/biz/ - Business & Finance

Can I stay at yours?

>>51610
You mean your own virgin penis is theft?

>>51610
Explain.

>>51625
it's obvious. All property belongs to society

Cool horribly misguided political views m8

We're really going to stop being capitalists now, really

But politics belongs in:

>>>/pol/

>>51630
>Everything owned by everyone
>It's obvious

>>51630
Society isn't a person.

Property is already owned by the people in society.

Having everyone vote on how property should be managed is violent and authoritarian.

You are antisocial

>>51636
>Having everyone vote on how property should be managed is violent and authoritarian.
>Democracy is violent and authoritarian

Leftists deserve to be slaughtered.

Please move to Venezuela I heard its wonderful right now.

>>51640
Yes, yes it is.

Problem, you authoritarian?

>>51636
>Having everyone vote on how property should be managed is violent and authoritarian
>Having everyone vote
>violent and authoritarian
That's democracy you dumbfuck

>>51647
It's still violent and authoritarian, as opposed to a society that is non-violent and voluntary.

>>51647
No fucking shit.
You actually want people to be able to vote on if they can murder you and steal your shit or not?

The founders wanted a republic not democracy.

Yeah, no.

Sage

>Private property
That's a funny way to spell taxes.

>>51656
Democracy is non-negotiable

>>51665
Prove it.

>/pol/ shit
More proof that all /pol/ posters should be banned from every other board.

>>51657
The founders were slavers

>>51646
>>51656
How you're describing it is closer to Kant's definition of a Republic, force with freedom and law

These threads arent allowed

Fuck off /pol/

>>51665
Love that quote

>>51656
There is no such thing as a voluntary society you utopian moron.

>>51779
>bumping the thread
Kill yourself.

>baaawww someone has more money/property than me so it's not voluntary
Kill yourself.

>>51779

I do in my personal life. Right until guns are threaten against me if I don't do my taxes/do drugs/open a business with permission from our rulers

>>51816
Ignoring the fact its impossible to actually have a voluntary society with the existence of property of coarse, if anything the only "voluntary" society would be a Communist society where there is no property, money or class distinctions.

>>51839

> fact its impossible to actually have a voluntary society

How the fuck are people this retarded? Are you violent to your imagery girlfriend? Did you steal your clothes? Do you wear your money, or do you take it at the point of the gun?

We already live in a voluntary society, it's just that some assholes (people in government) think they are better than that use coercion to get what they want.

> only "voluntary" society would be a Communist society where there is no property, money or class distinctions.

You know that communism caused hundreds of millions of deaths in history? That's not a voluntary society dick-for-brains

>>51839
>with the existence of property of coarse
>people won't let me steal what they worked hard from their entire lives so it's not voluntary

>where there is no property, money or class distinctions.
>it's not voluntary unless we use violence against people who voluntarily trade with each other
>your rights end where my feelings begin
Property is the very basic of society, to violently take people's property is insane authoritarianism.

It's absolutely hilarious watching these vicious authoritarians use the most retarded logic to claim they're voluntary.

This thread doesn't belong here, get the fuck out.

Notice how these threads are always made by the same butthurt yurofag around this time.
Sage

>>51873
>How the fuck are people this retarded?

You literally ignored entire rest of that sentence where I mentioned it was impossible with the existence of property.

>You know that communism caused hundreds of millions of deaths in history? That's not a voluntary society dick-for-brains

There has never been a communist society outside maybe pre-history

>>51903
>You literally ignored entire rest of that sentence where I mentioned it was impossible with the existence of property.
Not him, but property is a fact of life you unbelievably stupid idiot. People like to own things, you cannot change that by manipulating people. It's a fact of human nature.

>maybe pre-history
Wrong again, there were waring tribes, also there was trade and currency around this time as well.
No communism.

>>51610

>>51873
>You know that communism caused hundreds of millions of deaths in history?
not hundreds of millions but yeah there were millions exploiters they got what they deserve

>>51888
>people won't let me steal what they worked hard from their entire lives so it's not voluntary
There is the distinction of personal property in communist society, private property means things everyone has access to like the means of production or land. You'll still have ownership of personal object you're regularly using like your house or your toothbrush, this is a big misconception.
>it's not voluntary unless we use violence against people who voluntarily trade with each other
Why would this be banned? In a society without money trading or a gift economy would probably be quite common.
>Property is the very basic of society, to violently take people's property is insane authoritarianism.
How is property not authoritarian? It isn't even logical, you put an invisible line on a map and claim a piece of Earth as your own because you gave someone some pieces of paper so he could give you another piece of paper claiming your right over that land in which your ownership of said land can only be validated through forceful authoritarian action if this "right" is ever infringed upon. Without authoritarian action property is impossible to enforce to begin with.

>>51980
>got what they deserve

Must be nice being this autistic.

>>51903
>impossible with the existence of property.

It's only impossible with the non existence of property. If property did not exist, then your kidneys could not logically belong to you.

>There has never been a communist society outside maybe pre-history

Because it's impossible to achieve a communist society. The hell that is it cannot be achieved empirical, logical in any reality.

The closest it has been is Stalin, Mao and the other one.

>>51610
You're cool, OP.
I wish I had your guts. I wanted to post something like this but didn't wanna get b&.

Anyway, moot is a fag for making this board.

>>52019
I've made socialist threads on here, mods don't care since its technically an economic system.

>>51903
>There has never been a communist society outside maybe pre-history
Communism =! state of nature, which by the way is a thought experiment not an actual part of history. So there has never been a communist society period.

>>51989
> this is a big misconception.

It's not a misconception. It's the unavoidable fallacy in your theory.

What is personal property vs private property is not based on reason, but subjective values to you people. When you base objective principles on subjective values, you don't have an objective principle. This kind of mistake will inevitably lead to the death of millions (as it has)

>You'll still have ownership of personal object you're regularly using like your house

So what if I'm not regularly using my garage, or my basement? Someone can just take it in your property theory, usually the authoritative body that decides what is personal and what is private.

>n a society without money trading or a gift economy would probably be quite common.

Without money, there is little production for these trades and gifts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants

>How is property not authoritarian?

I agree... all those vaginas are not property. They belong to me. That's not authoritarian at all.

>Without authoritarian action property is impossible to enforce to begin with.

Think you mean defensive action. And defensive can only be define as defense once you have established property rights. Otherwise, what are you defending?

People who say "private property" is theft aren't libertarians.

Even the poorest of the poor value the little personal private property they have.

>>51980
>but yeah there were millions exploiters they got what they deserve
Top kek m8
5/10 though

>>52048
Private property starts an end with your own body.

To deny property rights is to deny your own conscious and the body it commands.

>>51989
>There is the distinction of personal property in communist society
HAH
Nobody gives a shit what property definitions you people violently force on the people. There is no distinction between personal property and private property, it's the same thing.

>the means of production or land
Why would everyone want to own the means of production? It's a scarce resource that should be managed by people who know what they're doing. Idiots with no experience shouldn't be anywhere near it.
Also land is already fucking owned by the people, you want to steal their land and have the state or some entity divide it up however you want it.
Everyone already has "access" to these things. Just work, save your money and you can buy these things if you contribute to society.

>Why would this be banned?
You just said you want to abolish money.
>trading or a gift economy would probably be quite common.
Lol that's unbelievably retarded then, money serves a purpose as a medium of exchange, you would have a very small economy if you weren't able to use money you fucking idiot.

>How is property not authoritarian?
How is stealing what I worked hard for my entire life not authoritarian. If the rest of society didn't exist, I would be able to do whatever I wanted to the land around me, build a house etc
You want to take this away from me.
You are taking away my freedom.

>you put an invisible line on a map and claim a piece of Earth as your own
Yes, and I grant you that same freedom as well. We separate from each other so we both have our own privacy and dignity.

>can only be validated through forceful authoritarian action
You using violence against me and the property I have acquired
Using this insane logic I could take the clothing off your back because it's not fair that you have it and I don't.

Communists seriously deserve to be killed.
This isn't fucking economics get off our board you worthless poor envious faggot.
>>52031
You're the ONLY one who makes these threads.
Fuck off

Daily reminder it's the same exact asspained faggot who makes these threads. Every single time he comes on here he gets his batshit insane authoritarian ideology destroyed by people who actually understand economics. For posting the thread again his rage levels must be really high.

This is politics, not business.

If you don't sage you are just a bad as him.

>I hate all you evil capitalists
Then why do you come here?

>>52035
>It's not a misconception. It's the unavoidable fallacy in your theory.

What you use is your property, what you don't isn't, simple really.

>So what if I'm not regularly using my garage, or my basement? Someone can just take it in your property theory, usually the authoritative body that decides what is personal and what is private.

Your basement and garage are typically part of your house are they not?

>Without money, there is little production for these trades and gifts.

It doesn't matter communist society doesn't need trade or a gift economy I was just hypothesizing what forms of trade may exist if any.

>I agree... all those vaginas are not property. They belong to me. That's not authoritarian at all.

They are property of the women that own them, they're their own personal property as the body is something oneself is always using as long as they're living.

>Think you mean defensive action. And defensive can only be define as defense once you have established property rights. Otherwise, what are you defending?

There is no right of ownership of imaginary boundaries on a map, since there is no property "rights" in communism you cannot possibly defend said rights.

>>52094
FIGHT DA CAPITALIST MACHEEN MAN

LOVE IS BETTER THAN POWER

AMIROTE GUYS?

UPBOAT ME PLS

>>52116
LOL I KNOW RIGHT!?

TAX IS THEFT!

BAN THE FED!

RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!11!!1

>>52101
>What you use is your property, what you don't isn't, simple really.
I use my house and the factory I own down the street.
>b-but muh absentee ownership
People know this things belong to me and they respect that. Why? Because 99.9% of people are biologically programmed to respect the property of others. I don't steal you wallet simply because you left it on the counter and it's not on your person.
You may not but absolutely everyone else who isn't a psychopath does.

And that's all there is to it.

>>52132
FUCKING EBUL CAPITALSTS

THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN ME ITS NOT FAIR

THEY DON'T EVEN GO ON REDDIT TO UNDERSTAND DA FITE OF DA PEOPLE

WE ARE THE 99%

Communism is only 'effective' in microeconomic theory. The variables of human existence (greed, violence, power tripping, etc.) make it functionally impossible to have a functioning modern Communist system. Yes, I understand that Stalinism and Maoism are NOT actual Communist societies, but that's the point. The fact that other cultures are not Communist make Communism untenable. A society that believes in the ownership of property (and, from that point, the taking of property from others by good or ill means) will eventually subsume a fully Communist society.

