Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:26 No.13404275

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:26 No.13404275

I've seen a few communists, not many socialists though, I think just because socialism is much too broad a term to be of much use when discussing politics

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:27 No.13404324

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:27 No.13404324

Replies: >>13406447

/pol/ is full of nationalistic boot-licking, state-loving right-wing conservatives. There are hardly any libertarians anymore.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:28 No.13404336

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:28 No.13404336

File: 1367108892693.jpg-(325 KB, 500x750, 2d63d1cfb39ec9fdea878f5f7(...).jpg)

325 KB JPG

>socialists

Well, yes, there are some.


Just not the kind that you're looking for.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:29 No.13404390

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:29 No.13404390

>>13404188 (OP)
Not really; our leftists tend to me quite a bit more to the left.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:31 No.13404445

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:31 No.13404445

a free market is a happy market

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:33 No.13404531

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:33 No.13404531

Replies: >>13404617 >>13408779

pretty much conservative.
There are libertarians but they've been debated into holes

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:35 No.13404617

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:35 No.13404617

File: 1367109349030.jpg-(49 KB, 441x408, 1279757342711.jpg)

49 KB JPG

>>13404531

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:36 No.13404634

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:36 No.13404634

>>13404188 (OP)

Yo'

I've been here since it was /n/, and I've kept the same stance since. My political compass is four ticks left and one tick down at most, if not between zero and one downwards.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:36 No.13404635

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:36 No.13404635

I'm a stormfag

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:38 No.13404725

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:38 No.13404725

Replies: >>13406234

Communist here.

Just spent all day at the Historical Materialism NYC conference at NYU today. Shit was so revolutionary.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:39 No.13404773

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:39 No.13404773

Liberal here. In the international sense, as I probably have to clarify.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:40 No.13404804

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:40 No.13404804

Replies: >>13406234

Communists, yeah. Also a whole bunch of anarchists.

Liberals and social democrats tend to be chased out/converted pretty quickly.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:40 No.13404815

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:40 No.13404815

Replies: >>13404937

>>13404188 (OP)
National Socialist here.

Do I count?

Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc
04/27/13(Sat)20:41 No.13404837

Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc 04/27/13(Sat)20:41 No.13404837

Anarchist.

former social democrat/socialist something.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:42 No.13404899

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:42 No.13404899

Replies: >>13405016

Statists generally are converted quickly,turning into anarchists; they occasionally pop their heads in when /pol/ is getting raided. (usually stormfront, anyone who denied this is a fag)

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:43 No.13404937

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:43 No.13404937

>>13404815

No.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13404979

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13404979

File: 1367109900455.jpg-(36 KB, 541x361, bub.jpg)

36 KB JPG

You could say my political views are american

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13405000

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13405000

No, go away.

We don't need anymore economic illiteracy here.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13405016

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:45 No.13405016

>>13404899
Yeah, this. Ex run-of-the-mill liberal here. Actually learning that other viewpoints existed converted me pretty fucking quickly.

I reckon the majority of anarchists/libertarians on this board were liberals before posting.

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)20:46 No.13405057

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)20:46 No.13405057

File: 1367110005398.png-(35 KB, 700x700, 1353565837574.png)

35 KB PNG

Libertarian socialist reporting in.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:53 No.13405266

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:53 No.13405266

Replies: >>13405412 >>13406234

>>13404188 (OP)
Anarcho-communist here. The right-wingers are just louder. "MUH FREEDOMS" is easier to shout about than "muh worker-owned collectives, at the onset of the 17th century...".

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)20:56 No.13405412

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)20:56 No.13405412

Replies: >>13405603 >>13406118 >>13407401

File: 1367110613625.png-(488 KB, 1474x1724, LvR.png)

488 KB PNG

>>13405266
Shouting "LET'S ABOLISH MONEY AND TRADE" is pretty easy.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:02 No.13405603

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:02 No.13405603

Replies: >>13405721 >>13406118

>>13405412
>that pic
>right-"libertarians": master strawman-warriors and point-missers
>left libertarians: a bit too optimistic, but overall good
>choose wisely

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:05 No.13405721

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:05 No.13405721

Replies: >>13405840

>>13405603
>abolishing money and trade
>good

Maybe if you know zero economics. A common trait in leftists.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:09 No.13405840

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:09 No.13405840

Replies: >>13405935

>>13405721
My major is in economics. My ideology is simply based on my opinion that (for the most part) all centralization is bad.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:09 No.13405850

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:09 No.13405850

I lean left. I think I only browse /pol/ because of some kind of masochistic streak.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:10 No.13405896

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:10 No.13405896

Replies: >>13405926 >>13406081

On all the incarnations of /new/, it's always been 25% libertarians and 70% White Nationalists. The other 5% is various leftists.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:11 No.13405926

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:11 No.13405926

>>13405896

I are the 5%?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:11 No.13405935

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:11 No.13405935

Replies: >>13406038 >>13407239

>>13405840
You must have missed the part about the division of labor.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:12 No.13405968

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:12 No.13405968

Replies: >>13406043 >>13406119

OP do not limit yourself to "American" political terminology.
I am a Libertarian-Socialist.
To anyone saying, "hurr durr oxymoron", please know you are an uneducated twit.
Another term I agree with is Anarcho-Syndiclisism

Link related...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:13 No.13405985

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:13 No.13405985

Replies: >>13406234

File: 1367111584109.jpg-(488 KB, 2000x2000, Untitled.jpg)

488 KB JPG

yes

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406019

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406019

I'm some kind of anarchist. Maybe market? I just hate the state, I don't really get bogged down in schools of thought.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406038

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406038

Replies: >>13406095 >>13406139

>>13405935
I did not. In a post-modern field, one has to take popular opinion with a grain of salt.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406043

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:14 No.13406043

Replies: >>13406154 >>13406245

File: 1367111692436.jpg-(212 KB, 726x793, 7nPR8.jpg)

212 KB JPG

>>13405968
Noam is a total hack

http://youtu.be/3B0Q109uQ7o?t=1m30s

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:15 No.13406081

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:15 No.13406081

Replies: >>13406112 >>13406156

>>13405896
>The other 5% is various leftists.
I dunno, I think it might be a bit higher. Maybe 10%?

Has /pol/ ever had a poll where we just ask people about their political leanings?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406095

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406095

Replies: >>13406380

>>13406038
Don't expect a job when you get your degree.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406097

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406097

Classical liberal here.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406106

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406106

It really varies. During quiet times we usually mostly are very conservative and libertarian, with the occasional srs faggot.

After happenings the quality of the board goes down sharply and we see a lot of more religion/atheist and anti-capitalistic shitposting.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406112

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406112

Replies: >>13406198

>>13406081

Every. Damn. Day.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406118

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406118

Replies: >>13406153 >>13406268 >>13406380 >>13407096 >>13407158

>>13405603
>>13405412

One of the largest arguments against Left Libertarianism is in the funding of social programs. I feel that this is a moot issue. If we abolish the Fed and ergo the income tax, we can subsidized all social programs via a sliding luxury VAT. To this, if a rich man does not want to put any money into the socialist pot, than all they would need to do is not buy the high end items in the public market. Simple solution to the only reasonable argument to Left Libbies..

