Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

>Why is it Left wingers and Commies have to justify their ideology with Global Warming/Climate Change alarmist tactics?
Because global warming represents the single largest theoretical externality one could come up with:

Economic/industrial activity is causing pollution on such a large scale that the world could end at any moment.

Think about how much of an opportunity that is for people who want power to seize more of it.

Attached: 1490397680034.png (1000x800, 328K)

That test is not accurate. Figure out who you agree with, not what some retarded test with cooked questions spits out for you.

Attached: 1560386966198.png (2000x1333, 200K)

>Fuck commies and fash equally

And fuck An-Caps and Lolbertarians too.
Once you are out of Sophmore year of College, you'll learn.

Strong cultural Nationalism along with moderate Neo-Liberalism is the only way.

Attached: 1554769201168 nazi waifu.jpg (467x657, 41K)

Anyone in region 13 has a train to catch.

Based

>I am a cuck and completely unable to imagine a world without an elite all because some dead oligarch whined about anything less than the holy reverence of the ownership meme being "mob rule". Cuck cuckcuckcuck
>b-but infinite growth can happen on a finite planet!
>but only if we ALL believe
How does it feel to be a shill with literally no fucking answer to cause and effect but "you're not a cuck like me, disregarded"?
I mean, really, shouldn't you kill yourself for stanning for shills and used god salesmen?

>neoliberalism
Kill yourself you NPC

Nigger I'm 30 and if you left Ancap you never understood it.

Attached: 37255762_489846434789347_7289543882046439424_n.jpg (373x358, 19K)

18

Eh that test is only an OK indication of what you are
Some of the questions are loaded and don't give complete options

Attached: 1539459823557 political compass.png (700x861, 153K)

Nothing about anarchism/libertarianism precludes elite theory, you idiot.

Attached: 37942475_1780390902052199_2757566001296965632_n.jpg (644x463, 52K)

>b-but infinite growth can happen on a finite planet!

I hate people who say that too, fren.
I'm Strong Nation.
Strong Culture.
Communism and Socialism is not the way, though.

The only institution that operates on an infinite growth curve is the state, with its access to central banking and taxation. The shit you see in our current MIXED economies is a direct result of interventionist cumbrains like you.

Attached: 37970966_898253073714062_6256090822672908288_n.png (960x960, 95K)

What we need is small ass towns with like 1 doctor and two cops that just run the town, everyone keeps everyone in check, victimless crimes aren't crimes, and as long as you aren't fucking with anybody else you can stay, kill somebody and you get shot, rob and you get shot, fight and the loser gets shot for being a pussy and the winner gets locked up if they started it, just some wild west type of shit

19-20

>working for less than you're worth

But that assumes that your labor is the entirety of the value in the exchange happening. It isn't. You facilitate the exchange, this is true. But without the exchange, you would have no opportunity to provide labor in the first place. If the owner of the company didn't buy the stock, and obtain the customer, you would have no opportunity to earn money in the first place. But the business owner offers you a certain cut of the profits from the exchange in return for labor. And since it's not 100% of those profits, you're upset. It's a rather pathetic and entitled state of mind.

Truth

Wall Street isn't the sta... or is it?
Anyway, you should stop confabulating shit like an A11A.

Because in capitalism there's always a buyer and a seller. Profit is the literal exploitation of the seller. This is why charity and social services don't have exploitations in normal transactions, as an exchange of power. It's a win-win.

Like the entire reason to have a government is to protect the people, right? So when you have the government on the side of business you have them on the side of the exploiters. This is not to say profits are bad, or exploitation is bad, it helps further the company, but there is examples of business being predator, and it being okay because that's 'just the nature of business'.

People can die, as long as the law suits are less than the quarterly earnings. It happens. It might be extreme, but the most extreme you get from a charity is not equal enough distribution.

>most slaves are fine working for masters
Normalizing an atrocity doesn't justify.

Wall Street, as it exists today, as is everything else in society, is totally warped by state intervention. Because the money supply is the key to controlling the society, and because Wall Street is extremely monetary-adjacent, the two tend to work together to serve the interests of the state/financial elite. Wall Street is the first step down the line that the central bank's credit goes to. So, every time the Fed inflates, Wall Street gets the money first, before its circulated and debased the value. After it flows down, the lower rungs are left holding the inflationary bag. Again. All of the shit you think is a result of private property and markets is a result of violent intervention on those things.

Attached: 1533074659475.png (560x750, 42K)

>profit is the exploitation of the seller

So if I buy a piece of art, and re-sell it at a higher price, I'm exploiting myself?

>no opportunity
Therefore, the only people that should be able to provide opportunity are those who are doing it for their own personal profit?
What you're trying to obscure is that a sovereign currency issuer can issue currency to provision itself and its citizens, and can use taxation to destroy excess currency rather than engage in this pantomime false belief that it's recycled, and has no reason not to do this other than the objective of preserving the aristocratic system under a veneer of Calvinist workaholism.

>Commie fags
Why do you think my labor should be taken and given to someone else?

>An-Cap fags
Why do you think Capitalism has no faults?

t. Moderate Neo-Liberal Nationalist

Attached: 1552724947610 nazi wojak.png (640x640, 95K)

youtube.com/watch?v=SAN5CKbZnD0

Attached: 1531596809394.jpg (750x1110, 220K)

Right autistic

checked
I never said capitalism doesn't have faults. It doesn't solve every problem ever. Ancaps are not utopian. It's just the most effective and moral system that could possibly exist for human beings.

17. Social Democracy.

Mortality is voluntary if you're a psychopath. Following the laws are compulsory through punishment of violence. Holding a door open for someone is voluntary, because it's not a crime. In fact not leaving a crime makes you accessory after the fact even.

Unless you're incorporated, in which the rights of a human is given to a bodiless entity that can be used as a metaphoric scapegoat for any and all liability, WHICH MAKES MORALITY SEEM VOLUNTARY. Corporations are voluntary.

Laws, even if governments didn't exist, would still exist, even if just from relgions. Morality predates civilization. God's word was never seen as voluntary but is the basis for a lot of 'western civilizations' laws.

Slavery is what capitalism is predicated upon, not my choice, but how things functioned up until we had machines doing those jobs. Hard to support a family when technology can obsolete a provider on almost any level, without warning. From McD burger maker to high level managers.

Socialism will always win because it takes care of the people within the system regardless of their current strength. Fascism only works if all of its citizens are as strong. Humans are not robots.

Attached: 1542207836472.png (1393x1473, 512K)

Does that mean no welfare at all?

youtube.com/watch?v=8zYg4E4zbPo

Attached: 42622051_1999773420086905_2089513782916153344_n.jpg (720x580, 24K)

It means voluntarily funded welfare on a private market.

I agree with the economic policies of national socialism, but socially the aspects of Italian fascism.

Attached: 2B664354-010C-4F2A-A19A-9A002AFB6395.jpg (749x1034, 140K)

No, you can certainly provide opportunity with no personal profit or benefit. It's called philanthropy. That's not my point. My point is, it's not exploitative to offer less than 100% of the profit from an exchange to someone who helped facilitate the exchange.

For instance, should eBay take 100% of the price paid for all sales on their website? Or am I exploiting them by using their service without giving them every penny of profit?

That concept just doesn't work in the real world, I'm afraid.

The government taxing and creating currency is a separate issue. Let's stick to the topic.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with democratic socialism.