TL;DR? Looks nice on angsty /pol/ blogs, but it's an IRL joke that wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Communism is morally wrong.

>>52101
>What you use is your property, what you don't isn't, simple really.

No, it's not simple really. I only need one kidney. If someone needs to use the other - they are morally allowed to take it. Same could be the same as own my ears. Or a car that I have not driven in a week.


Property is property. The principles of property does not change if someone uses it or not. I use my car, it doesn't turn into a truck if I don't.

>Your basement and garage are typically part of your house are they not?

They are rooms of my house. I don't use all of my house, I use part of my rooms. They are available to take in your theory. You can get even more obtuse and say I don't use any part of my house when I sleep on my bed, thus allowed to taken for the commons.

> I was just hypothesizing what forms of trade may exist if any.

Oh jesus, you don't even know how trade works. You don't need to hpothesize. If someone want's something and they have something, they will trade.

And you think you can design a society when you don't know what trade is?

>They are property of the women that own them
>How is property not authoritarian?

Women are authoritarian over their vaginas I cannot take. We must have communism!

Capitalist are authoritarians over their own factories I cannot take. We must have communism!

>There is no right of ownership of imaginary boundaries on a map

There is no such thing as country, but there's such a thing as my house.

> since there is no property "rights" in communism you cannot possibly defend said rights.

That's an invitation for rape and slavery if I ever heard one.

Why is this /polshit/ thread even here?

Are we going to have nazi economics next or something?

>>52079
>Austrians
>understand economics

>>52140
>I use my house and the factory I own down the street.

You can't own a factory under communism since the means of production are public, besides one person can't operate or use a factory without workers

>People know this things belong to me and they respect that. Why? Because 99.9% of people are biologically programmed to respect the property of others. I don't steal you wallet simply because you left it on the counter and it's not on your person.
You may not but absolutely everyone else who isn't a psychopath does.

Thanks for proving my point, I don't disagree with that nor would anyone in a communist society

>>52153
Good thing Communism isn't a moral philosophy then.

>>52170
>leftists
>in charge of not projecting hard when they lose the debate

I lel'd wholeheartedly.

>>51641
But Venezuelan economy is 70% private.

>>52153
your morals are morally wrong

>>52170
Subjective value > labor theory of value

And when I say > I mean facefacked till no self respecting economist would call themselves "marxist" in the 21st century.

>>51641
Well its better than it used to be.

gr8 b8 m8

>>52171
>since the means of production are public
Translation: You are violently prevented from owning a factory and if you try to start a firm somewhere, anywhere we will find you and take it from you and throw you in a cage or shoot you in the brain.

> besides one person can't operate or use a factory without workers
They are free to work for me if they wish. I can guarantee them higher wages due to greater efficiency than the "worker owned firms".

>I don't disagree with that nor would anyone in a communist society
Except that's exactly what communists want you idiot. If I build a factory you would take it from me, in the same way you would take my house and my wallet if I wasn't around.
The distinction you make between private and personal property are completely meaningless and purely ideological. Nobody cares about them.

>>52184
>But Venezuelan economy is 70% private.
Yes, it's really the private sector in Venezuela that's to blame right now, not the insane inflation and price controls violenty forced on the private sector.
hahaha

>>52205
Venezuela has the greatest supply of oil in all of south america yet their poverty rates are declining the slowest, even compared to chile which has nothing except for copper.
Lol
Keep defending your overlords, they sure love you.

>>52079
>implying we're all one person
Sorry if I can't respond to the 50 buttpained replies Libertarians give me every five minutes, I try to stay focused and make my point with one person than move on.

>>52242
>socialists in charge of not being THIS buttpained
How does is feel that moot created a capitalism board where socialism is deemed to be off topic shitposting?
Hehe

Time to go back to /pol/

>>52079
>his batshit insane authoritarian ideology

it's not even that communism fails everywhere it's tried, it's that even if it worked, you'd still be living under fucking communism

>>52240
>Translation: You are violently prevented from owning a factory and if you try to start a firm somewhere, anywhere we will find you and take it from you and throw you in a cage or shoot you in the brain.

This much misunderstanding of communism.

>>51630
Society has decided upon private property being the norm.

>>52252
>This much misunderstanding of communism.
Really? Explain why.
Without using the words public, private, class or society.

>>51610
Ah sweet a /pol/ thread

private property is theft, unjustifiable and cannot exist in a anarchist society. pic realated

Lol I've never seen a socialist that was over the age of 17, seriously.

>>52268
Easy.
In a communist society you would be absolutely free to start said firm, and produce whatever the fuck you want. There's no state or police to go "take it from you and throw you in a cage or shoot you in the brain."

What you need to understand is that you are free to use whatever you produce, and every surplus would be free for other people who need it to use. Same as you would be able to use anything you need that other people produce.

>>52268
The idea of one person owning a firm will be seen as ridiculous in a communist society, no workers would even bother working for you when they could just continue to work in their democratic workplaces. You wouldn't be violently purged just ignored, socialist system is set up so that people like you can't amass a power base to begin with.

>>52282
>pic related

Your pic is not related. It's actually the opposite argument of yours.

>>52258
>>52258
society didn't make this decision permanently.
People in America can nationalize everything at any moment

>>52301

>not related and opposite argument
>explains the definition of a state and explains why private property by this definition is a state which therefore means private property cannot exist in a anarchist society

>>52292
>What you need to understand is that you are free to use whatever you produce, and every surplus would be free for other people who need it to use. Same as you would be able to use anything you need that other people produce.

Like. Seriously. Are you fucked in the head or something? How can you even type that horseshit out without even thinking about what you are saying.

Why would anyone invest in a factory if everyone can just take it's produce?


The factory itself is a produce, who will design the capital goods to produce the things inside the factory if everyone is free to take that?

Where does incentive come from?

How do you people know what resource go where without a price mechanism?

How do people know what factory they should build, what it will produce, and how much of it should it produce?

Who would work in this factory if they cannot be paid for the labour? How can you sell the things the factory creates if people can just take it for free if they need to use it?

>Easy.

You seriously have no idea. Literally no fucking idea how anything works in your work. Go to your parents and talk to them. They did are horrible job of raising you.

>>52282
We've already debunked that bullshit a trillion times.
Anyone have the image that debunks that one?

According to that logic I could take the clothing off your back.

Someone's who let you in their house you're allowed to leave, that person is allowed to make you leave.
A state owns absolutely everything and you have no choice
>>52292
>In a communist society you would be absolutely free to start said firm, and produce whatever the fuck you want.
Okay then, you've just created an anarcho-capitalist society because people will voluntarily want to work for me because my firm is efficient enough to provide them higher wages.
Also, just so you know, you disagree with what most left anarchists believe.

>and every surplus would be free for other people who need it to use
Lol what?

What if I don't want to share it with "others"?

Left "anarchists" deserve to have their throats slit.

>>52300
>The idea of one person owning a firm will be seen as ridiculous in a communist society,
Why?

>could just continue to work in their democratic workplaces
Lol okay why?

What if my firm and business plan could provide them higher wages?

>You wouldn't be violently purged just ignored, socialist system
This is BEYOND hilarious, because everything you are describing can exist RIGHT NOW. But it does not happen in the marketplace because worker owned firms are incredibly inefficient. lol
>inb4 monodragon

>>52304
>People in America can nationalize everything at any moment
Why the fuck would they want to do that?

>>52327

>explains the definition of a state and explains why private property by this definition is a state

right, anarchy is the sovereignty of the individual.

>which therefore means private property cannot exist in a anarchist society

Wrong.

>>52327

Oh wait, your serious? Let me laugh harder

> private property by this definition is a state which therefore means private property cannot exist in a anarchist society

The image makes the point that private property and enforcing it is legitimate. The question is who can be defined as the legitimate owner of that property. If that is defined properly, then private property can exist without a state.

So define it, who is the legitimate owner of property?

>>52327
>actually wants to live in poverty
>want anyone to be able to break into his house even if he doesn't know them to eat the food out of his fridge and sleep on his couch and make noise

Why do you people exist? lol

>>52360
>Why the fuck would they want to do that?
income inequality, unemployment, etc.

>>52343
>Why would anyone invest in a factory if everyone can just take it's produce?

Communism is not magic. Stuff won't simply be made and everyone will be free and never have to work.
People would invest (time and labor) in a factory because they want whatever it will produce.

>The factory itself is a produce, who will design the capital goods to produce the things inside the factory if everyone is free to take that?

People who need it.

>Where does incentive come from?

From people who desire see it happening.

>How do you people know what resource go where without a price mechanism?

Resources are distributed according to where they're needed.

>How do people know what factory they should build, what it will produce, and how much of it should it produce?

They should build what they want, produce what they want, and just about how much society as a whole needs it.

>Who would work in this factory if they cannot be paid for the labour? How can you sell the things the factory creates if people can just take it for free if they need to use it?

Anyone who wants to contribute to their own well being and live improvement, as well as society's as a whole. You don't sell thing, there's no money (I know this one is hard to grasp for someone who thing money has always existed, but you'll get there.)

>>52396
Yes. Why would they want to make those things worse I'm saying?
Why would they want the state to monopolize everything?

Are you truly this stupid?

>>52360
>Why?
By firm I mean large scale operations which require a large amount of people like a factory, if you want to make a pottery wheel and make pottery yeah you own all that shit and are free to do with what you produce, but if you want to bring another person into that operation you're going have to let them have full determination over what they produce too.

>Lol okay why?
>What if my firm and business plan could provide them higher wages?

There are no wages in a communist society though, production is made for necessity or enjoyment not profit.

>inb4 monodragon
Well Mondragon is an extremely profitable well run co-operative firm pretty much disproving everything you've just said.

>>52360
>What if I don't want to share it with "others"?

Eventually you'll need something that you don't produce. Then you'll realize what "sharing" all the wealth is necessary.

>>52409
government can guarantee employment free market can't

>>52407
>Stuff won't simply be made and everyone will be free and never have to work.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

OH GOD

AHAHAHAHHAHA

I am done, I am so fucking done.

Goodnight everybody.

>People would invest (time and labor) in a factory because they want whatever it will produce.
People don't want one thing from a factory. There's a wide variety of goods and services people need. I've never bought a simple thing from the company I work for.

>Resources are distributed according to where they're needed.
That doesn't solve the allocation of resources problem without a price mechanism problem whatsoever, you're just saying "it just will don't worry hurr"
Not even the guy you were replying to.