I honestly feel if the 1930's spanish movement had not be destroyed by the better armed communist party then we would have had a perfect model to follow.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406119

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:16 No.13406119

Replies: >>13406153 >>13406186 >>13406196 >>13406380 >>13406593 >>13407590

File: 1367111801730.jpg-(77 KB, 1041x742, NaturalRights.jpg)

77 KB JPG

>>13405968
>libertarian-socialist
in what universe are these terms not mutually exclusive.
how do reconcile the non-aggression principle and socialist economics?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406139

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406139

>>13406038
In a post modern field I have to biopolitically unseparate the normative division of your teeth from the back of your throat.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406144

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406144

Replies: >>13408889

Moderate here.

Libertarians, conservatives, socialists and social democrats are all full retarded neo-bolsheviks.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406153

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406153

Replies: >>13406268

>>13406119

see >>13406118

I apologize for not including that in my original post as I am well aware of this notion.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406154

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406154

>>13406043
Chomsky , the Ayn Rand of the left

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406156

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:17 No.13406156

>>13406081

All the time, but we think it's some kind of FBI or CIA trap so who knows how accurate they were.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406186

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406186

Replies: >>13406326

>>13406119
Noam Chompsky calls himself that, I never understood it myself. I guess it just means maximum social liberty while you work in your labor camps. So you can have buttseggs and smoke drugs

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406196

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406196

Replies: >>13406258 >>13406374

>>13406119
The non-aggression principle is liberal bourgeois idealism invented in the 1950s to support monopsony.

Libertarianism has always been a proletarian movement, and radical liberals are desperately trying to take it over because of the dead end of Manchester School ideology.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406198

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:18 No.13406198

Replies: >>13406372

>>13406112
I mean like a more formal poll, that's a bit harder to spoof/samefag.

Do you have results from any such polls?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:19 No.13406234

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:19 No.13406234

File: 1367111971784.jpg-(38 KB, 723x326, Politique 14 Avril 2013.jpg)

38 KB JPG

>>13405985
>>13405266
>>13404804
>>13404725
Workers of the world unite!!

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:19 No.13406245

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:19 No.13406245

Replies: >>13406284 >>13406340 >>13406440

>>13406043

Hack? Dude is spot on. He was referring to the US version of libertarianism, not the REAL meaning of it, and he is correct. Libertarianism in a capitalistic society only opens the flood gates for corporate corruption. See China.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406258

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406258

File: 1367112005475.jpg-(48 KB, 627x477, 1362424776072.jpg)

48 KB JPG

>>13406196
>Libertarianism has always been a proletarian movement

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406268

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406268

>>13406153
>>13406118
once again though how is spending confiscated monies on indirect wealth transfers in line with the right to private property or a free market?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406284

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:20 No.13406284

Replies: >>13406348

>>13406245
But China has never been stronger in history.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:21 No.13406317

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:21 No.13406317

>>13404188 (OP)
>Are there any socialists or social democrats here?
Of course there are. Why do you think this board is so terribly rife with trolls and shitposting?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:21 No.13406326

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:21 No.13406326

Replies: >>13406345 >>13406352

>>13406186

>work in labor camps
guess you don't know what socialism is either.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406340

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406340

Replies: >>13406458

>>13406245
Are you seriously this retarded?

He said two contradictory things 17 seconds apart.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406345

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406345

>>13406326
I'm driven daily into a labour camp by starvation and the slavery of debt. It is called wage slavery, it is called capitalism.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406348

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406348

Replies: >>13406398

>>13406284

then why don't you move there and work in one of Apple's (FoxConn) factories?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406352

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:22 No.13406352

Replies: >>13406503

>>13406326
Can I not work?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406372

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406372

>>13406198

Not really. People come here to do formal polls all the time, but they never come up to a statistically significant amount of people by the time the thread 404s, and it seems as though they never follow up.

Though I've never seen the actual results of one.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406374

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406374

Replies: >>13406412 >>13409646

File: 1367112187344.jpg-(64 KB, 500x500, 59358_436944158258_728043(...).jpg)

64 KB JPG

>>13406196
Non-Aggression principle was invented by Thoreau and applies well to John Locke's theory of individual liberty.
You clearly dont know what monopsony means.
>proletarian
now your just retarded. No libertarian ever used this word, ever

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406378

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406378

>>13406322
>government to more efficiently and effectively regulate the industries.

>Government, efficient

lol

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406380

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406380

Replies: >>13408030

>>13406095
>implying unions aren't looking for knowledgeable people minus muh markets

>>13406118
The main point is common ownership.

>>13406119
>in what universe

Everywhere except the US, where libertarian means the opposite of what it does everywhere else

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406398

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:23 No.13406398

>>13406348
I leave that to people who really need the opportunity, like all the peasant farmers and students who need the money more than I do.
Also they have like a million employees, so you have to take the suicide numbers into perspective.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406412

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406412

Replies: >>13406584

>>13406374
Bakunin.

Take your radical liberalism and eat Manchester's shit.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406425

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406425

Replies: >>13406924

>>13404188 (OP)

/pol/ used to be mostly conservatives and libertarians.

but now it's at least 50% lebbiter pop-culture liberals, crusading social-justice types and various agents.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406440

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406440

Replies: >>13406544 >>13406623 >>13406638

>>13406245
socialism relies on force.
libertarianism relies on trade.
not compatible.
China is not libertarian in any sense of the word.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406447

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:24 No.13406447

>>13404324

As a communist, I miss the libertarians. The conservitards bore me to tears with their shitposting.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406458

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406458

Replies: >>13406583 >>13406588

>>13406340

back up the video to the beginning. Take the whole statement in, and stop taking one select portion completely out of context. This is what Fox News does you faggot.

This is what you did...

I say kill babies is bad. If I were to wake up one day and say" Hey I want to go kill a baby." then maybe someone should not let me be a babysitter... but all you will fucking get from that is

OMFG HE JUST SAID!! "I want to go kill a baby."

and leave it at that. Your selectivity is a prime example as to why our MSM is so fucked up.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406465

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406465

>>13404188 (OP)
you mean libertarians and national socialists

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406476

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:25 No.13406476

democratic socialist here. We're here, we just get drowned out by the libertarians.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:26 No.13406503

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:26 No.13406503

Replies: >>13406575

>>13406352

yes you can not work.
the beauty of this is the will to contribute.
If you are not force to work at burger king you will be given the opportunity to do what you want to do in life, in which you would contribute to society as you will.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:27 No.13406544

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:27 No.13406544

Replies: >>13406597 >>13406727

>>13406440
>relies on force
>having most of our labor taken by a third party ceo is le liberty lel
>it's not force when le private industry does it
>shooting people for walking on a strip of land i've declared control over isn't le force
>et cetera

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406575

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406575

Replies: >>13406693

>>13406503
Hey great bro, but who will provide me with my stuff and shit?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406583

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406583

>>13406458
The beginning has little to do with his ending statement.