Democratic socialism is Capitalism with basic common sense regulations for the things that save your goddamned life.

>Humans are not robots.
I'd agree and that's why Communism and Socialism can't work
Because the only motivating factor in Communism and Socialism is working for the good of the state
But in a capitalist country, you have your own incentives (to be rich, to give a better life to your kids and pass on wealth, to create something to solve a problem in society etc.)

Yeah you don't even know what I'm saying, retard.

I'm saying that morality is system of voluntarily-assented to acts by an individual. If I choose to help someone, that is moral. If I'm forced to help someone under threat of violence, that is not moral, and you sure as fuck aren't moral for forcing me to do it. The whole POINT of following JUST laws is that you're not AGGRESSING against other people like in murder or theft or rape. The whole point of LAW is to protect INDIVIDUALS from being COMPELLED to do things they do not consent to by FAGGOTS like YOU.

Attached: 1522212186519.jpg (320x320, 22K)

>basic common sense regulations
no such thing

That's just charity
And charity is good but you are saying it can totally replace all welfare?

Ah yes
Revolution will come brother
The Cosmopolitans and Globalists will have their day soon...

Yes, and it would be a million times more effective. In fact, I assert that welfare is counter-productive and makes poverty worse, as is the case with every single interventionist policy, like minimum wage or safety regulations.

state welfare*

Since people use the term "weflare" to mean "a system by which society helps its needy" and not "a statist redistribution scheme," I guess I have to clarify.

>save some people's lives

The problem is equality of access. Roads, police, fire fighters, military, these are all things that I have identical access to as any other tax payer. That is precisely how tax-funded goods should work. Everyone pays in equally, and everyone has equal access.

Healthcare is not the same. Just because there's an MRI machine and the government covers the usage of it doesn't mean I can use it at my discretion. I need permission from a medical professional. Therefore, it's unequal distribution of tax revenue based on the discretion of un-elected authorities.

Then you're a fucking retard.

Attached: 235235134666.jpg (400x339, 35K)

I lean Right but it's hard for me to believe all regulation is bad
wasn't there a whole problem with monopolies like 90 years ago?

>Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

I do not fall on the political spectrum. I stand proudly beside it serving the one finger salute to the idiots who believe their life should revolve around the actions of a bureaucracy.

I gotta go but watch these videos, you filthy statists.

youtube.com/watch?v=Se0VmSaJDvc

Attached: 8f96f9b03e2ccf50945648b087a0b7e3.jpg (540x478, 40K)

If the business is not making a profit off of you that's not because they're not trying to. Just because you run a car into a wall doesn't mean that was what was intended.

If possibly business would have you working for free, optimally they'd have you pay to work for them. That would be the best case scenario. This might seem retarded to you, but you've never been a private contractor. 'work for exposure'

Ya, if the business owner didn't have a shit tonne of money he wouldn't be exploiting anyone, someone else would. This doesn't justify the means. I'd rather buy into a share of a business than to be given a standardized payment that is not determined by me, but by how many other people would be willing to do it for less.

There's a reason we have to cap the lowest salary possible, but not the highest.

We only need the money in the first place because you cannot build a home yourself to sustain yourself . You have to rent the land, property tax, MINIUM.

You have to buy into society, as an individual, you have to support it. This is not optional. The only choices are be exploited or exploit others to exchange the currency to even live. Or be homeless, which in itself is a threat of violence.

Authority is violence, which is a whole nother issue. Anarchist are the least violence over others, because we don't believe in leveraging violence to control others because they cannot support society.

Ooh, look at the brave fence-sitter. Well when those bureaucrats pass a law that impacts your life, and you end up in prison for something that you used to be free to do, those idiots are going to be laughing at you while you get railed by some drug dealer's BBC.

Attached: 1517556216358 everyone is dumb and I dont support any candidate hur dur Moderate Centrist hurr durr. (500x400, 77K)

Ancaps/Voluntarists technically transcend the spectrum. Left/Right is a D&C tactic. We're all individuals.

Attached: 1525894354061.jpg (720x720, 64K)

But the very notion of private property (of the fee simple variety, as most capitalists imagine) IS state intervention, in recognizing people to declare and exchange the status of an exclusive power over some means of production, in supporting the status and relationship with laws such as trespassing and copyright infringement and castle doctrine, and in actively and passively hindering the recognition, creation, and operation of alternative forms ofownership. Pic related.
Why not consider direct or council democracy, other than what some aristocrats said in their own interest ~250 years ago? Frankly we don't even need a ruling class anymore.

>eBay
Should eBay have the right to prevent the people, through their governments, from providing a free alternative that they can't just buy out and crapify like they did craigslist?
>don't talk about the permission slips that are literally the only thing that the rich are useful for and, without which, we could do without them entirely
We need them for literally no other reason. They're not particularly talented, they're just good liars and shills. Narcissism is not a worthwhile reason to reward someone.
Tell me, why shouldn't people, through the state, create money to build publicly owned and operated businesses to perform services for them? The only thing standing between the people and that outcome are those who already collect monopoly rents.

Attached: 1552948906346.jpg (1024x1311, 925K)

But the benefits of society are pretty inarguable. You wouldn't have the ability to argue with someone on Yea Forums, were it not for a society that allowed people to conceptualize all the pieces that make it work. You could make the argument that the world would be better off without Yea Forums.

And I'd probably agree.

Where was I going with all that?

>welfare is counter-productive and makes poverty worse

You're retarded. that is all.

Ya, actually. It's even worded in a lot of art contracts this way with managers or publishers. Exploitation is not a bad thing technically, it just means "make full use of and derive benefit from" but this is what NATURALLY leads to predator practices. This is why you had Prince change his name to a symbol to try to get out of his music contract with his publisher. Or Tfue v. FaZe Clan.

I mean if you just sell your art yourself, you're exploiting yourself. You get the full benefit of your ownself.

Attached: 1560708431456.jpg (750x1069, 81K)

Do you enjoy having food, water and medicines that won't kill you to consume them?

Then shut the fuck up and hit yourself you sad, pathetic lolbertarian imbecile.

>subsidize poor people with a heartless bureaucracy with no profit/loss incentive to efficiently regulate how resources are spent
>woa why is poverty all of a sudden institutionalized?
I'm not retarded. You just haven't heard any of this before.

Attached: 1484429674775.png (1000x1000, 199K)

5

Attached: compass 2.png (519x484, 20K)

Oh, right. I'm sorry. I forgot that you use the word "regulations" to mean "mechanisms within society by which consumers are protected against faulty products," and not "statist interventions of the private market with the ostensible purpose of serving that function but with the actual result of giving big business the scaffolding it needs to destroy its competition through compliance costs."

Attached: 1558151411029.jpg (1069x1247, 169K)

While that might seem like one consistent argument, it's actually two arguments that conflict with each other.

>should they prevent people, through the government, from providing a free alternative

and

>why shouldn't people, through the government, create publicly owned and operated businesses

I think both are wrong for the same reason. Using an authority to cripple competition is wrong.

Communism is a branch of socialism, it's not an equal to, it's under an umbrella of socialism. This is why 'true socialism' has never been practiced. Just like no one studies 'true science'.

Communism is heavily based on military, this is why the USA with the biggest military in the world is seen as a communist style army, because they were fighting communist. In fact if you're a part of the Army that's how a commune would function. You have your role, you have your necessities.

