Untitled

So you've never studied economics or history at all? I don't know how you can look at a system in trouble thanks to corruption and decide the better alternative is one that always ends with mass starvation and genocides.

user that is very rude, you should apologize

You didn't listen
>As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
>A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
>We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
>Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
>Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
>The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.
>Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

Attached: adamsmith.jpg (620x413, 26K)

Nah, Democrats literally want to instate socialism, which is like flattening the pyramid into a crappy pancake.

At least with Repubs, you can work your way up if you try really hard or get lucky. Democrats it's like they just want to tax your income and give it to some homeless, drug addict fuck.

I don't care about your politics or party, if ANYONE says "we're gonna give you free college, healthcare, etc." they're corrupt. If it's free, then the product is YOU.

I don't give a single shit about your ideology. I care about reality. The reality of your policies in-practice override any idealism behind their creation. The only way you can force people to give up economic enterprise and abolish private property is with force, time and again, and a forceful government will use that force for abuse and tyranny, as well as the collection of wealth in the government class.

>I don't give a single shit about your ideology. I care about reality.
Is that pure ideology i sniff?

You're actually just as bad. These people are beyond help. They 'didn't no book learnin'.

You say that, and I point you to every communist nation that has existed on this Earth. I do not need ideology. I have living and dead demonstrations.

Really because your post described capitalism just as well. How was capital centralized in the first place? Do you think small producers and artisans just gave up their private property without force? Is wealth not centralized in the government class? Does the state/corporations not exert tremendous force to maintain their positions? Your viewpoint is just as ideologically driven and as much a fairy tale as the one you're railing against. When was the system not in trouble/corrupt? When did this fantasy in your head actually exist. Go read more economics and history yourself.

>I don't care about your politics or party, if ANYONE says "we're gonna give you free college, healthcare, etc." they're corrupt. If it's free, then the product is YOU.
You stupid.

The joke is that republicans are evil (as shown in their policies).

>Do you think small producers and artisans just gave up their private property without force?
user, large producers came into being from groups like craftsman's guilds, or a single producer being so successful he could then hire other producers under his wing who found this more profitable (or just easier) than independence. There's never been a use of force to create corporations from workers, because corporations under normal capitalism are not part of the government. There are even small producers to this very day, nothing stops you in engaging in such a thing. You are comparing apples and oranges, free association from willing participants is not the same thing as a full fledged economic and societal overthrow. This is a reason why nobody really complains about communes which engage in communist via free association, only of communist nations which impose it by force.
>Is wealth not centralized in the government class
Whataboutism. Corruption in one system do not cancel out the flaws in another. But no, it's in the corporate class. Politicians on average are much less wealthy than businessmen.
>Does the state/corporations not exert tremendous force
All states must use force to maintain that role. Else you get anarchy, and in anarchy local strongmen use force to get their way too. But corporations, no.
>When has a system not been corrupt?
Corruption is not an on/off switch. It's a slide, there are levels of it. And Communism has shown us it is the most corrupt at all.

Where, exactly, did you tell a joke? You stated a position, people disagreed, you then went on to make posts like this without any kind of argument.

>Left
This is like telling your friends "Drinks are on me, except you, Jim, Republicans pay double." then laughing it off and paying for his drinks too.

Right
>This is like refusing to enter the restaurant with your friends and giving them all a lecture on how the owner mentioned he supports this political figure when you bugged him about it once, and why they should feel bad about eating there, then suggesting the place a few blocks away because it's both ethical and vegan.

Attached: 1547698497930.png (645x773, 11K)

He's not wrong that it's a sham, because nothing is free. Someone paid for it. And in this globalist world where the rich keep their money in tax havens so you can't touch it, that ends up being the middle class.

He's not wrong though. You're basically being manipulated.

After I became a teller I became more capitalist than I've ever been in my life and more pro fed (still think it's dumb, but understand its necessity).
Because I actually fucking understand how our system works now, and it works well (but not without its flaws)