He said all of US libertarianism, negating the Ron Paul part.

What he said was the free market would lead to corporate tyranny and then later saying that they can not exist in a free market.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406584

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406584

Replies: >>13406916

File: 1367112505006.jpg-(176 KB, 639x676, china-embraces-capitalism(...).jpg)

176 KB JPG

>>13406412
why dont u just shut up about political theory, your fucking inbred island will never amount to shit and u still have a queen. britfag politics are fucking stupid just like their faggy euro kickball clubs. socialism is for retards in any form.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406588

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406588

>>13406458
>and stop taking one select portion completely out of context.
MAKE ME BITCH NIGGA

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406593

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406593

Replies: >>13406668 >>13406834

>>13406119
>how do reconcile the non-aggression principle and socialist economics?

And Libertarian socialists wonder how capitalists can reconcile the NAP with propertarianism.

It all boils down to the extent you consider outside objects as part of the "self".

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406597

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:28 No.13406597

Replies: >>13406695

File: 1367112523735.jpg-(43 KB, 335x345, 1360490426354.jpg)

43 KB JPG

>>13406544
>>having most of our labor taken by a third party ceo is le liberty lel

McDonalds CEO makes like two millions, do you know how many employees they have?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406623

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406623

>>13406440
>implying wealth does not lead to power
>Implying power can not be used to make people do things they don't want to do

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406638

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406638

Replies: >>13406694 >>13408030

>>13406440
>socialism relies on force.
wrong, please relearn the meaning of socialism
>libertarianism relies on trade
wrong again, libertarianism relies on freedom, nothing more
>not compatible.
wrong
>China is not libertarian in any sense of the word.
partially true... they are in the sense that corrupt corporatism is in essence libertarianism. The wrong kind, but still.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406642

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:29 No.13406642

>>13404188 (OP)
Social liberal reporting in.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406668

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406668

Replies: >>13406995

>>13406593
>can reconcile the NAP with propertarianism

Because you can not define aggression otherwise. I have told you this multiple times.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406683

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406683

Replies: >>13409968

File: 1367112640247.png-(328 KB, 800x897, 1366474003825.png)

328 KB PNG

/pol/ is 80% nationalistic, racist, Libertarians.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406693

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406693

Replies: >>13406723

>>13406575

the social programs, charity

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406694

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406694

Replies: >>13406760

>>13406638
>wrong, please relearn the meaning of socialism

If you don't have to work, but you can still live, so somebody else has to work for you, but then why would they give you stuff? What if they don't want to share?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406695

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:30 No.13406695

Replies: >>13406780

>>13406597
And just how much of the work does he do for such a share?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:31 No.13406723

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:31 No.13406723

Replies: >>13406844 >>13407029

>>13406693

Nice, about time someone worked for me.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:31 No.13406727

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:31 No.13406727

Replies: >>13406874

File: 1367112718439.jpg-(235 KB, 340x500, Chadwick_Gray_We_Make_America.jpg)

235 KB JPG

>>13406544
correction initation of force.
>muh labor theory of value
u believe in phrenology too, luddite?
u do understand that without customers or capital the workers dont count for shit.
>private industry
explain how they initiate force on others?
>strip of land
private property is real thing. u dont have the right to despoil other people property. even dogs have a concept of private property, thats why they bark at you when you walk by.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:32 No.13406742

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:32 No.13406742

>>13404188 (OP)
I don't identify with a movement.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:32 No.13406760

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:32 No.13406760

Replies: >>13406812

>>13406694
Not him, but you're making it pretty clear that you don't quite grasp what socialism is.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406780

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406780

Replies: >>13410737

>>13406695

Probably does a lot of work, and if he would work for free the workers could all have $1 more per year. Awesome.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406782

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406782

Doesn't matter what you are, because Capitalism is here to stay. Rather, whatever economic form that consolidates wealth into the hands of the Rothschild Family, will stay on top.
Fractional reserve Banking, free trade agreements (at least four being made in the Pacific region alone currently) are how they operate.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406812

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:33 No.13406812

Replies: >>13406864

>>13406760

I guess not, how does it work?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:34 No.13406834

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:34 No.13406834

>>13406593
NAP and propertarianism go hand in hand.
it sets the standard for what is the initiation of aggression. You steal your neighbors apples and he dies of starvation is a clear link between property in chattel and self-ownership.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:34 No.13406844

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:34 No.13406844

Replies: >>13406949

>>13406723
People aren't working for you, they are working for the surplus, the only problem with surpluses is they destroy the trading parity of currencies in the midrun.

So you are more like a pig being fed so that the relevant people can continue playing a game of capitalism

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406864

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406864

>>13406812
In this context it's simply ownership of production by the workers.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406865

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406865

Social democrat here.
I believe that some areas, such as water and electricity, should be socialized. These industries could be regulated more effectively, and their products could be provided to the public more cheaply due to lack of (or reduced) profit motive.

The list of industries that are fully socialized would preferably be short, though. A market economy is still superior at driving innovation, and also has economic benefits such as flexibility and increased incentive.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406874

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406874

Replies: >>13407055

>>13406727
>u do understand that without customers or capital the workers dont count for shit.
Marx on realisation mate. Don't straw man him.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406879

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:35 No.13406879

Replies: >>13406973 >>13407033 >>13410789

File: 1367112951479.jpg-(23 KB, 320x481, VonMises.jpg)

23 KB JPG

Friendly reminder that socialism is impossible

If you abolish private property in the means of production, there cannot be exchange in those means.

And without the trade that generates prices, one cannot rationally calculate.

Mises destroyed all arguments for socialism in 1921.

Deal with it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:36 No.13406892

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:36 No.13406892

Replies: >>13406931

>>13404188 (OP)
>forgetting about the green quadrant entirely

Amerifart, I presume.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:36 No.13406916

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:36 No.13406916

Replies: >>13407172

>>13406584
>claims to be a libertarian
>hasn't read any of the Manchester school

Seriously, are Americlaps this poorly read?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406924

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406924

>>13406425
>but now it's at least 50% lebbiter pop-culture liberals, crusading social-justice types and various agents.
hue

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406931

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406931

Replies: >>13407096

File: 1367113048585.png-(7 KB, 421x400, 1346506743167.png)

7 KB PNG

>>13406892
Green requires force for its ends.

Therefore, it can not exist

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406945

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406945

I'm a left-leaning centrist. I feel very alone.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406949

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:37 No.13406949

Replies: >>13407146

>>13406844
what surplus? do you know what this term even means?
surplus is wasted effort, time and resources it is the condition of creating more that what is demanded due to artificial pricing.
surplus is NOT a good thing.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:38 No.13406973

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:38 No.13406973

Replies: >>13407028

>>13406879
The State can regulate the shit depending on how rare/how many there are and distribute the profit provided by the means of production ( which is owned by everyone) equally.