YOU WORK FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE.

So it's not impossible. It's happening right now. Unless the US Army is working for profit without being supported by taxes that I don't know about.

Hit me up if I am wrong.

I'm at the corner of 9, 10, 12 and 13

Well you won't see me defending the practices of the music industry. With the advent of digital music, their practices have gotten even more sleazy.

But as long as we're in agreement that exploitation by that definition isn't actually a bad thing, but predatory practices are, then we're in agreement. I do think predatory business practices should be regulated. I just don't think making a profit is necessarily a predatory practice.

But if everyone is paid the same with no possibility to profit from their labor, that's different

Fact is, the more taxation/socialism you have, the less productivity you have

>You can't be all the way to the Left without being all the way at the Top of the political compass

If you require all private property to be abolished and a Government to control all of it and redistribute it, then that is maximum Authoritarianism.

Prove me wrong.

Attached: 1543922646441.jpg (294x313, 15K)

I don't know if we mean the same thing when we say private property.

If there is an apple tree in the middle of nowhere, and no one has interacted with it or done anything to claim it, and I then do so, do I not have a right to own it? Why do you have a right to own it? Why does everyone else have a right to own it? They didn't find it. The concept of collective property rights is incoherent. Does every single person on earth have equal claim to that apple tree? Just the people within a 20 mile radius? Do I need to get the consent of every single human being in one of these arbitrary groups before I may do anything with anything? Property rights are derived from the nature of human beings, and human beings are individuals.

Attached: 1558218804282.jpg (1080x600, 160K)

Perhaps enterprises would have been a better word than businesses. My apologies.
>competition
I'm not sorry to call this out as a shit-tier meme that only serves to duplicate effort, create secrets, enforce hierarchy, and create losers. I have no interest in subsidizing the feels of the capitalist class. Pass.

Oh wow, I bet you got all the dicks in college

I wish...

Attached: 1558136849423.png (398x326, 239K)

>reallocation of goods and resources
>do it or we'll kill you and your whole family

I literally cannot see the difference. Also Nazis were leftists. DERP DERP DERPDERPDERP

Attached: I Are Retard.jpg (900x888, 95K)

You believe the collective supersedes the individual, which means that it will always come to that eventually when the two come into conflict. This is why left anarchism is not actually anarchism.

Attached: 1558808612963.jpg (224x225, 16K)

It's not my fault if I can't understand how a fool might think. Morals only deal with the highest level of principles. Helping a person or even hindering them is hardly moral. Questionable at best. I mean not giving drugs to a junkie because they are in literal pain is not killing them but it's not helping them. It's greyer than you might think.

Morality deals with crimes like murder and theft and other freedoms that people have. Running a red light is not seen as morally wrong, if it endangered people than it would be and this is why it would also be given a 'endangered driving' charge on top of the red light charge because now the moraless act of running a red light became a moral issue.

There is a difference between hard choices and soft choices. Not all choices are moral choice. They could be if we were intelligent enough, I'll give you that, and I think in high offices of authority it is treated this way. As an officer or a judge misconduct is treated more severely because there position gives them more due to intelligence and with that deeper understanding of their impact on society.

There is a lot of unjust laws, and not intentionally, but there's a reason why courts still debate the laws and how it applies to people. The laws are ideas, but the court have to interpret those ideas. It's not black and white. At times it can even be seen as 20% the victim's fault, depending on the circumstances.

Not in rape, but there's been supreme court justices accused of rape that got off because 35 years passed so rape is legal.

>Hard to saw laws reflect morality when there's a time limit.

Who said pay everyone the same? Who said we need to pay people at all?

It helps to separate law from morality. Law is derived from morality, it is not morality. Law is not about stopping all immoral acts. Law is about stopping only that class of immoral acts which involve coercion--the imposition of one person's will on another. You cannot have a law that tells me I have to stay in shape. You can have a law that tells me I can't starve my kid.

>do I not have a right to own it
Personalizing the discussion is a lolbertarian cuck move.
No, nobody has a right to own it that was not conferred upon them by others. There are no such things as natural laws.
If collective property rights seem incoherent, it's because private property rights are an appeal to authority in themselves.
>will there be He-Man action figures in heaven
Why do you hate learning as you go?

Attached: 1555860708939.jpg (376x233, 17K)

Being cynical doesn't make you right. Competition and hierarchies are the only things generating progress.

But you're just being dismissive at this point, so I suppose i'm wasting my time.

Is that a fact? I didn't know about that. Productivity is measured by how much you can provide or by how cheaply you can provide it or how much quality is made? That's about as subjective of a term as possible.

The fact that capitalism makes more surplus than needed is more of a downside since this is exactly what 'waste' is and that's exploitation for literally no reason at all. You have people pretending to be productive.

Socialism/taxation works by providing what is need, not more than what is needed. You might think that the lack of excess is a sign of weakness, but to most people waste none, want none, is wisdom.

But don't worry the by product of pollution will make all of this even less relevant in time. Hard to measure productivity when you just ignore the negatives, as well.

Goods cost less to a healthy and functional society than time and training/education. It is fundamental for your to understand this.

Allowing the people of our society to fall because you don't want to pay some currency or resources to fix them up and get them back into the main socioeconomic flow is socially, morally, ethically and philosophically bankrupt. Cogs cost more to carve than they do to repair. If a cog gets chipped, fixing the chip is far less expensive in REAL resources than moulding a new cog.

Healthcare. Welfare. Food assistance. Housing assistance. These things are ESSENTIAL to the health of our society. Do some people abuse these systems? yes, but the majority do not and the ones who need it do so on a temporary basis only, and that costs us less than the replacement value of that person with a new person who has to grow up, be educated, move, etc. Do you understand that?

FURTHERMORE, our society, which is hyper capitalist to the point it's less stable, uses inflation to push the man socioeconomic group further and further along to increase profits and prosperity. This has the artificial consequence of leaving some people behind BY DESIGN. For that reason, the welfare system is all the more essential to the health and stability of the society itself. Capitalism failed them. The system failed them. So it's Capitalism's duty to put in place a mechanism to catch and re-introduce them.

A society that values currency over time and its people is not long for this world. The sickest people in the world are those who applaud the idea of letting sick people die in the name of billionaires' profits. I SPIT on that world.

>Using a conceptualization to understand a complicated abstract idea is cucked.
Wew lad.

>No, nobody has a right to own it that was not conferred upon them by others
So my rights are dependent on the opinions of others. Ok. Again, you're just a retarded collectivist. In your eyes, rape and murder is perfectly fine if "the others," whoever the fuck that is (the state) say it's fine. You're a nihilistic, subjectivist, evil person, totally detached from reality and the nature of your own existence. And you go bumbling around, knocking shit over as you do.

Attached: 1558308265006.png (480x394, 36K)

No, he WAS all the dicks in college.

Actually, the entire concept of a structured anarchism of any kind, by definition is not actually anarchism.

Why is Anarcho-monarchism not included?

Yeah once again, you keep saying "we need poor people to get the things we need," but you're not actually justifying THE STATE. Housing, medicine, food all that shit. You don't need the state for that. The state is causing the housing crisis. The state caused the crash. The state caused the great depression. It's because I want pretty much the same thing you do (people to be free and for society to be wealthy and for there to be opportunities and a safety net) that I am an ancap.

