How do you do an ancap character /tg/?

Make it a trait, +3 INT +2 CHA +d6 WIS

Chaotic neutral dwarf merchant

>>49318131
Take a normal murderhobo, but then excuse all their actions with a pitiful excuse for a philosophy.

File: lpd.png (317KB, 1348x1243px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1348x1243px

>>49318131
This would be a good start.

>>49318532

>>49318967
Thanks for the (you), 0.01 BTC have been deposited in your account.

>>49318532
Sounds about right

I do that by pissing straight up into a ceiling fan while moving my finger over my lips to make a blblblblbl noise.

>>49318532
>violating the NAP all the time
Doesn't really fit.

Here's how you do it: delusional businessman that really hates all non-voluntary institutions.
Chaotic Neutral alignment.
His ultimate goal is to make his own realm that can sustain itself free of gods and masters, without being at peril from outside threats.

>>49319651
The chaotic neutral part represents his inconsistent and contradictory beliefs and his unpredictable nature, right?

>>49319032
Thanks. I was agreeing with you, for what it's worth.

>>49319651
>>violating the NAP all the time
>Doesn't really fit.
No, no, you see, it's not aggression when THEY do it; they're just responding to aggression from other people!

>>49319711
oh, thanks anon

>>49318131

Play Chaotic Evil.

>>49319865
Play Chaotic Evil, but present yourself as if you're Lawful Good, and act offended when you ping as evil to spells and magic items.

>>49318535
Oh come on. That smoke in the mothers face would have clearly been an NAP aggression and she had every right to use self defense to protect her child.

>>49319651
So Andrew Ryan?

Chaotic neutral, use excessive force for everything, but never make the first move. Buying and selling whatever you want to whoever you want is top business, no backsies. Don't adhere to anything anyone says you should do, unless you were already doing it.

>>49320156
So they should go on welfare?

File: Lemmy-from-Motorhead.jpg (45KB, 412x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 412x600px

>>49318131
Play a Bard

>>49321167
>but never make the first move
Social aggression is still aggression, anon :^)

>>49318535

As an ancap this is beautiful.

HOPPE/10

>>49321529
>Hoppe
>not Hobbes
>not being superior statist ubermensch
Enjoy your brutish, nasty state of nature, bruv

How do you play a proud ANTIFA character?
Protip: LG Paladin you stupid fascists.

>>49321544
enjoy your unaccountable hypermonarchy

>>49321905
>implying the plebes are any better

>>49319160
This made me kek

>>49319684
Lawful statist detected

Could be anywhere on the Chaotic side of things, I don't doubt there's a few freedom minded business owners who act with integrity. But still, definitely the chaotic types to the last of them. Otherwise, I don't know what to say, it'd just be any character that didn't believe in government (but still believed in private ownership of capital producing property). There's any number of backgrounds that'd make for a person like that.

>>49321576
Anti-Paladin that somehow never noticed he fell.

How do you play a communist character, /tg/?

>>49318535
Source:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

>>49324606
Everytime you fuck up you say "I was never really a true marxist"

>>49324606
Robin Hood with mandatory conscription.

>>49324638


>>49324722
I made a few characters like this, my favorite being a Black Crusade one

>>49318131

Play as an Iceland-era viking.

>>49318408
>that shit
>implying
+3 int +1 cha -2d4 wis

>>49324606
Substantial penalties to INT and CHA

>>49321576
You mean LGBT Paladin

File: 5e7418bf78844c46b07b06504ea4bb33[1].png (573KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1024x768px

>>49318131
>In a regular, cozy town everyone goes about their daily business
>An old lady, on her way to feed the ducks like she does every friday morning, happens upon a rugged looking beggar
>"Spare change for the poor, ma'am?"
>Because the young man reminds her of her own son, the old lady reaches into her purse for a few silver pieces
>In that moment, a Dark Knight squeezes her wrist until her bones shatter
>"The Free Market will fix it!"

>An old, dying man of great wealth and prestige decides that his last wish is to set his slaves free
>The now freemen and -women personally thank their master before leaving
>About half an hour later, they're dragged to their master's residence in chains by a Dark Knight
>"The Free Market will fix it!"

>In his palace, the king is debating the status of the realm's economy with his most trusted advisors
>One of them proposes minting more coins, to both bring more money into circulation and honor the king by putting his name and face on the back of every coin
>Suddenly a gauntleted hand punches through the wall and snaps the advisors back
>A muffled "The Free Market will fix it" can be heard from the other side of the wall

>The identity of this Dark Knight is as of yet unknown, but he's widely referred to as "The Invisible Hand".

File: eclipse_phase.png (957KB, 1328x2216px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 1328x2216px

>>49318131

Charge people money for everything, complain when they want free help, and expect everybody else to do the same.

File: 1468375337939.png (296KB, 1196x1117px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1196x1117px

>>49329332
>Charge people money for everything

>>49324606
Like a member of the mafia who targets people for breaking with ideology rather than not paying them

>>49324606
As a militant Chaotic Poor (Good) character

>>49318535
Sounds like the life of a Ferengi.

>>49329289
Why do people who mock libertarians on the internet never actually know what libertarianism involves?

The only time I've played Chaotic Neutral it was politically. I kept trying to explain to peasants how the state was abusing them, used alchemy to make spray paint to leave tags on buildings, blew up a few government buildings, etc

>>49329711
Because the more you analyse libertarianism, the more retarded it gets.

>>49329711
I think it's just americans that think anyone that isn't part of their two-party scam of a democracy isn't a serious movement.

>>49329769
Isn't the relative value of emergency treatment pretty much infinite in a life or death situation for someone though? Well assuming you don't have a friend there with a gun to the doctor's head anyway

>>49329711

Because Gary "They are not illegal immigrants, they are proud undocumented heroes" Johnson is the biggest buffoon in the election and is the face of modern American libertarianism.

And because all lolbergs just bitch about both sides of the aisle without presenting any sort of plan to actually improve things. At least sjw have some sort of plan, even if it is half-assed and short sighted.

>>49329884
Threat of violence violates the NAP, doesn't it?

>>49329711
The US libertarian party is mainly batshit insane ancaps so people think libertarianism = batshit insane anarcho-capitalism

>>49329884
That's why you arrange a life insurance.
The insurance company gets to coldly and heartlessly negotiate acceptable price for saving a human life based on how much you're willing to pay monthly to sleep soundly.

>>49329960
>The insurance company gets to coldly and heartlessly negotiate acceptable price for saving a human life
You know life insurance companies pretty much work on betting how likely it is you die, right?

>>49329711
Because they are people, individuals.

You are nothing but a meme

>>49330050
no, state pension relies on assuming some guy is gonna cover your contribution in the future.
The only difference mortality rates have is how big your share of the bonus cash is.

File: 15e.png (345KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 750x500px

>>49324606

Denounce revisionists* and build bunkers**

*Every single person, animal or inanimate object other than you is a revisionist
**Ideally the number of bunkers should be equal to ∞*10

File: vGgxTsu.jpg (20KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 720x479px

>>49329711

>>49324606
Get real jimmy-rustled about people who have power due to wealth (it helps if the BBEG is one of them).

File: snek don't tread on me kyokou.png (32KB, 200x210px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 200x210px

>>49330978

>>49318131
I am playing one as cleric of Waukeen. True neutral alignment. I believe in chaotic ideology, but i am pretty lawful at core. I believe in order, but spontaneous one, formed from bottom.

>>49329266
1st and 2nd examples are exactly how The Free Market fixes things.

In 3rd story... Coins are just pieces of gold. The picture on it, the seal (i dont know proper word in english) just states, that certain authority confirms this piece of gold weight X. So, minting more coins of same weight from existing gold is no real problem to an/cap paladin. Lessening amount of gold in coins, however... Now, that's a different story.

Anyway, nice post.

>>49329711
Because actual people in real life say the things we mock libertarians for.

And since you have no chance in hell of actually regulating who gets to call themselves a libertarian you have to deal with "allies" who spend their days saying things that make you look bad.


>>49331429
You're forgetting the convenience value of being able to use money instead of bartering live chickens. Making it possible for poors (read: people who don't have gold coins) to participate in the market by increasing the availability of currency is clearly a bad thing.

>>49331429
>man agently chooses to free his slaves on his death
>they are mostly domestic or skilled laborers who can now freely sell their sweat on the open market
what's wrong with this?

File: 1468057101659.png (23KB, 694x578px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 694x578px

>anarcho-capitalism
What a spook

>not being a hyper-egoist statist
There shall be a state because I will it so
There shall be a leviathan because I will it so
You are all my property
You are all spooks

>>49331988
Nothing.

>>49331429
>In 3rd story... Coins are just pieces of gold. The picture on it, the seal (i dont know proper word in english) just states, that certain authority confirms this piece of gold weight X.
>rolling a 1 on a knowledge (history) check

>>49318408
>+2 CHA

Hilarious joke, anon

>>49332414
Enlighten me, then.

>>49324638
It's a great excuse, innit.

>>49331988
The surplus value created by their labor will still be expropriated by the ruling class, whether they are feudal kings or merchant kings. The only thing they have been granted is the illusion of freedom.

File: yfw.jpg (18KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x300px

>>49324606
You will be a tinkerer.

Systematically eliminate the little shits trying to fuck with your workshop.

Then build something with the 'Superpower' attribute.

>>49324638
We're getting very close to satire here

>>49333228
Most people are too afraid to have a reasonable discussion about socialism. The common responses are all squid ink.

>>49329711
Because libertarians don't even know what it means anymore.

>>49329903
Don't forget
Gooby Gary "Guns need to go" Johnson

>>49333228
>Communism doesn't work
>"REEEE wrong communism"
>Wow you people say that a lot
>"REEEE no we don't"
I've seen this countless times. It's not satire, and you just fulfilled the next thing that happens now when people point out that it always happens.