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)21:39 No.13406995

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)21:39 No.13406995

Replies: >>13407057 >>13407256

>>13406668
>Because you can not define aggression otherwise.

Calling your own body "property" is a rather clever use of semantics, isn't it? There are so many different answers to "what you can own?" and "what sort power comes through being the owner?" that to simply say "property is the basis for ethics! Violating property is aggression!" is just a reaffirmation of your already held beliefs.

Property can be either a liberating force or an enslaving force, depending on how it is defined. But saying that property is the axiom from which all other rights derive is meaningless, and in the context of the US legal property conception, an excuse for oppression.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407028

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407028

>>13406973
No they can't. Prices show you supply and demand directly. Actually USSR had prices, they couldn't run otherwise.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407029

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407029

Replies: >>13407108

>>13406723
>>13406723

There would be zero work or force behind it. It would be a willful choice. It's not set up like near anything the US system is based on.

This video is directly related to your question.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNhd4j4mzzc

this is the same speech in it's full context.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407033

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407033

Replies: >>13407333

>>13406879
>price system
Yeah, you produced a pastiche and then refuted it. Good job Mises.

The calculation problem refutes the possibility of political democracy (including the "republic") btw. This means that any state, even the most minimal, for the Austrian will be incapable of decision making. Not just just action, but decision making.

Also Mises imports the utilitarian commensurability of desire problem into the model without the least shame that the standard economists do by admitting their model does not reflect reality.

And then there's the problem that Mises and the Austrian methodology disputes the existence of empirical reality.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407039

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407039

more liberal than anything
jk fuck the system

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407055

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:40 No.13407055

Replies: >>13407085

File: 1367113259194.jpg-(44 KB, 194x250, 250_ludwig_von_mises.jpg)

44 KB JPG

>>13406874
workers dont make anything value by themselves. value of their product has nothing to do with labor input it has to do with demand from the market versus is relative scarcity.
If i wanted to strawman Marx id say he was a dope smoking , barely literate person, who filled a dusty inconsistent old book with moral preaching and pseudoscience that hase been discredited for about 100 years now. cheers

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407057

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407057

Replies: >>13407439

>>13406995
Exactly, radical liberalism is entirely normative. THE IMPUREST IDEOLOGY.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407085

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407085

>>13407055
>workers dont make anything value by themselves.
I'm assuming you're simply incoherent.

People with English as a Second Language tend not to be cretins.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407096

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:41 No.13407096

Replies: >>13407401

>>13406931

No it does not..

see >>13406118

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:42 No.13407108

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:42 No.13407108

Replies: >>13407195

>>13407029
Yea man just smoke a join and we can all be friends and work for the greater good together in peace yea.
Who will do the hard work though?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407146

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407146

Replies: >>13407296

>>13406949
Surplus is a great thing, it means you take less than you need, it means the world needs you more than you need the world. As long as somebody consumes your surplus, whatever you produce won't be wasted.

>artificial pricing
Then don't pay the price, any price you pay for is the price paid and it's real.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407150

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407150

File: 1367113418423.png-(125 KB, 1023x682, LibertarianSocialism.png)

125 KB PNG

freedom proponent checking in

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407158

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:43 No.13407158

Replies: >>13407219

>>13406118
>than all they would need to do is not buy the high end items in the public market.

>implying they wouldn't just buy their boats in parts and assemble them.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407172

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407172

Replies: >>13407192 >>13407261

>>13406916
>Manchester school
pretty fucking irrelevant to American libertarianism.
try Lysander Spooner, Adam Smith or John Locke.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407192

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407192

Replies: >>13407261

>>13407172
Plus the current streams, Rand, Rothbard and Friedman.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407195

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:44 No.13407195

Replies: >>13407258

>>13407108

people who enjoy it.

not everyone can be a lazy fuck like yourself

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:45 No.13407219

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:45 No.13407219

>>13407158

which is perfectly viable.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407239

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407239

>>13405935

Never read Wealth of Nations did you?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407256

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407256

Replies: >>13407439

>>13406995
Wrong.

Please tell me,
Is yelling fire in a crowded theater aggression?

Is abortion aggression?

I have great answers for both of these, you however do not.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407258

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407258

Replies: >>13407334

File: 1367113590987.jpg-(313 KB, 660x509, 1362552897495.jpg)

313 KB JPG

>>13407195
Yea all those hard working blacks in the welfare housing ghettos.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407261

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:46 No.13407261

Replies: >>13407416

>>13407172
>>13407192
Except they're precisely not. The naked force of oligopoly and monopsony over labour is spelt out complete in the radical liberalism of Manchester. The fact that the boys from Chicago implemented market fascism in Chile and, in New Zealand and the United Kingdom directly attacked free associations of persons as their first and immediate target indicates the raw and brutal nature of the radical liberals.

The non-aggression principle is less than a fig leaf: the first action of libertarians is to throw trade unionists out of helicopters.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:47 No.13407296

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:47 No.13407296

Replies: >>13407732

File: 1367113664299.jpg-(40 KB, 812x770, min wage.jpg)

40 KB JPG

>>13407146
>doesnt understand price controls vs market equilibrium
OK genius. One year you grow more lettuce than is wanted. Due to a a price control on the sale of lettuce it cant be discounted. Now the lettuce rots. Congrats now consume the rotten lettuce.
>yfw

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:48 No.13407333

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:48 No.13407333

Replies: >>13407438

>>13407033
You don't understand the "socialism is impossible" claim.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Boettke.pdf

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:48 No.13407334

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:48 No.13407334

Replies: >>13407414

>>13407258

>implying niggers are the majority

you actually bring up a valid point in socialism, if a person or persons were unable to integrate into a respective society, they would die. Win win if you ask me

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407401

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407401

>>13407096
see
>>13405412

Are you seriously going to tell me abolish money, trade and giving everyone free medicine and schooling wouldn't require force?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407409

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407409

File: 1367113844549.jpg-(59 KB, 811x704, 1343218463790.jpg)

59 KB JPG

Most socialists here are probably of the nationalist variety.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407414

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407414

Replies: >>13407469

>>13407334
Oh you are a nationalist as well as socialist I presume then?
Why not have the blacks be slaves for the whites.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407416

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:50 No.13407416

>>13407261
>monopsony.
why would u assume that a sole purchaser of labor could ever exist?
what makes you think this has anything to do with any form of libertarianism at all?
what makes think trade unions benefit anyone other than those who control trade unions?
this is the most nonsense ive heard i this topic

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:51 No.13407438

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:51 No.13407438

Replies: >>13407489

>>13407333
Which is strange, because empirical demonstration refutes idealism.

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)21:51 No.13407439

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)21:51 No.13407439

Replies: >>13407476 >>13407597 >>13407634

>>13407057
>Exactly, radical liberalism is entirely normative. THE IMPUREST IDEOLOGY.