Also, currency is merely a representation of human action. When you think you can just print that out of thin air, you get shit like 2008. It's precisely because I value humanity that I point to currency, because it is the blood of our society.

Attached: 1560390065703.png (1020x1020, 773K)

>military soldiers don't profit from their labor
That's not true, just have a hierarchy. Again, look at the military if you need an example of an effective commune.

I don't know what to tell you, we'll always need specialist, we'll always need grunts, we'll always need leaders. you're thinking that we'll just need a group of automotores to just perform the same actions over and over again, but that's actually what capitalism strives for. The most unskilled you can make a job the better.

No business out there is trying to make their workflow more convoluted and specific. With a socialist society you can do that, because they get paid more for their experience. Skilled workers benefit more in a socialist society than an capitalist society. This is even a part of Karl Marx writings that the intelligence of a person makes them worth more, so they should earn more.

Hierarchy will always exist, the real need at current time is to have a cap on the highest a person can be paid. It's fine to cap the lowest we can pay, but how dare you try to put more taxes on a person that is being paid what someone would earn in a lifetime in a year. They work has hard as 50 people???

Fuck off, Malice.

Attached: 1558224817034.png (230x230, 67K)

Thankfully I avoided those brainwashing facilities.
Just got a nice shitty community college associates degree and went into e-commerce. Feels good not having all that debt.

Attached: 1558327932508.jpg (400x400, 39K)

The military is voluntary

Also, have you talked to men in the military? They are all a little depressed at how fucked up the bureaucracy is

You're talking about the benefits of this society. You do need society, in fact I am saying we are a society. The concept of the individual is a fallacy. You know you exist, as an expression of your ownself, but you don't exist in this world as just yourself. Everything you would describe yourself as is only from what you learn from the society, using the language, the terms, the ideas, the roles, the strength or weakness of, all of it relates to the society you live in.

In fact to separate a person from society entirely, like they do in solitary confinement causes long term brain damage to anyone that would happen to, because the concept of the self is a delusional concept. No man's an island. We are always trying to connect with people because we HAVE to, not just because you want to. It might seem voluntary now, but the longer you go the worse it gets. It's like doing drugs before you get the urge gets worse. It feels voluntary.

>Being cynical doesn't make you right
Oh yes it does.
>Competition and hierarchies are the only things generating progress.
>progress
>he believes in the religion of progress
When are you circumcised neoliberal stimulation junkies going to just put yourselves out of the rest of our misery already?

It's a rhetorical technique intended to make people less willing to displease the person they're talking to.
>myrights
Of fucking COURSE your rights are dependent upon the opinions of others, just like every other meme! Who the fuck do you think confers them on you? Do you think that your own individual protestation is somehow dispositive outside your own delusions?
>believes in natural rights and imaginary friends
>calls others retarded
Good goy.
>rape and murder
It was good enough for capitalism.
>the others
Are you really so incapable of imagining a society that isn't ordered around a noble class, that actually operates according to its collective will?

>nihilistic
Actually, existentialist. But anyone who doesn't believe in shit-tier sadomasochistic larps made up by dead rich people is apparently a nihilist to you. Larp larp!
>subjectivist
Projecting the clear sociopathy of Objectivism onto others again, are we?
>evil
The only evil is putting oneself ahead of others at others' expense.
>reality
Literally a larp. You're watching shadows on the wall of a cave, and I'll leave you to find your own way out.

>we'll always need specialist, we'll always need grunts, we'll always need leaders
And Petersoncucks use this to justify a permanent inherited hierarchy of economic class, which we do NOT and have never needed.

Deregulation of banks and men playing god with defaulted loans caused the crash.

So, by "the State" are you referring to the Federal Government? They keep regulations and controls on things' uniformity for the stability of the socioeconomic system. Weights. Chemicals. Food regulation. Clean water (well, up to the subhuman Trump administration, anyway). Emissions. Fuels. Power. Defense. All the basic building blocks of stability and societal uniformity.

The problem with people who think we don't need those things and that "if there's a need, the market and people will fill it" is that most of the time they fucking DON'T. The Market is AWFUL at regulating itself as we've seen time and time again with their cost-cutting endangering of human lives and additions of non edibles into food and drug production.

WE CANNOT TRUST CAPITALISM, but we can use regulations and controls to work WITH it.

Purely location based is 23 but im irl closer to 15

Ya, but who do you think is pushing for deregulation. Governments are suppose to protect us but the argument that 'earning a profit is not wrong' is the defence for 'predator practice earn the most profit'.

One leads to another, and in defence of the other.

Neoliberal on economic issues, neoconservative on foreign policy and libertarian on social issues.

We're not going to let people who are curable and helpable die to further greedy profits. NOT. FUCKING. HAPPENING. So take your "hurr durrr who needs the poor" and shove it up your unsympathetic, unethical, immoral asshole.

bump

Attached: Rattler.png (2000x1333, 168K)

No wonder you're retarded, then.

also liberterian

Maybe if the majority of you twats on this board voted, like ever, we could have an intelligent discussion. But until you vote SHUT THE FUCK UP. it should be a poll on where do you fall on the AUTISM spectrum ffs gtfo

This is why morality isn't just about choices. I mean, ou do need to have a choice, as free will to be moral. If i held a gun to your head to rape a girl, there is seen an exchange of responsibility for the choice.

But not every choice is moral one. In fact almost most of them are not. There may only be a few times in your life you have a truly moral choice. Maybe everyday, but that's not common. As a society we try to mitigate moral choices as much as possible, this is why laws are not as good of a deterrent to crime as education is.

This is why more intelligent people are weighed heavier with their choices. To be moral, you first have to be intelligent. So intelligence presupposes choices, when it comes to morality.

Who is responsible for your education?

They're also responsible for your morality.

Apparently I go between social democrat and libertarian socialist (17 and 16 respectively on the graphic)
That said, I have some serious outlying views that tend to piss off most other people in the same area of the compass as me (eg, I have absolutely zero regard for the environment in its own right)

Exactly. It's as if the technical term "market failure" were just too emotionally loaded for them to process.

You have to go back.

24 supremacy

Yea Forums - Where prepubescent angst and perfect gentlemen virgin losers come for affirmation.

>voting for one or the other right-wing party is going to actually change anything but the stories shoved down our throats by cable news
Underageb&

Hey, I'm an Aussie, I HAVE to vote.

Law today is defined by how much cash you can pay a lawyer and what connections you have. Our justice system is broken AF. When some CEO steals MILLIONS and get's less time than a car thief something is fucking wrong.

Voluntary most of the time, and that's only for joining up. Once enlisted usually minimum of two years, maybe more. In times of need, with more duty as necessary. Some places military services is mandatory, like jury duty. I'll excuse conscription, but there's no reason that military service cannot be made mandatory right now.

People are depressed about bureaucracy outside of the army too. That's nothing new. I am sure there's guys in the civil war upset with that just the same, just now we have more knowledge about that bullshit. Could hide that easier sending men in the trenches into fights during WW2.

Corporations, specifically, are a state created legal fiction, that confer legal benefits, in exchange for certain set conditions. There's no reason you can't impose any condition the relevant society desires on the act of granting those privileges.
Direct, personal businesses are indeed a different matter, but such businesses tend to be naturally limited in size (which is why the legal fiction was invented, specifically to aid in competition and social benefit)

In other words corporations get preferential treatment and we're all fucked.

