people, the real planet, etc <c>

>>25651841
.

Real social freedom is that of consentual rather than imposed heiraechies. Where people work together by choice, as a community. That community forms its own rules and its own standards of conduct, rather than those being imposed.

Of course though some people are so hopelessly dependent on the system they are slaves to that they'll believe that they are free, even as they shave in the morning synchronized with 200 million others, before driving to a place they dont want to go and wasting their time on work they don't want to do so someone else can get rich before going home. You are clearly one of the sheep. Enjoy your servitude.

>>25651569
No, privateers were. Those sailing under the black flag bowed to no masters. Though admitidly most started as privateers, they did not remain so.

Maybe do some research into actual history, rather than pulling nonsense out of your anus.

>>25651843
If you don't like your job, you're free to leave it
If you don't think your skill set can land you a decent job, you're free to improve yourself
What you're talking about isn't freedom, it's simply giving up. 'Life isn't fair, Fight Club showed me how shallow the post-industrial society and culture is, therefore I'm simply not going to abide by their rules' isn't freedom, you're actively ceding it to the State™ because you're a whiny baby that can't stomach improving yourself.

>>25651859
Not at all. Nice strawman though.

The issue is not about whether one cam ascend the ranks of slavery to become a more prosperous slave than another. Or that its impossible to be comfortable, or that it can't drive self improvement.

Its that the system itself is systematically oppressive and dependent on voolence to maintain itself. There are thousands of other means of societal organiation where the option of changing job or not doesn't lead to statvation or healthcare.

In fact your fucking laughable. Your entire response shows your indoctrination. Your entire argument boils to:

'Well if you dont like being a field nigger, you can work hard and be a house nigger, and if uou can't improve enough its on you! You have total freedom to decide the manner of your systematic enslavement so you are free!'

Yeah, smells like freedom. And btw, I guarantee I'm doimg better than you. The system has been kind to me, but it doesnt make it just.

>>25651882
Okay bud, sure thing :)
go in peace glorifying the Lord by your light

>>25651497
Careful not to get classified as a terroist organization.

>>25651852
Yeah and all pirates of the 1600s and beyond were somehow related to privateers or joined a former privateer. And they weren't really free either, they had a pirate code and sets of rules they had to follow or could have their own crew kill them for breaking said code.
Also if they didn't "work" either ship mantainence or actually pirate work(i.e. killin and robin) they'd get thrown into sea or killed themselves.

Come on anon, I like pirates too but there's a reason why they died off

File: 130919b-black-sam-bellamy.jpg (222KB, 499x595px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 499x595px

>>25651924
Please provide academic sources for this research?

The code was drafted by the crew. The captain only had absolute power in times of actual combat, the rest of the time he could be voted out at will by the crew.

Pirates could leave or join crews at any time. It wasn't a street gang.

There's no question that they were outlaws and comported themselves accordingly, but as Black Sam Bellamy said (pic related) - their ideals were of freedom. It is for this reason they founded colonies in their own right, and didnt just dick around on the Ocean

>>25651943
Go read about captain morgan anon, he was one of the first privateers to be publicly outed by the crown, and to move onto pirating in the new world.
The "owner" of the ship always had absolute power, so if you stole said ship you had power and domain to it and the crew. That doesn't mean your crew could mutiny and take said ship into their owner ship. But a pirate ship still went by maritime rules, a ship needs singular captain.

You can't really "leave" a ship if your in open sea, and if your at odds with that your captain. Its either they kill you, throw you over board, or your thrown in the brig. Freedom isn't really free everyone should know that, they were always being pursued by some form of government and the
founding of their colonies was more of a refuge or safe house than anything else. Their freedom created a by product of fear and isolation from their homelands if anything

>academic sources for this research
my guy are you saying your fb style pic is an academic source

>>25652567
Well you could read "the Golden Age of Piracy" by little which critically examines multiple sources of pirate mythos and discusses how crews were in fact organized and how no one man 'stole' a ship in the first place, but somehow i doubt facts will ever trump your polemic to you at least.

You're applying capitalist principles of ownership and absolute heirarchy to the common ownership and elected captains that actually existed on pirate ships. Some were unquestionably cunts, and there were no fixed rules - but I'm pointing out historically verifiable generalities and you're spouting wikipedia level retorts.

>>25651852
Sure they did. There bowed to the captains and mates on the ship. Other pirates bowed down to the strongest more vicious captains.