File: 1453426768576.jpg (147KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 960x720px

>>49329289
>Eclipse phase

File: ryLayFp.jpg (513KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 2048x1152px

>>49333435
The state capitalism that existed in the USSR and other pre-industrial societies was an attempt by socialist movements to industrialize, create a proleteriat class in their post-feudal nations, and create the historical conditions in which the transition to socialism would have become possible. Your insistence that the USSR was "actual communism" (it wasn't even actual socialism) is nothing but your refusal to understand what socialism is. Nobody is changing any definitions; you're just insisting that the easily-defeated socialist strawman is the only version that can be considered because you're too afraid to confront the real ideas presented by socialists.

File: full_Anders_Buzelli_404_435.jpg (44KB, 404x435px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 404x435px

Anyone here read this?

http://www.tor.com/2010/08/11/the-fermi-paradox-is-our-business-model/

How would you describe the humans in this story?

>>49333570
>The state capitalism
Oh boy, here we go with, "It doesn't count because it wasn't the perfect interpretation"

Well the perfect interpretation of communism won't actually ever work as any sane person can tell you.

You can never name a communism that was actually communism, but you'll insist that it works.

Socialism isn't communism, doesn't have a real place in a conversation about pure communism, but communists will always bring it up because it's more palatable. (Notice how you were the only person to bring it up)

>your refusal to understand what socialism is
And you called me a strawman.

> was an attempt by socialist movements to industrialize
Funny how often that's said, oh, "it was just meant to be a precursor", yet when people point out the Nazis were, by their own words, attempting the same end goal, no one sane would claim that Germany wasn't a true fascism.

>>49333679
I don't mind having a conversation about socialism in which you think that it is a bad idea, but you can't expect to be taken seriously if you know literally nothing about the ideas you criticize.

>It doesn't count because it wasn't the perfect interpretation

That's not what I said. Socialism is an economic mode of production with many possible implementations, but one requirement for something to be an implementation of the socialist paradigm is that capital is not owned by a ruling class (whether private individuals or the state), but by the people themselves who make economic decisions democratically. That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.

>Well the perfect interpretation of communism won't actually ever work as any sane person can tell you.

You can't even tell me what "communism" actually is, much less why it is necessarily impossible to implement (a statement which takes on a large burden of proof). Communism is not capitalism plus state control - class relations and the mode of production are fundamentally different. Work and society in a socialist society are as different from capitalism as capitalism is from feudalism.

>You can never name a communism that was actually communism

"Communism" is a far-future situation in which the people organize themselves without the existence of state or class. It's not intended to be something that can be immediately implemented without a long period of socialism.

>Socialism isn't communism

Of course - communism is the situation to be worked towards by socialist societies in the standard interpretion of Marxist socialism.

>And you called me a strawman.

I said you refuse to engage with anything but the strawman version of socialism. You aren't interested in understanding the idea, you just want a misrepresentation of socialism that has nothing to do with the actual ideas being discussed so you can hit it until the conversation is over.

>>49333845
Different anon, you're full of shit. If we're analyzing a Marxist version of socialism [which generally speaking is the case], a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a necessary stage in developing a socialist society.

Now this doesn't have to be a literal dictatorship, but it DOES have to be the working class/ruling class, or more specifically its vanguard, forcibly taking power from the bourgeoisie and engaging in a socialist platform. Social services, redistribution of wealth, the consolidation of the means of production into the vanguard, and so on.

The idea that every socialist country just didn't read Marx is asinine and insane. The idea of socialism in a democratic context, in which the bourgeois can participate, is a contradiction in terms when it comes to communism.

The workers MUST seize the means of production and dismantle capitalism, whether that be through literal dictatorship of the vanguard or democracy limited to the proletariat. The point is, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc didn't pull their political philosophy out of their ass. They were socialists, plain and simple.

The USSR followed Marx's instructions very specifically, with the only exception being that worldwide revolution was replaced by "communism in one country". To call them anything but socialists is nonsense.

>>49333935
>working class/ruling class

Ruled* class, not ruling

>>49333845
>I don't mind having a conversation about socialism
Talking about Communism, but go on.

>Socialism is an economic mode of production with many possible implementations
Yes, there are many variations, and most people would say there's no one exact version.

>socialist paradigm is that capital is not owned by a ruling class
Well it's a bit less cut and dry than that. but yeah sure, let's go with that because we were never even talking about socialists.

>That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.
Ah, so you'll be using the terms interchangeability, probably at convenience.

I see so "It wasn't communism" is followed by "because it's not socialism" Which though isn't the held belief, but go on.

>communism is the situation to be worked towards by socialist societies
But you were saying it wasn't communism because it wasn't a socialism? But you're saying socialism can only come from communism.


Again, how was I wrong in the first place? I said that communists will always say "Not true communism" and you did just that

>>49333935
>"dictatorship of the proletariat" is a necessary stage in developing a socialist society

Yes, according to traditional interpretations there is a transitional period in which the new social relations are constructed; this was true for the bourgeois revolutions as well. However, "dictatorship" is not meant to be read the way that you seem to be indicating - this is simply highlighting the change in class relations, not implying brutal authoritarianism. Our present capitalist system would be called a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", in other words.

>The idea that every socialist country just didn't read Marx is asinine and insane.

Clearly not what I said. I referred to the historical conditions of the countries in which socialist revolutions have been successful thus far, not their interpretations of Marx.

>The idea of socialism in a democratic context, in which the bourgeois can participate, is a contradiction in terms when it comes to communism.

There is no bourgeois class in a socialist society because there is no private ownership of capital.

>The workers MUST seize the means of production and dismantle capitalism, whether that be through literal dictatorship of the vanguard or democracy limited to the proletariat.

No, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that the historical conditions necessary to transition to socialism did not yet exist in post-feudal Russia, China, Southeast Asia, etc. These societies had not even experienced capitalism or industrialization yet.

>>49330020
>The only time I've played Chaotic Neutral it was politically. I kept trying to
It's not really a bet. Their sales numbers are high enough that they pretty much know how many people are going to die from sheer statistical analysis.

Effectively, it's more like they're the service provider for a collective money saving effort - aside from the vast profits they ladle off the top, of course.

>>49333997
>we're not talking about socialism, we're talking about communism

This tells me you don't understand the first thing about either. Go read that guide and learn something about socialism. "Communism" as a term for an actual movement distinct from socialism did not even exist until the split between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism and the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Socialism and communism as an ideal are inextricably linked. What you know of as "communism" the form of government was a series of decisions made by a particular socialist movement in response to the historical conditions faced by one society. Stalinism or Maoism are not the only real forms of socialism that can exist.

>>49333570
i feel like this poster was made by Dennis the Constitutional Peasant

>>49334128
>socialist revolutions have been successful thus far
And which of those exist or existed that weren't incredibly small in scale and existed for any extended period of time? I know there's a couple that lasted a few months that were extremely small.

Take it to /pol/

>>49334128
I addressed the point that it need not be a literal dictatorship, but it must be one in which the bourgeoisie do not participate. You say there would be no bourgouise, and you are right, but only after a successful violent revolution and vanguard is set up and has seized the means of production.

The idea of the workers democratically controlling the means of production, directly, before the bourgouise as a class have even been eliminated is ridiculous. There is a reason most socialist countries were structured in the way that they were.

Secondly, while you are right that many of the countries that became socialist were not yet capitalist, that does not alone explain why they failed.

They failed for the same reason all socialist countries fail, which is that they fail to properly incentivize people, and far more importantly, because central planning of the economy even at the most local of levels is extremely inefficient. The Soviet Union for instance was rife with surpluses and shortages from where the central planners had made faulty predictions.

Only an open market and the concept of price allows for the efficient allocation of goods and services The inefficiency caused by trivialities in capitalism are as nothing compared to the structural inefficiencies of a centralized economy.

>>49334185

>This tells me you don't understand the first thing about either.
>"REEE you have to use terms only in ways that I deem are right"

>Communism" as a term for an actual movement distinct from socialism did not even exist until the split between evolutionary and revolutionary socialism
Yeah, but according to Marx there still needed to be an in-between period, I mean he wasn't that retarded after all,

Although you seem to be in a weird position, you allow yourself to use communism as a distinct concept as well as just another term for socialism, so maybe you should heed your words first, or at least only use one meaning of the term. I guess if you believe in something as stupid as socialism you need some serious doublethink.

>Stalinism or Maoism are not the only real forms of socialism that can exist.
In the sense of actually being possible? Yes.

>>49329960
Then the insurance company decides they don't like you and don't actually pay anything, the doctor kills you for not paying, you are dead and nobody cares.

Sounds like a great idea!

It's retarded because people fail to recognize that a fair and free market only works when backed by the threat of violence and loss of freedom by an entity so much more powerfull than everyone else that you have to take the threat at face value. Maybe you could set something like that up and then pay them a fee to keep this running, oh no wait, this is literally government....

>>49329916
That doesn't really matter when you are dead and nobody is going to ever find out.

>>49329916
Who is going to enforce the NAP?

File: henry-george-18861.jpg (286KB, 1117x1526px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1117x1526px

>>49334258
>Yeah, but according to Marx there still needed to be an in-between period, I mean he wasn't that retarded after all
>he wasn't that retarded

Other than getting the fundamental aspect of what creates poverty entirely wrong, sure.

>>49334217
>I addressed the point that it need not be a literal dictatorship, but it must be one in which the bourgeoisie do not participate. You say there would be no bourgouise, and you are right, but only after a successful violent revolution and vanguard is set up and has seized the means of production.

Yes, I agree with this, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That we're being unfair to the previous owners of capital in the transitional period? In the end, we aim to achieve a democratic society without a ruling class in which all political and economic decisions are made by all people equally.