Class is not the same as skills. Class is based off of social or economic status. That's why class is the worst way to rank people, instead of based on their performance. This is what the white/christian fascist want. I am better because 'muh genetics' which only works in a white society. No one is going to propose Hitler as a leader if he was living in Hong Kong.

Ya. That's class based oppression for you. You are only worth what you can afford.

Well they are, but that's not what I meant. I meant there's already adequate justification for regulating eBays of the world without imposing restrictions on personal ownership rights - if eBay was converted into a direct single-owner business with personal and direct liability then it could do as it liked, but an eBay of that business ownership model likely wouldn't last long.

Objectively correct. Watching the stupid Americans in this thread clamor to defend the rich fucks that keep them down is both hilarious and deeply depressing.

>tfw I fall smack dap in the middle of Conservative Nationalism, yet I personally refer to myself as NatSoc due to their acknowledgement of biology, hierarchy, and tribalism
I haven't read Hoppe, although Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard basically says the same thing about morality being subjective and voluntary, I'd say this ideal is more developed in hindsight/when being compared to other views upon morality.
I'd have to say my major issue with the NatSoc/An-Cap debate is that there is too much distinction placed between the "man is an island" concept and the "sacrificing yourself for the sake of the community" idea.
Hopefully someone can post that Hitler quote where he describes what he considers a Socialist, which to summarise would be the in-between of those ideals. Which I'm sure the An-Cap and NatSoc communities can agree with, at least on a philosophical level.
Actually scratch that, my biggest issue is that I believe this split in ideals is actually the long-term separation that the U.S.A has had from it's European roots.
If only the renaissance had a touch of race-realism...a man can dream.

Attached: 1560540957902.png (700x700, 451K)

Collectivism, in politics, has two meanings:
1. Cooperation.
2. Lording group effort to disenfranchise others.

The context is important!

Those who advocate against collectivism generally do so against definition 2!

For the hopes or just fantasy that one day they'll be given a turn to whip a nigger. Or worse, think that it's there right to whip niggers, based on who gave birth to them (with zero control on their own part).

White racist are more entitled than the worst millennial. It's no wonder it's on the rise.

or neither.
Collectivism, the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

The idea of the individual is delusional. You exist only as a product of the society. No man's an island.

This

That's why I label Communism radical Collectivism and (((crony))) Capitalism radical Individualism.
Because the same thing could be applied to individuality.
When most people say they support individuality.
What they really mean is the right to self-governance.
Not "muh anarchy and sheit".

>You exist only as a product of the society.
Over simplification

ALl commies are faggots

>Not "muh anarchy and sheit".
Yes, it's odd how so many variations of idiots denigrate the terms by associating themselves with them.

Bordering on Trotskyism and classical marxism

Anarchist. 24 probably.

Your first sentence made sense.
Second sentence, oviously we shouldn't have the right to whip niggers, or at least niggers who aren't guilty of a crime, despite the fact their biologically different doesn't mean I can just ignore my ideals of a meritocracy.
Yet comparing white racism to the indulgence of modern society is retarded.
We've have tribalism for milleniaum, even in homogeneous nations.
Africans had plenty of it between Zulu/Bantu, Congoid/Capoid, etc etc.
Some offense user, try to straighten out your priorities.

Attached: chart.png (480x400, 17K)

Not really. An individual can't come into existence unless two individuals came together to create said individual.
Again we could add in the whole morality thing, and say sometimes that individual is created by force, rape, or by consent, monogamy. Yet that would be more the methods employed in that "society".

You do have equal access. The poor can only use it if a medical professional says they need a scan, too. You're taking about OPEN access which is not the same thing and would be stupid because every moron with hypochondria would want to make sure their brain isn't going to explode. It is equal, it is not open. If you develop a condition or show symptoms that warrant an MRI scan, you have access, no matter who you are. Yes it's based on unelected experts, but remember that unlike in politics the doctor can't get into that position of authority without being qualified. They are arguably a better gatekeeper for these services than an elected body.

>if you rely, to any degree on society, then you're a collectivist
As I said, over simplification- not everything is Black or White.

>Ancaps transcend the system
>Even though they very clearly live in one corner of it.

Well...idiots have a hard time putting aside person bias.
If I said "Lawyers are _____." How many do you think would be unable to distinguish between themselves as a lawyer and themselves as an individual?
The question is rhetorical, although it's probably more than we'd think.

2 is almost the opposite of collectivism, isn't it?

>every moron with hypochondria
would get treatment for it. You seem to believe there are a lot more morons with hypochondria than there are. Or you're just arguing against public benefit disingenuously, out of no true conviction whatsoever.

>How many do you think would be unable to distinguish between themselves as a lawyer and themselves as an individual?
I'm unsure what you're getting at- other than empathizing?...

>biases
I think that many don't understand the roots of ideas. The most common is -why- one acts by the NAP- which is to not be agressed upon- and therefore, when you are agressed upon, then there is no reason to follow it.
But lolbertarians believe that you follow the NAP for its own sake...

>2 is almost the opposite of collectivism, isn't it?
No- it's an alternative definition.

user, I'm not going by the standard that each person who has ever been conceived is technically a collectivist.
I was playing devils advocate to your comment.
Although to be clear, yes, some things are black and white, you're simply, what would be the opposite of over-simplification, under examining the situation.

yellow

Attached: save-b-pepe.jpg (404x500, 164K)

Anywhere that’s not fagging of like yellow.

The correct side

There's a difference between trade and subservence- the former allows you to be an individualist in a collective without being a collectivist.

Im kind of weird communist:

1. I want most of capital means to be nationalised

2. I want some kind of redundancy to force national companies to compete with each other (like having 3 or 5 national companies producing the same good or providing the same service)

3. I want to reduce bureacracy as much as possible (I don't want national companies to be lazy at paying at providers and that kind of stuff)

4. I want that national companies could fire people if they don't fit / perform well

I agree.
Yet the subservience you speak of would still exist in the open trade society.
Some individuals would be born before others and have access to the market before them, some individuals would be born in different (((socio-economic))) situations and wouldn't have as much wealth\resources to trade with as others.
My point is that being part of a collective is being in a hierarchy, which implies advantages and disadvantages.
It's about having admiration/fear for those above you and pity/spite upon those below you, the / implies either a good or bad situation in that scenario.

>2. Force people to compete
user..

Impossible

>Im kind of weird communist
Half the battle is admitting you have an issue...
Jk, you're cool by me.
I'd suggest looking up Claude Henry De Saint-Simon. What you said sort of reminded me of his writings/teachings.

>subservience by incidence of birth
Yes, this exists. Is our disagreement that we aren't born without limitation?

ty user! I will give it a look

Yeah I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

Attached: 1560621219415.jpg (477x345, 89K)

It takes a village to raise a child?

Which is the whole point of technology and progress if it all ends in google/amazon bank account and people just live shittier and with more stress?

There will always be idiots who create disagreement where none exists- and they're usually female.

>The problem with people who think we don't need those things
I never said we dont need clean water and defense, retard. I said the state is the most retarded and evil way to provide them.

You have no clue what happened during the 08 crisis. There was no deregulation. All the bullshit you have is red herrings like Sarbanes Oxely, which had nothing to do with it.