Just trying to help capitalists realize that their property norms come from their culture and don't objectively exist. It's the first step towards recovery.

>>13407256
>Is yelling fire in a crowded theater aggression?Is abortion aggression?I have great answers for both of these, you however do not.

So you have easy answers to complicated questions? Good for you I suppose?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407464

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407464

Social democrat here. The only way we can save ourselves.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407469

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407469

>>13407414

No thank you. I prefer quality goods. Also, what does nationalist have to do with race? You must lay of the lead paint chips sir.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407476

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:52 No.13407476

Replies: >>13407517

>>13407439
I've met a couple of actually mature radical liberals, on /lit/. Strangely that's exactly where I've met the well read fascists.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407489

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407489

Replies: >>13407691

>>13407438
economics=empirical demonstration
socialism=idealism
FTFY

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407496

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407496

What I always find fascinating is that it would be totally possible to have socialistic and communistic communities within capitalistic societies, but not the other way around.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407507

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407507

Replies: >>13407554

File: 1367114011189.png-(383 KB, 640x647, 1366175311008.png)

383 KB PNG

/pol/ is:

50% shitposters
20% contrarians-for-the-sake-of-it
15% paranoid schizophrenics
10% morons mistakenly coming here for legitimate political discussion
5% genuinely funny/intelligent people who post troll threads with 100+ enraged replies

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407517

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:53 No.13407517

Replies: >>13407661

>>13407476

sorry for my stupidity but what is a radical liberal? Like a lefty gone rabid?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407537

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407537

Replies: >>13407602 >>13407698 >>13407703 >>13407873

Sick of anarchists. There has never been an anarchist country, nor could there be. Without a state, the animal passions dominate. There must be law.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407554

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407554

File: 1367114083244.png-(160 KB, 597x598, 1361369426379.png)

160 KB PNG

>>13407507
Bretty good.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407562

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:54 No.13407562

Replies: >>13407614

File: 1367114095657.png-(13 KB, 600x200, Poltical Compass 2.png)

13 KB PNG

How did I do?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407590

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407590

Replies: >>13407832

>>13406119
>how do reconcile the non-aggression principle and socialist economics?
I don't.
You assume, or seem to assume that the minimization of oppression is the same as the maximization of freedom, which is entirely baseless. If there are there is a rich man and a starving man then the starving man would be justified in his use of force because that would maximize freedom by allowing him to live and do all other things that come with life. Unless you want to argue that while this would be legitimate it would be easier to do away with all force rather than attempt distinguish between different usages, I fail to see what merit the principle has.
I can not think of an activity of meaning which can be done without SOME force and to completely go away with it seems foolish.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407597

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407597

Replies: >>13409115

>>13407439
Oh no you don't. You aren't getting out of this.

You said "How is the NAP compatible with propertarism".

So now, once again, answer me how do you define aggression.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407602

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:55 No.13407602

Replies: >>13407690

>>13407537

This country was founded as a socialist one though. Too bad the socialist companies got bought out and ruined by capitalists. Note that I am referring to real socialism and not the ill termed state socialism.. to me that is an oxymoron

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:56 No.13407614

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:56 No.13407614

File: 1367114171735.png-(56 KB, 714x705, auth-cap.png)

56 KB PNG

>>13407562
>militaristic
>secular

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:56 No.13407634

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:56 No.13407634

Replies: >>13407724 >>13407736 >>13409115

>>13407439
without property their is no ability to exclude those wish to despoil it. tragedy of the commons.
Its about a very real behavioral trait related to self-preservation.

quit denying science. capitalism works because its based on sound economic fact.
the only fruits of these other theories is nothing but useless books on philosophy.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407661

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407661

>>13407517
People who take the claims of the Manchester School seriously, what your USLP stands for. The same people who have attempted to bastardise the mutualist section of the libertarian movement because they use price tokens.

I'm not going to call people who stand for throwing trade unionists out of helicopters "libertarians," because quite frankly they are state dependent. There is no distance between Manchester, Austria and Chicago; they are the same location.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407690

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407690

File: 1367114274863.jpg-(20 KB, 211x246, 1353498739071.jpg)

20 KB JPG

>>13407602
>This country was founded as a socialist one though.

Which one?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407691

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:57 No.13407691

>>13407489
Go read up on the methodology of Austrian economics and get back to me.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407698

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407698

Replies: >>13409581

File: 1367114286338.png-(186 KB, 935x560, ancap.png)

186 KB PNG

>>13407537
AnCaps aren't against law.

The other anarchists are idiots. I would agree on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407703

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407703

>>13407537
>STATISM IS THE ONLY WAY
>THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A NON-STATIST STATE

Are you even listening to yourself?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407724

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407724

>>13407634
>without property their is no ability to exclude those wish to despoil it. tragedy of the commons.
No, the tragedy of the commons is when parliament stole commonly held collective land and gave it to private capitalilsts.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407732

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:58 No.13407732

Replies: >>13408063

>>13407296
>tfw somebody tries to argue against surplus production invoking agricultural production

>tfw the agriculture sector of industrialised countries are so heavily subventioned they produce surpluses.

>price controls vs market equilibrium

The equilibrium isn't static it changes, and any seller of produce will try to shift the equilibrium into his favor.

Or learn game theory

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)21:59 No.13407736

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)21:59 No.13407736

Replies: >>13407780 >>13407783 >>13407947

>>13407634
>capitalism
>based on science
you guys are worse than the Marxists who think everything is pre-ordained by the God of Social Justice.

Free markets are one useful tool to arrange society's affairs. They are not a law of nature.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:00 No.13407780

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:00 No.13407780

Replies: >>13407942

>>13407736
Not so much based on science as on reality and nature itself. You don't have to set up a system for capitalism to work, it's in us, it's nature.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:00 No.13407783

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:00 No.13407783

Replies: >>13407840

>>13407736
>the Marxists who think everything is pre-ordained by the God of Social Justice.
You should use "those Marxists" when you're discussing a sub-set.

btw: moralism is a very minor feature of Marxism, and tends to be restricted to bourgeois Marxists.

You should know this, it is in Lukacs on revolutionary morality.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:02 No.13407832

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:02 No.13407832

Replies: >>13408157

>>13407590
no . My premise is the freedom exists by the negation of initial force. INITIAL FORCE. The starving man isnt expanding freedom by using violence, he is constricting it. To say you have the right to someone else's bread is to treat all bakers as your slave.
You cant see anything can be accomplished without force becuz u either dont distinguish between intial force and defensive force which makes you a moral reprobate.
...or you absolutely no concept of trade and are thus ignorant to a fault
le pick

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:02 No.13407840

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:02 No.13407840

Replies: >>13407952

>>13407783
that's the gloss that Marxists put on it, but Marxism is fundamentally an Enlightenment, humanist philosophy, disguised as some sort of mechanistic analysis.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:03 No.13407873

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:03 No.13407873

>>13407537
spain was an anarchist state during a while

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407942

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407942

Replies: >>13408175

>>13407780
I think there's some truth to what you say, but I still think free marketeers take it too far. A lot of them seem to equate economic inefficiency with evil. Free marketeers espouse a fundamentally utilitarian philosophy. All the criticisms you could offer against utilitarian philosophy could be made against it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407947

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407947

Replies: >>13408057

>>13407736
>laws of nature
you dont know what science is then.
behavioral sciences like economics establish models of predictability that can be practically applied to solve real world problems. it is empirical and can be tested with the scientific method. it based on real behavioral theories.

everything socialism is not. trying to learn economics from philosophy books is like trying to design a house by reading mother goose.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407952

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:05 No.13407952

>>13407840
>that's the gloss that Marxists put on it, but Marxism is fundamentally an Enlightenment, humanist philosophy, disguised as some sort of mechanistic analysis.