>The idea of the workers democratically controlling the means of production, directly, before the bourgouise as a class have even been eliminated is ridiculous

I never claimed that this was possible. Again, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

>They failed for the same reason all socialist countries fail, which is that they fail to properly incentivize people

But we've just established that these countries were not socialist. You claim that a transitional period in which property relations are fundamentally changed is necessary before socialism can exist, and I agree. Therefore, the failures of these state capitalist systems has little to do with socialism as a social system. Socialism would in fact be far LESS centralized than late-stage capitalism - the actual workers in each place of business would make the day-to-day decisions instead of a corporate hierarchy, for example.

>calculation problem

There is no reason to think that this will necessarily be a problem no matter how advanced our information technology. See Paul Cockshott's Towards a New Socialism, for example.

>>49334258
>"REEE you have to use terms only in ways that I deem are right"
>endless string of irrelevant insults

It's called the principle of charity. If you want to have rational discussions with people, it's another thing you should read about.

>>49334357
>Endless strings
No, I actually pointed out that you're never consistent, I just pointed out you were dumb at the same time.

> If you want to have rational discussions with people
Then stop using phrases to have whatever meaning is convenient for yourself. You have near zero consistency, you use whatever term in whatever way suits you, yet you expect people to not point out that you're acting either stupid or deceitful.
You're not being taken seriously because you don't have a serious argument or point.

>>49334432
>No, I actually pointed out that you're never consistent, I just pointed out you were dumb at the same time.

I have not changed the terms I use once. I just don't use words in the incorrect way that your misunderstanding of socialism uses them. My original post had a pic that defined all of these terms correctly as I've used them. You should really read them and understand them first.

File: He'll miss the irony.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>49333228
>Satire

>>49333570
>actual communism" (it wasn't even actual socialism) is nothing but your refusal to understand what socialism is
>>49333845
>That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.
>>49334128
>The problem was that the historical conditions necessary to transition to socialism did not yet exist
>>49334357
>But we've just established that these countries were not socialist

>>49334518
Yes, I am distinguishing what YOU call communism or socialism from what socialists actually define as socialism and communism. If we're discussing the ideas of socialists, then you should understand how they define their own ideas first instead of just screaming "socialism is when the state murders babies hurr"

>>49334479

>>49333845
>
That's not what I said. Socialism is an economic mode of production with many possible implementations, but one requirement for something to be an implementation of the socialist paradigm is that capital is not owned by a ruling class (whether private individuals or the state), but by the people themselves who make economic decisions democratically. That wasn't the case in those nations that you claim were communist.
>Of course - communism is the situation to be worked towards by socialist societies in the standard interpretion of Marxist socialism.

These two points can't exist with the same definition. Either communism and socialism are the same thing, or communism is something that works towards socialism, and thus the first point I quoted is incorrect by socialism not being communism.

>>49334563
>communism is something that works towards socialism
Sorry other way based on what you said, still same point.

>>49334518
Do I see mandatory Venezuela post with greentext just according to routinue?

>>49334563
No, socialism is an economic mode of production that (in the traditional Marxist position) evolves towards a stateless, classless society called communism. That is the way these things were originally described and there is no essential contradiction in these terms.

File: 1465920065949.png (183KB, 480x540px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 480x540px

>>49334518
>But the means of production have been seized
>Venezuela

>>49334907
They really don't understand the difference between socialism and "exactly like capitalism, but when the government controls everything". This pleases the ruling class, naturally.

>>49334148
It's a bet for the individual, but the bets average out in their favor in the aggregate.

As with any competent bookie, the house always wins in the end.

>thread originally about an autistic, unworkable political philosophy
>degenerates into arguing about another autistic, unworkable political philosophy
topkek

>>49335004
Well, at least your pseudo-intellectual, unanalyzed acceptance of the status quo of whatever situation you happened to be born into makes you better than all of us. You can take some small comfort in that.

>>49335048
>pseudo-intellectual
I don't know how whatever he said was pseudo-intellectual, but you're being a bit hypocritical you retarded gommunist

>>49335143
Feel free to continue the conversation if you've finished reading the guide I posted and are willing to discuss socialism using the related terms correctly.

>>49335172
Different anon though.
Stay mad that your meme government will never work

>>49334269
I once had an ancap friend send me an article about this private security firm that's been doing great work at reducing crime in Detroit relying almost entirely on deterrence through conspicuous surveillance rather than armed force. Trying to argue that this was a model of how private policing could function in an ancap society.

He apparently missed the part in the article where the owner of this security firm *explicitly stated* that he took the peaceable approach he did because he was keenly aware of how badly he'd get his shit pushed in by the government if he put one toe out of line as far as use of force. And he was oblivious to the obvious implication that the security cameras and such this firm was relying on to deter crime work because would-be criminals fear punishment if they get caught...and who administers that punishment again?

File: cg4fd5f1e002161.jpg (98KB, 625x552px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 625x552px

>>49335187
Ok, feel free to start a new conversation if you're willing to use definitions relating to socialism correctly. >>49333570

>>49335245
A picture doesn't actually make your meme government work in the real world.

>>49335273
Oh, you just want to practice your 1337 trolling skills. Well, no hard feelings then. Best of luck to you.

>>49324617
but which came first????

the New Yorker one did, I checked the dates

>>49335245
the 1% have always existed and anybody wo gets rid of them just becomes a new 1% the only way to get rid of it would be to destroy all human society may as well just learn the best way to work with it

>>49335289
The red scum actually wants to have an intellectual conversation about memes.
High school must be rough.

File: daguerreotype-of-henry-george-circa-18841.jpg (505KB, 1150x1659px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1150x1659px

>>49335373
>implying

>>49335373
Ruling classes exist because a base of power within a social organization makes it possible for them to exist. In feudalism this was the divine right to rule and ownership of the land, and in capitalism this is the private ownership of capital. But a society without a mechanism of control for a ruling class to exploit need not have a ruling class. Socialism intends to emancipate the people from class rule by removing the base of power from which capitalists are able to control society - that is why they aim to abolish private ownership of the productive means. If you're going to claim that ALL societies even in the far future must NECESSARILY have a ruling class, then you'll definitely have to support that extraordinary statement. I would only point out that this belief you have shows that your capitalist ideology is, in fact, fundamentally anti-democratic.

>>49335373
this tbqh, Pareto principle

File: daguerreotype-of-henry-george-18971.jpg (230KB, 700x988px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 700x988px

>>49335497
And you're also wrong as well.

>>49335520
This wealth distribution is dependent on the underlying social organization and in particular capitalism; it is not a natural law of all societies. Feudal societies cannot be well-modeled using Pareto distributions and the existence of this distribution seems to rely on a preferential or family-line distribution of wealth, see

http://adatbank.transindex.ro/vendeg/htmlk/pdf6789.pdf

>>49335596
Might we trouble your majestic highness to grace us with an explanation?

File: 1441132673306.gif (7KB, 273x537px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 273x537px

>>49318131
smuggling but with all the smug satisfaction that what you're doing is 100% moral.

>>49335714
>literally_just_barbarism.gif
kek

>>49335497
Human societies are universally hierarchical, and the severity and flaws of these hierarchies only worsen as their societies grow in size; a ruling class will always arise, as society by definition requires a consistent means of enforcing order, the principal mechanism of control by which every economic and social system is made possible. Your communist utopianism cannot become reality in any society governed and administered by humans as we know them. If we are considering possible societies in the far future, though, then I suppose it's certainly possible that we will have inhuman creations that can effectively administer and control a genuine, large-scale communist society.

>>49329711
Because "libertarian" has become a catch-all term that includes both that guy who thinks that he should be able to paint his house the color he wants to, HOA be damned, and the guy who thinks that the government has no business telling him he can't marry a nine year old girl in addition to the other three wives he already isn't allowed to have.

>>49336214
>communist utopianism

Socialism post-Marx specifically rejects utopianism (see, for example, the Communist Manifesto); scientific materialism is a fundamental tenet of socialist thought.

>society must necessarily be authoritarian

You're merely assuming the conclusion. Why must there be a ruling class? Because there must be a ruling class. Progress in human civilization has always been towards democratization and the weakening of ruling class power, from agrarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist societies. Socialist revolution is primarily an extension of the bourgeois revolutions that brought a superficial political democracy, extending the democratization of social control down to the economic substructure. Again, without the means to capture and exercise power within the social organization, even those inclined to rule over others have no means to do so. You may retain your fantasies of becoming a petty tyrant; socialism will simply make that fantasy impossible.

>>49336438
>Progress in human civilization has always been towards democratization and the weakening of ruling class power, from agrarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist societies.
And look at what a mess that's made.
Democracy was a mistake.
The Enlightenment was a mistake.

>>49336549

>LEL muh DERK ENLIGHTENMENT

/pol/ is that way. Don't let the doorknob fuck you on the way out.

>>49335643
Henry George sought a remedy to the problem of poverty, but rejected Marx's notion of Capitalism being the cause. George came to realize that at the center of all human struggle is the struggle for land.

If I own all of the land you stand on, and I have the power to enforce any rule I desire on my land, then I can demand anything I want out of you simply because you exist and are standing on MY land, I own you. This problem exists in both State Socialism (state ownership of land) and Capitalism (private ownership of land).

Developed land (civilization) enables many people to live significantly better lives, but at the same time shackles others with the inability to even sustain themselves on their own labor as they can't afford land. We can see this in just about every major city where both the wealthy and homeless often live right next to each other. You see Capitalism as unjust.