>You don't sell thing, there's no money (I know this one is hard to grasp for someone who thing money has always existed, but you'll get there.)
Lol holy fucking shit, all your saying is "it will just work trust me" while giving absolutely zero explanation for the underlying mechanics of how your pathetic system would operate.

How do you prevent shortages and surpluses without a price mechanism? What do you do when someone wants a lot of something?
What do you do if someone wants something but they don't know how to produce it and nobody else is willing to provide it for them?

>>52407
>Communism is not magic.

Your argument sure sounds like it.

>Stuff won't simply be made and everyone will be free and never have to work.

Great, that still leaves the issue of communism.

>People would invest (time and labor) in a factory because they want whatever it will produce.

Um... no. People invest time and labor now, not because they want whatever it will produce, but because they can trade with what it will produce with people who want it. That's the only reason why factories are built.

Without money, without prices, without private property, none of that can happen. There will be no factories.

But with communism, you can. Because it's magic. You're magic.

>People who need it.

How do you know who need it without demand? How can demand exist without property rights or money?

>From people who desire see it happening.

You haven't answered the question. Desire and incentive means the same thing. Where does that desire come from?

>>52407
>Resources are distributed according to where they're needed.

How do you know where they are needed without a price or demand or property rights?

>They should build what they want, produce what they want, and just about how much society as a whole needs it.

You haven't answered the question. How do they know what they want, produce what they want, and how much society needs it without a price, property rights and demand?

>Anyone who wants to contribute to their own well being and live improvement, as well as society's as a whole.

How does working in a factory with no wage add to your own well being and live improvement?

Are you expecting people to work from the virtue of their heart are you? How nice. So you are working for free now for the good of society?

No, of course not. You are spending your time being shit on 4chan.

>You don't sell thing, there's no money (I know this one is hard to grasp for someone who thing money has always existed, but you'll get there.)

lol, you haven't grasp anything. Communism is magic, your reasoning is magic. You don't know what you are talking about. You are just embarrassing yourself and your idealogy. I feel sorry for you and your horrible family.

If you don't know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up, and the get the fuck out. Your horrible ideas are responsible for history greatest massacres. You don't deserve to even be here.

Where can I mine this coin?

If it's other people, not you, who work at your property and manipulate it on day-to-day basis, then the notion that it's "yours" is artificial and violent force is required to sustain it.
Property is violent and authoritarian.

>>52164
>Nazi economics

You mean a very close collaboration between big corporations and the state? This is the system we actually have today in most western countries.

People on the left keep yelling about capitalism but they can't even identify their true enemy which has nothing to do with anglo-saxon capitalism.

>>52444
No it can't. In fact there are many socialist countries throughout history with high unemployment.

Also the state wastes resources on unproductive jobs thy waste resources and make everyone poorer.
You massive tool.

>>52508
Capitalism can only exist with a state to enforce it.

And all form of capitalism has the goal of accumulating capital, which leads to exactly what we have today.

>>52418
>if you want to make a pottery wheel and make pottery yeah you own all that shit and are free to do with what you produce

You could do that now if you wanted to. It's just that not everyone in society would want the pottery you make.
Resources are scarce. If nobody wants your pottery then you won't be able to get any resources from anyone else. You serve no benefit to society and you are a DRAIN on resources.

> you're going have to let them have full determination over what they produce too.
Why, if I don't are you going to violently attack me and take my firm?
What if I pay the guy wages instead?
So much for anarchy lel

>production is made for necessity
Same thing in a capitalist society.

>no wages no money
Enjoy your no division of labour and massive poverty then

>or enjoyment not profit.
Profit is just a tool that lets you know how to serve your fellow man better.

>Well Mondragon is an extremely profitable well run co-operative firm
It's not an actual co op.
and no, everything I said still stands because it's one of the extremely rare cases where something you're talking about exists.

You could make a worker owned firm TODAY if you wanted to.
That's whats so fucking funny about this?

>>52518
>Capitalism can only exist with a state to enforce

False. States makes capitalism impossible. There's a way of enforcing property rights without violating property rights.

>>52517
USSR didn't have unemployment

>>52499
>then the notion that it's "yours" is artificial and violent force is required to sustain it.
LOL

You're saying the guy I paid to mow my lawn is being exploited and it should be HIS lawn, because I VOLUNTARILY offered to pay him to cut it.

You're simply wrong and there's no way around it at all.

>>52518
>Capitalism can only exist with a state to enforce it.
This is literally false. Almost every example of anarchy in history was capitalist.
http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Do you enjoy getting blown the fuck out and having your outdated and extremely flawed ideology destroyed?
:^)

>>52542
What a wonderful place to live.
North korea has no unemployment either, why don't you move there.

Also yes ussr had unemployment.

>>52524
>Resources are scarce.

Partially true. They are not as scarce as you think. Also, almost anything can be recycled. But that's not good for capitalism, which is basically a waste culture.
You can't create profit without waste.

>production is made for necessity
>Same thing in a capitalist society.

Not true. Capitalism first creates a problem so it can then sell you a solution.

>Profit is just a tool that lets you know how to serve your fellow man better.

Profit is the biggest problem with capitalism. Money isn't created, so for someone to profit, someone else has to lose.

And you don't need capital (resources, goods) that you are not using.
Capitalism is hoarding what you don't need so people who do need it can't have it.

>>52567
>http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

Great resource, thanks.

>thinking full employment is good
>thinking income inequality (how big is debatable) isn't necessary

>>52593
>thinking full employment is good
>thinking income inequality (how big is debatable) isn't necessary

>not understanding the amount of redundant unnecessary "jobs" that exist today to create a false need for full employment.
>thinking inequality (any) is good.

>>52542
>Have 30 people milk one cow
>Call it 100% employment

Communism at it's finest.

>>52620
>not understanding the amount of redundant unnecessary "jobs" that exist today to create a false need for full employment

The fuck are you to say what jobs are redundant and unnecessary? Get your fucking arrogance in check pleb.

>thinking inequality (any) is good.

Well good, then you ought to be talking about dismalting the state - seeing how they are the most in-equal organisation in history.

>>52593
Capitalism sure has been fixing that silly notion that everyone needs a job, hasn't it?

>>52518
>And all form of capitalism has the goal of accumulating capital
Yes which is what raises wages and living standards and lowers prices as was seen in all countries until 1971 when nixon ended the gold standard bretton woods system.
>which leads to exactly what we have today.
What does capital accumulation have to do with fiat currency, inflation and central banking?

>>52587
>Partially true.
It's COMPLETELY true you gigantic moron.

>Also, almost anything can be recycled.
It doesn't change the fact resources are scarce and the act of recycling itself costs labour and resources.

>But that's not good for capitalism, which is basically a waste culture.
Capitalism recycles everything because there's profit in it. Seriously all of your arguments are getting demolished here, there's like 3 people responding to your childish naive belief system.

>Capitalism first creates a problem so it can then sell you a solution.
That sounds like a cute slogan but it has no basis in reality. All capitalism does is create solutions. In capitalism the consumer is king. Things are produced for society, if not those companies go out of business.

>so for someone to profit, someone else has to lose.
Lol that's the biggest fallacy. Trade is win-win. Both parties voluntarily agreed to the trade so they both benefit.

Profit is reinvested back into the economy, or saved so the value of the currency goes up for everyone.
Profit is the only way to see what society actually wants.

>And you don't need capital (resources, goods) that you are not using.
What? All capital that exists in the economy is currently in use. If you left capital lying there not in use you'd be losing billions of dollars.
Money is what's horded(saved), not capital. Learn the difference.
Money is not capital.
when money is saved it increases the value of the money other people use So that it's easier for them to buy capital or consumer goods.

You economically retarded idiot, lol seriously learn basic economics.

Ahhh

I love watching socialist children get told by basic economics.

They're so confused and angry, let's sit back and watch them squirm.

>>52666
Here's a fiat x gold argument for you.

>>52567
>You're saying the guy I paid to mow my lawn is being exploited and it should be HIS lawn, because I VOLUNTARILY offered to pay him to cut it.
You use your lawn in everyday life, so TECHNICALLY there's nothing wrong with it. I was talking about factories, which is a different matter.
But, your example presupposes capitalism, so there is exploitation happening in other place. If not for income inequality created by capitalism, there wouldn't be any need for this guy to VOLUNTARILY agree to your offer.
>Almost every example of anarchy in history was capitalist.
Who cares that in these examples of "anarchy" any attempt at worker organizations was violently suppressed. The police was private, so it's all good!
In the end, however, the capital will deem it profitable to return the state to cut the costs.

>You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

>In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

>>52666
>Things are produced for society, if not those companies go out of business.
Yeah, that's why every retard buys several iPhones a year. They tell you what to buy.
That's also why streets are clogged with private cars even though employing more buses would be a better solution.
What sells is not necessarily what is needed.

Go back to /pol/ Jesus Fucking Christ

>>52908
>Yeah, that's why every retard buys several iPhones a year.

People can buy more than one phone. Stop being a poor fag and hating

>employing more buses would be a better solution.

Government won't let us without their permission

>What sells is not necessarily what is needed.

What sells is necessarily what is needed. How else would it sell? You can't sell your own poop - can you.

>>52908
>They tell you what to buy.
Yet you can choose to not buy it. Isn't it great?

>>52929

Since the dawn of marketing and publicity, capitalism has gotten increasingly less accurate at measuring the needs of people. It's far easier to manufacture new needs than to satisfy the baser ones of people have with the efficiency they would otherwise demand

>>52929
>People can buy more than one phone.
Yeah, but would they need it if not for planned obsolescence?
>Stop being a poor fag and hating
I won't. Don't shove your consumerist culture down my throat.
>Government won't let us without their permission
People would love to vote for buying more buses, but the government has to protect interests of big business, whose intersests it represents.

>>51610
>Libertairan
>Left

Pick one dumbass. Either way get the fuck out and head to /pol/

>>52774
>In the end, however, the capital will deem it profitable to return the state to cut the costs.

Deferring the risk and the cost to the taxpayers isn't cutting costs.

>>51610
Anon, can I have some of your property? I don't want you stealing yo

>>52929
>Government won't let us without their permission

That is funny given the private sector purposely destroyed public transportation to boost automobile sales and promote suburban living.

>What sells is necessarily what is needed. How else would it sell? You can't sell your own poop - can you.