Now while I've read this debate in the 1950s, when you actually get down and dirty with it, all morality is abandoned for raw naked class power. The reason to be moral, as the Hungarian councils observed in November, is because it is tactically superior to immorality of a certain kind. Similarly the class warfare in Vietnam between 1959 and 1965: morality was not a feature of action.

The illusion that Marxism is humanist is one that you have because you've primarily read bourgeois, Enlightenment intellectual of Marxism, rather than dealing with the practice of working class Marxists.

Hell, look at the IWW's construction of action in the West in the teens. The working class is not a moral Enlightenment subject.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:07 No.13408030

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:07 No.13408030

>>13406380
>Everywhere except the US, where libertarian means the opposite of what it does everywhere else
What does it mean elsewhere? Because the definition is pretty concrete.
>>13406638
>partially true... they are in the sense that corrupt corporatism is in essence libertarianism. The wrong kind, but still
This is mistaking libertarianism for a system of governance. It's not.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:08 No.13408057

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:08 No.13408057

Replies: >>13408179 >>13408211

>>13407947
You seem to be implying that economics is apolitical and doesn't involve ethics. That's where I fundamentally disagree with you. Slavery is an example of where the free market fails. Besides, you can't pretend that economics is anything close to a science.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:08 No.13408063

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:08 No.13408063

>>13407732
game theory doesnt work outside of oligopolies or sovereigns, so no. What dont understand is surplus is rot and latent waste. its cause when people can shift to a lower price to clear the market. So shit goes to waste. wasted time, money and energy to create something that no one wants. Try reading the graph to see this illustration done for min wage (price control on labor) or try taking macroeconomics course.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:10 No.13408157

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:10 No.13408157

>>13407832
>The starving man isnt expanding freedom by using violence, he is constricting it.
How does that make any sense? Freedom is the ability to do things, you can not do things if you're dead, he is expanding his freedom while contracting another yes, but this can be expanding total freedom nonetheless.
> My premise is the freedom exists by the negation of initial force. INITIAL FORCE.
There is no way that is your actual argument so I will allow you to clarify, there is no INITIAL FORCE when everyone is dead, however there is no freedom either.
>You cant see anything can be accomplished without force becuz u either dont distinguish between intial force and defensive force which makes you a moral reprobate.
If you don't disagree that no actions can be done by force then doesn't that imply some of them have to be initial?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:11 No.13408175

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:11 No.13408175

Replies: >>13408273

>>13407942
>All the criticisms you could offer against utilitarian philosophy could be made against it.

Not all of them. Depends on which school of thought you consult. Chicago school is just ulitarian I'd say. Austrians are more concerned with the non agression principle, and derive their philosophy out of that. Randians are all about the drive to uh what do I know, some Nietzsche rehash.

Thing is the latter two don't have efficency as their main goal, but of course like that it's efficient...
Austrians especially don't like the empirical approach, because it doesn't always validate their theories from a ulitarian standpoint (they openly admit this).

But on the same note, why would inefficiency ever be good? I worry more about the incentives and market/price distortions that are created by handouts and taxation, than by actual efficiency.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:11 No.13408179

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:11 No.13408179

Replies: >>13408257

>>13408057
Slavery is not the free market. u couldn't have picked a worst example.
>lrn2 NAP
you pretending that it isnt a science is just ignorant, might as well be a creationist too.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:12 No.13408211

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:12 No.13408211

>>13408057
Slavery is antithetical to the free market, and the free market is what ended slavery because it was no longer profitable. Tard.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:13 No.13408257

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:13 No.13408257

Replies: >>13408282 >>13408283

>>13408179
How is slavery not the free market?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408273

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408273

>>13408175
The criticism of utilitarianism isn't a criticism of morality or normativity; it is a criticism of the incommensurability of internal normative systems.

There is no measure of "greater" desire possible, only of market preference. Neither the Austrians nor the Chicagans nor the Mancunians can equate one man's suffering with another one's pleasure as they are entirely internal.

The only visible portion is price preference, the grounding of the "standard model."

Normative claims arising from a greater satisfaction of desires are invalid, as desires are purely internal. Other claims made by those three radical liberal schools need to be considered separately from the (failed) utilitarian claim.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408282

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408282

Replies: >>13408430

>>13408257
Same reason robbery and murder isn't.
Debt slavery is okay tho, or selling yourself into it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408283

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:14 No.13408283

Replies: >>13408444 >>13408447

>>13408257
>free
>slavery
Are you this dumb?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:18 No.13408430

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:18 No.13408430

Replies: >>13408463 >>13408557 >>13408589

>>13408282
Slavery was coterminous with the birth of modern capitalism and the expansion of empire and colonies. For instance, in the British colonies, slaves were brought in from Africa to work the sugar plantations. This yielded enormous profits. That's the pure free market at work. As you can see, a pure free market is an abomination to a society based on principles.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408444

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408444

>>13408283
>people aren't capital
You don't sound like much of a capitalist.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408447

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408447

Replies: >>13408557

>>13408283
>minimum wage
>employer firing you at will
>free
are you this dumb?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408463

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:19 No.13408463

Replies: >>13408550

>>13408430
>society based on principles
Get out idealist socialism, we historical materialism here.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:21 No.13408550

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:21 No.13408550

Replies: >>13408676

>>13408463
durr go read some Plato

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:21 No.13408557

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:21 No.13408557

Replies: >>13408589 >>13409820

>>13408447
>being able to quit

>>13408430
That is not a pretty part but not a feature of capitalism, but imperialism.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:22 No.13408589

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:22 No.13408589

Replies: >>13408701 >>13408725

>>13408557
>>13408430
Libertarians are anti-war and anti-imperialistic, and of course anti-slavery.
Just because something makes money doesn't make it right in Libertarian philosophy.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:24 No.13408676

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:24 No.13408676

Replies: >>13408859

>>13408550
>metaphysics
>2013

The enlightenment happened, God died, then truth did as well.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:25 No.13408701

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:25 No.13408701

>>13408589
>Libertarians are anti-war and anti-imperialistic, and of course anti-slavery.
>Just because something makes money doesn't make it right in Libertarian philosophy.
No, the one criteria for market liberals is "does this kill trade unionists?"