The bubble was caused by artificially low interest rates set by the Fed flooding the market with buyers, regulations like the CRA forcing banks to make subprime loans because muh racism, and institutions like Freddie/Fannie owning nearly half of all mortgages at the time, giving people an additional incentive to make shit loans because the govt represented an easy buyer. It's very similar to the student debt crisis, another state-created bubble.

Attached: 1560703429263.jpg (730x530, 121K)

>using an aphorism to prove a point
user..

>2008 is caused by fed
Correct.

And regarding those who claim that booms/busts happened before government enforced fiat, that is correct- but the recovery isn't hampered by gov't.

I mean niggers as in slaves. Everybody is someone else's nigger in capitalism. There is no equality but with that there is no respect. Everyone is entitled to a degree. As a consumer you demand the highest quality, as a buyer you demand the highest prices. There's an exchange of power, but the give and take trades of dignity as some point along the line since the commodity you're trading off isn't money, but the exchange of your own labour, in exchange for the money, in exchange for the commodity. You ARE the commodity, in any equal exchange, as the buyer or the seller.

All fascism is just the presupposing that the benefit should fall to the favoured. Maybe whites did the best in past 1000 years, what's to guarantee the same quality for the next 100 years?

Would you rather a military based on merit like the US or a military based on genetic linkage like a feudal knight?

>the market is awful
Compared to a dream, I suppose.

"You've got to have a sense of proportion."
-Friedman

The business cycle dramatically worsened after the Fed was founded.

While I disagree that they can be measured, I do say that a priori the fed hampers recovery.

Free market is shit when planning at long range time scale. A dam for example is probably a hell of investment for a company because it will start being profitable like 20 years in the future

>The Market is AWFUL at regulating itself
The market isn't allowed to regulate itself, idiot. The govt has coopted that function, and like everything else, it does a shit job at it. You REALLY think a state is the only way to assure quality control? Are you that domesticated? It's called ratings agencies and seals of approval. And they would be privately-funded, which means they wouldn't be a monopoly and would ultimately serve its consumers or else be replaced.

>being part of a collective is being in a hierarchy
Not a class hierarchy. It's important to distinguish. And it's not a hierarchy that serves other departments of life well.

This user understands something.

The recovery was just fine for the banks, which was who "Reagan Democrat" neoliberal Obama cared about. HAMP was intended only to slow foreclosures to a pace at which the banks could digest them. Booms and busts were worse when governments couldn't print into them.

>neoliberals
>calling for a sense of proportion

For whom, workers?

The average women only has a 3 point lower I.Q score than the average man, and that's mainly in one category. The only reason females are able to squabble is because there's not a strong family-orientated man to keep them in their place.
The fact you place so much emphasis on women being the manipulators sort of shows a good bit about your character user.
If they really had as much influence as you thini they do, I'm certain they would have fucked everything up some time over the past two thousand years ago and not just a little under one century ago.

Attached: 1560660293324m.jpg (1018x1024, 129K)

That's what high interest rates are for. Those things your beloved govt keeps artificially low to induce a fake high that burns out the productive base of society, incentivizing short term thinking at the expense of long term. Those two Jorg videos cover this.

>The market isn't allowed to regulate itself, idiot
Why are you reifying imaginary friends? Markets are nothing but systems of rules. Who else is going to enforce them?
>like everything else
Know how I know you're a shill? Because you keep your eyes shut when government IS good at something (serving the rich, just as it was fucking designed to do you larpy neoliberal), but are too naive to disbelieve what authority figures tell you.

Well I'm pretty sure depressions don't help workers.

Maybe the productive base of society isn't important anymore, when so few of them are actually needed and they have no socialist regimes to go to anymore.
Maybe you're right. Communist regimes need to be propped up in order to keep Friedman's wet dream honest.

Actually it's shit at that, too. Crypto and 3D printing is making the state obsolete. I'm not even worried about the future. I just want to accelerate the process by showing people how stupid statism is.

They do if society, by way of the government, is willing to write permission slips to let people help their own.

The productive base of society is the sum total of all productive output of all individuals. It is never not important. It's a simulacrum of society itself. There are no workers or bosses. Only individuals cooperating. At least that's how it is on a free market, where coercion is not institutionalized and wielded by whomever can bribe its stewards.

Attached: 1560698842520.png (640x486, 212K)

>start being profitable like 20 years in the future
Any investment, in modern times, must be profitable between 6 and 14 years- anything longer, the opportunity cost will never be lower than the price.

thanks to govt fiscal/monetary control

> (You)
>The recovery was just fine for the banks, which was who "Reagan Democrat" neoliberal Obama cared about. HAMP was intended only to slow foreclosures to a pace at which the banks could digest them. Booms and busts were worse when governments couldn't print into them.
I don't disagree with anything you've said...I simply mean to add my thoughts.

Just as criminals do crime because it's most profitable, women do squabbling because it's most profitable: both groups (criminals and squabblers) do as they do because of their environment.

I don't denigrate women, nor am jaded- what I explain is that they act according to highest profit.

Attached: hoppeThinking.jpg (194x259, 9K)

No.. given current opportunity costs, no project can be profitable if it takes more than 14 years to be repaid.

>hoppe pic
>implies that action can be measured
Whew lad.

lmoa how can you be so wrong?
the individual is the only real thing. We aren't barnacles. We are separate physical entities with out own consciousness and will. Just because we coexist with and are influenced by other individuals does not mean that us physical beings that house consciousness are illusory. This is some of the darkest anti-philosophy ever. Groups are an abstraction. They are a set of concretes categorized together by some common attribute.

>No man is an island.
This is just a vacuous, trite slogan that's used to justify enslaving people. No shit we live in a society. And a society is that emergent phenomenon of the coordinated efforts of individuals.

>given current opportunity costs
what does this even mean? "current opportunity costs." So like if we wait a while suddenly it'll become viable? If there is a demand for a long-term investment, a financial instrument will be created to service it. Unless the govt regulates money/banking and imposes all manner of ridiculous restraints on what financial entrepreneurs can do.

>>No man is an island.
>This is just a vacuous, trite slogan that's used to justify enslaving people. No shit we live in a society. And a society is that emergent phenomenon of the coordinated efforts of individuals.
There's a difference between trade and subservence- the former allows you to be an individualist in a collective without being a collectivist.

Yes and? I was arguing against political collectivism, which assigns rights to groups.

I completely agree with your first paragraph.
>maybe whites did the best in the last 1,000 years
We did though. I'm not attempting to belittle the achievements of other people.
I have no issue acknowledging individual merit. The Arabs created Quitars and soap bars. East Asians silk, gun-powder. Etc. Yet at least 90% of scientific achievements since the 15th century can be attributed to white people, specifically the areas between Scottland, Northern Italy, Germany, France, and Denmark. Yet I'm not stupid enough to denie that the average east Asian intelligence is higher than Europeans on average.
>What's to guarantee that same quality?
Passed experiences, although to be honest no one truly knows what the future has in store, I just seriously doubt whites are gonna fail.
>Which is better a military based on merit or genetic linage?
I consider that question a trap because my ideal system revolves around a merit base in a homogenous society.
Seperated they both have their pros and cons.
Genetic lineage would usually involve the first born son rule being the heir, like in a monarchy. Yet even with good genes there's no sure fire way that you'd get a just and moral ruler as the heir.
The merit based one only seems like the better option because you're not taking into account the physical and intelligence differences of various folks, so you'd just be picking from those who are 20% who are eligible to join because they pass certain standards. Yet there would still be a degree of difference in skill, competency, and work ethic among the individuals in the purely merit based system. In theory the more competent would rise because it's a merit based system, yet they still have just as much of a down-side in their "chain of command" compared to "the decrees by the king".
Like I said before, my ideal system encompasses both. So I'd have it in which each ethnicity practices passive eugenics to gradually improve not only their average individual with each generation,

Outside of your fantasy world, wealth ALWAYS naturally consolidates. Those who have get more, those who haven't lose more to those who have. And you're stanning for this shit by simply pretending that money is not a power relationship at its base? Kill yourself, neoliberal.