Poop actually does sell its called manure and is used to enrich soil, but besides that just because something such as a phone is initially a necessity doesn't mean companies don't create artificial demand by releasing a brand new version every 6 months with barely any changes from the previous model.
A Communist society would for example only produce a new version of an "iPhone" when enough technological advancements had accumulated to actually warrant a new model be produced, not to just drum up artificial demand for something people don't need to make an extra profit.

>>52988
But a lot of people are dumb enough to buy what they really don't need.
Which reinforced the system in which people sacrifice half of their waking time to produce things that anybody hardly needs.

>>51610
Anon, list your what would normally be considered "private property" by normal Americans so we can all share your assets. I mean you don't want to come off as another freeloader commie who simply wants to share OTHER people's that are not their own right?

>>53127
>Implying OP owns a factory

>>53034
>such as a phone is initially a necessity
How did the phone become a necessity? Was it contrived by the flick of a bureaucrat's pen? Do you understand the environment which breed the culmination of innovations that was to become the phone?

A bureaucrat may be able to take others ideas and implement them by force, but they have never been known to produce anything.

>>53173
Factory isn't private property. That is called REAL property just like a house.

Hence REAL estate. You didn't fucking idiot doesn't know the difference between real property and private property? Why the FUCK are you clueless enough to know about actual economics?

Private property CAN range from equipment, some classes of mobile homes/travel trailers.

I want a list of your private property such as:

Home furniture
clothes
Home assets such as bikes and other transportation items.
Phones, technology, computers
and anything of private property

>>53234
Oh sorry for butchering the second and third lines. I realized midway you were actually the OP and not someone posting on his behalf. Small quick reply windows and such.

>>53198
Well there is no bureaucracy in a Communist society so I suppose ultimately it would be up to discretion of the factory and workers who work there what types of phones they wished to produce and how often to update them. All I'm saying is that without the drive of profit the desire to pump out slightly altered models in a short span of time becomes much less desirable, instead it would make more sense to produce a new model when you could actually make significant noticeable improvements to it, other workers communes may feel different and want to release many different phone models constantly, who knows? Its not set it stone how a Communist society will work in this way.

>>53234
That's personal property you moron.

>>53264
So basically cabals with different ideas, lead by a few people?
Like capitalism?
Fucking Marxist retards.
>>>/leddit/

>>53283
GJ, You got my ruse.

List your personal property. It isn't like it is private property according to you. Everything you say is null and void till you bring your own shit to the table.

>>51610

Do you own yourself?

>>53264
>No bureaucracy
WTF?
>In my magic society
Oh carry on.

>>53309
I know dude. It is like fucking reddit is having an exodus of their idiot communists and they are fleeing to a capitalist forum because their shit stinks to much.

>>51826
If you don't like it, you can fucking move to the other country. North Korea maybe?
You really are a dumb fuck.

>>53305
An apartment, laptop, tablet, bycicle, some guitars, etc. It's not you business really, that's why it's personal property. If I had any private property you'd notice. At least people working on it would notice.

>>53264
It sounds a lot like you'd ultimately default back to capitalism. Unless you can present a hypothetical model of something like your factory example even working in the slightest degree, you really aren't capable of adding anything to any rational discussion.

>>53556
Apartment is not yours. Your leasing it.

However, I can use your laptop and tablet. Ready to donate?

>>53556
Oh shit and I need your bike.

>>53583
No dude, I'm using it. There's my personal data on it. It's mine.
That would be another story if I employed a guy to work on it. Then it would be private property. Now it's not.

>>53556
What factors do you consider when distinguishing between personal and private property? Is it just value?

>>53557
The factory is democratically owned by its workers, their is no profit on what is produced, things are namely produced for what society requires. These have all been detailed many times over in this thread but you continue to ignore them, but you seem to consider the very act of production to be capitalist unto itself so there is no getting through to you.

>>53608
So in otherwords: "OTHER PEOPLES' SHIT"
Another freeloader. You realize real estate private property like a factory is MORE in use than your low value personal property right?
You just said "it is mine" like if it was some sort of "private property" which YOU just said was fucking theft. You need to fix your personal retardation problem before attempting to give advice to people who are out in the real world on their own and aren't getting a free ride from momma and dadda hearing communist propaganda in college.

>>53680

>>53674
I'm not OP. "Property is theft" is a bit silly slogan, but fundamentally there's a grain of truth to it. Property is not theft of course, but private property is wrong.
>Another freeloader.
What do you mean? I work on another people's private property. (At least used to, now I work in a state-owned scientific institute so I'm a bit of a cheater.)
Of course Socialism is a movement of the exploited, who don't own private property themselves. Why the fuck would a capitalist suddenly feel generous?

>>52199
Paul Samuelson first american with Nobel prize in economics was a marxist

>>53680
I am having a bit of trouble understanding incentives among the workers and people who the product is for. How do the workers acquire a building, specialized manufacturing equipment (which another factory will most likely produce), and the resources needed to create an item such as a smart phone? Will there be only one phone manufacturer for this society, or could there be competition? Are the resources needed for the manufacturing of phones prioritized by some central authority?

Basically what I want to know is what the incentives are for this happening in reality.

>>53759
>The Nobel Prize in Economics is the same as the real Nobel Prize.
>implying Alfred Nobel would fund that shit
>implying Paul Samuelson was a Marxist

It's like everything he says is a lie

>>53746
When there is no one left that is "exploited", people forget about the "socialistic ideals" and start stealing shit as it is nobodies property.
Socialism cannot work without capitalism. It's a parasitic idea, not capable of sustaining itself because of human nature. Please, stop acting like a retard and get a job.

>>53817
>It's like everything he says is a lie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson
>Samuelson concluded the economic description of the Soviet Union and marxism in 1989: "Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that ... a socialist command economy can function and even thrive."

>>53820
What "socialistic ideals"? Why people would steal what they don't need? What makes you think people wouldn't ostracize someone who appropriates the commons?
And I have a job, though I would like to be able to live without one. Work ethics is a flip side of consumerism, i.e. a scam. People could and need to work much less than they currently do.

>>53840
Soviet Economy was not Marxist, though.

>>53840
Saying that the economy and function and thrive doesn't make him a Marxist, not when all of his published texts have little to do with Marxism. For that matter, he went back to thrash Marx several times in his career while admitting his ideas were historically popular, which gave them a use all of their own.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1823476?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103407276371

>>53786
Well I imagine the incentive as being able to participate in a society in which you actually reap all the benefits by actually participating. You won't "poor" or "rich" but you'll be able to have everything you have today like a nice phone, or tv, or home and food to eat because the entire society is based around providing for everyone all the necessities they need and then some. You will be producing something that will be used by someone, there will be millions of factories doing this providing the resources and objects we use on an everyday basis.
If you need a home or, say factory equipment there will most likely be a specialized commune which will provide that to those who need it where demand is needed for such a thing. Yes there can be competition, granted much more benign form of competition than what we have in this capitalist society today, but if a group of engineers from neighboring communes want to see who can design the best phone then what is stopping them?
Society will resemble ours in a lot of ways it is true, but the motivations people have will be entirely different and more satisfying knowing they're actively participating in society and being rewarded for doing so.
As for a central authority I am not sure if something like this will need to exist or not, is it a bit at odds with the idea a stateless society but, I could see some form of light bureaucracy maybe existing to more efficiently be aware of such demands.

>>53786
>How do the workers acquire a building, specialized manufacturing equipment (which another factory will most likely produce), and the resources needed to create an item such as a smart phone?
There is no, as such, ownership of that kind of property in Rousseau's thinking. When it's something like a field or building, for which one simply owns a deed with no work produced, that is an act of oppression (property is theft). Workers, however, do have the right to their work and product of their work. It's really a way to avoid coercion from have deeds to things, so so long as the commons have access to the factory and materials, and the factory workers aren't coercing/oppressing/forcing smartphones, they can build them. The people who make them then own the value they've added to the raw materials that go into the smartphone, and in that sense it's similar to what happens now.

If you know about georgism, you might see there's some similarity in the spirit of it, even if the approach is different.

>>53896
Marxism is the idea, Soviet command and control is the reality.

>>53786
The incentive is the people.

Let's take your smartphone example. Let's say a group of people start making smartphones because they're deemed needed for society.
Now say you don't like said smartphone, but you would like a different one. So you have to go and find a group of like-minded people who would like to work on this different project because they all agree that this different kind of smartphone would be better. And you guys go and make this other smartphone, now there are two options for society.

You used the word competition, but it's not really a competition, because there's no profit involved. There would be cooperation. So, for instance, say you like something about that other smartphone. You go to them and get specifics to what you like, and design yourself the rest. If your version of smartphone is deemed better by a lot of people, it may even be possible that those other manufacturers start building your "brand" instead. Because it's all suppose to improve people's life, and not making money. (Which is the only reason anything gets done on capitalism)

>>51610
The only people I have ever heard say that have been an odd combination of selfish and too stupid or lacking in inhibition to manage their own money.

You say all property belongs to everyone, but that's just because you don't have anything of value because you aren't willing to work for it. You want to be able to use things that others have developed without having to contribute.
You're a selfish idiot.

Here's the reality of the world: You can literally own anything you want, all you have to do is trade something of similar value. That can be money, services, other property... all sorts of things! Want to use someone's swimming pool but you don't have the money? Go to the gym, get hot and then offer to suck their cock if you can swim in their pool. Yeah, it's hard work, but so is buying and maintaining a fucking pool.

>>53930
Soviet centralized economy was based very, very loosely on Marxs account of socialist economy that Stalin and Co tried to apply in Russia where Marxism was impossible according to Marx.

Someone could say that NEP/Cuba or Maoist China were better representatives of Marx's thought.

>>53930
The soviets actively fought other communists, particularly the Russian Anarcho-Communists. They even partially funded Franco in Spain to fight the Anarchists in Catalonia.

>>53957
This so hard /THREAD

>>51656
>It's still violent and authoritarian, as opposed to a society that is non-violent and voluntary.
I guess all societies are violent and authoritarian then you fucking dumb shit. Find me any society that is non-violent and voluntary and I'll point out all the reasons you are wrong. This ranges from bacterial colonies through ant supercolonies and human "utopias".
The hilarious thing is that your reasoning is as follows:
Capitalism is bad because humans are inherently greedy and abuse it.
Lets all adopt communism, despite the fact that it depends on people not being greedy in order to function.

>>53957
I agree. Their opinions like their economics are not attractive enough that they attach themselves like a parasite to ride an attractive opinion system.

>OMG, people think what I say is complete bullshit. So I will say it is libertarian so people won't just say it is outright bullshit and have a confused face when I spout my bullshit.

Communism/Marxism is so similar to cancer and parasites it isn't even funny.