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:26 No.13408725

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:26 No.13408725

Replies: >>13408809 >>13408928

>>13408589
But you see, you just prove that the "free market" is based upon a set of moral principles and is not a scientific theory. The state, the law, always sets the rules of the game. And those rules reflect ethical principles. The only ethic I hear most free marketeers espouse is utilitarianism, it's better because it boosts GDP. That's where they end the argument.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:27 No.13408779

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:27 No.13408779

>>13404531
> not replying to retard banter a thousand times over
> debated into holes

When you fags come up with an argument; you let us know, k?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:28 No.13408809

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:28 No.13408809

Replies: >>13408918 >>13408950

>>13408725
Except they don't espouse utilitarianism, because they're incapable of reading human desires (19th C critique of utilitarian morality). They espouse _instrumentalism_.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:29 No.13408859

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:29 No.13408859

Replies: >>13408970

>>13408676
The classics represent timeless principles. If you don't follow the basic principles, you don't have a just society. Marxism-Communism-Leninism has never been shown to be anything but inhuman. That's why people have rejected it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:30 No.13408889

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:30 No.13408889

>>13406144
Moderates, the "Agnostics" of the political world. You make me sick.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408918

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408918

>>13408809
David D. Friedman is a consequentialist.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408928

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408928

>>13408725
>you just prove that the "free market" is based upon a set of moral principles and is not a scientific theory

I never said it was scientific either. It is mainly about morality for me, yes.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408950

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408950

Replies: >>13409063

>>13408809
>instrumentalism
What does that mean.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408954

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:31 No.13408954

>>13404188 (OP)
>Are there any socialists or social democrats here?

Thankfully, no.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:32 No.13408970

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:32 No.13408970

>>13408859
As I said, "The Enlightenment" smashed timelessness. Please do go read up on 1789 and the death of eternal time.

There's no place for reactionary politics in modernity, as the forced modernisation of reactionary societies over the 19th century empirically demonstrates.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:34 No.13409063

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:34 No.13409063

>>13408950
reifying social relationships and identities into objects to act out the intentions of true and proper social agents (companies, the state, etc).

Utilitarianism seeks to treat persons as desiring agents, but this was proved impossible. Instrumentalism is a semi-empirical social science attitude that treats certain actors as capable of inflicting their norms upon others.

I'm criticising the other anonymous' imprecise use of "utilitarianism" when they meant "instrumentalism."

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)22:35 No.13409115

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)22:35 No.13409115

Replies: >>13409314

>>13407634
>without property their is no ability to exclude those wish to despoil it. tragedy of the commons.

But "it's my private property" is the #1 used rationale for environmental destruction. Often the only non-destroyed areas are on "Public Land".

>>13407597
>how do you define aggression?

Initiating harm against a person (or threatening to).

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:40 No.13409314

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:40 No.13409314

Replies: >>13409403 >>13410438

>>13409115
Is someone breaking into your home and sleeping in your bed not aggression, then?

And why is initiating harm against a person bad?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:42 No.13409403

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:42 No.13409403

Replies: >>13409492

>>13409314
It's harm against persons and property, so breaking in is also agression of course.
It's bad because morals. You either believe it or you don't.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:44 No.13409492

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:44 No.13409492

Replies: >>13409599

>>13409403
>property
Correct.

He believes that he can leave out the property part in the NAP for some reason.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:46 No.13409581

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:46 No.13409581

Replies: >>13409642

>>13407698
>AnCaps aren't against law.
Unless you can't afford to hire mercenaries to protect you, then it's quite literally the law of jungle.

Sorry An-Claps, we tried your system, several hundred years ago, it's actually called Feudalism; it was shit.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:46 No.13409599

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:46 No.13409599

>>13409492
Oh yea, I thought he was on the other side of the argument, hard to keep track of who has what ideology.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409626

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409626

File: 1367117246526.jpg-(1.07 MB, 3288x2008, Stats.jpg)

1.07 MB JPG

Yup, social democrat here

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409642

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409642

Replies: >>13409664 >>13409914 >>13410895

>>13409581
>We tried no taxation, free markets and private courts

Where and what time?

The closet AnCap society was the "wild" west.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409646

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:47 No.13409646

>>13406374
>now your just retarded. No libertarian ever used this word, ever

> Anarchist communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as "libertarian".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Left-libertarianism

You done goofed.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:48 No.13409661

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:48 No.13409661

Replies: >>13409921

I'd like to think that I'm a human being

and that I don't let political jerkoffs influence me.

Political parties themselves are the problem in this country, everyone has to identify with someone, or else they're an outcast.

Whatever happened to simply being yourself? Someday I'll try to run for President when I'm older, and I sure as hell won't have any party affiliation bullshit.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:48 No.13409664

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:48 No.13409664

>>13409642
So, the closest ancap society relied on a state dispossessing people of their collective property.

Trade unionists and helicopters.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:49 No.13409717

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:49 No.13409717

I am Roman Catholic. God rules me.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:52 No.13409783

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:52 No.13409783

>>13404188 (OP)
conservative democrat. more conservative, but I'm a registered democrat due to my job.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:52 No.13409820

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:52 No.13409820

Replies: >>13409943

>>13408557
>It's not capitalism when it's bad!

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:55 No.13409914

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:55 No.13409914

Replies: >>13409971

>>13409642
You know what I mean you fucking jack off. And nice job not even addressing my point, because you can't can you?

DAILY REMINDER: ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS BELIEVE POOR PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:55 No.13409921

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:55 No.13409921

>>13409661
I hope you enjoy spinning wheels in the mud going nowhere. You have to have allies to get anything done.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:56 No.13409943

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:56 No.13409943

>>13409820
Oh yea, and the Jews killed Jesus, all due to capitalism.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:57 No.13409968

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:57 No.13409968

Replies: >>13409998 >>13410042

File: 1367117838552.jpg-(41 KB, 400x400, 1363039422872.jpg)

41 KB JPG

>>13406683
>Nationalistic
>Libertarians

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:57 No.13409971

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:57 No.13409971

Replies: >>13410035

>>13409914
>anarcho-capitalists believe blah blah blah chomsky quote hurr durr muh proudhoun
how fucking adorable! babys first day on the internet?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:58 No.13409998

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:58 No.13409998

Replies: >>13410074 >>13410171

>>13409968
Do you think all Libertarians are anarchists or objectivist Randroids?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:58 No.13410035

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:58 No.13410035

Replies: >>13410110 >>13410129

>>13409971
Still not a refutation is it? You An-Claps are fucking pathetic, thank god you'll never have any success ever because everyone but you can see how utterly retarded your ideology is.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:59 No.13410042

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:59 No.13410042

>>13409968
Many just want a chance to opt-out of the system and be free to form their white mini state.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)22:59 No.13410074

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)22:59 No.13410074

>>13409998
they shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians if they aren't anarchists. the 2 were interchangeable until the american libertarian party came along which is basically just minarchism. no nationalism no racism or any of that shit actually

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:01 No.13410110

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:01 No.13410110

Replies: >>13410159

>>13410035
wasn't the anon you were responding to, just thought i'd throw my 2 cents in. you faggots are fucking pathetic; you're statists and you know it, you just don't admit to it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:01 No.13410129

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:01 No.13410129

Replies: >>13410192 >>13410704

>>13410035
Please explain how forced taxation, monopoly on law and courts are anarcho-capitalist.