State Socialism does not improve this problem either (the only modern form of Socialist inspired government that we know of), because whether you have land to develop on or not is ultimately up to an easily corruptible state that can deny your right to work simply because they don't like you. In addition, European style Welfare Capitalism's high taxes and various regulations slow down the incentive for growth and innovation with its own inefficiency. Others see State Socialism as unfair

At the same time we all know any form of anarchism would never seriously be attempted by any large society, so we can write that off as a practical solution to this problem as well.

George sought a practical solution that would deal with the issue of poverty without needing a pointlessly complex state. He found that replacing all forms of taxation with a single tax, the land value tax, could significantly reduce the cost of dealing with poverty to the point where a Citizen's Dividend would be affordable while rewarding efficiency and growth.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

>>49336577
>LEL muh PROGRESS

/lgbt/ is that way. Don't fuck the doorknob on the way out.

>>49336602

You mean the progress humanity's enjoyed since the enlightenment that has outstripped every other period of history, ever?

Sure, let's reject the most successful ideas in all of human history.

>>49336590
My post was too long, see this as well as another core part of Georgism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend

>>49336615
>correlation equals causation
>the period of time in which these ideas appeared is also the time of great global empires exploited and colonized completely undeveloped and extremely rich regions of planet
>it was all the enlightenment, guys
>trust me, the plebes know what they're doing, we should totally let them have a say in government beyond their immediate municipality

>>49336646

I'm not sure if your kindergarten teacher ever explained this, but just because you know how to say "correlation doesn't equal causation" doesn't mean you can automatically assert the exact opposite relation as true.

>Nevermind the huge number of non-democratic countries that stagnated and fell further and further behind

>Nevermind the strong correlation between democratic rule and economic growth, social cohesion, lower crime rates even controlling for economic and technological factors

>Nevermind that you're a fucking pleb buddy, and you just keep telling yourself you're above anyone else.

>>49336438
>>Progress in human civilization has always been towards democratization and the weakening of ruling class power, from agrarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist societies
That's not fucking true though.
There's always been a back and forth.

Germany was an empire, than a democracy, than a fascism, than a democracy

Rome was an monarchy, than a republic, than practically an empire again, than an empire

We see this throughout history.

>>49336590
>This problem exists in both State Socialism (state ownership of land)

That's a complete misreading of socialist thought. No socialist would describe himself as a "state socialist" or would accept the usual property relations between capitalist and proletariat, but with the state merely replacing the capitalist. In fact, restrictions on land use and the extraction of rents are two of the things that socialists have traditionally fought against.

Socialism is not about a all-powerful state. Socialism does not intend to replace the capitalist ruling class with a ruling class of state bureaucrats. It will replace economic authoritarianism with economic democracy. It is true that radical individualists might not always be happy with consensus decisions on how to utilize societies' resources, but that is what it means to live in a civilization. Compromise and cooperation are the only means we have to a better future.

>>49336692
>implying the success of capitalism is due to the country being democratic

>implying that's even remotely fucking true, implying democratic societies that have people more than two skintones apart aren't disunited, disconnected, and utterly antisocial

>implying I ever implied I was anything else

>implying this isn't a prime example of the "end of history" fallacy
>"pretty much every successful country is democratic right now, and things are pretty good, so human progress and success tends towards democracy!"

>>49336438
>Progress in human civilization has always been towards democratization and the weakening of ruling class power, from agrarian to feudal to capitalist to socialist societies.
That's an objectively untrue statement, though. Progress is not towards democratisation, it is towards effective societies that dominate others, and the nature of that efficacy is not reliant on any single concept, including how democratic they are; if you did want to note the single most effective "trait" shared by every current successful society, though, it would be capitalism. The ruling classes have only become more powerful, not less, and you've essentially stated yourself that most every democracy is superficial and ruled in reality by an oligarchic class.

>You may retain your fantasies of becoming a petty tyrant
Nice baseless, condescending insult. I don't even approve of capitalism or the transnational oligarchy of the wealthy elite or anything emblematic of and perpetrating the divisions of society, but you're demonising everyone else that's trying to tell you that your expectations of humanity (as we know it) are unrealistic.

File: 130419-1.jpg (45KB, 610x795px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 610x795px

>>49336692
>Nevermind the strong correlation between democratic rule and economic growth, social cohesion, lower crime rates even controlling for economic and technological factors

Pretty easy when the most powerful "democracy" sanctions anyone who isn't. And those quotes aren't meant to be edgy, the USA just isn't actually a democracy.

During Persia's height you could say"Well obviously an emperor is good, those Athens have a democracy and look at how small and pathetic they are" Greece was at it's best with this swole guy

>>49336736

>>49336747


>Implying capitalism can survive at all without democratic controls put on the system

>Implying you can actually cite a single counter-example other than pathetic stormfront fapfiction.

>>49336741
> I don't even approve of capitalism or the transnational oligarchy of the wealthy elite or anything emblematic of and perpetrating the divisions of society
Basically, I should have said that I don't approve of humanity.

>>49336776
>Implying capitalism can survive at all without democratic controls put on the system
Oh no, capitalism can survive perfectly well without intervention; it just survives TOO well.

Also, why is democratic control different from any other kind of control?

>>49336776
Also

>s-stormfront
Nice meme you fucking cock-gargling shit-swilling cum-guzzling faggot.
If you're going to argue, argue.
If you're going to shitpost, shitpost.
Don't do both at the same time.

>>49336795
>Oh no, capitalism can survive perfectly well without intervention; it just survives TOO well.

No, it breaks down and turns into rent-seeking cronyism.

>Also, why is democratic control different from any other kind of control?

Because you can't buy off the entire population - the only option is to undermine democracy itself and reduce the influence of voters over the government, and then bribe whoever is left in charge without accountability.

>>49336776
Capitalism is thriving in the notably-undemocratic People's Republic of China, far more so than in western democracies. Also, now we're all Stormfront neo-nazis??

>>49336741
>Progress is not towards democratisation, it is towards effective societies that dominate others
This is not progress though but evolution. Both regress and progress are effective methods of adapting to conditions but progress is more desirable. In biology we see descendants of species with complex features reverting to more simple forms or going through repeated cycles (adapting to to aquatic lifestyle in mammals with some methods similar to their ancestors).

>>49336814
>Nice meme you fucking cock-gargling shit-swilling cum-guzzling faggot.
>If you're going to argue, argue.
>If you're going to shitpost, shitpost.
>Don't do both at the same time.

>Implying your shitposting deserves more respect than any other alt-right stromfront faggot.

>>49336827

China is still a poor country, far poorer than western democracies, and is nowhere near reaching the same level of wealth in any predicted timeframe.

If you think that's an example of "undemocratic capitalist success" you're a fucking idiot. Which would put you on the same intellectual level as the average stromfront faggot, yes.

>>49336831
Then you are arbitrarily defining progress by your conceits and ideals, which have no merit in an argument with others on what is objectively the current dominant trend in the evolution of societies.

>>49336827
>Also, now we're all Stormfront neo-nazis??

The ones implying national success depends on skin tones? Yes. Yes they are.

>>49336741
>Progress is not towards democratisation, it is towards effective societies that dominate others

These social darwinist arguments are not taken seriously anymore - they're all pseudo-science. I was not intending to say that democracy increases linearly with time, I mean that in general the outcomes of class conflict have led to new social organizations that feature more restrictions on the ruling class and a greater influence of the average person on the management of society. Of course there are exceptions and oscillations, because human history is always messy.

>if you did want to note the single most effective "trait" shared by every current successful society, though, it would be capitalism

Right, and capitalism is the result of a revolutionary struggle against feudalism, in which the aristocratic ruling class had a much greater proportion of social power - towards democracy. Even Marx praised capitalism for these reasons, among others.

>most every democracy is superficial and ruled in reality by an oligarchic class

Yes, towards democratization, but with a new set of conflicts and a new ruling class. Socialism began when it was realized that classical liberalism could not achieve the "freedom, equality, and universal brotherhood" that it promised.

>Nice baseless, condescending insult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

"You" as in "one". In other words, there may still exist people who fantasize about becoming king ape in a primate social hierarchy, but we've specifically designed our society so that there is no means for these people to achieve that desire. And given how strongly people's beliefs and desires are influenced by the society into which they were born, it is unlikely that these power fantasies will be as common among socialist human beings.

>arguing politics on 4chan
please regurgitate shit your read off infographics somewhere else.

>>49336817
>No, it breaks down and turns into rent-seeking cronyism.
That's still capitalism, and what I meant by "survives TOO well"

>Because you can't buy off the entire population - the only option is to undermine democracy itself and reduce the influence of voters over the government, and then bribe whoever is left in charge without accountability.
What the fuck are you talking about? The voters themselves have only the barest influence on economic policy, let alone the representatives; most of it is left up to actual experts who either belong to representatives, or are part of agencies.

>Implying your shitposting deserves more respect than any other alt-right stromfront faggot.
I would think so, seeing as how I'm actually trying to have a discourse with you rather than just spewing "LMAO LIBERAL KEK XDDD"

>>49336871
>current dominant trend
The Dinosaurs were dominant once, too.

>>49336893
>That's still capitalism, and what I meant by "survives TOO well"

No, that's feudalism.

>What the fuck are you talking about? The voters themselves have only the barest influence on economic policy, let alone the representatives; most of it is left up to actual experts who either belong to representatives, or are part of agencies.

Any representative is accountable to the population and can't stay in power without their consent, unless democracy has in fact broken down.

>I would think so, seeing as how I'm actually trying to have a discourse with you rather than just spewing "LMAO LIBERAL KEK XDDD"

You're shitposting sad discredited memes without a shred of logic, evidence or even coherent thought. It's pathetic.

>>49336776
>Capitalism is the only right choice
I'm not even that communist guy, but there were tons of great countries without full capitalism.

>>49336912
>I'm not even that communist guy, but there were tons of great countries without full capitalism.