>>53989
>Capitalism is bad because humans are inherently greedy and abuse it.

That's not why capitalism is bad.
That's not even true.

The only reason you're greedy is because capitalism makes you greedy.

>>54028
>The only reason you're greedy is because capitalism makes you greedy.
lol

>>54028
>Capitalism makes men greedy
Thats it. Im done.
>>>/leddit/

>>53957
>You're a selfish idiot.

Your hypocrisy is delicious.

>Poor person says he should have the right to own everything he produces
>You selfish, greedy fuck!

>Medium-class person says he should have the right to use his superior, circumstantially-gotten leverage to exploit others for personal gain, uninhibited by a state
>Woo! You go girl! Ron Paul 2012!

>>53680
That is the 5th most retarded comment I have read on /biz/ today.
The other 4 were on cryptoshit currency threads

>>54028
>The only reason you're greedy is because capitalism makes you greedy.
I'm done

>>54040
>>54050
>>54104

Ok, I'll try to use small words so you can understand.

Greed (under capitalism) is a human defense mechanism.
Since your needs aren't met, and everything and everyone is trying to fuck you at every opportunity (also because of capitalism) you have to be greedy in order to secure your survival and the survival of your kin.
You have to accumulate the maximum amount of capital you can because you never know when life will try to take it all from you.

Take away the fear of getting fucked at every corner and you take away greed.

>>53957
>The only people I have ever heard say that have been an odd combination of selfish and too stupid or lacking in inhibition to manage their own money.
I have hoarded too much money to spend on my own 'cause I have no time to spend it. My dissatisfaction with capitalism is because of how stressful and pointless it has become.
>you have to do is trade something of similar value
here goes the surplus value
>>54028
>The only reason you're greedy is because capitalism makes you greedy.
That's fundamentally true but oversimplified. Society is divided into two classes — one is greedy and the other is miserable. The capitalists are greedy not because they were born bad people, but because if they aren't greedy, they end up among the miserable.

>>53989
>Lets all adopt communism, despite the fact that it depends on people not being greedy in order to function.
Capitalism depends on this. It'd be difficult to talk about greed in true communism due to an inability to properly differentiate wants and needs, and to actually BE greedy in any meaningful sense due to there being nothing more than a negligible material dialectic thang going on (the so called "end of history").

Capitalism requires, however, people to not do things like embezzle money or steal or launder. Many economic texts discuss the need for armies to protect capital, in other words to prevent the greed of others from destroying the capitalist framework.

>>54128
>Take away the fear of getting fucked at every corner and you take away greed.

Shit man, when I make money I feel good. A lot of our greedy people had more than they needed to survive a long, long time ago. The game itself is fun and rewarding, the competition is rewarding, the things that money buys is rewarding an enriches life.

>>53917
>the entire society is based around providing for everyone
>millions of factories doing this
>Society will resemble ours in a lot of ways

I know I am cherry-picking your rather lengthy reply, but I think this is at the core of the topic. In order to understand this society, the mechanisms for these factories existence, upkeep, and progress would have to be explained at least at a basic level before I can even wrap my head around this concept.

For example, these things listed in this hypothetical society can be easily explained by capitalist incentives. We all know why factories exist: to make money. They supply a demand, and go away when that demand doesn't exist. The mechanisms behind this whole process are all incentive based. Everyone will act in their own self interest by supplying a demand from the whole.

Taking away capitalism doesn't take away greed. I imagine there is some overlap between the capitalist concept of demand and what you are calling the needs of the people. I can just understand how the needs are met via capitalism much easier than the idea of communism.

>>54128
>>54129
And yet nothing I read here has anything to do with libertarian other than straight up marxism which has already been laughed off in other threads in /biz/

Why are you faggots here and not over on /pol/? WHY ARE YOU IN /BIZ/ THE ONE BOARD YOUR VIEWS ARE IN COMPLETE CONTRAST WITH?

>>54028
>The only reason you're greedy is because capitalism makes you greedy.

It's not the ONLY reason, but it is a significant one. There is a core, animalistic impulse of greed inherent to our psychology, as there is for altruism and plenty of other behaviors. To what degree these manifest is largely up to the environment. Many hard-rightists and leftists just conveniently ignore the complexity of human instinct and cherry-pick the behaviors that reinforce their narratives, or try to wrap them up in a veneer of mysticism with literature and political philosophy.

>>54215

>>54215
You've never been around kids have you faggot? I mean your mentally still a child, but you never had a responsibility where you've ever needed to monitor and care for kids where you have observed their behavior. Unless you are flat out saying all kids are born capitalist.

>>53956
>Let's say a group of people start making smartphones because they're deemed needed for society.
How? Barriers to entry don't all magically disappear because communism. I understand how capital can provide answers for barriers to entry, but I don't understand how this system can economically distribute resources.

>So you have to go and find a group of like-minded people who would like to work on this different project because they all agree that this different kind of smartphone would be better. And you guys go and make this other smartphone, now there are two options for society.
This is called crowdsourcing, and it's a great way to acquire capital and labor for a project, but this already happens now. How would your system be a more efficient way of doing things?

>it's not really a competition
>There would be cooperation
There is plenty of cooperation in competition. Please see this 2 min video for a good explanation. http://youtu.be/R5Gppi-O3a8

Sage this cancer. Move you're political discussions to /pol/, faggot.

Everyone should be reporting this guy;otherwise, /biz/ will become /pol/ 2.0, rather than a useful business and finance board.

>>54286
I was under the impression that this board was to discuss methods of making money and comparing different strategies and platforms instead of this pseudo-intellectual communist bullshit

I'll add a sage for you

>>54286
Originally, /pol/ had actual economics threads, but now it's 100% degeneracy, happening, and conspiracy threads.

I miss the old days of /pol/ when threads like the one we're in would happen.

>>54309
I'm reporting. Hopefully mods will do a perma ban on this and other communist faggots on this board.

>>53919
>Workers, however, do have the right to their work and product of their work
So factory workers, engineers, other factories contributing parts and machinery, mine workers and their equipment providing resources to the plants processing raw materials and the shipping for all it, and everyone else that contributes to this project will own their own smartphone?

I can understand how spontaneous order applies to a free market, but understanding the incentives for this undertaking without literally copy/pasting what society looks like today and adding different rules.

>>54271
>How? Barriers to entry don't all magically disappear because communism. I understand how capital can provide answers for barriers to entry, but I don't understand how this system can economically distribute resources.

This barriers exist because there's a monopoly from the big corporations.
The resources distribution would be based on need, this has been said at length through the thread.

>How would your system be a more efficient way of doing things?

It would be more efficient because it would end the waste culture we have today. But that's not even the main reason for doing it. The main reason would be to end the exploitation of people that exist today.
Under capitalism you are either the exploiter or the exploited. There's no middle ground. And this isn't right.

>There is plenty of cooperation in competition. Please see this 2 min video for a good explanation. http://youtu.be/R5Gppi-O3a8

Instead of responding this, I'll just copy a response to the video verbatim:

"everyone realizes this is nonsense because the various people producing the pencil have wildly disparate benefits brought to their lives by making that pencil, right? statistically this kind of manufacturing increases the inequity and poverty between different geographic groups."

>>54364
Reporting and banning these people only strengthens their resolve with a victim complex to boot. This is an economic discussion, even if you don't agree with it.

>>54389
Dude, stop replying to the faggot. This thread does not belong here. It belongs on /pol/. Mods need to delete this thread. Report and ignore.

>>54420
Fuck their complex. You won the argument because your not retarded. Now STOP REPLYING TO HIM.

>>54364
>>54420

I don't necessarily care that these people are communists;rather, that this is definitely a political discussion. Who owns private property is a moral discussion rather than an economic one, which doesn't belong on a board like this.

Again, they need to go to >>>/pol/ to discuss this.

>>54447
If you don't like the thread, hide it and move on.
Also, contribute to threads you do like, so they get more attention than the ones you don't like.

>sage is not a downvote.

>hide it and move on

No, because we need to nip political discussions in the bud. While it's fine to contribute to good threads, bad threads like this crowd out the board and attract shitposters rather than people genuinely interested in business, finance, or economics.

>sage is not a downvote

Moot can say that all he wants, doesn't change anything.

>>54389
>I can understand how spontaneous order applies to a free market, but understanding the incentives for this undertaking without literally copy/pasting what society looks like today and adding different rules.
Again, the difference is in the lack of deed style ownership. Rousseau is concerned with people using ownership as a tool of oppression. If I have enough coercive force, I can claim I own this piece of land, that bit of sky, the rain or the sun or whatever. You can't do anything about it because I'll get my buddies to go beat you up and take back what is rightfully mine, so sayeth our society criminal scum. Rousseau claims that the real thief would be me, I have no right over what's out there in nature, I am simply imposing my own concept of ownership on it, and in turn on you. What you can claim ownership over, however, is your own labour and its product.

So let's say there's a field with an apple tree in it. What happens now is that the owner has a right to all the apples produced. Guy doesn't do anything to make the apples, but they're his. For Rousseau, the field with the tree is not own able, it belongs to the commons. Let's say you want to pick the apples, in the first instance you'd have to negotiate with the owner and generally pay him for the privilege of the work, in the second it belongs as much to you as to anybody. Finally, when you do pick it, you have performed work on it and changed its value: an apple on a tree somewhere is worth less than an apple in a market stall or at your front door. You are entitled to that value you've added as a worker, and no one else is entitled to take that away from you: you have some level of ownership of the picked apple. If the first instance still applied, this would not be the case, the product of your labour would be at least partially owned by the deed holder.

>>54542
You're also free to report. If a mod thinks your report is valid, they'll act on it.

Now please, stop shitposting. That's against the rules.

>>52063
this post is really funny. this guy is angry, not even arguing logically (">how is property not authoritarian?" "you are stealing my stuff!!"), no even using real arguments ("me, my, myself, I", "nature"...), almost threatening to kill people, just because he doesn't understand shit about economics and what the previous poster is talking about.

FYI: property is being enforced by the same government you pay taxes to, through the police and the military. in fact, that same government gives you paved highways, transport, subsidies, free education and health care (in some countries) among other lot of things; and even more importantly, the govt manages the bureaucracy to keep rich people being rich and to enforce private property, because otherwise they would probably be killed or robbed right away by anyone, even by other rich people.
it's funny how these edgy (anarcho-)capitalists keep bitching against the government and the society while profiting from everyone, including the govt itself. ignorance is bliss (or, I should say, voluntary blindness...).