>another shitty yellow thread
>politics garbage no less
leave faggot

Attached: 26476376_p1.jpg (1200x900, 1.19M)

No, more that some kike can always find some scam to run to double his money.
It's almost as if your purpose were to create a society in which people and governments are forced to ask the rich for permission for everything they do. Can you give me a good reason not to get your ass on livestream now and an hero?

...yet their society as a whole over time. Thus eliminating racial pregidis while promoting a healthy strive towards individual merit, which will also benefit their race/group.

I'm somewhere between centrism, paleoliberalism, and neoliberalism.

Marxists and leninismists should genuinely be massacred.

Attached: me.png (359x363, 225K)

if it's a homogenous society, then it's genetic lineage first, and merit secondary.

You can presuppose what genetic lineage means, but that's your own specific view. It encompasses both, but it favours the genetics.

That's been tried before, both in medieval and the last world war. It failed. You favour cronyism.

I'd rather the best person for the job.

>Not a class heriarchy
A heriarchy is based on class.
>And it's not a heriarchy that serves other departments of life well.
You mean the heriarchy that you were born into. Not all hierarchies are based upon the Rothschilds debt based wage slavery.
user, if you want a heriarchy that's classless. Simply look at the National Socialists methods. They did a pretty good job of eliminating class struggle through individual merit. I really liked their idea of young adults regardless of class spending a year or so doing maintenance labor regardless of future occupation.

Ya, but authority is only enforced with violence. No one wants to be on the outside, but even still to be putting the needs of some aside from others creates sides, and thus creates conflict, and thus creates authority, and this creates violence towards the authority.

You'd favour the people that are the easiest to identify as the enemy, as opposed the side with probably the bigger army. Maybe you're chinese for all I know, and I am wrong, but even still 1/5th of the worlds population is still smaller.

Far Right, apparently.

Attached: 1555637866194.png (480x491, 156K)

>what does this even mean? "current opportunity costs." So like if we wait a while suddenly it'll become viable?
Could be.
But no one, in today's environment, in a priviate transaction, would spend $X if they could not recover $X within 14 years...at most.

Saying what you said, more elegantly.

>life is a scam
>run by Jews
Back to your containment board

>women doing squabbling is more profitable
LMAO
How so?
How on earth has any pro-women's liberation movement actually benefited them in any way?
It's only benefited a capitalist elite who now use them as a means of expanding labor and lowerimg birthrates so they'll have an excuse to bring in more cheap labor.
Women benefit from being mothers.
I already stated in this thread I've never read Hoppe. I just posted the image. Also, I'm sure there's more to the subject than "that action can be measured". Yet I'm going to go in a limb and say I disagree with him on that.

I just want my fucking rights. In an ideal world with one man, he is completly free to do whatever he wants. In our world however, there are others and if we are to assume we are all equal, then we should do our best to respect one another. Therefore, the basic premise for a society is that my rights end where yours are hurt. A government is needed to protect this rule but also limit rights of people. Therefore, we should have a limited government, controlled by the people, that tries to establish order and laws to protect the people, while trying to conserve the rights of said people.

Truth coming through, beep beep.

Attached: me.png (800x564, 170K)

Actually wealth, as many other things follows simple rules. 20 percent of people own 80 percent of the wealth. The players change but the game doesnt. Unless we're talking gilded age America where the government served as a body guard for industry, the rules dont change.

>How on earth has any pro-women's liberation movement actually benefited them in any way?
I was more addressing the short-term gains women achieve by:
1. inducing infighting among males, increasing their ability to:
2. vote for short-term gain

It's important to remember that one being 'well off' is dependent upon one's view of the world and the range of the future outlook.

>It's only benefited a capitalist elite who now use them as a means of expanding labor and lowerimg birthrates so they'll have an excuse to bring in more cheap labor.
I don't believe that this is planned- there is no global conspiracy to do such.

>that action can be measured
It's that action cannot be measured outside of trade- and that this measurement only 'proves' that each party reduces their uneasiness (Mises).

People in America
I HAVE TO WORK 40 HRS A WEEK
I ONLY GET TWO WEEKS VACATION
NO ONE WILL PAY ME 15 TO STAND AND TALK TO PEOPLE

Pajeet in India
I spent half my week working
I get paid enough to eat every other day
I dont get vacation and usually have to put in overtime or get fired

A priori estimations are foreign to Ameritards.

...cont
As such, they have to experience the outcome in order to put any stock in the correlation.

Come back when you can spell hierarchy.

>t.jew

>pro-women's liberation movement
The status of person, as opposed to quasi-property. That's certainly a step up.
The first-wave feminists were largely socialists who wanted just that.
The second-wave feminists were influenced by economic right-wingers such as (((Friedman))) and (((Mises))). Their ideal oligarchy is a demographically correct oligarchy. It's a fairly natural consequence of a hypercapitalism that commoditizes everything: market participation being a moral good unto itself, the more people who can buy people, the better.

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. A confluence of interest is enough. The international elites' interests and desires are more similar than theirs against their countries' peoples.

POO
ON
MODI

That's fucking online politics in a nutshell since trump got in.

Uni/college students outside of a science degree should be banned from voting.

All societies started off homogeneous, it's only in the past 100 years that that's changed, and incase you haven't noticed it's progresssivly getting worse.

Genetic linage means genetic lineage. Obviously the merit would come second.
Why did you even ask this question if you were just going to null and void my lineage argument without even debating it?

>That's been tried before, both in medieval and the last world war. It failed. You favor cronyism.
Kek
Imagine being so brainwashed you actually believe this.

>I'd favor the best person for the job
That statement is just a slogan.
The current system you support is more of a popularity contest than it is who's best for the occupation.
Are you even being serious user?
Because be sure to let me know when that starts working out for you.

You're the retard if you think this isnt a reality for people in India. Hell, that shit happens just south of the border and Latin America is in a much better position. Go kill yourself you ticking naive peice of shit.

hierarchy.
Now instead of ignoring what I said you can go back to my comment and debate what I posted.

Classical Liberalism

In an ideal capitalist society, the richest person shouldnt make more in another than what the lowest payed person gets payed in a year. That way, the playing field is always even and the weak can fight the strong.

>The first wave feminists were largely (((communists))) who wanted just that.
Fixed That For You
user I'm starting to doubt your knowledge of current events.

Meant to say month.

The product of your labour is already given to someone else when you work for a business. You only get a fraction of the surplus value you produce, the rest goes to the business owner.