There's no such thing as "full capitalism" outside of libertarian wank-fodder - I'm talking about ANY degree of capitalism or economy that functions according to any kind of competitive market.

>>49336871
How so? Trends are conditions which change with time. Reverting to nuclear feudalism in post-apocalyptic world would be evolutionary adaption through regress under pressure of new conditions.

>>49336891
>Waaaaa, don't talk about what I don't like.
>>49336859
>Look up riches countries
>Get Qatar based off of GDP per cap

>>49336926
>>Get Qatar based off of GDP per cap

>Because a single blip of resource-based micro-state is evidence of anything

>>49336817
Haha holy shit you actually think the "Democratic countries" are actually democratic and political corruption isn't a huge issue.
So many of a lot of first world countries issues are from shady shit and corruption.

>>49336910
>No, that's feudalism.
Well, this is a spicy new meme

>Any representative is accountable to the population and can't stay in power without their consent, unless democracy has in fact broken down.
That's not the point I was making you illiterate faggot.

>You're shitposting sad discredited memes without a shred of logic, evidence or even coherent thought. It's pathetic.
And you're being a snobbish holier-than-thou queer who's head is so far up his own ass, that his neck beard is tickling his tongue.

>>49336910
>No, that's feudalism.

Capitalism has ALWAYS featured a close connection between state power and the economic elite. Any "free-market" capitalist system you can dream up will be a highly unstable equilibrium at best, to be subverted by the first person to figure out how to use accumulated wealth to distort markets in their own favor. Get rid of the government and a new one will spontaneously form in the vacuum to protect the private property of capitalists. Allow any form of government to exist within capitalism and the capture and expansion of its power will become an extension of the market battleground.

>>49336859
You don't understand anything about China or the divides in its society and wealth or how much power it's accumulating. Its transition to a capitalist economy is literally the primary cause of its progressive transformation from a backwards pariah state into the next superpower, and the wealth of its populace has grown at a rate unexceeded by any western democracy -- how can you not define that as a success of undemocratic capitalism, in the sense that we are defining successes?

>>49336926
>that quality /pol/io reply
you are breaking global rule three, please spare the decent people of /tg/ your subhuman squaking and return to your containment board.

>>49336942
>>Haha holy shit you actually think the "Democratic countries" are actually democratic and political corruption isn't a huge issue.

>Implying there's no spectrum between "perfect democracy" and "zero democracy"

>So many of a lot of first world countries issues are from shady shit and corruption.

>This guy seriously thinks that corruption in the average first world country is anything close to insane corruption in places like china

>>49336957

>Well, this is a spicy new meme

Okay.

>That's not the point I was making you illiterate faggot.

Yes, it really was, since your claims were otherwise just silly nonsense.

>And you're being a snobbish holier-than-thou queer who's head is so far up his own ass, that his neck beard is tickling his tongue.

"I can't come up with a real answer, so I'm just going to throw a childish tantrum and shit myself".

>>49336963

>Capitalism has ALWAYS featured a close connection between state power and the economic elite. Any "free-market" capitalist system you can dream up will be a highly unstable equilibrium at best, to be subverted by the first person to figure out how to use accumulated wealth to distort markets in their own favor.

Yes, there is a tension between democracy and capitalism, but as soon as capitalism overthrows democracy it's not a democracy anymore. Capitalism itself can only survive for as long as democracy survives.

>>49336966

>You don't understand anything about China or the divides in its society and wealth or how much power it's accumulating. Its transition to a capitalist economy is literally the primary cause of its progressive transformation from a backwards pariah state into the next superpower, and the wealth of its populace has grown at a rate unexceeded by any western democracy

China has been playing catch-up riding on the coattails of existing technologies and infrastructure invented by other countries already. "Growth rates" are meaningless in that context.

>>49336966
>undemocratic capitalism

AKA state capitalism. Russia was similarly successful at industrialization under Stalinist state capitalism; I believe Soviet industrialization still occurred at the fastest rate in history by most measures - not quite sure how China's growth compared. In any event, China's evolution was not from "communism" to "undemocratic capitalism" - it has been a continuously changing state capitalist system that eventually hit upon a successful strategy in offering low-cost labor to developed economies.

>>49336966
>You don't understand anything about China
You should read about its huge internal problems including ecology, dependance on foreign technology, social problems, constant threat of overheating and need to dispose of excessive growth. All in all it can very well result in social collapse in 20 years.

>>49336985
>g-go back to /pol/
Only if you go back to /tumblr/

>>49336995
>"I can't come up with a real answer, so I'm just going to throw a childish tantrum and shit myself".
Like what you've been doing this entire time?
Swallow a gallon of pills and choke on your vomit.

>>49337013
>Like what you've been doing this entire time?

You mean blowing your silly claims out of the water?

>>49336214
>Human societies are universally hierarchical

Just popping in to note this is false.

Studies of tribal groups show that members of the tribe exist as equals, and even the so called leader of the group is simply filling a decision making role, and none of the rest of the tribe feel at all obligated to follow him.

In fact, their society and customs often have mechanisms in place specifically to avoid one person from gaining power.

The belief that human society is hierarchical by nature is just as flawed as the belief that wolves work on an alpha male organization: It only functions when you study humans outside of their natural habitat.

>>49336985
Except complain about wrongfun people here too.
You came here to complain about a thread, which seems to be just a rule 3 breaking as me telling you to screw off.

>>49337026
If that's what you want to call it.

Can we get back to the OP's topic instead of this insane discussion on IRL communism?

>>49336995
>Yes, there is a tension between democracy and capitalism

Yes, it demonstrates the impossibility for an ostensibly democratic political system built on an authoritarian economic substructure to remain democratic.

>Yes, there is a tension between democracy and capitalism, but as soon as capitalism overthrows democracy it's not a democracy [do you mean capitalism?] anymore. Capitalism itself can only survive for as long as democracy survives.

There is no feature of capitalism that requires even political democracy. People could conceivably be free to labor and trade without having any political control over the state. The idea that "capitalism is freedom" belongs to a theological conception of capitalism, not its political realities.

>>49337041
People complain*

File: 1470780444071.jpg (100KB, 854x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 854x640px

>>49337013
It's literally the political discussion board, the place where you are supposed to discuss politics. Also please step up your retorts, I feel insulted by such weak display.

>>49337041
>implying I wasn't posting when the thread was on topic and not just a bunch of political shouting matches.

>>49337045
>Can we get back to the OP's topic instead of this insane discussion on IRL communism?
But anon, communism has never been tried before :^)

File: 7e_essentials.jpg (679KB, 2550x3000px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 2550x3000px

People here should read a book

>>49337036

Next you'll be pointing out that barter wasn't the historic predecessor of capitalism, and most early human societies functioned based on concepts of gift economies and collective trust.

>>49337050

>Yes, it demonstrates the impossibility for an ostensibly democratic political system built on an authoritarian economic substructure to remain democratic.

No, saying there's a "tension" between two things doesn't mean that balancing the two is impossible. There's a tension between any system going too far in one direction or another, no matter what the system is - applying that terrible logic, we'd conclude no system anywhere can possibly work. Yet they do, in practice.

>There is no feature of capitalism that requires even political democracy. People could conceivably be free to labor and trade without having any political control over the state

In theory? Sure, and in theory if you stuck a propeller up a chicken's ass it could fly. But that's why economic fantasy fiction is bullshit. In practice, capitalism without democracy immediately turns into a feudal oligarchy or its modern equivalent.

>>49337080
>I read one book and now know everything

Maybe if you read two books you'd realize that you don't. American introductory economics, every single time.

>>49337091
>Next you'll be pointing out that barter wasn't the historic predecessor of capitalism, and most early human societies functioned based on concepts of gift economies and collective trust.

If we're talking about super early societies, then it's not even gift economics, it operates almost totally on reciprocity.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not making the statement to get into an anthropological debate, I'm simply pointing out that "Humans are dicks by nature!" doesn't actually work.

File: 1466547044052.jpg (166KB, 498x1493px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 498x1493px

>>49321529
>as an ancap

>>49337096
>Implying I didnt read more books
One book I recommend everyone here is "Why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson. And I'm not american

>>49318131

NAP?

oblig 'what is ancap' newfag

>>49337091
>No, saying there's a "tension" between two things doesn't mean that balancing the two is impossible.

Of course not. But this notion of "balance" between political democracy and economic authoritarianism is wishy-washy nonsense. In practice, it is impossible to maintain. The real power resides with the owners of capital. Who determines the economic policies of the United States? Who decides who gets to represent the people in government?

>In practice, capitalism without democracy immediately turns into a feudal oligarchy or its modern equivalent.

No, that would probably be the result of several libertarian proposals, but state capitalism (although with some degree of private capitalist control now) is the current situation in China and was the situation in the other "communist" countries.

>>49337127
No Anime Posting

File: buggered_off.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>49337114
>oh no historical evidence that contradicts silly idea of capitalism as natural law
>RUN AWAY
>RUN AWAY

>>49318131
>make a character
>play

All PCs except Paladins and randumb chaotic characters are Ancap. You are literally a bunch of wandering assholes who meddle in others business for money, while violently assaulting anyone who dares to so much as cross your path at the same time

>>49337127

"Non-Aggression Principle"

The magical thinking that we could get rid of the state if everyone just agrees to never do anything that harms anyone else ever again, even if they're starving to death inches from a loaf of bread.

>This is what libertarians actually believe.

>>49337137

>Of course not. But this notion of "balance" between political democracy and economic authoritarianism is wishy-washy nonsense. In practice, it is impossible to maintain. The real power resides with the owners of capital. Who determines the economic policies of the United States? Who decides who gets to represent the people in government?

"Real power" is nonsensical - capital owners have had their power checked repeatedly. Welfare expansions, social security, taxation, and a huge raft of policies keep getting passed over their objections. Yes, they are currently holding a lot of power, probably way too much, because of defects in the system like idiotic court decisions like "citizens united", but that's hardly absolute power.