And btw, if you want to talk about anything theoretical, including economical systems that haven't been tried, you do it from a theoretical point of view, not a practical POV based on how we have lived for only the last 200 years.

>>54400
>This barriers exist because there's a monopoly from the big corporations.
Corporations are creating a barrier to entry by competition and government protectionism. There are more barriers to entry than that, such as getting qualified workers, property/building, networking and acquiring resources for the process of manufacturing, etc.

>The resources distribution would be based on need, this has been said at length through the thread.
Ignoring the laws of scarcity doesn't mean they don't exist. If people got all the resources they "needed", there would be a shortage on everything.

>it would end the waste culture we have today
[citation needed]

>Under capitalism you are either the exploiter or the exploited.
Your beef isn't with capitalism, your beef is with nature. Capitalism is but a slave to natural law and a reflection of humanity.

>statistically this kind of manufacturing increases the inequity and poverty between different geographic groups."
[citation definitely needed]

>>54420
>This is an economic discussion, even if you don't agree with it.
Some of the issues and points being brought up are relevant to business even. I imagine it's difficult to understand the whole WTO vs Fair Trade movement thing without understanding some key parts of socialist/Marxist and similar philosophies.

>>51610
>Libertarian left
>No we can use your property better but you should be free and have property rights and abide by the NAP
no cognitive dissonance here

>>54624
>I don't know what Left-Libertarianism is

>>54638
>>54624
Every time
Y-you don't know what it is!!!! That's not real communism!!!! Stop reading my arguments for what they are rather than the adjective filled bullshit that I try to make them out to be!!!

>>54647
>Y-you don't know what it is!!!! That's not real capitalism!!!! Stop reading my arguments for what they are rather than the adjective filled bullshit that I try to make them out to be!!!

How's that mean old Corporatism, that totally isn't True Free Market Capitalism (tm) working out for ya?

>>52240
>using chile as an example
HAHAHAHA, keep being brainwashed, you fucking retard. chile is going down HARD, and most chilean people already live like shit.

>>54606
>There are more barriers to entry than that, such as getting qualified workers,

You have to find people who agree with your project and are willing to see it come true by working with you.
Yes, it's definitely harder than forcing the hungry people to work for you in exchange for food. But on the other hand, it makes sure that stuff that people don't need, never get made.

>property/building, networking and acquiring resources for the process of manufacturing, etc.

Same as above. If the product will help society, the society will help see it through.

>If people got all the resources they "needed", there would be a shortage on everything.

That's not true at all. The biggest reason we have scarcity now is because about 1% of the population hold on to 60+% of all wealth. And even with this much gap, most people still have enough to eat. Imagine if there wasn't this inequality, and everyone could secure what they needed.

And I see you wrote "needed", and that's really a keyword. You should really try to understand this concept.

>it would end the waste culture we have today
>[citation needed]

The waste culture is needed for capitalists "endless profits", so yes, it would end if all the production means were controlled by the people, and not profit driven.

[continues...]

>>54689
The effects of gov policy, regulation, tax, protectionism, etc can be explained and predicted with free-market economic thought, so it's really not the same thing, is it?

The reason I am in this thread is because I am seeking a model of this hypothetical society where property is perceived radically different. I am trying to understand the incentives fueling the mechanisms which make this place work as stated. This isn't the first time I've asked questions concerning this, nor will it be my last. If I don't understand popular contrary theories as well as my own, I don't think I'm worthy of an opinion.However, the only incentive I have gathered is basically "for the good of society". This immediately has tragedy of the commons written all over it, and without any individual incentives I cannot imagine such a place to ever function.

>>54804
[continuing]

>>54606

>Your beef isn't with capitalism, your beef is with nature. Capitalism is but a slave to natural law and a reflection of humanity.

The only animal that exploits its kin is us. This means it's not natural.
See my post about greed here: >>54128

>statistically this kind of manufacturing increases the inequity and poverty between different geographic groups."
>[citation definitely needed]

You are clearly nitpicking on the word "statistically". You can't be naïve to the point you don't know how working conditions are, specially in third world countries.

>>54869
>man is an animal
>apes don't fight wars with each other
>lionesses don't kill their cubs
>dolphins aren't murder and rape crazy shitheads

>>54869
oh and I forgot

>implying anything being natural is inherently good
>implying your definition of natural has any meaning

>>54999
B-but muh greed is natural! M-muh free market!

>>54999
Natural = occurs in nature.
Humans are the part of nature.
Everything that people do is therefore natural.
This motherfucker (>>54869) does not know the meanings of the definitions that he uses.

>>55026
>B-but muh greed is natural!
Yes, yes it is.
Deal with it.

>>52666
>"seriously learn basic economics"
>"learn basic economics"
>"go to brainwash school"

>>55062
No, it's not.
You can't find a single animal in nature (other than humans) who take more than they need.

They probably would, if you throw capitalism at them, though.

>>55081

There are no animals who will eat themselves to death or horde large amounts of food?

>>53005
>libertarian
>right-wing
(retarded) USian political logics. they barely know what "liberalism" means, even when most (all?) liberals were english

>>55081
>Animals never hording food, birds never horde materials for their nets,

>can't find a single animal

>>54804
>You have to find people who agree with your project and are willing to see it come true by working with you.
I've done this before. It was a small project involving beer and my garage, but I was able to find some willing friends to help me sheet the interior.
>Yes, it's definitely harder than forcing the hungry people to work for you in exchange for food. But on the other hand, it makes sure that stuff that people don't need, never get made.
Where is there force involved? I understand how those in power can create economic disparity leaving very few choices for work, but isn't even the opportunity for work better than not working? Are these people forced into slavery, or do they voluntarily take a job instead of fight nature?

>The biggest reason we have scarcity now is because
Scarcity is completely dependent on the amount of resources in relation to the demand. Government can distort demand and supply with taxpayer money, but it ultimately does more good than harm.

> waste culture is needed for capitalists "endless profits",
In early to mid 1900's America, products were made to last. Manufacturers often went overboard to make the best product that lasted. This has slowly went away with the takeover of Keynesians. They basically believe the economy needs to be churned and shocked to keep a frivolous pace of consumer spending. They have basically succeeded in their attempts up to this point, but everyone knows it's not sustainable.

>>55174
The rate of technological improvement doesn't always favor manufacturing long lasting products because it raises the price even though you have a larger feature-set planned for later. That and many of the old monopolies were broken up, so that kind of long-term planning was no longer viable.

>>55174
>Are these people forced into slavery, or do they voluntarily take a job instead of fight nature?

They really are being forced into slavery, and in this case it's because of human nature. People simply can't just choose to starve.

>Government can distort demand and supply with taxpayer money, but it ultimately does more good than harm.

How can a distortion on the needs of the people and the ability to meet those needs be a good thing?

>In early to mid 1900's America, products were made to last.

This is true. And profits were slim. But corporations have since understood that this is not the best way to make profit. And since capitalism exists solely to make profit, anything that maximizes it will always be the norm.

>I understand how those in power can create economic disparity leaving very few choices for work, but isn't even the opportunity for work better than not working?

I left this for last, and I'll answer with a question.
Isn't an actual choice for work with something that you like and that will help society better than slaving to make ends meet on the only "choice" available?

>>54647
> I never read Marx but have my fuzzy definition of Communism in my head and think that Soviet Union, China and Cuba are communist!

>>55213
>Monopolists are shown to desire uneconomically short useful lives for
their goods. Oligopolists have the monopolist’s incentive for short lives as well as a second incentive that may either increase or decrease their chosen durability. However, oligopolists can generally gain by colluding to reduce durability and increase rentals relative to sales. Some evidence is presented that appears to be generally consistent with the predictions of the theory.
http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/bulow/articles/An%20Economic%20Theory%20of%20Planned%20Obsolescence.pdf

This planned obsolescence can be easily explained with protectionist policies propping up oligopolies. I would like to see these policies gone.

>>52164
Nazi economics were pretty amazing, actually.

>>53957
>The only people I have ever heard say that have been an odd combination of selfish and too stupid or lacking in inhibition to manage their own money.
hahHAHAH, the basis of capitalism is greed.

>Here's the reality of the world: You can literally own anything you want, all you have to do is trade something of similar value.
Yes, because EVEYONE is rich

you are fucking retarded, you fail too see how other people lives (most barely subsist), you are egoistic and you call communists/socialists "selfish".

>>55337
Bell Telephone Company had a monopoly and still produced high quality handsets and had reliable call quality. When they broke it up into smaller companies the planning cycle for the businesses became much shorter. It was much harder for the monopoly to introduce new features into the market because of it's size, hence why it was still slowly transferring from vacuum tubes all the way until the 1980's in some cases. They couldn't justify the cost of building new infrastructure because they put too much into making the old infrastructure last.

>>54246
>"You've never been around kids have you faggot?"
>kids don't learn from what they see or are taught
seriously... basing the arguments on a supposed "human nature" should stop. science has shown that such nature doesn't exist, we CAN manipulate ourselves. if you say humans were the same some 200 years ago, or that we are the same everywhere, you are WRONG.

>>55337
>I would like to see these policies gone.

The only way to do away with this policies is by doing away with the entire system.

Why would the corporations take smaller profits when the can take bigger? And since profiting is the only object of capitalism, it wouldn't make sense.

Also, when the big corporations find another horrible way to make more profits, you can count on it becoming the default.

>>55488
I'm pretty sure that's what they were saying.
That kids, before being influenced by their environment, aren't greedy capitalists.

>>55323
>How can a distortion on the needs of the people and the ability to meet those needs be a good thing?
I agree. This is why a free market model of allowing prices to reflect the equilibrium of supply and demand is a good thing. High prices keeps rare/scarce things from being depleted, and competition breed efficiency of production which actually helps preserve resources.

>This is true. And profits were slim. But corporations have since understood that this is not the best way to make profit. And since capitalism exists solely to make profit, anything that maximizes it will always be the norm.
You are absolutely correct, but you are somehow arriving at an unexplainable conclusion. This whole scenario you just painted is a symptom of a problem. This problem has many factors, and many (like artificially low interest rates) place an incentive to spend/invest instead of save. By controlling the very foundation of the dollar, the elite have built a game that essentially funnels money to them through government authority. So when you are taxed enough and the dollar is worthless enough, you will have nothing to save if you wanted to.

>isn't an actual choice for work with something that you like and that will help society better than slaving to make ends meet on the only "choice" available?
The question lies within the environment of each circumstance. What you have to ask is "Were the people better off after having these jobs than before they existed?"