You have no idea what feudalism is.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:02 No.13410159

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:02 No.13410159

Replies: >>13410234 >>13410237

>>13410110
You don't even know what my ideology is, I was just pointing out it's ridiculous for an An-Clap to claim they believe in a system of laws when their version of law is nothing but mercenaries enforcing the will of whoever pays them the most. That's not fucking law, that's chaos.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:02 No.13410171

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:02 No.13410171

Replies: >>13410225

>>13409998
You can't be a collectivist libertarian.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:03 No.13410192

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:03 No.13410192

>>13410129
The end result will be feudalism. Unlike other Anarchist philosophies An-Claps don't even try to put in place structures to prevent the re-establishment of the state. They think just having a bunch of little states (ie feudalism) is somehow a better outcome then one large state.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410225

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410225

>>13410171
Freedom to exclude people.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410234

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410234

Replies: >>13410262

>>13410159

>nothing but mercenaries enforcing the will of whoever pays them the most

That's not an accurate representation at all, despite what you may have heard from Comedy Central.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410237

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:04 No.13410237

Replies: >>13410265 >>13410297

>>13410159
That is how you get common law. We got the high-held English common law through a system of private courts.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410262

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410262

Replies: >>13410351 >>13410378

>>13410234
How is that not an accurate depiction exactly? I just called your "private police forces" by their real name; mercenaries.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410265

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410265

>>13410237
>private courts

Nope, the feudal magistrates were the agents of the feudal state.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410297

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:05 No.13410297

>>13410237
Wait, wasn't that shit established during the feudal era?

Top lel, you An-Claps aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:07 No.13410351

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:07 No.13410351

>>13410262
You can check over at mises.org, use the search function, but it's basically like this for example (and there are endless possibilities) that the landlords would provide it as part of the rent. The landlords of a certain block could get together and hire cops for example.
Malls and shopping areas already have private security, it's in their best interest to create a save environment for customers.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:08 No.13410378

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:08 No.13410378

Replies: >>13410492 >>13410582

>>13410262

>by their real name

That's only the name you choose to give it, like how Communists label others "bourgeois." Your labels only reflect your bias.

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)23:09 No.13410438

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)23:09 No.13410438

Replies: >>13410613

>>13409314
>Is someone breaking into your home and sleeping in your bed not aggression, then?

No, it's not aggression. It is wrong for reasons beyond violence. The only way you could consider that "violence" is if your bedroom is an actual part of your body.

Threatening to initiating harm is bad because it stifles your full potential as a contributor to humanity. And the personal establishing dominance has less understanding of your position than you do.

Someone who claims out absolute dominance over a geographical territory "a private property owner" is claiming the ethical right to initiate harm against anyone who refuses to obey their commands in the territory. This is why private property inherently violates the NAP.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:11 No.13410492

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:11 No.13410492

Replies: >>13410738

>>13410378
No that was you who decided to give it a made up name to hide what they really were. They're paid to inflict violence on people, and they aren't part of any formal state so they can't be cops or soldiers; ergo they are mercenaries. They're hired guns. You try to dress it up with shit like "private police forces" but that's crap, they're nothing like the police. The police (at least in theory) are controlled by the government who are in turn (in theory) controlled by the people. These mercenaries on the other hand are completely controlled by whoever pays them, and as such will do whatever the hell they tell them to, because they know which side their breads buttered.

inb4 "the states just like that! It's so bad!" Not fucking relevant, we aren't debating the merits of the state here are we, we're debating the merits of Anarcho-Capitalism, of which it has none.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:11 No.13410504

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:11 No.13410504

Replies: >>13410539 >>13410638

File: 1367118681124.gif-(87 KB, 178x211, 1342786712809.gif)

87 KB GIF

I consider myself a social democrat, I mostly lurk, read the arguments of others and collect funny images.

I hope to have many more variations Jewish caricatures, I like them.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410539

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410539

File: 1367118733142.png-(72 KB, 600x446, 1365014815259.png)

72 KB PNG

>>13410504
Here's one.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410560

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410560

Replies: >>13410598

Any attempt at a true An-Cap society would devolve into a barbarous feudalism and you know it.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410564

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:12 No.13410564

>>13404188 (OP)
What the fuck are libertarians anyway?...

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:13 No.13410582

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:13 No.13410582

>>13410378
Also FYI bourgeois actually does have a meaning, it's just you never bothered to learn what it was because you're a moron. In fact lots of people use the term bourgeois, not just communists.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:13 No.13410598

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:13 No.13410598

Replies: >>13410663

>>13410560
>NA AH MUH NAP! MUH NAP! PEOPLE ARE JUST NICE LIKE THAT YA KNOW?

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410613

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410613

Replies: >>13410640

>>13410438
>bad because it stifles your full potential as a contributor to humanity
You're disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Why not gas the lame, disabled? It's not like they got any potential.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410638

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410638

File: 1367118884338.png-(8 KB, 208x243, merchant 29.png)

8 KB PNG

>>13410504

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410640

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410640

Replies: >>13410746

>>13410613
Wow An-Claps are worse at arguing then liberals and christfags combined. Jesus christ.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410647

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:14 No.13410647

Replies: >>13410743

God-fearing, mexican-fearing, black-fearing, jew-fearing, muslim-fearing, gay-fearing, korea-fearing, spending all my money on guns and watching fox news all time conservative reporting in from bunker.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:15 No.13410663

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:15 No.13410663

Replies: >>13410732 >>13410882

>>13410598
It is based on the NAP that doesn't mean there won't be force. Most libertarians aren't pacifist.

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk
04/27/13(Sat)23:16 No.13410704

PANICMODE !QX8cGyXhDk 04/27/13(Sat)23:16 No.13410704

>>13410129
>Please explain how forced taxation, monopoly on law and courts are anarcho-capitalist.

Because ubercapitalists call their tax "rent" and give absolute, monopolistic powers to the landowner to determine the "law" of their territory. Unrestrained capitalism would be indistinguishable from the feudal system. The wealthy divide the continent into their personal kingdoms and charge a fee to exist in their territory, making all the workers slaves to debt they have no choice in.

Democracy replaced by a landlord.

Anonymous
04/27/13(Sat)23:17 No.13410727

Anonymous 04/27/13(Sat)23:17 No.13410727

Replies: >>13410751

File: 1367119048712.gif-(1.37 MB, 720x480, aaaaahhhh.gif)

1.37 MB GIF

>muh human nature

The arguments against Anarcho-Capitalism look exactly like the arguments used against Communism.