>No, that would probably be the result of several libertarian proposals, but state capitalism (although with some degree of private capitalist control now) is the current situation in China and was the situation in the other "communist" countries.

"State capitalism" In China and Russia is ultimately just glorified oligarchic cronyism; they can keep it going for a while because they're milking the economic growth that comes from their economy having to catch up technologically, which means improvements in standards of living (in China's case), or favorable natural resource deposits (in Russia's case) but it's extremely shaky.

File: 11218476_817941348275911_5373369447446036807_n.jpg (60KB, 720x575px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 720x575px

>Thread is full of keynesians
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>49337170
I mean, if you do want the debate, then yea, once again, reciprocity predates gift economics.

Hell, reciprocity still exists today in the exact same form it did then, more or less. It's still the action we rely on when dealing with close family and friends, ultimately.

>>49337201
>Austrians
>ever

>>49337184
>"Real power" is nonsensical

t. bourgeois liberal

>Welfare expansions, social security, taxation, and a huge raft of policies keep getting passed over their objections.

Who says that the owners of capital would object to these programs? Get rid of them - we'll have a socialist revolution in a week. In fact, the New Deal was originally created to prevent a revolution against capitalism in the wake of the Great Depression. These are temporary measures enacted by liberals for no purpose other than to preserve the power of capitalists when confronted with the possibility of a public uprising. It's just the cycle through which modern capitalism has managed to preserve itself long after it ceased to be historically useful and while our ecosystem dies from its wastefulness - social democrats and liberals pass reforms when the people get angry, and the capitalists undo these reforms when the people get fat enough and lazy. Throughout it all, the ruling class retains its power over the people.

>"State capitalism" In China and Russia is ultimately just glorified oligarchic cronyism

By this standard our private capitalism is nearly as oligarchic and certainly suffers from a level of cronyism far beyond what the average person suspects.

>>49337210
Yes, I entirely agree. Capitalism is one possible choice of economic substructure, and certainly is not an inevitability. It has existed for less than three centuries compared to the 5,000 years of true human civilization.

>>49337227
I hate this dichotomy. Okay, New keynesians dominate macro, but when talking about micro, neoclassical ideas dominate.
Besides I consider myself a new institutionalist, like Douglass North

>>49337241
>Who says that the owners of capital would object to these programs? Get rid of them - we'll have a socialist revolution in a week.

So you're saying the democratic classes do wield power when they get organized and demand programs that the upper classes become unable to alter.

Thank you for admitting that democracy works.

>By this standard our private capitalism is nearly as oligarchic and certainly suffers from a level of cronyism far beyond what the average person suspects.

The levels of corruption in western countries vs places like Russia and China isn't remotely comparable. Yes, there is plenty of corruption in the west, but nothing close to that level. You might as well argue that since Vermont has any murders, ever, it's just as bad as Honduras.

>>49336697
Which is why I said State Socialism, and not just Socialism. You seek a society that is impractical to achieve, which is why State Socialism is the only modern form of Socialism that exists. George merely suggests what we have now with one simple change and a general attitude towards a free society ultimately being a prosperous society.

>It is true that radical individualists might not always be happy with consensus decisions on how to utilize societies' resources, but that is what it means to live in a civilization.

Your ideology requires everyone to think as you do for it to work. Georgism only requires a single tax to be payed to work, and even a tax that would allow individualists to keep everything to themselves if they so desire if they choose to live outside of civilization.

>>49337273
>So you're saying the democratic classes do wield power when they get organized and demand programs that the upper classes become unable to alter.

Certainly not. The exploited class only gets this power when the threat of revolution is imminent. Otherwise the capitalist ruling class laughs at your complete ineffectiveness.

>unable to alter

But they do alter it. We CURRENTLY live in "fixed" capitalism - it was supposed to be fixed by the New Deal. These reforms have been entirely subverted by capitalist power when the threat of revolution dissipated. This merely demonstrates that whatever positive "balance" you think is possible is just an unstable equilibrium. In any event, we would be much better off without a capitalist ruling class at all. Your tortured attempts to preserve it for fear that a changing social organization will threaten your personal economic privilege is the hallmark of the American liberal.

>The levels of corruption in western countries vs places like Russia and China isn't remotely comparable.

The United States is merely better at hiding its corruption. It's not a contest, but the corruption is pretty fucking bad and much worse than you seem to think.

>Thank you for admitting that democracy works.

Of course I think democracy works - why else would I be a socialist?

>>49337273
They are comparable. In Russia corruption is widespread from the lowest levels to the top while in US the top is as much corrupted and rotten but many people don't notice it in their everyday life.

>>49337326
>George merely suggests what we have now with one simple change and a general attitude towards a free society ultimately being a prosperous society.

Yes, the preservation of the capitalist ruling class with one reform that is easily subverted and undone. Yet another band-aid on capitalism - you might as well have suggested the New Deal. There is literally nothing special about "Georgism" versus any other liberal half-measure, other than its anachronistic, semi-feudal insistence that land is anything other than another type of capital.

>You seek a society that is impractical to achieve, which is why State Socialism is the only modern form of Socialism that exists.

You say that socialism is impractical to achieve but that a "free society" brings prosperity. Explain why socialism outside of "state socialism" (a term that, referring to a permanent condition, socialists would consider oxymoronic) is necessarily impossible, and contrast with what you would consider a "free society".

>Your ideology requires everyone to think as you do for it to work

What social organization does not require that people believe in it to function? If we all stopped believing in capitalism, capitalism would quickly be destroyed. This misconception that cooperative, democratic societies are "less free" must be a product of America's radical individualism that views freedom as merely the ability to inflict harm on others using accumulated social power.

>>49335714
>objectivism.gif

>>49337440

>You say that socialism is impractical to achieve but that a "free society" brings prosperity. Explain why socialism outside of "state socialism" (a term that, referring to a permanent condition, socialists would consider oxymoronic) is necessarily impossible, and contrast with what you would consider a "free society"

A free society is a free market. You can have your co-ops and your communes and all that jazz, but to imply that is the only thing that should be allowed is in itself an example of a lack of freedom, especially when you say things like:

>It is true that radical individualists might not always be happy with consensus decisions on how to utilize societies' resources, but that is what it means to live in a civilization.

You know, a society that puts an emphasis on the free market over this supposed elimination of a "ruling class" is a society that would give you the opportunity to really show if your flat hierarchy business structures are truly better than other options on the basis of whether or not you can exist and prosper as a company.

Man you Marxists are a pain in the ass. You know what, here, have this:

In the 1870s Henry George, who was antagonistic to Karl Marx as Karl Marx was to George, stated that if any of Marx's ideas were to be tried the "bourgeois" that Marx was so angry about would merely be replaced by a state and wind up creating a dictatorship.

George called it 40 years in advance. Marx, on the other hand believed that capitalism would have collapsed years ago.

>>49338198
>an example of a lack of freedom

Requiring that the workplace be run democratically is not a restriction on the operations of that workplace except to forbid authoritarian work relations. In other words, the only restriction involved is the requirement that the workers be free. Preventing someone from gaining the power to extract the value of others' labor and command them in the workplace is not restricting freedom; it is exactly the same kind of restriction that capitalists believe are sufficient to ensure social freedom in the political sphere (in other words, one's freedom is not restricted by forbidding assault - the freedom of all is increased).

>A free society is a free market.

Standard libertarian misuse of the word "free" - the only freedom in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is enjoyed by the owners of capital who are not required to do work. Everyone else is compelled to labor for the benefit of others or die when basic necessities produced by the people are withheld by the capitalists.

>George called it 40 years in advance.

If his understanding of socialism is as poor as your own, I would call this nothing but a coincidence. The historical conditions described by Marx were certainly not met in post-Tsarist Russia, and this idea that the state replaces the private capitalists is precisely the misconception held by those who do not understand socialism as a fundamentally different mode of production from capitalism and think of the capitalist system as natural law.

In your post you have failed to address my criticism that Georgism is merely a magic bullet solution that combines the feudal emphasis on land ownership with the liberal reformer's fear of real social change. Perhaps you would like to explain how a use tax on land is anything but another ineffective gimmick meant to make the life of the average person a little more bearable within a non-free economic system controlled by the capital-owning ruling class.

>>49337135
Anarcho-Capitalist
It's a utopian sort of thinking where an unregulated market can function perfectly and even take over all public services.
It's a bit naive because a perfectly free market requires perfectly free information and that doesn't get incentivized.
Then again, right now we're too far in the opposite direction. When the government is making the decision for the people what kind of art their money should fund they follow the art community and you get the current post-modern stuff that only serves the art community by being multi-interpretable and making their jobs as critics and academics easier. With the added benefit of alienating it from the plebs and making them more 'elite' for being able to appreciate its value.

Basically, it's a debate on how much the people should be allowed to make their own choices. With the ancaps being on the extreme laissez-faire end of the scale.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS PERFECT.
IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED.
IT'S AN IDEOLOGY OF PEACE!

Prove me wrong, you just fucking CAN'T.
>M-muh hitler
Not true natsoc.

>>49338439
Does a socialist society also require that a family is to be run democratically? They can hardly accept authoritan relations between parents and children for example, can they?

>one's freedom is not restricted by forbidding assault - the freedom of all is increased
And yet in a free society you are also free to mutually (boxing matches) or unilaterally (BDSM) permit others to assault you. And just like you are free to search for a democratically run workplace, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to subject yourself to the authority of others either.