>>52927

Nope, we disowned these retards. They're like flies who are attracted to light. Light being worthwhile economic discussion.

>>55503
>The only way to do away with this policies is by doing away with the entire system.
I agree

>>55552
>>55555
Almost got it.

>>55531
yes, you are right wrt >>55488 , I misread.

>>52567
>http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm
hehe, so, as someone already said, you create your own private militia or simply enforce it with your own gun, you rule your local community through (potential) force, associate with other capitalists, start selling your stuff and almost enslave people for your profit... congrats, you've just reproduced capitalism at a micro scale. Yay anarcho-capitalism!

>>55536
>This is why a free market model of allowing prices to reflect the equilibrium of supply and demand is a good thing.

There's no such a thing as a free market. Whoever controls the capital, controls the market.
Even if there was some sort of "anarcho-capitalist" clean slate, where you do away with the government only, and let people exploit each other with whatever means they can (which is basically going back to where capitalism started), you would, eventually, get exactly where we are now. Because money only flows one way.

>High prices keeps rare/scarce things from being depleted, and competition breed efficiency of production which actually helps preserve resources.

There's no need for prices to see who needs what. In fact, prices are the absolutely worst way to go about it, since prices only show what people who earn on that price range are willing to buy. It doesn't show the whole picture.

>By controlling the very foundation of the dollar, the elite have built a game that essentially funnels money to them through government authority.

The government controlled by the elite only facilitates this. Without govern, they would still be the elite, the only difference is that the police would be mercenaries.

>"Were the people better off after having these jobs than before they existed?"

Of course they were, because what's the point of having a job whose only purpose is to show the "need" for itself to exist?

>>55687
>Because money only flows one way.
This is not a zero-sum game. No man or group can ever control all the capital. Labor and the seemingly infinite resource of human creativity allows us to create value where there once was none.

>There's no need for prices to see who needs what.
Except that's entire reason for prices. You really need to learn a bit about scarcity. http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=429

>Without govern, they would still be the elite, the only difference is that the police would be mercenaries.
Why do you think the elite use the gov for control? They pass the cost of controlling you to YOU. Without subsidizing the cost of controlling, they couldn't compete with force.

>Of course they were, because what's the point of having a job whose only purpose is to show the "need" for itself to exist?
Can you perhaps reword this question? I don't want to assume or put words in your mouth.

>>55938
>Can you perhaps reword this question? I don't want to assume or put words in your mouth.

I'll expand on it.
Basically, today, most people have to work meaningless jobs (by that I mean jobs invented by capitalism, that serve absolutely no purpose in improving human life, or anything, for that matter) full time, to guarantee some kind of sub-existence for themselves and for their families. Even if they do manage to save a little, it doesn't matter, because they don't have time to enjoy it.

What I was trying to say is that, if you take away all the meaningless jobs, the actual amount of work humans have to do to keep a good living standard for all, is kept at a bare minimum. If we still have the same amount of people, to do incredibly less, this means that everyone has to work much less (of course, this also takes away the excess living of the rich). Then, people will actually have time to enjoy the fruits of their labor (that is also kept all with the people) and even makes it easier for people to dedicate time to projects to help improve everyone's lives.

The way we live today, almost every single drop of sweat from our works goes to the benefit of whoever is in control. The only way to change that is if all of the people are in control.

>>55938
By the way, the scarcity you keep mentioning is all about "wants" and not "needs".
Knowing the difference is really the key to the whole thing.

>>56115
>meaningless jobs
Are you an authority on which jobs are meaningless or not? Do you get to distinguish between a want and a need? If I had to work some place to only have my most basic needs met, I might as well go and live in the woods and provide for myself. This system you propose doesn't seem to make jobs any more meaningful, it just somehow ignores all we know about incentives and human nature where everyone suddenly just does what they want and somehow factories produce even more efficiently to allow everyone to have the stuff they need.

>The way we live today, almost every single drop of sweat from our works goes to the benefit of whoever is in control
I agree, which is why removing the government is necessary to allow things like
>people will actually have time to enjoy the fruits of their labor (that is also kept all with the people) and even makes it easier for people to dedicate time to projects to help improve everyone's lives.
This is what real capitalism produces; a thriving middle class which can afford to be charitable with their time and money. Why do you think a man used to be at work and the wife was home with the kids? Because they could afford to. Getting women into the workplace was a strategic move on the tax farmers we call the elite. They knew that they could double their income tax base, tax for child care and public schools, and create a perpetual state of dependence with welfare all helping to destroy the family unit which is the greatest indicator of economic wealth.

>>55938
>This is not a zero-sum game. No man or group can ever control all the capital. Labor and the seemingly infinite resource of human creativity allows us to create value where there once was none.
Well, one thing Marx writes about regarding the end of capitalism is an end to creativity adding value. A lot of the work from the Frankfurt school is to do with a stalling of that force.

>>56138
>By the way, the scarcity you keep mentioning is all about "wants" and not "needs".
Marx didn't differentiate between wants and needs. In fact, a big part of his analysis rests on an inability to define a difference when looking at a market.

>>56411
>one thing Marx writes about regarding the end of capitalism is an end to creativity adding value
How is this a good thing?

>>52184
>But Venezuelan economy is 70% private

>>52205
venezuela used to be a model country, even the concorde landed there. Colombia on the other half, looked more like iraq during the us. bombings...

today, even if colombia is still in civil war, it has had more foreign investment in the last 3 than venezuela during the last 10 years. Both countries are not perfect or better but facts speak for themselves: the moment there is not enough milk, bread, cooking oil or WTF toilet paper is the moment you ask yourself if all of this really was for the better.

>>56432
It's to do with how creativity manifests itself in capitalist society. Only certain people or institutions are meant to be creative, and typically work is not the exercise of creative endeavour. This is part of what leads to alienation of the worker from their labour. For Marx, all people are creative and the ability to manifest that creativity is part of removing alienation and finding ownership of labour. It's a kind of self-actualisation I guess, becoming more than just a tool of someone else and realising your own agency.

>>52205
>murder rates have doubled
>unemployment halved
Coincidence?

>>56495

Sounds like a bunch of hippie talk to me commie

>>56406
I'll address your points in a minute.
First I'd like to know, what do you understand by government?

>>56637
>what do you understand by government?
Would you care to reword the question?

>>56406
>Are you an authority on which jobs are meaningless or not?
By no means.

>Do you get to distinguish between a want and a need?
I don't have to. Society is the one to make that distinction.

>If I had to work some place to only have my most basic needs met, I might as well go and live in the woods and provide for myself.
If society is the one in control, it's society who will decided how basic or how sophisticated are the needs that must be met.

>This system you propose doesn't seem to make jobs any more meaningful
It's not suppose to, it will just do away with the thousands of meaningless ones.

>it just somehow ignores all we know about incentives and human nature where everyone suddenly just does what they want and somehow factories produce even more efficiently to allow everyone to have the stuff they need.
>incentives
>everyone [...] does what they want

How can't you understand that the incentive is exactly the needs and wants of the people? There's no need for some to come to you and tell you that you need to eat. You know that. The same way that if someone needs a car, they'll go make one, they won't stop and wait for someone to tell them that. (I'm oversimplifying)

>>56706
Well, what's your definition of government? You want it to end, so you must know what it is.

>>56810
>You want it to end, so you must know what it is.

>>56851
Yeah.

>>56810
>Society is the one to make that distinction.
>If society is the one in control, it's society who will decided how basic or how sophisticated are the needs that must be met.
>It's not suppose to, it will just do away with the thousands of meaningless ones.
All of the above describes what the ancap model predicts. I understand the things that drive each individual economic decision that become the sum of the whole. What I don't understand is how this is accomplished by your ideology. Societies wants and needs take a back seat to the individuals wants and needs every time. This is clearly understood in the tragedy of the commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

>>56810
>definition of government?
Monopoly of violence.

>>56851
>this isn't what I meant at all
>explicitly talks about a dictatorship of the proletariat
What did he fucking expect then?

>>56922
>Monopoly of violence.

That's a beautiful answer.
Now, please, explain to me, what stops the so-called anarcho-capitalists from forming a monopoly of violence, given that they will be a small group of people holding all the land and the means of production?

>>51665
EMBRACE DEMOCRACY, OR YOU WILL BE ERADICATED

>>56968
>That's a beautiful answer.
It's not mine, but thank you.

>what stops the so-called anarcho-capitalists from forming a monopoly of violence
It takes a society to recognize what force really is and realize its ramifications. With gov indoctrination from birth, getting to the point in a society where we come together with the rule of non-aggression instead of a monopoly of violence will take some time. However, this very principle can hold the key to the most prosperous middle class the world has ever seen.

>>54624
You realise that the only reason it has to be called the Libertarian Left is because Rothbard and co. hijacked the term Libertarian at the behest of the CIA?

>>57094
> However, this very principle can hold the key to the most prosperous middle class the world has ever seen.

This really sounds like you are just trolling, but since all anarcho-capitalists sound like they are trolling, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm assuming you also want to do away with fiat and start a new gold standard, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, if that's the case, you do understand that with that move, the rich would stay just as rich, while the poor would stay just as poor, right?

Also, you keep talking about this middle class. It makes me think that you understand that under any capitalist system, there will always be a ruler (the one who has more) and the ones oppressed by said ruler (the ones who have less). And this doesn't change because the rich will always find ways to exploit the poor.
This fact, along with the fact that you want the system to change, by doing away with the government, leads me to believe that you think you deserve to be the one ruling, because you might have some great idea that no one has thought about before, but government has kept you from it. If that's the case, I'd like to point out how delusional that is.

>>57203
>Now, if that's the case, you do understand that with that move, the rich would stay just as rich, while the poor would stay just as poor, right?

It's actually the reverse. With a monopoly on the money supply, the poor get poorer and the rich get richers. Inflation, fixed interest rates and the monopoly of money supports the state and the people connected to it. A free money supply does the opposite. That's why people are into cypro such as bitcoin and doge. It belongs to the people.

> there will always be a ruler (the one who has more) and the ones oppressed by said ruler (the ones who have less).

Oppression is done by force, not done by who has more. If you are on 4chan, I'm going to assume you are in the top 5% income earner in the world. Who exactly are you oppressing?

>This fact, along with the fact that you want the system to change, by doing away with the government, leads me to believe that you think you deserve to be the one ruling, because you might have some great idea that no one has thought about before, but government has kept you from it. If that's the case, I'd like to point out how delusional that is.

What a delusional statement. Government is force. By doing away with government, we are doing away with force.