No, you're still looking at the situation from the stand point of an individual and not from a collective.
No individual woman has benefited from the women's liberation movement.
They are progressively getting unhappier statistically.
It has now become completely acceptable to judge women solely on their looks thanks to them adopting the bachelor lifestyle.
Not to mention the reason we have all these bitter-old left wing hags is because their ovaries dryed up while they were fighting the patriarchy, because their jewish professor said they were being oppressed.
You don't find it at all odd that their movement has completely destroyed femininity.
You don't find it odd that their giving up their cozy life at home with a couple rug-rats compared to working 40 hours a week as some Secretary.
This situation makes much more sense looking at it from a collectivist standpoint.

Show me where I touched you, burger.

IMO , Phyisical proprety should be a thing (I should just be able to enter your farm or factory when i want , how i want because you dont)

But i dont like the idea of intelectual proprety (copyright) tho i do belive the original creator should have credit for his work as it stiffles creativity because certain types of copyright do not allow remixes.

But this sistem has a major flaw , it stifles creation as there isnt as much of an insentive to be an creator as it wont be your full time job

(but i think we can somewhat circumvent this by giving a perecent of profits of the work that included the song)

>No individual woman has benefited from the women's liberation movement.
Can't measure this.
Perhaps what you mean to say that is you believe that women, in the absence of desire for uniformity with other women, would choose to be home makers. I agree that this would apply to some, but far from most.

>collective standpoint
Is what you're saying that women, as a whole, fall for a Jewish trick- that relies upon how women react in society?

Me too

1488 Fellow nazi

>IP
Also consider what IP would exist if IP was not protected.
IMO IP should be protected (and this is a judgement call) depending on the liklihood of independent discovery.

im a 9

>Also consider what IP would exist if IP was not protected.

More remixes and reinterpetations of the original

(acttualy no , that is quite naive , people whould just try to steal the fucking thing and take credit for it and if its a small artist that no one knows about they may acttualy succeed)

But out side of that as long as credit is given , do what the fuck you want

i can ignore all of your horrendous spelling but i don't agree with your stance on copyright.

i personally use copyrighted.com. first of all, if i came up with an original idea for "hamburger earmuffs" and posted it here, the Yea Forums clause actually lets me instantly copyright it and it's protected under the DMCA in most developed nations. (Yea Forums at least says all our posts belong to us so they're not responsible but if you post a brilliant political analysis on some site like yahoo or--i'm sure--the three networks or fox, they OWN your "idea" and can make MONEY by quoting your stupid ass. like a LOT of money if you had some brilliant political insight and they quote you and it goes global.

i feel safe telling you that i have an idea about teenage witches in the early 70s. i copyrighted the really, truly ORIGINAL details years ago. years before the new "charmed" or "sabrina", etc.

anyone else, do NOT join the WGA. do NOT post using the built-in button in "final draft". they shamelessly steal ideas and then YOU have to come up with millions to fight them for royalties.

hey

>depending on the liklihood of independent discovery.

Agreed , like you make song X , i do not know about your song , I, without knowing about you song being a thing that exists , i publish it and take credit.

Then you comeout and say , hey that is mine you stole it , but i actutaly didnt but i still have to pay legal fees and shet.

But even the least likely for independenty discovery can happen and will happen (Murphy's law)

But if someone makes a creation very similar or litteraly just a copy paste of to the original they have to make a public anouncement and give credit to the original and maybe a part if not all (depends of how similar the work is) the profit to the original creator

Ok , the original creator should AT LEAST be given credit for their work/idea or and precent if not all of the profits made by the copy/inspiration (should be decided on a case by case scenario)

But they shouldnt have the right to shut it down (just take all the profits if it too similar)

>>Also consider what IP would exist if IP was not protected.
>More remixes and reinterpetations of the original
You're assuming that as many 'originals' would exist, though...

>what do you want, other than credit
For those who benefit from work to pay he who worked.

>But even the least likely for independenty discovery can happen and will happen (Murphy's law)
Yes- but I don't choose this so much as I choose the alternative cases- where usually people don't indepedently discover.

>Can't measure this.
Wrong.
Perhaps what you mean to say that is you don't believe it can't be measured.
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/

>ad hominem
no u

That's assuming that wealth is a zero sum game.

this. I don't care how you define and thus feel about capitalism/communism, there are no such things as free markets so long as the currency is virtual and information is ownable/illegal-to-possess/illegal-to-use/illegal-to-modify/illegal-to-copy

No society has ever started off homogenous only to the most ill informed children that think only romans lived in rome.

Genealogy is based off of ancestral genetics. So the more that a genetic line lived in one area that more identifiable it is based off of climate and diet. As the people and culture expand and move the more diverse the genetics get.

To have a culture that is anything more than a single climate area is impossible to assert a specific genetic linkage, especially now that our food comes from all over the planet.

What you think genetics are is based more from skill tree in and RPG game than it is actual reality.

Shit.

9

im that sweet classical liberal

Ironically, the end-game of "being political" is knowing both sides are controlled opposition, the whole thing is a TV show. The rulers don't care about your resistance and they can see it coming a mile away.

>Profit is the literal exploitation of the seller.

But profit is the incentive for the seller to sell. Without it, they wouldn't, and I wouldn't get to buy the thing I want to be able to buy.

If you used a loaded gun to force prices at the supermarket to keep going lower until the supermarket made no profit, hooray! No more exploitation! And hooray! Lower costs for me! But then shit, the supermarket has closed.

But wait, we could use the same gun to force them to stay open anyway! Aaaaaaand fuck you.

here's my corner user

Attached: IMGP1817.jpg (3872x2592, 933K)

this is reasonable

Its more like 0.01% own +50%, which is enough to own everything, but as you increase that from the top, stat the numbers even out.

98% of people own 100% of everything. You see. it's not 20:80 it's actually, fucked.

>private property
>enforced by state
pick one

Attached: tnvesygp28001.png (486x960, 285K)

Anarcho-primitivism.

Yes, but if you made a supermarket not-for-profit the closing of the supermarket would only be done because the store owner was dissatisfied without being able to exploit people.

There's a lot of business that run on not-for-profit model. It's not just the fucked up loonies like relgions and charity.

And ya, you could use the same gun to stay open. Nice. We call that gun the 'government' in the real world. Enforced by the police. They have actual guns.

The supermarket is a weird concept in itself, actually, as one of the best means of distribution of food. Even in emergency situations, to dispense free food is not as effective as having a market. The marketplace is one of the oldest cornerstones of most civilizations that usually was held around the town well and was taxed by the government back then also.

Profit is the incentive for the seller to sell, but not-for-profit models do exist. I mean people do give food out for free.

Attached: 1545500145827.jpg (258x196, 14K)

>it's only capitalism if theft is not illegal

Something like Social Democracy

Putting people first before profit
Abolishment of tax avoidance
An end to bigotry in the workplace and egregious working conditions
A need to establish my country as a cultural center while welcoming everyone from all backgrounds, regardless of sex, disability, race or religion
Open borders, free trade and peace
Drug legislation
Scrapping of all nuclear weapons
Anti-war prospect
A reduced role of the monarchy

14, Reagan style conservatism.

Deregulate the market, fuck welfare, big military and let people immigrate into the country if they're willing to work and believe in american values

kys

We should talk this out first before we start blowing each other up
What could be done better?

>A reduced role of the monarchy
UK DETECTED

You guys are practically communists compared to the US.

>food banks don't close because they can't exploit people
>they're corrupt and are still exploiting people
>everything is terrible and I can't prove a thing