>Everyone else is compelled to labor for the benefit of others or die when basic necessities produced by the people are withheld by the capitalists.
I thought one of the tenents of socialism was "from each according to his ability". Are you then not compelled to labor for the benefit of others to in turn receive "according to your needs"? Real-life socialists tend to solve this problem with prison, forced labor or executions. All quite effective, but I wonder what nicer solutions armchair socialists imagine there to be.

>The historical conditions described by Marx were certainly not met in post-Tsarist Russia
Not just in post-Tsarist Russia, but in the entire world things didn't go according to Marx's predictions. Isn't it time to throw his theory of history onto the garbage heap of failed ideas?

>>49338679
>Does a socialist society also require that a family is to be run democratically? They can hardly accept authoritan relations between parents and children for example, can they?

In a way in some cases, for example on kibbutzim children were often raised in common. Other socialists believe that the family structure will become obsolete and be replaced by communal structures or new family models. This is not compelled, of course - it is simply theorized that a fundamentally new social organization will naturally create novel forms of social relations. In any event, it is somewhat tangential to the discussion of class relations, and you might want to avoid relating the relationship between worker and boss or proletarian and bourgeoisie to that of child and parent; you might accidentally raise local class consciousness.

>no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to subject yourself to the authority of others

There is no voluntary component of hierarchical workplace relations; otherwise it wouldn't be a power relationship. You don't choose to be told what to do by your boss, you are compelled to do so or lose your job (and your means of getting food and shelter). Voluntary leadership within the workplace is likely to exist in socialism, but within the context of democratically-made overall decisions.

>Are you then not compelled to labor for the benefit of others to in turn receive "according to your needs"?

You are currently compelled to do labor for the benefit of those who own your workplace. In socialism, you are typically mandated to perform a certain number of mandatory labor hours (intended to be much less than under capitalism, and there is no privileged class exempt from labor), for which you receive the material necessities and support required for self-actualization and self-improvement in the bulk of your time. But all of that time spent laboring provides for you - there is no profit skimmed off of the top.

>>49338679
>Marx's predictions

It should be emphasized that Marx is (almost universally) not treated as religious gospel by socialists; it is more like how Newton is respected by physicists. Marx revolutionized our understanding of socialism and society by analyzing it in terms of class relationships and pointed the way towards the emancipation of the people from the yoke of a dominant, or ruling, class that possesses some built-in mechanism for exercising power over others within a society.

Did he get stuff wrong? Of course. Every thinker in history got some stuff wrong, but in no other case do we take all of their ideas and throw them away - that would be exceptionally foolish.

I believe that he failed to see how capitalism could develop a more complex set of class relations and develop a cycle of reform and decay aided by the actions of liberal reformers such as yourself. When capitalism inevitably creates crisis through the expansion of ruling class power and excessively destructive profit-seeking, the liberals who, granted some economic advantages by the ruling class, want to express their humanitarian sensibilities but are afraid of losing what little is given to them by the ruling class come along to apply the band-aid to capitalism. They make things slightly better for a privileged few, the band-aid is ripped off as quickly as possible, and the cycle starts anew. I think Marx didn't really realize that the capitalists would be able to keep this cycle going for this long.

>>49338877
Or have you considered the concept that the basis of his entire system may be wrong and not the answer to poverty?

>>49338897
Certainly I would be willing to consider it. Would you provide me with a reason to do so other than "change is scary and I'm worried I might end up like those exploited third worlders that I never, ever care about"?

File: 3bITNNF.jpg (112KB, 1080x1330px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1080x1330px

>>49338897
Not an argument.

File: 1471493033168.jpg (42KB, 480x481px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x481px

OP here, someone throw this commie out of a helicopter.

File: dog-biscuit.jpg (27KB, 432x249px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 432x249px

>>49339384
Your capitalist master rewards you with one treat for being a good boy

>communism
Okay, but what about Dunbar's Number?

File: file.png (68KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 300x200px

>>49339415
Your owner commie doesn't reward with anything, just reminds you that if you don't obey you get the whip.

>>49339566
Socialists don't bow to any ruling class, but you probably find that hard to imagine since you've spent your whole life being a whipped dog.

>>49339602
>Socialists don't bow to any ruling class, BECAUSE the political class is basically ubermensch gods whom we're indebted and owns us. Literally. It's as it should be.
ftfy

>>49339415
>>49339566
>>49339602
Okay, now kiss

>>49339618
>being a anlover

File: dog_owner.jpg (43KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x387px

>>49339612
>the [ruling] class is basically ubermensch gods

Is there anything cuter than the unquestioning love a dog has for his owner?

Note: that an old white guy is in this pic is purely coincidental

>>49339649
>Based capitalism
I have money, that means I can pay you to do whatever I want!
I don't want, I'll go make money somewhere else.
I'll find someone else!
>Cucked (((socialism)))
I'm a politician. I own you. You get -20% less welfare and I get to keep 60% more of your taxes AND the tax ratio is now 99% of your net gain, so I can get myself some nice superior built capitalist stuff from our neighbour.
I-i dd-do-
If you say no, you're a political dissident and will be sent to the slave mines after castration and gulaging of your family.

>>49339678
>Retarded /pol/
Fairy tales are obviously superior to knowledge because it's much easier to believe in a fairy tale than to acquire actual knowledge about how things work. Duh.

>>49339693
>Socialist has NO ARGUMENTS
>starts name calling and crying about the evil poltry
Why don't you move to socialist paradises like venezuela and leave your (with 90% chance) eviiiiiiiiil kkkapitalist country??

Also
>Knowledge
>Socialism working
The irony!

>>49335714
>having the freedom to do something means that you will actually do it
this image always makes me mad

>>49339793
Ok, now you're just being repetitive and it's no longer amusing to toy with you.

>>49335373
While class divides have always existed there have been variations in the separations of those classes and their relative proportions.
As a general rule the greater the separation of the ruling class from the rest of society the worse that society as a whole functions; civil unrest and corruption increase. On the other hand, in societies where the 1% are closer in terms of wealth and power to the lower rungs of society, people are more prepared to believe that the system works, that if they work hard and obey the rules, they can have a good life, maybe even better themselves

>>49329631
Morality equates to wealth. Fuck off leftist..

>>49339849
>H-ha I-i w-was JUST toying with you!

>>49339384
How can you build a helicopter without roads to transport materials, OP?

>>49341375
Use helicopters to move the material.

>>49341390
You don't have a helicopter and can't buy one. What now?

>>49341437
then I'm not living in a true ancap society.
Lob recreational nuke-drug-kid soldiers at you for such a stupid question.

>>49318535
We can only wish for a future so bright

read Žižek

>implying the best govt. structure isn't freeform aleatocracy

"Germany, you're preparing to invade Poland. What's your DEX mod again?"

"Senator Smith, roll a Diplomacy check to determine Senator Johnson's reaction. Don't try to use Dominate like you did last time; you aren't playing as a vampire this time, remember?"

Chaotic Evil Rogue. Just steal and con people out of their money, then claim you are Good because you are stimulating the economy through the exchange of currency.

>They are communist because that's what the call themselves!
Communism is stateless by definition.
If those so called communist nations count as communists, I guess Best Korea is really democratic and a republic too.

>>49341610
But it still says a lot about marxists when just about everything done in the name of Marx has been universally bad.

>>49341610
>IT'S NOT TRUE COMMUNISM!!! IT WORKS I SWEEEEEAR JUST LET ME TRY AGAIN GUYS!


Ok but only if natsoc is declared an ideology of peace, hitler wasn't true natsoc.

>>49318131
Ancap? Is this some dumb way to refer to anti-capitalist? Play a communist who only believes in barter.

>>49341686
Anarcho capitalist. The existence of a free market without a state.

>>49341686
ANARCHIST-capitalist.
AKA
Best ideology, since it allows me to have drug powered child slaves sell coke-laced candy at the exit of schools while hiding from Mconalds.

>>49329372
Show? And for the love of god, tell me first girl isn't the deuteragonist but bottom is.

>>49341641
>about everything done in the name of Marx has been universally bad
About everything done in the name of God was murder, robbery and some charity. Probably means that God is bad.

File: tumblr_ns228quVCg1sq03ilo1_1280.png (84KB, 940x611px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 940x611px

One thing I don't get is how roads or transportation of goods would work in ANCAP. Can any memer explain?

Like the most obvious solution is that people will just own the roads near their property, but then how will they get the money to pay for their upkeep? Will they have to put tolls on every road? Wouldn't that make transporting goods or traveling around the country pure hell because you now have to constantly stop to pay tolls just to drive down the street to get groceries?

>>49341875
>roads
>Anything libertaria
DOES NOT COMPUTE

>>49341875
Probably, businesses would own the roads around them. They will have to pay for upkeep, because roads bring them more customers.

Highways would be privately owned and tolled.

>>49341860
>About everything done in the name of God was murder, robbery and mostly charity. Probably means that God is bad.
Average marxist logic. Gotta love it.
>Venezuela

>>49341919
You didn't refute my point. If I call myself your master you should believe me and obey according to your Venezuelan logic.

>>49341860
Oh boy your head is so far up Marx's ass you even use his religious views, too. Isn't that special.

>>49341675
Unlile communism being defined as stateless, natsoc isn't defined by being peaceful.

>>49341962
>IT'S NOT TRUE COMMUNISSSSMMMMM!!!!!
Ok.
Hitler wasn't true natsoc.
Churchill wasn't true british.
Stalin wasn't true moustached.
Pizarro wasn't true spaniard.
Obama isn't true black.
Chinese aren't true asian.
Anime isn't true animation.

ALL OF THESE: They're 100% true according to the average marxist/lefty/commie logic.

>>49341971
he...didn't really express any religious views. he just said that your argument was shallow and unapliable

>>49341989
It is, you just don't get it.
It's like islam, islam is peaceful, it's just that every khuffar is living incorrectly and a threat.

Chaotic Evil.
Loves freedom? Check.
Is selfish above all else? Check.