>>56406
>I don't have to. Society is the one to make that distinction.

Society is just a group of individuals. Societies can not think, individuals can.

When you say society is the one to make that distinction, you are saying a group of individuals can make that distinction. No, they can't. Only an individual can. That is, only people like you have to distinguish between a want and a need. There is no such thing as a thinking society.

>If society is the one in control, it's society who will decided how basic or how sophisticated are the needs that must be met.

Again, there is no such thing as society. Saying "society who will decided how basic or how sophisticated are the needs that must be met." is a load of nonsense. Who is society? How will they know what is basic/sophisticated? How will they enforce that throughout individuals if other individuals disagree?

>saying private property is theft WITHOUT specifying the difference between private and personal property that most people believe to be synonymous

It's like you don't want to be taken seriously.

>>51610
If we were to think of whats good for the planet and humanity as a whole, then indeed private property IS THEFT, as private property leads to unchecked subdivision and exploitation of natural resources. However, the way we live now is much alike the criminals dilemma - if 9/10 people cooperate but one doesn't, the one who doesn't is the winner take all, and the others are losers. So we have to live like dogs fighting each other over bones and kernels instead of using all the dogs and kernels the world can offer efficiently to satisfy the basic needs of everyone.

>>52258
Being this pleb. Society didn't decide on anything. The 85 people in power owning as much as powerless 3.5 billion mass at the bottom did the deciding for you. All you got is an illusion of choice.

>>57457
I'm actually middle class in a poor 3rd world country. So, definitely not that high, but I do oppress many people, directly and indirectly.

Now, you say you don't want to be an oppressor, but can you understand that you will be oppressed by whoever owns the most buttcoins?

If an individual, who is not called "the government" still controls the land and the means of production, they still have force.

>>57457
And by the way, I'm as anti-government as you are, but at least I understand the the so-called government doesn't call the shots.

Do away with it today, but keep currency, and by tomorrow the rich will have hired all the now unemployed policeman and military man as their on private army. They'll keep controlling you, with the exact same force.

>>57573
>but I do oppress many people, directly and indirectly.

Which country? Your line of thinking will correlate to the poor education you have received in your childhood. Depending on where you live, you have probably be propagandized to believe in the opposite of reality - which is what most countries do to their children.

Who are you oppressing?

>Now, you say you don't want to be an oppressor, but can you understand that you will be oppressed by whoever owns the most buttcoins?

No. Oppression comes from force. I have around 100k in assets. Some people have more than that. The people who have more than me are not oppressing me. It's the people with the coercion that oppresss me (government), not the people who are richer than me.

With that logic, all parents are 'oppressing' their children because they have more

>If an individual, who is not called "the government" still controls the land and the means of production, they still have force.

No, they just have land and a means of production. Just because I have an apartmenr and own a computer, I don't see how I have force.

>And by the way, I'm as anti-government as you are, but at least I understand the the so-called government doesn't call the shots.

They actually do. All laws are opinions backed by guns. No one else is calling the oppressive shots.

>Do away with it today, but keep currency, and by tomorrow the rich will have hired all the now unemployed policeman and military man as their on private army.

You mean, create a new government? Hiring policeman and military is not cheap. They need the powers of taxation, debt and monetary creation to do that.

>>57600
This guy gets it

>>57639
Thanks. Do you mind backing me up a bit? I've been at it for 10 hours.

>>57664
Not really, sorry. It's pretty much a futile effort trying to convince anyone here.

Theft from whom?

>>57634
>Your line of thinking will correlate to the poor education you have received in your childhood.

Believe me, I've been well indoctrinated to believe that government is good and capitalism is even better.

Eventually I broke free through a lot of reading and mostly thinking on my own.

If you think that the government is the one calling the shots, how do you explain that they rule for the rich? (Bear in mind that you said so yourself here: "the elite have built a game that essentially funnels money to them through government authority.")

I'm assuming I'm still talking to you, even though you're not namefagging anymore.

>>57747
>Believe me, I've been well indoctrinated to believe that government is good and capitalism is even better.

Government and capitalism are opposite to each other. One cannot be morally good and other even better. That's like saying love making is good, but rape is even better.

>Eventually I broke free through a lot of reading and mostly thinking on my own.

I don't think you are philosophically quite there yet.

>If you think that the government is the one calling the shots, how do you explain that they rule for the rich?

Because the rich are attracted to the people with guns. It's a far better investment lobbying the government for monopoly privileges than investing in R&D and competing.

>the elite have built a game that essentially funnels money to them through government authority.

How does it funnel? Through government coercion. Remove the coercion, and you remove the incentive to funnel money through them.

>I'm assuming I'm still talking to you, even though you're not namefagging anymore.

I'm someone else.

>>51610
Theft is taking someone else's property without his consent.

But if it was HIS property, then he himself is a thieve, since property is theft.

tl:dr you're retarded.

>>55488
>science has shown that such nature doesn't exist
HAHAHAHAHHAHA

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA

>evolution doesn't exist
>hormones don't effect human behavior
>humans don't have biological instincts
>SCIENCE HAS PROVEN

This is what socialists ACTUALLY BELIEVE

They're actually that fucking stupid.

>>51634
lrn to paraphrase, bro. There's a difference between personal property and private property

>>57790
>I don't think you are philosophically quite there yet.
And I think exactly the same of you.

>I'm someone else.
Well, that other anon was at least open-minded enough. So I guess this is where I stop.

But I do hope you keep questioning, keep reading, keep searching, and keep thinking. Maybe you'll realize there's more to anarchy than you think.

Also, read the thread. It's been a great discussion.

>>57880
No there's not. Society doesn't make these distinctions.
They only exist in your head and require ideology to enforce.

Kill yourself.

>>57911
>And I think exactly the same of you.

NOU

>Well, that other anon was at least open-minded enough. So I guess this is where I stop.

What a cop out. I've answered your question, raised some new ones, had a conversation. And then you accuse me of not being open minded. How cute, if it wasn't for it happens every single time.

And least have the honour in saying "I don't know" instead of accusing me of being close-minded.

>But I do hope you keep questioning, keep reading, keep searching, and keep thinking. Maybe you'll realize there's more to anarchy than you think.

Anarachy means "no rulers". The system you are advocating is with rulers. Maybe it's time to read the materials that critisise your viewpoint? The only Marxists left at the ones in high school who live in shitty families.

>Also, read the thread. It's been a great discussion.

I was the guy talking for the liberty standpoint for most of it.

>>57911
>great discussion
It wasn't a great discussion, you shit kept making the biggest shitposting and couldn't even respond when 3 people at once destroyed your extremely childish and vague ideology.

Every time you make these threads you will always get told.

This is how a child thinks and acts.

You don't even believe in biological instincts, that's the basis of your ideology and science has already proven it wrong. There is no blank slate. That doesn't stop you from religiously believing it though.

Socialists deserve to be murdered.

So can we all agree that leftists hate themselves and that self hatred is the core of their ideology?

>>57824
That's the point, keeping things to yourself is stealing from society

>>57977
>How dare those hot women keep to themselves. Don't they know their personal vaginas are stealing from society?

Who am I stealing my house from?

>>57845
Is this bait?

Of course fucking nature exists, however, "human nature", as a phrase, is often used to disguise severly conservative arguments as supposed realism. There's nothing in science which suggests that humans have to live to the detriment of other humans in order to survive.

>>57977
Does that mean that "society" (whatever the fuck that means) owns my house?

If yes, then society is stealing from someone, because property is theft. It cant own anything, it would be theft.

>>58039
>There's nothing in science which suggests that humans have to live to the detriment of other humans in order to survive.
I know that's why human beings are social. That why we developed markets and capitalism.

Also you better have fucking sa

>>57989
Thanks for making it clear that there is a societal distinction between personal and private property

>>58080
What is personal property? a definition

>I hate all you evil capitalists
Then fuck off to reddit.

>>58080
But there isnt, human being see them as the same.
See:
>>57913

Also kill yourself not not saging.

>>58080
There isn't. Ancoms need to believe that there is, otherwise their world view falls apart. Which is does under any examinations.

Property is property. There is not distinction between the two.

>>51610


http://therightstuff.biz/2012/12/15/anarchism-is-retarded/

>>58115
Is this a parody site?

>>58067
>social
>develop system which benefit very few and hinder most

If you went to a party where the host dished out an unequal amount throughout the night, and then continued giving more to those who had the most, simply because they had the most, you wouldn't call them very sociable.

>>58192
Why do leftist children get so angry when someone destroys their illogical vague ideology?

>it just werks trust me

>>51618
Except for the fact it's the only thing that actually benefits everyone.

If you went to a party where the host started stabbing people and stealing their shot hat wouldn't be very social.

Kill yourself.

>>58235
Where did I express anger? It's just that whoever owns that site seems like they're intentionally being retarded

>>58218
Social just means we tend to organise into groups, as opposed to generally solitary animals like polar bears.

>>58258
>attack the person because you're unable to refute anything he said
Man that must be upsetting.

Sage

>>58310
>implying I even read the whole article
One paragraph in and he's already resorted to ad-homs and baseless assumptions, I'm not wasting my time reading that shit.

>>58327
>he's mocking me AT THE SAME TIME he's ripping my ideology apart
I didn't even post it in this thread, but I read it and it shows how vague and economically retarded your psychotic ideology is.

Honestly though left "anarchists" deserve to be shot in the head.

>>58192
It's clearly humorous, but I don't see why that's relevant.

>>58308
Yes, so if we are go at working together, why develop a system in which individualism and reckless egoism rule the roost

>>58367
Because 'working together' is spurred on by personal interest.

>>58365
Because it makes completely false assumptions and outright lies.

>>58434
Except for the fact it doesn't.
All leftanarchis can do is give extremely vague non-explanations for how their ideology works which amounts to "j-just trust me"
And when people who understand economics and logic tell them how retarded this is they get mad as fuck.

>>58500
Now you're doing it too, top lel

>>58548
But I'm not. Toppest Lel

Anarcho capitalism has already debunked every tiny aspect of "left anarchism"

You people got so mad you couldn't even reply when three people refuted your garbage with long detailed posts.

You're just vicious authoritarians deal with it

>>58587
I only just opened the thread you autistic faggot

>>58587
Lel
Same shit applies.

>>58434


so lifting strait from the 'anarchist faq' is not *true* anarchism?

>>56922

Etymology of the word government

>>58255
I don't get what you are saying. You could still get stabbed at party at someone's private property. Are you saying public spaces are anarchy? Not everyplace is Detroit.

bump

Lol