>>49342042
>Evil
statist spotted.
NAP breached.
Child soldiers deployed.

>>49342009
Throwing away the entirety of religion, something that every single society develops no matter how simple, just because it was sometimes use for bad things is both a religious view and also not on the same league as universal misery done in the name of some guy that wrote a series of books on how he solved misery.

>>49342042
Ancaps aren't inherently selfish, they just believe you should be allowed to be selfish if you so choose.

>>49342088
So 90% Evil, with minority Neutral

>>4934201
You crticism of muslims is ironic because you're doing exactly what you criticize them for yourself.
Islam isn't a religion of peace because it has non peaceful doctrine in the guidelines.
Communism IS stateless, because statelessness is eplicitly included in the 'rules' without contradictory statements. Basically, unless you can quote Marx slipping and mentioning a state in communism, communism will remain by defintion stateless
Its not no true scotsmrn, its literally just adhering

>>49342097
Selfishness, as long as you aren't actively hurting other people, is basically the definition of Neutral.

>>49342073
>Pinkos
>Having a working brain
M8.
Even most ancaps know it'd go to hell in seconds.
Pinkos get proven wrong again and AGAIN and their only defense is the 100% un-ironical "It's not true X"

>>49342136
Ancaps can actively hurt other people indirectly.

>>49342042
Evil implies you want to fuck people over.
Being selfish could simply mean not wanting to help people, not exactly bending them and sticking the potato up their rectum.

>>49341996
I say "Churchill wasn't a true dog." According to your logic if person denies some claim it means that this claim is true. Therefore Churchill was a true dog and is example of every dog behavior.

>>49342098
Third reich wasn't true natsoc.
ISIS isn't true muslim.
Spanish empire wasn't true catholic.

Prove me wrong, you just CAN'T.

>>49342165
Did churchill ever identify himself as a dog? And followed the dog traditions?
No.
He fucking DIDN'T.

>>49342158
Ancaps want to be selfish at the expense of others

>>49342151
Not helping someone isn't hurting them.

>>49342140
The worst part is there are collectivist anarchist ideologies that are significantly less whiny than Marxism, but Marxism is the most well known so they try to represent the entire bottom left bar of the political compass.

>>49342183
If you benefit from their suffering, then you are evil tho.

>>49342179
>I make money
>I keep my money
>dats selfish u shold giv it to me
????
I made a thing, that means it's *mine*

>>49342172
"He fucking DIDN'T."
See, you deny it so it must be true. Following with your logic it means "He fucking DID." Churchill was true dog and dogs that don't act like him abandon dog traditions upheld by Churchill.

>>49342197
That's a pretty black and white statement. I suppose everyone who owns an iPhone is evil because it was built by exploited sweatshop workers.
inb4 they are

>>49342220
You can't really be this fucking stupid.
Oh wait
>Thinks communism works, when proven it doesn't he yells it wasn't true communism.
You ARE this stupid.

>>49342088
Very important detail here.
Voluntary service and charity are still considered good and laudable.
This is in contrast to objectivism, in which charity, or at least advocating for charity, is considered bad.

>>49342231
Only those who exploited the workers are evil.
Others are just neutral from apathy for the blight.

For example, child labor.
Child is weak. This means as adult you can easily force it to work for your personal gain. This is evil.
Child is weak. This means as a stronger adult you force yourself to work for the benefit of this weak child. This is good.
You force the child to work for someone elses benefit? Neutral due to apathy.
You force yourself to work for your own benefit? Neutral.

>>49342232
Now that I've shown you how stupid and absurd your logic is you call your reflection in the mirror stupid.

>>49342200
>educated in publicly funded schools
>drove to work on publicly funded roads
>had your garbage collected by publicly funded workers
>ate corn flakes subsidized by public funds

"Nah bruv but a man is an island, i did everyfink meself"

>>49342232
Just like any other freedom-loving American I want commies to hang but your arguments are goddamn retarded.

>>49342253
>This is in contrast to objectivism, in which charity, or at least advocating for charity, is considered bad.
Ayn Rand had no problem with voluntary charity.

>>49342296
In an ancap society where there are no taxes he probably wouldn't be making use of public services.
So it's not hypocrisy.

>>49342296
Ancap society:
>educated in private funded schools
>drove to work on private toll road made by the factory
>had your garbage collected by private funded workers
>ate corn flakes with NO subsidies because there is no state to give them

Fucking retarded lefty

>>49342296
>schools
Charter, Religious and Private schools still exist so not everyone gets a public school education

>roads
Toll roads still exist. In addition if were talking about the US our publicly funded roads subsidizing suburbia is a major cause of why our infrastructure is so stupidly expensive to maintain

>trash
Often carried out by private businesses with public funding that would easily get by with private funding simply because nobody wants their trash to pile up.

>>49342200
No-one makes money in a vacuum.

File: 201010228227532580_20.jpg (154KB, 680x450px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 680x450px

>>49342412
>private businesses with public funding that would easily get by with private funding simply because nobody wants their trash to pile up
There is always room for error

>>49342392
Ancap society:
>Indoctrinated in privately-funded schools to never question your glorious corporate masters
>No need to drive anywhere, you and everyone you will ever know lives and dies at their work-site
>Had your garbage collected by less fortunate slaves
>Ate corporate-sponsored mineral-gruel loaded with carcinogens, didn't know it at the time because no-one ever told you what was in it
>Even if you did know, the corp-owned police would have you disappeared if you complained

>>49342200
Where you get the stuff to make the thing you sold to make your money?

>bought the parts from someone else
Okay where they get the stuff to make the parts?
>harvested the stuff myself (dug up the metal, cut down the trees, whatever)
Okay where was the land that you got that material? Was it in a country? Then you got the material from a country so the country has some claim to the material.
>did labor to make my money
Bet you labored making things from parts/stuff that came from the land that is part of a country
>didn't make anything or do labor to make my money
We call that a parasite. We gas parasites like lice and bankers.

>>49342510
Change corp for government and you have any lefty paradise.

>>49342510
Massive corporations are the result of the state meddling in the free market. In just about any form of stateless society they would struggle to exist.

>>49342536
I saw a demand for huge black dinguses by cuckboys like you.

>>49342540
You know that thinking AnCaps are retarded isn't an exclusively leftist opinion, right?

>>49342510
>Letting your kids into school
>Not selling them
NOT TRUE ANCAP

>>49342541
Teaming up to beat your opposition has existed since the dawn of time, why would it suddenly not become relevant?

>>49342541
>the state meddling in the free market
Which is the result of the wealthy meddling in the state to tip the scales in their favor. It's nothing new, such practices were known since forever.

>>49342510
As opposed to indoctrination in public schools to never question your statist overlords?
Here they literally make party propaganda inside schools you fucking brainwashed moron.

>>49342541
In capitalism, winning only makes it easier to win, and losing makes it easier to lose. If a corporation gets a leg up over its competitors, it has far more opportunities to maintain and improve that lead, by investing its greater profits back into its business. Barring any sudden shifts in the market, the leading corporation will most likely stay in the lead, until eventually it forces out all its competitors.

And with no state-imposed regulations, a corporation could force out competition all the easier. They could spend their far greater profits to buy out all the advertising space that their competitors use. They could pay people to badmouth their competitors, and praise their own products. They could bribe public review sites like Yelp to only publish good reviews of their products, or failing that, bribe Yelp's ISP to have them shut down. They could hire thugs to go and raid their competitor's stores and offices, and pay off the for-profit police so they'll turn a blind eye. And even if their competitors knew that they were doing all this shady shit, even if they could prove it, it wouldn't matter one bit - the leading corp could just buy out every judge and jury in the land, since all the courts would be for-profit too.

In a stateless society, CEOs would be as kings.

File: 1370885055865.jpg (22KB, 320x297px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 320x297px

>ancaps vs commies
Oh boy

>>49342733
Sorry anon, not everyone lives in a shithole

>>49342857
So it's okay to demonize one side and pretend you're not just shilling for the other?

>>49342838
HEAVEN OR HELL
DUEL 1

>>49342838
lawful good vs chaotic evil

Well ,at least this shit FUCKING /POL/ THREAD won't bump anymore.

>>49342838
Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil
Nobody wins

>>49343140

You mean lawful-neutral good versus lawful evil.

>>49343159
It was way better than most ancap threads on /pol/, trust me.

>>49335172
Go fuck yourself with a cactus.

>>49335497
>extraordinary statement

Are you legit retarded or are you just trolling?

>>49343168
Lawful? Who will make and enforce the laws in stateless society?

>>49343313
Whoever has the most money to pay their personal mercenary army.

>>49331998
>Implying you're man enough to organize a state
>Implying you're capable of being anything more than a hotpocket AT BEST.

>>49342098
>Communism IS stateless
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

>1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
>2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
>3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
>4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
>8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
>9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
>10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communists are filthy statists.

>>49343313

>group of people who hold utmost respect for the law of property rights.
>chaotic

File: 1471762052565.png (42KB, 156x142px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 156x142px

>>49341802
>Show?
Re: Zero. You're late to the party, the last episode is next week.

>And for the love of god, tell me first girl isn't the deuteragonist but bottom is
Alright, I won't tell you that the top girl is the deuteragonist.

>>49343671
So you're gonna lie to me. Fug. Not a fan of the neet gets transported/rezzed to a fantasy world. How's this one fare?

>>49343726
Protagonist is completely unlikable and unrelatable.

So, standard shonen fare.

File: 1468345595793.jpg (199KB, 481x818px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 481x818px

>>49343726
If you ask me it's legitimtely, unironically good. Prepare for a lot of suffering though.

File: 1437248037584.jpg (105KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 612x612px

Literally every libertarian I know on the internet is a raging pedophile, so I would play them as that.